Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout063DRAFr 4/6/t6 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Record of Comments /Meetings Regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Project Date Record Issue/Purpose PGST Representatives 200L Comment Letter to fefferson County fefferson County's SEPA on Brinnon Subarea Plan Point No Point Treaty Council (PGST, fKT, Skok) lan.22, 2002 Meeting Summary Verbal Comments fefferson County SEPA Meeting on Brinnon Subarea PIan & UDC Amendments Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders Feb.6, 2002 Minority Report to fefferson Co. BOCC Verbal Comments )efferson County BOCC Brinnon Sub Area Plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders Oct.20, 2003 Meeting Summary Verbal Comments f efferson County Informal SEIS Scoping Brinnon Sub Area Plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders May 10, 2006 Public Meeting Verbal Comments fefferson County Public Meeting Regarding Brinnon Resort Plan Mike fones, PGST and Ted Labbe, PGST, and other stakeholders May 19, 2006 Comment Letter to Brent Butler, fefferson Co. DCD fefferson County 2006 Comp Plan Amendment MLA06- 00087 Master Planned Resort Brinnon Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Dec.6, 2007 Comment Letter to BOCC fefferson County lefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist, PGST Dec.9, 2007 Comment Letter to BOCC fefferson County fefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Coordinator, Point No Point Treaty Council Sept.24, 2009 Meeting with Statesman developers f efferson County Brinnon Master Planned Resort Scoping for SEIS fessica Coyle, Tim Cullinan, Hans Daubenberger, Cynthia Rossi Record PGST Representative Nov.24, 2009 Comment Letter to David W. fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD fefferson County Brinnon Master Planned Resort Scoping for SEIS Point No Point Treaty Council, Paul McCollum, Director NR PGST, other stakeholders Nlar.16-17, 20to Email Exchange to Garth Mann, Statesman Corp., David W. fohnson, Iefferson Co. DCD fefferson County BOCC Conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resort fessica Coyle, PGST fan.5, 201.5 Comment Letter to David W. fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD fefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Feb.18, 20L5 Meeting with Craig Peck, Project Mgr. and David W fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD fefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, Hans Daubenberger, Dave Fuller, Hydrogeologist Tim Cullinan, Cynthia Rossi Dec.16, 201.5 Comment Letter to David W. fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission fefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MtA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 lan.6, 201.6 Public Testimony to fefferson County Planning Commission fefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Mar. 11, 20L6 Comment Letter to David W. fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission fefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 Laura Price, PGST Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Mar.15, 2016 Comment Letter to David W. fohnson, fefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission fefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 2 Date Purpose feromy Sullivan, PGST Chair SEPA I.TEEIITIG otr BRTllilON SI'BANTA PI.AII AND ASSOCXATED UDC N{E}TD}IEIIES ilanuary 22, 2OO2 at Tlbitney Point Shellfish Laboratory Brinnoa, TIa. A1 Scalf, SEPA Responsible Official. called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. DCD staff present were Al Scalf, Josh Peters, arrd Chery1 Halvorson, secretary. there were about twenty members of the pubLic present. Those who signed the guest list were Chuek Finnila, Olivia Alfano, Diane Derrick, Walt Parks, Peter Siefert, Debbie Siefert, Loni Beringer, Ted Labbe, Port Gamble S'Klallam tri.be, Joy Baisch, tinda Oen, Stacey Thompson, Jeff Davis and Jj.m Fraser, WDFW, Bud Schindler. George Sickel, Kirie Pedersen, Mark Rose, Linda Tudor, Phil Stevens, and Tom ucNerney. A1 Scalf stated that the purpose of the meeting was the review of the Brinnon Subarea PIan and specifically the environmental impacts of that plan. He reviewed where the draft plan was in the review and approval process. AI Scalf explained that SEPA provides the opportunity for public meetings at any time during the process. IIe explained that he had been concerned about. the toneof the SEPA comment letters recej.ved and decided that a public meeting was waffaBted in order to have an informaL discussion about the environmental impacts. He wanted to avoid discussions about specific zoning proposals and GIIA reguirements and focus instead on environmental issues. A1 Scal-f reviewed the agenda: Introductions, Staff Report, Question and Anssrers from the public, and Questions from Staff about certain comments received. Everyone introduced themselves. !{ost were citizens except the representatives from WDFW and Port Gamble S'K1a11am Tribe. AL ScaLf provided some general background on SEPA reLating to the Brinnon plan. It began with the EIS adopted with the county Comp Plan in 1998. He reviewed the G!,IA planning that had occurred prior to that. It included developing the Existing Conditions report for SEPA in the mid-1990's. He explained that theExisting Conditions led into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement TDEIS] which developed various alternatives and analyzed the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The DEIS developed a preferred alternative, which at that time was the community plans. Therefore, a lot of the comnunity plans were already reviewed in the mid-1990's as one of the alternatives. then the FinaL EIS forthe Comp Plan was developed and adopted from that process. He explained thatthe Comp PIan kind of synthesized the comnunity plan work, using the aspects that eomplied with the GMA, in the fuII knowledge that the county would eventually go back to the conununities and re-engage in a bottoms up process forthe dreams and aspirations of the communities. Mr. Scalf stated that the Existing Conditions talked about both the natural and built environment constraints. 1 A1 Scalf explained the two paths of SEPA! project specific and programmatic or non-project. Ile explained that programmatic EIS work was general in nature; it did not deal in specifics; it dealt with general concepts. Ee stated that the county recognized during the 1990's that it would adopt a Cornp Plan and development regulations (the Unified Development Code). Ile explained that the Comp Plan provided general guidance and theory. The development regulations actually implement the policies of the Comp PIan; they were the "teeth" of the Comp P1an. Ile provided an exarnple of how a policy might be implemented in the UDC. Josh Peters. as an aside, explained that besides the project or non-project SEPA actions, there was another sub-category called a "planned action". 8e expi.ained that would be something at a non-project stage but, for example, the county could undertake environmental revi-ew of a specific area such that future environmental review would not be necessary. That was not the case in this non- project action. He explained that if any project proposal came in under the Brinnon plan, it would be subject to the UDC and SEPA review at the project Ieve}. Mr. Peters stated that the initial review the county had just completed was a non-project revielr. Mr. Peters stated that the county made a threshold determination on Decernber 10. 2001, with a tvro week comnent period followed by a tlvo week appeal period. fhat threshold determination was a Determination of Non-Significance IDNS] and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documeats. A1 Scalf reviewed a flowchart depicting the steps the county follows in a SEPA review and determinati.on. Ile explained the key words that must be analyzed: whether the impacts were significant or non-significant, or adverse or moderate, and whether they could be mitigated. He explained that comments received were evaluated, which was currently in process. He stated that prior to adoption of the plan by the BOCC, the county coul-d decide to retain, modify. or withdraw the DNS. ilosh Peters explained the term uDNSu. He explained that in 1971 when the SEPA was adopted by the state, there was not as much authority for 1ocal jurisdictions to protect the environment. After passage of GI,IA, Iocaljurisdictions had a responsibility to protect critical areas. He stated that there were some aspects of SEPA that were somewhat cunbersome to GuA. Ee reported that DoE was proposing new SEPA rules for non-project reviews. Josh Peters said that by issuing a DNS for the Brinnon p1an, the couaty was not saying that the plan was non-significant in terms of environmental impact. Rather, what it was saying was that the plan in combination with the likeIy results based on project applications that would be forthcoming, that in light of our current development regul-ations, the environmental impacts were likely to be non-significant. He stated that the determination was a DNS and adoption of existing environmental documents. In other words. the environmental review that occurred during the Comp PIan process tas useful in the fact that it reviewed the alternatives that would be considered in the Brinnon p1an. He provided the example that before the comp P1an, Lhere was more commercial land zoned in Brinnon than the current Brinnon draft plan proposed. Therefore. the Brinnon plan was under that umbrella of review that occurred for the Conp PIan. A1 scalf stated that before adoption of the Comp P1an, there were over 1000 acres of commercial and industrial land zoned in the county. fhe comp PIan actually downzoned to less than 400 acres of commercial and industrial land. Mr. ScaLf explained that the Existing Conditions report and alternatives (Preferred, Focused, Dispersed, Moderate, and No Action) indicates the effect on each planning goal under GMA. The one in question today is environment. He explained that each alternatj.ve, except the No Actj.on alternative, showed a 2 positive effect on the envj-ronment. He noted that the EIS for the Comp Plan said it was prograflrrnatic in nature. it provided a broad frarnework for comparing complex pJ.anning proposals at a more general level than would be expected for a specific development project, and it would also be the framework for future environmental revj-ew of later actions such as corununity plans, development regulations, and projecte. In each of those subsequent phases, the county would determine the nature and extent of further review necessary based on this framework. Mr. ScaLf stated that the RCW talked about the flexibility of the EIS in a non-project proposal versus project and that it was generally less detailed than a project review would be. He explained that conceptualj-y in theplan a zone was designated. A project within that zone woul-d have environmental review at that level a1so. He said that the environrnental review was not complete at this point. He explained that the DNS was very clear that the existing leguLations under the UDC were quite constraining for environmentaL issues already. Therefore, we could say that we did not need to further rnitigate any proposal-s because our critical area, stormwater, performance and development standards already provided guidance as to the irnpacts of the proposals. ifosh Peters reviewed the handout materials that were available. A1 Scalf opened the meeting to general discussion and questions from the audience. Ted Labbe asked about the status of the Brinnon plan. ilosh Peters summarized the actions on the draft plan. noting that a January 16 draft r.ras now available on the county web site. Ee said the Planning Commission would be reviewing their report and recommendation and findings on February 6 before forwarding thern to the BOCC. Mr. Peters reported that there was a SEPA appeal currently underway. He stated that it was staff's position that the SEPA appeal should be completed before the BOCC takes action on the pJ-an, A1 Scalf explained how staff reviehred all of the comment letters on the plan and recommended changes to the Planning Conrnission, which in turn reviewed the changes, along with menbers of the planning group, and arrj.ved at the recornmended plan being forwarded to the BOCC. Mr. Peters stated that there had essentially been official action to reconmend changes addressing concerns raised by the tribes. A1 Scalf stated that under SEPA a meeting couLd be beld at any time to talk about environmental issues. He stated that the county was coasidering issuing an addendum, which could be issued at any time. He thought there may be additional information that would be useful to the public. It night include other threshold determinations on projects throughout the Brinnon planning area. If there was information available that r+ould help the public at large, the county could include that. fed Labbe conmented that the draft plan was based on feedback received prior to the SEPA determination and SEPA comnents. He asked if the latest draft plan attempted to address the comments received during the SEPA review. A1 Scalf replied that, as a planner and the SEPA Responsible Official, we were always concerned about environmental issues, from the very beginning of the proposal. He said that the cornment letters indicated a concern about salmon recovery and ESA listing and said "Yes" they were considered. Mark Rose stated that staff talked about critical areas or threshold determinations to attach. He asked if staff was pro-actively )-ooking at thoee and then attach thern. He asked if staff had considered the SEPA comnents and then pro-actively followed up. A1 Scalf replied that staff had queried the county data base for projects that had received SEPA review in the Brinnon area. 3 He provided some examples. Ile stated that staff was eonsidering attaching the entire list, or portions of the list that included projects in areas of concern. so that the public would know how the county would typical-ly review a proposal. Mr. Rose asked who would decide if the list or portions thereof would be attached. Mr. Scalf replied that staff $rould go through the list and decide whether to attach the entj.re list or just exampl-e projects. It would be to provide examples of the types of projects and the mitigations that were required of those projects. Josh Peters stated that this rras a creative idea to provide some evidence of the discussion about project veraus non-project review. The SEPA conditions on past projects were still valid for future projects. Concerning the question about critical areas, he said there were critical area maps available at DCD. He noted that they were only advisory but they may generate a site review. Ite pointed out that some information was not released to the public, such as bald eagle nest sites. Mark Rose stated that the county lrould not actuaLly look at critical areas or salmon recovery, as examples, and pro-actively explain them in an addendum. As an example, he asked if staff would highlight the critical areas in an addendum and explain thaL potential development within them might have adverse inpacts in certaj.n respects. Josh Peters replied that in typical non-project actions, it was not typical to do something like an addendum; it was a creative idea staff had. He pointed out that it was stated that al"L of the environmentally sensitive areas provisions of the UDC would apply to any development proposal regardless of the Brinnon Subarea PIan. A1 Scalf stated that staff would not go through any hypotheticals; we would only state the factual presence of a critical area. Mr. Scalf stated that the point of an addendum would be to show that there were environmental issues al.ready on the books that were governing land use proposals. Ied Labbe asked, if there were some environmentaL concerns that were sort of one scale bigger than a site level review, such as multiple parcels in a particular area that the county was convinced night be difficult to arneliorate on a project Ievel review, if staff lrould consider attaching an addendurn to the DNS to deal with that. In other words, something that went beyond what the county currently had on the books. A1 Scalf replied that if there was a proposal to develop the mouth of the Dosewallips River, which was clearly unbuildable. as an example, the county would withdraw the threshold and issue a DS [Detennination of Significancel. Mr. Labbe provided the example of a development proposed that had impacts that went beyond what was addressed in the UDC and there was a willingness on the part of the comrnunity and the developer to consider off-site inkind rnitigation opportunities. Ee asked if there was a precedent for that sort of thing to happen in the county and through an addendum to the DNS. He also wondered whether it would then be a }.litigated DNS. Josh Peters replied that a DNS was saying that the rules in place were sufficj.ent enough to protect against any likely significant environmental impacts. A MDNS was saying that the rules did not go far enough so you were assessing extra mitigations that went beyond the existing rules. A DS vras saying that you must do an EIS to analyze every potential funpact in order to reach a place where the impact $ras no longer significant. I4r. Peters thought !.rhat Mr. Labbe was describing was a MDNS. He thought in essenee it would be a joint venture with a devel-oper to identify potential areas for miti.gation. IIe thought that was appropriate and had precedent j.n the county. l,lr. Peters stated that the reason it wasj-mpossible to do that at this point, referring to the BLack Point area and a conceptual IilPR, was because there was not a developer there with whom the county could do that kind of thing because there was not an application before the county. !4r. Peters stated that until there was an actual application, the 4 county could not work on it. Mr. Scalf stated that his conunent would go back to the Existing Conditions report, again programmatic and non-project, which taLked about soils, for example, in general terms, including mitigating measures. Mr. ScaLf stated that, for example. we could conceptual-Iy see a MPR at Black Point. Ilowever, we did not know specifically what may come in at a project level. He said that at this point we could say that the county believed the UDC had enough protections to address it, therefore a DNS ltas sufficient. At the point of an actuaL project proposal, we started over again with another SEPA determination. That was more at the point where the nexus occurred betvreen the cure and the harm. It was really the difference between non-project and project. Mr. Labbe stated that there were mitigatj-ons that could arneliorate the impacts that had been talked about in the letters. Jeff Davis stated that was also vlhere he was trying to go with his SEPA comment letter. Mr. Davis recognized that the Comp PLan EIS addressed l.lPRs, etc. One of his co[cerns rilas that it was done pre-listing [of salmon], however. ]Ir. Davis said that where they were coming from related to cMA was, it was fine to DNS the plan and nove it forward, but they wanted to take a step back and consider it and understand what the potential impacts were. Granted, they did not know project specific detail. But, to take a Look at what potential impacts you could have with an MPR at Black Point or co[Enercial development in the floodplain. He advocated working together up front to address the environmental issues and make the development environmentally sensitive. He said he had tried to advocate in his Letter for a DS and do an SEIS to consider the issues and move fonvard together to aLl-ow wbat people wanted and still protect fish and wildlife resources at the same time. Mr. Davis said he knew other jurisdictions were doing that now, citing the example of Kitsap County which now basically DS'd all of their subarea p1ans. A1 Scalf responded that would be a programmatic, non-project EIS. Jeff Davis agreed. Mr. Scalf referred to the Comp Plan Transportation Element and the segment of Highway 101 and Black Point Road. It provided an ADT [average daily trafficl and a Ievel of service. Ee said that without a project, he could not say how it would impact that. He could noL say that the inpact on the intersection would be adverse. Jeff Davis responded that he was not asking staff to predict into the future that there would be a certain number of cars travei-Iing the road. He thought the county could get there and that otherjurj-sdictions were getting there. He recognized that it was "fuzzy" numbers but said it would at least provide some idea of what sort of impacts there might be so we could make sound deeisions. A1 Scalf reported on the SEIS addressing ttre county urban growth areas [theSpecial Studyl. Ee noted that Task II, regional economic trends, concluded that the county was deficit 280 acres of commercial and industrial land at the assumed employee per acre figure. The BOCC designated a Provisional- UGA in the Tri Area and assigned a certain amount of that allotment to that UGA. Residual acres coul-d be allocated to the other commercial and industrial- zones in the county. lle noted that was a progranmatic. non-project specific SEIS. l{r. Scalf stated that the same issues kept corning up: stormvrater, clearing and grading, performance standards, etc. They were a1I covered in the IIDC. Mr.,Scalf said that it was not a question of continuing to review alternatives. He pointed out that the county had spent four years and $400,000 on the Special Study and it still begged the same questions: Where is it? and How big is it? and What are the impacts? Ee stated that his point was that those questions would be picked up at the project level. Jeff Davis said that his point was that by the time you got to a project specific proposal we were way down the road and fish and wildlife resources vrere 5 again pushed to the side because early on we did not analyze all the potential impacts. AI Scalf provided the example of the ltats Mats Quarry proposed expansion. He explained that a DS was issued and SEPA authority could be used to deny the proposal tf it could not be mitigated. He pointed out that some tbings could not be mitlgated and could be denied based on the SEPA authority. Mark Rose said the DEIS,/rEfS did not address a potential MPR, stating that a l{PR proposal was a rather recent one. He said that none of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS/E'EIS allowed for the type of development that was proposed in the Brinnon Subarea Plan. Mr. Rose asked if the plan was adopted as an arnendment to the Comp P1an, if it would mean that those uses specified in the subarea plan would then be allowed. A1 Scalf replied that a re-drawn RVC would become a new map and a new zone. He said that a MPR was sti1l conceptual, so adoption of the subarea plan would not put a MPR in p1ace. Josh Peters explained that upon adoption of a Brinnon Subarea Plan there were certain things that would immediately take effect. One was a re-drawn RvC zone. Another was the Smal1 Scale Recreation and Tourist [SRI] zone at WaWa Point. Mr. Peters expi-ained that a MPR was a conceptual recornmendation by the Brinnon subarea group basically saying that, among the other things they recommended, they could conceive of a MPR at that p1ace. The intent of the plan was to say that if the county received a MPR application, the county should not only look at the UDC and Comp Plan but also look at the Brinnon Subarea Plan. fn essence it was extra parameters for the county to consider. AL scaLf said that a re-drawn RVC would go into effect upon adoption by the BOCC. It would be eligible for the uses contained in UDC Section 3 under RvC'6. Josh Peters referred to Mark Rose's question about the MPR. Mr. Peters said tbat nothing would change. He pointed out that the proponent could appl-y for a t"lPR at Black Point right now regardless of the subarea plan. Once a Brinnon plan was adopted, the only thing that would change was, j.f a MPR application came in, the county would also look at the Brinnon Subarea Plan in reference to that application. He pointed out that a developer could apply for a golf course at Black Point regardless of the HPR provisions or the subarea p1an. George Sickel asked \dhether a developer could develop Black Point in residential uses right now. A1 Scalf replied "Yes". Mr. Sickel said that the guestion r^ras how much analysis you should do on each one of the options. He said that we hadtalked about three, but there were maybe a dozen more that could be posed. ilosh Peters stated that the SEPA rules said that you did not have to look at every singLe possibiU-ty, because it was impossible, but you should consider envj.ronmental impacts. Mr. Scalf said that you had to look at as much as you knew. That was his reason for bringing up the Existing Conditions report. Ted Irabbe said that what he was trying to suggest in his letter was that there could be mitigation opportunities that could not be achieved at the site 1eve1 review stage. In other words, using e1k as an example, under the UDC environmentally sensitive overlay there were riparian protections of 150 feet for Type 1 streams (the Dose$ral1ips). Ite said that we knew that eLk in the area were really constrained in terms of where they could winter. Some of it was natural but some was because of development. He vras suggesting doing something bigger than the kind of offsite mitigations we usually did. One example was to look at conservation easements in the floodplain for elk movement and allow development to proceed outside of that area where it would be appropriate and would not impact the e1k. He was suggesting mitigation at the scale of the subarea rather than at the project 1evel. He did not think you could achieve that l-evel of conservation planning at the project review IeveI. He thought that the beauty of the subarea planning process was to work together to figure 6 out vrhere a comnunity could grow comfortably without irnpacting the resources that everyone !