HomeMy WebLinkAbout0641'Jefferson County Planning Commission
G P: g6o-379-445o
F: g6o-979-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368 Date:I
Opening Business
Callto Order:
RollCall:
Kevin Coker
Cynthia Koan
Gary Felder
Staff Present:
tl :43 PM Public in Attendance:
Mark Jochems
Matt Sircely
Lorna Smith
Richard Hull
Tom Brotherton
Tom Giske
_L DkPFD
lndicoteP-Present;AU-Absent&Unexcused;orAE-Absent&Excused(asnotedbyChoi);Noteonylateorrivols;Quorum=5
T 7
A." P are)Approval of Agenda:
Approval of Minutes:
Staff Updates
Speaker Name
Update
-l\ \
Yay Nay Abstained #
?L-d4Jq?*
(.q fLc e
/oLtb
Speaker Name
Update
Motions
Description of Motion
Moved
lnitials
A-
Seconded Time
lnltldls
Yay #Nay #Abstained #
PM
Page r ofa
I
It
KE?_g
a
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETING NOTES
Date:
P:960.979-4450
F:360-979-445r
plancomm@cojefferson.rra.w
b {I
6zr Sheridan St,
PortTownsend WA 98368
Page z of z
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGNOTES
Date:
?:36o179-445o
F:360-379-445r
planco-m @co j efferson.wa.us
Discussion Topic:
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Public Comment Comment Perlod Open Time PM
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Speaker Name
Closine Busi ness
Follow-up Work ltems for DCD Staff:
Comment Period Close Time PM
*j.-h\"8I,.-
Next Meeting:
Adjournment Time:
4--ac0'.t
(D (?9.j
Page 3 of z
-6tr\-
€>u..ta
[,,u,ru rt !=
'ha,
a
C (/e
C tf
4
Ft
T,"l
6
rL:
--hL,. n f>pa-t---f-- --
oI4t
o
P:360-979-44so
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Touns€nd WA 989i68
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGAGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
April6, zo16
F: g6o-979-4451
plancomm@co jefferson.wa-us
o Callto Order/Roll Call
o ApprovalofAgenda
o Staff Updates
o Commissioner Announcements
Brinnon Master Plan Resort
Twk Speoken
o PGST Letter Dated March 15, 2016 Roma Call, Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe
r Deliberations
. Recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners
Wltc;n the Chalr reqnlzayou to spml<" plcase bcgln by statlng yottr name and ddrcss.
Pha* bc owore thot the obserwr connent period is ,..
t An qtionol time peild dcdicated to li*ening to lhc public, not d question and onswer
serrion. The Planning Commisslon is not tequlrcd to provlde response;
ii Offered at the Choir's disqetion when there is time;
iii Not o publk heoring - commcnts mode durlng this time wlll noi be port of ony heoring recud;
iv Moy be structurd with o three-minute per pcrsoa time limit.
o Surnmary of today's meeting
o Follow-up action items
o Agenda ltems for April 20th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
o Thank you for comlng and participating ln your government at work!
o
o
JEFFERSOT{ COI'NTY
DEPARTiIENT OF COIIiIUN ITY DEVELOPTf,ENT
621 Sheridan SEeet I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: wum.co.iefrerson.wa.us/communi@veloprnent
Tel:360.379.'t450 | Fax 360,379.4451 | EmiL dcd@.o.iefferson.wa.uso
o
BuiHnS Pemtts & Inqpec{ions I Oe;vehpmnl &nssfency Ravian I Long Range Planning I Squam One Resurw Oenter
NOTE TO Fl[E - March 29, 2016
RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR Phase ll -Staff Response to Port Gamble 9Klallam Tribe (PGST) letter dated
March 15, 2016 (attachment #1)
Staff and the Planning Commission received the attached letter, and for the record, staff is providing this
response as a way to address the issues contained in the letter. This Note to File will be provided to the
Planning Comrnission prior to its public meeting of April 6, 2016.
As part of the Phase I approval for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to designated property for a
future MPR, the Board of County Commissioners imposed 30 conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 01-
G'0128-08). Staff made clear, and the applicant agreed that meeting the conditions prior to signing the
development agreement, was the responsibility of the applicant. Also, the concerns of the PGST stated
in their letter dated March 15, 2016 related to Cultural and Natural Resources, concerns that were
thoroughly analyzed in the SEIS as required by SEPA.
Consultation wlth the PGST: The following actions were taken by the Applicant and Staff to meet the
above state and local requirements, including any requirement to consult with tribes:
1. The Consultant who drafted the Cultural Resources Management Plan sent letters to all six local
tribes including the PGST requesting consultation on identifying cultural resources on-sile
(attachment #2). The Skokomish Tribe was the only one to respond.
2. On May 7L,2012, the applicant sent the PGST the Cultural Resources Management Plan dated
March 27,2OL2 (attachment #3). The PCSTdid not respond to this requestto review andlor
comment on the plan.
3. ln order to facilitate coordination and consultat'ron with the Tribes, staff elicited the assistance
of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation who sent Staff a letter dated
January 74,2Ot3 (aftachment #4) confirming that "three tribes had concurred with the plan and
three others did not comment."
4. On November !9,2074, Staff released the draft SEIS for public and agency comment. The PGST
was sent the notice of availability on November 18, 2014.
5. Staff received a comment letter on the Draft SEIS from the PGST on January 5, 2015 (attachment
#5 - date stamp of 2O14 in error). The letter requested "the opportunity to consult more
directly with the project applicant and Jefferson County." As such, staff contacted the Tribal
representative Roma Calland scheduled a meeting on-site.
6. On February 18. 2015, Staff and the Project Manager, Craig Peck met with representatives of the
PGST to discuss their concerns. As we recal!, the topic of cultural resources and the Kettles was
not discussed, but water qualiry shellfish and elk were. At the conclusion of the meeting, Tribal
Representative Roma Call asked if the Tribe could submit a request to the County to include
additional monitoring for water quality. Staff agreed to review any request submitted by the
Tribe, and indicated there would be time for them to submit their request.o
7. DCD does not provide notice to interested parties that the Final SEIS is about to be released and
SEPA does not require that such notice of impending FinalSElS publication be provided.
8. On December 9,2075 the final SEIS was released ten months after the meeting with the PGST,
sufficient time for PGST to submit their request. The release of the final SEIS included a four
page response to the PGST',s comments on the Draft SEIS (attachment S5)
9. On December 16,7OL5, staff received a letter (attachment #7) regarding a 60 day request to
"complete the Tribe's consultation." The lefter also confirms that, "although the document
(FSEIS) 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 treatv rights."
10. On January 22,2016, The Planning Commission and staff agreed to grant the PGST 60 days to
"complete the tribal consultation process," as requested (attachment #8).
11. On March 15,2OL6, the PGST submitted the subject letter (attachment #1) requesting that
'Jefferson County work with the developer and the PGST to implement the following mitigation
actions, and meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 01-0128{8" (the 30 conditions of
approval). From the perspective of DCD, the March 15, 2016 letter formally concluded the
consultation process between the PGST and Jefferson County which began on February 18,
2015.
Conclusions:
Based upon the attached correspondence, DCD concludes the consultation process between PGST and
Jefferson County began on February 18, 2015 and was completed on March 15, 2016 with submission of
the subject letter (attachment #1). The task now is to "continue to work with the developer and PGST
staff to determine which oroposed actions items warrant implementation.
Although the PGST acknowledges that the FSEIS "covers potential environmental effects to some
extent," it is clear that the PGST believes the SEPA analysis and proposed mitigation, while presumed to
be compliant wath State law, does not meet the environmental protection standards the Tribe asserts
are necessary to protect tribal treaty rights.
OrCiFance No. 01-0128-08
The following conditions of approval under Ord No. relate to the PGST:
j) Tribes should be consuhed regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a
cultural resource.
Staff Comment: The word "should" indicates that discretion is allowed, while the word 'shall" is
mandatory (JCC 17.05.040 Port Ludlow MPR Code).
Aoplicant Complianc.e: The applicant collaborated with the Skokomish Tribe in preparation of the
Cultural Resource Management Plan (attachment #3) and letters requesting consultation were sent to
the PGST and other local Tribes praor to drafting the plan. Kettle C will be preserved as part of the
proposal.
k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of anv shoreline oermit or aporoval of
anv prelirninary olat. there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting
the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and
the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources
management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject
property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures
2lPage
o
o
o
o regardang future ground-disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and
activities, and to provide for community education opportunities.
Staff Comment: Since the Maritime Village was relocated outside the Marina, and no new development
will take place within Shoreline jurisdiction, no shoreline permits are likely to be required or applied for.
Also, the applicant could process the development zones and residential areas with a Boundary Line
Adjustrnent instead of a Plat, unless there would be a sale or lease of new parcels. However, the intent
of this condition is to ensure that cultural resources are protected.
Applicant Comoliance: The Cultural Resource Management Plan (attachment #3) is intended to comply
with this condition, however, it does not appear to contain provisions for notification of Tribes to assure
traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, or to provide for community education
opportunities.
Staff Recommendation: revise the Cultural Resource Management Plan in consultation with the PGST to
include provisions for notification of Tribes of ground disturbing activities, to assure traditional tribal
access to cultural properties and activitiet to provide for community education opportunities, and to
ensure that contact information is current. This revised Plan would be reconded with the Auditor and
referenced as a requirement in the Development Agreement.
l! A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest
in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and localtribes, to prevent diminishment of
tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.g., deer, ellg cougar, waterfowl, osprey,
eagles, and bear), to reduce the potentialforvehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 101, to reduce the
conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources,
to reduce the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to
humans.
Staff Comment: Staff agrees with the PGST that the wildlife rnanagement plan and the Habitat
Management Plan are not the same thing.
Applicant Compliance: The applicant has not complied with this condition and will need to consult with
the local Tribes and the Department of Fish & Wildlife when drafting the plan.
Staff Recommendation: This plan shall be required pr'ror to land disturbing activity for Phase 18
SEPA
ln addition, proposed JCC 17.80.050 Environmental review for Resort Plan development requires
additional environmental review for all project level applications which requires cornpletion of a SEPA
checklist, notice to Tribes, among othert and a SEPA determination. Should the determinat'ron require
more environmental study such as a Supptemental ElS, the Tribes will have the opportunity to be
involved in the scoping of that enyironmenta! study.
Staff Recommendations:
Beyond the recommendations above, staff recommends the following to satisfo the concerns of the
PGST and others:
The applicant may adopt any or all of the following options and the County m.ay only require
implementation of such options or mitigations as are necessary to comply with one or more of the 3O
conditions listed in Ordinance #01{128-08 at Finding #63. Applicant's options include:
1. Redesigning the stormwater and wastewater management systems to completely avoid the use
of Kettles B & C or in the alternative;
a
o
3lPage
2. lmplement and complete Actions 2 thru 5 of the subject letter, to include educational
opportunities related to the uniqueness of these geologic features.
3. lmplement and Complete Action steps 8, 9 & 10 of the subject letter.
4. lmplementand Complete a combination of 1& 3 above or2 & 3 above.
5. Meet with the representatives of PGST and arrive at a different set of mutually agreeable
mitigations that address the concerns the PGST expressed in the March 15, 2016 letter.
6. Reduce the number of residential units proposed to zl45 - half of the 890 approved units under
Phase L and Ordinance #01-0128-08.
7. Take no action in response to the March 15, 2016 sent to DCD by the PGST.
Jefferson County recognizes the PGST as a specific party of interest, and as such will be notified of all
project level development applications that require notice, including any SEPAThreshold Determination
as outlined in proposed JCC 17.80.05O. Jefferson County cannot grant the PGST any special provisions
under the development regulations that are not granted to other parties, nor can it codify requirements
before determining what those requirements are.
Associate Planner
4lPage
b
o
o
o
Attachment #1
o March 15,2016
Jefferson County Planning Commission
621 Sheridan Steet
PortTownsend WA 98368
Email: P lanComm@co jefferson.wa.us
o
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98345 .. ., r -rl -\
__r..1 ii;.1 , ,
,. ii.,i : .
