HomeMy WebLinkAbout1131
Shannen Cartmel
From:Michelle Farfan
Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 2:41 PM
To:Philip Hunsucker
Cc:Patty Charnas
Subject:BoCC Amendment 1 to the Wildlife Management Plan ATTORNEY-CLIENT
COMMUNICATION
Attachments:BoCC Revised Wildlife Management Plan 6-4-18.docx
Hi Phil:
FYI: Attached is the BoCC revisions to the Revised Wildlife Management Plan as identified in strikeout and red ink.
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
V: 360-379-4463
F: 360-379-4451
Work hours – M, T, W
mfarfan@co.jefferson.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
Revised Wildlife Management Plan
For
PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT
As Prepared By GeoEngineers dated November 2, 2017
(This document reflects the June 4, 2018 Board of County
Commissioners revisions to the above-referenced
Revised Wildlife Management Plan as indicated by strikeout and
red print)
(This document was prepared for convenience of the future planner)
2
INTRODUCTION
The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort is situated on approximately 237 acres in Pleasant
Harbor and Black Point in Hood canal and will consist of a 9-hole championship golf course,
residential housing, marina and a maritime village. As part of the Jefferson County approval
conditions (Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, 63.l) a wildlife management plan is required. This
condition states that the wildlife management plan (WMP) will focus on non-lethal strategies to:
Prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources (e.g. deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey,
eagles, and bear);
To reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on US Highway 101;
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 the danger to humans.
This letter report presents the WMP prepared to address Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, 63.l, for the
proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR), near Brinnon in Jefferson County,
Washington (Figure 1 – Vicinity Map). The following report addresses the current preferred
alternative (Alternative 3) site plan for the MPR (Figure 2 – Site Map). A Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) for the project area was developed in 2012 and describes potential fish and wildlife
usage of the project site (GeoEngineers 2012). In addition, the HMP also describes minimization
measures such as providing wildlife corridors, increasing shoreline buffer and enhancement
through native plantings in degraded habitat areas (GeoEngineers 2012); Figure 3 shows the
proposed wildlife corridors.
Project Location
The Pleasant Harbor MPR is located along the western shoreline of the Hood Canal surrounding
Pleasant Harbor and Black Point in Sections 15 and 22 of Township 25 North, Range 2 west of
the Willamette Meridian. The MPR property, hereinafter referred to as the site, is approximately
1½ miles south of Brinnon in Jefferson County, Washington (Figure 1). The site is located in the
Skokomish-Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 16) and is part of the East
Olympic and Hood Canal Basins.
The approximately 237-acre site is partially developed and comprised of three main development
sections as identified in Figure 1. Section 1 is the Golf Course/Golf Resort on Black Point,
which extends east approximately 1 mile into Hood Canal. This property was historically used
for camping and recreation. Sections 2 and 3, referred to as the Maritime Village/Marina area.
These sections are located on the northwest shoreline of Pleasant Harbor which is a shallow cove
of Hood canal north of Black Point. Currently, Sections 2 and 3 are being utilized for a variety
of purposes including business (real estate office), recreational (the marina) and commercial
(restaurant and convenience store).
3
Site Description
The entire site was previously logged by other prior to 1970. Historical aerial photographs
reproduced in the Forestry Report prepared for the Pleasant Harbor MPR show the area now
occupied by the Pleasant Harbor Marina was once used for log rafting and log dump. The
existing narrow loop road on the slope and along the waterfront was created by others to serve
these uses.
Black Point Peninsula and Marina
Existing land use on the Black Point Peninsula is predominantly low-density residential. The
peninsula was previously logged, and single-family homes have been constructed on the west
and east sides. The northern end of the peninsula is undeveloped. Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns approximately 30 acres of forest land on the northern
portion of the peninsula. Improvements on WDFW land include a public boat launch and picnic
area with access from Black Point Road.