{as concerned about. Mr. Labbe agreed that there $rere opportunities at the site level review, but also thought we were missing out on bigger opportunities at the subarea level. Mr. Labbe said he had not had time to conment on the eIk issue specifically, noting that his tribe had a very strong interest in the elk herd. He said that the e1k herds on this side of the olympics were really limited in their wintering rangie. He thought those were the kinds of things you had an opportunity to talk about in a subarea planning process and were the lcinds of things that could be discussed in an EIS. A1 Scalf surnmarized that on a project level it would be very difficult to get the mitigations because the mitigations could onLy apply to that project site. He noted that the courty was taking a broader perspecLive in terms of salmon recovery in looking at watershed recovery, trying to do acquisitions, improved mapping, etc. Concerning the eIk, his recommendation related to the conservation futures tax or conservation easements and the Land llrust. Mr. Scalf expressed his disappointment with the WDFW EIS on eIk management. He thought it was very limited in terms of nhat was going on with the exact things Mr. Labbe was describing. It did not discuss why the Olympic elk herd was experiencing a 50* reduction. Ile pointed out that it was a programnatic EfS that just described where the e1k lived, mapped them, and basically said "Good luck". While he was disappointed in it, it was EIS work. While he did not have an ansvrer for Mr. Labbe's guestion, Mr. Scalf said he could see the theory behind the suggestion and did not necessariJ-y disagree with it. ceorge Sicket suggested that in the next year people who were interested and had a passion come together to take the Brinnon plan to the next 1eve1. He said that the idea was that it was a living document and would change over time. Ee thought the ideas being proposed could be an addition to the Brinnon Subarea P1an. He thought that was a way to move forward, as opposed to stopping everything and analyzing more. Tom McNerney said that there was something in the Brinnon plan about the community and WDFW getting together periodically. ifosh Peters responded that the provisions related to shellfish issues. Mr. McNerney suggested that wildlife issues could be added. Jeff Davis said there was a component in the plan for watershed planning. l,Ir. Peters said that from a staff perspective, ideally, the two things would be combined. the subarea plan and watershed planning. Josh Peters said he t'ras not sure how the county could go about irnplementing some of the suggestions raised (conservation easements, etc.). He comrnented that, from a staff perspective, it may be great to be able to draw wildlife corridors and be able to make it happen. On the other hand, people had prj.vate property rights. It could be difficult to make those connections. He asked Mr. Labbe from whom he would exact those kinds of requirements. Ted Labbe responded that he heard from people a lot asking about what sort of conservation easement opportunities existed. Yet there was a real lack of forums or authorities for those people to contact. Ee thought the Land Trust was a tool for assistance to l-and owners. Mr. Labbe said there was not a "market" for people to buy and selI development rights. He thought that would be an ideal institution to set up and enabfe under a subarea pIan. Mr. Labbe said you cannot ask the Land Erust to set that up because it was not within their authority. He said it was clearly within the county's authorj.ty under GtlA, citing King County as an example of a county that had experimented with it. He said it was up to the county to make that a priority. AI Sealf said it was a very popular planning technique and was in the Comp Plan. Mr. Peters commented that setting up such a program and administering it would take a lot of effort and staff tirne. He thought it was a 7 policy decisj-on for the BOCC to direct staff to work on it. He thought it would be more appropriate to create such a program orr a county-wide basis. Mr. Labbe suggested that it could even be a multi-county program in order to have more resources. Mr. Scalf cormrented that the county had talked to NMFS about strategies for watershed recovery and planned actions at one meeting. lhen they did not have time to deal with irefferson County because they were being lobbied heavily by King and Pierce Counties. ur. Scalf stated that the county could use the tribe's influence on that issue. Joy Baisch asked for clarification of Mr. Labbe's comments about e1k containment. Ted Labbe said that eIk had used these areas for hundreds ofyears. Nowwith development in the valley bottoms, the e1k got into peoples' gardens, etc. and caused damage. He said that the way the law was structured, when an individual made a cl-aim to the state, the elk aLways were the ones to lose. It was always a matter of moving the elk out of their usual eating areas, which were largely the va11ey bottoms along the rivers. That put them into areas where they were more susceptible to traffic and the ensuing accidents. !{r. Labbe said that from talking to people who knew more about eIk, the eastern Olympic e1k herds rrere on the decline as much from habitat loss than anything. Mr. Labbe said he had brought two documents on the e1k issue and asked to provide them for the record. iloy Baisch commented that she had personal experience with the elk issue and had worked !,rith WDFW and the tribes. She asserted that the elk herd on the Dosewallips was increasing, not declining. Ms. Baisch agreed that there were elk interactions with people. She noted that the e1k no longer urigrated like they used to, stating that they stopped migrating in the late 1980's. Jeff Davis and Ms. Baisch discussed elk habitat issues and possible reasons for the elk no longer following their rnigration patterns. Ms. Baisch stated that the upper Dosewallips valley had remained pretty static for 100 years and, in fact, there was less population now than there was 100 years ago because the logging camps were gone. Jeff Davis said the e1k was just one example of WDFW's concerns. Another issue was that cougar populations were increasing and with more development in their habitat came potential interactions with people. Kirie Pedersen asked if the county was exempt from the Shoreline l{anagement Act ISMAI. AI Scalf replied in the negative, adding that the Shoreline Master Program [SUP] was Chapter 5 of the UDC. Ms. Pedersen asked how the SEPA determination related to what the SMA and SEPA referred to as piece-mealing or phasing of a development proposal. Ms. Pedersen said the county was proposing that each project be considered project by project. She asked how that was not phasing or piece-mealing of an evaLuation rather than examining the cumulative effects of a project or projects. I'Ir. Sca1f replied that the FEIS descrj.bed phased review which was one of the components of SEPA and was allowed. Concerning piece-mea1ing, he said there was a court case related to Pleasant Ilarbor that could be added. Mr. Scalf said we were to review cumulative impacts under SEPA. Ms. Pedersen commented that this proposal did meet the requirements of the WAC for appropriate phasing. Mr. Scalf replied in the affirmati.ve, adding that it was part of the adoption of the existing environmental documents. Mark Bose asked if the DEIS/FEIS rrere required under Glf,A for the Comp PIan. AI Scalf replied that they were required under SEPA. Mr. Rose asked who approved the DEIS./FEIS. Mr. ScaLf repJ-ied that he did as SEPA Reaponsible official. I{e provided the history of the DEIS/FEIS developnent. Mr. Rose commented that no outside agency approved the document. I1r. Rose asked if the EIS alternatives addressed the proposals of the subarea p1an. Mr. Scalf replied that it did, 8 adding that the preferred alternative was the one that appropriately fit. Mr. Rose asked if that incLuded 278 acres of mixed use zoning in Brinnon. Mr. Scal-f replied that the EIS \,ras programmatic and did not get into that level of detail. Mr. Scalf stated that was why he had brought along the ExistLng Conditions report. Mr. Rose said he just wanted to ask if what luas proposed in the Brinnon plan was part of the alternatives ana3-yzed and approved in the EIS. Ur. Scalf responded that Lhe appendix of the EEIS listed aII of the documents that were reviewed and one of those was the Existing Conditions report. That described the alternatives and how the community planning alternative turned into the preferred alternative. He said that it did not get into the fine detail of five acres here, and ten there, and twenty somewhere else. Mr. Rose asked if the subarea plan was in compliance with the EIS. Mr. Scalf rep).ied "Yes". Mr. Scalf said it typically referred to existing zoned areas usi"ng maps. In Brinnon those vrere Black Point, Brinnon flats, and WaWa Point. However, it did not include acres or analysis of those acres. Josh Peters said that the 1994 zoning did not include the 17-acre light industrial piece north of the Dosewallips Road. Another smalJ. piece on the east side of Highway 101 was not included either. Those pieces were talked about in the notice and how the DNS applied to them. In answer to Uark Rose's guestion, Mr. Peters said that wawa Point was in there i-n the sense that there was commercial zoning there and it was i-arger than the proposed SRT ovexlay. He pointed out that the SR? overlay would have less uses than a commercial district. He noted that the EfS analyzed the larger commercial zone. Mark Rose asked if the justification in the Cornp Plan for shrinking that zone down to 4.2 acres, which was that development between Vlawa and the cove would bej.nappropriate sprawl, would be overridden. Mr. Peters said the argument was spelJ-ed out in the Brinnon Subarea P1an. Mr. Peters said the Comp Plan said a fu11 range of commercial development would be inappropriate aprawl. However, the smal1 scale tourist and recreational use would not apply. Walt Parks referred to an article in the Leader about Black Point and the marina. One of the problems with the property was the lack of zoning. He asked what the zoning issue was, whether it was the proposed MPR. He also asked if there was any liability for the county for discussing a MPR when there was not adequate zoning. A1 Scalf replied that it was within the police powers of the BOCC to make zoning decisions. He stated that they eould have zoned over twice the amount of acres they had designated in the Comp Plan and still been wj.thi-nthe EIS. He could not answer the question about liability. He thought it would depend upon whether the county had assured the individual of something or engaged in a contract, Mr. Scalf said that zoning could be given and it could be taken away. Ted Labbe commented that WDFW raised the shoreline issues. stating that it was an issue for the tribes as weII. He asked when the county adopted its SMP. ilosh Peters replied that it was 1989 with subsequent anendments. Mr. Labbe commenLed that he had helped with the drafting of the revised SMP that was currently under review by the county. He stated that we knew a }ot more about shorelines now than we did in 1989. AIso there were changed conditions, such as the salmon listing. Mr. Labbe stated that the two stocks listed for Hood Canal rirere among the most dependent upon estuari-ne shorelines. Ee thought that was another reason to underscore the need for more thorough review at this stage because we were in very much changed conditioas from 1989 or even 1995. Mr. Labbe said there was a lot of new science available to the county when the SMPis updated. He pointed out that there were a 1ot of shorelines in the Brinnon area that would come under the SUP. Mr. Labbe said it was the tribe's perspective that currently there were impacts that could not be mitigated for under the current SMP. He said the tribe, in its coilments on the UDC, raised I some of the issues around marine shorelines. The county's perspective was that they would not address that in the UDC; they would address it in the updated SMP. llhat was a big concern of the tribes, particularly relating to development at Black Point. Eis point was that rire hrere dealing rrrith a very dated SIrtP. AL Scalf agreed, adding that we had a draft S!!P ready for public review. ft had been delayed by the litigation occurring at the state 1evel regarding the rule making. Once that was cleared, if the BOCC provided that direction to staff,the county coul-d proceed with the review and adoption of the SMP. Mr. Scalf said that to his knowledge the Brinnon Subarea Plan did not amend the SMP in anyway. Josh Peters reported that DoE had indicated it would be another year or two before a new shoreline rule came out. ileff Davis, Ted Labbe and staff discussed the county developing an interim SMP. ilosh Peters said we could amend the SMP under the o1d ru1e. However, when the new rule came out, we would have to nodify it again. Kiri.e Pedersen had a question about the SMA hrith regard to llood Canal, which was a shoreline of statewide significance. She said some of the language in that saj-d that the benefits to the many must override the benefits to the few and that everything possible should be done to protect that shoreline. Yet, much of what was proposed for this sma1I planning district seemed to be almost in direct contradiction to that. She wondered whether the county was exposj-ng itself to lawsuits by landowners and other entities who would be impacted by some of theproposal-s. AL Scalf responded that the county would continue to exercise the SMP for its intended purposes. He cited those purposes. Mr. Scalf offered the opinion that the small lots had more cumulative potential for impacts than some of the other proposals. He pointed out that there were property rights under GMA to consider as wel-I. Also, there vrere endangered species issues to consider. Mr. Scalf said each must be weighed and he thought county st,aff was right in the middle of it. He thought it was good policy and also thought the county was upholding the purpose and intent of the SuP. ifosh Peters corrected that shorelines of statewide significance \das a separate designati.on from shorelines of the state which applied to aII marine shorelines and Type 1 rraters. Mr. Peters pointed that the 1989 SIitP, outdated as it may be, was in compliance with the SI,LA. Whether it was in compliance with the ESA or some other law was another question. red Labbe commented that Type 1 streams were also included in the designation. Josh Peters clarified that they were shorelines of the state, not shoreline of statewide significance. Mr. Labbe pointed out that the marine shoreline of llood Canal was listed as a shoreline of statewide significance. Kirie Pedersen asked how the subarea plan would be enforced or whether it would be left to the neighbors. Jeff Davis replied that WDFw enforced bald eagle violations. They also enforced the hydraulic code. Josh Peters noted that was a criminal code, whereas the county had a civil code. A1 Scalf said the county was taking enforcement actj-on on the most gri-evous cases. Mr. Scalf acknowledged that the county did not have an enforcement officer, but did the best it could using its inspectors and staff when they were in the field. Mr. Peters said the county had joint enforcement with the state on shoreline development. A1 Scalf briefly discussed a rneeting with NMFS. He stated that this county needed money for enforeement and monitoring. We also needed money for actual stock rebuj"lding. He said that enforcement and monitoring were required by the ESA as well as by loca1 government. 10 AI Scalf moved the meeting on to questions staff had about the SEPA comnent letters received. Eirst, he explained how the DEIS/FEIS were developed, noting that he did not want Mark Rose to get the wrong impression that he had written the documents. Al- Scalf referred to the letter from the Point No Point Treaty Council. One cornment had to do with stream typing and some streams being mis-typed. He noted that the DNR in cooperation with WDFW, DoE, and the tribes were responsible for stream typing. Mr. Scalf asked if Mr. Labbe had identi-fied those concerns to either the DNR or WDFW. Ted Labbe explained the lrork to date, noting that it was a formal process under which the DNR would ultimately make the change in stream type. lrlr. Labbe said that there was no formaL process for stream typing at the county level. He said the comments in the letter vrere merely to do a cursory reconnaissance of those areas. He said it was fairly typical of a 1ot of areas, stating that there was a 1ot of error. Besides mis-typing there were streams that were completely missing from the maps or streams that were routed i.ncorrectly across properties. Mr. Labbe said that underscored the need to do field review of stream typing. Mr. Scalf stated that the county recognized it was an issue. Mr. Scalf said that the UDC said that if an agency put the county on notice that there may be a typed stream, the county must bend to that experience. Therefore, the county would hold up a building permit until the stream typing was complete. Mr. Scalf raised an example in Kala Point to show the strength of the UDC. Mr. Scalf said the county had the same kinds of concerns with channel migration zones. A1 Scalf asked for clarification of the tribal comment about kettle hoIes. Ted Labbe said there were some serious landslide hazard concerns around those because of the slopes which bordered the kettle holes. Mr. Labbe said it was not clear to him how someone could site a golf course [at Black Point] and nitigate for j:npacts to those. He stated that they were habitat for amphibians. which he acknowledged were not listed. Mr. Labbe said he did not know which landslide hazard maps the county rtas culrently using. He said there were new maps from the DNR, stating that the slopes bordering the kettle holes were high to medium risk. Mr. Labbe said the DNR maps were a newly available source of data. Ee said they were areas that would not have been mapped under the Coastal zone Atlas beeause they were inland. Josh Peters said it vras something the county would look into during the 2002 Comp PIan review and UDC update. Al- Scalf said that one of the questions he and l!tr. Peters had discussed in terms of salmon recovery was the amount of existing environmental documents. He noted that there !'rere a lot of f-istings of avaiLable SEPA documents. IIe did not advocate including aII of those documents. Mr. Scal-f said he was assuming that everyone knew that the agencies, the tribesl and the counties were all doing work and it was a cumuletive role and we did not need to list all of the documents. He wondered whether that assr.unption was false. Mr. Scalf said that if the public lranted all that information, the county could attach a refereuce Iist or refer to the appropriate web sites. A1 Scalf asked about the tribe's projects for the Dosewallips and Duckabush and vrhether there was any specific project that the county or the subarea plannlng group should be knowledgeable about. Ted Labbe stated that, while he did not see the pertinence to the SEPA determination, he could provide information. Mr. Labbe said the tribe harvested shellfish and the Duckabush was one of the mostproductive areas right now. Mr. Labbe said that a specific project he wascurrently working on was a habitat analysis for sal-mon for the Dosewallips. Ilowever, there was no report yet. Mr. Labbe said that in his corunents he tried to point out the need for flow infonnation both from the standpoint of fisheries studies but also for the Brinnon conununity to know flood risk. Iie stated that 11 there was a process that agencies or communities could go through to engage the USGS and other government agencies to assist with those sorts of things. Mr. T,abbe said the tribe would be very interested in partnering with the conmunity to reactivate the gage in the river. ilosh Peters stated that the Brinnon plan did include some narrative about the flow gage in the river as well as some discussion about a comprehensive floodpJ.ain management strategy. rhere was al-so language in the plan about watershed planning. AL Scalf asked for clarification about the tribe's reference to the archaeological sites and asked if they were mapped. Ted Labbe replied that they were but the leve1 of mapping was not appropriate for site level review. Mr. Labbe said there was very little money for fundi.ng of inventorj.es of cultural sites. So what happened was a tribe would get into a reaction mode when a development uncovered a site. fypically the site would be closed to further development until they did a full excavation and retrieval of artifacts. He said that those kinds of responses were covered by the UDC. However, he thought there was a need for that to happen early in a project. Mr. Labbe said that subsequent to the comment letter he had learned that there were cultural sites on Black Point that had not been fully inventoried and their precise locations were unknovrn at this tirne. Mr. Labbe said that. agrain, it was an opportunity for cooperative work. He thought it was similar to the stream typing. If you could do such work up front before development, it made everything much easier. Mr. Labbe said that, while the UDC did address archaeological or hj-storically significant sites, he thought it could be stronger. Ur. Labbe suggested that a cultural sites over.lay map or list could strengthen the UDC sirnilar to the critical areas maps. He noted