.i 1 .'-
tthR 15 2rt6
David Wayme Johnson
Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o Jefferson Cor:nty DCD
62I Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
Email: dwi ohnson@.co.i efferson.wa.us
Subject Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
December 2015, Case No's: MLA08{0188, ZON08-00056
Dear Planning CommissionMembers and Mr. Johnson,
On behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST), the following commen8 are provided
with regard to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Intent to
Amend the Unified Developmeut Code for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC
Master Planned Resort (MPR). We request that Jefferson Couuty continue to work with PGST
staffto implement the actions described below. These actions are intended to serve as
mitigation for the potentially siguificant effects of the proposed project on cultural resourccs
and the Tribe's treaty rights and are also consistent witl the conditions required under
Ordinance No- 01-012848.
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.r Today the Tribe retains deep
cultural and economic ties to the surrounding waters aad to their fisheries in its usual and
accustomed grounds and stations (U&A). More than a century of federal court decisions have
fleshed out thc 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 terrestial and marine landscape that was used by
tribal ancestors is also of crifical 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.
ln 2008, the Jefferson County Board of Couuty Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance
No. 0l-0128-08, listing 30 special conditions to be required for development approval under
the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a Mastcr Plan Resort within an area zoned
Rural Residential. "Conzultation with the Tribes regarding cultural resources, and possibly
one kettle preserved as a cultural resourcg" 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 writtenoI tJnited Stotes v. Washington,45g F. Supp. 1020, lO39 (W.D- Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldt II).
.- ,: _,
.--ji'.t !.r'
,' r ' i rlr ". :ll
. .;-lilr3- r.:\'.!rir -
!. i'.'
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98345
understanding with and among the local tribes, as well as other entities, in order to maintain
site integdty 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 nonlethal srategies in the public interest in consultation with the Deparknent of Fish and
Wildlife and local tribes. The other special conditions for development approval focus on
additional meiasures for environmental protection and other issues also of concern to the
Tribe.
With the release of the FSEIS for this projec! it is questionable as to whether JefGrson
County's Community Development Deparhent (DCD) made a good faith effort to consult
with tbe 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. HoweveE the Tribe was not consulted during the development of the FSEIS and
our commerts were not incorporated. The FSEIS Volume 2 Appendix O includes a Proposed
Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol, DAHP Response to
the Cultural Resource Plan and the Skokomish Tribe's Response to the Cultural Resource
Plan. However, this section does not go nearly far enougb to resolve PGST's concenu and to
mitigate project effects with regard to cultural resources and tribal treaty right impacts.
The Centennial Accord (1989) and the New Miltennium Agreernert (1999)2 established a
basic framework and provide the general foundation for relations between the Tribcs and
Washington State. Ihe Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelin"s' *"r"
developed in order to provide a consistent approach for state agencies and tribes to follow iu
implementing the Accord, and are applicable to local govertrments. In the context of the
govemment-to-government consultation process, we expected ttre Jefferson County DCD to
work with us to address ttre concerns raised at the February 2Al5 meeting and in our written
comments. Yet PGST was Dot consulted after the February meeting and was not provided
with any schedule or notification of the FSEIS prior to its release. We find the Jeffbrson
County DCD consultation process with the Port Gamble S'K1allam Tribe to have been both
inadequate and negli gent
As stated in ourprevious comments in 2001, 2006,2007 and 2015 regarding this project we
are concemed about the potential for adverse effects on culhral resources and treaty rights
from the loss of wetlaads and rare kettle ponds, increased traffic, intensity of land use for
commercial and residential development, significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and
grading, increased irnpermeable surface, use of persistent pollutaots, 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 Office of Indian Affairs: http:/iwww.goia.wa.gov/government-to-governrnent/data/agrcement.htrnI Govemor's Oflicc of Indian Affairs Implemcntation Guidelines: http:/A*rww.goia.wa.gov/goveruDert-0o-
governmont/,Data/guidelines.htrn
O
o
o
2
o
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98345
would be cleared of vegetation, frlled and lined. The proposal provides 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 runoffbasin for the project. Impacts to
flora and fauna in the Ketle Ponds and wetlands would likely have significantly adverse
effecs on both cultural and natural resources.
Additionally, we are very concerned about the effects ofpersistent pollutants on water quality
in groundwater, wetlands and streams from the proposed use of pesticides, fungicides and
other cbemicals 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 aad Dative 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 Qna2l 1fu'srrgh stormwater nrnofl 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 shrdy. The proposed compensatory mitigation in the FSEIS does not
effectively and zufficiently offset these effects.
Due to the potential for significant impacts to tribal fisheries and cultural resotuces we reguest
that Jefferson County work with the developer and PGST staffto implement the following
mitigation actionq and mect the requirernents of Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08.
A Cultural Resources Protection and Stewardship
Action 1: Preserve Kettle Ponds B and C and adjacent wetlands for a traditional
property evaluation and the protection of cultural nesources. Conduct a naditional
cultual propeay evaluation to determine the eligibility of the kettle ponds and
wetlands to the National register. Evaluate the impacts ofthe 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
stormwate,r and treated wastewater storage.
Action 2: Schedule a site visit with PGST staffto view the ketle ponds and other
areas of cultural significance.
Action 3: Provide a biological inventory of plants, amphibians, birds and other species
that are curreutly 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. staffto schedule site
mouitoring, panicularly during ground disturbing activities.
Action 5: Develop a Stewardship Plan that provides for the restorution 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
cultura[ resources of great value to the Port Gamble S'Klallam people. Uncommon geological
3
o
PORT GAMBLE SICALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE- Kingstory WA9834.6
features, such as kettle ponds, are often linked to spiritual and cultural knowledge that is
passed through tbe gcncrations. 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 thmsh 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 deterrrination, 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
regionalNative 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 ofunique geolory and unique plant communities
and has been actively used within living memory for traditional plant gathering and cultural
practices.
We have great conc€m with the continued diminution of cultural resources linking the Tribe's
ancestral ties to the land and water. To see its nahral resources, such as tbe rare kettle ponds,
forever changed is deplorable to tribal members. The Tribe seeks to preserve and restore its
natural laudscapes 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. Shellfish Resources Protection end Menaqement
Action 6: Consult with PGST Natural Resources Dept. staffto develop and implement
a plan for the protection and restoration oftribal 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 rezult in a downgrade of shellfish hawesting
areas by the Washington State Departrrent of Health.
The Black Point Resort will be located between two public beaches (the Duckabush and the
Dosewallips) which provide both significant courmercial and ceremouiaUsubsistence hawest
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 clarn and pacific oyster
production. The Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands combined supply over 75%o of tribal
resource for pacific oysters from public tidelauds.
The increase in visitors, both temporary and permanent residents, is expected to increase the
hawest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves
o
o
o
4
o
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
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 Departrnent 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 &om the increase in impervious areas could rezult in poor water quality in
the rivers leading to problems with shellfrsh on the tidelands. A closure of these tidelands by
DOH due to water quality iszues would have a cultural and economic impact on the Port
Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe.
C. Wildlife Prqtectqn end HabitatMauqsspel[]LElan
Action 7: Consult with PGST/Point No Point Treaty Council wildlife biologist to
develop and implernent a plan for the protection of wildlife and the restoration of
wildlife habitat. The purpose of the plan is to provide protective actions for wildtife,
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 concerned about impacts to the elk herd that forages to the West of this project area in
ttre lower end of the Duckabush River Valley and the development of ar "atlractive nuisance"
in the form ofhighly alluring elk and deer forage opportunities. The constuction 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 I 0 I . Coupled with the proj ected increase of more
than 4,000 vehicle tips per day, the "attactive nuisance" poses a significant risk to human
health and the viability of the elk herd.
The FSEIS HabitatManagement Plan was not developed in conzultation with the Tribe and
y/ aoes not fulfill the wildlife safety and damage contol objectives of the 2008 BOCC ordinance
(Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, 63.1). Although the Habitat Management Plan describes the
placement of an exclusion fence to discourage elk from utilizing the site, a more
compreheusive Wildtife Mauagement 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 l0l is not a barrier to dispersal to
the Duckabush elk herd. We how that the elk readily cross ttre 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 of the 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 managc to get on the property and start
damaging greens and fairways. Such actions must NOT include lethal control or state-
subsidized monetary compensation.
5
o
PORT GAMBLE STCALLAM TRTBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
D. WatefQuali6r and Monitorins Plan
Action 8: Contact U.S. Amry Corps representatives to request a new deterrnination of
wetlands jurisdiction for the purposes of USCOE permit review. The 2007
detennination (FSEIS Vol. 2 Appendix J.A) expired in20l2 and the document is no
longer a valid deterrnination that the wetlands in question are not Waters of the U.S.
Action 9: Consult with PGST Nahral Resources Dept. staffto develop and implement
a plan for the protection of water qualrty 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 altematives for constructing additional swales and
contours near roadways to redirect stormwater nrnoffaway frorn Hood
Canal, particularly in the areas ofPhasc I constnrcfion.
Action l0: Revise project management plan to eliminate tle use of persistent
pollutants and replace them with su$5tqnges allowed for use under the agricultural
national organic program. Provide the draft revised management plan to PGST Natural
Resources stafffor rwiew 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 errerging 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 surounding areas, including the Dosewallips and Duckabush River
Esttraries.
Developing a stormwater and wastewater remediation system may reduce the effects of these
pollutants. To ensure the fimctionality of this type of systern, 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 constuction of
an urban development in this rural area is clearly illustrated by the pollution related loss of
-36,000 acres of shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound.
The geochemical processes occurring at the seawater/groundwater interface form a critical
transition zoue, which provides essential ecological firnctions driven by sediment-associated
biota. A reduction in the hydraulic conductivity between the wetlands located within the
proposed MPR and the nearshore enviro:rment 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. Unifred Development Code and Development Agreement
Action ll: 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 dcvelopment agreement.
a
o
6
o
PORT GAMBTE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Liltle Boston Rd. NE - Kingstory W A 9834.6
Action 13: Include the final compilation ofthe plans and measures described in the
above actions as an appendix to the FSEIS.
Although FSEIS covers potential environmental effects to some exteDt, we are concerned 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.
Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Roma C,all
Environmental Program Manager
Port Gamble S'Klalla:n Tribe
t
7
o
PORT GAMBTE S'I{I.ALIIUTT TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Road NE r Kingston, WA 98346
il ',i
!.
o
o
Da(c: March 11,2016
lefferson Counly Plann ing Conrnrissirrrr
62l Sheridan Street.
Prrtl Townsend, WA 98368
Erna il : Pla nCotrr nr@co.je fferson.wa.rrs
David Wayne tohn.son
Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o fefferson Ctrunty DCD
621 Sheridan Street.
P<trt Towrrsend, WA 98368
E nra i I : drvjoh tr so rr @co.ieffers rrn.rn,a. u s
HAR t 5 et1$
... -.'. '' ;; : i . 11lir.i *.i'{i'
l,J
Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort
Dear Planning Conurrission Meluber-s and Mr. lohnson,
Thank yotr for the opporlunity for the Porl Canrble S'Klallanr Tribal Historic Preservation
Office trl ret,iew and crrtutuent (rn tlre pluposctl Plea.sant l{arbor [,larin:r and Golf Resort l,LC
Master Planned Resort.
Based on prelinrinary ret,ievv of location of Lhe. proposed rrnderhking the Tribe is concerncd
that the project proposal to use Kettle Porrds B and C for -strrring stornlwater and treated
wastewater could rc.sult irr sigrrificant danrages to Traditional Cultural Properties ('l'CP-s)
tliat meet rnultiple fcderal criteriir that rentler thern eligible for iuclusirlrr on the Natiortal
Register of Hi.strlric Places.
Criterion B Association with the Livt's of Percons Significant in our Past: Ttris area
specifically the fre-shrvater within the proposed project area. have direcl. association with
spiritual entities known to the 5'Klallam Trihe.
Criterion C. Representative of a Sigrrifimnt and Distirrguislrable Entity Wlto.se Conrponents
May Lack Irrdividual l)istinctiorr: Arcas rvithin tlre grro;rosetl ;rroir.ct area have urrique
ecological corrtlitions that re-sult irr supporting slrecific biota thal, supprrrted his^toric
S'Klallarn B,atherirtg that has corrtinut'd irrto the twerrtieth century witlrin living menrory of
Port Gamble S'Klallanr Tribal rnenrber-s.