The site was historically used as a 500-site campground and consists of developed roads and
camping pads. There are buildings remain on-site, including restrooms located throughout the
developed area of the site. Section 1 is bordered by Hood canal to the south, forested land and
several single-family residences to the east, light residential housing to the north and Highway
101 to the west. Black Point peninsula landforms consists of hills, ravines and deep kettles
shaped by glacial processes. The project area is sparsely forested with pockets of second growth
coniferous forest and areas of deciduous shrubs and trees. There are also cleared areas that were
associated with the campground, including roads, campsites, maintenance areas, lodge,
restrooms, parking areas and play areas.
The golf course has been reduced to 9-holes to accommodate the Tribe, where only 3.1 acres is
classified as impervious development. At the Marina/Maritime Village uplands, the impervious
areas are only 1.8 acres of development.
Vegetation found on the property consists primarily of an over story of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), with occurrences of red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa),
bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Pacific madrone
(Arbutus menziesii). Broadleaf shrubs and other plants found in the understory include: red-
flowing currant (Ribes sanguineum), Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), vine maple (Acer
circinatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum). The
Black Point peninsula and marina areas provide grazing and cover habitat for deer, elk, cougar,
and bear. However, these habitats do not provide potential grazing or prey habitat for osprey,
eagles and waterfowl.
Shoreline
The Pleasant Harbor shoreline is considered a low-energy environment due to the protected
waters of the Bay and the vegetation established below the mean higher high tide line. Salt-
tolerant vegetation identified on the shoreline along Pleasant Harbor included saltgrass
4
(Distichlis spicata var. spicata), pickleweed, Puget Sound gumweed (Grindelia intergrifolia var.
macrophylla) and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa).
The Hood Canal shoreline of Black Point is considered a high-energy environment because of
the exposed nature of the shoreline and the lack of vegetation established below the mean higher
high tide line. The shoreline along Black Point is high bluff with areas of vertical slopes, which
contain little to no vegetation and signs of active erosion. The shoreline within the project area
does not provide grazing or cover habitat for deer, elk, cougar, or bear. However, the shoreline
does provide potential grazing and prey habitat for osprey, eagles, and waterfowl.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The plan is to develop a mixed-use resort development on the 237-acre site. Although three
project alternatives and a no-action alternative (four alternatives total) have been developed, the
basic project description remains consistent within the various phases and alternatives.
For more specific information on the preferred alternative, see Attachment 1.
Mitigation Measures
Various strategies will be implemented to help prevent the diminishment of tribal wildlife
resources throughout the site from impacts caused by the development. These strategies include
providing natural vegetated areas that will be protected from development and remain
undisturbed as well as reducing impacts to the marine environment by controlling pollution that
may drain to Hood Canal and Pleasant Harbor.
The following mitigation measures will be taken to limit impacts to terrestrial wildlife resources
and protect wildlife corridors within the golf resort:
Designated vegetated areas/corridors will be left undisturbed and extend throughout areas of
development. These undisturbed vegetated areas will consist of the typical forested habitat
that currently exists on the site. The areas will be dominated by a coniferous and deciduous
forest, with dense to moderately dense shrub and herbaceous layers.
Wildlife Corridors depicted on Figure 3 extending through golf course fairways will consist
of mowed grasses. However, it is assumed that wildlife will still cross through these areas of
the fairways.
The JCC 150-foot shoreline buffer will be increased to a 200-foot shoreline buffer and will
not be disturbed or encroached upon. Disturbed portions of the buffer will be restored.
The final wetland critical area buffers will be marked and left undisturbed for Wetlands C
and D.
Existing concrete and gravel roads within the buffers of Wetlands C and D will be removed
and the areas will be replanted with native vegetation that is found in the project vicinity.
Vegetated corridors that lead to offsite areas and to other remaining vegetated areas will be
left throughout the golf course and housing areas. These corridors will lead to more than 200
acres of relatively undisturbed vegetation on and off site in addition to existing and created
5
wetland features on-site. These corridors will be dominated by native vegetation that will
provide food and habitat to animals that may use the site.
An effort will be made to retain trees that have a Diameter at Breast height (DBH) of 10
inches or greater throughout the site in these corridors. These trees are import because they
are used as perch trees and nesting trees for birds such as bald eagles and osprey. An active
osprey nest was identified near the west shoreline of Pleasant Harbor and the next and tree
will be protected during construction.