that it was available from the state. A1 Scalf referred to the WDFW comment about saLmon listing under ESA subseguent to the county EIS. Mr. Scalf asked if there was any particular action iten WDFW was asking for. Jeff Davis replied that what the comment was pushing for was a Supplenental EIS. He noLed that the plan talked about wel1s that were tapped into shallow aquifers that went dry in the sunmer. Mr. Davis said that the concern was that, if a golf course was buiIt, whether its well would tap a really deep aquifer that would not impact sunmer low flows in the Dosewallips and the Duckabush, not just for fish but for those other private wells that were already there. With the recent flooding and subsequent emergency repairs, Mr. Davis said they were trying to build in approprJ.ate nitigations with those emergency repairs. As far as any particular actions, it was difficult for him to say because county staff were the professionals when it came to knowing this plan and the process that was involved. Mr. Davis said, that being said, there may not have been a need for this meeting if the agencies and tribes had been involved up front in the planning process. Concerning water withdrawal for a golf course, AI Scalf said that the proponent would be responsible for the special reports when they came in for their conditional use permit. .Teff Davis said that went back to his original conment, noting that he made the same comment to aII jurisdictions. He guestioned why we would do zoning and then have people think they were going to get a golf course when in fact the county woul-d require an EIS, which may show that they could not have a golf course. Mr. Davis said that if we could not at least conceptualize the impacts, he questioned whether we should be zoning it. Josh Peters pointed out that $re r^rere not zoning a golf course. Mr. Davis said that the same comment could apply to a commercial zone in a floodplain. Mr. Scalf said he had a couple of issues. One was who should be paying for that work, the county or theproject proponent. That was not addressed in SEPA. Mr. Scalf said that there was a report on existing aquifers in East .Tefferson County. In terms of water, we typically had to prove potable water for a building perrnit. Mr. Scalf then related a recent Hearings Board case where the Board said that the county had to t2 designate. regulate, and protect salt vrater intrusion areas. He said that typically the county wouLd say that $ras the jurisdiction of DoE and DoH who issued the water rights and withdrawal. As a result of the Hearings Board decision, the county would now engage in a revj.en of saLt water intrusion. l.Ir. Scalf said that the county \Mas not sure where the county's role was if DoE and DoH vrere giving water rights and withdrawals. In terms of the environmental impacts, he asked if Mr. Davis was suggesting that the county do the hydrology to see if it woul-d accomodate a golf course before it was zoned. ileff Davis said that apparently the county had the documents that provided the pertinent information. IIe said that it did not appear to him that staff Looked at those documents to see if there was sufficient water for a golf course. Mr. Davis said that he did not want the county or a project proponent to have to drill test wells to fJ"gure out what was happening. What he was asking was that the county look at conceptually what the plan was proposing and come to a comfort level on the environmental impacts before it was moved forward for approval by the BOCC. Mr. Scalf said that one reason he wanted a public meeting lras that ll1lr. Davis probably did not know we had a Coordinated water System Plan or what was l-isted in the bibliography of the EIS. Such documents $rere in the EIS and incorporated by reference. Ted Labbe said that the Hearings Board appeal decision was very pertinent to the development issue at Black Point because it was very nearly surrounded by salt water. He did noL know that we really had gotten the "story" on the water issue. The questions rrere whether the water would come from groundwater onsite or whether it would be piped in from other sources. He thought we should know that before the county put together a document recoftmending a golf course for the site. Mr. Labbe acknowledged that the conmunity could ask for whatever they wanted. His issue was with the county making a reconmendation j-n a document for somethj-ng that was inconsistent \dith the Cornp PIan. It was not cl-ear where that golf course water would come from. Jeff Davis said that the issue was not jyst the golf course. Ee thought there were some ideas as to what would go into that proposed zoned area. Ee thought the county could look at impervious surface Ieve1s. Mr. Davis said that the near shore environment was fairly unstable in that particular area even aecording to the plan. So you could l-ook at typical erosional rates for Hood Cana1. He thought you would probably find that the current shoreline program was inadequate in terms of protecting a house. Mr. Davis rrranted to get away from people coming to WDFW requesting a buLkhead because the land eroded back to their house. Then WDFW had to send them to NMFS, who would deny the bulkhead because it was in salmon habitat. Mr. Davis said his point was to look at it before it was zoned and impacted everyone's workload and the people's pocket book. Josh Peters asked if it would be oor's jurisdiction to give a water right for a golf course or if it would be under their exemption l-evel. AI Scalf replied that he was not sure, but added that a hydro-geologic report was warranted. Mr. Peters said that Mr. Davis indicated that if we knew these things we should analyze them, but Mr. Peters said we did not know because thexe ltas no application. He acknowledged that there had been a pre-a,pplication, but it had been withdrawn. Jeff Davis referred to the way Ki.tsap County was doing thej.r planning using various alternatives of conceptual thinking about what kinds of things night come in and the impacts of those conceptual alternatj-ves. irosh Peters responded that, referring to the B1ack Point issue in particular, the county included in the threshold determination that it was a conceptual idea caLled out by the subarea plan that would be used in conjunction with any future application which 13 could be made. Mr. Peters said the county had made the decision not to do an EfS on the Black Point area because we did not know what kind of appJ.ications the county might get; it did not have to be a golf course. He pointed out that it could be anything, including a MPR now, regardless of the subarea pIan. The question was how we could imagine every option and questioned why the county should pay for an EIS when the developer should do it. Mr. Davis said that,getting away from the Black Point issue, he was concerned about expanding the commercial development in the floodplain or along the shoreline area. An audience member asked about Right Smart Cove, saying that it had a Natural designation under the SMP. Josh Peters said that residential development was not allowed in that designation. He said that any development under the SRT zone would be reviewed under the SMP. Mark Rose said that the subarea plan contained recommendations for types of businesses in the SRT zone. He suggested the county could review the impacts of those uses. Mr. Peters said that any of those uses would be reviewed under the conditions of the SM.P as well as the other applicable regulations. Debbie Sj-efert asked Jeff Davis about activities at Right Smart Cove that the community would have to watch out for. Jeff Davis said there was an existing boat launch, but it sounded like it was in a fairly degraded condition. tle indicated that some of the listed uses were fairly "soft touch" on the 1and. He said that stormwater issues were a big concern for WDFW. Josh Peters pointed out that improvement to a boat launch would require a hydraulic permit from WDr'W and possibly from the Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Peters said that the county welcomed cross jurisdictional reviews of projects. Kirie Pedersen asked about the water issue relating to Black Point. She said that she had researched we1ls at B1ack Point with DoE and asked them particularly about a golf course withdrawing well water since the claim had been made that there were unlimited quantities of groundwater. She reported that DoE's response $ras that they would be deeply concerned about increased development in that area because of known water shortages. She said she had provided that information to the county and thought those were the kinds of questions that should be addressed up front. Josh Peters said that DCD had the information Ms. Pedersen provided. A1 Scalf said that, until the hearj-ngs Board decision, DCD was not involved in ruater allocation. That was the jurisdiction of the DoH and DoE. Josh Peters said that water allocation and salt r^rater intrusion was a good example of the need for cross jurisdictj.onal cooperation. He provided the exampJ-e of an aquifer that crossed political boundaries. He questioned how this county could tell another county that it could not allow a property owner in that county to dig a well because it may affect an aquifer in this county that was experiencing salt water intrusion. Ted Labbe asked if the recent Hearings Board ruling suggested that the county needed to regulate water withdrawal or if it said the county needed to consider impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas. ilosh Peters replied that they said the county needed to figure it out. but added that there were only so many things the county could do. A1 Scalf explained that the Hearings Board ruled under the last portion of PLanning Goal 10, Environment, which was water availability. He said the flearings Board ruled that the county shaIl analyze, designate and protect areas of salt water intrusion. Mr. Peters said that, because of the RCW exemption for welIs of less than 51000 gallons per day, the county could not really get into that. Mr. Scalf said the county was filing a motion to reconsider to ask for clarification of the exemption and water right issues. 14 chuck rinnila said that the issue the planning group J-ooked at concerning a goJ.f course was considering it as a corunercial recreational facility. He pointed out that anyone couLd essentialj-y put in a private goLf course on their land. The second thing they considered was to look at the area and determine where the historic economic viabitity had been. For nearly three decades, B1ack Point had been a fairly intense commercial recreation facility. The question for the planning group was whether that area should continue to be a viabLe recreational facility, whether it continued as an RV park or goJ.f course or hotel or whatever. ghe answer in the plan was "yes". He said that when it came down to site specific detail, they would have been foolish to purchase the property without doing an examination of environmental issues. They had done all of those studies. Mr. Finnila said that wheu they were ready to make an application, those studies would be made available. IIe stated that it was the DoH vrho came to them and asked if they would consider extending their water capability outside of their current jurisdictional boundary because there were areas surrounding their property that had water problems. He pointed out that there were some county code regulation difficulties with doing that. OLivia Alfano referred to the golf course and the quality of the water in Hood Cana1. She said that a golf course would need intensive fertilization and herbicides in addition to water. She asked if there had been consideration given to the effect of those toxic elements on the Eood Canal water quality. A1 Scalf replied that there were development standards that applied to golf courses and an application would be reviewed under them. Josh Peters replied that there was a section in the UDC about goLf courses, including best management practices. He said that, because the Black Point area was so sensitive, the county would even consider extra BMPs to ensure protection of llood Cana1. Ms. Alfano asked if the county had the "teeth" to intervene if the conditions were not folLowed. Mr, Peters repLied that the county could condition a permit, and if those conditions were being violated, the county could take enforcement action. Mr. Scalf noted that it had been pointed out that the county did not have staff to be able to assure 100t cornpliance with the eonditions. Kirie Pedersen asked if baseline studies had been done in order to be able to evaluate effects of the proposed development. A1 Scalf replied that some of the j.nformation was available through the agencies and the tribes. He said the county was working on trying to improve the data base. The IDMS department was workj-ng on havi.ng one area where aII that information was combined and available. Mark Rose asked about the location of the information. A1 Scalf replied that it was scattered among various county departments, state agencies, and the tribes. Mr. Rose asked if the informatj"on was considered during the review of the subarea p1an. Mr. Scalf responded that water guality issues in general were discussed with Health Department staff. Mark Rose wished to respond to the earlier question about who should fund the kind of SEPA review suggested. IIe suggested that the county probabJ.y could have done it within the current budget if the county had reached out to the agencies and tribes during the planning process. Mr. Rose said there were many times he had asked the county to do that. AI Scalf responded that the county reached out to them many times durj-ng the course of county business. He thought Mr. Rose's statement was a falsehood. Jeff Davis stated that he was never invited to any meetings on the subarea p1an. Hr. Davis said the county vras very good about getting him involved in site reviews. but he had heard nothing about this subarea plan until about five days 15 before the SEPA conments were due. This comment led to a discussion about the mailing lists for the notices on plans and SEPA documents. Josh Peters pointed out that the county rnailed the notices to the addresses provided by OCD and assumed that the information would be circulated to the proper reviewers. Mr. Peters agreed that the county could compile an additional list of stakeholders for such notices. Joy Baisch stated that the county did the very best it could with the lirnited budget and staff it had. She said we were a sma1l county with a small budget and we could not afford all the things that it may be nice to have. She said the agencies needed to be pro-active in making sure the county was notified about the proper channeLs and people to be notified. She did not think it right that the county and then the corrnunity should get "slapped" because it did not get to the right people. She said the advertising for the community planning effort was done in the usual manner. It was assumed that people with a vested interest would respond. She apologized if the agency and tribal representatives felt they were slighted. stating that was not the intent. ,feff Davis said he would look into the issue and try to rectify it. Ted Labbe asked about the reasoaing for the denial of his request to extend the SEPA cornment period. A1 Scalf explaj.ned that there had been an administrative complication to extending the comment period. It involved additional staff time to do another mailing, which r'ras not available. He said it was not the county's intent to set the SEPA reviera up during the holidaysi that was jusL where j.t happened to fa1l. He agreed that under SEPA it was possible to extend the comment period. t{r. Scalf explained that the Poi-nt No Point comment letter was accepted via the email transmission, even though the signed letter did not arrive untiL well after the close of the comment period. Josh Peters said that the comments received at this meeting would become part of the record as well. Mr. Peters pointed out that the threshold determination could be changed or withdrawn anytime before action was taken on the p1an. Mr. Scalf said that the feedback and policy he heard from the BOCC was that DCD took too long in processing and they wanted everything tightened up and things to get done. Mr. Peters said staff was considering doing a Modified DNS to include some additional information and explanation. However, the county had received an appeal of the SEPA deternination so staff decided we needed to deal with that. AI Scalf expressed his appreciation to everyone who participated in the meeting. He closed the meeting at 2:50 p.m. 16 Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners February 612002 Re: FiIe Number: Brinnon Sub Area Plan Submitted Planning Commissioners: Todd McGuire and David Whipple Background and Rationale: The rinority recommends that the BOCC reject ttre Planning Commission majority recommendation to approve the Brinnon Sub Area Plan as proposed at this time. While both of the minority members understand the importance of adopting a plan with which to complete the Comprehensive Plan process as mandated by state law, we do not feel that the plan as written is adequate to address the many needs and voices raised by the local Briruron community and stakeholders throughout the County. Neither the Brinnon Sub Area Planning Group, County staff and consultant nor the Planning Commission addressed a variety of issues which had been brought forward during development of and comment on the plan. The minority opinion is that both the process and current Plan document are flarved to t}te point of being unacceptable for adoption and implementation. As a result, the taxpayers are again faced with paying for more agency defense of legal challenges brought by individuals and groups who were negligently disregarded during the plan work. The costs and delays for addressing these inevitabilities should be compared with the options of extending the SAP process with a more complete group of stakeholders and a fast ftack, goal oriented schedule. Office of Community Development (state OCD), County staff and members of the public who testified noted that a number of the Plan provisions, including the exemptions for home businesses and cottage industries, the logical outer boundary analysis of the Brinnon RVC and the SRT overlay may not fit with GMA and /or Comprehensive Plau criteria. Thus, adoption and subsequent challenge expose us all to more delay and cost to achieve a document Euly representative of the community. The sub areaplaming process presents a rare opportunity to address "big picture" issues and cumulative effects related to capital and public facilities planning, as well as ecosystem impacts and mitigation techniques. It is not possible to adequately address such concenm on a project specific basis. [ncluded in this opportunity are efficiencies and economies of regional and inter- community actions, as well as identification of funding and resource availability. The adamant exclusion ofinterested stakeholders and narrow focus by the SAP group has resulted in a wasting ofthat opportunity. This is not an excuse for forcing adoption ofa plan bearing all the shortcomings of that being considered. There are specifrc topics that should have been addressed in the plan and questions which should be answered prior to adoption of any suitable SAP. These include the following: I I ) 3. 2. 4. 5. B-IaSh Point MPR repo$mendatipn: Ia addition to a review of the reasons for a project specific recommendation being included in a community plan, the impacs of the likely increase in property values, and resultant effects on housing costs, associated with the recommended designation of Black Point as a Master Planned Resort should be identified and acknowledged. Atthough members of the BSAP group maintain that they were not addressing specific projects, this is clearly a project specific recommendation with many impacts not embraced by the community. Officers and investors in the Black Point LLC, which owns the property, should be identified and included in the record for the benefit of community stakeholders. Representatives of the LLC should be invited to participate in the stakeholder's group to discuss ways in which such a development could occur while addressing concerns expressed by neighbors. How will affordability ofhousing for year round, low-incore Brinnon residents be addressed relative to the establishment of such a resort? There is no available definition of built environrnent that would justify extending this commercial area to the West Side of 101. How will tiris burden be met? Commercial acreage expansion: This should be referenced to previous work done on Glen Cove / Tri Area and Trottier analysis for needed capacity without uudue infrastructure burden to taxpayers to support GMA required growth predictions per OFM data (updated for the 2000 census). There has also been concem expressed by Brinnon business owners that expansion of the zones will lead to a devaluation of their commercial properties. How will County wide commercial acreage determinations be integrated rvith the proposed expansion of Brinnon commercial acreage figures and justified with growth management indicators? Environmental implications for proposed development: There has been a persistent lack of emphasis on the value and fragility of the area ecosystems throughout the plan, as noted by nurrerous individuals and agencies concerned with protecting same. There has also been an exclusion of iuput and involvement by the SAP group of many of the entities most able to assess and advise on these areas of great importance. How will the cumulative effeca and impact of proposed commercial shorefront and flood plain development be addressed relative to ecosystem concerns? Economic development options: A number of other options besides the part time resort employment and home business model were presented for consideration by the SAP group. Why were not other forrrs of economic development pursued or described in the Plan document? Additional public/private activities were mentioned as possible and should have at least been mentioned as future options. Capital and public faciliti-es impacts: While the specific elements of the Plan have been addressed by Public Works, there are a number of significant improvemeuts implied in the rezones which would have dramatic effect on taxpayers throughout the County if implemented. These include needed infrastructure for SRT development at WaWa point, as well as water and sewer requirements with the plarured increase in demantl due to zoning changes. The current document does not adequately describe the social, educational, recreational, or community resources available to &e local residents or describe what their future needs may be. lt certainly does not plan for those needs. On occasion, it mentions items like an assisted living center, but there is no discussion on how to meet a market demand, provide infrastructure, where these activities would be sited, etc. 2 1. 