(360t 2$7-2646
Kingston
(800t 831-9921
Ioll Free
(360) 297-7097
Fax
a
The proposerl Pleasanl. l{arbor Marina and Golf Re-sort LLC Master Plannr-'d Resort is located
within the Port Gamhk: S'Klallant Trilrc's Adjudicated Usual and Accustornetl Area and
Traditional and Histor-ic U-se Area. This propo.sed undertaking is located in an area of hiiih
cultural and historic significance for the Porl. Garnble S'Ktallarn Tribe. tt is also located in an
area of hig,lt probatrility for errcounterirrg cultural resourccs accorcling to the Waslrington
Departnrent of Arclreokrgy and Historit'Preservation [DAl'lP) WISAARD database.
a Criterion D. History of Yielding or Potential to Yield lnformation Important in Prehistory or
Hlstory: Based on the high density of Native Arnerican Place names that include tradiUonal
camp sites and the proximity of the proposed proJectto two traditional S'Klallam historic
and contemporary fisheries and shellHsh harvest areas at the [luckabush and Dosewallips
River the area has a high probabltityto yield valuable information to S'Klallam, and broader
patterns of Native American history and use of the Hood Canal watershed.
The Tribe bdieves that tbe uniqueness of the geologic features and oral histortcal accounts
relatingspiritud entities Iinked to the land the traditional plants harvested generationally
by SKlallam people from the pastand within living memory, as well as multiple campsites
and Native American place names krrow in the area, all dtrectly contribute to unlque
cultural significance of the area that would be impacted by signlficant modilicadon of the
physical environment.
The Fort Gamble S'I0allam Tribe requests to have a traditional cultural property evduation
of the ketde ponds and we0and area to determine their eligibililr to the National register
and erraluate the impacts the proposed undertakings will have on the cultural integrity of
the area and thelr ellgibility to be listed on the National Reglster of Historic Places.
Sincerely,
*urrrd,.QtrAolaura L. Price
Tribal Historic Preservation Ofhcer
Cultural Resources Department
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
360297-5358
lives@pgstn-m.us
cc:
Roma Call
Environmental Program Manager, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
loshWsntewski, Ph.D.
Anthropologis$ Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe
o
Attachment #2
CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR TANUC OTSZ. TNWION
June23,2006
Marie Hebert
Port Gamble StKlalla.m Tribe
31912 UtrleBostnn Road lrIE
Kingston, WA 98346
Re Cultural Resouree Reconnalssahce for the Pl"asrnt'Ea$or Marina and
County.
DeSink. HehErt,
rwoonaissaocc iletcrminc a hig[ pnobability fu intact buricd cirlnllal
bc rcaoinnrcottcd. Rcsutts of ,thc rirconoaissaioce will be prcscntd rn a prcpaed
would
sltorla
apprcciate
Sincercly,
look forwad to heafing from you.
Camille A. Matlpr
Ardrmlogist
A.8
t
I
I
t
(wSlIS) has
intoa 10,(nO
the complex.
unils ac golf mursc aiea.
impacts of
Icsources.
WSHS is in theppccss
and
ald
will includc a visual
bc
I
T
I
il
I
:l
il
I
rl
t
t
T
b
,l'
I
I
l'
I
,I
D
l',,
I
I
l,
.l
I
I
?
I
CONTIDeilffrut- NOT FAR PABUC DISTRIBWION
Resort.
RdercnceCited
Elmendorfl W. lY. 9qd A. L. Kroebcr
L992 ilhe Str rcanre oJ.Twana Cv!fir e ; With C.o mpodw e
Washington Statc Univcnity Prcsi; ftrllman, WA.
l: : i
l
A-9
I
Attachment #3
308913 U5 Hwy lOl, Brinnon,WA 98320
l3@t79646r r (8OO) 547-3479
Fox (866) 848-f612
PITRSRNT HARBoR
--- *iAQt!,JA Ai.'r; (jotr n; aulir ---.-a
)May 1t,2Al2
Josh WisniewskiPh.D
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
3L9L2 Little Boston Rd NE
Kingston, WA 98346
Dear Mr.Wisniewski,
I'm writing to update you on progress of the Pleasant Flarbor Marina and Golf Resort
project near BrinnorL Washington (Jefferson County). We are currently submitting the
final reports for the SEIS to Jefferson County DCD.
ln order to protect known and unknown archaeological and cultural resources , and to
comply with Jefferson County Ordinance 0l-0128-08 condition 63 (k) as well as state
laws goveming the protection of those resources (RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44). We are
submitting for your review our cultural resources management plan that includes
monitoring and inadvertent discovery processes and procedures
Please review and submit any comments in writing by June L5 2012. Please contact me
by phone (206) 714-1482 or e-mail don@pleasantharbormarina.com if you have any
questions. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards
Don Coleman
Pleasant Harbor Marina
o
I of I
o
Ik
a
Appendix O
Proposed Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent
Discovery Protocol
DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan
Skokomish Tribe Response to Gultural Resources Plan
o
o
t
Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring
and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol
C
o
o
AUTHoR:
Derr:
I-ocenon:
T,&S:
Cultural Resource Consultants, lnc.
Pnorosnn Pr,en FoR ARcgAEor,ocrcet" MoxrToRrNc
eNn lNeovsntpnt Drccowny Pnorocor"
ARcrrAEoIrcIcAL MoNrroRtttc er Plu.serr Ilennon lltltmil
Jrrrcnson Courrv, WTSHINGToN
Glcnn D. Hartnarrn
January 12,2012" rwised Fcbruary7,2012, March 27,2:012
Jeflft rson Couoty, Washington
Township 25 North, Range 2 West, Section 15 and 22, Wiltamcue
Meridian.
'o
PRspenEDron:Don Colesran
Pleasant Hubor Marina
308913 Hwy 101
Brirmon, WA 98320
Pleasant Harbor Marina is requcstiug periodic archaeological monitoring of construction
excavations ard other bclow-fill ground:distrrbing activitics in Briruroq Jcffcrson County,
Washingtor:- The Pleasaut Harbor Master Planncd Resort is proposed on approximately 257
acres of ths ?I0-acrc Black Point Peninsula along thc western side of the Hood Caoal. The
pcoinsula is surroundcd on the north, south, and cast by the watcrs of Hood C;anal. Plcasant
Harbor is formed by the wcst sho,re of Black Poiot and the east shore of the rnainlend.
Background
Prior archaeological ficld investigations oft$e project area did uot result in the identification of
any prehistoric or historic archacological resourccs (Mather et al. 20O6; Berger 2008).
Subsurface investigations focused on archaeologically sensitive landforms; that is, lhosc
environments most likely to contain naturally buried archasology ideotified in collaboration with
cultural resources staffof the Skokomish Tribe (c.g., kettles, vantage poiots, the blulf cdge)-
Higb probability areas in Black Point wherc buricd archaeological deposits might occur (i.c.,
kade margins and bases) were sampled using hand-excavated shovel probes. [,ocations of all
probes, shovel scrapes, and wall profilcs were mapped on a small-scale project apa topographic
rnap (see Matherct a[.2006: Figurc l6). Iu all,93 shovelprobeVscrapes were cxcavated during
the 2006 field invcstigations with 27 probes aloug thc southem bluff, 12 probcs oo high points,
22 pmbcs in kettle basins and 32 probes along the kcttle margins and rims. In addition wall
profiles were faced in order to assexss the local stratigraphy.
Subsequeot to thc initial culhral resource ssses$nelt for the projcct Berger (2008) conducted
archacological mooitoring during geotccbnical assessment. Archacologicat monitoring of
geotcchnical explorations did not result in the identification ofauy cvidence ofarchaeological
sita, historic structures, or other features. Conditions and sedimcnts observcd dr.ring this
iloEiro(sExAvaltrE NE SurE too
PO Box 10668, B^!.|BRDaE tsullD. \t A 931 t0
Plto{E206tiJ-9O20 - inf@crc*r.como
episode of archacological monitoring suggestcd a low probability for as-yct uridentified
archaeological sitcs.
Arclaeologlcel Monft orlng
Archacologcal monitoring will include an orieotation for the constructioo crcw and machine
operators prior to initiating construction. Project pcrsonncl would bc madc aware ofthe
potcntials of arcbacology within the proje€( arca. They will be appriscd of their responsibilitics
during archaeological monitoring, their obligations in thc case of an i:oadvertcot discovery aud
they will be made aware oftbe inadvertent discovery plan and protocol.
Periodic archacological monitoring is planned during constructiqr excavadous and other belop
fill grounddistr.ubingprojectactions to minimize pot€ntial effecb to auy as-yet uohown human
remains and/or intact archaeological deposits. Monitoring would occur at thosc locations within
the project arpa that havc previously bee-n idcntified as high probability-kcrdes, vantage points,
the bluffedge-if sediments b thcse landforms will bc affectcd by ground{istubing
construction. Presentlyavailable plans indicate that construction would not occur along thc bluff
edge.
Pmject maps wcre reviewed and high probability locations were identified usiug the earlier
analyaes of thc projecl area (Mather ct al. 2005; Bcrger 2008), which had tested aud rnonitored
geotecbnical cxplorations in thcse locations (Figre l). Those areas with greater archacological
potentials were mapped on topographicmaps of tbc project area (Figures 2 and 3)- Monitoriug is
plauned for the high probability areas urtil it cau be dctermined with greater assurancc that
continual rpnitoring is not aec.cssary. Monitoring resulB would bc reviewed with DAHP staff
and uibal represeDtatives prior to adjirsting the monitoring schedule.
Ar,chaeological monitoring would entail having an archaeologist present during coostruction
excavation below-fill to observe subsurface coditions and identify any buried archaeological
marcrials that may bc eocountered. Monitoring will bc perforured either by a 'lrofcssional
archacologist" (RCW 27.53.030 (8)) or uoder thc supcrvision of a professional archaeologist.
Thc rnonitoring archacologist would stand in closc proximicy tio construction equipmcnt in order
to vierr subsurfaqc deposits as they arc exposed, and would bc in close commuaication with
cguipmcrrt operators 10 ensure adeguate opporhrnity for observation aud documcntation.
Archaeological moaitoring will scek to idatiry potential buricd surfaces, anthropogenic
scdiments, and archaeological features such as shclt middens, hearths, or anifacGbcaring strata.
The monitoring archaeotogist will inspect project cxcavations and the recovered sedimcnts for
indications ofsuch archaeological rcsourccs. The archaeologistwill be provided the opportunity
to screerl excavatcd scdiments and matrix samplcs when this is judged usefirl to tbe identificatiou
process. It is not expected that modern fill (e.g., imported culturally-sterile construction fill) or
glacial till sediments would be includcd in scrccuing procedures. Excavated spoils rnay be
cxamined in the course of monitoring. If cultural malerials are obacrved in spoils pilcs, it is
expcctcd lhat thesc would bc rcnroved for cxamination and that thc opportuuiry to screen spoil
sedimeuls would be available.
CRC Proposed Plan for Arctraeologlcal Monitoring arrd lnadvertent Dlscovery Protocol
1'l lll- Pleasant Harbd Madna. Jefferson County, WA
Page 2
a
o
o
o
o
Archaeological rnonitoring of constuctioo cxcavation will proceed uutil it can bc dcterrrincd
with a greater [evel of confidence that human remains or othcr cultural rosources arc not tikcly eo
bc impactcd by constnrction cxcavation of the project. The archaeologist will conduct
monitoring'until native and fill deposits can be contidently isolated and idetrtified based on
observed sedimentary exposures. Upon complction of the monitoring, the archaeologist will
prepare a r€port on the rne&ods aud rcsults of the work, and recommendations for anynecessary
additional archaeological iovestigations, illushated with maps, drawings, and pbotographs as
approgriatc.