Undisturbed areas of natural vegetation and habitat corridors are important to wildlife currently
using the site. Habitat corridors are needed to allow movement and subsequent flow of genes
between wildlife populations in habitats that otherwise would be isolated. The two primary users
of corridors are corridor travelers and corridor dwellers. Corridor travelers include large
herbivores such as deer, medium to large carnivores like foxes and coyotes; and various
migratory animals (Payne and Bryant 1994). Corridor dwellers generally have limited dispersal
ability and consist mostly of plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and birds.
These vegetated acres will lesson impacts and allow wildlife that typically utilizes the site to
continue to utilize the site.
WILDLIFE ERSOURCES
As stated above, the purpose of this WMP is to provide non-lethal strategies to prevent
diminishment of tribal wildlife resources (e.g. deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and
bear) to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on US 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 the
danger to humans. Therefore, deve3lopment of the WMP included identification of tribal
wildlife resources and review of literature on the identified tribal wildlife resources. For the
purposes of this report, the wildlife resources discussed below include: deer, elk, cougar,
waterfowl, osprey, eagles and bears.
Deer
During previous site visits, black-tail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbiannus) scat and tracks
were observed throughout the site from the shoreline to the upland in all sections and there were
visual confirmations of deer made during the field reconnaissance.
Roosevelt Elk
There is documented presence of regular large concentrations of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus
roosevelti) in the vicinity of the site (WDFW 2017). Elk migrate on a seasonal pattern and can
be expected to be in the project vicinity during certain times of the year. Elk could potentially
wander onto Black Point. and inhabit the site for short durations during the year. However, SR
101 separates the entire site from crucial elk wintering range (WDFW 2017). According to
Bryan Murphie (wildlife biologist with WDFW), there are two unique herds in the area:
Duckabush and the Dosewallips herds (personal communication, 2017). The Point No Point
6
Treaty Council’s census records show that at times the Duckabush herd has contained as many as
80 individuals. Both herds have the potential to cross Highway 101, but the Duckabush herd
would likely be the herd that utilize Black Point (personal communication with Bryan Murphie
2017). Some elk migrate seasonally. The Duckabush herd is resident year-round, and has not
undergone a true migration since 1993. Some individual elk are nomadic, and may travel up to
13 kilometers from one end of their range to the other. As a result, it is possible that most of the
Duckabush herd would be in the vicinity of the MPR all year, posing the risk that elk will cross
Highway 101 and visit the MPR. There is not a documented presence of elk utilizing Black
Point; however, elk could be found occasionally using the site (personal communication with
Bryan Murphie 2017).
Elk are typically found in herds that can range in size of individuals. During mating season,
bulls gather harems of cows and these harems can range in size from 3 to 25 cows (WDFW
2004). Therefore, it is assumed a herd could be as small as 4 individuals (3 cows and 1 bull).
Cougar
The project site includes forested habitat with thick brush and sparse development which is
typically habitat of cougar. While cougars were not observed during the site reconnaissance and
no evidence of cougar was noted, it is possible that cougar are found within the development site.
Adult cougar prey typically includes deer (WDFW 2004), which have been identified on and
hear the project site.
Bears
Due to habitat conditions of the project site (forested area with sparse development) bears could
be found at the project site. In general, bears are strongly associated with forest cover, but they
do occasionally use open country (WDFW 2004). Bears were not observed on the project site
and evidence of presence was not noted; however, due to habitat conditions it is possible that
beard could be found within the development site.
Waterfowl
Migratory water fowl, such as ducks, geese and swans, are expected to be present within the
vicinity of the site. The Duckabush River enters Hood Canal about 1 mile southwest of the site.
There is an extensive delta and shallow mudflat habitat at the mouth of the river. This area is
prime habitat for waterfowl: thus, they can be expected to feed and migrate through the area
during various times of the year. There is a documented waterfowl concentration of trumpeter
swans (Cygnus buccinators) along the southern shoreline of Black Point that is associated with
the mouth of the Duckabush River and of hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) along the
east shoreline of Black Point (WDFW 2011; WDFW 2017). There is also documented presence
of hooded merganser as concentrations in a pond less than ½ mile to the east of the site (WDFW
2011; WDFW 2017).
