HomeMy WebLinkAbout068PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
3l9l2Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
May 1,2017
Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
Jefferson County, Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan St
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-44s0
Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort; Statesman Group's Proposed Water Quality
Monitoring Plan
Dear Ms. Farfan,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf
Resort LLC Master Planned Resort and the water quality monitoring plan proposed by Statesman
Group, intended to meet the requirements of the Board of County Commissioners condition r,
FSEIS Table 3.18-1. Upon review, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe does not consider the draft
monitoring plan proposed by Statesman Group to adequately protect water quality for the
maintenance of treaty protected resources.
I. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's History in the Area
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has a vested interest in the outcome of this Master Planned
Resort (MPR) proposal. The proposed MPR is located within the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's
Usual and Accristomed Area (U&A) and Traditional and Historic Use Area. We oppose this
project, due to the significant adverse effects that a shellfish harvest area closure would have on
the Tribe's subsistence, ceremonial and commercial harvest, as well as the significant damages
to Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) by the proposed water storage ponds in Kettle Ponds B
and C. Even though we are commenting on water quality issues in this letter, we do not want to
give the impression that we approve of this project once the water quality issues have been
addressed.
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, l2 Stat. 933.1 The Treaty reserved to the S'Klallam the
right to take fish at all these "usual and accustomed grounds and stations" (U&A)-an area
roughly centered on the Hood Canal.2 Within these areas the Port Gamble S'Klallam and other
| (Jnite d States v. Washington,45g F. Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldt II)
2 See UnitedStatesv. Washington,626F. Supp. at 1442; Boldt 11,459 F. Supp. at 1041.
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCE S DEPARTMENT
3l9l2Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
tribes that share the U&A are entitled to take half the harvestable fish and shellfish, and retain
the right to access private property to fish and to shellfish.3
The Hood Canal is of great importance to the Tribe because tribal members have lived, hunted
and gathered there for thousands of years. Tribal members are natural stewards of the
surrounding waters and lands and deeply value the protection of their resources. The indigenous
knowledge that has been passed down for millennia is what drives the tribe to protect what is
culturally relevant to them. Hood Canal is not only a source of food and lifestyle for tribal
members, but it is also their home. The MPR will be located between two public beaches, at the
mouth of the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers, which provide both significant commercial
and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed
fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are among the most important intertidal areas to
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal harvesters based on acreage available, habitat available and
existing natural manila clam and pacific oyster production.
As stated in the letter to Jefferson County Planning Commission from Laura Price, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) a, dated March ll,2016, the Tribe believes that the
uniqueness of geologic features and oral historical accounts relating spiritualentities linked to
the land, the traditional plants harvested generationally by S'Klallam people from the past and
within living memory, as well as multiple campsites and Native American place names known in
the area, all directly contribute to unique cultural significance of the area that would be impacted
by the proposed projects' significant modification of the physical environment. The Kettle Ponds
and wetlands were identified by the Tribe's THPO as being culturally-significant and eligible for
the national register of historic places.
II. Outstanding Issues of Concern for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
These comments should be considered part of the ongoing Tribal Consultation between Jefferson
County and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding the proposed MPR. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. However, some water quality
concerns we have previously expressed are still outstanding:
. The project will impact culturally-significant areas and treaty rights due to its adverse
effects on water quality with the loss of wetlands and rare kettle features, increased
3 See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 873 F . Supp. 1422, 1444-45 (W.D. Wash. 1 994) (hereinafter
Shellfish I).
4 ln Lg92 the U.S. Congress adopted amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (P.1. 102-575) that
allow federally recognized lndian tribes to take on more formal responsibility for the preservation of significant
historic properties on tribal lands. Specifically, Section 101(d)(2) allows tribes to assume any or all of the functions
of a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with respect to tribal land. From: http://www.achp.eovlthpo.html.
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
3l9l2Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
traffic, significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and grading, increased impermeable
surface, and other effects that would contribute toward water quality degradation.
The2007 U.S. Army Corps jurisdictional determination (FSEIS Vol. 2 Appendix J.A)
expired in 2012 and the document is no longer a valid determination that the wetlands in
question are not Waters of the U.S. As required by,law, Statesman Group should contact
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request a current determination of wetlands
jurisdiction before moving forward. By approving a plan with an expired JD, the County
would be in violation of federal regulations.
o Off-site stormwater impacts as a result of increased highway traffic associated with the
proposed project have not been addressed in the FSEIS. Increased traffic is a clear impact
not only to water quality on the subject property, but to regional water quality. This
impact must be mitigated.
o The MPR project would significantly impact kettle ponds and wetlands by removing
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 would be cleared of vegetation, filled and lined. The
proposal provides inadequate compensatory mitigation for these effects with the plan to
restore a wetland in existing Kettle Pond C that would also serve as a stormwater runoff
basin for the project.
o The project would remove 55% of existing trees and native vegetation replacing it with
impermeable surfaces and landscaping.
o Developing a stormwater and wastewater remediation system may reduce the effects of
pollutants. However, to ensure the functionality of this type of system, extensive and
regular, discharge, ambient water and biota tissue monitoring will be needed. Our
concern with regard to the construction of an urban development in this rural area is
clearly illustrated by the pollution related loss of -36,000 acres of shellfish beds
throughout Puget Sound.
III. Recommendations for Water Quality Monitoring Plan
The FEIS5 states that "A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to
Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific action,
utilizing the best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be
funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of
pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program."
a) Scope and Sample Frequency
s Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS, Table 3.18-1, BoCC Conditions #r. December 2015
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCE S DEPARTMENT
3 I 912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
With regards to the proposed water quality monitoring plan dated June 8, 201 l, we find it
lacking in its scope and sample frequency. While regular Department of Health sampling may be
used as a component of this monitoring program, Statesman is required to fund regular offsite
monitoring in addition to any onsite monitoring, per Jefferson County BoCC condition r.
Monitoring must occur at least monthly and some event-based (storms) sampling should also
occur. This will likely require Statesman to supplement DoH sampling from the Dosewallips
estuary to Pleasant Harbor. The proposed monitoring schedule only guarantees monitoring for
the first 4 years. We are not satisfied with this schedule as we anticipate full build out and use of
the MPR would not occur within the first 4 years of the project's approval. The plan should
commit Statesman or future owners to monitoring for the lifespan of the development.
b) Response to Water Quality Impairment
The plan proposed by Statesman explains that the MPR will reside in the context of many other
uses and landowners. However, existing development is not a license to dismiss future water
quality degradation given that the project under review is the MPR, not the existing land uses
and development. We are deeply concemed that the current state of the surrounding nearshore
environment does not have the capacity for additional pollution6, and that even an incremental
increase in cumulative impacts as a result of this project will cause a closure of shellfish beds,
impacting the Tribe's treaty rights. Should water quality become impaired, it will be incumbent
upon Statesman Group to prove the impairment is not due to presence or operations of the MPR.
Given that we have no assurance or expectation that Statesman will manage the resort in
perpetuity, this condition must extend to all future owners of the MPR, for example, under
representation of a homeowners association. This burden of proof will need to be coordinated
with regulators and PGST Natural Resources staff which will require their access to relevant
records and to facilities and property.
We would like to work with Statesman to develop a response plan appurtenant to this monitoring
plan, to be carried out in the event of a water quality parameters' exceedance. We intend a non-
biased process for source review and remediation, to be agreed upon before project
implementation. We suggest a plan similar to a TMDL cleanup plan with an approach and
methods similar to the Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the Lower Dungeness WatershedT and
the Dungeness Bay Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Study.8
5 Shellfish Growing Area Hood Canal # 3, within which Pleasant Harbor is located, currently is classified as "meets
standards, but threatened with downgrade in classification." Curtis K. December 31,20t5. Washington State
Department of Health Office of Environmental Health and Safety. Annual Growing Area Review.