7 6.Remote Rural Area and associated exemptions for home businesses and cottage industries: Criteria determination and justification for designation of Brinnon as a Remote Rural Area and associated plarming exemptions for cottage indusEies and home based businesses must be developed and demonstrated. These will have significant quality of life implications for Brinnon residents. This will also require amendment of the Unified Development Code and likely the County Comprehensive Plan, meaning that there are County wide implications for the Plan. What will reasonable limits on the expansion of cottage and home industries be (regarding employees, activities, etc)? When complaints arise, will the county provide any resourc€s or assistance to both parties and is there a dispute resolution mechanism in place? The justification for this designation was obviously intended to be misleading. The argumentthat Port Townsend and Forks have equal services because they are both UGA's is absurd. This becomes even more disingenuous when one realizes that the county is concurrently working toward establishing a second Jefferson Co. UGA in Port Hadlock (23 miles from Brinnon). There are also three other UGA's,2 commercial centers, a historic village, and an MPR closer to Brinnon than the West End is to Forks. Brinnon residents have options on medical services, schools, shopping, transportation, and recreational activities not available to those living on the West End. It is ludicrous to compare Brinnon to the West End in terms of equal remoteness. Cornmercial designations: The term "built environment" is used quite differently here than it is throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The Dwland case may allow for more expansive uses, but the County needs to amend its own CP first in a manner consistent with GMA and relevant case law. As defined in the SAP, an old fence post, residential septic system or ftee stand would constitute built environment. This is clearly not the case when reviewing the termbuilt environment in the CP. The county chose not to amend this at this time. They were aware of this issue and merely chose to amend the MPR question during this amendment cycle. This is an area that is cleariy inconsistent with the central tenets of the CP and clear grounds for an appeal. This discussion affects the proposed WaWa Pt area, the Brinnon RVC area, and the proposed MPR area. Changing demographics: The SAP document does not make its own case statistically. lt does not use readily available documentation from DSHS, ESD, local school systems, andlor OFM to describe the community and changes that have occurred since 1997. The SAP members response was that they were unable and unwilling to include data that did not further their desire to expand commercial opportunities. This was a glaring oversight that should have been easily corrected. The failures of both process and Plan noted above have been docunented in a number of ways and forms. Unfortunately, there is not a document which centralizes this infonnation. Although lengthy, we feel it important to organize and present the information which has been ignored in the development of the plan to identify possible areas for improvement. In particular, we reference the following: l. Public testimony (Planning Comrnission meeting minutes) from Brinnon cornmunity residents and interest groups held on July 31 and October 17,2001. In particular testimony from: a. Lynnette Antijunti, Brinnoz, stated that she proposed a recommendation different from that proposed in the draft plan for WaWa Point. She provided that proposal in writing. 8. 3 b. Marilyt Pedersen, Brinnon, She worried about huge business in Brinnon. She worried about infrastructure costs. She asked what would happen to the community if Brinnon had to have a huge sewer for a condominium development. Ms. Pedersen stated that she grew up in a wealthy town and saw the classic "looking down on the little people". She stated that she was one of the "Iittle people" now and did not watrt to live in that atuosphere. She asked people to think hard about the changes. She supported small businesses and jobs, and strongly supported the school. She wantedpeople to think about infrastructure costs, especially associated with development at Black Point. c. Mark Rose, Brinnon, stated that he had attended every meeting of the sub-area planning group since February, except one. He noted that he had drafted some parts of it. Mr. Rose stated that he was very disappointed in the final draft. He stated that one area he was disappointed in was that the plan did not seriously address economic development. There was nothing about how jobs would be tracked, how jobs would be attracted or what kinds of jobs would try to be attracted, or what kinds of businesses ttre community would try to attract. Mr. Rose stated that economic development was really addressed in land use. Mr. Rose stated that the plan expected people to believe that if 383 acres were re- zoned to mixed use, jobs would be created. However, it did not address what kind of jobs would be created or what the impact would be on infrasbrcture, water or fue. Mr. Rose stated that the plan did not address the impact on ttie environment, the water or the shoreline. The plan addressed single family homes on the waterfront. He asked what that impact would be. Mr. Rose stated that environmental groups did not have input into the plan, He stated that other groups who could address economic development, capital facilities, or environsrental impacts had no input either. Mr. Rose stated that the draft plan was very strong on re-zoning but very weak on the impacts of that re-zoning. Mr. Rose stated that he would like to see those issues addressed in the plan. d^. Loni Beringer, Brinnon: She stated that when she became aware of the grandiose vision for Black Point, she questioned whether the majority of the amenities were not geared towards a certaitr class of people, that being the wealttry. She questioned whether the majority of people who made Briruron their home would be able to afford to stay. She questioned how many Brinnon families would actually be employed in the development on a full time basis throughout the year. e. Oltvia Alfarc, Brinnon: She stated that, according to the Brinnon pla457%o of the community's population was low to moderate income. She stated that along with the stress of low income and poverty frequently ensued the complications of dislocation and alcohol and drug abuse. Ms. Alfano stated that the cure for those ills would not come from an upscale resort catering to the affluent. She thought ttre disparity bet\ileen the "have's" and the "have not's" would become more pronounced. Ms. Alfano stated that while the developers of the vision would gain windfall profits, the workers could expect litfle more than minimum wage and seasonal employment. f. Walt Parlcs, Brirmon: He stated that issues he had not seen addressed were references to low income housing or affordable housing in the plan. He thought that what he saw in the plan led him to believe that the traditional, historic home 4 owners of Brinnon would be priced out of the market. As a home owner, Mr. Parks was very concerned about exempting homes and businesses from CC&Rs and conditions which avoided conllict in a community, such as noise abatement, hours of operation, etc. He was strongly against excluding the Brinnon community from those normal residential rules. C. Ken Shock, Brinnon: He stated that health, environment, and water are all threatened by golf courses such as that proposed for Black Point. He expressed particular concern for pesticide leaching into Hood Canal and encouraging salt water intrusion by drilling irrigation wells to keep the golf course green during dry Brinnon sunmers. h. Barbara Gauer, Brinnon: She thought the three separate commercial zones could be the beginning ofurban sprawl. i. Kirie Pedersen, Brinnon: She stated that a lot of the justification of the plan was based on a high poverty claim. She stated that resorts and the proposed commercial development did not help the poo4 it drove the poor out. If enacted, the plan would raise the taxes for the rest of the residents. She stated that the plan was simply an effort to re-zore a rural area under the pretenses ofhelping poor people and young people. She stated that the only people it would help were the ones who owned the investment property; it wor-rld not help the elderly, or disabled, or tle poor, or the young. She stated that San Juan County had the second greatest difference between the rich and the poor in the state since four resorts were developed there. She stated that the original residents had been driven out because they could not afford to live in their own town. j . Waync King , PUD commissioner for the Brintwn area: He reported ttrat the PUD would be the lead agency on seawater intlsion. He stated that the quality of water in Brinnon was not that good. Referring to the proposed golf course, Mr. King stated that his own opinion (not the PUD's opinion) was that a golf course would take one million gallons of water per day in the surlmer. He wondered whether there was that much water available. Mr. King stated that in researching the water rights permits for the area, he did not see that kind of volume. From October 17 meeting: k. Jean Johnson, Brinnon: She stated that she did not believe the citizens of Brinnon had been told the truth. She stated that comments had been ignored and/orjudged irrelevant. Ms. Johnson questioned how any development could occur without a water and server system. Ms. Johnson stated that most of the employment would be minimum wage. She believed that there must be an agreement, not a consensus. Ms. Johnson stated that the citizens of Brinnon tBd a right to be told the future cost to them ofthe proposed development. l. Loni Beringer, Brinnon, Ms. Beringer stated that she attended the planning group meetings for about a year and a half. They allowed ten minutes at the beginning and end of each rreeting for public cornments. She did not think that was enough time to hear peoples' issues and concems and to address their questions. Ms. Beringer felt sure many of the people in attendance had received an e-mail 5 concerning this meeting regarding support for the plan proposal. Concerning the e-mail, Ms. Beringer stated that it was sad, ludicrous, artd even scary. m. Peter Siefert, Brinnon: Mr. Siefert thought the potential to damage the rural lifestyle and fragile environment were much greater than the positives. He stated that the plan's unique SRT zoning would initiate sprawl and jeopardize &e natural resources by directing such development to WaWa Point. Mr. Siefert stated that the UDC already provided for small scale recreation and tourist development in rural residential areas like WaWa Point via the conditional use perrnit process and that the SRT overlay would remove the UDC provisions intended to include loca1 resident input, maintain rural character, and prevent sprawl. The proposal would allow the existing recreational uses and facilities to expand without public input currently required by the conditional use perrnit provisions. He pointed out that it exempted some recreational uses with minimum lot size requirements. He stated that the SRT overlay area contained several streams which fed into Jackson Cove and supported salmon spawning. Those waters were also important to salmon recovery and Brinnon's aquaculture. Mr. Siefert stated that the SRT overlay was fiying to justify development in areas where further development would be destructive to Brinnon's valuable nafural resources. Mr. Siefert stated that the county would be doing the residents of Brinnon a disservice by approving the MPR zoning. It would jeopardize Brinnon's most valuable economic assets, which were healthy marine waters and shorelines. He was convinced that the county did not have adequate resources to insure the protection of our nafural resources threatened by such land disturbing activities. Mr. Siefert stated that many people in Brinnon thought the perraits and processes, both state and county, would protect that area from any dekimental projects undertaken by the development of a MPR. He did not believe ttrat. Mr. Siefert stated that the county must adopt a new Shoreline Master Program but it did not have the financial means to follow through. He was very concemed about the detimental effects of a MPR on the shorelines, water quality, shellfish, and salmon, as well as to Brinnon's character. He urged the Planning Commission to take a common sense look at this plan and to have the courage to say it was just too risky. m. Siefert asked that the county not leave the community of Brinnon responsible for cleaning up the mess after developers were gone. n. LindaTudor, Brinnon: She was asked if she, as chair ofthe SAP group, could provide the Planning Commission with any information about other groups that had participated in the planning effort such as tribes, state agencies, or nor profits. Linda Tudor replied that groups had the opportunity to comment based upon the advertising that was done. Ms. Tudor stated that the plaruring group did receive some comments. Planning Commissioner Whipple asked if Ms. T\rdor could provide information on &ose that did participate in the process. Ms. Tudor indicated that she would.(not provided to date). o. Mark Rose, Brinnon, submitted 3 12 pages of documentation on behalf of the Better Brinnon Coalition. He spoke about the CDBG grant that was received from the state for the Brinnon planning effort. Mr. Rose stated that the purpose of the planning grant was to help mostly low and moderate income individuals. He stated that a lot of stipulations came with the grant. The fust was that a grievance procedure was to be instituted from the beginning of the process which 6 would allow anyone to submit a grievance to the DCD and get a written resporue wittrin 15 days, with an appeal process to the BOCC or a grievance committee. Mr. Rose stated that was not done. Mr, Rose stated that grievances submitted to either the planning group, the BOCC, or by proxy the Planning Commission were dismissed and sometimes derided. Ivlr. Rose stated that was one of the main violations of the grant. Mr. Rose stated that ttrc grant said that the Hood Canal region had received an Endangered Species Act listing. He stated that a component of the draft plan would be to develop critical areas and shorelines. Mr. Rose stated that one of the requirements of the grant was to develop policies to develop regulations to comply wift that listing. Mr. Rose stated that was not dore. Mr. Rose stated that the grant also said that several state and federal agencies were to have been consulted in the drafting of the plan. That was not done. Mr. Rose contended that, in fact, when the tribes tried to become involved in the planning process, they were told that they could not. Mr. Rose strted that the public was not given copies of the plan nor were documents provided at meetings. Mr. Rose stated that he had real concems about the public process, saying that he did not think the public was involved in the development of the plan and was, in fact, shut out. I!Ir. Rose stated the belief tlrat the draft plan was not in compliance with the GMA or the Comp Plan. He thought it was seriously out of compliance. Mr. Rose stated that he had heard two Planning Commissioners say that the plan did not have to be in compliance. Mr. Rose stated ttrat he differed with that opinion as well. p. Olivia Alfano, Brinnont She addressed the SRT at WaWa Point, pointing out the uses that could be allowed. Ms. Alfano stated that conditional use perrrits and minimum lot sizes would be waived. Ms. Alfano stated ttrat the plan indicated that additional infrastructure would not be necessary. Ms. Alfano stated that consider.ing the many possibilities for development, that seemed unreasonable without enhancing lighting, roads, water and sewage facilities. She questioned what impact public comments would have at the time of development if the SRT was enacted. Any commercial tourist related development would be dorrnant for much of the year. Ms. Alfano stated that she would prefer to see, rather than open-ended zone changes which emphasized conrmercial tourist development, proposals which would insure the preservation of the natural beauty and which would encompass the economic, social and cultural ambitions of the cornrnuniry. An example might be a Hood Canal maritime center, including the history of the people who seftled in the area and the fish, animal and natural ecosystems of the area. q. Diane Derrick, Brinnon: She stated that the vision for WaWa Point was an idyllic one and not a reality. She stated that with the current residential zoning, only three residences could be built. The plan on the other hand envisioned thirty cabins, attendant commercial facilities, restaurants, etc. She stated that such development would not be consistent with the existing rural residential character and that the plan billed the SRT overlay as a unique gateway to WaWa Point, Pulali Point, and Point Whitney. She stated that WaWa and Pulali had no facilities and no accessible public features, and she asserted that the development should benefit the people of the immediate area and greater Brinnon. She said the development should be of a permanent, full time, non-seasonal nature. Ms. Derrick stated that, according to the IIDC, an SRT designation specifically stated that the commercial facilities were derived from recreational and tourist use and 7 not from the existing or projected rural population. She questioned how that jibed with the planning group's assertion of compatibility and consistency with the rural character. Ms. Derrick stated that tourism and a rural population were notoriously incompatible and that the plan might benefit a few small business owners for a few months of the year but would not provide jobs or services for the local population. Ms. Derrick stated that the plan proposed to exempt the SRT overlay from most SRT codes, including minimum lot size, expansion of existing facilities, etc. Ms. Derrick stated that it would result in inappropriate sprawl. Ms. Derrick stated that, with the country and this county sliding deeper into recession, it seemed foolhardy to designate an area for development at this time based solely on the visisitudes of tourism, the industry most wlnerable to suffer as the economy worsened. Ms. Derrick stated that the research and planning necessary for the development of WaWa Point simply had not been undertaken. r. TedLahbe,PortGamble S'KlallamTribe habitatbiologist,Mr.Labbe statedthat habitat loss and degradation stemming from poor development standards and destructive land use practices had resulted in closure of shellfish harvest areas and salmon population decline, thereby jeopardizing the tribe's treaty rights to fish. Mr. Labbe stated that the tibe was concemed that new development permitted under the subarea plan would further erode the fish, shellfish, and wildlife population and undermine their treaty rights. Mr. Iabbe stated ttrat the tribe offered initial comments in August, stating that they had only a brief time in which to cornment. He stated that he had more extensive comments to submit to the record at this meeting (see reference below). Mr. Labbe stated that while the tribe raised a number of inconsistencies and issues of concem in August, the fiibe never heard back from the planning group or the county about how those concenu would be addressed. As a result, Mr. Labbe skted that they were resubmitting those concerns for the record along with more detailed information. Mr. t abbe stated that a number of specific issues emerged that were important to the tibe during the review of the draft plan. One was the lack of consideration for impacts to regionally significant fish and wildlife populations. There was no discussion about how the planning group proposed to balance economic growth with the protection of the area's significant fish and wildlife population. That shortfall was particulady notable in relation to the ESA listed salmon species as well as other state protected species. He stated that nowhere was the deficiency more notable than the plan's recommendation for the development of a MPR at Black Point. Mr. I-abbe stated that Black Point and the Duckabush estuary held numerous species that would be attacked by large scale development. Mr. Labbe stated that the Brinnon planning group did not consult with the state's informatior sources nor consider how the MPR development at Black Point would attack those natwal resources. Mr. Labbe stated that the tribe requested that the Brinnon planning group and/or tlre county make a forrnal request for that information from WDofF&WL, put that inf,orrnation into the record of these proceedings, and consider how development at Black Point and WaWa Point would be ameliorated to protect the area's important fish and wildlife populations. Mr. Labbe noted that there were some faidy significant inaccuracies with the history of the tribe in the area. He had never heard from the planning group if they were corrected. Mr. Labbe stated that a major concem of the tribe was the extent and intensity of new land use. Mr. Labbe stated that the designation of Black Point as a MPR was inconsistent with both the spirit and 8 intent of the GMA and the Comp Plan. It was not clearhow that would limit and not expand further development. Nft. Labbe stated that other inconsistencies included a terrible misunderstanding of the shellfish harvest issue and flooding and floodplain development issues. Those were issues the ribe would like to see corrected. ltlr. Labbe stated that the tribe was yery interested in a reply back from the county or the planning group about how the issues they raised were addressed. George Sickel, Binnon (menrber of SAP group): He stated that he had taken it upon himself to send out a mailer to all Brinnon residents. Mr. Sickel explained his reasons for doing so. He wanted to give each property owner the opportunity to let the Planning Commission know whether they were for, against, or did not care about the plan. (see Eleanor Sather letter below) t. Kate Marsh, Brinrwn(member of SAP gro,up).' Concerning state agency or tribal consultations, Ms. Marsh explained ttrat the planning group would have asked for such consultations if it felt it needed that kind of advice. Ms. Marsh stated that the idea of the planning group initiating such contacts was out of keeping with the design of the subarea plan, which was addressing the commercial areas in Brinnon. Ms. Marsh stated that the planning group was not in the business of making proposals for certain kinds of businesses. Planning Commissioner Michelle Sandoval asked if the planning group had seen the grant at the start of the group process. Kate Marsh replied that they had. Ms. Sandoval asked if the group had been aware of the list of agencies that were mentioned for consultation. Ms. Marsh stated that, while she did not meau to be critical, when she saw the grant as written, she edited out the paragraph that contained the list of agencies. Ms. Sandoval asked if the group had read the grant and were aware of the consultation requirements. Ms. Marsh replied that she could only say ttrat many of the group members had read the grant. Planning Commissioner David Whipple asked for clarification of her statemetrt that the purpose of the plan was to examine the commercial designations. Ms. Marsh clarifred that the commercial designations were the focus the group started with. 2. Letters from Jefferson County residents and interested parties: a. Eleanor Satlur, Brinnon, former member of SAP group, Owner of Whihey Gardens and Nursery, LLC: October 17,2001: Describes her dismay with receipt of anonlmous mailer (see George Sickel above), as well as the composition, conduct and intent of the SAP group. January 1,2002: Questions assumption that existing tightline impedes economic development, disagrees with SAP's use of building permits to define economic development, concern about lack ofaddress oflow income housing, potential devaluation of her commercial property with expanded cosunercial zone and repeated disdain for composition and conduct of sub area group. b. Jean Johnson, Brinnon, former SAP group member, Owner of Brinnon General Store: December 26,2001: Describes her disrray wittr SAP group composition and conduct and recommendation to disregard current document. .r 9 c Ted Labb e, J ames tow n S' Klal lam Trib e Habiw B io lo gist : October l7 ,2001 4 pages detailing concems and suggestions for plan improvements noted in testimony above. d. Marty Ereth, Slakomish Natural Resources, Fish Habitat Biologist: October 15, 2001 : 6 pages detailing specific areas of concern in the plan with suggested changes. "Ihe majority of our comments will focus on environmental attributes of the Brinnon area and eco-systems that may be threatened by items proposed in the plan rather than the economic conditions, growth and job opportunities available." 