7
Osprey and Eagles
An active osprey nest was observed and identified adjacent to the development site, near the west
shoreline of Pleasant Harbor. Two off-site bald eagle nests are mapped by WDFW (WDFW
2017) on the eastern shoreline of Black Point, under ½ mile east from the development area. The
shoreline on the southern edge of Black Point and the Pleasant harbor shoreline contain mature
trees suitable for eagle and osprey perching. Although there are no eagle nests or communal
areas identified onsite, there is a presence of bald eagles in the project vicinity, which indicates
there is potential for bald eagles to utilize the site. During the 2006 field reconnaissance, one
immature and one adult bald eagle were observed flying over the site, and two adult bald eagles
were observed perched in mature Douglas fir trees along Pleasant Harbor.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT STRTEGIES
The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts from the proposed development.
Wildlife corridors and enhancement through installation of native plants is proposed over much
of the site. In addition, the golf course has been reduced from an 18-hole course to a 9-hole
course reducing the overall footprint of the development.
Through discussions with Native American Tribes it has been identified that tribal wildlife
resources (including Roosevelt Elk) should be discouraged from using the development site
(Jefferson County Web Meeting Notes 2017). Therefore, management strategies listed below
include strategies to discourage wildlife use of the sites to prevent diminishment of the wildlife
resources, reduce vehicle collisions, reduce conflicts with foraging on high value landscaping,
reduce dangers to predators attracted by prey and reduce dangers to humans.
Deer
Deer have been identified on the project site and will likely continue to reside within the project
area after construction. Deer can be a nuisance species when population numbers increase to a
point where human and deer conflicts become a concern (WDFW 2004). Deer will forage on
landscaped plants and can attract animals that prey on deer, such as cougar and bear. In addition,
with an increased population there is a potential increase in deer and vehicle collisions (WDFW
2004).
Potential ways to discourage deer from the property include:
Installing cattle guards within driveways or roads with adjacent fencing along entrances;
Landscaping with deer resistant plants;
Implementing scare tactics. Scare tactics can include visual (bright colors, jerking
movements), auditory (loud noises) and smell (sprays that have a scent deer dislike).
However, scare tactics are often considered temporary because deer will get used to the tactic
and once again return to the site; and
Installing fencing around the site or potential food sources (landscaped plants).
8
Statesman will evaluate deer presence on the project site and if deer become a nuisance,
Statesman will implement the following strategies:
Statesman will landscape with deer resistant plants and if needed will fence around potential
foot sources (landscaped plants).
Scare tactics will be used to deter deer from the project site. Scare tactics will include use of
chemicals for smell, loud noises and flashing lights.
If deer continue to be a nuisance, Statesman will install cattle guards and fencing as a last
resort to discourage deer presence on the property. The fence will only be installed on
WDFW and Washington State Department of Transportation (WDOTS’s) concurrence that
installation of a fence will not pose a threat to human health and safety.
Deer that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the
animal poses a threat to human health and safety.
Roosevelt Elk
Elk have not been identified on the property but there is a potential for their presence because the
site is adjacent to mapped elk crucial wintering range (WDFW 2017). Elk can be a nuisance
species when human and elk conflicts become a concern. Elk will forage on landscaped plants
and due to the location of the highway, there is a potential increase in elk and vehicle collisions
(WDFW 2004).
Methods to discourage elk from utilizing the site are similar to deer. Typically nonlethal
damage-control techniques to discourage elk include but are not limited to the following:
Scare tactics can include visual (bright colors, jerking movements), auditory (loud noises)
and smell (sprays that have a scent elk dislike). However, scare tactics are often considered
temporary because the animals will get used to the tactic and return to the site.