Contingency Plan
ln accordancc with RCW 27.44Indixn Graves and Rccords Ac( RCW 27-53 Archaeological
Sites and Resourccs, RCW 68.50 Humaa Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoncd and historic
cemctcries ard historic graves, the following protocols wiU bc followed in tbe cvent that
archaeological rnatcriats and/or hrrrnan rcrnains are discovercd:
Procedures Uoon Piscoven of Poteiti?l orAclu*l,,Cultura! Resourceq
l. Upon discovery ofa potential or actual archacological site, or cultural resourc,cs as defincd by
RCW 27.44lndiau Graves and Records Act, and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sitcs aud
Resources, Pleasant Harbor Madna, iS employees, its contractors and Sub-contractors shall:
(a) Immediately ccasc or halt ground disturting, constuctior, or otber activities around
the area of thc discovcry asd socurc the area with a pcrimeter of not less than thirty (30)
feet until all procodurcs are complcted aud the partics agrcc that activities carr resume. If
srrch a pcrimetcr would materially irrpact agcncy funotions maadatcd by law, related to
health, safety or eovironmental concerns, tber the sccued arca shall bc of a size and
extcnt practicable to provide maximum protection to thc resourcc undcr the
circurnstances. Project activitics that arc not ground disturtingrnay continue outslde the
secured perimeter arotmd the findings. No one shall otcavate any fiodings and all
findings will be left iu placq undisrurbed and without analysis, until consultation with
DAHP and the Tribc regarding a final disposition of the findings has been completed. In
accordance with RCW 27.53.Affi, no one sball knowingly removc or collect any
archaeological objccts without obtaining a pcrmit.
(b)Notify thc Local Govemmeut Archaeologist at DAHP and the Tribes of the discovery
as soon as possiblg but in aoy cvstrt, no later than (24) hor:rs of the discovery. If human
rernaim are forurd, Pleasrnt Harbor Marina shall follow notification procedrues specified
bclow (soc "Humarr Remains and Associated Funcrary Objects').
(c) Aryange for the panies to ponduct a joint vierving of thc discovcry within (48) forty-
cight hours of the notification, or at lhe earlicstpossiblc timc thcreafter, Plcasant Harbor
Marioa or their authorized representative shall arrange for the archaeotogist to attend thc
joint viewiog. After the joint vierning, taking into account any rcconrmendations of thc
Tribc(s), DAHP, and tha archaeologist, the partics sball discuss the potential sipificancc,
if auy, of the discovery.
foi Archaeologicat Molodng and lnadvtrt€nt Dlscovory Potocol
'l l 1 1 L. Easaot Hartor Madna, Jeffer:on Cornty, WA
page 3o
CRC Proposed Pbn
o
(d) Consult with the Tribes and DAIIP on thc kansfer and final dispositiorr of artifacts.
Until the Tribe has a repository ttat mcets the standards of curation cstablishcd 36 CFR
Part 79, artifacts shall be curated using an institutioD or organizafim tbat mccts curation
standards, selectcd tluough coosultation witr the Tribc.
Inadvertcnt Discovery of Humsn Skeletal Remaius on Non'Federal rndNon-Iribel Lend
i+ the stetc of washiiglog (Rcws 6&50.645.27.44-055. and 68.60.055)
2- If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skclehl remains during the course of
constructiotr, thcn all activity must ceasc that rray cause fur0rer disturbancc to thosc remains and
thc area of thc find must be secured and protected from further disrurbancc. In addition, the
finding ofhuman skelc-tal remains mustbe reported to the Jeffcrson Counry Coroner's Office and
Jefferson County Sheriff s Office in thc rnost expeditious manncr possible. Tbe rcmains should
not bc (ouched, movcd, or firthcr distubed.
3. Thc Jefferson Courry Coroner's Offrce will assurne jurisdictiou over tbo hurnan skcletal
remains and make a determinatiou of whctber those rernains arc forcnsic or non-forcnsic. If the
coungl coronerdcterrnines the rcmains are uon-forensic, thcn thcy will rcport that finding to the
Departmeot of Archaeolog and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will thcn take jurisdiction
over the remains and rcport them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected ribcs. The State
Phycical Anthropologist will make a determination of whaher thc rcmains arc Indian or Non-
lndian and report that linding to any appropriate cemeteriqs and the affected kibes. The DAHP
will thcn handle all consultation with the affected partics as to the futurc prcservation,
excavation, and disposition of the rcmains.
4. DAHP will haodlc all consultatioo with the affected parties as to thc future prcservatiotr,
cxcavatiotr, and disposition of the remains if thcre is no lirdcral agc,Ecy involvcd.
Conlidentielitv of Information
5, Pleasant Harbor Marina or their authorized rcpresentative recognizes that archaeological
properties are of a sensitive nature aud sitcs whcre cultural rcsources are discovercd can becomc
targets of varrdaliun and illegal rernoval activities. Pleasant Hartor Marina or thcir authorized
reprEsentative shall keep
"n6 ^6ntain as confidcrrtial all ioformation regarding any discovered
culurral resources, particularly the location ofknown or suspected archaeological property, and
exempt all such informatiou from public disclosure consistcnt with RCW 42.17.300.
6. Plcasant Harbor Marina or their authorized represcnlativc shall make its best cffo(s to cnsurc
that all records indicating the location of koown or suspectcd archaeological propcrties are
permanently secured and oonfi dcntial.
7. Pleasant tlarbor Marina or thcir authorized representative shall ensurs that its personnel,
contractors, aud permittces kecp the discovery of any found or suspected human remaim, othcr
cultural itcms, and poteotial historic properties confidcutial, including but not limited to,
rcfraining such persons from contacting the media or any third party or otherwisc sharing
information regarding thc discovery with any mcmber of the public. Pleasant Harbor Marioa or
CRC Propossd Phn lor Arcfraeological Moniloring and lnad\rert€nt Oiscovery Protocd
1 1111. Pleas$t HaDor Marina. Jefrerson County. WA
Page 4
o
o
a
.(D
their authorized re,prescntative slrall rcguire its pcrsonnel, contractors and pemriftees to
immediately notifr the Lead Reprcscntative ofPleasant Harbor Marina or their autlrorized
re,prescntativc of any iuquiry from the media or public. Pleasant Hartor Marina or their
authorizcd r€pre$edtative sball immediately notify DAHP of any inquiries it receivcs. Prior to
any public information rclcasc, Plcasant Harbor Mariua or thcir authorized rcprescnLative,
DAHP, and the Tribds) shall concur on the amouut of information, if any, to be released to thc
public, any &ird prty, and thc media and the proccdures for zuch a releasc, to the extcnt
permitted by law.
I-cad Rcuresentative and Primarv Contact
8. The lcad reprcsentatives and primary contacts of each partyunder this plau are as identificd
below. Tbc parties may identify other spccific persoanel before the commeDcemcnt of any
particular projcct elcnrcot as the contarcts.
Pleesent Ilarbor Marina
308913 Hwy l0I
Brirnon, WA 98320
Primary Contact Don Coleman, Maintenance and Sccurity Stryervisor, 206-714-148?.
Pleasrnt lfarbor Merine
?370 Sicrra Morroa Blvd. S.W.
Calgary, Atberta
Primary Contsct M. Garth Mann, Prcsidcnt & C.E.O, 403-256.y'-l5l
Jrrestown S'Klallem Trlbe
1033 Old BIyn }lighway
Sequrn" WA 98382
Primary CoutacL Gidcon Kauffrnan
Lower Elwba Klaltam Tribc
2851 lower Elwha Rd
Port Angeles, WA 98363
Primary Contact: Bill While, Culuual Resources
Port Gamble S'KIaIhm Tribe
31912 Lirde Bosron Rd NE
Kinpton, WA 98346
Prirnary Contact: Josh Wisnicwski Pb.D.
Skokomish Tribe
North 80 Tribal Cbnter Rd
Skokomish, WA 98584
Primary Contacu Kris Millcr, Cultural Resources
Squarin Island Tribe
CRC Proposed Phn for Ad:aoologicsl Morrto,ring and Inadvorlent Discorrery Protocd
I 1 I lL Pteasant Harbor Marlna. Jefferson County. WA
page So
SE I0 Squaxin Lane
Sbelton, WA 98584
Primary Coutact: Rhonda Foster
Suquamlsh Tribe
15838 Sandy Hook Rd
PO Box 498
Suguamish, WA 98392-0498
Primary Contact Stephanie Trudcl
Washlngton Departmeot of Archaeology end Historic Preservation
PO Box 48343
Olynpia, \VA 985M-8343
Lcad Representative: Allyson Brooks, Sute Historic Preservation Officer, 360J863066
Primary Contacc Gretchen Kachler, [,ocal Govemmcnt Archacologisq 360-586-3088
Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534
Jefferson County Coroner's Oflicc
POBox I220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Lead Represeotative: Scott W. Roselcrans, Prosccutiug Anomcy/Coroner, 360-385-9180
Jefferson County ShcrllPs office
79 Elkins Road
Port lladlock, WA 98339
Lrad Represcntati ve: Tony Hernandez, Shcri ff, 3 60-3 85-383 I
Depertmcnt of Communi$r Dcvclopmcut
621 Sheridan Strect
Port Townseod, WA 98368
Lcad Rcpresentative: David W. Johnson, 360-3794465
Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc.
710 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 100
PO Box 10668
Bainbridgc Island, WA 981l0
lrad Reprcsentativc: Glcnn Hartnann, Scnior Arcbaeologist/Principal, 206-855-9020
References Cited
Berger, Margaret
2008 Archaeological Monitoring ofGeotechnical Explorations for the Pleasant Harbor
Colf Resort, Jeffereoo County, Washinglon. Technical Memo 08MA-l , Cultural
Resource Consulunts, Bainbridge Island.
Mather, Camillc, Jerurifcr Chambers, James Scbumachsr, and Matthew Gill
CRC Proposed Plan fof Archaedoghal.Monitorlng and lnadvertent Obcove{f Proloc€d
111lL, Ple€sant Harbor Marina, Jeffecon County. WA
page 6
a
o
o
o
o
2006 Cultural Resources Asessment for the Proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina aud Golf
Resort, Jefferson County, Wasbingon. WSHS Technical Report #274.kqared.for
Statesman Corporation. On file at Culturat Resource Consullanb, Inc., Bainbridge Island.
CRC Proposed Plao fq Ardraeologlcal Monltoffrg and lnadrrErtent Discovcry ftotocol
1 l l lL, Pl6a$ant Harbor Madna. Jeffeson County, WA
page 7o
Cra irt-c
i
IIt
ii
c-
lre
1Fi*:llr
I
I
I slil.ff a
I
L
riihiat rrdrrff I
i 1*e
iI
;
, r-G.
. ri
'rd
!{,ffir t- lr].
.!lr-a t
t.rrrhari
i
*i
)t
EI
tlllt
fl{fi
*t:*.1-ld*
l
.* ..*.. \
-a.tt.t&{Pd-k.
a.1,1;q,-G a''.ii-':'
a
o
Figure l. Previous testing (Mather et al 2006) identified high probability arcas.
CRC Proposed Plan for
o
E
a
g
t
i
I
Mar{na, Jefferson
and
o o t
,l
)
trI
I . .-::-
t*./'. ''-
I lJ\'.n ifr.
,,
!.
I
.,:i,
fiuC.r,AELt5;
c'rsrE.B iqAcis
arr tItIErr***=r= rf
PTBASAI{T HARBOR T!'ARINA.& CtoLF COI'RSE
sECTrOl{S 1' & 2a TOlr't{8Hl? 25N., tAr((IB 2W. W,t!t
h{
II
Flgure 2. High probability araas identificd for monitoring (outlined in red) based on previous analyses of the projcct area (Mather ct al. 2006).
and lnadvertent Oiscovory Protocol
Ploasant Harbor Marioa, Jefferson Counly, WA
Page s
CRC Proposod Plrn
t{r
ti
.t
l'l
\\
i
a
a
-J,:l
,|,
\
.a'
t'
.:
f'
I
!
rl
t., l
tln"'
\t'..
!,
d
rl
ir
,\:
1i
'|
I
COLF&
RANOE2JN..2t'.
0
1,,-.,1_.
,l!eli
Figure 3. Areas to be monitorod (outlined in red) inctude wetlaads, kettles, and vautage points (after Mather ct al. 200Q.
I 1 1 1L Pleasant Harbor Madna, Jefieneon Colnty, WA
o e
Page'10
t
I
i'
I
:
t'
i,!
t
I
.!
!
.,.
't'.
t-
a
Attachment #4
DAHP Response to Gultural Resources Plan
t
o
OF
&
PRESERVATION
Alyson Erooks Ph.D.. Diecto(
Stote Histodc Preservolion Officer
or:.:.,, .t :.f),1 :t_a:::: titt.: ;+a
January 14,2013
Mr. David Johnson
Associate Planner
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
tn future conespondence please refer to:Log: 08110G13-JE
Property: Statesman Group Master Planned Resort in Brinnon's Black Point and Pleasant
Harbor Marina, Jefferson Co.