3. Irtters from State agencies: a. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Jeff Davis, Area Habitat Biologist): December 24, 20Ol: 4 page letter detailing concern with lack of agency involvement; need for proper zoning relative to flood plain development; need for detemrining Black Point MPR impacts to property values and affordable housing, sprawl, wildlife diversity, stonnwater and groundwater; appropriate locations for growth; inadequacy of review and comment periods. b. Office of Community Development January 16,2002 (fed Gage): Confirrns inappropriateness of RRA designation for the Brinnon area and exemptions for home businesses, as well as needed revisions to proposed RVC densities. Findings of Fact: The process for identifoing subarea plaruring group members and associated stakeholders representing all &e interests and requirements of the community and involving the Planning Commission during group selection and process development was very inadequate. The terrns of the grant application for considering affordable housing as a top planning priority were not addressed. Likewise, the goal of the SAP being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was igaored. Through much of the process, it was considered to be a stand-alone document that did not need to comply rvith the CP. The consultant retained by the County to assist in the Plan development was directed by the SAP group to focus strictly ou creating defense for the proposed rezones and new zoning categories created during the process. This was a waste ofresource which also benefitted specific parties, some of whom were on the SAP group, and a missed opportunity for applying grant resources for the benefit of the greater community. 4.The suggestions and requests made by other members of the Brinnon community, as well as the concems that were raised during the community meetings before the Planning Commission, were not adopted or addressed in the current Plan document. 1 2 J 10 5. 6. 7 The subarea plandng group chairperson has not provided the list of state agencies she claims were contacted during the plaruring process and which she conunitted to providing. The subarea planning group included members who had direct conflicts of interest relative to personal commercial property and subsequent zoning recommendations. The property proposed for addition to tle interim commercial zoning adds about thirty- six (36) acres to the Rural Village Center (RVC) and about seventeen (17) acres of industrial zoning. With fte addition of the Black Point MPR (approximately 300 acres) recommended by the BSAPG, the total proposed non- residendal designation totals approximately 353, more than recommended for the whole county over the 2O year planning window. This violates the intent and purpose of the GMA. There is no statistical justifrcation provided in the document for this expansion. As per Comprehensive Plan and UDC, a justification needs to be provided. Current health and human services data provided by Planning Commission member for reference and inclusion in the Plan was not addressed. The county staffand planning group declined to look at any data that did not conclude that their was atr immediate need for the four economic development projects cited. T1ae Jefferson County Comrnunity Planning Guidelines and Comprehensive Phn Revision Process , or "Blue Book", (atest revision June 1994) is inadequate to address the SAP process and more clearly define requirements related to group selection and composition, involvement of the Planning Commission during plan development, role of staff and consultants, methods for insuring Comp Plaa consistency and legal compliance with state law. 10.The conduct of some members of the SAP group and Planning Commission was such as to polarize the process and demonize community residetrts, interested agencies and plaming commission members who raised issues of concem. This was apparently with an intent to intimidale those with other views and insure passage of the SAP now being considered. It is inexcusable that neither the chair of the SAP group nor the chair of the Plaluring Commission addressed such language and behavior, implicitly condoning the behavior and goals. This led to a loss of confidence by the communiry, an alienation of those who could have benefited the plan and an inferior final product. Recommendation: lt is the opinion of the minority that the citizens of Jefferson County would be best served by the BOCC if it were to reject this version of a Brinnon Sub Area Plan and direct staff to develop a document (with representative stakeholder input) that would more adequately address the community's needs in a holistic fashion that is consistent with the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan as written. In order to adequately address the interests of both the citizens and the ecosystems of Jefferson County, we respectfully request that the BOCC reject the current version of the Brinnon Sub Area Plan. The subarea planning process provides a unique opporhrnity to address long term needs, costs and benefits from a programmatic level. Planning "bookends" can be determined by assessing full build-out and maximum capacity values for proposed developments according to rezone or new 8. 9 1i zone proposals. These can be used to address environmental, capital facility and population effects on a larger scale. This should be encouraged and accompanied by an examination and discussion of appropriate growth management indicators, as well as demographic and environmental data and trends. This document should be useable for community development, capital facilities planning, grant writing, and many other actiyities. Furthermore, we recommend that ttre BOCC direct staff to: 1. Develop or revise the official SAP process to emphasize a more inclusive stakeholder identification and selection process and clearly identify and mitigate commercial conflicts of interests of planning group members. This is increasingly important as this plan is finalized and additional SAP's are pursued tbroughout the rest of the County. This should include community, staff(and consultant), Eibe, agency, Planning Commission and BOCC roles and responsibilities and input at the goup selection, mission statement, general goals, and element construction stages as well as the final draft stage. Results should be fomralized in a revision to the Blue Book and appropriate Comprehensive Plan sections pertainiug to Sub AreaPlanning. 2. Iaclude, at minimum, the pertinent GMA growth management indicators as statistical evidence of change (over a period of no less than 10 years) for land use re-designation. This should be coordinated with a projection for total needed capacrty of commercial and industrial land throughout the County and reflect the most current data available. 3. Inform community members that this is to be a staff led and directed exercise, they are to provide expertise, input, and contributions, but guidance and direction will be provided by the professional planners to insure compliance with revised Blue Book procedures. Adequate resource should then be allocated to produce a quality Plan. 4. In future SAP activities, to identify possible areas of inconsistency withy the Comprehensive Plan as they are occurring so that the changes can be made in one effort rather than piecemeal. This will allow for a cumulative judging of &e impact. David Whipple Todd McGuire t2 APPENDIX A Summary of meeting-informal SEIS "scoping" Brinnon Subarea Plan October 20,2003 Attendees: Ted Labbe, Pt. Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Jeff Davis, WDFW; Tim Rymer, WDFW Dave Christensen, Josh Peters and Al Scalf-Jefferson County Issues discussed in the meeting to include in supplemental environmental review and/or action plan: 1) Agencies would like the County to analyze the potential impacts of "pollution generating impervious surfaces" such as roads, driveways and parking lots separate from the rest of the impervious surface analysis. Include an analysis of standards. Concenffate on the Brinnon Flats area rather than at an entire watershed level. 2) Agencies would like to see restrictions on development such that no new dikes are allowed and there is no dike elevation. 3) Agencies would like to see water quality monitoring of Syloplash and Walcoft Sloughs 4) Agencies would like the County to look at the potential wildlife habitat needs at the Dosewallips State Park, including specific plantings to enhance habitat. 5) Agencies would like the County to require any Black Point development to analyze the following impacts prior to approval of the development:. water quantity. water quality. unstable slopes. marbled murelet habitat. funpacts to shellfish on the Duckabush River There was a general feeling from agencies in the meeting that the discussion in the Brinnon Plan of a Master Planned Resort at Black Point would make it more likely that a MPR would be proposed at that location than if the conceptual discussion was not there. Therefore, the agencies would like the County to identify issues that would have to be analyzed with the any proposed MPR, such as the one discussed in the Brinnon Plan that included a resoft with golf course, recreation, marina, single family residential, and mixed use zones. 6) Agencies would like the County to implement Brinnon Plan Policy 2.3 within the Natural Environment Element to address cumulative floodplain impacts in and around Brinnon and long term solutions through a process involving the Brinnon Flood Board, state resource agencies and affected tribes. Brinnon resort plan raises environmental concerns By Kasia Piezga Leader Staff Writer May 10, 2006 I I# f,\ *11't T t Port Gamble S'Klallam tribal elder Mike Jones is worried that developing a golf resort at Black Point (background) south of Brinnon cou harm Duckabush River delta shellfish beds that are a critical source of income and food for local tribes. County officials have begun gathering information on the potential effect of the proposed resort on the environment. - Photo by Kasia Piezga ln the broad sweep of green that blankets the Duckabush River delta, a pair of nesting Canada geese honks nervously as tribal elder Mike Jones picks his way toward the mudflats. The tidelands along the delta south of Black Point provide habitat for shellfish that are an important source of income for the Port Gamble S'Klallam tribe. rf5 Jones, who also works in natural resources for the tribe, said he's worried a proposed master innon resort plan raises environmental... Brinnon resort plan raises environmental... http:/hvlvlv.ptleader.com/nelvs/brinnon-re...t http://www.ptleader.com/news/brinnon-resort-plan-raises-environmental-concerns/article_5e73d823- b04t5dd6-8496-dd81 84dc98c0.html r5r !e r I {t 7 r H T { I t Til i*s-l*ar' 415/16,4:33 PM rinnon resort plan raises environmental... Brinnon resort plan raises environmental... http://lvlvlv.ptleader.com/news/brinnon-re.. planned resort at Brinnon could damage Hood Canal shellfish beds that provide jobs for tribal members and others in the small communities surrounding the waterway. "These tidelands here and at Triton Cove are some of the biggest beds we use," he said. Both commercial and recreational harvest of clams and oysters could be at risk if a proposal to build about 1 ,100 condominiums and an 18-hole golf course is approved, according to Jones and others familiar with the industry. The commercial shellfish industry is a key part of Washington's economy. According to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, the industry was worth about $76.75 million in 2000. The industry's value to Washington has increased fufiher since Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast oyster industry last year, boosting sales for local producers. According to Ted Labbe, a biologist for the Pofi Gamble S'Klallam, at least 10 percent of the shellfish harvested in Washington each year comes from Hood Canal, including beds near the proposed resort. Shelton-based Taylor Shellfish owns a commercial shellfish farm near the Dosewallips River delta north of the proposed resort. Taylor spokesman Bill Dewey said stormwater runoff from the golf course and resort could put the region's shellfish industry at risk. "l don't want to sound anti-development," he said. "We just need to make sure that the developers are aware of the fragile resources there on the canal." Jobs at a price The environmental and economic concerns raised by those in the shellfish industry were among many comments aired at a public meeting organized by county officials N/onday night. The forum was an opportunity for county planning staff to gather information about how the resort might affect the environment. About 70 people got a look at the proposal during an open house before the meeting. After a brief presentation on the project, half the people in an audience of some 40 local residents took turns at the microphone to raise concerns. I of5 The main issues raised by those who spoke were the potential effects on the environment, traffic 415116,4:33 PM innon resort plan raises environmental...Brinnon resort plan raises environmental... http://wlvw.ptleader.com/nelvs/brinnon-re. safety and rural character, Brinnon resident Carl Sheats, a longtime harvest diver who blamed declining water quality for the demise of his commercial sea cucumber operation, warned officials not to pursue one kind of economic development at the expense of a successful existing industry. "Water quality is the most important thing we have left," Sheats said. "We don't want things messed up." Other people wondered if there would be enough groundwater left to serve the homes and businesses already in Brinnon. Several people said they aren't opposed to development of a resoft but feel the one being planned is too big. ln a quiet rural community with only about 2,200 residents, the addition of nearly 1 ,100 condominiums would bring too many people to town, they argued. Bob Scott, who said he moved to Jefferson County to get away from the rapid resort development of the Wyoming ski mecca of Jackson Hole, said the proposal would change Brinnon forever - and not for the better. "l can't think of a development proposed more different than the character of the place it plans to come to," he said. "lt would completely overwhelm Brinnon as we know it today - economically and socially." Jasper Hendricks, a ninth-grade student from Brinnon, worried about how the increase in traffic would affect the community, even with a proposed turn lane on U.S. Highway 101. "How would kids ride their bikes across a four-lane highway?" he asked A few people said they are in favor of the resod, largely because of the boost it could give to the local economy. Dalila Dowd said the resort could boost public services by increasing county tax revenues. "lf there's just a smidge of a chance that we can bring something positive to the community that will help the whole county, l'm in favor of it," she said, though she added that the resort should move forward only if the community supports it. Jefferson County Planning Commissioner and Brinnon resident Bud Schindler urged people to think f5 415116,4:33 PM I rinnon resort plan raises environmental... Brinnon resort plan raises environmental... http:/hvlvlv.ptleader.com/news/brinnon-re..., \ of the jobs the project might create. "lt would be a lot better if we could bring some commercial life back into Brinnon," he said Others said they believed most of the jobs would be part-time positions in the service industry that don't pay that well, and management positions would likely be held by resort professionals brought in from outside the community. Economic boost lf the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort moves forward, it would become part of a resort system owned by Canada-based Statesman Corp., which includes sites in Arizona and British Columbia. Condominium owners have access to all the resorts in the system, said company President and Chief Executive Officer Garth Mann. The master planned resort would include a system for treating sewage as well as runoff from pavement and other impervious sur-faces. Some of the water, along with collected rainwater, would be used to maintain the golf course. "The idea is that we'll be able to use this water before giving it back to Mother Nature in the same or better condition than it was before," Mann said. According to materials provided by Statesman Corp., the golf course would be managed in an environmentally friendly way that would reduce the risk of nitrogen contamination of Hood Canal by using slow-release fertilizers and collecting, treating and recycling runoff in a series of natural kettles that would be lined with waterproof material. Materials distributed by county planning staff at Monday's community meeting indicated the resort anticipates 80 percent occupancy during summer months, 50 percent in the "shoulder months" of spring and fall, and 25 percent in the winter. According to materials distributed by county planning staff, the resofi is expected to add about $500 million in asset value to Jefferson County's tax rolls. According to the Jefferson County Assessor's Office, at the 2006 tax rate the resort could bring in as much as $4.75 million in tax revenue. Some of the money goes into state coffers, with the rest helping pay for county services such as schools, roads, and fire and police protection. of5 415116,4:33 PM |rinnon resort plan raises environmental... Brinnon resort plan raises environmental... http://lvlvlv.ptleader.com/news/brinnon-re... The development is expected to increase property values - and home prices - in Brinnon and along Hood Canal. The boost would likely result in an increase in property taxes but could be a boon to those who seek to develop commercial projects. The resort would be marketed widely, drawing buyers from around North America as well as abroad, Mann said. People headed to the resort from SeaTac lnternational Airport would be able to hop a shuttle van, reducing the impact of increased traffic on local roads, he said. The facility would also be marketed for use as a conference center. "We hope to attract conferences from allover North America and, who knows, maybe Europe as well," he said. (Contact Staff Writer Kasia Pierzga at kpierzga@ptleader.com.) 5 415116,4:33 PM )( PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Road NE Kingston, WA 98346 (360)297-2646 FAX (360) 297-70e7 May 19,2006 Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development ATTN: Brent Butler 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: 2006 Comp PIan Amendment MLA06-00087 Master Planned Resort in Brinnon Dear Mr, Butler: Thank you for the opportirnity to comment on the scope of an EIS for a proposed master planned resort (MPR) at Biack Point/Pleasant Harbor in Brinnon. The Port Garnble S'Klallam Tribe maintains a special interest in the Brinnon area as the Tribe depends on local fistq shellfish, and wildlife resources for its cultural and economic well-being. Tidelands harbor commercially-significant shellfish populations, and the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their deltas serve as critical lrabitat for threatened salmon, and the entire area hosts a diversity of other important fish and wildlife populations valued by the Tribe and local residents. Past habitat loss and degradation stemming from poor development standards and destructive land use practices has resulted in closure of shellfish harvest areas and drastic salmon population declines, thereby jeopardizing our Tribe's court-affirmed treaty rights to fish and hunt. This scoping phase is an important opportunity for the project proponent and Jefferson County DCD staff to hear about issues of concern by affected parties, in order to ensure the scope of the EIS is comprehensive. The Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe shares concerns outlined by WDFW biologist JeffDavis in his letter dated May 17,2}O6,whic' ' ' we incorporate by reference. In addition, we detail our concerns rvith: the development size and scope, hydrogeology and water demand information needs, golf course management, wastewater and stormwater treatment, inconplete ESA maps, and wildlife habitat conservation needs. Finally, we highlight mitigation opportunities that should be considered as part of the MPR designation process. , .<'. l' Development Size and Scope - We are concerned with the size and scope ofthe development proposed by the Statesman Corporation at Black Point/Pleasant Harbor. This iszue is important to the Tribes and others since increased traffic and intensity of land use will have deleterious impacts on the area's fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources. The Statesman Corporations preferred altemative goes beyond what was envisioned by the2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan. As a result, the Tribe expects a more thorough and detailed assessment of impacts under the EIS. Hydrogeologlt Investigation - Given that Black Point is a virtual island, an i 8-hole golf course and 1090'unit condo unit are proposed, and the site includes a susceptible aquifer recharge area, the potential impacts to local groundwater, streaf,n flows, and wetland geology are very significant. We are encouraged that the Statesman Corporation is proposing rainwater harvesting, water conservation design measures, and minimal irrigation. However, these efflorts do not elirninate the need for a careful hydrogeological analysis as part of the EIS, to assess certain water runoffchanges and its affect on sensitive on- and off-site resources. We request that the project proponent assemble WDOE and Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health residential well log information to characterize the area's hydrogeology. This information could then be used as inputs for a three- dimensional gtoundwater flow model to assess irnpacts from water extraction and groundwater contamination (frorn golf course management practices) on stream and wetland hydrology, water quality, and searvater intrusion. We expect that Black Point neighbors might also be interested in such an analysis, given the number of residential wells fringing the proposed development, and Jefferson County's existing designation of Black Point as vulnerable for seawater intrusion. This analysis should be completed as part of the EIS. Vfrater Demand Calculations * More information is needed on water demand ofthe proposed development, and on contingencies if and when water from the tkee wells is deerned insufficient, We expect the EIS lvill detail these calculations in marurer that can be easily evaluated by uon-technical reviewers. Please also detail the location of these wells and how any hydrology impacts from the development could compromise their long-term viability. Golf Course fu[unagemett and 'Certificat;iorz'* Statesman Corporatior proposes to certify their golf course under the Audubon International's (AI) certification process. However, it is important to note that this group is not associated with the National Audubon Society, and is widely-perceived as an industry-led certification group, There is little information publicly available about the certification process, and what standards or benchmarks are followed. The EIS should detail the specific rnanagement practices that Statesman Corporation proposes to follow, rather than make assurances about AI certification. Several communities have required new golf course construction follow AI's Signature Golf program, which may be an option for Black Point. It is not clear from the Statesman Corporation's project literature if this specific program will be foliowed, or if they will seek certification after construction. Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater, and Water Quality Protectian - Chief among the; Tribe's concerns with a Black Point MPR are potential water quality impacts, which t could have deleterious impacts to nearby shellfish beds or could worsen eutrophication { problems in Hood Canal. Reverse osmosis wastewater treatment has been mentioned by the Statesman Corporation and we agree that this technology offers much promise due to the technology's ability for blanlcet removal of hormones, pharmaceuticals, and other nutrients and contaminants, in addition to dissolved nitrogen. However, the technology also results in the creation of a concentrated brine of contaminants and nutrients that must be properly disposed of The EIS needs to detail where and how this byproduct rvill be disposed of to enzure it does not reach the waters of Hood Canal. The Statesman Corporatiorr propose lining the project site's natural kettle ponds to receive and store stormwater nrnoff as part of their water conservation and reuse scheme. However, it is unknown if this practice would be allowable under state larv since - to my knowledge - nore of these ponds have ever had biological invsntories to determine if they harbor rare, threatened, or endangered species. These rare, steep-sided kettle ponds represent a regionally unusual biological comrnunity type and are important habitat for native amphibian populations, sinee they are completely isolated from fish-bearing streams. As part of the proponent's wetland inventory these ponds should be surveyed for amphibian species under the EIS clevelopment process. Details on measures to protect wetland hydroperiod and water quality should also be outlined in the EIS. Black Poifi ESA Maps Incomplete - The environmentally sensitive area (ESA) maps posted on Jefferson County DCD's website (accessed May 18, 2006) entitled "W'ater" (depicting streams, wetlands, floodplains, and aquifer recharge areas) and'Ceology'' (depicting landslide, erosion, and seismic hazards) are inconect, In previous communications to Jetferson County, the Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe has asked the County to corect and update this information. It is unfortunate the County has now chosen to post this incorrect infonnation on their website which only serves to confuse and mislead the public about the environmental suitability of Black Point for MPR development. In a December 21, 2001 joint SEPA conxnent letter from Point No Point Treaty Council, Jamestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, and Skokornish tribes, rve highlighted the presence of numerous sensitive environmental features that would be degraded by resort development including unique kettle ponds and mis-typed streams. Tliis includes streams incorrectly mapped as non-fish-bear-ing, which are discussed in the May 17, 2006 WDFW letter. In separate Brinnon Subarea Plan meetings, we have also requested that the County update its landslide hazud, mapping to include new rnaps available from the State &Up/www.AnL.wa.goU . The WDNR landslide hazard zone maps depict steep, unstable slopes fringing the Black Point kettle ponds, which are missed in Jefferson County's landslide hazard zone map. We now formally request that the County update its ESA maps to reflect the true extent of sensitive resources at Black Point, before development of the MPR EIS. A site visit with WDFW and Tribal representatives would likely help with resolution ofthese issues. These issues are important to the scope of the EIS and relevant to the proposed development, since they affect the tlpe and intensity of development allowed under the County's development code. Fish and Wildlffe Habitat Consewation and TDR- At a March 15, 2006 informational meeting, Jefferson County DCD staff mentioned the County's new Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program as a potential mechanism for use with the MPR designation. However, the TDR program will not be adopted until at least December 2006 when MPR approval is expected. How does the County reasonably expect to implernent an infant TDR program at Black Point to mitigate for wildlife habitat loss? A functional TDR proglam could leverage the adclitional resiclential density awarded at a Black Point MPR site, for more effective wildlife habitat conseryation off-site. For examplg the forested uplands to the nordrwest of Black Point represent an important ellcir migration corridor between the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. In addition, \ there are numerous undeveloped rural residential properties in the Dosewallips and Duckabush river bottomlands rvith high habitat conservation value. With resort development at Black Point, there will be increasing pressuro to develop luxury view - homes close by, and these important areas will be put at increased risk of habitat loss/degradation. Horvever, a functional TDR program does not exist, and will not exist before MPR approval. Therefore the County and proponent need to consider altemative measures to protect these important nearby elk migration corridors and river bottornland environments '* that rvill be indirectly tlueatened by developrnent of the MPR. Current zoning on these lands include a mix of rural residential ( I du/5 ac, and I dui20 ac) arid commercial forestlands on which permanent conservation easements should be secured. We ask that you consider and outline these options under the EiS. We acknowledge that only easements from willing sellers could be secured. Hou,ever, recent cooperative efforts between the County, Jefferson Land Trust, and property orvners on the lower Dosewallips River demonstrate that such willing landowners exist in the area. Mitigation Opportunities -Even a well-lanned MPR Point/Pleasant Harbor S Tribe would like be linked to any fonnal approval for resort development. We have already detailed one option, pennanent conseration easements on adjacent rural residential lands Two streams at Black Point have fish-blocking culverts which should be repaired as part of mitigation for an MPR development. This include two culverts on the unnamed, mis- typed stream draining to the southwest corner of Pleasant Harbor (referenced in the May $ \ ', F' populations.this to outliire 17,2006 WDFW letter). In addition, a large, productiv'e wetland eomplex (fed by seasonal streams draining from the south) is blocked by road fill adjacent to the large kettle pond on the east side of Black Point (with a surface water connection to Hood Canal). These crossings are offthe zubject property slated for development but their repak/upgrade would serye as an excellent mitigation opportunity. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Ted Labbe Habitat Biologist 360-297-6?89 tlabbe@pgst.nsn.us PONT GAMBLE S'HLAtLAII TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Road NE r Kingston, WA98346 1t ''RECEIVED December 6,2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 297-2646 Kingston JEFFERSON COUNTY' coMMtsstoNERS 0Ec 07 200I To Whom It May Concern: Comments regarding the Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon, WA (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The S'Klallam Tribes and the Lower Elwha Klallaur Tribe maintain a special interest in the Brinnon area as the Tribes depend on local fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources for their cultural and economic well-being. Tidelands harbor commercially-significant shellfish populations, and the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their deltas serve as crifical habitat for threatened salmon, and the entire area hosts a diversity of other important fish and wildlife populations valued by the Tribe and local residents. It is the Tribes position that the Final Environmental Impact Statement produced by the Jefferson Courrty Deparbnent of Community Development does not accurately address concerns regarding shellfish resource impacts, transportation impacts, fish and wildlife impacts, nor impacts to the rural character of the Brinnon area The FEIS document corrmonly asserts the notion that environmental impacts outside of the project's physical borders are somehow not necessarily connected to the MPR and are therefore given litfle or no weight in the text of this document. The narrow scope of this document is more suited towards a project specific action as opposed to a request for a comprehensive plan amendment. It is the Tribes request that the Board of County commissioners ask staft'at DCD to revisit the environmental impaots associated with redesignation of lands within the Brinnon area from rural to urban (i.e. drarnatically increasing the human population density) this fundamental question is lacking in the current FEIS. The tribe is particularly concerned about what effects urbanization will have onthe following natural resources within the Brennan area. The Duckabush shellfish bedwhichis the mostproductive shellfishbed ineast Jefferson County: epproxirnately 951000 pounds of allowable annual hamest (state *nd tribal share) (360) 47&4583 Bremerton (206) 464,728t Seattle (360) 297-7097 Fax PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRTBE 31912 Little Boston Road NE . Kingston, WA 98346 The two Elk herds of approximately 100 animals each: (see letter hom Point No Point Treaty Council, wildlife biologist) The presence of three listed salrnon species (Puget Sound Chinook Salmoru Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead) as well as strong populations of Coho Salmon and Fall Chum Salmon. (The impacts that the proposed cornprehensive plan amendment may have on these listed species should not be taken lightly.) The Geoduck Tract: number 22700: name Duckabush: Estimated Population 92,000 Finally the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe strongly contends (based on the lack of infomration provided in the FEIS) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment / MPR is fundamentally incompatible with the continued viability of the vast natural resources found within the project's vicinity. Attached are documents thatsupport the Tribes Position. Attached documents included: Technical document assessing the impacts of urbanization on shellfuh growing areas in the Puget Sound. Coastal Atlas Map showing the commercial shellfish closure caused by the Port Ludlow MPR in Jefferson County Coastal Atlas Map showing the Approved commercial shellfish beds around the proposed MPR and area closed by current development of Pleasant Harbor. Recent article describing the impacts of copper from automobiles on juvenile salmon Selected pages from the state of Washington 2002 Geoduck Atlas Thank you for your consideration. Hans Habitat Biologist l"' :: l' .'] 1r ri;. 1 360-297-6289 (a60) 297-2646 Xingston (360) 4784583 Bremerton Q}il464-728t Seattle (360) 29?-709? Fax Point No Point Treaty Council Port Camble S'Klallam . Jamestown S'Klallam 7999 N.E. Salish Lane . Kingston, WA 98346 360-297-3422 December 9,2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sirs: The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) is writing to express our concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort on culturally important elk herds in the Duckabush and Dosewallips River Valleys. The PNPTC is a natural resource management organization formed in 1974 to serve the Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribes to fulfrll the requirements placed upon them by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Washington (the "Boldt Decision"). The Treaty Council confirms the reserved rights established in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point and implements goals set by member Tribes for resource conservation, management, and the protection of treaty rights. It is our opinion that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains errors, and does not adequately address the potential adverse impacts that the planned Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort will have on our elk herds. Consequently, we cannot support your proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. Our concerns are twofold. First, we believe the FEIS vastly underestimates the potential for increased loss of elk by vehicle collisions resulting from increased traffrc on U.S. Highway 101. Second, the FEIS fails to address the potential conflicts that will occur if and when foraging elk damage high-value landscaping (such as a golf course). Our fear is that this will lead to increased demands to control elk damage by lethal removal of animals from the population. The FEIS (p. 5-21) cites a conversation with Greg Shirato of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, who stated there are no tracking data indicating elk use of the Black Point area. Mr. Shirato is correct, but the consultant asked him the wrong question. A more appropriate question would have been: Will the elk cross the highway and use the project area as development proceeds? It cannot be assumed that the current level of elk use of Black Point is a reliable indicator of future use. Our experience suggests that elk use of Black Point is currently low because most of the site is occupied by second-growth closed-canopy coniferous forest, a habitat type that characteristically produces low quality and quantity elk forage. As the habitat changes due to the construction of the golf course and the development of lawns and other open areas, the site will become more attractive to elk. Elk are opportunistic feeders, and are particularly fond of open areas with rich, abundant grass, particularly in the spring when the grassy areas are greening up. The FEIS suggests that there will be an ample supply of such areas east of the highway. If it can be assumed that the "pervious" areas referred to in Figure 1-6 will be mostly lawns and other non-forested areas, it appears that more than 100 acres of new areas with suitable elk forage will result from the golf course and resort development. We also know that elk occasionally wander outside their established home ranges in search of new feeding areas. This is documented by radio-telemetry studies of elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula. Our most recent telemetry data, obtained in the year 2000, show at least eight occulrences of radio-tagged elk in T25N, R2W, S16, immediately adjacent to Black Point. On October 30 of this year, we counted 27 elk from the Duckabush herd in this section, less than 0.6 miles from Black Point. On several occasions in the past, we have observed elk in the extreme southeast corner of Section 16, east of U.S. 101. Given these circumstances, there is a high probability that the Duckabush herd will easily make the transition to foraging east of U.S. l0l on the project site. Section 3.7.3 of the FEIS appears to suggest that the low level of elk use of Black Point is due to the presence of the highway. This is eroneous. It is highly unlikely that the highway or the topography act as barriers to elk movement. Our experience with the Dungeness elk herd near Sequim has shown that elk will readily cross a major highway to gain access to good foraging habitat, even if that habitat is in a densely populated residential area. As noted above, it is much more likely that the current low quality of the foraging habitat on Black Point is responsible for the currently low level of elk use in that area. The new resort will generate 4,100 new vehicle trips per day, at least doubling the current traffic volume. This, in conjunction with the increased probability of elk crossing the highway, will vastly increase the risk of vehicle collisions. Elk are an important food and ceremonial resource for the S'Klallam Tribes. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. We believe that Jefferson County and the resort developer must do a better job in assessing and mitigating the increased risk to elk resulting from the planned resort development before the Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted. Likewise, we feel that the failure to address the potential conflicts between elk foraging and golf course/residential landscape management also puts the elk herd at risk. We do not support, and cannot accept, lethal control to reduce property damage caused by elk. If your amendment is to be adopted, and the MPR approved, Jefferson County should adopt safeguards to ensure the S'Klallam people that their wildlife resources will not be diminished to accommodate golf course management. Respectfully cc: Randy Harder, Scott Chitwood, Paul McCollum Tim Cullinan Wildlife Program Coordinator Port Gamble S'Klallom Tribe Point No Point Treaty Council Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe November 24i1 2009 David Wayne Johnson Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Brinnon MPR Scoping Comments Dear David Johnson, The Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes, and the Point no Point Treaty Council appreciate this opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (A/PR). However, the S'Klallam Tribes have not been involved in the planning process since we participated in developing the 30 ordinances adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners in 2008. We fully expected the project proponent would be required to work with us. It seems only one Tribe, out ofthe four that have interest in the project, has been approached and included in the planning activities. This is not acceptable. The MPR is located within the S'Klallam Usual and Accustomed Area (LJ&A) and there will be impacts to our treaty resources as well as disturbances to potential cultural resources. Not only are the surrounding waters and land historically important to the S'Klallam Tribes, but the Hood Canal and the fertile beaches of the Duckabush River estuary remain crucial to our tribal members for finfish and shellfish harvesting. We strongly suggest the project proponent adhere to provisions of the new SMP, including shoreline buffer protections, and wetland protections under the Coun[z's current (2008) critical area ordinance (CAO). It is well known that the project location is near, and in some cases incorporates, important habitat types. The protection of such critical areas should be a top priority. For example, the kettle ponds and their riparian areas are unique ecological features necessary to support species diversity for amphibians and birds, and serve as natural aquifer recharge and storage. These wetlands should not be filled, lined and used as engineered re-circulating systems, but rather they could serve as amenities to the project primarily for passive recreational purposes. The native riparian vegetated buffers surrounding these kettle ponds should be protected in accordance with the current County CAO. Native vegetated buffers should also be retained along the marine shoreline feeder bluffs along the south shore of Black Point. These bluffs naturally erode over time and vegetated buffers and setbacks must accommodate long-term rates of erosion to protect their function as sources of natural sediment and small and large woody debris to the adjacent Duckabush estuary and beaches. While we are 1 ? Currently we do not support any of the plan alternatives. aware of Statesmans' efforts to build a"green" project, the overall footprint of this development is large for the small island-like area of Black Point. Pre-existing roads and disturbed areas from previous activities should be utilized as opposed to creating new disturbances to native vegetation and soils. In general, we also favor a plan that maintains larger and contiguous forested patches over a plan that results in small fragments of forest patches. The 30 ordinances adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners show that various management and monitoring plans are to be developed, and scientific reports conducted as conditions for this proposed development. In some instances, the ordinances state or allude to management plans being created for cultural resources, wildlife, stormwater and mitigation. These actions are necessary and reports should be released to the affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review. For example, it is still unclear where the source of domestic water will come from for this proposed development. The tribes must be involved in discussions of mitigation for project impacts. In general, the tribes support mitigation focused on protection and restoration of watershed and habitat- forming processes, and water quality and species protection and restoration. We do not consider leaving buffers around bluffs and wetlands (which are already requirements of existing code) as mitigation. As suggested in the ordinances, runoff projections and analysis on impacts to the Hood Canal need to be developed, the latter focusing on shellfish, finfish, water quality and habitat impacts. The ordinances call for a County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for Pleasant Harbor. The tribes must review the monitoring plans that are developed as a part of this project. A component of this plan needs to include water quality monitoring of the surrounding beaches including the Duckabush estuary. Overall, the S'Klallam tribes and PNPTC feel there has been a lack of information provided to us on technicalreports as well as monitoring and management plans. The tribes often review all technical documents related to large scale developments located in our U&A. It is our shared responsibility to protect the Duckabush river corridor and estuary which are critical habitats for ESA summer Chum, Chinook salmon, and Steelhead populations, as well as the surrounding vicinity which is home to an important elk herd for the tribes and the State. We hope that in future planning efforts, all affected tribes are invited to participate in resource management related issues. Paul McCollum, Natural Resources Director Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Scott Chitwood, Natural Resources Director Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe fr&'dr^ Randy Harder, Executive Director Point no Point Treaty Council 2 Sincerely, Cc: Byron Rot; Habitat Program Manager, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Steve Todd; Habitat Biologist, Point No Point Treaty Council Rick Mraz; Wetland Specialist Southwest Region, Dept. of Ecology Alison O'Sullivan; Biologist, Suquamish Tribe Randy Lumper; Environmental Planner, Skokomish Tribe Michael Blanton;Area Watershed Steward, WDFW Margie Bigelow Schirato;Area Habitat Biologist, WDFW J F:403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www.statesmanqroup.ca -----Original Message----- From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, March t6,20t0 6:10 PM To: Garth Mann; Gafth Mann Cc: jcoyle@pgst.nsn.us; Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov Subject: BoCC Conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resoft Garth, Just a follow-up on our conversation regarding the Tribes. I talked to Glenn Hartmann and he was able to provide some background on the process to date. I think it's important to point out Condition K of the Bocc Conditions of Ord. approval. That condition states: 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,localtribes 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. I catted on Monday and left a message with Jessica Coyle to return my call. .... No response... if she calls you to complain. Subsurface Group, conducted indepth studies of over 60 to 80 excavations on the MPR sites as requested by