Elk fences and other barriers can provide relief from elk damage in situations where plants
cannot be protected individually (WDFW 2004); Johnson, et.al. 2014; WSDOT 2017;
personal communication with Fish and Wildlife biologist at WSDOT 2017; personal
communication with Wildlife biologist at WDFW 2017). The fence will need to be a
minimum 8-foot high woven-fire fence. In addition, electric fences have proven to be an
alternative to the woven-wire fencing. The fences feature eight to ten strands of high tensile
steel wire supported by conventional fence post systems. To be effective, fencing must gen
seen by the elk because often times they will go through the fence if not seen. To make the
fencing visible, survey tape or branches can be used.
High numbers of wildlife and vehicle collisions frequently occur in areas where large
numbers of deer and elk are present directly adjacent to high volume highway segments
(WSDOT 2017). According to WSDOT, signs are the most commonly used tool to warn
motorists of the possibility of wildlife on the highway (WSDOT 2017). Flashing signs or
signs with regularly updated messages are more successful at reducing deer and elk vehicle
collisions than regular signs and are currently used in areas with high wildlife/vehicle
collision rates (WSDOT 2017). Therefore another potential strategy to reduce elk and
9
vehicular incidents is to install collars on elk that are linked to signs on Highway 101. The
signs would light up when the elk get close to the roadway and ward people to slow down.
However, this strategy would not prevent elk from entering the project site and is not always
an effective strategy (personal communication with Fish and Wildlife Biologist at WSDOT
2017; personal communication with Wildlife Biologist at WDFW 2017).
To help prevent elk and vehicle collisions, Statesman will install flashing signs that are
associated with collared elk. A flashing sign shall be located on the East side of Highway 101 on
both the North and the South sides of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, in a precise locations
determined by the Developer, after consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). The Developer also will work with the WDFW to attach devices to area elk that
would trigger the flashing signs when the Elk approach them. The WDFW will determine how
the flashing signs will interface with the elk movements, who will be responsible for capturing
and collaring elk, who will replace collars when they wear out, and who will be responsible for
maintenance of all the system components. The Developer will reimburse WDFW for
installation of two flashing signs and provide reimbursement of up to $10,000 to WDFW for elk
collars on the Duckabush herd and other system components for the program. Even though
there is no history of elk grazing on the grasses in the project area, the Applicant has agreed to
satisfy the concerns of the PGST to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk
could find access to the 9 holes of golf course grasses. The Applicant will investigate if there is
proven technology in types of grasses that are not attractive for elk grazing. For the project site,
strategies for discouraging elk from the property include utilizing scare techniques which is a
temporary solution. Statesman will be responsible for monitoring elk presence on the site. If
more than four elk (which could be a herd) are observed accessing the property within a one year
span, Statesman will employ the following strategies to remove and discourage elk from the site:
If four elk are observed on the property in a one year span, Statesman will implement scare
tactics to deter the elk from the project site. Scare tactics will include use of chemicals smell,
loud noises and flashing lights.
There has been no history of elk entering and grazing on the property. Once the property is
developed and should there be more than four elk on the property at one time after the
developer has determined that noise-deterrents, smell-deterrents and visual deterrents have
proven ineffective, then the developer will install a fence as a last resort to discourage their
presence for the benefit of the PGST and their hunting rights. The fence will onl y be
installed on WDFW and WSDOT’s concurrence that installation of a fence will not pose a
threat to human health and safety. Nevertheless, the Developer shall construct an exclusion
fence along the western border of the MPR South of Black Point Road, to exclude elk from
the MPR. The Developer will be responsible for determining the precise location of the
exclusion fence, but will consult with WDFW and the Point No Point Treaty Council before
constructing the exclusion fence. The exclusion fence shall be visible to elk, (e.g., using
survey tape or branches, or other like means) and shall be at least 8 feet in height. Fencing
shall be either woven-wire or electric. Fencing shall be constructed before or concurrent
with clearing the forest and developing greens, fairways, and lawns at the MPR.
10
Elk that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the
animal poses a threat to human health or safety.
Cougar
Cougar could potentially be attracted to the development site by the presence of prey species
such as deer and elk. WDFW provides several tips for preventing conflicts if living within areas
where cougars are present (WDFW 2004):
Do not leave small children unattended and make sure children are indoors by dusk. Cougars
are generally more active from dusk to dawn.
Cougar that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the
animal poses a threat to human health or safety.
Modify the habitat around homes. Light all walkways after dark and avoid landscaping with
plants that deer prefer to eat. Shrubs and trees around children’s play areas should be pruned
to prevent cougars from hiding behind them.
Do not feed wildlife that may be prey to cougars. Attracting prey species will likely attract
cougars.
Feed pes inside and do not leave unattended water and food outside.
Use garbage cans with tight-fitting lids because garbage can attract small mammals that, in
turn may attract cougars.
Statesman will monitor the number of cougar sightings on the project site. If cougar presence
becomes a nuisance then the following strategies will be implemented:
Statesman will implement public education programs regarding living in areas with cougars
(i.e. garbage can management, feeding pets and supervising children outdoors).
If cougars are still observed on the property, Statesman will modify habitat around homes
which will include, lighting all walkways after dark, pruning shrubs and trees and
landscaping with deer resistant plants.
Bear
Bear can utilize a variety of habitats but are generally associated with forested areas. Therefore,
bear have the potential to be on the development site before and after the development of the
project. WDFW provides several tips for preventing conflicts if living within areas where bears
may be present (WDFW 2004):
Do not feed bears; a wild bear can become permanently food conditioned after just one
handout and associate food with humans.
Manage garbage. Bears will go through garbage looking for food. Trash cans should be put
out shortly before the garbage truck arrives, garbage cans should have tight fitting lids and be
kept in a shed or garage, and garbage cans should be sprayed with disinfectants to reduce
odors that may attract bears.
11
Remove bird feeders from early March through November.
Clean barbeque grills after each use and store the barbeque in a shed or garage.
Electric fencing can be used where bears frequent. Electric fencing will only work if it is
operating before conflicts occur. Bears will go through electric fencing once they are food
conditioned and know that food is available.
Temporary scare tactics (as described above) can be used to temporarily scare bears from a
building. The location of the frightening devices should be changed every other day;
however, bears will still become accustomed to them after a period of time.
Statesman is planning to install bear proof garbage containers approved by US Park Service.
Statesman will monitor the number of bear sightings on the project site. If bear presence
becomes a nuisance then the following strategies will be implemented to discourage bear
presence:
Statesman will implement public education programs regarding living in areas with ears (i.e.
garbage can management, cleaning barbeque grills and bird feeders).
If needed scare tactics will be implemented to deter bears from certain areas.
Bear that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the
animal poses a threat to human health or safety.
Waterfowl
There is potential for waterfowl to become attracted to the site after development has occurred.
Waterfowl habitat (mowed grasses and areas of open water) is being created as a result of the
development actions. Methods to discourage use of the site include:
Not feeding waterfowl,
Putting a grid or net over open water that will prevent waterfowl from using the water; and
Scare tactics.
Deer that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the
animal poses a threat to human health or safety.
Statesman will evaluate waterfowl presence and identify whether waterfowl are becoming a
nuisance. If waterfowl are becoming a nuisance then the following strategies will be
implemented to discourage waterfowl presence:
Install signage near open water to educate people about not feeding birds.
Implement scare tactics such as loud noises and flashing lights.
If waterfowl presence is still considered to be a nuisance, a grid or net will be installed over
open water features.
Osprey and Eagles
Osprey and eagles are currently found near the project site and will likely to be present after the
project is constructed. In general, osprey and eagles are not considered nuisance species.
Habitat for osprey and eagles will be managed at the project site by retaining trees that have a
12
DBH of 10 inches or greater throughout the site in these corridors. These trees are important
because they are used as perch trees and nesting trees or birds such as bald eagles and osprey.
SUMMARY AND RECOMENDATIONS
The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort is situated on approximately 237 acres in Pleasant
Harbor and Black Point in Hood Canal and will consist of a 9-hole championship golf course,
residential housing, marina and a maritime village. As part of the Jefferson County approval
conditions (Ordinance No. 01-0128-08), a wildlife management plan is required. For the
purposes of this report, the wildlife resources discussed within this WMP include: deer, elk,
cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles and bears.
Deer, elk, cougar, bear, osprey and eagles all have the potential to be found on or within the
project site and presence of these animals on the development site may increase as a result of the
proposed development. Statesman will manage sightings and determine whether these species
are considered a nuisance. Even though there is no history of elk grazing on the grasses in the
project area, the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns of PGST to install a west oriented
fence in any open areas where elk could find access to the 9-holes of golf course grasses. The
applicant will investigate if there is proven technology in types of grasses that are not attractive
for elk grazing. In the case of elk, if more than four elk individuals are observed on the site in a
1-year period, Statesman will use alternative elk management strategies including scare tactics
and fencing as described in the Wildlife Management Strategies section above the mitigation
measures outlined above.
Typical recommended management strategies for living with wildlife are listed below:
If species become a nuisance, employ scare tactics (visual, auditory and smell). This is often
a temporary strategy that will only work until the animal becomes used to the noise.
Do not feed the animals. Waterfowl and bear will associate humans and food and may
become aggressive.
Manage pets responsibly. Leaving pet food out may attract prey species which could in turn
attract predator species such as cougar.
Manage garbage cans, barbeque grills and bird feeders. These items can attract animals
looking for food. Animals may associate food with humans and become aggressive.
LIMITATIONS
GeoEngineers has developed this Wildlife Management Plan for the property located at Pleasant
Harbor and Black Point owned by Statesman Group in general accordance with the scope and
limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services
have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time
this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied should be
understood.
13
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Statesman Group and authorized agents
and regulatory agencies following the described methods of information available at the time of
the work. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to
such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose
of project except the one originally contemplated.
The applicant is advised to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies (local, state, and federal)
prior to design or construction of any development to obtain necessary permits and approvals.
REFERENCES
GeoEngineers, Inc., 2012. Habitat Management Plan Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort,
Jefferson county Washington. Prepared for Statesman Group. January 27, 2012.
Jefferson County Meeting Notes. Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-Up Actions Items,
Pleasant Harbor MPR Discussion, Technical Workgroup. Web Meeting: January 26, 2017 at
8:30-10:30 am.
Johnson, Heather, et al., 2014. Evaluation of Techniques to Reduce Deer and Elk Damage to
agricultural Crops. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.408/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=previ
ew_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer-
www.google.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER.
Payne, Neil F. and Fred C. Bryant, 1994, Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of
Uplands. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
Personal communication with Kelly McAllister at WSDOT, 2017. Phone conversation between
Kelly McAllister a Fish and Wildlife Biologist with WSDOT and Jennifer Dadisman with
GeoEngineers. July 7, 2017.
Personal communication with Bryan Murphie at WDFW, 2017. Phone Conversation between
Bryan Murphie a Wildlife Biologist with WDFW and Jennifer Dadisman with GeoEngineers.
July 7, 2017.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Services, 1999.
American Elk (Cervus elaphus). Available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_010000.pdf.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Olympic Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife Program,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 52pp.
14
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Living with Wildlife in the Pacific
Northwest. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/species/.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Habitats and Species Map in the Vicinity of T29R01E Section 7.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. District 15 hunting Prospects. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hungtin/prospects/2016/statewide.pdf.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. Priority Habitat and Species Interactive
Mapper. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. Game Management Unit (GMU) Search;
Jefferson County. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/gmu/search/search.php?searchby=County&search=Jefferson&order
by=PlaceName.
Washington Department of Transportation, 2008. Analysis of Deer and Elk- Vehicle Collision
Sites along State Highways in Washington State. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports700/71.1htm.
Washington Department of Transportation, 2017. Reducing the Risk of Wildlife Collisions.
Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/FAQwildlifeCollisions.htm.
If you have any questions regarding our work or the information provide please call us at
253.383.4940.
Sincerely,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Jennifer L. Dadisman, PWS Joseph C. Callaghan, MS, PWS
Biologist Associate