Re: Concur with Cultural Resource Management Plan for Archaeologlcal Monitoring and
lnadvertent Discovery
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP). We concur with the attached plan for the Statesman Group Master
Planned Resort. Three Tribes have concurred with the plan and three others did not comment.
We have no other comments or concems as long as the attached monitoring and inadvertent
discovery plan is implemented during ground disturbing activities for the above project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Ptease feel free to contact me it y6u
have any questions.
Sincerely,
-il^n;*A
Gretchen Kaehler
Assistant State Archaeologist
(360) 586-3088
qretchen. kaehler@dahp.wa.qov
cc. Gideon Kaufftnan, Archaeologist, Jamestown S'Klatlam
BillWhite, Archaeologist, Lower Eh,trha Klallam Tribe
Josh Wisnieweksi, THPO, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Kris Miller, THPO, Skokomish Tribe
Rhonda Foster, THPO, Squaxin lsland Tribe
Dennis Lewarch, THPO, Suquamish Tribe
Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina
I
t
o
Stole of Woshington . Deporlmenl ol Archqeology & Hlstork Preservolion
P.O. 8ox 48343 . Olympio, Woshington 98504€343 ' (360) 58&30&5
www.dohp-wo.gov
e
Skokomish Tribe Response to Gultural
Resources Plan
o
o
j.j
N. 80 Tribal Center Road
Skokomish Indian Tribe
Tribal Center (360) 4264232
FAX (360) 877-s943 Skokomish Nation, WA 98584
January 14,2013
Mr. David Johnson
Associate Planner
Jefferson County
621 Shcridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Proposed Plan For Archaeological Monitoring And Inadvertent Discovery Protocol For
Pleasant Harbor Marina, Jefferson County, Washington.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for contacting the Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation OIIice. We concur with the
attached plan for the Statesman Group Master Planned Resort.
Skokomish Tribe is requesting a schedule of ground disturbing activities so that they (tribes THPO)
rnay have the option to be on site during ground disturbance. We have discussed in the past the
importance of this site to the Skokomish people.
We have no other comments or conc€ms as long as the attached monitoring and inadvertent
discovery plan is implemented during ground disturbing activitics for the above project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kris Miller
Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cer
Skokomish Tribe
(360)4264232 x20t5
Shlanay I @skokomish.org
I
a
ru fi
Attachment #5
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALI.AM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
Letter 3
a
R.lDCnI\ryD
I
Jfffr$$ll:[8x]tY Dt[
Dear Mr. [ohnson"
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental lrnpact
S6tement for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The Port Garnble S'Klallam
Trlbe's TPGSD Natural Resources Departmentprovides the following commeots- Due to the
potential for sigrrificant adverse effects to shellfish, fish, and wildlife we continue to oppose this
proiectand request a meeting to discuss the issues in more detrail.
The proposed proJect is located within the Usual and Accustomed area of the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe. Tribal mernbers 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 frorn the proposed projectwould impact salmon, shellfish and otler irnportant
species in the area Ttle Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their delas serve as critical
habitat for threatened salmon and other fuh, shellfish and wililife populations valued by the
Tribe. Therefore, we are concerned that the proposed project would jeopardize the Trlbe's
treaty rithts to fish and hunt in the Proiect area
As we have stated previously in our 2001. 2006 and 2007 comments on this projed we are
concerned with the size and scope of the proposed developmenl The increase in Eaflic and
intensity of tand use will have significant impacts on resources and the DSEIS fails to adequately
address these concerns.
Water Resources
The proiect site includes a susceptible aquifer recharge area and the potential impacts to local
groundwater, stream flows and wetland geologyare very significanL Ongoing monitoring of
water runoffand its affects on sensltive resources is needed during the construction aod
operation phases. in addition to an adaptive management plan for maklng any necessary
operaflonal changes. The proposed rnanagement plan should require weekly ratherthan
monthly monitoring and should include monitoring for saltwater intrusion. Under the current.
plan, steps are identified in the event that sartwater intrusion is.detected.in neighboring wells,
but no preventative measures are provided. A more comprehensive monitoring plan is needed
to protect water resources.
Env iron me nto I lY Sen sitiv e A re as
2
o
3
5
4
o
In a December ?\,Z00ljoint SEPA comment letter from Point No Point Treaty Council,
Iamestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish ribes, we highlighted the presence
of numerous sensitive environrnental features that would be degraded by resort development
including unique kettle ponds and streams. In addition, the lVashington DepL of Natural
Resources landslide hazard zone maps depict steepr unstable slopes fringing the Black Point
€
fanuary5,2015
Pleasant Harbor DSEIS c/o Iefferson County DCD
521 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
Email: dwjohnson@co.iefferson.waq-s
JAr{ 0 5 mfi
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
31912 Uttle Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 983,{15
kettle ponds The proposed proiect would result in the loss of approximately 20,700 square feet
of wedand area and a portion of the wetland buffers associated witlr Wetlands C and D. The
proposal to create wetland area as a mitigation measure does not guarantee the successful
replacement and maintenance o[this important habitaU Annual monitoring of wetland creation
areas is not sufficient for detecting any adaptive management that rnay be required.
Fbh and Wildlile Habttat
The forested uplands to the northwest of Black Point represent an important elk migration
corridor between tle Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. The proposed development
would result in the loss of existing upland wildlife habitat and alt}ough the areas of on-site
habitat would be retained, we are concerned about the impacts to &e elk migration corridor.
The SDEIS did not address t}is issue.
The plan includes the rnonltoring of water quality from the state water quality sampling station
at Pleasant Harbor to identi$ any impacts on fisb species. However, additional rnonitoring
stations both on and offsite and more preventative measures are needed to adequately protect
water quality and existing fish species. We are concerned that once degradatlon occurs from the
project, impacts to spawning and refugia habitat will be irreversible. The plan does not provlde
any assuran'ce that water quality rssues.would be adequately resolved.
Shellfish Species
Trlbal members harvest b€t\,veen L3,000 and 21,000 pounds of manila clam and between 13,000
and 4&000 pounds of Pacific oyster from t}e Duckabush alone. So we are highly concerned
about the potentlal impacts to this imporant resource The DSEIS states that with
implernentation of identified mltigation 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 tirneframe for review of the DSEIS and appendices, this letter represents only a
summary of our most critical corcerns about the proposed projecr We request the opportunity
to consult more directly with the project applicant and lefferson Cqunty staffto discuss our
concerns in rnore detail. Please contact me at romac@ngslnsn.us to schedule a rneeting.
Ttank you.
5 cont.
6
7
8
9
I
o
Sincerely,
414fu
Roma Call
Environmental Coordinator
Phone: (360)2974792 Fax: (360) 297-4797 2 o
e
o
Attachment #6
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
(Letter # 3)
Comment 1
Thank you for your comments, your comments are noted. As per this request, a meeting with
the port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and Jefferson County Department of Community Development
was held on February 18t',2015-
Comment 2
The project is proposing several minimization measures to limit potential impacts to fish and
wildlife in the Point Black area. Although only a 150-foot buffer from the Ordinary High Water
(OHW) is required according to the Jefferson County Code, the project is proposing a 200-foot
buffer within the golf course area and is replanting existing degraded riparian areas within the
shoretine buffer and will limit access to the shoreline in the area of the golf course. !n addition,
the projec.t is leaving wildlife corridors (areas of undisturbed vegetation) throughout the golf
course area. These corridors will lead to more than 200 acres of relatively undisturbed
vegetation on and off site in addition to the existing and created wetland features. For more
information on fish and wildlife minimization measures, see the Habitat Management Plan
Report (SEIS Appendix H). The site is also being designed so there will be no di*harges of
runoff into Hood Canal; all water will be collected, treated and reused-
nt3
Comment acknowledged. Traffic issues, including Traffic Volumes and Level of Service were
evatuated in Section 3.9 flransportation) and Appendix L of the Draft SEIS. This anatysis
resulted in the conclusion that no significant impacts would result from the Alternatives, with the
imptementation of appropriate rnitigation measures. See this section of the Final SEIS for further
details.
Changes in intensity of land use were evaluated in Secfion 3.f2 (Rural Character and
population) of the Draft SEIS. As stated in Sect'on 3.72,hhe Pleasant Harbor resort under the
development alternatives would increase the density of development, and establish residential
units, vacation units, and commercial and resort related recreational amenities on the site.
Activity levels (i.e. noise, traffic, etc. associated with new activity) on the site would increase as
a result of development under to the increase in density and associated on-site population
(residents and employees) and short-term visitors. This analysis resulted in the mnclusion that
no signlficant impacts would result from the Altematives, with the implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures. See this section of the Final SEIS for further details.
tn addition, based on comments received on the Draft SEIS and other factors, an additional
development altemative (Alternative 3) has been added for analysis in this Final SEIS-
Altemative 3 proposes a smaller thole gotf murse with associated pufting green practice area,
as compared to the full l8-hole gotf course assumed under Altematives 1 and 2. With the
smaller gotf murse, less clearing of vegetation would occur on the site, and more natural area
would be preserved- For example, approximately 103 acres (45 percent of the site) would be in
natural area under Altemative 3, compared to approximately 31 acres (13 percent of the site)
under Atternative 1, and 80 acres (35 percent of the site) under Alternative 2.o
Comment Let'ters and
Exhtbit
Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS
December 2015 9
Comment4
Please see Key Topic 4-2, Saltwater lntrusion, in Ghapter 4 ol this Final SEIS for a discussion
on aquifer recharge and potentialfor aquifer impact.
Water runoff during construction would be managed onsite in accordance with all applicable
Federal, State and County regulations, as described in Drafi SEIS Secfion 3.2 (pages 3.2-16
and3.2-171, and in the Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Peck & Associates, May 16,
2012) included in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. Either the owner or the contractor would
employ a Certifled Erosion/Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) who would be onsite during
construction to monitor compliance with applicable regulations and permit conditions, and to
direct the implementation of contingencies if needed during storm events. The majority of
stormwater runoff would be detained and infiltrated onsite.
Cornment 5
As part of the permit requirements of the projest, twice as much wetland will be created as
would be impacted; approimately 41,400 sq. ft. of wetland would be created to mitigate for
impacts to approximately 20,693 sq. ft. of wetland- The created wetland would be monitored for
five or more years to ensure that wetland conditions have been established- lf the site is not
successful, conective measures would be taken to ensure that approximately 41,40O sq. ft. of
wefland is established. The project will not resuh'in the Ioss of buffers associated with Wetlands
C or D; buffer averaging would be utilized as allowed for in the Jefferson County Code- Wetland
C and D buffers would be reduced in some areas and Wetland C and D buffers would be
increased in some areas so there is no net loss of wetland buffer habitat- See the Wefland and
Wefland Buffer Mitigation Plan Report for more information (SEIS Appendix J). Annual
monitoring is typical of mitigation sites; however, if the site is not deemed successful after five
years of monitoring, the Washington State Department of Emlogy would likely not release the
site from monitoring requirements until the site is successful.
Alternatives 1 and 2 analyzed in the Draft SEIS were developed to address the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 conditions,
including Conditions 63 (h) and 63 (i) that relate lo evaluating potential impacts to the keftle
features on the site, as reported in Draft SEIS Secfion 3.2 (Water Resources, page 3.2-18).
Also see the Response to Letter 4, Comment 1, below. Alterations to wetlands on the site would
require permits and approvals from Ecology and Jefferson County, which would include
conditions for wetland creation and adaptive management during the period of establishment
ln regards to slope stability of the kettle pond on the site, the project geotechnical consultant
inspected the side slopes of the large central kettle feature on the site (Kettle B), and reported
"No clear evidence of landslides or smaller debris flows were obserued along the margins of the
kettle margins or on the steeper s/opes in the upland pottions of the project sife" (Subsurface
Group, LLC, December 17,2008; Section 7.1-4). With construction to convert this kettle to a
retention pond for stormwater and for Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment process,
the existing 1.5H:1V side slopes would be flattened to create finished retention pond slopes of
3H:1V to 4H:1V, depending on the liner system selected for the project (Subsurface Group,
LLC, December 17,2008; Section 11.5.1). The Final Geotechnical lnvestigation report is
included in Drafl SEIS Appendix E.
t
o
o
Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS
Decernber 2015
Comment Letlers and
1A Exhibit 1
Comment 6
O The project is proposing several minimization measures to limit potential impacts to fish and
wildtife in the Point Black area. The project is leaving wildlife mnidors (areas of undisturbed
vegetation) throughout the gotf course area. These conidors will lead to more than 200 acres of
retatively undisturbed vegetation on and off site in addition to the existing and created wetland
features. ln addition, a fence will go up along the project boundary to limit elk access to the site.
Also, according to the project engineer, cattle guards or sirnilar device would be installed at the
entries to further limit the potential of elk coming onto the property- For more information on tish
and wildlife minimization rneasures, see the Habitat Management Plan Report (SEIS Appendix
H).
Comment 7
The Draft SEIS Secffon 3.2lttlater Resources, page 3.2-8) reports that the project applicant
has complied with BoCC Ordinance No. 01{12&08 Condition 63 (r), having prepared a draft
Water Quality Monitoring Plan (included in Appendix F of the Draft SEIS) that requires monthly
water collec{ion and testing at three sites for offsite pollution, discharge, and/or oontaminant
toading in Pleasant Harbor. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort proposes to participate in
a program to monitor the potential impact of developments, both private and public, to the water
quality of Pleasant Harbor. Performance standards would meet Washington Department of
Ecology requirements per WAC 173-201N The project proposes to coordinate with the
Jefferson County Water Quality Department, the Washington State Department of+Heahh, the
Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Gmup, and the University of Washingtoll..to verify
acceptable standards for Pleasant Harbor. The proposed monitoring schedule provides for
- quarterly pre-construction monitoring, monthty monitoring during first and second year
V construction, quarterly monitoring thereafter in years 3 and 4, with monitoring frequency in year
5 to be determined. Results would be submitted in reports to the Jefferson County Water Quality
Department. The Plan commits to notifying the Department immediately of any unacceptable
results. In the event that unacceptable test results are found, the Plan states that all property
owners surrounding Pleasant Harbor shall be considered partners and act to identify as closely
as possible the source and cause- Adaptive management principles in the draft Water Quality
Monitoring Plan provide for modifying the plan to add or remove sampling sites, modify the
monitoring schedule, update or improve sampling techniques based on new technology, and/or
revise parameters to reflect dranges in environmental concems. The draft Water Quality
Monitoring Plan is included in Draft SEIS in Appendix F. The methodotogy and quality
assurance guidelines would be established and submitted to the Jefferson County Water Quality
Deparhnent for approval after the requirements and criteria for this program were approved.
Stormwater management systems associated with Highway 101 and Black Point Road would be
upgraded during widening and improvements proposed at tl"re entrance to the Resort (see Draft
SEIS Figure 2-9). Water quality treatment measures would be installed upstream of discharges
from these roadways and from the proposed Marina Village to the unnamed stream that flows
through this area of the site. Pervious pavement materials may also be used in the bus furn-
around area and Maritime Village parking lot to treat and infiltrate stormwater that falls on these
surfaces. These rneasures are intended to comply with applicable requirements and improve
water quality discharges to Pleasant Harbor over existing conditions.
o
Pieasant Harbor Finat SE S
December 2015 11
and
bfiibit
Comment 8
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and implemented as
required under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater
regulations for construction sites. Construction techniques will utilize Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to minimize potential impacts to species. ln addition, the contractor will
prepare a construction Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for the
project accorcling to Washingion State Department of Transportation guidance. Any potential
spills would be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate the sunounding
area. Adequate materials and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or
accidentalreleases of materials will be available on site. This will include materials necessary to
isolate pollutants from the environment and contain and absorb spills- The SPCC Plan will also
ensure the proper management of oil, gasoline and solvents used in the operation and
maintenance of construction equipment, and that equipment remain free of extemal petroleum-
based products prior to entering the work area and during the work, as well as for rnaking any
necessary repairs prior to retuming the equipment to operation in the work area. The SPCC
PIan will be consistent with 40 CFR 112.3 as well as the State of Washington Oil Spil!
Contingenry Plan (WAC 173-182\- Work would be in compliance with other local, state and
federal regulations and restrictions, local critical areas ordinance and land use reguhtions,
Shoreline Master Plan, State Environmental Policy Act, and 401 Water Quality Certification.
The altematives evaluated in this SEIS would not directly increase vessel traffic in Pleasant
Harbor: however, all operations associated with the existing marina would be required to adhere
to all applicable regulations related to rarater quality and vessel safety. As indicated in section
3.9 of this Final SEIS, no significant traffic safety issues are anticipated under the SEIS
attematives- Traffic v<ilumes under the EIS altematives would result in Levels of Service within
acceptable limits, and would not be anticipated to result in an increase in vehicle accident rates.
Co 9
WAC 197-11455(6) (SEPA Rules) indicates that the comment period for a Draft EIS shall be 3O
days unless extended by the lead agency- WAC 197-11-455(7) indicates that the lead agenry
may grant an extension of up to 15 days. Consistent with SEPA rules, Jefferson County
provided a 45{ay comment period on the Draft SEIS (30-day requirement plus l$.day
extension), the maximum length of comment period allowed in the SEPA Rules. ln addition, as
noted in the above response to Comment 1 of this lefter, the opportunity to consult more directly
with Jefferson County was given, and a meeting was held on February 18th,2015-
a
o
o
Pleasan:t Harbor Final SEJS.,,
December 2015
. ." --:-. -.;ijii:i ,-rr&--r- .,E D
12
Co m q.t e nt l:etters and Respgnsos
Exhibit 1
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346
Attachment #7
DtC 1 $ 2015
I December 16,2015
Jefferson County Planning Commission
621 Sheridan Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Email : PlanComm@o jefferson-waus
o
David Wayne Johnson
Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o Jefferson County DCD
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townrnd WA 98368
Email: dwiohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us
Subject: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
December 2015, Case No's: MLA0840188' ZON08-'00056
Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Johnson,
With regard to the December 9 Notice of Availability of the Final Supplemental
Environrnental Impact Statement GSEIS) and Notice of Planning Cornrnission Pullic
Hearing and Notice of [ntent 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 (PGSD. While we appreciate the February 18,
2015 rneeting, the tribal consultalion process is not yet finished. We understood that Jefferson
County DCD would work with PGST staffto address the concems raised at the meeting and
in our comments. However, PGST staffwere not consulted after the February meeting and
werc 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
Tribe's consultation.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes
signatory to the 1855 Treaty of PointNo Poin! I2 Stat.933.r Today the Tribc rctains 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 componenb of the reaty 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 areawhere tribal members depend on fish, shellfish and
wildlife- We arc concerned that the proposed project wouldjeopardize the Tribe's treaty right
to fish and hunt in the project area
As stated in our previous comments in 2001, 2006,20A7 and 2015 regarding this project and
at the February meeting, we are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from
increased traffic, intensiqt of land use, and environmental effects. The proposed project wouldo
t United States* Washington,45g F. Supp. I020, 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafier Boldt ll)-
:,:','i t t-.
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A98346
be located in an aquifer recharge area and the potential water quality and water quantity
impacts to local groundwater, streams and wetlands are significant. We are concerned about
the potential for significant adverse eflects to fish habitat and the Tribe's fisheries as a result
of these irnpacts. 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 elli and deer forage from the proposed project lawns and fairways andthe risk that
the elk will cross the highway to get to the fmd. Couple that with the projected increase of
>4,000 rehicle trips per day on the highway and it poses a significant risk to the viability of
the elk herd. We are also concemed about the possible increase in recreational shelLfish
hanesting from project residcntq which would have the potential to impact shellfish habitat
and the Tribe's harvest. Tribal members harvest between 13,000 and 21,000 pounds of manila
clarn and bet\,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 environrnental 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 @ncerns, we zue requesting a 60day period to work with
Jefferson County staffas needed to complete the tribal consultation process. We would
appreciate your consideration and timely response.
thank you-
a
o
ru
Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe
o
2
Attachment #8
David W. Johnson
*1T'
Subject:
Roma Call <romac@pgst.nsn.us>
Friday, January 22,2A16 5:45 PM
David W. Johnson
Cynthia Koan; David Goldsmith
Re: PGST Tribe's 60 day request
David,
We very much appreciate the Planning Commission granting more time for the tribal consultation process.
PGST staffwill be discussing the project with Tribal Council on Feb. 8. lmmediately after that meeting I will let you know
how the Council would like to proceed.
Thank you.
Roma Call
Roma Call
Port camble SrKlallarn Tribe
Environmental Coordinator
romac(Qpgst . nsn. us
cel} 350-5L6-3979
office 360-297-5293
On !2211610:54 AM, David W. Johnson wrote:
Cc
o Roma,
The Planning Commission and Staff have agreed to your 60 day request from the January 6,2076
Planning Commission Public Hearing to complete consultation started during our February 2015 meeting
at Pleasant Harbor. Please let me khow how you would like to proceed.
Thanks!
David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development
tusociate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Depa rtment of Community Development
Jefferson County
360.379.4455
Mission: To preserue ond enhance the quolity of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant
economy. sound communities ond o heolthy environment.
;l Save PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary
1
LEEO
AP
NtI
o
o
o
PLEASAI\T HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
Title 17
T{ASTER PLAI{I{ED RES ORTS
Title 17. Article I. Port [,Fdlow MPR
Chapters 17.0t17-50
No change
Title 17. Article II. Pleasant Ilarbor MPR (17.60-17.80)
Chapter 1260. General Provisions
17.60.010 Authoritv.
This title is adopted pursuant to Chapters 36.70 and 36.704 RCW. and Title 18 JCC.
17.60.020 Titte.
The regulations set forth in this title shall be known as the "Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Res._ort Code" or by the short title "Pleasant Harbor MPR Code." Citations to these
regulations shall be made usine the applicable JCC section nFtnb.gr.
17.60.030 Purpose and intent
The pumose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to set forth development
reeulations that complv with and are consistent with the Jefferson CounU Comprehensive Plan
for future development within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
Master Planned Resort.
17.60.(X0 Additionalreogi.rements.
Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson Countv mav supolement the requlations presented in
this Article in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Aereement entered
into between Jefferson County and Pleasant Hartor Marina and Golf ResorL LLP.
17.60.050 Applicabilitv.
The provisions of this title s!.all apply to all land. all associated water areas and all uses
and structures within the boundarv of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as depicted on
the official land use map for Jefferson Countv. Washinston.
17.60 060 Exemotions.
The following shuctures and uses shall be exempt from the regrulations of this title. but
are subject to all other applicable local. state and fbderal resulations includine. but not limited to.
the county buildine ordinance. interim critical areas ordinanqe,-the-shoreline man4ggment master
program. and the State Environmental Policv Act (SEPA).a
I
(l ) Wires. cables. conduits. vaults. pipes. mains. valves. tanks. or other similar equipment for
the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications. electricitv. eas. or water or
the collection of sewage. or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained bv a
sovernmental entity or a oublic or private utilitv or other countv franchised utilities includins
customarv meter pedestals. telsphone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utilitv
facilities reouired drrine building construction. whether any such faciliw is located undergteun4
or above-ground; but only when such facilities are located in a street rieht-of-way or in an
easement. This exemption shall not include above-qround electrical substations. sewage pumo
stations or treatncent olants. or ootable water storage tanks or facilities. which shall require
conditional use approval in any zone where perrritted:(2) Underground utility equipment. mailboxes. bus shelters. informational kiosks. public
bicycle shelters. or similar structure or device which is found bv the director of communitv
development to be appropriatelv located in the public interest:(3) Minor construction activities. as defined by the IBC. Section 106.2 and structures exempt
underChapter 15.05 JCC. as amended:(4) Storrnwater detention facilities associated with and accessorv to new developmsnt are
permitted in all zones. Any above-ground detention facility or pond shall be screened frorn the
public right-of-way or appropriatelv landscaoed to ensure comoatibjlity with the surroundins
area.(5\ Developrnent consistent with a Bindine Site Plan approved bv the Countv prior to
adoption of this chapter.
17.60.110 Preexistine uses and structures.
Existing legal residential and non residential land uses and strucnrres in all zones ofthe
Master Planned Resort are lawful uses and may be continued in a mannsr consist€nt with state
law. Titles 15 and 18 of the Jefferson Countv Code and anv other applicable rezulations or
Ordinances.
17.60.120 Provisions bindins on the land.
The provisions of tbis section shall apply to an]r subsequent owners. lessees. tenants or
others with an interest in the oronerty subject to the master olanned resort (gr any portion or
parcel thereofl. including but not limited to successors in interest. holders of anlr recorded
interest recorded subseouent to the MPR anproval,.gommunity associations. facilitv providers
and special service districts operatine within the MPR area.
17.60.130 Enforcement
The enforcementprovisions codified in Chapter 18.50 Enforcement of Title 18 of the
Jefferson County Code as curently enacted or as hereafter amended shall applv to any alleqed
violation of Title 17. Article II, more commonly known as the "Pleasant HarborMPR Code."
Chanter 17.65. Golf Resort (MPR-GR)
17.65.010 PurpoEe=
The MPR-GR zone nrovides residential and recreational facilities. as well as cornmercial
amenities and services associated with the resort and surroundine cornmuniW. It provides the
cenfral resort and copference facilities.
-2-
o
o
o
o
o
17.65.020 Permitted Uses.(l) Residential uses includins sinele-familv and multifamily structules. q-ondominiums.
townhouses. apartne,nts. lofts. villas. time-share and fractionally owned accommodations of all
kinds.
(2) Short+erm visitor accommodations. constituting not less than 65% of the toal residential
units authorized by Ordinance #01{128-08. including. but not limited to hotels- motels. lodges.
and au_y residential uses allowed under zubsection I of this section that is made available for
short-term reirtal.(3) Visitor oriented arnenities. including. but not limited to (a) confersnce and meetine
facilities: (b) restaurants. cafes. delicatessens. pubs. taverns and qnte_rtainment associate with
such uses: (c) on-site retail services and businesses tvpically found in destination resorts and
desimed to serve the convenience needs of users and employees of masterplanned resort: and
(.d) recreation business and facilities:
(4) Cultural and educational facilities of all kinds including. but not limited to. art salleries.
and indoor or outdoorlheaters:(fl Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities. includine but not limited to golf
courses (includins accessory stmctues and facilities. such as clubhouses. practice facilities. and
maintenance facilities). tennis courts. swimmine pools. spa sewices. hikine trails. bicvcle paths.
ropes courses. amphitheater. and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master
planned resort:(6) Waste water tre{@qnJ faqili.ties. including treatr_rent olants. capture. storase and
transmission facilities to serve a reuse/reclrcle program for on-site treament and use/reuse of
waste water apd stormwater:(n hrblic water supolv and related facilities:
(8) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC I 8.1 0. 160:(9) Utiliti,es suppp-{ting the resort:(10) Emereencv services (fire. nolice. EMSL
(ll) Medical services: and(12) Other. similat.r$es consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as 4etqrmind bv the
Departnent of Community Developryqt"
17.65.030 Heieht restrictions.
No buildines within the MPR-GR zone shall be erected- enlareed or structurally modified
to exceed 80 feet in heieht as measued by IBC standards. Under8round or imHded parkine
shall not be included in any heigftt calculations.
17.65.040 Bulk and densitv reouirements.
There are no yard or setback provisions intemal to the MPR-GR zone. All stnrctures
shall be set back at least 20 feet from Master Planned Resort boundan lines and adiacent MPR
zones. Minimum buildine setback from State Route 101 is 50 feel
Chapter 17.70. Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR )
o
17.70.010 Purpose
-3-
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to orovide a natural buffer between the resort
activities and the waten of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zones shall extend landward 200 feet
from OMHW of Hood Canal as measured under the Shoreline Manaeement Act (Chapter 90.58
RCW) or 25 feet from the top of .the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC. whichever is
qreater.
17.70.020 Permifted uses.
The followine uses are nennitted in the MPROSR zone:(1.) Restoration of existing development intusions (roads. campsites) to theit natual pre-
development state: and(2) Passive recreation_tlst does not reduce the forest canopy. increase stormwater discharge
or blufferosion.
(3) Those uses consistent with the Shoreline Master Proerdm JCC I E ?5
Chanter l7.75...Marine Villeee MPR-MV)
17.75.010 Purpose
The MPR-MV zone provides mixed use amenities and services associated with the
marina portion of the resort and Surroundinq communitv. and nrovides the central supoort to the
marina operations.
17.75.020 Permitted uses-
The followine uses are pemritted ip the MPR-lvfV:(l) Marina and overwater stuctures as approvod through the Jefferson Couuty Shoreline
Master Proeram and associated regrulations Chapter 18.25 JCC:(2) Residential uses includine single-famil), and multifamilv structures. condominipms. time-
share and fractionally owned accommodations of all kinds:(3) Marina Villaee relatgd upland mixed use. commercial and service facilities. including
open parkine lots. restaurants and shops. as well as marine service facilities. marina office. yacht
club and recreation facilities servins the resort and the Marina:(.4) Accessory uses and structures. zuch as garases. carports. storage buildines and similar
structures zupporting marina and maritime village uses. fuel sereice and parking:
(5) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities. including but not limited to
tennis courts. swimming pools. rnarinas- hikine trails. bicycle paths. ropes courses. game center
and other recreational uses consistent with the nahrre of master planned resort.:(6) Utilities supportine Og resort:(A Infrastructure and buildings. both above and below eround. for the utilities:
(8) Emereency services (fire. police. EMS):(.9) Public facilities. and services selying the MPR-MV zone:(10) Medical services: and(10) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the this zone and MPR as determined by
the Departrnent of Communi(v Development.
o
e
17.75.030 Ileieht restrictions.
-4
a
o
o
o
No buildings within the MPR-MV zone shall be erected. enlarged or sh.uctuallv
modified to exceed 35 feet in heieht as measured by IBC standards. U.ndermound or imbedded
parking shall not be included in anv heiqht calculations.
17.75.M0 Bulk and densitv requirements.
There are no yand or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. All new
structures located within shoreline jurisdiction shall complv with the setback requirements of the
County's Shoreline-MAster Etoerdm as codified at Ch. 18.27 JCC
Chapter 17.E0. Pleasgnt Harbor Resort Development
17.80.010 Resort development.
This section describes the "Resort Plan" for facilities to be located in the resort MPR sets
out a required environmental review process for anv future resort developmenl and provides
processes for reviewine major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan. These provisions applv to
all resort and associated developncspt:vithin the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
17.8Q.920.. Developmentcap.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 890 residential units
provided. howevq. short term visitor accornmodation units shall constitute not less than tlnn 65
oercent of the total units. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a developmant cap of
70.000 square feet of resort commercial. retail. restaurant and cqrJference space. not including
lobbies and internal open space.
17.80.030 Resqft Plan
The Resort Plan for future dcveloprnent of properties in the Pleasant Harbor MPR means
the regulations. requirements. densities and uses established in the Development Agre€xnent
between the Countv and Pleasant Haftor Marim apd Golf Resort LLP dated il and approved bv
Ordinance No. [] and as reviewed includes up to 890 re$!_dential units. aporoximately 70.000
square feet of commercial space. as well as infrastruchrre necessarv to service the development.
17.t0.M0 Permitprocesqfor.resortdevelonment.
(1) A nroiect-level supplerrental environrne,ntal impact staterrent (.SEIS) anallzing
development under the Resort Plan is required prior to issuarce of buildine permits for aoy new
resort development. The applicant may choose to develop a new envirorunental impact
statement rather than a zuoplement.(2) Notice of application for environmental review of the Resort Plan shall be provided to all
pcrsons oraeercies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use procedues of JCC Title 18.
(3) Actual buildinq perpit olans or construction drawings are not required durine the SEIS
orocess. Architectural drawines includine a detailed site plan. and architectural skerches or
drawings showine approximate elevation.s-.-sections. and floor plans are reouired. howwer. to
ensure that the SEIS considers project-level details.(4) The department of communilv development malr impose mitieating conditions or issue a
denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the e,nvircilnental revieur and usins authodty
-5-
provided pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. Chapter 43.21C RCW. Article X of
Chapter 18.40 JCC shall be applicable to the permit process for resort development.
(5) Followine completion of the SEIS buildins permits mav be iszued- following approoriate
plan review. for proiects analwed in the SEIS.(6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases. but only following completion
of review and approval of a fulIresort buildout plan throueh the SEIS process. A phasing
schedule may be proposed as part of the environrnental review or may be developed at a later
date.
17.80.050 Environmenj,al review for Resort Plan development.(1) All project level applications will be eiven an automatic SEPA thrcshold Determination
gf Simificance except where the SEPA-responsible official determines that the application
results in only minor construction. A EIS or SEIS is uot required if existing environmental
documents adequately address environme,ntal conditions-as set forth in RCW 43.21C.034.(2) The scope of an SEIS prepatgd under this section shall address environmental issues
identified in the Proerammatic FEIS issued Novemb€r 2007- toeether with such additional
requirements as a proiect specific aoplication rnay raise- The scope shall not chanse the
standards of approval. however- as set forth in the development aereement and these
deve]opm ent re gulations.(3) The utilitv element of any subsequent phase environmental review pertaining to the
Pleasant Harbor MPR shall review inforrnation on all affected utility systems. including sewer
and water systems and the results of reouired monitoring. The effectiveness of such monitoring
shall be evaluated. Supplements or chanees_.lo the monitorine and reportine svsterns shall be
considered if necess?{v to ensure that water qualitv and water supply are adeolrately protected
and impacts to natural resources minirnized.(4) Anvpreliminary scope for future develonmeil within the Pleasant Harbor MPR is based
on the described Resort Plan. Other elements. issues. and specific levels of detail may be
included based on infomration available at the time the Resort Plan deyelopment application is
submitted. Elements noted above mav be combined in the EIS analJrsis to reduce dunligation and
narrow the focus on potentially sigrrificant adverse environmental imoacts.
17.80.060 to Resort Plan-(1) Any proposed enlareement to the Pleasimt Harbor MPR boundary or zone chanees within
the MPR shall require a Comorehensive Plan amendment ard related zoning action. Such
changes are outside the scope ofthg_revision processes described below and in JCC I 7.80.070
and 17.80.080. The County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all
requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.704 RCW) are fulfilled.(2) The CounW shall accept buildine o_e.rmits onlv for oroiects included in_and consistmt
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the existing Resort Plan shall be sub,mitted to the coqntJr for
approval prior to the acceptance of any nmposal thal is inconsistent with the Resort Plans set
forth in this title. Upon aporoval of a revision- all subseouent develooment proposals shall be
consistent with the revised Resgrt Plan and development regulations.
(3) Proposed revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the departr-nent of communitv
development and the DCD director will determine whetber the proposal constitutes a maior or
o
o
o
-6-
o
o
minor revision. Upon making a detennination- the proposed revision shall follow the aporooriate
Drocess for olan revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80 060 and 17.80.070.
17.80.070 Minor revisions.(l) Minor Revisions. The countv recomizes that the Resort Plan may reguire minor chanses
to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand and that some
degee of flexibili(v for the resort is needed.. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a
substantial chanee to the intent orpurpos€ of the Resort Plan in effect. A chanee that satisfies
the followine criteria shall be dee,rned a minor revision for oumoses of this chapter:(a) .Invglye no more than a ten (10) oercent increase in the overall gross square
footage of the Resort Plan:
(b) Will not have a sisnificantlv Eggt€r impact on the environment and/or facilities
than that addressed in the development plan:
(c) Do not alter the boundaries of the approved.p-leg;
(d) Do not propose new uses or uses_thqt_modifv the recreational nature and intent of
the resort.
A change to the Resort Plan may still qualiff as a minor revision under this section despite its
failure to satisfv one or more of the conditions (a) throu€h (d) of this sgction.(2) Minor Revision Process. Applications for rninor revisions shall be submitted to. and
reviewed bv the Jefferson Countv departrnent of communitv development to determine if the
revisions are consistent with the existins Resort Plan and Resort Plan SEIS. the Jefferson Coutrw
Comprehensive Plan and otherpertineut documents. Those orooosals that satisfr the above-
referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor olan revision and may be administrativelv approvod
(as a T),pe II decision under the land use procedures of JCC Tifle 18. Unified Development
Code) bv the director of the departnaent of communitv development Public notice of the
application. the writtsn decision. and appeal opporhrnities shall be provided to all persons or
agencies as required bv the land usgprocedures of JCC Title I 8. Unified Development Code.