representatives of the Tribes et al. The excavation was monitored by Glenn and the Tribe's Archeologist. There was nothing found on any of the lands that was anticipated to be in question. The only area where any Ancestral Mittens were located was owned by WSFW close to their public dock. (l understand that when ownership was discovered.....the concerns were no longer an issue?). We have walked the site on 2 or 3 occasions with a number of representatives of the Tribes in order that they could see the site first hand. From these site walks and our Resort's luncheon- discussions; Subsurface on behalf of Statesman proceeded with the site excavations as aforementioned. There are five local tribes that may have an interest or consider Black Point part of their Usual and Accustomed Area. I would encourage you (if you haven't already) to talk with Jessica Coyle who represents the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. I know she would be interested to know that you have tried to address the concerns in their scoping comment Ietter. Also, it's important to future permit approval to have a clear understanding in writing among the County, Tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation (DAHP). To date, Grecthen Kaehler with DAHP has not heard from you. Garths response is in red Hello Garth, I did indeed receive a phone message from you on Monday, thank you for trying to contact me. For the time being, I think it would be most productive to communicate through email. Let me make it clear that the goal of our Tribe is /not/ to stop this MPR, but make sure our concerns are addressed before it is built. I am pleased to hear that a thorough investigation for cultural resources has taken place and the new SMP guidelines will be followed. However, you need to understand that the location of this MPR is in a very ecologically important area both tribal members and wildlife depend on. It is to be expected that we are concemed with such a MPR and we want to follow the progression ofthis project to ensure our concerns have been met.Please advise what concerns you have with the MPR? Now is also a good time for me to clarifu that there are other tribes who have ancestral rights to this location. Providing proof and evidence is not necessary since our Tribe already has engaged in legal battles over this issue and has succeeded in retaining ancestral rights to this area, in addition to the Skokomish. While we appreciate the changes already made to the MPR plans to accomodate environmental worries, we still would like to make sure other issues are addressed.Rather than speaking in generality, please be specific as to the issues? Involving us with this project will be necessary to obtaining a letter showing understanding between us and Statesman Group, as stipulated in the BoCC Conditions. I believe if we work together we can achieve a good level of understanding. Also, I was hoping you could explain what the South Shore Conservancy is and how it relates to the MPR and the Skokomish Tribe.The shoreline has a stipulated setback as well as a preservation requirement on the South area of the Black Point portion of the MPR. It was decided that rather than have a non-Tribal organization to oversee this conservation area,(as was recommended), we would request that the Skokomish Tribe administer the Conservency for the preservation of this setback. I think the next best step would be for you to meet with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. I have cc'd a few of our people who would be interested in such a meeting. Please give me a couple days before I can suggest meeting times or locations.Unfortunately, I have appointments booked for me through the month of April I could be available in May however. I look forward to the response to the aforementioned. Thank you Jessica Coyle Garth's response to David's email is in blue David Wayne: Please scroll down for responses. M. Garth Mann President & C.E.O P:403-256-4151 M:403-899-9222 You should also contact her at (360) 586-3088. I'm sure she can help out with coordinating this process for you and assist you in working with the Tribes. David.Wayne....we have gone above and beyond in dealing with every group and organization that feels they have RIGHTS to this property including a group that has tried to extort money.. I have personally met with most of the Tribes in the area, but up to your phone call last week, the Skokomish Tribe proved to Glenn and others that they had the Ancestral Rights for this area including the South Shore area. The Skokomish Tribe went so far as to show us records of their history and from this presentation, we agreed that they should be the Conservation Group for the South Shore Conservancy. The Tribes will Not come out and say they support any development.., as you know. lrrespective, we have been very cooperative and have listened to everyone's concern, and we have complied.,.including the relocation of the shoreline Maritime Village as requested by the S'Klallam Tribe, in order that it complies with the proposed SMP guidelines of 150 ft. This has cost us a lot of time and money in consulting costs and redraws..but as good citizens we agreed to sucomb to their concerns. Why not just once, the Jefferson County Group stand up and say..."Enough is Enough"..."These folks from Pleasant Harbor Resort have gone above and beyond in creating the Highest of Environmental Standards this State has ever witnessed". We are not going to listen any longer to any more frivolous talk that is not substantiated by facts. "We need this MPR to succeed in this County !" "Lets ALL support this development, and stop trying to destroy most things that are progressive." I for one...would fall off my chair if this were ever to happen... over the past 5 years David Wayne Johnson Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.446s M. Garth Mann President & C.E.O P:403-256-4151 M.403-899-9222 F:403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www. statesmanorou p. ca -----Original Message----- From : Kaeh ler, Gretchen (DAH P) [mailto : Gretchen. Kaehler@DAH P.wa. gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:44 PM Tor Gadh Mann; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: BoCC Conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resort Mr. Mann, I can understand your frustration with the process and I realize that it can be confusing at times. As far as consulting with the Tribes go, a written understanding with all five Tribes is part of the BoCC conditions. lt is not necessary for a Tribe to "prove" to you that they have an interest in a particular area in order for them to state their concerns and have them addressed. Condition K also states that there needs to be a written understanding among the County, the Tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). We look forward to working with you and the other parties on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). We understand that things may not yet have progressed to that point, however, you should understand that you cannot just pick and choose which Tribe(s) you would like to work with so please be prepared to work will all five Tribes. Please be aware that DAHP has not received any communications or documents regarding the project since October of 2006. We are available and willing to assist you in regard to cultural resources issues so please feel free to call or email me if you have any questions or need assistance. Sandy Mackie at Perkins Coie has the agreement ready for signature that incorporates the agreement reached with the Skokomish Tribe in order to oversee the area of concern as mentioned by the Tribes we met with on-site, This agreement is a Conservation Management understanding that will protect this area . I understrood that Mr Glenn Hartman (Archeologist) had fonryarded his report as well as that of the Tribe's Archeologist, following the Subsurface Group's site investigation of the land areas for evidence of Artifacts, Mittens, Remains, or other Historical signs on the MPR Site. lf you have not received these reports I will ask Mr. Hartman to forward copies to your attention What we require is specifics as to the issues that remain to be addressed. We submitted to all of the Tribes copies of the FEIS ( November 2008), We have not received any responses from this think that you are misunderstanding what is needed. Please see below: 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. We have one survey report done by Western Shore. . DAHP has not ever seen the FEIS or has a chance to comment on it. You need a CRMP or Cultural Resource Management Plan. Do you have this as well? lt sounds like you have worked with one Tribe to come up with a plan that is acceptable to that Tribe for one area of the project. There are four other Tribes as well as the State that have an interest or concern for your project area. This agreement with the Skokomish will not satisfy the above condition. I am certainly not trying to make this difficult and would like to assist you Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Ph:360-586-3088 Cell:360-628-2755 From : Gadh Mann [mailto : GarthM @statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Wednesday, March t7,20L0 9:28 PM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP); David W. Johnson Cc: glenn@crcwa.com; RMackie@perkinscoie.com; VMorrisCS@aol.com; Scott Bender Subject: RE: BoCC Conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resort Please scrolldown report. We did receive a concern as mentioned on November 2009 asking that we accommodate the proposed SMP....which we have done. We would be interested to receive specific requests for information that has yet to be addressed in our many reports. Please advise. Sincerely, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Ph:360-586-3088 Cell:360-628-2755 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A 98346 fanuary 5, 2015 Pleasant Harbor DSEIS c/o fefferson County DCD 62L Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: dwiohnson@co.iefferson.waus Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's (PGST) Natural Resources Department provides the following comments. Due to the potential for significant adverse effects to shellfish, fish, and wildlife we continue to oppose this project and request a meeting to discuss the issues in more detail. The proposed project is located within the Usual and Accustomed area of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. Tribal members depend on the fish, shellfish and wildlife resources within the project area for their cultural and economic well being. We are concerned that habitat loss and degradation from the proposed project would impact salmon, shellfish and other important species in the area. The Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their deltas serve as critical habitat for threatened salmon and other fish, shellfish and wildlife populations valued by the Tribe. Therefore, we are concerned that the proposed project would jeopardize the Tribe's treaty rights to fish and hunt in the project area. As we have stated previously in our 2001,,2006 and2007 comments on this project, we are concerned with the size and scope of the proposed development. The increase in traffic and intensity of land use will have significant impacts on resources and the DSEIS fails to adequately address these concerns. Water Resources The project site includes a susceptible aquifer recharge area and the potential impacts to Iocal groundwater, stream flows and wetland geology are very significant. Ongoing monitoring of water runoffand its affects on sensitive resources is needed during the construction and operation phases, in addition to an adaptive management plan for making any necessary operational changes. The proposed management plan should require weekly rather than monthly monitoring and should include monitoring for saltwater intrusion. Under the current plan, steps are identified in the event that saltwater intrusion is detected in neighboring wells, but no preventative measures are provided. A more comprehensive monitoring plan is needed to protect water resources. E nv iro nm entally S en sitiv e Area s In a December 2t,2001joint SEPA comment letter from Point No Point Treaty Council, famestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish tribes, we highlighted the presence of numerous sensitive environmental features that would be degraded by resort development including unique kettle ponds and streams. In addition, the Washington Dept. of Natural Resources landslide hazard zone maps depict steep, unstable slopes fringing the Black Point PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 kettle ponds. The proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 20,700 square feet of wetland area and a portion of the wetland buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. The proposal to create wetland area as a mitigation measure does not guarantee the successful replacement and maintenance of this important habitat. Annual monitoring of wetland creation areas is not sufficient for detecting any adaptive management that may be required. Fish and Wildlife Habitat The forested uplands to the northwest of Black Point represent an important elk migration corridor between the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. The proposed development would result in the loss of existing upland wildlife habitat and although the areas of on-site habitat would be retained, we are concerned about the impacts to the elk migration corridor The SDEIS did not address this issue. The plan includes the monitoring of water quality from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor to identify any impacts on fish species. However, additional monitoring stations both on and off site and more preventative measures are needed to adequately protect water quality and existing fish species. We are concerned that once degradation occurs from the project, impacts to spawning and refugia habitat will be irreversible. The plan does not provide any assurance that water quality issues would be adequately resolved. Shellfish Species Tribal members harvest between 1-3,000 and 21,,000 pounds of manila clam and between 13,000 and 48,000 pounds of Pacific oyster from the Duckabush alone. So we are highly concerned about the potential impacts to this important resource. The DSEIS states that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shellfish would be anticipated. However, the analysis does not consider the increased risk of spills and accidents that would occur with the increase in vessel traffic both on land and in the water. Although the SDEIS describes plans for stormwater to be managed appropriately, the increased risk of discharges from contaminants, turbid waters or sediment as a result of construction and operations must be considered. Given the short timeframe for review of the DSEIS and appendices, this letter represents only a summary of our most critical concerns about the proposed project. We request the opportunity to consult more directly with the project applicant and Jefferson County staff to discuss our concerns in more detail. Please contact me at romac@pEst,nsu,u5 to schedule a meeting. Thank you Sincerely, Roma Call Environmental Coordinator Phone: (360)297-4792 2Fax: (360J 297-4791 PORT GAITIBLE S'KLALIAI}I TRIBE 31!]12 l,ittle Boston Road NE . Kingston, l,\A 98346 Date: March 11,2016 f efferson County Plannitrg Contmissiott 621 Sheridan Street, Port Torvnsend, WA 983(rB Ettra i I ; PIa nConr nr @co.ic'ffers^o n.wa.u.s David Wayne fohnson Pleasant llarbor FSETS c/o lefferson County DCI) 621 Sherirlarr Street, Port'fowttsend, WA 98368 I rtt a i I : d lv j o h n so n (n c rr.i e ll'e rs-o n. wa, u s Re: llleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Dear Plarrning Comnrission Mernbers atttl Mr. f ohnson, Thanh you lor the opportunity f<rr thc Port Canrble S'Klallam'l'ribal Histr:ric Preservatiolr 0ffice tt review ancl conrureut on the pt'ogtosed Pleilsalrt l"larbor Marina arrd Colf Resort l,[,(: Master Plaltned Resort. Tlre proprlstcl Pleasant Ilarhor Marittrt artd GulI Resort I"LC Master Plantred Rcsort is located within the Port Ganrlller S'Klalliinr Tribe's Adjutlicatccl [Jsual arrrl Accustometl Arrra and Tratlitional and [-listoric Ust Area. Tlris proposed rrndertakiug is located irr an area of high cultural and historic significauce tbr the Port Gamble S'Klallanr Tritre. lt is also located itr an area of high prohability for cncountering cultural rtlsolrrccs accorcling to tlre Washington Dcpartrnent oI Archeology ancl I-listot'ic PreservaIion (DAlll'jJ WISAARD rlatabase. Basecl on prc,linrinary revierv oilocation ol'tlre propo>-cd unde rtakirrg tlre Tribe is concernerl tlrat the llroject proposal to use Kt,ttle P<rntJs B and C for storing st(,rnlwirter anrl treated was^te,water coulcl restrlt in siguil'icaltt danr;tges tu'l'raditional Cultur;al Properties (TCPs) that nre€'t nrultipk, fe.tltrral criteria tltat rencler tltetn eligible for itrclusiorr on the Natirrnal Registcr of Historic Places, Criterion B Associatiorr with tlrc l.ives o[Perserns Significant iI our Past: Tlris area specifically the freshwater within the ;:roposetl project are$, have direct association with spiritual errtities knowu to the S'l(lallam Trihe, Criterion C. Representativu rlI a Siguilicant and Disl"inguislrahle [intity Whose Conrponerrts Ma.y l,ar:k ln<liviclr.ral [)istinction: Aroas withirt thc gtt'oposed prulect area lravei unicpre ecological conditions tlrat re.sult in supporting specific lliota tlrat suppnrted historic S'l(lallarrr gal"huring that has contirtuccl intcl tlte ttvetttie tlt centurY within living nremr;r'y o[ Port Catuble S'KlaIIanr 'l'ribal Inetrtbers. (3601 2tl7-!646 Kingstnn (tt0t } 831.99?l Toll Free (360) 297-7097 Fhx Criterion D. History of Yielding or Potential to Yield Information Important in Prehistory or History: Based on the high density of Native American Place names that include traditional camp sites and the proximity of the proposed project to two lraditional S'Klallam historic and contemporary fisheries and shellfish harvest areas at the Duckabush and Dosewallips River the area has a high probability to yield valual:le information to S'Klallam, and hroader patterns of Native American history and use of the Hood Canal watershed. The Tribe believes that the uniqueness ofthe geologic features and oral historical accounts relating spiritual entities linked to the land, the traditional plants harvested generationally by S'Klallam people from the past and within living memory, as well as multiple campsites and Native American place names know in the area, all directly contribute to unique cultura I signi fican ce of the area that would be impacted by significant modification of the physical environment. The Port Canrhle S'Klallam Tribe requests to have a ffaditional cultural property evaluation of the kettle ponds and wetland area to deternrine their eligibility to the National register and evaluate the impacts the proposed undertal<ings will have on the cu]tural integrity of the area and their eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, !*uoo$,QrTA Laura L. Price Tribal H istoric Preservation 0 ffi cer Cultural Resources Department Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 360297-6358 Iives@pgst.nsn.us CC: Roma Call Environmental Program Manager, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe fosh Wisniewski, Ph.D Anthropologist, Port Gamble S'KIallam Tribe I PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 December 16,2015 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street, Port Tolvnsend, WA 98368 Email : PlanComm@co jefferson.wa.us David Wayne Johnson Pleasant Flarbor FSEIS c/o Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: dwiohnson@co.iefferson.rva.us Subject: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Decembcr 2015, Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Dear Plamiing Commission Members and Mr. Johnson, With regard to the Decenrber 9 Notice of Availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental impact Statement (FSEIS) and Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort, I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST). While we appreciate the February 18, 2015 nreeting, the tribal consultation process is not yet finished. We understood that Jefferson County DCD lvould work with PGST staffto address the concems raised at the meeting and in our comments. However, PGST staff were not consulted after the February meeting and were not given any notification of the FSEIS prior to its release. In view of the incomplete consultation process, and as stated in our January 5,2015 letter, we continue to oppose this project. We request a 60-day extension of the process in order to allow time to complete the Tlibe's consnltation. The Port Gamble S'Klallanr Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, l2 Stat. 933.r Today the Tribe retains deep cultural and economic ties to the surrounding waters and to their fisheries in its usual and accustomed grounds and stations (U&A). More than a century of federal court decisions have fleshed out the components of the treaty right, including the right of access to places, the right to a share of harvest to meet tribal moderate living needs, and the right to protection of fish habitat in all areas of the Tribe's U&A. The proposed Pleasant Harbor project is located within the Tribe's U&A, in an area where tribal members depend on fish, shellfish and wildlife. We are concerned that the proposed project would jeopardize the Tribe's treaty right to fish and hunt in the project area. As stated in our previous contments in 2001, 2006,2007 and 2015 regarding this project and at the February meeting, we are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from increased traffic, intensity of land use, and environmental effects. The proposed project would I United Stales v. l{ashington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Botdt tl). a I PORT GAMBTE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 be located in an aquifer recharge area and the potential water quality and water quntity impacts to local groundwater, streams and wetlands are significant. We are concerned about the potential for significant adverse effects to fish habitat and the Tribe's fisheries as a result of these impacts. Additionally, numerous environmentally sensitive features are located within the project area, including unique kettle ponds. We are concemed about the potential adverse effects to these habitats from the proposed stormwater management system. An elk herd forages within the forested uplands to the northwest of the project between the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. We are concerned about the development of highly attractive elk and deer forage from the proposed project lawns and fairways and the risk that the ells will cross the highway to get to the food. Couple that with the projected increase of >4,000 vehicle trips per day on the highway and it poses a significant risk to the viability of the elk herd. We are also concerned about the possible increase in recreational shellfish harvesting fronr project residents, which would have the potential to impact shellfish habitat and the Tribe's harvest. Tribal menrbers harvest between 13,000 and 2l ,000 pounds of manila clam and betr,veen 13,000 and 48,000 pounds of Pacific oyster from the Duckabush alone. These issues were not satisfactorily addressed in the FSEIS. Although the document covers potential environmental effects to some extent, we are concerned that it does not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treaty rights. In order to adequately address the Tribe's concerns, we are requesting a 60-day period to work with Jeffbrson County staff as needed to complete the tribal consultation process. We would appreciate your consideration and timely response. Thank you.