7 Hampleman C, Sargeant D. June 2002. Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the Lower Dungeness Watershed; Total
Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report. Department of Ecology.
I Sargeant D. March 2004. Dungeness Bay Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Department of
Ecology Environ mental Assessment Program.
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
31912 Lifile Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
Should Department of Health downgrade a shellfish growing area adjacent to the MPRe, it will
be incumbent upon Statesman Group to investigate and identify the cause of pollution
responsible for the change in growing area classification and identify the corrective action
needed to upgrade the classification. A downgrade which results in closure of the harvest area
will reduce the Tribe's treaty protected right to harvest, and therefore adequate compensation
would be required to mitigate those effects.
c) Water Quality Monitoring Methods
As part of the development of a water quality monitoring plan, we must establish a baseline of
ambient water quality. This must be agreed upon by the Tribe and Statesman Group, including
an exceedance threshold of water quality parameters that will trigger investigation described
above. This will require a review of statistical methods of water quality, due to the fact that the
exceedance threshold will be based on the baseline values, rather than the value for shellfish
growing area classifications.
Mussel cages must be used for detection of contaminants with very low ambient concentrations,
following methods specified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Status and Trends
Monitoring of Marine Nearshore Mussels.l0 After a baseline concentration and exceedance
threshold of the stormwater-associated toxic metals and persistent organic pollutants referred to
in the QAPP is established and agreed upon, cages should be deployed annually for a period of
60 days.
d) Water Quality Performance Measures
We also must consider the various elements of the water quality performance measures. We are
concerned that stormwater conveyance, retention and detention facilities may not function as
designed, due to either lack of maintenance or unforeseen circumstancesll. Furthermore, we are
concerned that the infiltration of wastewater may contaminate the nearshore environment,
especially in an area of high groundwater susceptibilityl2 with no confining layers between the
ground surface and the sea-level aquiferl3. While it is laudable that the Statesman Group intends
to build a Membrane Bioreactor plant for wastewater reuse, it will be important to verify that
stormwater and wastewater do not contribute to water quality degradation. The designed level of
performance should be demonstrated rather than assumed, to be verified with monitoring data.
The individual components should be monitored and compared with ambient water quality to
e See attached map of growing areas and DoH sampling sites.
10 WDFW. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends Monitoring of Marine Nearshore Mussels for the
Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program. June 2015.
11 "There are some areas within the site that have slow to moderate rates of infiltration. Until the actual allowable
rate of infiltration of the soil at each facility can be determined, the facilities may need to be sized to retain water
to allow for a slower release." Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS, 3.2-L9. December, 2015.
12 Eastern Jefferson County Groundwater Characterization Study, 1994
13 Pleasant Harbor Mariana and Golf Resort Environmental lmpact Statement - Soils and Geology, 2007.
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
develop a mass-balance in order to understand the transport and fate of the pollutants, as
described in our January 19,2017 comments.
We are concerned the planned water quality facilities may not be built in the event of a market
downturn. We seek assurances that the stormwater and wastewater infrastructure will be built as
planned, regardless of changing market conditions. This could be accomplished with a dedicated
endowment fund for continued maintenance and operations of all stormwater and wastewater
infrastructure.
IV. Conclusion
Unfortunately, while Statesman Group may intend to build an environmentally friendly resort,
there is no example of a MPR in Puget Sound that has not resulted in a shellfish harvest area
closure. We request the Tribe participate in continued discussions regardirrg water quality, with a
specific focus on preventing impacts to adjacent Tribal shellfish beds and fisheries. As stated
earlier, the Tribe will continue to oppose this project until the water quality and other
environmental issues are addressed and the culturally-significant areas are protected from project
construction and operational impacts.
We appreciate you keeping us informed about this project and the permit process. If you have
any questions feel free to contact me at (360) 297-6289 or sphillips@pgst.nsn.us.
Sincerely,
//4
Sam Phillips
Environmental Scientist, Natural Resources Department
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
3l9l2Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346
a DoH Sampling Stations
-
Hood Canal Backshore
Prelininary, approxirnate boundary of tidelands and neashore walers subject to monitoring phn.
No
o o
t
t
o
o
r o o
I
r38o o
o
'1.,a, \;,*u <,.f b.&\
Ss rwcf
t La
,l ,po. r ),<- (.'t,, s ,h
),ff("
)
Michelle Farfan
A6f ,,Nq
t0j
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Afternoon all
M ichelle Farfan < M Farfan@cojefferson.wa.us >
Wednesday, March 75,2077 L2:44 PM
jesse.Schultz@dfw.wa.gov; Roma Call; Michael Dawson; Don Coleman
(don@ pleasantharbormarina.com); Garth Mann; Stuart Whitford
Draft Water Quality MOU from 2011 with edits from Don and Michael; Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort, Brinnon
water quality draft 6-9-2011MD.doc; 01 0128 08.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
ir
Attached is a 2011 draft water quality MOU with previous edits from Don and Michael. As you may recall, this MOU is a
requirement of Ordinance 01-0128-08 subject to 30 conditions; specifically condition r. l've attached the ordinance for
your reference. The MOU will become an appendix to the Development Regulations that will be presented to the BOCC
for final decision.
Please review (or forward to appropriate personnel in your department) and provide any comments/edits you have to
me on or before May !,2OI7.
lf you need additional information, please let me know.
Regards,
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Brinnon MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
S2l Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
V: 360-379-4463
F: 360-379-4451
mfa rfa n (oco. iefferson.wa. us
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail
and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection)of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
1
3089t3 US Hwy l0l, Brinnon WA 98320
(360) 796-{61 I (8OOl 547-3479
Fox (866) 8484612
PLEASANT HARBoR Draft June 8, 201 1
Water Quality Monitorins Plan
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08 (63-r) requires the
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort to prepare and implement a Water Quality Monitoring
Plan.
"A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor
requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert
with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific action, utilizing the best available
science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve,
paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or
contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program"
Consideration should be taken for the following impacts on the water quality in Pleasant Harbor
l. Private Development
a. 20 different people or agencies own the property surrounding Pleasant Harbor,
including WDFW and State Parks.
b. There are two marinas, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Home Port Marina.
c. There is a State Park public dock and a WDFW boat launch
d. There are at least 6 private docks.
e. There are at least l0 private residence structures visible from the water, including
one house owned by Pleasant Harbor Marina.
f. As of fall 20 I 0 there is ongoing construction on at least one building site on the
southeastem bluffof the harbor.
g. Vessels are sometimes anchored unattended for weeks or months in the harbor.
2. State Property
a. The new WDFW public boat launch sees increased use each year, including
extensive commercial use by Tribal fisheries.
b. With the improvements at the parking area and access to the State Park dock near
the entrance ofthe harbor, the dock attracts more visitors.
3. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently:
a. Offers the only pump out service and fuel for visiting boaters in Central Hood
Canal.
b. Enforces strict rules regarding pump out, fueling, boat maintenance and storage
within the marina property.
c. Is recognized as a Washington Clean Marina and has achieved the EnviroStar
Clean Marina certification.
4. Pleasant Harbor Marina (and Golf Resort): Proposed Improvements and Expansion
a. The proposed Master Planned Resort development will not increase the number of
moorage slips.
b. Fuel dock and fuel systems have been replaced and improved to meet strict
environmental requirements.
c. The Marine Sewage Pump Out system has been replaced and improved to ofler
more pump out stations and more reliable equipment to the public.
d. Pleasant Harbor Marina shictly enforces Best Management Practices (BMP's)
including a no discharge policy concerning black water, contaminated bilge water,
fuel, oil or any other chemicals hazardous to the environment.
-
MARINAAnDColFRasaRl
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
June 8, 201 I
e. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently publishes a monthly newsletter with information
reinforcing the BMP's of the Marina.
f. The Resort Development will follow strict environmental standards during and
after construction.
In the context ofthe affected environment described above, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort proposes to participate in a program to monitor the impact ofdevelopments, both private
and public, to the water quality of Pleasant Harbor.
Performance Standards
Performance standards will meet Washington State Ecology requirements per WAC 173-
201A. WAC 173-201A-600 (l)(a)(iv) designates all fresh waters that are tributaries to
extraordinary quality marine water, which Hood Canal is so designated, zrs core summer
salmonid habitat for aquatic life uses. (Methodologt and Quality Assurance guidelines will be
established and submitted to Jefferson County llater Quality Department for approval after
the requirements and criteria for this program are approved).
Initial test sites will be the five [ites lS]fS[4 qt_Elg]ry ? (pCge.l) S_t4pper_,4i1? qt the2997 ,...
DEIS (copy attached). Sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies,
to avoid duplication ofeflort data from other agencies may be used ifpossible, Ifnecessary a
sample site between the Duckabush River and Quatsap Point will be added.
Table I
Comm€nted [llD1]: Sites should include some to the south of
the prcject ilea betw*n the Duckabuh River md Quatsap Point.
Water Quality
Farameter
Category Criteria Ecology
Regulatioins
Aquatic life pH Extraordinary
Within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a
human-caused variation of less than
.0.2 units
wAC 173-2014.-
210
Aquatic life Turbidity Extraordinary
Turbidity must not exceed;
5 NTU over background when
background is 50 NTU or less: or
A l0 percent increase inturbidity
when the background turbidity is
more than 50 NTU
wAC 173-201A-
210
Aquatic life Dissolved
oxygen (DO)Extraordinary 7.0 mg/L for lowest liay minimum wAC 173-201A-
210
Aquatic life
Temperafure Extraordinary l3 degrees Celsius for highest lday
maximum (l-DMax)
wAC 173-201A-
2t0
Water Contact
recreation bacteria
criteria
Fecal coliform organism levels must
not exceed a geometric mean value
of l4 colonies/l0omI, with not more
than l0 percent ofall samples (or
any single sample when less than ten
sample points exist) obtained for
calculating the geometric mean
value exceeding 43 colonies/l 00mL
wAC 173-201A-
210
absene
we would
thelow in hsbor thegot
mere lhen
Comrrqltad [tlD3l: we would like to see Feal Coliform md
added c to be
Comm€nbd [dc4] : Nitrogen may be added if needed. I have
not foud WAC muine w*er stmdads
2of4
Table I below illustrates proposed water quality parameter goals for the marine sampling
locations in Pleasant Harbor based on WAC 173-201A-210.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
June 8, 201 I
The Resort proposes to coordinate with Jefferson County Water Quality Department, Washington
State Department of Health, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group and the University of
Washington to verify acceptable ltandards $r PJgasanl Harbql, Ttrp Sygry!! environmental health
ofHood Canal can fluctuate greatly from yCai to year and season to season aepenAlng on i
number of factors including rainfall, temperature, wind, influx of ocean water, stratification and
currents. Water quality can be dramatically different from southem Hood Canal near Belfair,
Hoodsport, Hamma Hamm4 Dabob Bay and Seabeck. The samples taken in Pleasant Harbor
should be compared with samples taken in the central part ofHood Canal considering the overall
environmental situation at the time the samples are taken. fiistorical [amplp.s .a._,4 -qgqt!4qiqls
should be compared with Jefferson County Water Quality data to help accurately evaluate any
changes in sample data from test to test.
Jefferson County Water Quality Department will receive quarterly reports and will be notified
immediately of any unacceptable results. In the event that junacceptabb [gg1 1g_sq!ts a19 {qq!drq,l,l
property owners surrounding Pleasant Harbor shall be considered partners and act to identify as
closely as possible the source and cause. Additional sampling may be needed to identify the
source, expense for additional sampling will be the responsibility ofthe property owner ofthe
suspected source.
Adaptive Management
This water quality monitoring plan may be modified based on an analysis of results, comparison
of existing data sources and consultation with Jefferson County. Alternative management
decisions will be addressed as more project details develop and as results are analyzed. The
monitoring plan may be revised over time so that it remains effective and reflects industry
standards. Examples ofrevisions that may be addressed include
. Sampling sites may be added or removed depending on appropriateness of sampling
locations to final design
o Monitoring schedule may be modified based on the evaluation of results
o Updated or improved sampling techniques based on new technology
r Revise parameters to reflect changes in existing environmental concems
Commentod [MDg]: Additionsl wpliry m8y treed ro be
conducted close to the rupeaed souce to identi& the souce.
JeffeEon Couty Wats Quality Departmmt should b€ notified
immediately.
Comm€nted UtlDsl: Daa should be reported to Jefferson
Comty Water Quality Dept quarterly. R6ults qcreding waler
quality stmduds should be reponed wirhin 48 houn.
Year Schedule lCommentd
Pre-construction Quarterly Establish baseline conditions in marine waters ofPleasant Harbor
l't year construction Monthly Monitor water quality during construction
2nd year construction Monthly Monitor water quality during construction
3'd year Quarterly As analyses are evaluated and results are favorable, the sampling can be
modified with aDproval from Jefferson County
4ft year Quarterly As analyses are evaluated and results are favorable, the sampling can be
modified with approval from Jefferson County
5th year TBD Schedule to be determined based on analysis of results and need for
modification of schedule and monitoring points after approval from
JeIIerson County.
Commented [MD6l: Odrer relevmt agencies ue Dept of
Ecology md Sbte Dept of Health @OH)
Coman€nbd [dc7l : Phooe onvmation wiih Bruce Bubou
l/5/l I DOE dc not need r be involved with this agrement ..don
CrmrnenEd []tlD8I: JeffeMn Couty Water Qua.lity hs l@al
data lo 6 md DOH.
3of4
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
June 8, 201 I
tlrdn€ SuflGy lryet.r Qurlity Loc.tlom
oa9B lru[r,18 ra]ebttrrlBtu.
ur nt h arr.r# ilt@.rh ilrrc:r lGaI&i. . ilg{r1In. r*r ' dilr.n..r,.r in'trd,a Figur.2
BEa O i' a iN,,rr.t*a'rrd.Dli..'J r.xte
t*abdErr-a!,dh#xMktftt
-t-.IdkC l,\S€rou{ty SrrrCc Locdbn lnd l0
P aacan: Hertrff Marina and Golt Rosorl
Brinmn, V,/$hingion
GeoErarHer*O
TI
t
#+i t
I tt+
GI
I/a
q{
\ift*.r{*
.w ,7
,t
I(
T
d
o\
r)
d/m
(-
IL-
lu
w*
L{1
4of4
Si16
"*
c
c
November 2.2{}16
YIA US MAIL & EMAIL
Patty Chamas, Director
Jeff'erson County Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port wA q8368
Ite: Pleassnt Harbor MPR Development Regulations
Response to Your Lctters of October 19,2016 & November lr 2$16
Dear Ms, Chamas:
Thank you ftrr your letter dated October I9, 2016. your participation in the confbrence call
we had on October?6,2016 ro diseuss the same arrd your fbllow-up letter dated November
1.20lr,6. This letter responds to tlrose letters and provides some additional background
regarding the Brinnon MPR and our efforts to design a proposal the meets the County's
planning goals established in the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan and County Comprehensive Plan
as amended by Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08,
ffirppr"ri**the County's otl'er fbr stall-to-stalTmeetings. llefore'rve entertain a rueeting
\\'e uest that the set exactly
we tr:to linalize its recomnrendation to the l3oard o1'
County
County 0rdinnnce No.
conditions to Ordinance
development regulations. which of those conditions wc have not satistied and wliy,
Likewise. we request the County specify the "outstanding tribal issues" it feels remain, the
scientific andlor factual support lbr those issues and why the current !'SEIS does not
*dcquately address them. Preparation of this inlbrmation will allow for more informed
discussion during a staft'-to-staff rneeting.
A. The August Booklet Titled "The Plea*ant Harbor Marina and Recreation
Comrnunity" is Coneeptual
The developrueilt plans you received from f)on Coleman are conceptual. As you know.
$'s presented a prelbrred alternative that underrvent five years of detailed environn:ental
Ibr the adoption ol'development regulations that implement
0l-0128-0Uf Specifically. we request that County specify the
No.0l-0128-08 that must be satisfied for the County to adopt
/,
*ye"*o
Page 2
grt J
+
review culminating in the FSHIS the County issued on l)ecember 9, 2015, Mr. Coleman
presented the revised proposal in a good fbith etTort to engage the County and more
specifically, the Port Camble S'Klallam 'lribe ("PGST") in a meaningful discussion about
concerns with the projoct and what modifications might be entertained to address its
concetrns. The response from the County and l'CSl'has been non-committal.
B. Modifying the Preferred Alternative to Address Issues that Should Havc Been
Raised during the SIIS Process Creates Significant Procedural and Fairness
Issues That Must be Addressed Before An Alternative Design can be Considered
We maintai:r that the prefbrred alternative as mitigated respects and protects tribal treaty
rights and cultural heritage. For example" the County's own FSEIS concluded (after five
years of study by qualified consultants) that the preferred altemative would not impact tjsh
resources (and thereby tribal lishing rights) and rvould impJove curent water quality
conditions:
Proposed site development is not anticipated to increase pollutrurts in the
harbor, and existing septie tanks- pumps> and drainflelds would be replaced
with a sewage treatment plant and water system. . As a result of the
stprmwatgr manage.,me$Le$d treatrnen[,...]he net discharse of'surfhc_g.Water
runoll'lronr the Maritirrie ViUage to*the harbor is qt{.i_q.ipated to be c-Lgj}ngf
than eurrent conditions.
FSHIS at l-7 (emphasis added). 'the PGST has not presented credible. scientific
explanatir:n to the contrery. Likewise, with respect to tribal cultural resources. the
prefurred alternative preserves one of the three on-site kettles identified by the Skokomish
"l"ribe during the F.lS process for the comprehensive plan amendment as having possible
cultural significance. Rcview of the pret'erred alternative included a standard discovery
plan to mcnitor for and address discovery of cultural artil'acts during construction. Notabty,
the Skokomish Tribe (the only tribe to comment on this issue during the SEPA process)
concurred withthe adequacy of the plan.
The Growth Managernent Act ("GMA") requires the County adopt development
regulations that are consistert rvith and implernent its comprehensive plan. This is a non-
discretionary duty and the County is presently out of compliance with GMA mandates.
While the Cr:unty has no basis to continue to dela-v adoption of development regulations
that are
consider
consigter:t with and will irnplement its comprehensive plan. we will agree to
are railored to@ectthat
supported concerns conditioned on the firllowing:
l. Ilroggss and "l'imine. ln order entertain I'urther discussion and possible project
revisions lve require commitment florn the County and the PGST(t<l the extent
it chooses to be involved) to proceed on a reasonable schedule with rueaningful
deadlines f-or preparation anrl rcview of any additional reports necessitated by
project revisions. 'l'he schedule can he flexible to accolult fbr consultant delay
,\,t,. : ,:: ..
_)
'Page 3
and
the
unlbreseen circumstances, but there must be some agreenrent that comnrits
parties to engage in good lhith and under reasonable time restraints.
2.
Likewise. we request agreement to pursue an altemative dispute resolution
proccss that will be binding on the parties in the event consensus cannot be
reached on the necessity ofproject revisions.
eg$. Statesman has already paid over 2 million dollars in consultant f'ees to
assist the County with preparation of environmental documents. Most recently,
Statesman invested heavily in preparation of the FSEIS that carefully analyzed
ivell-publicized altemative MFR development proposals. The County, at the
request of the PGST, sugge.sts that we e$nsider and study new alternatives t<:
address issues that could have and should have been raised during the
enVironmental review process. Additional project modi{ications will likely
result in additional consulting costs the scope and exlent ol'which are not
known. We do not believe we should be responsible for those costs. Either the
PGSI: fhiled to meaningfblly participatc during environmental review of this
projeet or tire County did mrt adequatcly consult with the FGST or consider its
comments. In either case. it would be reasonable to request that the PCST
and/or the Courrty pay for all tuture studies necessitated by a revised project.
In the spirt of cooperation we request that the costs of all t'uture studies the
County determines are needcd to address the revised pm.ject be split between
the :applicant and PCST/County.
Il"these can addressed in a t'air and then we will continue
rto If not. the lso bli to
to plar and specifically"
0rdinarrce No l -01?8-08
C. The Ten-ear Process to Implement the Vision Set Forth in the County's
Ilrinnon Sub-Area Plnn
0o* ?
a. .Ieffer.ron Developer to Implemcnt a MPR for /,J!
'I'he
the Black Point
Brinnon Sub-Area Plan
appropriate location lbr
('llSAP" adopted in 200?) identifies the lllack Point area as
'"an a possible tirture Master Planned Resort." BSAP (2002) at 43
ClA
In addition, to justilying the potential h4PR designation because of the natural beauty of
the area, the BSAP recited the public need fbr economic growth in the form of tourism to
offset the loss ol'jobs and tax revenue with thc deeline eif the timber industry: I"
I ":* L.r
:svslruc.*'r.,:
.,," usurr*r u*re ,r*u'r rrruusuy.
Jwl P{tr*-, s;ii:1l:Jllx!lJ:ffjJlr;.it?,:i,l:*'j",":,::?l;l D,l;;;;Ji r,^r,,
resulted in a strong desirr" by the residents of the Brinnon
area to o{Tset the loss of iobs in the timber industry by
Jfic. u,/,&szrl . /h". htwyn- /-Nrl at c- s
/,For"4,d 4*/ry
\
Sought A
fuA""tr^*
)rt* htr;-u,tz--c-,-
t
i cpnl
Page 4
,rebuilding the capacity to accommodate recreation and
tourism. An expansion of recreational and tourism
opportunities and associated commercial facilities in the
.Brinnon area, including a potential Master Planned Resort at
Black Point. will help fultill this objective.
The BSAP went further and specifically proposed an l8-hde golf course among other
amenities to atlract tourists to Jetl'erson Count,v.
The BSAP did not filrmerly designate the area as a MPR. but rather invited a developer to
implement this vision by deferring actual designation until "a formal, private land use
application fbr.a Master Planned Resort" pursuant to the Comprehensivs Plan and the
submitted to tl:e C-'ounly, ld.a.r^ t rrg.,\ -<f
lnvcsted Millions of ilollars
to Prepare an the BSAP Vision
In or arr:und ?005, the Statesman Group of Companies answcred the call of the BSAP and
submitted an application to designate the areas as an MPR. Consistent with the BSAP,
Statesman proposed an l8-hole golf course. 890 residential units and asso il
recreational and commercial amenities. lt kept the scale large enough to serv'e as a
destination resort. but smaller than tlie Port Ludlow'MPR per guidance in the I3SAP.
"1he conceptual proposal underwent a t\\.o-year environmental revie*'process culminating
in a DSEIS the received over 400 comnrentq. Notice of the DSEIS and opportunity to
comment was $ent to local tribes including, tiut not limitsd to the PGST. lhe PGST did
not oomment on the DSEIS.t Thc Skokomish liibe did. however, comment and noted the
possible culturbl signifir:*nce of kettles on the property.
:c. The BOCC Unanimously Approved Subject to Conditions and
Subsequent Litigation
On January 28.2008. the Jeffersor County BOCC unanimously approved a comprehensive
plzur amendment fbrmerly designating 756 acres &s a master planned resofi. 'Io address
conrmunity conr€ms raised during the environnlental rcview process the BOCCC imposed
29 conditions that future developnreat would have to comply with. With respect to the
kettles, the tsOCC addressed the Skokomish 'l'ribe's concerns by requiring further
consultation and "possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource.-"
A minority group of citizens that opposed the pro"iect appealed the MPR designation. The
Count,v and Statesman rvorked togethcr for over three years del'ending the dcsignation lrom
1 The PGST did comrnent on the scoping notice. Ted Labbe of the PGST was the only one to provide comment and did not mention
impact to the kettles or cultural resource during the scoping notice.
IJDC" was
b.
/
the County's C'all
c,&-9
Page 5
legal challenge. '[he challenges ended when the Washington Court of Appeals atlrmed
the propriety o{'the MPR designation in ?0t 1.2
tl. The PCST did not Raise Kettle Preservation During the Five Years of
Environmental Review that Culminated in Publication of an FSEIS
After resolution of the appeal, Statcsman submitted application for the adoption of
developmenl regulations to implenrent the MPR designation. A six year supplemental
environmental review process assessed three possible developrnent alternatirres. Pursuant
to the BOCC condition directed at addresslng the Sknkornish lribe's cultural concerns with
the kettles. every altemativc assessed preserved one kettle (Keftle C). The remaining
kettles wcre used lbr stomlwater management. l.,ikewise, a Proposed Archeological
Monitoring and Inadvertent Protocol report ("Cultural Resource Plan") was prepared
outlining the steps that lvould tre taken to monitor lbr cultral aftilhcts and to address
discovery of such artif'acts througlrout the site, but specitically in areas around the kettles
because of the likelihood that cultural artithcts might be discovered in those areas.
'l'lre County sent the Cultural Resource PIan directly to the PGSI in 2012 fbr comment.
'l"he County received no response. 'l'hp County sought out the assistance of DAIIP to help
coordinate tribal review of the plan. DAHP circulated tlie plan to the PGST and otlrer local
tribes. Tlrree tribes (iricluding the Skokomish which raised the cultural significance of
kettles to begin with) concurred with the approach and protective measures. The PGST
did not comment.
Based upon the concurrence of tribes that chose to participate (and the lack of any comment
Irom others including the PGST) Statesman continued to invest heavily in environmental
reports and studies assessing the preferred alternative. In 2014, the environmental reviews
were completed and a notice of issuance of the DSHIS was again sent to the PGSI'. l'he
PGST responded asking ltlr an opportunity to consult directly with Statesman and the
County. 'l"hat requlest was irnmediatelv enterlained and the applicant and the County hosted
IIGSI'represettatives on-site to hear their conceftrs. The PGSI'discussed its concerns over
rvater quality ald elk rnigration, but never mentioned the nced to preserve all of the kettles
because of their cultural significarrce or the possibility that the kettles might be eligible fbr
listing on the National Reg.istsr (issues they norv clairn the Clounty did not assess). 'I'he
Tribe asked if could submit a request to the County to include additional monitoring tbr
water quality and the C'ounty and Statesman agreed. That request \&as never submitted.
Ten months after the County and Statesman met with PGST representatives the Clounty
released the I,'SEtrS. I'he ITSHIS included a fbur-page response addressing the PGST's
concerns. On,March 15, 2016 after thc comment period on the FSEIS closed. the PGST
for the first time expressed disagreement with the Cultural Resource Plan and asserted that
the County had not consulted rvith the PGS'I' in good tbith. The PCST also, fbr the first
, ,r,@59 wn. App.446,4*s,24sp.3d 789 (2011).
Page 6
:
time, dernanCdC ttrat the kettles be preserved entirely because they may be eligible fur
listing on the National Register of Flistoric Places.
e. Statesman Eft'orts to Work with the Tribe in Cood Faith to Address
Concerns it Raised After Is.ruance of the FSEIS have not Been
Reeiproented
At the Countyr's request, Statesman agreed to work the PGST to attempt to resolve its
concerns. Afler the govsmment-to-government meeting in April 2015, we made repeated
overtures to the PCST to visit the site and specifically the kettles, and to arrange fbr
technical mcetings with the PGST. Those requests were met halt'-heartedly leaving
Statesman to guess at what type of revision might satisfy the IIGS'l"s concems. After
months of littlB or no cornmunication, we submitted thc conceptual design to the PGS l" tcr
asse$s whether it rvould meet concerns. Notably'. under the proposal all kettles would be
preserred. The PGST's response again has been non-committal and instead demands more-
studies. ,
Meanwhile. the PGS'I'recently completed a 94 unit hotel on ils property (the sewage
generated by tbe hotel is treated by a Large On-Site Septic System) and is actively seeking
qonsultants to design a master plan for 400-plus acres of timberland to accommodate a 90-
acre business park, commercial recreational center, and an unknown number <lf residential
units. The PGST's Planning Director acknowledges that the purpose of its master plan is
to "dra*'people here and keep them here overnight." 'I'he Brinnon MPR and POS'I"s plans
fcr a recreation center are in direct competition for tourist dollars coming to Jeflbrson
County.
.
D. Conclusioh
In light of this background you can understand our skepticism that rnoditying the preferred
altemative to: address vague and unsubstantiated impacts or engaging in additional
meetings will,yield some material progress. We believe lv'e have proposed, studied and
designed a project that meets the economic objectives outlined in the IISAP, complies with
Ordinance No" 08-0128-08, pnrtects the environment and local community. and respects
tibal treaty rights and cultural heritage. We look forward to receiving a written statement
that specities where the County disagrees and the thctual zurd scientific support for that
disagreement.
l.1"t""ll; -.,
T
LWA
7nJohn l'.
;4'Cooke
Cc:Client email)vra
O PIJfiC
I "> '14 t t:!:>.
srsy!#, horlIihisfi
\t"t/
g^u
567/,.
ls-rxt
€6 /,*L F^-.frt ,t- *//M"
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Chronology
2002-20t6
a The Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) of 2002 identified the existing, yet idle
NACO Campground on Black point (BSAP page 45) as an ideal location for
a Master Planned Resort (NIPR).
In October 2003, Black Point Properties applied for a Conditional Use
permit (MLA03-00577) to re-establish a portion of the original 500 site
NACO campground as a 60 site campground on 20 acres with existing
septic and well water systems. That permit was issued on December 27,
2006.
A pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by
The Statesman Group of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10,
2006.
On March 1,2006 The Statesmarl Group submitted to Jefferson County a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment'to re-zone a portion of Black Point from
Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87). Initial Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified probable
significant adverse impacts.
On October 2, 2006, The Statesman Group, formally requested that the
Environmental Impact Statement be changed from a permit-level, project
EIS to a non-project, or prograrnmatic EIS, necessitating the need for a
Supplemental or project level EIS (SEIS) prior to development.
In the fall of 2007, a citizen' s group opposing the project was formed,
which eventually became known as the Brinnon Group.
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) deliberated and voted to
approve MLA06-87 on January 14,2008, under Ordinance 0l-0128-08 with
thirty attached conditions.
In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development
Code (UDC) Text Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08-
00188) to implement the MPR. These Type V applications required an
SEIS as condition (b) of Ord. No. 0l-0128-08.
o
o
o
a
a
a
o
froo.l 1
I
br .+A4to. lut c nB* **,
l,>\"^] o
utru*Dl'/ail.
o On March 17,2009 DCD held a SEIS Team meeting to discuss and plan for
"Scoping" of the SEIS with the Applicant's Representative Craig Peck, EIS
writer Vicki Morris, and DCD's Peer Review Consultant Lloyd Skinner.
o A public "Scoping Meeting" was held at the Brinnon School house on
October 28th,2009
. On March 31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining
the scope of the SEIS.
o EIS writer Vicki Morris resigned from the Project on April 6,2011
o On April 20,2011 DCD assumed authorship of the EIS "in-house."
o DCD issued a revised Scoping Memo on October 12, 20ll to address
applicant initiated changes to the alternatives of the project due to the
adoption on new Shoreline regulations.
e On July 3, 2012, DCD informed the applicant that it would be hiring a third
paw consultant the SEIS.
On February |signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA
Engineering) to the SEIS. A contract extension required due to plan
changes was approved and signed on March 16,
A Draft SEIS was released for public and agency review and comment on
November 19,2014.
Re-development and renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding
Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015.
In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred
alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to 9 with a
3-hole practice course. This change necessitated re-review of
environmental elements.
louu- ,
+Q,*
SeuA1,,
('-
oc.f
be
\toiil*u,n
o
o
Pa ta *!
WlI,,#r+i The Final SEIS was released on December 9,S
appealed with the Ordinances for either the opment
The FSEIS of the Development Agreement and regulations were
presented to the Planning Commission (PC) on January 6, 2016 to review,
deliberate and make recommendation to the BoCC for approval, approval
with modifications, or denial of the Development Regulations.
On March 15,2016 the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) submitted a
letter with comments to the Planning Commission on the adequacy of the
FSEIS in relation to their rights under the 1855 Point No Point Treaty. The
noh",j
2013
e
O
o
letter requested additional consultations with the Developer and the County
to identiff and determine increased levels of protection to cultural
resources, shellfish, wildlife and water quality.
On March 29,2016, Staff drafted and placed in the record a "Note to File"
as a response to the PGST's letter of March 15th. The Note to File addressed
the project's consultation process with the local Tribes, analyzed the Tribe's
request and made recommendations on how to proceed.
At the request of the PGST, the Jefferson County BoCC hosted a
'oGovernment to Government" meeting with the PGST on April 18, 2016 to
present their concerns in the context of their history, culture, treaty rights
and their concerns with the Pleasant Harbor development. Both parties and
the Developer agreed to continue consultations on the issues.
On July ll,2016 the Planning Commission completed its deliberations and
forwarded its recommendation on the development regulations to the BoCC.
Notable in the PC recommendation is a significant difference between their
suggested regulations and those of Staff Legal and the Applicant's version.
(The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission's recommendation,
or hold their own public hearing on the development regulations, but they
must hold a public hearing before making a decision on the Development
Agreement. Should the BoCC approve the Development Agreement,
development and building permits may be applied for.)
JEFFERSON GOUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COiTiIUN]TY DEVELOPiIENT
621 Sheridan Skeet, PortTownsend, WA 98368 lWeb:yruu.co.iefierson.wa.us&ommunihdanelooopnt
Tel: 360.379.'1450 | Fax 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd0co.iefisrson.wa.us
ATTENDEES and Location:
Garth Mann, Statesman Group (Calgary, Alberta)
Jamie McArthur, Statesman Group (Calgary, Alberta)
Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina (Brinnon, WA)
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) Participants (Kingston, WA)
Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager
Laura Price, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Tamara Gage, Shellfish Program Manager
Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist
Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council (Poulsbo, WA)
Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County DCD (PortTownsend, WA)
Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD (Port Townsend, WA)
Meetino Summarv
[Ihese meeting notes include additional notations in italixfiom Michelle rcfening fo secfibns of the FSEIS and
Odinance 01-0128-08.1
The meeting began on time with the participants listed above. lntroductions and Agenda Review was provided by
Roma.
This meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of he proposed development relative to PGST
tribal tneaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and wildlib. This web
meeting was acting on the previous (December 14,2016) meeting the first two follow+p items.
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's straff provided a summary of comments regarding shellfish resources, water quality
protection and wildllfe protection/management for the discussion (attached to this summary).
Cultural Resources d iscussion
. Laura reviewed cultural resource issues connected with the planned use for surface water management of
Kettle B and other project impacts. Laura stated that the Tribe has commented about concerns that cultural
FINAL
Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-up Action ltems
Pleasant Harbor MPR Discussion
Technical Workgroup
Web meeting: Thursday, January 26,2017 @ 8:30 - 10:30am
resources would be lost from the proposed plans to create a lined storage pond within Kettle B and other
project impacts. The Tribe has commented on the significance of the site as a baditional cultural property that
meets multiple criteria for being eligible for the national register of historic places and the Tribe does not want
to lose the opportunity to explore that history. Laura reported that, on January 23,2017, the PGST tribal
council supported a'path fonrrard to protect Kettles B and G' and will sign a letter being prepared to send to
the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to request reconsideration of
Kettle B and C for further study or listing on a national register. Second, the Tribe would like to work with the
Statesman Group and others to develop a Stewerdship Plan for Kettles B and C. The Stewardship Plan would
include measures to protect cultural resources, as well as outline procedures for the management and
maintenance of the cultural site.
o Garth asked for PGST to share documentiation on hodwhat qualifies Kettle B and C as a site for eligibility for
further study or inclusion on a national register. Garth mentioned that Statesman wishes to make the Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) a leader in environmental stewardship.
o Roma offered to set-up a separate meeting if needed to talk in more detail about the cultural signlflcance
information and steps needed to have a site listed rather than go into specific detail at this meeting.
o Additional discussion regarding shared management and stewardship of Kettle B and C with regard to its
cultural significance were defuned also.
o Garth stated that, with Umely feedback on the documentation of the cultural significance of Kettle B and C,
Statesman will move forward with modifying surface water management from Kettle B to that which was
contained in an unofficial, conceptual site plan proposal that was prepared August 19, 2016. Garth reminds
attendees that the conceptual proposalwas in response to PGST communicated @noems regarding Kettle B
and C.
o Roma clarified that because potential modifications to surface water management are not formally proposed,
PGST must conline all comments to the formal prefuned alternative published in the Final Supplemental
Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) and focus on the loss of Ketfles B, C and the wetlands.
r Patty and Michelle confirmed that discussions (pro or con) on a modified stormwater management proposal
have not moved forward and concurred that the cunent discussion had to formally focus on the prefened
Alternative 3 analyzed in the FSEIS until a modiflcation was formally submitted.
. Patty and Michelle noted that the County will review project modifications under State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) guidelines so that a proper determination of SEPA supplement or addendum can be made.
INEXT STEPS: ll Laurr wlllfollow uo wfth DAHP: 2l Steterman Grcuo wlll conflrm lts oosltlon on the
8/18 orolect oroporal to orotect the ksttles and wetlrnds: 3l PGST. Statesman Grouo. County and
othera wlll meet to dlgcuss Stewardrhlo Plan develooment.l
Shellfish Resources Manaoement and Protection
o Tamara reviewed the concems regarding exiBting shellfish resouroes. Tamara noted the project would be
located between two public beaches (the Duckabush and Dosewallips) which provide significant shellfish
resouroes for commercial, recreational and subsistence harvest. The two delta flats are two of the most
important intertidal areas to tribal harvesters. Tamara noted the tribe's concern regarding polluting runoff from
2
the proposed development and operation of he PHMPR. She noted the tribe's @n@rn regarding increased
temporary and permanent residents from the resort that would increase the harvest prcssure to the beach and
tide flats. lncreased pressure from additional harvesters without seeding and annual enhancement would result
in a decline in the existing resource over time.
. Patty and Michelle reminded Tamara that the Black Point cunently does not have existing accoss to he beach
or tide flats and that the PHMPR proposes no beach access. Tidelands in the immediate project area include
privately owned as well as state-owned and managed shellfish areas. lRefer to FSE S Secfion 3.52 which
states'including closing the cunBnt dangerous frail acoess to retain the natunl condition and minimal use of
the southem shorcline." Sfafasman owns Tideland Tax D (approximately 10.11 chains) which is located at the
mid-east porlion of the Black Point shorcline bluff.lTaman responded that the PHMPR is located just a short
distance from the tidelands and would be easily accessed by PHMPR residents and visitors.
o Substantial conversation fullowed regarding existing veftius potential polluting runofi sources and potantial
impacts to shellfish, Don reminded attendees that the PHMPR is based on a zero-runoff development plan
bofi during and after construction. Don expressed concern that the PHMPR iJwould be singled out as a sole
source of pollution over and above the existing sources from land, river and the substantial flooding events that
occur due to large rainfall and other storm events.
r Don Coleman also commented on the improvements planned for Dosewallips Campground. This will increase
year-round occupancy and have a more intense impact on recreation shellfish harvesting than visitors to
Pleasant Harbor Recreation Community. Pleasant harbor Resort cannot be held accountable for monitoring
public beaches.
o Garth reiterabd tfie zero-runoff plan and described how the redevelopment of the marina is proving its
efrectiveness. Garth encouraged frose who have not seen the marina surface and stormwater infrastruc'ture to
do so. Garth agreed with Don that the PHMPR would be a "peanuf (runoff source) to the other sources that
occur during large flooding events. IFSE S page 3.2-7 under'Stormwatef identifies the stormwater
management plan would meetthe prcject's requirementsfor zeldischarge of waterto Had Canal from the
golf course resoft aroa, and the full trcatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the
Habor. Additionally, BoCC Condition 63(q) of Ordinance 01-012&08 requires no runoff ftom the golf course is
to enter Hood Canal regadless of the size or frequency of the runoff event.l
. Tamara mentioned a ehe.llfish resource management and protection plan as a way to work together and
ensure impact avoidance to shellfish.
r Garth reviewed the existing water quality impact avoidance deicribed in the FSEIS. Garth proposed a stianding
'committeeo of area water quality interests and experts to meet and engage regularly and set up a monitoring
program with regard to pollutants in runoff. Garth mentioned that Pleasant Harbor stafr have been apprcached
to provide area for a shellfish nursery by a member of the PGST. IBoCC Condition 63(r) ot Odinance 01-
0128-08 rcquires a County-based comprehensive water quallty monitolng plan for a minimum of monthly
watar collec:tion and testing in conceft with an adaptive management prcgrum prbr to any slte speciftc action
utilizing BMPs and appropiate state agencies.l
IIIIEXT STEPS: Trlbe. Statesman Group. and Gounty wlll meet to dlscuss the development of a Shellftsh
Protectlon Plan.l
3
Water QualiU Protection
o Sam raised the issue of wetland determinations and expiring wetland jurisdictional determinations under US
Army Corps rules, stating the 2007 determination expired in 2012 and is no longer valid. lf the wetlands will be
impacted an updated determination of wetlands jurisdiction is required from the Army Corps.
. Sam also admitted that he has made his recommendations without reading the reporE submitted by the
experts representing the Applicant as well as Peer Review Reports commissioned by Jefbrson County. Sam
also admitted to not having visited the site to review the protection provided under the BSP application for
mitigating pollution from water run-off from Highway 101.
o Garth updated the group that they had been in contact recently with the Army Corp Seattle District. Garth said
he would not need approval from the Corps if the wetland impacts are avoided (as suggested in the new
proposal). An ufiated jurisdictional determination will be needed if wetlands are to be impacted as describEd
in the FSEIS.
o Sam described the desire to work with Statesman on a water quality monitoring program to specifically look at
fate and transport of chemical pollutants to monitor whether pollutants are in fact removed ftom the
environment as planned. As desoibed in the summary of comments, this may include event-based monitoring
of stormwater systems and monitoring of storage pond water, groundwater and ambient water, includlng
mussel tissue analysis from the adjacent nearshore waters.
r Pat$ and Michelle noted that water quality monitoring is one of the conditions of the MPR implementing
ordinance and development agreement which is published in the FSEIS. Patty agreed that PGST staff would
work with the Coun$ and State agencies on a water quality monitoring plan. [BoCC Condition 63(0 of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 requircs a County-based comprehensive waterquality monitoring plan for a minimum of
monthly water collection and testing in conceft with an adaptive management program prior to any site specific
action utilizing BMPs and appropriafe sfafe agencies. A dnft Water Quality Monitoing Plan was completed by
the applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Water Quality Department in August 2014; Appendix F of the
FSE S.I PGST staff will participate in the development of the final Water Quality Monitoring Plan to ensure the
plan meets PGST approval.
o Garth explained the details contained in he FSEIS regarding treating water for not only biological but other
potential contaminants too. Garth reminded all that the membrane filter treatment will result in tertiary treated
water and is part of the model of environmental quali$ that Statesman wishes to develop and practice for the
PHMPR.
. Sam noted that it appears that there is an opportunity to work together on water quality issues. Patty stated
that the Tribe would participate in the development of tfie final water quality monltorlng and adaptive
management plan. Garth described interactions that he has had with the County's water quali$ manager Mike
Dawson. Garth napeats his idea for a water quality committee.
o Sam raised the issue of the reduced 9-hole golf course fertilizers and pesticides as described in the summary
of comments, in which PGST requests advance notification if chemicals pesticides, herbicides or fungicides
are applied and for a log sheet to record all fertilizers, pesticides herbicides and fungicides to be accessible to
PGST stafr. Garth reviewed what is in the FSEIS regarding the use of Xeriscaping and Dakota's RBy' product
4
which is a 1O0o/o liquid humic compound, biologically based way to fertilize and manage pests on the proposed
nine-hole golf course.
INEXT STEPS: Ar reouired under BoCC Condltlon 63lrl of Ordlnance 01{{28{8. Trlbes. Gountv.
Develooer. and State Aqenw Reprcaentatlvet wll! meet to devoloo the flnrl water oualltv monltorlno and
adaotlve manaoement olan.l
WildliE Protection
r Tim asked if there was available any update on habitat and wildlife information. A lengthy discussion on wildlife
management followed and a distincUon between habitat management versus wildlife management was also
discussed. Garth reviewed the ear-tagging and collaring elk crossing concepb covered in the FSEIS.
. Tim noted that while proximi$ sensor is good, the tribe is still concemed that the PHMPR development will
aftract elk due to changes in vegetation.
o Garth reviewed the total cover type change percentage in the PHMPR.
o Tim shored 2013 elk location and home range data on wherc elk usage and assemblies have occuned. The
data show elk congregating in cleared areas throughout the studied landscape west of the Highway 101.
Creating cleared areas on the PHMPR is certain to attract elk east of Highway 101.
o Garth requested a copy of Tim's presentation,
. Tim reminded everyone that the higher risk of mortality to elk crossing the highway is only one concern. The
most important issue is the attraction of elk away fom usual hunting areas to the PHMPR. The latter reduces
opportunities for Tribal citizens to hunt, and thereby diminishes their trea$ right. Tim reiterated the idea of elk-
proof fencing which Garth has said is not feasible for the project because of studies wtrich indicate that elk are
very difficult to contain, and to erect a 10 foot wall anchored to resist the strength of the elk, it would prove to
contravene the County's mandate to protect the habitat of wildlife and the management of wildlife. Wildlife
includes more than elk, but other ungulates would be removed from the property with this wall, and the
property would then be impacted with a significant change in its biology and ecological significance. Garth
stated that they would work with the Tribe through Xeriscaping programs, since historically the elk herd have
not shown any migration pattern on the property, even in the times when considerable grass areas were
planted for the purposes of fte American Campground. [Jer?brson County imposed a 'no shoot" zone for
Black Point as estabfshed under Ordinance 0*0519-97 in 1997 and Olympic Canal Tncts located on the west
side of Highway 101 as esfab/ished under Ordinance 12-1202-02 in 2002.1
o WiElife Protection as described by Tim is not to protect the habitat and management of the elk herd, but to
harvest the elk herd based on Tribal hunting rlghts. Tim was concerned that even though the elk herd in
question has never occupied the Pleasant Harbor Resort property, they might in the future because of the 9-
hole golf course fainrays and greens.
flt urould be valuable to have a subsequent meeting to try and resolve issues regarding elk, with PGSTI
INEXT STEPS: PGST/PNPTG. Staterman. Grouo. Jeflenon Gountv. and ooeciblv the wlldllfe confllct
toeclaliet from the Warhlnoton Doot. of Flrh and Wlldllfe wlll meot to dlscurs wlldllfo orotactlon. We
5
rocommend meotlno ln Februrry glnce ataffwlll be ln the fleld durlno the month of llerch and not
avallable.I
PGST Gloalno Comments:
Roma stated that there has been some confusion regarding the status of the Statesman Group's new 8/16
proposal. lf the Statesman Group moves brward with proEcting Kettles B and C and the wetlands, the seope and
design of the project will change signlflcantly. At this point, we are still fucused on the existing poposal in the
FSEIS. The Trlbe continues to oppose the project as long as there are impacts to the kettles and wetlands.
INEXT STEPS: Statesman Grouo will conffnn lt! potltlon on the rtatuo of the 8/tG orooogal. lncludlno
declon chanoeg. as well as orotoctlon of the kettlea and wetlanda.l
Michelle and Patty provided a summary:
- Apprcciation for evaryone's availability and to PGST for preparing advanced information.
- The web based meeting provided an opportunity to review knorn issues and have specific dialogue on fiose
issues which is not ae easy to do over email and/or comment periods.
- Thie meeting allowed br the group to see and discuss the bodies of information, where information resides in
existing documents and where plans, projects and monitoring are described and wherc they may need
additionalwork.
- Many of the issues are part of the development agreement.
6
DRAFTJan.19,2017 PGST
Summary of Comments Regarding Shellfish Resources
Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
The Black Point Resort will be located between two public beaches (the
Duckabush and the Dosewallips) which provide both significant commercial
and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual
and Accustomed fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are two of
the three most lmportant intertidal areas to Tribal harvesterc.
The increase in visitors from the Resort, both temporary and permanent
residents, is expected to increase the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and
Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is
sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without seeding
and an annual enhancement will result in a decline in the existing resource
over time.
Both tidelands have areas of concern to the Washington Department of
Health (DOH). In 2015, DOH reported that one water sampling location on
Dosewallips and two locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and
an additional location on each tideland were falling into Concerned status.
Additional system overflows into the Duckabush or contaminated
stormwater runoff from the increase in impervious areas could result in poor
water quality in the rivers leading to problems with shellfish on the
tidelands. A closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues
would have a cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam
Tribe,
a
a
a
a We would like to develop a Shellfish Resources Protection and Management
Plan with the developer for the protection and restoration of tribal shellfish
resources in the area. The Plan may include seeding and enhancement of the
beaches by the landowner on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers where
tribal members harvest. It may include conservation easements to protect
the tidelands adjacent to the project area. Additionally, the PIan would
include response plans in the event of a water quality incident.
lan. L9,2017 DRAFT
Summary of Comments: Water Quall$ Protection
Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Contact U,S, Army Corps representatives to request a new determination of
wetlands jurisdiction for the purposes of USCOE permit review. The 2007
determination (FSEIS Vol. 2 Appendix f,A) expired in2012 and the document
is no longer a valid determination that the wetlands in question are not
Waters of the U.S.
Consult with PGST Natural Resources Dept. staffto develop and implement a
plan for the protection of water quality in the project area and in waters
adjacent to the project area. Amend the existing Draft Water Quality
Monitoring Plan to include these protections:
o Water quality monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and
shellfish harvesting areas, including monitoring for pollutants, The
monitoring plan will consider the transport and fate of pollutants with
a mass-balance approach. This will incorporate the following:. event-based monitoring of stormwater conveyances and
detention basins. monitoring of the proposed storage pond (Kettle B or
alternative). monitoring of sea-level aquifer groundwater. monitoring of nearshore ambient waters. monitoring of shellfish tissue and/or other biota
o An evaluation of alternatives for constructlng additional swales and
contours near roadways to redirect stormwater runoffaway from
Hood Canal, particularly in the areas of Phase 1 construction.
Provide advance notification to PGST Natural Resources staff before any
application of chemical pesticides, herbicides or fungicides in the event that
organic management is not sufficient. Maintain a log sheet for all fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides and fungicides used on site, made accessible to PGST
Natural Resources staff.
a
a
2
a
fan. 19,2017 DRAFT
Summary of Comments: Wildlife Protection and Management
Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Management of Roosevelt elk has not been adequately addressed.
The requirements specified in Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, 63,1, have not been
met, That ordinance requires:
"a wildlife management planfocused on non-lethal strategies.,,ln consultation with lhe
Department of Fish and Wlldlife und local nibes, to prevent diminishment of fibal
wildlife resources...to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions..,[and)to reduce the
confllctsfrom wildlileforaging on hlgh-value landscaping..." [Emphasis added.]
The2012 Habitat Management Plan prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. does not meet these
requirements, It does not provide assurances that elk will be managed by non-lethal means when
they enter the project site and cause property damage. The plan was developed without
consultation with the Tribes or the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It does not address vehicle
collisions, except to note that a fence will be constructed to discourage wildlife from crossing the
highway. [t does not address conflicts regarding wildlife foraging on high-value plants, and how
those wildlife will be managed.
The Habitat Management Plan, without any supporting evidence, concludes that elk will not
likely cross highway l0l, and concludes that because elk are not currently using the project site
they will not use it in the future. This is wishful thinking. The Point No Point Treety Council has
more than l0 years of habitat use data showing that elk are attracted to open, grassy habitats,
particularly those where the grass is fertilized and inigated.
Elk are known to cause significant damage to golf courses. We find it difficult to believe that
such damage will be tolerated for long by the golf course managers, Long-term measures to
prevent elk from crossing the highway and entering the property are needed.
Installing caution lights (like the ones near Sequim) on the highway to warn motorists that the elk
are nearby is a valuable addition to the mitigation package. Does Statesman understand that it is
necessary to attach telemetry sensors to the elk to activate the lights? We would be happy to
cooperate with Statesman to implement such a system.
Highway caution lights will reduce collisions, but they will not prevent elk from entering the
project site. A fence is still needed. We already know that the highway is not a barrier to elk
movement (and have evidence thereof), despite the uninformed conclusions in the Habitat
Management Plan.
Elk access to the east side of highway 101 is likely to be improved by the recently authorized
Duckabush estuary restoration and highway re-alignment project. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will remove the causeway that currently carries highway l0l across the estuary, and
replace it with an elevated highway supported by concrete piers spaced at 1lO-foot intervals. This
is expected to make it easier for elk to disperse east of the highway.
3