Those revisions that dgnqt qqmplv with the provisions contained within this section shall be
deemed a maior revision. subject to the nrovisions outlined in JC-C 17.80.080.
17.80.80 Maior revisions.
Revisions to the Resort Plan that will rcsult in a substantial change tp the resort
includine: chanees in use. increase in the intensitv of use. or in the-size. scale. or densitv of
development or changes which mav have a substantial imoact on tte envirotrment belrond those
reviewed in previous environmental documents. are considered to be major revisions and will
reouire application for a revised Resort PJan.
(l) Application for a Major Revision to the Resort Plan. An aonlication shall be orepared
describing the proposed revision in relation to tbe approved Resort Plan and providine a
framework for review. analysis and mitigation of the reyised development activity prooosed. The
Resort Plan revis.ionJrooosal shall include the following information:(a) A descrintion of how the revised Rssort Plan would fur0rer the ggals and policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plau(b) A description of how the Resort Plan revision complements the existing resort
facilities of the MPR:
o
-7-
(c) A description of the design and functional features of the Resort Plan revision.
settinB out how the revision provides for unified development. integrated site desiEn and
protection of natural amenities:(d) A listine of.nroposed additional uses and/or proposed chanees to dsnsitv and
intensitv of uses within the resort- and a discussion of how these chanees meet the needs
of resldents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR Bnd patrons of the resort:(e) A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed revision- includine an analvsis of the sumulative impacts of both the proposed
revision and the approved Resort Plan. and their effects on surroundjng pronerties and/or
public facilities:(.fl A description of how the proposed Resort Plan levision is integrated with the
overall Pleasant Harbor MPR and an]/ features. such as connections to trail svstsms.
natural systems or Ereenb€lts. that have been established to retain-and enhance the
character of the resort and the overall MPR:(q) A descriotion of the intended phasi4e of development projects:
(h) Maps. drawings. illustrations. or other materials necessar.v to assist in
understardine and visualizine the desim and use of the sompleted proposed
development. its facilities and services. and the protection of critical areas:(i) A calculation of estimated new dernands on capital facilities and services and
their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands. including but not limited to
traqsportation water. sewer and stormwater facilities: and a dernonstration that sufficient
facilities and services to support the develooment are available or will be available at the
lime development permits are applied for.(2) Major Revision Process. Maior revisions shall be processed as_ a hearins examiner
decision (Tyne IID. with a reouired public hearine prior to the decision. Public notice of the
application. the written decision- and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons on the
Pleasant Harbor MPR roster (see JCC 17.60.070) and such other persons or agencies as required
bv the land use procedures of JCC Title 18. Unified DeJeloprnent Code. Any proposed rnajor
revision involving a chanee to the boundaries of the MPR zone shall require a Comprehensive
Plan amendment (.a T\pe V countv commissioners decision) prior to ?ny decision on the Resort
Plan amendment.
(3) Decision Criteria. The hearing exarniner may approve a major revision to the Resort Plan
only if all the followine criteria are met:(a) The proposed revision would further the eoals and policies set forth i4 the
Comprehensive Plan:(b) No umitieated probable siqnificant adv€rse environmental impacts would be
created by the oroposed revision:(c) The revision is consistent with all apolicable develoomsnt rezulations. including
those established for critical areas:(d) On-site and oFsite infrasttcnre (includins butnot limited to water. sewer.
storm water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and
mitieated:(e) The proposed revision cornplements the existine resort facilities. meets the needs
of residerts and patrons. and provides for unified development. intesrated site desien.
and protection of natural amenities.
o
o
-8-
o
a
o
Title 18
TiNIF'IED I}EVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 18.15
Land Use Districts
18.15.025 Master planned resort
PeTRCW 36.70A.360, a neq, masterplanned resort means a self+ontained and fully integrated
development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a mnge of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the
property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include other
residential uses, but only ifthe residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site
recreational nature ofthe resort.
(1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (NDR). The frst enly existing
officially designated master planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is
designated il accordance with RCW 36.70 A.162 as an existing master planned resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The master plarmed resort of Port Ludlow is
characterized by both single-family and multifamily residential units with attendant recreational
facilities including a marina, resort and convention center. The master planned resort of Port
Ludlow also includes a large residential comurunity. The entire resort is served by a village
commercial center, which accommodates uses limited to serving the resort and local population.
The master planned resort's internal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes,
covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive than the requirernents in JCC Title 17.
However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions.(2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is the
second officially desigratod master planned resort in the Countv. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is
desimated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360_.gs a new masterplanned resort and is subject to
the provisions of JCC Title 17. The Pleasant Harbor MPRis characterized by a golf course resort
facility south of Black Point Road and a marina/Maritime Villaee and associated housins north
ofBlack Point Road. The resort is predor$inately desiened to serve resort and recreation uses and
has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is served by the Brinnon Rural Center. which
accommodates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses serning the resort and local population. The
master nlanned resort's internal rezulations and planning restrictions such as codes. covenants
and restrictions mav be more restrictive than the requiremsnts in JCC Title 17. However.
Jeffenon County does not enforce private codes. covenants and resbictions.
18.15.115 Designation
"Master planned resort" (NdPR) is a land use desigrration established under the Comprehensive
Plan. The edlrenisting officially designated master planned resortg in the county qgie the Port
Ildlow MPR_and the Pleasant Harbor MPR provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17.
The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of
existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.704.360
pertainine to new Master Plannod Resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a
formal site-specific ame,ndment to the Comprehensive Plan land Use Map subject to the
findings required by JCC 18.45.080.o
-9-
18.15.120 Purpose and intent.
Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water,
natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological features, which are desirable fora
wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW
36.704.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these special features for enjoylrent and recreational
use, while bringing significant economic diversification and benefits to nral communities. The
purpose of this article is to establish a master planned resort land use distict to be applied to
those properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development
as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW
36.70A.360.
18.15.123 Allowable uses.
The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in
compliance with RCW 36.704.360:
(1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,
time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and
support the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
@ Short-terrn visitor accommodations, including, but not timited to, hotels, motels, lodges,
and other residential uses, that are made available for short-tenn rental; provided, that short-term
visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort
accommodation units.
3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to, golf
courses (including accessory stnrctures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities, and
maintenance facilities), te,nnis courts, swfunming pools, marinas, hiking and nature tails, bicycle
paths, equestrian facilities, sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent
with the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites.
(5) Visitor-oriented arnenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) Eating and drinking establishments;
O) Meeting facilities;
(c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the
needs ofthe users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas,
gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate/properly management offrces; and
(d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and
outdoor equipment re,ntal and sales.
(6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and
exhibits, indoor and outdoor theatels, and museums.
(7) Capital facilities, utilities and serrrices to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the
masterplanned resort.
(8) Temporary and/or permanent strucfures to sen/e as sales offices.
(9) Any other similar uses deemed by the adminisFator to be consistent with the purpose and
intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and
RCW 36.70A.360.
18.15.126 Requirements for mester planned resorts.
o
o
-10-
o
o
O
An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
(l) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and
provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and nanral arnerrities that the MPR is being sinrated
to use and €rljoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract
people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term
visitor arcommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site
recreational opporttrnities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and
commercial and supportive services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of
use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their disfiibution meet the needs
ofthe resot and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps tlnt depict the completed MPR development, showing
the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and
servic,es, including reside,ntial and nomesidential development types and location-
(e) A description, with zupportive information and maps, of the design and functional
featues that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of
natural amenities, and which fiuther the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plarl
This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open spaco, recreational facilities,
road and parking design, capital facilities, and other componerts are integrated into the
project site.
(0 A description of the environrnentally sensitive areas of the project and the
measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline ]v{anagernent Act, a description and
supportive materials or maps indioating proposed public access to the shoreline area
pursuant to the Shoreline ldaster Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surounding properties, and how is
design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility arnoug
land uses within the developrnent and adjacent to the developrment.
(h) A demonshation that suffrcient facilities and servic€ which may be neeessary,
rypropriatg or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that
concurrencyrequirements of the Compreheusive Plan will be met.
(r) A descriptiou of the iDtendod phasing of development of the project, if any. The
initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases zuch that the
full intended scope md intensity of the dweloprnent can be evaluated. This shall also
discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of
the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmerrtal
protoction, concrurency, and other comrnitments should development cease before all
phases are completed.
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a
development agreement as authorized by Article )fl of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development
Agreements), and RCW 36.708.170 through 36.708.210. Consistent with JCC lE.a0.E30(3) and
RCW 36.708.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set
forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned
resort, which may include, but are not limited to:o
-l l-
(") Permitted uses, dorsities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
(b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant;
(c) Procedures for review of site-specific developme,nt plans;
(d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable),
visitor-oriented accornmodations, short-term visitor accomrnodations, on-site rccreational
facilities, and on-site retaiVcornmercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environrnental Policy Act,
C}.:arpter 43.21C RCW, and otherdevelopment conditions; and
(0 Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and
RCW 36.70B.170(3).
(3) Formal Sit+Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall
require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan l-and Use Map to a master planned
resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided, that the
subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18. 15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and
JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarca plan may be processed by the county conculretrt
with the review of the resort master plan and development agreernent required for approval of a
master planned resort.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the @uty, a master planned
resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of
RCW 43.21C.031 andWAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168.
(5) SelGContained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level
commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such
services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban developmort and land uses
are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resorq exc€pt in areas otherwise
desig:rated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
18.15.129 Application requirements and approvalprosess.
New MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring
Iegislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following:
(l) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to rneet the requirernents of JCC
18.15.r26(1).
(2) A rrquest for authorization of a development agreement, pursuant to the requirernents of
JCC 18.15.126(2) ard Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements).
(3) A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan I-and Use Map amendment necessary to
meet the requireruent of JCC 18.15.126(3) and 18.45.040. [Ord. 8-06 $ 1]
18.15.132 Decision-makingauthority.
(1) The planning cornrnission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and
18.45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site-specific applications
for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan I-and Use Map.
A) The board of county commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC
18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.45.080, shall desigrrate new masterplanned resort land use
districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions and
standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in a developrnent agreement, and approve master
plans.
-t2-
o
e
o
a
a
18.15.135 Criteria for approval.
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approvod, or
approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or
modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, the,n the
application shell be denied.
(1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article M-D of this
chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)).
(2) The MPR is consiste,nt with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of
this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
(3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infiastnrctrue, open space,
recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR zufficient to stand alone if
no subsequentphases are developed.
(4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and suflicient
services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
(5) The MPR will contain'u.ithin the developrnent all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(6) Environmental consideratiorrs are employed in the design, place,ment and screening of
facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in
order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic
sites, and public views.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrasEucture and service impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
(8) Improvernents and activities are located and designed in zuch a manner as to avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
(9) The master plan estabfishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the
character of the resort.
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term
importance for the MPR than for the conrmercial harvesting of timber or production of
agricultural pmducts, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agriculhual or forest
resoruce land production. [Ond. 8-06 $ U
18.15.138 P€*fudro* Master Planned Resort.
The Pert r udlew Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Titte 17), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
o
-13-
Jefferson County
Planning Commission
NOTICE OFADJOURNMEI\T
+{ulra
Time:
A
Je
Chair
County Planning Commission
(Post on door)
8
Jeffercon County Planning Commission
Audience Sign-in Sheet
*** Please include your email address if you wish to
the Planning Commission email distribution !ist. **"
Location: Tri-Area
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort lations - Deliberations and Recommendation
Do you wish ft
Obseruer I
l,
Meetins Time: 6:30 pmDate:2016
"'" P/oase include your email address if you wish to be added to the Planning Commigsion email
distibution list torPleas PRINT cleaily!
Sfreef Ad d res sl O rg a n izati o n City YesName
jaa u Ao tI tJr
\\do.L 4ot^ AwE G '-tACo"./\11 WA qB44tpqQ-s\L- \,6-ru
R1B /T,Tar/s/L/zyb b,tra EvsqHb .w')1fu,//4r1// hA qrc2d
b o n rt.'t- l,/\- D^,n ;,- I 3.oS il:\&.,,t",A R"0 rb.,(q* uJA /gg?l
(nkwqr^ \tu/v P" cc-
nfllt nt 1tt,)-r-q frrtrV ro47 Crno,k-
'ott>
t,lL fr J 5 e-
0 t{r{,saal
I