*ffi/L tdo*v(,,,,,uun Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 2 I PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 37972Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 March 15,2016 Jefferson County Planning Commiss ion 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email : PlanComm@co jefferson.wa.us David Wayne Johnson Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: dwjohnson@co jefferson.wa.us Subject: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, December 2015, Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Johnson, On behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST), the following comments are provided with regard to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort (l\PR). We request that Jefferson County continue to work with PGST staff to implement the actions described below. These actions are intended to serve as mitigation for the potentially significant effects of the proposed project on cultural resources and the Tribe's treaty rights and are also consistent with the conditions required under Ordinance No. 0 1 -0 128-08. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.1 Today the Tribe retains deep cultural and economic ties to the surounding waters and to their fisheries in its usual and accustomed grounds and stations (U&A). More than a cenfliry of federal court decisions have fleshed out the components of the treaty right, including the right of access to places, the right to a share of harvest to meet tribal moderate living needs, and the right to protection of fish habitat. Maintaining access to the entire terrestrial and marine landscape that was used by tribal ancestors is also of critical cultural importance, and helps to define the Tribe's identity. The proposed Pleasant Harbor project is located within the Tribe's U&A, in an area where tribal members depend on fish, shellfish and wildlife. In 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, listing 30 special conditions to be required for development approval under the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a Master Plan Resort within afl area zoned Rural Residential. "Consultation with the Tribes regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource," is included as a requirement in the list of conditions for development approval. The BOCC ordinance also requires a document to be executed or recorded with the County Auditor, reflecting the developer's written ' United States v. Washington. 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldt II). , PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A 98346 understanding with and among the local tribes, as well as other entities, in order to maintain site integrity and to assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities. The BOCC ordinance also requires the applicant to develop a wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local tribes. The other special conditions for development approval focus on additional measures for environmental protection and other issues also of concern to the Tribe. With the release of the FSEIS for this project, it is questionable as to whether Jefferson Count5z's Community Development Department (DCD) made a good faith effort to consult with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. In order to meet the BOCC special conditions in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, we understood that Jefferson County would work directly with PGST during the development of the FSEIS, including the supporting documents in the appendices. However, the Tribe was not consulted during the development of the FSEIS and our comments were not incorporated. The FSEIS Volume 2 Appendix O includes a Proposed Plan for Archeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol, DAHP Response to the Cultural Resource Plan and the Skokomish Tribe's Response to the CulturalResource Plan. However, this section does not go nearly far enough to resolve PGST's concerns and to mitigate project effects with regard to cultural resources and tribal treaty right impacts. The Centennial Accord (1989) and the New Millennium Agreem ent (1999)2 established a basic framework and provide the general foundation for relations between the Tribes and Washington State. The Govemment-to-Govemment Implementation Guidelines3 were developed in order to provide a consistent approach for state agencies and tribes to follow in implementing the Accord, and are applicable to local governments. In the context of the govemment-to-government consultation process, we expected the Jefferson County DCD to work with us to address the concerns raised at the February 2015 meeting and in our written comments. Yet PGST was not consulted after the February meeting and was not provided with any schedule or notification of the FSEIS prior to its release. We find the Jefferson County DCD consultation process with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe to have been both inadequate and negligent. As stated in our previous comments in 2001, 2006,2007 and 2015 regarding this project, we are concerned about the potential for adverse effects on cultural resources and treaty rights from the loss of wetlands and rare kettle ponds, increased traffic, intensity of land use for commercial and residential development, significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and grading, increased impermeable surface, use of persistent pollutants, and other proposed project effects. The MPR project would be located in an aquifer recharge area and would significantly impact kettle ponds and wetlands. The project proposes to remove 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland and associated buffers in and around the largest kettle, Kettle Pond B, for the purpose of creating a control pond for storing stormwater and treated wastewater. The Kettle Pond B wetland 2 Governor's Offrce of Indian Affairs: http://www.goia.wa.gov/govemment-to-govemment/data./agreement.htm 3 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs Implementation Guidelines: http://www.goia.wa.gov/government-to- govemment/Datalguidelines.htm 2 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 would be cleared of vegetation, filled and lined. The proposalprovides inadequate compensatory mitigation for these effects with the plan to manufacture a wetland in existing Kettle Pond C that would also serve as a stormwater runoff basin for the project. Impacts to flora and fauna in the Kettle Ponds and wetlands would likely have significantly adverse effects on both cultural and natural resources. Additionally, we are very concerned about the effects of persistent pollutants on water quality in groundwater, wetlands and streams from the proposed use of pesticides, fungicides and other chemicals in the project area, and potentially the Hood Canal, Duckabush and Dosewallips River systems during overflow events. The project would remove 55o/o of existing trees and native vegetation replacing it with impermeable surfaces and landscaping. The project also has the potential to impact wildlife, including a migrating elk herd in the project area.It would increase vehicular traffic along highway, roads and parking lots and would degrade water quality in Hood Canal through stormwater runoff, impacting the Tribe's fish and shellfish resources. The developer commissioned a study of the number ofjobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR. However, an analysis of the risks to fisheries, an existing economic base in the area for tribal members and others, was not incorporated into the study. The proposed compensatory mitigation in the FSEIS does not effectively and sufficiently offset these effects. Due to the potential for significant impacts to tribal fisheries and cultural resources we request that Jefferson County work with the developer and PGST staff to implement the following mitigation actions, and meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. A. Cultural Resourcgg Prolegtion and Stewardship Action 1: Preserve Kettle Ponds B and C and adjacent wetlands for a traditional properly evaluation and the protection ofcultural resources. Conduct a traditional cultural properfy evaluation to determine the eligibility of the kettle ponds and wetlands to the National register. Evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the cultural integrity of the area and its eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Redesign stormwater and wastewater management plans to avoid the destruction of wetlands and the alteration and use of Kettle Ponds B and C for stormwater and treated wastewater storage. Action 2: Schedule a site visit with PGST staff to view the kettle ponds and other areas of cultural significance. Action 3: Provide a biological inventory of plants, amphibians, birds and other species that are currently present in Kettle Ponds B and C and those that were likely present prior to timber harvesting and other disturbances. Action 4: Consult with PGST Cultural Resource Dept. staff to schedule site monitoring, particularly during ground disturbing activities. Action 5: Develop a Stewardship Plan that provides for the restoration of traditional plants in the project area and the opportunities for tribal access to cultural resources. According to oral tradition and knowledge, the Brinnon area, including Pleasant Harbor, holds cultural resources of great value to the Port Gamble S'Klallam people. Uncommon geological 3 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 features, such as kettle ponds, are often linked to spiritual and cultural knowledge that is passed through the generations. The area was known as an important place for gathering and processing traditional foods and materials needed to support a productive livelihood. The area was known for its abundant provisions of reeds and other thrush materials. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) has provided a separate letter describing the significance of the site as a traditional cultural property and challenging the DAHP determination, which did not involve any consultation with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's TPHO officer. The proposed action would impact the integrity of this site, which by oral accounts has cultural and spiritual significance and contributes to regional Native American history. Based on historic Native American place names, camping locations, and oral traditions regarding spiritual entities associated with the landscape, the site has the potential to yield more information about the unique history and use of the area by the S'Klallam people. The site is representative of unique geology and unique plant communities and has been actively used within living memory for traditional plant gathering and cultural practices. We have great concern with the continued diminution of cultural resources linking the Tribe's ancestral ties to the land and water. To see its natural resources, such as the rare kettle ponds, forever changed is deplorable to tribal members. The Tribe seeks to preserve and restore its natural landscapes in order to reserve the ability to teach its children and future generations the traditional knowledge and culture that defines it. The County should work with tribal staff to plan and implement the stewardship of these resources. B. Shelllish Resources Protection and Management Action 6: Consult with PGST Natural Resources Dept. staff to develop and implement a plan for the protection and restoration of tribal shellfish resources. This will include the following: a) Protection oftidelands adjacent to the project area, b) Shellfish seeding and enhancement on Duckabush and Dosewallips River beaches where tribal members harvest, and c) Response plans in the event of any water quality incidents or other project- related activities that would result in a downgrade of shellfish harvesting areas by the Washington State Department of Health. The Black Point Resort will be located between two public beaches (the Duckabush and the Dosewallips) which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are two of the three most important intertidal areas to Tribal harvesters based on acreage available, habitat available and existing natural manila clam and pacific oyster production. The Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands combined supply over 75Yo of tribal resource for pacific oysters from public tidelands. The increase in visitors, both temporary and permanent residents, is expected to increase the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves 4 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W498346 in Hood Canal is sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without an annual enhancement will result in a decline in the existing resource over time. In addition, both tidelands have areas of concern to the Washington Department of Health (DOH). In 2015, DOH reported that one water sampling location on Dosewallips and two locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and an additional location on each tideland were falling into Concerned status. Additional system overflows into the Duckabush or contaminated stormwater runoff from the increase in impervious areas could result in poor water quality in the rivers leading to problems with shellfish on the tidelands. A closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues would have a cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. C. Wildlife Protection and Habitat Manasement Plan Action 7: Consult with PGST/Point No Point Treaty Council wildlife biologist to develop and implement a plan for the protection of wildlife and the restoration of wildlife habitat. The purpose of the plan is to provide protective actions for wildlife, including keeping the elk herd from crossing the highway to enter the project area. The plan will also provide information regarding vegetation and habitat preservation in natural areas. We are concemed about impacts to the elk herd that forages to the West of this project area in the lower end of the Duckabush River Valley and the development of an "attractive nuisance" in the form of highly alluring elk and deer forage opportunities. The construction of lawns and fairways proposed as part of this MPR will create an "attractive nuisance" that will increase the frequency at which elk cross highway 101. Coupled with the projected increase of more than 4,000 vehicle trips per day, the "attractive nuisance" poses a significant risk to human health and the viability of the elk herd. The FSEIS Habitat Management Plan was not developed in consultation with the Tribe and does not fulfillthe wildlife safety and damage control objectives of the 2008 BOCC ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, 63.D. Although the Habitat Management Plan describes the placement of an exclusion fence to discourage elk from utilizing the site, a more comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan is required. An adequate Wildlife Management Plan must describe how the elk will be discouraged or prevented from crossing the highway. GPS and other elk monitoring records reveal that highway 101 is not a barrier to dispersal to the Duckabush elk herd. We know that the elk readily cross the highway just north of McDonald Creek and in the vicinity of Triton Head/Triton Cove. The wildlife management plan should also describe the location, size, and other specifications ofthe fence or any other deterrents constructed to reduce risks to the elk. Additionally, we need a legitimate Wildlife Management Plan that describes what actions can and will be taken in the event that the fence doesn't work-i.e. what will be done if the elk still manage to get on the property and start damaging greens and fairways. Such actions must NOT include lethal control or state- subsidized monetary compensation. 5 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A 98346 D. Water Quali8 Protection and Monitoring Plan Action 8: Contact U.S. Army Corps representatives to request a new determination of wetlands jurisdiction for the purposes of USCOE permit review. The2007 determination (FSEIS Vol. 2 Appendix J.A) expired in2012 and the document is no longer a valid determination that the wetlands in qtrestion are not Waters of the U.S. Action 9: Consult with PGST Natural Resources Dept. staff to develop and implement a plan for the protection of water quality in the project area and in waters adjacent to the project area or amend the existing Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan to include these protections. This will incorporate the following: a) Water quality monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and shellfish harvesting areas, including monitoring for pollutants, and b) An evaluation of alternatives for constructing additional swales and contours near roadways to redirect stormwater runoff away from Hood Canal, particularly in the areas of Phase I construction. Action 10: Revise project management plan to eliminate the use of persistent pollutants and replace them with substances allowed for use under the agricultural national organic program. Provide the draft revised management plan to PGST Natural Resources staff for review and comment. The urbanization of Black Point by the development of the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) will increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area. The increase in the prevalence of these pollutants will likely have a negative effect on fish and shellfish resources inhabiting Black Point and the surrounding areas, including the Dosewallips and Duckabush River Estuaries. Developing a stormwater and wastewater remediation system may reduce the effects of these pollutants. To ensure the functionality of this type of system, extensive and regular, discharge, ambient water and biota tissue monitoring will be required. Unfortunately, we are unaware of any working examples of this type of system. Our concern with regard to the construction of an urban development in this rural area is clearly illustrated by the pollution related loss of -36,000 acres ofshellfish beds throughout Puget Sound. The geochemical processes occurring at the seawater/groundwater interface form a critical transition zone, which provides essential ecological functions driven by sediment-associated biota. A reduction in the hydraulic conductivity between the wetlands located within the proposed MPR and the nearshore environment surrounding Black Point will likely affect the chemical constituents available to biota inhabiting this area. For instance, an increase in salinity could negatively affect the productivity of Pacific oysters (C. gigas). E. Unified Development Code and Development Agreement Action 11: Include the above actions in the Jefferson County Code as an amendment to the Unified Development Code. Action 12: Include the above actions as a requirement in the development agreement. 6 PORT GAMBTE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A98346 Action 13: Include the final compilation of the plans and measures described in the above actions as an appendix to the FSEIS. Although FSEIS covers potential environmental effects to some extent, we are concemed that it does not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treaty rights and cultural resources. We look forward to working with you to address these concems. Please contact me with any questions at (360) 297-6293. Thank you. Sincerely, Roma Call Environmental Program Manager Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 7 PORT GAITIBLE S'KIJIf,Id,M TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Road N[ r Kingtston, WA 98346 Datc: March ll,2016 Ieff'erson Cuunty Plannittg Conrmissiort 62 1 Sheridan Street, Port Townserrcl, WA 98368 Ettrail : PlanConr nr@co.je[[erson.lva.us David Wayne lt"rhnson Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o f efferson County DCD 62 1 Sheridan Street, Port'l"uwtrserrd, WA 98368 Ernail : dwjoh nso n@co.je [fe rson.wa.us Re : Pleasant Haillor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Dear Planning Comrnission Mernhers and Mr. f r-rlrnson, Tlranl< you [or the opporturrity ftrr thc Port Canrble S'Klallanr Tritral Historic Preservatiolr Office to revierv and corntuent on tlte pru;rosed Pleasant l-larbor Marina and Golf Resort l,l,C Master Plarrnetl Rt,sot't. 'l'lte propost d Pleasant ll;lrbor Marina antl Golf Resort LLC Master Plannecl Rc'surt is locatetl within the Port Canrble S'ltlallanr Tritrer's Adjrtdicatecl [Jsual arttl Accustonretl Area ancl I'raclitional and l"[istoric Use Area. This proposed undertakiug is lcrcatccl in an area of high culturalancl historic significance I'or the Port Ganrble S'l(lallanr'l'ribe. lt is also locatcd in an area of high prohability for encountering cultural res()urccs accordirrg to the Washingtorr Depar-trnent of Ardrer-rlogy and l'listot'ic ['rctservatirtn (DAl'lPJ WISAARD database. Base.tl on prelinrinary revierv o[ location o[ llte pro;rosed urrtlertaking the Tribe is cuncemetl tlrat the project lrroposal to ust' Kettle Portds B and C fur sl.orirrg st(,nnlvater and treated wastewater coulcl restrlt in significant dantages to Traclitional Cultural Properties (1'CI's) that meet nrultiplc fetleral criteria tlrat rentlcr thern eligible lor irrr:lusion on the National Re'gistcr of Historic Places. Criterion B Association with the l,ives olPet'sons Significarrt in our Past: Tlris area specifically the ft'eshwater within the proposetl project areil, have, direct associatiorr witlr spirituat errtities known to tlte S'l(lallant Tribe. Criterion C. Representativq oIa Sigrrilicant artd Distinguislrahle [irrtity Whosc Conrponents May [.ack lncliviclrral Distinction: Arcas within the prrposed project area have uniclue ecological corrrlitions that rt--sult in supporting speci[ic biota that supportetl lristoric S'Klallam gatlrering tlrat lras contirruecl itrto tlte trvetttieth century within living menrory o[ Po rt C anrble S'l(lallarn'l' ri lra I nt enthe t's. (360) 297-2ri46 Kingston (800t 831-9921 Toll Free (360) 297-7097 Fax Criterion D. History of Yielding or Potential to Yield Information Important in Prehistory or History: Based on the high density of Native American Place names that include traditional camp sites and the proximity of the proposed project to two traditional S'Klallam historic and contemporary fisheries and shellfish harvest areas at the Duckabush and Dosewallips River the area has a high probability to yield valuable information to S'Klallam, and broader patterns of Native Americar historyand use of the Hood Canal watershed. The Tribe believes that the uniqueness ofthe geologic features and oral historical accounts relating spiritual entities linked to the land, the traditional planfs harvested generationally by S'Klallam people frcm the past and within living memory, as well as rnultiple campsites and Native American place names know in the area, all directly contribute to unique cultural significance of the area that would be impacted by significant ntodification of the physical etrvironment. The Port Ganrble S'Klallam Tribe requests to have a traditional cultural property evaluation of the kettle ponds and wetland area to determine their eligibility to the National register and evaluate the impacts the proposed undertal<ings will have on the cultural integrity of the area and their eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, !*or*grWA Laura L. Price Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cer Cultural Resources Department Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 360297-6358 Iives@pgst.nsn.us CC: Roma Call Environmental Program Manager, Port Gamble S'lflallam Tribe losh Wisniewski, Ph.D Anthropologist, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe