Methow Valley Citizens Council

Methow Valley Citizens' Council
Scaling down the Resort

Index to MVCC's campaign to avert a destination resort in the Methow Valley, Washington

Appeal to the County Commissioners

APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL
OR THE OKANOGAN COUNTY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

To: The Clerk of the Board of Okanogan County Commissioners

COMES NOW THE METHOW VALLEY CITIZENS’ COUNCIL, as Appellant, on this 29th day of May, 1996 and hereby files this Appeal to the decision by the Department of Planning and Development, or other administrative official, to issue and approve the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Addendum to the Preliminary Plan and Program for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort.

Whereas, the Okanogan County Office of Planning and Development, or the Responsible Administrative Official, did on May 14, 1996 take the above action and did, according to Ordinance No. 94-16, provide for a 15 day Appeal period;

Therefore, be it known that the Appellant, after review and consideration of the FEIS issued by the Responsible Official, does now under the appropriate regulations, give written notice of Appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Board of County Commissioners, or other responsible official, of said decision and alleges the following errors of the Administrative Official or Responsible Official:

SEE EXHIBIT A

FURTHERMORE THE APPELLANT requests:

l. That the Hearing Examiner, Board of County Commissioners, or other responsible official, upon further review of the decision of the Administrative official or Responsible Official, find in favor of the Appellant and revise the action of the Administrative Official or Responsible Official by finding the Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort to be inadequate.

2. A declaration that the Final Environmental Impact Statement violates the law and is inadequate as a matter of law.

3. Remand this matter back to the Okanogan County Office of Planning and Development for withdrawal of the FEIS and for the issuance of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Issuance of temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent injunctive relief prohibiting any further action by the Okanogan County Office of Planning and Development regarding the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort.

5. That adequate time be given to the Appellants for the purposes of ordinary discovery of witnesses and the substance of their testimony. This request is for a 90 day period for such discovery.

6. That adequate time be given the Appellants for the presentation of evidence through lay and expert testimony during the appeal process. This request is for a 3 day hearing for the appeal at the administrative level.

Dated this 29th day of May, 1996

Lincoln Post, Chairman Attorney for the Appellants
Methow Valley Citizens’ Council David A. Bricklind
1424 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101 (206-621-8868)

EXHIBIT "A"

Introduction: The preferred alternative as proposed would increase the population of the land in question from perhaps 10 or fewer inhabitants to a maximum of 1,540 people in 2019 (see FEIS, pg. IV-149, comment 13) and an average population the size of Twisp. Yet the EIS states that the only Significant Unavoidable Impacts are: (l) irreversible loss of some plant and animal habitat on the site (Plants and Animals), (2) the fact that some residents may perceive the development as adverse (Land Use), (3) conversion from forest and pasture to PDR (Aesthetics), and reduction in level of services a few days per year (Transportation).

According to the summary on the FEIS, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected in these areas:
1. Earth
2. Air
3. Water
4. Environmental health
5. Noise
6. Population, Housing, and Employment
7. Historic/Cultural
8. Public Services (police; fire and emergency; parks and recreation; schools; roads and utility maintenance, general government services)
9. Utilities
l0. Waste Water
ll. Energy
12. Solid Waste
13. Communications
14. Fiscal impact

Common sense dictates that this is not so and demonstrates why this EIS needs to be supplemented in order to fully disclose the impact of the project to the decision makers.

Also the EIS fails to consider many additional unavoidable adverse impacts in areas related to wildlife, land use, aesthetics and transportation.

The general impacts of growth are known: increased population will bring more traffic, more air pollution, more demand for housing, greater demand for limited water resources, higher land prices, more or less business for local merchants, more clearing of riparian areas, and filling of wetlands, adverse impacts on wildlife populations and so on.

I. Alternatives

A. SEPA requires a No Action Alternative to be considered. There is no No Action alternative considered in the EIS.

Page I-1 lists two alternative actions, one being "No-Action." Since "no-action" by definition means that there will be no action taken on the property in question, the "No-Action alternative" is mislabeled and misleading. Obviously, no study was made of a true No-action alternative and none presented as required in the EIS. Compared impacts between the proposed action (PDR) and a true "no-action alternative" does not exist.

WAC 197-11-702(a) defines actions as "New and continuing activities (including projects and programs) entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, licensed, or approved by agencies, etc." The stated "No Action" alternative in this EIS is an activity regulated and approved by agencies (see discussion of agencies involved on EIS page I-1) and therefore does not qualify as a "No Action" alternative.

WAC 197-11-440 (5) (c) (vii) states "this section (alternatives) shall present a comparison of the environmental impacts of the reasonable alternatives, and include the no action alternative." Without a true no action alternative, this comparison cannot be accomplished and disclosed to the decision-makers.

The alternative in FEIS is to subdivide the property into parcels that would be individually sold. That is not truly a no action alternative.

The no action alternative in the document seriously over estimates the development potential of the lands. This alternative fails to directly recognize that much of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain or associated wetlands. We all should recognize that habitable building and subdivisions of lands are not allowed within these zones. The protection of wildlife and environmental values are much better in the no action alternative than the document leads a reader to believe and are far superior to the other displayed alternatives.

The Methow Valley Citizen's Council and the Friends of the Methow currently hold the legal right to acquire the total project property as a conservation purchase should the Merrill’s decide to sell the property rather than develop it. We have had confirmation from a third party potential purchaser that a conservation purchase is indeed a practical possibility.

In other words, before exempt segregations or any other subdivision and sale of the property could occur, a conservation purchase would be available. This, therefore, is a very real alternative that must be addressed in the EIS process. The legal right held by MVCC and FOM can be verified with the developer. A copy of the contract clauses giving MVCC and FOM this right is attached to this exhibit.

B. The EIS does not consider WAC 197-11-440(5)(d), in that alternative sites for the project have not been mentioned or considered:

The FEIS failed to discuss the potential of a different site for the PDR or a similar development. Many of the commercial aspects of the PDR could be located at the Mazama Core commercial district. The FEIS also failed to adequately address the impacts of the PDR and the potential land use implications on competing commercial areas, such as the Mazama Core commercial district.

"When a proposal is for a private project on a specific site, the lead agency shall be required to evaluate only the no action alternative plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal’s objective on the same site. This subsection shall not apply when the proposal includes a rezone, unless the rezone is for a use allowed in an existing comprehensive plan that was adopted after review under SEPA. Further, alternative sites may be evaluated if other locations for the type of proposed use have not been included or considered in existing planning or zoning documents."

The rezone is not for a use allowed in an existing comprehensive plan that was adopted after review under SEPA. The only existing comprehensive plan does not allow for a planned destination resort. In addition, the existing comprehensive plan was adopted on April 5, 1976, before the adoption of the State Environmental Policy Act and has not been reviewed under SEPA. Therefore, a consideration of alternative sites which are not as environmentally crucial to the environment of the Methow Valley (not at the head of the airshed and watershed, not at the conjunction of deer migration routes, etc.) would have been appropriate and should have been analyzed by the county under alternatives.

C. The EIS fails to address other reasonable alternatives which would be in accordance with the stated objectives (EIS at 1-2) or even more in accordance with these objectives than are the alternatives which are considered.

Both PDR alternatives which are considered and would meet the objectives include a golf course. It is highly questionable that such a resort would "protect the site’s cultural heritage," "conserve resources," "preserve environmental values" as well as other non-golf course centered PDR’s might. For example, a PDR centered around historical themes, environmental studies or trail-related activities are a few alternatives which could address the objectives more successfully than the alternatives included in the EIS.

D. The alternative section is inadequate because it fails to address the issues required by WAC 197-11-440 (5) (C) (vii) which states: "this section of the EIS shall discuss the benefits and disadvantages of reserving for some future time the implementation of the proposal, as compared with possible approval at this time. The agency perspective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal."

There is no discussion in the EIS of the benefits and disadvantages of waiting until a future time to approve the development for the decision makers to consider.

II. Inconsistencies in Information presented in the FEIS and Addendum

A. Inconsistencies in Maps Presented in Final EIS and Addendum to the Preliminary Development Plan and Program for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort (PDR).

Maps are essential for the understanding of the scope and impact of a development such as the Arrowleaf PDR. Accurate portrayal of existing conditions and proposed actions is critical for project planning, analysis of environmental impacts and the assessment of these impacts by the interested public. The maps presented in the FEIS and the Addendum have many grievous inconsistencies and inaccuracies which make any analysis of environmental impacts flawed and make it impossible for the public to decipher what is actually being proposed by the developer and what the impacts of the PDR may be. Examples of some of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies include:

The first two maps in the FEIS (Figure 1- Preliminary Site Plan and Figure 2 - Preliminary Domestic and Irrigation Water Plan) show a road and many single family lots extending deep into the central and western portion of the Cassal Ranch section of the PDR. But the third map in the DEIS (Figure 3 - Preliminary Drainage Plan) shows no road or single family lots in this area. Which is correct? All three maps state that they are revisions of maps presented in the DEIS, but they are grossly inconsistent.

Likewise Figure 1 (Preliminary Site Plan) and Figure 2 (Preliminary Domestic and Irrigation Water Plan) in the FEIS are completely inconsistent with all the maps presented in the May 1996 Addendum to the Preliminary Development Plan and Program for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort. Which is correct? How can the environmental impacts of the PDR be assessed by the county or the public when such grievous inconsistencies exist?

The developer has not presented a clear, well defined proposal for the development - but rather a very confusing set of inconsistent proposals. Even the developer appears to be confused about what is proposed. During a phone discussion with the RD Merrill Co., on May 17, questions were asked about the developers plans for the Cassal Ranch and RD Merrill did not seem to know which of the many maps in his office reflected the final proposal. They also conveyed that he was aware of locational mapping errors related to the placement of building envelopes in the Cassal Ranch portion of the PDR. All analysis presented in the FEIS is flawed by this set of inconsistent plans presented though out these documents. All environmental analysis presented in the FEIS will require revision based on a consistent, clearly stated and presented proposal.

Other problems exist with the maps presented in the FEIS and Addendum. A careful overlay of the Existing Conditions Map (B) (Figure 2B) in the Addendum and the Preliminary Site Plan Map (Figure 3 - Addendum and Figure 1- FEIS) show that at least one major wetland is covered by a golf course fairway. This major conflict is not addressed in the FEIS. But other maps (e.g. Figure 6 - Addendum, Preliminary Golf Course Plan) show the golf course and wetlands in different locations than the preceding maps. Again, which map is correct? Where is the golf course? Where are the wetlands? What conflicts will there be between the golf course and the wetlands? The maps presented in the FEIS and Addendum only create confusion, leaving the public confused about what is proposed for the PDR. Creating clear, easily understood, and highly accurate maps which show the relationship between proposed activities and natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas is an easy thing to do with modern technology. The developer has failed to do this. This is a violation of the purpose and intent of SEPA.

B. Inconsistencies in Discussion of Changes and Revisions Presented in Final EIS and Addendum to the Preliminary Development Plan and Program for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort (PDR).

Likewise, there are grievous inconsistencies in the discussion of changes to the proposed action and plan for the PDR between the FEIS and the Addendum. The FEIS has no discussion of the proposed changes in the Cassal Ranch and elsewhere in the PDR while the Addendum discusses a number of important changes. There is no consistency in the proposed changes and revisions between these two documents. It is impossible, once again, for the public to understand what is being proposed. It is impossible to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed actions when there is no consistency about what is actually proposed. This lack of consistency is a violation of the intent and purpose of SEPA and will require revision of the FEIS.

III. Cumulative Impacts: The EIS fails to adequately address cumulative impacts. In order to adequately address cumulative impacts, the impacts caused off-site by the resort and its spin-off development must be addressed. It is not possible to disclose the true impact of the resort to the decision-makers without addressing these cumulative impacts.

All of the following sections of this appeal are incorporated into this category where appropriate.

A. The EIS carefully avoids discussions of off-site impacts in several areas of the affected environment by claiming that they are "outside the scope of the EIS," by answering only a part of questions regarding off-site issues, and by inaccurate cross-referencing.

B. The FEIS at III-3 reveals that 47% of all approved and developed parcels lie in the relatively small area of School District 350 above the Weeman Bridge. The FEIS fails to point out that this indicates great potential for off-site growth and cumulative impact, particularly with an economic generator, such as the PDR.

IV. The following issues and proposed mitigations are not analyzed adequately in the EIS, and thus the true impacts of the resort as planned are not revealed to the decision makers. Questions related to these issues and mitigations submitted by the public and agencies have not been adequately answered.

WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(v) states that the EIS must: "Devote sufficiently detailed analysis to each alternative to permit a comparative evaluation of the alternatives including the proposed action. "

WAC 197-11-560(1)(c) states: "Possible responses are to explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons that support the agencies response and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances that would trigger agency reappraisal or further response." Rather than answer questions related to the issues in this fashion, the EIS avoids answering crucial questions by incomplete cross- referencing, partial answering of questions, and by stating that the answer to the question is "beyond the scope of the EIS," particularly when the question addresses cumulative impacts. (See II above.)

A. Air Quality

The EIS discussion of Air Quality Impacts is Inadequate.

1. Data used in the model is not valid because it is inconsistent with long-term averages.

The data used were not typical of the meteorology at the site over a historically valid time period. The Beck Study, page III-4, shows 3 to 4 stagnation episodes of 2 to 16 days duration in the time interval from 1972 to 1981. The EIS states that the meteorology was consistent for three years but ignores data that is very inconsistent with their data over a longer interval. The effect of meteorology exhibiting frequent stagnation periods of long duration must be determined in order to know if the PSD will be violated.

2. In the model, the deposition velocity was too high, thus allowing pollutants to be taken out of the atmosphere more quickly than actually occurs in reality.

The attempt to simulate a long duration stagnation period was not successful. The data in Figures 4 and 5 indicate that the PM10 concentration does not increase after 24 hours. This cannot be the case for a typical stagnation event since data of actual measurements of PM10 concentration during a stagnation period from many other similar sites increases steadily over a period of 4 to 6 days or longer. In other words, the model shows an unrealistic scenario in which pollutants build up over 24 hours’ time and cease to build up after that, even though the stagnation period continues. In actuality, the pollutants will continue to build and build for a much longer period of time when a long- term stagnation event occurs. These unrealistic results were obtained because the deposition velocity used was too high. This physically incorrect representation of pollutant concentration at the same site throws all of the modeling results into question. We will present data from other communities (Steamboat Springs, Spokane, and/or others) which demonstrate this point at the appeal hearing.

3. The model is not accurate because it used the wrong baseline year.

The baseline year for PSD was triggered in 1979 as determined by the EPA. According to the Washington Department of Ecology this year has not changed. The study in this EIS used 1983 as the baseline year. The results of the study are not valid since an incorrect baseline year was used.

4. The EIS is misleading because it under-represents the time periods during which particulate matter has been problematic in the area of the resort.

The second paragraph in the section on Recent PM 10 Concentrations is highly misleading in stating that 24-hour average PM10 concentrations were less than 20 ug/m3 100 percent of the time. The time period over which the data was taken was February 3rd through March 31 which is an interval in which PM10 concentrations would not be particularly high. This paragraph should be removed. The FEIS will likely be quoted in subsequent studies of environmental impacts in the Methow Valley over the years. Misleading and inaccurate comments such as these, if they are allowed to stand, could have effects even beyond the development currently in question.

5. The EIS failed to consider restrictions on future development that will result if air quality if degraded.

Among the purposes of the PSD program of the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479 are:

(3) to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources;

(5) to assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution in any areas to which this section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decision-making process. 42 U.S.C. 7470.

The PSD program establishes that air quality will not be permitted to degrade more than a specified increment. Once the increment is consumed, no new major sources of air pollution would be allowed. 42 U.S.C. 7475 (a)(3). Economic development in the area would come to a halt. This EIS shows that with the development, as planned and modeled, violations of the PSD increments would be expected to occur in very cold conditions with a 10-day stagnation event, even with the errors in the model indicated above, which cause and underestimation of the impact. (FEIS III-25 and Figure 8) The EIS relies upon the mitigation of an unknown and undeveloped curtailment plan to prevent violations of the PSD increments. It does not mention, however, that with consumption of the PSD increments by the resort (even if the increments are only consumed and not violated) would come restriction on other future developments which expect to contribute to PM-10 particulate matter in the atmosphere. Under SEPA, WAC 197-11-440 (5) (c) (vii) (alternatives including the proposed action) states "particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal. Thus the decision-makers and planners have not been accurately appraised of the impacts of this project to future development.

6. The FEIS fails to adequately describe and analyze mitigation measures which could prevent projected violations of the PSD increments of the Clean Air Act.

An adequate discussion of mitigation measures is central to SEPA’s goal of minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts. To be adequate, the discussion must do more than simply list possible mitigation measures. Analysis is required. Listing mitigation measures is virtually worthless if there is no indication whether the measures will mitigate 1% or 99% of the impacts. But the FEIS never once analyzed the likely effectiveness of the mitigation measure upon which the developer relies to prevent violations of the PSD increments which occur off-site or on-site as a result of this resort as planned.

Curtailment is the mitigation upon which the FEIS relies. The writer’s excuse for not analyzing the effectiveness of curtailment is that it "may well become a prototype for a more comprehensive, valley-wide curtailment program." (FEIS, III-20) There has been no indication that the public supports a curtailment program; indeed, even the previous rather weak (and repealed) Methow Valley curtailment program was strenuously opposed at two public hearings. There has been no indication that county commissioners are in support of such a valley-wide program.

The reasons for lack of analysis of the suggested curtailment program are clearly these: the developer has not taken the time and money to develop a program even in its beginning stages; and the extent to which any effective curtailment program would need to be used to prevent violations (if revealed to the decision-makers) would very likely cause the public to become disgruntled and uncooperative. According to the EPA (450/2-89-015), September 1989) fewer than 15 curtailment periods are recommended to avoid a situation in which the public becomes "disgruntled and uncooperative." The FEIS contains not even an estimate of whether the number of curtailments required to avoid violations of PSD would be far more or far fewer than 15. Should it be close to 15 or more, it could be expected that this mitigation might very well not succeed. SEPA requires that in the summary, the effectiveness of mitigation measures shall be stated (WAS 197-11-490 C 4). The effectiveness of curtailment has not been addressed.

7. When fireplaces are used, they emit significantly more air pollution for the amount of wood burned than do certified wood stoves. The BPA study cited in the FEIS found that even in electrically heated homes, a high percent of those with wood-burning devices will burn wood for several hours per day. None of us can predict how wood-burning fireplaces will actually be used, once they are installed. Given that we all agree on the extreme sensitivity of this airshed, as well as the potential for negative impacts from residential wood combustion, a smoke free project makes more sense than a project with 239 fireplaces even with a curtailment program. The FEIS doesn’t explain why a smoke-free project isn’t feasible. A smoke free project would prevent the air pollutants from ever being generated in the first place, and it would eliminate the capital, operation, and maintenance costs for the monitoring and curtailment programs that the applicant has proposed.

8. The FEIS does not explain how follow through will be assured. The monitoring and curtailment program components and responsibilities are not formalized within a local agreement or a locally issued permit.

9. On site, there will be a limit of 239 fireplaces. Wood burning stoves would not be allowed and houses would be heated primarily by electricity and propane. According to the EIS, resort development would increase wood smoke emissions in the Valley northwest of Winthrop by 10 % over existing or No Action alternatives. Air pollution from increased traffic was predicted to remain well below air quality standards. No predictions are made about air quality effects from increased build-out of the vacant lots in the Mazama area, where no restrictions apply to use of wood stoves. The developer proposes to establish an air quality monitoring system, and to curtail wood burning on-site as needed. Will Okanogan County use the results of this monitoring? The County had, at one time, regulations to limit the installation of new wood stoves in School District 350, with procedures to curtail burning during air pollution events. These regulations were eliminated in March 1994. The current regulation provides for re-establishment of air pollution control program" if scientific evidence of health problems is presented and funding is available." (Quoted from EIS). A level of air pollution which is just short of "scientific evidence of health problems" will be sufficient to lower the Valley’s desirability as a tourist destination.

l0. The close proximity to a wilderness area caused the previous developer to prohibit any but centrally located wood-burning devices in his planned development. It appears that this prohibition is not planned for this development and that it will have an impact on the air quality, not only on site, but also in the wilderness area.

B. Noise

1. The EIS defines noise as "unwanted sound". (See FEIS pg. IV-95, Response #100) However, the EIS section on existing conditions regarding noise (pg. 4) states that "noise sources in the project vicinity include traffic on Highway 20, occasional aircraft overflights from the Lost River Airstrip, birds, rivers, and streams, and noise generated from farm activities........ The Methow River and birds contributed to the background sound levels of around 39 dBA while traffic along Highway 20 produced maximum sound levels of 69 dBA." The absurdity of measuring and recording the river and bird sounds as noise in a rural area which attracts people because of its natural environment (and for which the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes rural and natural values) should be obvious to almost anyone (but apparently not to the noise consultant.) With such basic misconceptions underlying the noise analysis the study is simply not credible.

2. The FEIS failed to address the adverse impacts caused by the PDR as a result of an increase in noise.

3. In the DEIS Technical Appendices - Volume II, section M, Noise Analysis, aircraft noise is noticeably absent, it was not taken into consideration at all. It is almost certain that there will be an increase in aircraft use and noise due to the PDR. It is likely that not only small private planes but also jets and possibly even a commuter flight from Puget Sound will utilize the M.V. Airport or Lost River airport. Any aircraft noise is significant and jet traffic is extremely so. The EIS completely ignores this sizable impact to both human residents and wildlife.

4. FEIS statements regarding abatement of noise are inadequate. The Mazama area is unique in that it is one of the very narrowest parts of the Methow Valley with high rocks walls. Sounds echo off these walls. Abatement details need to go beyond "meeting the requirements of state law."--i.e., construction activity will be limited to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

5. The FEIS response to comments to the DEIS with regards to the effect of noise on wildlife is wholly inadequate and incorrect.

C. Fish and Wildlife

1. EIS fails to adequately address the impact of the PDR on mule deer. Numerous comments were submitted in response to the DEIS with regard to the failure of the DEIS to adequately address the impact of the proposed PDR on mule deer (US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council and others). The responses to these comments in the FEIS were inadequate and incorrect. The PDR as currently proposed would have serious adverse impacts on mule deer migration and spring staging.

The PDR is located within one of the most important mule deer migration corridors in the Methow Valley. Mule deer pass through the PDR site during movement to and from summer and winter ranges. They also use the site during spring and early summer green up as a staging area. Migration along this corridor proceeds up and down the length of the valley. To demonstrate, the Myers/Naney deer study shows that 28% of the mule deer herd moves through the resort area as deer migrate up through the Methow Valley. Similarly, 17% of the herd migrates through the resort area up Early Winters Creek. These key paths and connections to "off-site" migration routes need to be protected. There is a bottleneck at the north end of the resort, as designed. This eliminates any effective migratory route along the Methow River riparian zone. The important mule deer migration corridor up Early Winters Creek is now largely blocked by the PDR and by the village core and residential units.

The DEIS, FEIS and Conservation Master Plan (which is referred to in the DEIS and FEIS) all mention that six deer movement corridors (600 feet in minimum width) have been designed and are a part of the proposed PDR. These documents repeatedly refer to these migration corridors and even state that they are illustrated on accompanying maps - yet nowhere in any of these documents are these migration corridors displayed. The Methow Valley Citizen’s Council has repeatedly stated that this is a major issue and has asked the developer many times over the last several years to clearly illustrate how deer migration will be accomplished through the PDR - but this has never been demonstrated. Likewise, the US Forest Service in their comments to the DEIS states that "Identification of interlinking migration connections in all directions is mentioned in the document . Discussion and support of this concept should be better displayed." The WDFW mentions that while the deer movement corridors on the site are mentioned in the DEIS, several possible migration corridors are bisected by roads which carry high traffic volumes - which will negate the value of these areas to wildlife. Despite these all these concerns and comments the EIS fails to adequately present a plan to protect the mule deer migration routes through the PDR property.

The revised proposed PDR places a group of "homestead sites" in the eastern portion of the Cassal Ranch next to the Methow River. This grouping of building envelopes and the adjacent high density housing effectively blocks deer migration up and down the valley along the riparian flood plain area - this is the same area that has been promoted as designated wildlife habitat and deer movement corridor by the developer. While the developer has stated that 600 foot wide wildlife movement corridors will be maintained - the encroachment of building envelopes to the river leaves only about 200 feet of potential corridor - three times less than the minimum corridor width that the developer purports to maintain in the proposed PDR. This is clearly not sufficient for migration of a significant portion of the Methow deer herd. Migration across the river at this site is blocked by existing dense platting and development.

The repeated failure to adequately address mule deer migration and the onsite, offsite and cumulative impact that the proposed PDR will have on mule deer in the Methow Valley is a serious flaw in the PDR, the DEIS and the FEIS. The lack of adequate response in the FEIS and the failure to address the probable significant impacts of the proposed PDR on mule deer is a violation of SEPA.

Although the negative wildlife impact of human activity on the trails proposed through the designated wildlife habitat of the PDR is mentioned in several comments, the FEIS fails to address these comments and concerns.

Any potential effectiveness of a wildlife corridor running through the resort along the flood plain area is totally blocked by the one home that will be build next to the river (permitted in 1995 under MRD-3 zoning) and the adjoining cluster of homes occupying the south eastern portion of the Cassal ranch. This residential cluster destroys any effectiveness of an up valley wildlife corridor in the PDR. The blockage of the mule deer migration corridor also exists on the other side of the Methow River in this area due to the dense subdivisions opposite from the PDR. The presence of exceedingly steep slopes on both valley sides eliminates the only other option for mule deer in this critical migration corridor.

Buildout of the PDR (as currently designed) and adjacent property on the other side of the river will effectively block mule deer migration along one of the most important wildlife corridors in the Methow Valley. The PDR does not contain corridors of sufficient width, isolation and integrity to provide for mule deer migration through the PDR. This fact should be honestly addressed in the DEIS. The design of the PDR is in complete violation of principles of conservation biology regarding the design of wildlife corridors. The serious impact that the PDR will have on mule deer populations in the Methow Valley is not adequately addressed in the DEIS.

The EIS fails to adequately discuss the problem of dealing with deer that are attracted to the site and which remain on the site or nearby off-site.

2. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on threatened and endangered species. Many comments to the DEIS (WDFW, USFS, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council, Friends of the Methow, and several individuals) pointed out that sensitive, threatened and endangered species exist in and adjacent to the proposed PDR and that the PDR will have a potential serious negative impact on these species. The response to these comments in the FEIS was wholly inadequate and factually incorrect. The response demonstrated the lack of credible biological analysis and evaluation in the process leading up to the PDR proposal, the DEIS and the FEIS. SEPA and the Federal Endangered Species Act require a careful examination and analysis of any impact to threatened and endangered species. This field work, investigation, evaluation, and analysis was clearly not performed in an adequate fashion for the DEIS and FEIS. The response to this issue in the FEIS is a clear brush off - and is a clear violation of the purpose and intent of SEPA.

3. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on gray wolves. The DEIS and FEIS fail to acknowledge the presence of gray wolves (a Federal and State Endangered Species) on and adjacent to the PDR site. These documents also fail to address the serious onsite, offsite and cumulative adverse impacts that the PDR and associated development in the upper Methow Valley will have on gray wolf populations. Numerous comments were submitted in response to the DEIS with regard to the failure of the DEIS to address the impact of the proposed PDR on this species (US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council and others). All these comments were brushed off. These failures are a clear violation of SEPA.

The applicant responded with the comment that "no suitable wolf habitat is found on the site." This is in total disregard to the recorded sighting of a gray wolf on the PDR site in 1989 (as documented in the official Washington State Natural Heritage Database maintained by WDNR and WDFW). Many other gray wolf sightings are recorded in the same database in the vicinity of the PDR. All this information was provided to Okanogan County and the applicant in the comment letters from Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Washington Dept. of Wildlife and the Methow Valley Citizen’s Council. But despite all this information about the presence of a endangered species this issue was brushed off by the applicant. The applicant responds only with incorrect knowledge stating that suitable habitat does not exist for wolves on the PDR site. There is no scientific credibility in the applicant’s statement that no adequate habitat exists on the site for gray wolves. Much of the PDR site is part of one of the largest roadless/undeveloped wildland complexes in Washington State (with an area of several million acres). This area provides optimum habitat conditions for gray wolves. The PDR site has been quite isolated from intensive human activities, has ample forest cover and provides adequate (if not optimum habitat conditions) for gray wolves. The presence of major deer congregations on the PDR site illustrate one additional reason that this site represents optimal habitat - as deer are a primary prey of gray wolves. The presence of a recent gray wolf sighting on the PDR site also clearly confirms that the PDR site represents adequate habitat. But the applicant denies that WDFW has any record of gray wolf sighting in the valley bottom in the vicinity of the proposed PDR site (FEIS p IV-7). This is an illustration of the applicant’s ignorance of the vast amount of biological information that is available about species that inhabit the Methow Valley. The applicant’s failure to acknowledge the presence of this endangered species, to adequately analyze and discuss the impacts of the PDR on this species and to discuss possible mitigation measures is a clear violation of SEPA and the federal Endangered Species Act.

Human activities and noise associated with the PDR and the negative impact of the PDR on mule deer populations will have a negative impact on gray wolves in the upper Methow Valley. There will be serious onsite, offsite and cumulative impacts from the proposed PDR on gray wolf populations in the Methow Valley. The complete failure of the applicant to address the presence of this endangered species of prime national significance and to carefully analyze and discuss the potential negative impacts of the proposed PDR is inexcusable and a clear violation of state and federal law.

4. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on grizzly bears. Numerous comments were submitted in response to the DEIS with regard to the failure of the DEIS to address the impact of the proposed PDR on grizzly bears (US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council and others). The response to these comments in the FEIS is inadequate. Grizzly bear habitat does exist on the proposed PDR site and grizzly bear sightings (WDNR Natural Heritage Database) in the upper Methow Valley in the vicinity of the PDR indicate that the proposed PDR site is well within the home range of grizzly bears. The wetlands, riparian forests and anadromous fish bearing rivers in the PDR provide optimal habitat conditions for grizzly bears. Activities on the proposed PDR have the potential to adversely impact this federally threatened and state endangered species. The manner in which the DEIS and FEIS brush off the issue of grizzly bears when the PDR is clearly within the home range of individuals of this species is a clear violation of SEPA. A careful analysis of the presence of grizzly bears, grizzly bear habitat and the impact of this proposed development is needed to fulfill the requirements of SEPA to assess adverse impacts on all threatened and endangered species.

5. EIS fails to adequately address the impact of the PDR on lynx. As stated previously (comments on DEIS from Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council, etc.) , the DEIS and FEIS brushes off the impact of the development on lynx populations. The biologists responsible for the wildlife and vegetation resources assessment (DEIS technical appendix I) obviously did not research lynx in the upper Methow Valley. Lynx were left entirely off the list of potential animal species that might be present on or near the development site (DEIS Appendix B to Appendix I). There are several recent lynx sightings in close proximity to the PDR. One siting is in Early Winters Creek near the PDR at a similar elevation and habitat type as found in the PDR. The presence of lynx populations in the PDR vicinity should be adequately addressed in the DEIS and FEIS. The response to comments regarding The DEIS and FEIS should consider the off-site impact of the PDR on wildlife populations. The FEIS must adequately assess the impact of the PDR on lynx populations in the upper Methow to comply with SEPA.

6. EIS fails to adequately address the impact of the PDR on cougars. The PDR will adversely impact cougar populations in the upper Methow valley due to greatly increased human activity, noise, great increase in dogs and the adverse impact of the resort on prey populations (mule deer and other species). The DEIS and FEIS do not address the nature and scope of this impact. Once again, the potential for significant onsite, offsite and cumulative impacts on cougar populations is not adequately addressed by the applicant in through the EIS process.

7. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on amphibian species. Many comments (US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council, and others) were submitted to the county following release of the DEIS stating that the DEIS failed to mention the presence of amphibian species on the site and that no inventory of amphibians was presented in the DEIS. Likewise, many of these comments stated that no discussion of the impact of the PDR on amphibian populations was discussed in the DEIS. The FEIS failed to respond to these comments and address these issues.

Amphibian species are in serious decline worldwide due to many factors and the maintenance of amphibian populations is a major conservation concern in the Methow Valley and elsewhere. The PDR site contains numerous wetlands and forests which provide habitat for amphibian species. The impact of human activities, dogs and cats and the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides in the PDR will likely have a serious negative impact on amphibian populations in the PDR. The vehicle collisions with amphibians will have a serious adverse impacts on amphibian populations and has been documented in the scientific literature. The DEIS and FEIS failed to address these serious environmental impacts. The response to comments in the FEIS failed to address the comments submitted by the above mentioned parties and illustrated the developer’s ignorance about the status of amphibian populations in the Methow Valley and the proposed development area. The FEIS failed to respond to the comments to the DEIS with respect to amphibians and failed to provide an analysis of the impact of the PDR on amphibian species. It should have also proposed mitigation measures to counter the serious impacts that would be expected from a development of this magnitude.

Specifically, the response to comments in the FEIS fails to address the concerns presented by the US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute and Methow Valley Citizen’s Council about the lack of an amphibian survey on the PDR site and the lack of information in the DEIS on species present and potential impacts. There response to comments makes it clear that the developer has developed no knowledge of extant species, and their response to comments is only speculation. Their speculation concerning tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) is incorrect and illustrates the ignorance of the applicant as to the status of amphibian species in the Methow Valley and PDR site. There are numerous records of this species from the valley floor, and they almost certainly exist at the site of the planned development, as do long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum). Tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) are known to exist in the Early Winters watershed, and the Methow's four other frog and toad species (Pacific chorus frog, Pseudacris regilla, spotted frog, Rana pretiosa, Western toad, Bufo boreas and spadefoot toad Spea inermontanus) almost certainly exist on the site of the planned development The presence and abundance of these amphibian species will have to be ascertained before any assessment of impact can be made. To meet the requirements of SEPA an inventory of amphibian species must be done and an assessment of the impact of the proposed PDR made.

In the response to comments (letter from Sierra Biodiversity Institute) the applicant states that amphibian habitat would improve over existing conditions as a result of this development. This is contradictory to all existing scientific literature. The applicant bases this fact on their belief that elimination of grazing (which has already been in effect for several years) will benefit amphibian species. This is not supported by the scientific literature. Some scientific studies show that some amphibians actually benefit from grazing. Once again the applicant demonstrates their lack of knowledge with regard to amphibian species and the impact of the proposed PDR. The response to this comment is incorrect and is a violation of the intent and purpose of SEPA.

The FEIS response to comments fails to respond entirely to the following comment provided by Sierra Biodiversity Institute: "The technical appendix I to the DEIS provides a wildlife species/habitat matrix (appendix B) that lists animal species which might occur in the PDR. Eight amphibian species are listed as potentially occurring in habitat types present in the PDR. Strangely, the wetland habitat type is not present in this matrix. It would be the most obvious habitat in which amphibian species might occur. This matrix (DEIS Appendix B of Appendix I) should be revised to include wetland habitats. Many species listed in this matrix may find optimum habitat conditions in wetland habitats on the site." This failure to responded to comments is a violation of SEPA.

8. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on song bird species. The claim made in response 41 to letter 18 (Sierra Biodiversity Institute) that the development, consisting of 690 dwellings, 120 lodge rooms and a golf course, will "contribute to the viability of bird populations in the region" provides one measure of the failure of this EIS to accurately assess the environmental impacts of the development (which is of course the entire function of an EIS). As response 41 also points out, the single most important factor in the decline of songbirds is loss of habitat. The urban planners who designed the resort may imagine that front yards, roads and golf courses serve as adequate wildlife habitat, but this only illustrates the depth of their ignorance and the continuing failure of the EIS to accurately reflect impacts. Their conclusions are entirely unsupported by the scientific literature. Development on the scale contemplated in this EIS will perturb and fragment many habitats, and will introduce the inevitable concomitants of suburbs in the form of dogs, cats, raccoons, house sparrows, cowbirds, starlings and crows, all of which are predatory (cowbirds are nest parasites) on songbirds. The songbirds population of the site will inevitably decline. How much it will decline can only be accurately assessed by determining what species are present and what the sensitivity of each is to the scale and type of development planned. The DEIS and FEIS completely failed to address this issue. This failure was in spite of efforts by Sierra Biodiversity Institute to educate the developer about the impact of developments on neo-migratory song bird populations. A copy of a recent scientific article was mailed to the developer on April 15, 1996 which discussed the impact of developments on song bird populations. The contents of this article was discussed with the developer through a telephone conversation. The receipt of this scientific article was acknowledged by the developer (in the form of a reply letter). Despite, these efforts, the developer completely failed to address the potential impacts of the development on song bird species. This failure to respond to comments, address the adverse environmental impacts of a proposed activity and propose mitigation is a serious violation of the intent and purpose of SEPA.

9. EIS fails to address the impact of the PDR on harlequin ducks. Harlequin ducks are known to use the property. Appendix H, page 18 of the DEIS states "we anticipate no impact to harlequin ducks that are reported to use the river channel habitats". But the WDFW and USFS comments expressed concern for harlequin ducks in the proposed PDR vicinity. Harlequin ducks are sensitive to disturbance and have been known to abandon nesting areas once disturbed (Wallen and Groves 1989). Trail use in close proximity to harlequin use areas has the potential to adversely effect this species. Cassirer and Groves (1989) recommend that trails and roads should be located farther than 165 feet from the stream and should not be visible from the stream. The WDFW recommended that any roads and trails be located at least 165 feet from harlequin waters. The response to these comments in the FEIS is not adequate. The applicant acknowledges that trails will exist close to the river (where harlequins may exist). The applicant downplays the use of these trails in their response, while elsewhere in the EIS describes the great recreational attraction that these trails will provide. The EIS fails to adequately respond to the concerns and comments of WDFW and is in violation of SEPA.

10. EIS fails to adequately address the impact of the PDR on northern spotted owls. Numerous comments were submitted in response to the DEIS with regard to the failure of the DEIS to adequately address the impact of the proposed PDR on northern spotted owls (US Forest Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, Methow Valley Citizen’s Council and others). The applicant brushed off all these comments in their inadequate responses presented in the FEIS in a clear violation of SEPA.

The PDR is located at the hub of northern spotted owl activity in the Methow Valley. The population of this threatened species is tenuous in the Methow and any further degradation of habitat, harassment or disturbance could cause local extirpation of the species and overall decline in regional population viability. Spotted owls have been observed repeatedly on and adjacent to the PDR site. Other spotted owls have been repeatedly observed in the Lost River area upstream from the site. Spotted owls have been observed in the Sandy Butte and Pekin Creek area close to the site. It is obvious that the PDR is within the home range of several spotted owls and is regularly used by this threatened species.

Development of the proposed PDR on the site will dramatically reduce, fragment and alter coniferous forests on the proposed PDR site which provide habitat to northern spotted owls. This will have a significant adverse effect on spotted owl populations in the upper Methow Valley. The effect of forest clearing and fragmentation on spotted owl habitat viability and movement is well documented in the scientific literature. The impact of a large development with intense human activity, noise, lights, vehicles, dogs and cats located close to the center of a spotted owl hub has not been investigated. There is much reason to believe that the PDR will have an adverse impact on spotted owl populations. The DEIS does an inadequate job discussing spotted owl populations in the PDR and vicinity. The DEIS also does not adequately address the impact of the development on spotted owl populations. All potential impacts of the PDR on spotted owl populations should be addressed. US Fish and Wildlife Service consultation under Endangered Species Act provisions is probably required to assess the impact of the PDR on this species.

In the response to WDFW comments regarding concern about continued viability of northern spotted owl populations (FEIS p. IV-42) the applicant erroneously states that development of the PDR will have no impact on the spotted owl population in the Methow Valley. As stated in several comments to the DEIS, this population is currently in a very tenuous condition due to the extensive elimination and modification of habitat that has already occurred in this area as a result of development and logging. Any further development, logging and fragmentation of habitat could have serious adverse consequences for this tenuous population. The potential for elimination of this population clearly exists from further development, logging and fragmentation of habitat in this area. The scientific literature currently documents that the elimination of peripheral populations of threatened and endangered species can have serious consequences for the continued viability of the species as a whole. The response to this serious concern expressed in several comments to the DEIS is clearly inadequate and a violation of the intent and purpose of SEPA.

The EIS and PDR fails to discuss the need for critical habitat designation on the PDR site for spotted owls. The public lands adjacent to the project area are all designated as critical habitat. The EIS also needs to mention and discuss the significance of the 1995 response of northern spotted owls in McGee Creek.

11. Erroneous Use of King County Species/Habitat Matrix in EIS The applicant uses the King County Species/Habitat Matrix in the EIS to assess the impacts of the development on wildlife species in various habitat conditions. This is totally inappropriate, erroneous and inappropriate. Habitat and vegetative conditions on the proposed PDR site are entirely different from that occurring in King County. There is no credible manner to estimate the impact of a development in an eastside ecosystem which is completely different from westside ecosystems using the King County Species/Habitat Matrix. The use of this Matrix invalidates all estimates of the impact of the development on wildlife species and is a violation of SEPA. A species/habitat matrix appropriate to the eastside ecosystems found on the proposed PDR site would have to be developed and used for such an analysis to be credible and meet the requirements of SEPA.

12. The FEIS does not address the impacts on wildlife, flora, and open spaces due to the failure of the PDR to truly cluster its units as clustering is defined in the Planned Development Chapter of the county Zoning Ordinance.

D. Sewage

1. The EIS fails to do an adequate job of explaining how they plan to actually meet the 1 milligram per liter regulation for nitrates for the Mazama Planning Area.

The project relies on superior secondary treatment for the treatment of the wastewater it generates. As part of this treatment an unknown type of biological treatment seems to be relied on to meet state and local sewage treatment requirements. There is no in depth discussions of how this biological portion works and the reader is left wondering about its viability. It is generally recognized that the treatment of the Nitrate-Nitrogen is the key to treatment in the colder times of the year. The questions: What is it? How much does it cost? - must be answered to be able to make any judgments on its viability. The FEIS failed to address these issues.

The FEIS fails to discuss an adequate solution to dealing with the removal of nitrogens from the treated sewage. The sewer system is inadequate for class AA water purity river/aquifer. The system design should be no less than the purity of water going back into the aquifer than it was coming out, this would require tertiary treatment. It must not be forgotten that this is a small city of 1500 residences, not a PD of 12 houses. This will be a very huge impact on our water drinking source for the rest of the valley, down stream. Since it is known that the river and aquifer co-mingle, because of the loose glacial soils, we must be very strict with the permitting of any sewer system in the upper end of the valley. The possibility of contamination of our water supply is huge in this case. Spraying secondary treated effluent on the ground, in this case, would easily soak through to the aquifer, only a few feet below. This will spill into the river, harming the AA classification of purity, and also contaminate the shallow wells in existence just down valley.

2. The FEIS has failed to explain how the statement that the sewer system will not serve off-site development can be supported. State law requires that the sewer system be owned and operated by a public entity such as a sewer district or the county (WAC 173-240). Once such a district was formed, or once the County took over the plant, it would no longer be owned by the developer. The County should explain how it could require that the sewer plant only serve the development itself once the plant were owned by a district or the County. What would stop the district from holding an election to expand its boundaries? What would stop the Commissioners from doing the same?

At the least, the developer should be required to make a commitment to the financial support of the sewer plant, including the cost of staffing and operation, until such time as there are enough residents to fund its operation. This will remove some of the incentive to expand the area served by the plant during the early years when revenues are low.

E. Light and Glare

l. The FEIS only addresses a "potential" mitigating measure for street and parking lot lighting. Stronger mitigations for all lighting need to be included. (See next comments.)

2. The EIS is in error when it states, "Because the majority of the PDR would not be visible from the highway, light-related impacts from these sources would not be significant" (iv-78) Particularly on nights with low clouds, a glow can be seen for many miles from such small sources as the new Liberty Bell High School parking lot light which is visible from most any location. This new glow has caused much unhappiness in the community and is much less than what would occur at the larger resort. Sun Mountain is a good example of a resort in which effects of light and glare have been mitigated, and this proposed resort should follow their good example.

F. Impacts of Golf Course

1. The FEIS fails to address the issue of toxicity produced by the treatment of the golf course at the PDR with herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.

2. The FEIS incorrectly terms the golf-course as the "functional equivalent" of native grass and meadow. The monocultural nature will lack diversity, and treatment will likely discourage insects. The manicuring will limit grass height and prevent many species from use. Species that could be attracted to this conversion, such as gophers, will likely not be tolerated. 3. The golf course of this development relies on wastewater to supplement its watering demands. Because the public’s health and safety are at issue with this procedure, a more in depth discussion must take place in the proposal. It would be helpful to list other golf courses in Washington or other uses, that involve public contact, where this procedure is used. Golf courses are recognized to be a major contributor of Nitrate-Nitrogen to surface and ground water which in this case is restricted by regulation and needs further analysis.

G. Shorelines

1. The EIS fails to adequately address the apparent illegality of locating the PDR village on the alluvial fan of Early Winters Creek, which includes three fingers of 100-year floodplain in the development area. Okanogan County Shoreline Master Program (SMP)states that subdivisions are not allowed in the Conservancy Shoreline Environment. All floodplain is included in the shoreline area in Okanogan County. The EIS discusses possible and probable reclassification of certain areas of the 100-year floodplain, but the fact remains that from a purely legal perspective some of the village as currently designed is in this floodplain and contravenes the SMP.

2. The Arrowleaf PDR identifies three alluvial fans within the proposed development area: Early Winters Creek, McGee Creek, and Looney Creek. The Early Winters Creek alluvial fan is mapped as areas of shallow flooding (AO zone on the FEMA flood maps). Both McGee Creek and Looney Creek alluvial fans are not mapped. The Early Winters alluvial fan includes the area of the proposed single family lots, and McGee Creek includes single family lots.

Alluvial fans are areas prone to severe flooding. Flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan is characterized by high velocity flows, active process of erosion, sediment transports and deposition, and unpredictable flow paths. With the proposed development of single family lots and retail stores, a further study of the alluvial fans should be performed.

3. Of great concern from the standpoint of human safety is the proposal to locate residential development lots on alluvial fans. Alluvial fans are areas of special flood hazard, subject not only to inundation (the most common form of flood hazard, and that which FEMA’s maps are intended to warn against) but also to hazards created by high velocity and debris. The 100-year floodplain, as mapped by FEMA, does not adequately define hazard areas on alluvial fans. The Arrowleaf proposal shows extensive development on the Early Winters Creek alluvial fan, as well as residential lots on two smaller alluvial fans (both labeled as geologic hazard study areas in Figure 2A) in the Cassel Ranch project component. FEMA Flood Insurance Study for unincorporated Okanogan County, published in 1994, states that "Because of the alluvial cone at the Early Winters Creek area, standard backwater computations did not apply. Once the channel capacity of Early Winters Creek is exceeded, shallow overland flow will occur with no definable path." The study goes on to note that overbank areas outside the Forest boundary were designated as a shallow overflow flooding zone. The implication, that risk in those areas is low, is false; furthermore, areas subject to flooding in case of lateral migration or overland flow are not shown as hazard areas at all. Jeff Johnson of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, is working on a flood study of Early Winters Creek. Mr. Johnson addresses the very hazardous conditions on the alluvial fan.

H. Water Quality and Quantity

1. The FEIS makes a number of statements, assumptions, and decisions concerning the issue of water quantity relative to the impacts of the PDR which appear to be incorrect, and which may lead to increased consumption of water within the upper Methow watershed.

a. The most significant of these is the stated assumption that the historic use of water for irrigation purposes, now proposed for transfer to the PDR, has been 100% consumptive. In other words, the report assumes that all water that is now withdrawn for irrigation is either consumed by the crop or evaporates. This assumption is probably incorrect: a consumption rate of 50% to 20% returning to the stream as direct runoff or via ground water. It is possible that the usage here consumes larger percentages, but there is no evidence or analysis in the FEIS to support the use of this figure.

The consumption percentage of a water right is significant, because it is that amount of water that is available for transfer. If irrigation water usage consumes a lesser percentage, then the total quantity of water available to the project is less than that predicted in the FEIS. The entire analysis is built on the assumption that 100% of the existing irrigation water rights associated with the properties can be transferred. The subsequent analysis showing a net decrease in consumptive use and increase in stream flow is inaccurate because of this assumption.

A similar problem occurs with the consumption rate of 10% assigned to domestic water rights. Again, the basis for using this rate is not stated in the FEIS and it is therefore impossible to know whether this is an accurate prediction of the amount of water consumed by domestic users. By using this figure to predict water demand for the project, the FEIS may be minimizing the water demand and overestimating the amount of waste water available as additional supply for the project.

b. A second concern involves the relationship between the paper water rights and amount of water needed for the project. Only that quantity of water which has actually been put to (consumptive) use is available for transfer to the Arrowleaf PDR. The amounts stated on water rights documents are subject to revision if usage has been less than that shown on the documents. Thus, the amount used historically is a significant piece of information needed to determine whether there is adequate water available for the project. The FEIS repeatedly uses the term "likely historical use," but provides no information to support the assertion that for most of the water rights, historic usage has been equivalent to the quantities shown on the water right certificates.

c. A third problem associated with water demand for the project is the failure of the FEIS to discuss the evaporation that is sure to occur with the several lakes and the evapotranspiration associated with the golf course irrigation proposed for the project. This creates an internal inconsistency within the FEIS. The 100% consumption rate utilized to predict historic irrigation usage does include evaporation as a measurable component of the water available. If evaporation is significant, as it no doubt is in the arid climate of the Methow Valley, then water use for the project may in fact be quite a bit larger than indicated by the FEIS.

d. A fourth issue concerns the apparent intent of Arrowleaf to enlarge the water rights associated with the project by increasing the amount of water used during the non-irrigation season. Arrowleaf may not transfer an irrigation season water right to use during the non-irrigation season. An increase in demand must be met either by obtaining a new water right (which cannot occur because of the basin closure) or by transfer of an existing right. Under the scenario described in the FEIS, Arrowleaf does not have adequate water to supply to the project.

These four factors lead to a concern about the conclusion of the FEIS that transfer of old water rights to Arrowleaf will lead to a net increase in the amount of surface waters flowing in the Methow River. The net water benefits predicted in the FEIS are not as large as they seem. The only water available to the Arrowleaf Project is the at amount actually consumed by the holders of the water rights proposed for transfer. Regardless of the quantities assigned in the water right documents, state water law forbids the enlargement of actual use through the mismeasurement of historical use of consumption rates.

The combination of underestimating usage and overestimating available water make the water usage section of the FEIS less than optimal for purposes of determining the impacts of the proposed development on surface and ground water flows in the Upper Methow basin. We respectfully suggest that this portion of the FEIS be reviewed and reconsidered for its SEPA adequacy. We suggest that the impacts of the Arrowleaf project on water resources of the upper Methow River watershed may be significant and adverse, and therefore require denial of a permit.

2. There is the apparent lack of adequate water rights for winter season use (which would be primarily domestic use.) The water rights and claims the project proposes to use domestic use during this season are limited by the historical off-season water use at the project site. Historically there have been a half dozen of so cabins and homesteads at the site and the Resort proposes to have 690 residential units. The Resort will probably need new water rights for this season, or large enough storage facilities to serve the resort for the 6 to 7 month long non- irrigation season (and water rights during the irrigation season to fill the storage facility). This is not in the FEIS.

3. Another concern is the method used to calculate the water demand of the Resort. Using average annual occupancy rates to calculate water duty is not an appropriate method of determining water needs for permitting purposes. From a water rights perspective, the FEIS should use 100% occupancy rates to calculate maximum water needs of the resort.

4. It is not appropriate to describe the "likely historical withdrawals" of domestic exempt wells at 5.6 acre feet. Probable use is more like 1 ac-ft. or less.

5. Okanogan County uses a water duty requirement of 400 to 800 gallons per day domestic unit. Why does the FEIS use a different method of calculating water duty? This is inaccurate.

6. The FEIS failed to discuss what would happen to the PDR if water rights for the PDR were denied. The County should consider the consequences of approving this development before the water rights are clarified by the courts. Should the majority of the contested water rights be denied by the courts, the project would need to be re- designed, perhaps without a golf course. In that case, it would be disastrous to have the project as currently designed underway, with significant amounts of construction complete. The County might consider waiting until the lawsuit over water rights is settled before granting this permit, or perhaps allowing only as much construction as the developer can show perfected water rights.

7. The EIS assumes that the water rights and claims that are needed for this development are valid. This assumption is not supported by any factual determination. The WDOE has yet to make any finding on the requests by the developers as far as we are aware. There are numerous legal issues involved on which a decision has yet to me made and a decision maker has no way of divining the outcome of these issues prior to making an informed and reasoned decision on an acceptable alternative or environmental consequences of his or her action.

8. The FEIS also assumes that the domestic portion of the water use for this project is non-consumptive or nearly so. To the best of our knowledge the state has never had a policy or law that would treat domestic use of water in this manner. If there has been this determination by the state it needs to be within the FEIS. If this position were to be validated, the people would be exchanging clean water for dirty water which would be returned to the river at a different place. The ground water pumping is assumed to be a substitute for surface water use in the FEIS. There currently is no surface water use on the property, unless it is being done without permission. The new ground water pumping will have a negative impact on the surface water especially at low flow times.

9. The FEIS fails to answer the concerns regarding the number of acres of irrigation the Resort would require and the number of irrigated acres at the site. Using 58 acres at the Cassal Ranch, 45 acres at the Shafer Ranch, and 11 acres (possible 8 acres) at the Peters Ranch, there appears to be 114 acres available for change under the existing applications. The DEIS indicates 128 acres of irrigation of the golf course and approximately 25 acres of additional irrigation around the residences, for a total of approximately 153 acres. The FEIS indicated the 128 acres of the golf course was incorrect and was closer to 117 acres so the total irrigation demand may be about 142 acres. This is still between 28 and 39 acres more than the change applications will consider.

10. The FEIS fails to answer concerns regarding the use of water derived from the difference in estimated irrigation water duty. The difference in per-acre water duty from historical practice to the project proposal may not be available for change. The Benningfield decision stated it this way:

"Thus, if a farmer has acquired a right to irrigate 80 acres, he has 80 acres worth of water which is variable in quantity depending on the requirements of the particular crop to one requiring less water, his water right after the switch would be only to the amount needed for the new crop. Following such a crop change, he would not have any right to the no-longer-required amount previously used. He would have no such "surplus" to sell. He would have no such "surplus" to spread out over more acres." ( PCHB No. 87-106)

Under this case, there may not be any "surplus" to change to other uses. Only where there is a reduction in the number of irrigated acres, would there be water available for change to other uses at the Resort. This leaves the question of whether there is any water available to change to community domestic use, both winter season and summer season, very much in doubt.

I. Transportation

1. Vehicle traffic:

a. In response to letter 21, #145, the EIS states that, "it is likely that the majority of this traffic" (construction related traffic) "would originate from the east and south of the site and would not utilize the North Cascades Highway". Yet, response to comment #143 states that "the analysis, which included anticipated background growth, concluded that operational problems at the Riverside Avenue/SR 20 intersection would exist due to background growth , with or without the proposed PDR." Saying that problems would exist with or without the PDR skirts the issue. What will be the difference in traffic problems with the PDR compared to not having a PDR? Since the majority of construction related traffic would originate from the east and south of the site, this obviously would create an impact. The FEIS failed to answer questions raised as to the effect that the PDR will have on transportation and what problems will be created by the PDR related to transportation issues.

b. As stated on page III-280 of the DEIS, no study was done related to increased traffic accidents (including those involving wildlife).

c. Regarding letter # 21, comment # 144, no response was made.

d. Regarding letter #21, comment # 146, no study made.

2. Air traffic:

a. The FEIS fails to adequately address the affects of increased air traffic at the Methow State airport.

b. In response to letter 40, comment # 2, the EIS states that "if air traffic increased in response to the PDR, it could reduce total vehicular traffic on some roadway links". This fails to acknowledge that the use of a shuttle van from Arrowleaf to Methow Valley State Airport actually doubles the amount of traffic on that stretch of road by making two round trips, one to pick up passengers and one to return to the airport.

c. Letter # 40 also states that there has been "a steady increase in the amount of air traffic over the years" and ‘significant air traffic from the Tice Ranch as well as Sun Mountain.." The response ignores reality by saying that there are no official forecasts to support such an increase in response to the proposed PDR. Destination resorts increase air traffic.

J. Social - Economics

1. Property values:

In response to letter 21, comment #111 the EIS states: "Given the existing trend of development within the Upper Methow, it is likely that property values will increase with or without the PDR over the 20-25 year period." While it is generally acknowledged that property taxes will go up regardless of the resort, it is the difference that the PDR will make that is in question. Will not the PDR accelerate the pace of the increase? The question was skirted. The FEIS failed to accurately or adequately respond to questions concerning the effects that raised property values will have on the residents of the Methow Valley.

It seems clear that property values will be affected by the resort development, particularly in the Mazama area, but perhaps in Winthrop and Twisp as well. Similarly, the "No Action" alternative would presumably affect property values, at least for holders of speculative or commercially zoned real estate in Mazama. Increased property values can be good or bad depending on whether one is buying or selling a home, and whether one is buying a home as a permanent residence or as an investment. Additional increases in property values as a result of the resort may make the affordable housing shortage in the Valley worse. The EIS reports on trends in assessed values in the County and the Valley, but does not attempt to predict effects on property values in Winthrop and Twisp.

2. Hotel/motel taxes

The FEIS fails to delineate how Property Taxes and Hotel Motel Taxes that are generated by the PDR will be returned to the Methow Valley for the benefit of the local communities. The PDR developer and the County have failed to come to terms on a binding agreement as to the distribution of these tax revenues.

3. Economic impacts:

a. The EIS, page III-6 states: "In general, secondary growth would be limited by the scale and nature of the proposed resort development (a "stand alone", self-contained resort)." Yet on page IV-55 it states: "Given the scale and phased nature of the proposed commercial uses in the PDR and since only limited retail good/services would be provided on-site, no significant impacts on Winthrop businesses would be expected as a result of competition." Which of these two contradictory statements are we to believe?

b. Housing Affordability: The EIS, page III-10 states: "According to studies conducted for Okanogan County families earning the County median income ($25,000 in 1993) in the Methow Region are being forced out of the housing market. Given projected background growth and demand for second homes that currently exist in the Upper Methow Valley, this trend is likely to continue with or without the proposed PDR." Again, this skirts the question (Letter 21, Comment #111). Will the PDR have an effect on the pace of this trend? Will it effect 1% of the population or 75%? What is the difference in effect between the proposed PDR and a true no-action alternative? The FEIS failed to address these issues.

c. The developer will provide some on-site housing for employees, and will provide other lots at a reduced price to people employed in the local area. The EIS predicts that the resort will result in an need for 14 more housing units than will be provided on site at the year 2010. This will decline to zero by 2019 as construction is finished. This is not a reasonable estimate of housing needs in the Methow after the growth impacts of this resort are felt.

d. Page IV-96: The FEIS states that it cannot predict the per capita income would go up or down because it was not addressed in scoping. Scoping did address socio-economic impacts, of which per capita income is an important part. This item is not out of the scope of the EIS and should have been addressed. The FEIS failed to answer questions raised as to the effects that the PDR would have on per capita income for the residents of the Methow Valley.

e. Page IV-150: The FEIS states that a discussion on potential impacts to those on a fixed income is provided in the socio-economic impact section of this Final EIS; however, on page III-9 the question regarding fixed incomes is acknowledged, but not referred to in any of the answers.

4. Population:

It appears that the impact of population is undervalued in the preferred alternative because of the use of averaging, not worst case analysis. The dwelling unit equivalents for lodging units and residences seems to be a low ball figure. An example is using 2.5 people as the number of people in a family, not the standard of 3.5 to 4 people which undervalues population impacts. We have previously discussed why the no action alternatives overvalues population impacts in the Alternative section. This development will create more growth in the area, which is not addressed for its impacts.

K. Solid Waste

1. The FEIS fails to discuss any concerns that have been raised regarding the disposal of household or commercial hazardous waste materials.

2. The FEIS fails to state how solid waste would be stored in order to eliminate interference from bears.

3. Solid Waste Report, pg. 2: "According to Murray McCory, Okanogan County Solid Waste Manager, the County would likely consider Winthrop as the site for a transfer station," is too vague. There are no criteria to be used in selecting Winthrop as the future transfer station site. Under what conditions would Winthrop be used as a transfer site? There is no explanation of what manner this option would be considered. There is no discussion about the pros and cons of the potential to implement this transfer station in Winthrop. There are no building or suitable Winthrop sites identified. That this Winthrop transfer station site would "likely be considered," is too vague. Again, the EIS fails to adequately address theses issues.

4. A serious inconsistency exists regarding the estimated amount of solid wastes being generated as part of the proposed action. On page 3, 2.3 tons (920 average residents) of waste per day with a peak generation rate of 3.2 tons per day is NOT consistent with the estimated one ton of solid waste per day that is stated on pg. 4 under Alternatives. Which is correct? Why is there such a serious inconsistency? This makes no sense. (Reference pg. 3 of Solid Waste Report).

5. The proposed burning of on-site of construction wastes, such as timber slash, scrap lumber and cardboard is not progressive recycling. Burning greatly increases air pollution. Further, all of these wastes should be recycled at the site.

6. An additional impact that is not addressed and needs to be included is the generation of dust during construction.

7. There is no management plan for the yard waste and grass clippings that will be generated by the residential and golf course uses of the project.

8. Landscaping should be restricted to natural vegetation to avoid waste production and water usage.

9. Compost piles create bad smells and need to be designed and operated carefully and efficiently in order to be a viable mitigating measure.

10. Inadequate consideration was given to recycling.

11. On-going waste reduction purchasing policy should be in place during entire construction phase.

12. The following points should have been given adequate consideration: A state of the art model and comprehensive plan to be used during construction and operation will include policies that establish:

a. Contractors must buy only materials made of recycled materials. b. Contractors must in bulk, thereby reducing waste from packaging. c. All project materials used have a high recycled content, hence no virgin materials.

13. All potential mitigating measures should have been considered as proposed mitigating measures in the FEIS.

L. Historic and Cultural

Archaeological and Historic Features:

Concerning comment #38, pg. 4, by the US Forest Service about the Indian "pit site" on the resort property; the developer has stated that a trail with interpretive signs will lead visitors to the site, as well as maps pinpointing the exact position of these sites, will cause ‘the area to be less protected because of the signing." This site (OAHP SITE #45-OK-607) is listed with the Washington State Archaeology and Historic Preservations Inventory. In the Final EIS the developer has stated that the Colville Federated Tribes had been contacted. Yet, upon talking with the head of the Historical/Archaeological department, of the Colville Federated Tribes, Harvey S. (Pete) Rice, his department was never contacted by the developer. He has stated the following, "The OAHP site inventory would need further evaluation and be placed on the National Register of Historic places through the Section 106 process if any Federal process is taking place, which involves any Forest Service land, including the building of roads, electrical transmission lines, etc. that cross federal property." Mr. Rice feels that "the site has enough significance that the tribe is extremely concerned about the management of these sites, and the lost opportunity to comment about the preservation of these sites." Mr. Rice did the original inventory of these sites.

M. Public Services

1. The FEIS fails to answer concerns raised about adequate police response to the PDR site and off-site properties and populations.

2. Power Supply: The FEIS failed to adequately answer concerns regarding the capacity of the Okanogan County Electric Coop or the PUD to provide adequate electrical power to the PDR and to off-site development in area.

3. The FEIS states that "...current electrical systems do not have capacity to meet the projects full demand....." Therefore, concurrent and future projects, in addition to Arrowleaf, will also require additional electrical improvement. The FEIS fails to assess the environmental impact of these future additional electrical systems.

As the required electrical improvements will impact ALL Methow Valley residents served by current power agreements, the final Arrowleaf EIS must address all related power improvements. The current EIS statements, "...in the future (the parties) will resolve electrical development needs...," are insufficient in light of the total impact of power improvements upon the entire community.

The current EIS states that "....an additional substation will be required...transmission lines will need to be upgraded...." - who will pay these costs, the developers through impact fees or current power subscribers in increased rates? - as the language of existing power easements is decisive as to the extent of the easements, additional power lines cannot be built on existing easements. Will we see numerous additional power lines across our valley floor?

Since the issue of power needs resulting from the Arrowleaf development impacts the entire Methow Valley, the Okanogan Office of Planning and Development must provide and EIS which not only addresses these issues but also complies with full EIS standards.

N. Vegetation

1. The FEIS and DEIS present erroneous and incomplete information from incompetent plant surveys for sensitive, threatened and endangered plants on the proposed PDR site. The SEPA checklist requires a list of any environmental information known about the project area that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This was not done by the applicant. The applicant’s contractor has not consulted with experts in the botany and vegetation of the area, and has failed to acknowledge a properly conducted vegetation survey was done on the adjacent Early Winters Visitor Center, by another botanist, on the contingency of a land trade of Forest Service land with former developer Harry Hosey. No voucher specimens are described by the contractor for any of the plants described, nor was any transcript of consultation with recognized botany experts given, except that of a conversation with Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) botanist John Gamon about Mimulus washingtonensis. This conversation (as reported in the FEIS erroneously implies that Mr. Gamon considers that Mimulus washingtonensis a plausible identification for this area. Our subsequent conversations with Mr. Gamon confirm that botanical experts consider this species to be entirely restricted to eastern Oregon (with a few possible outliers in extreme south eastern Washington state. Also in the non-wetland botany surveys for the EIS, methods used to collect data about the vegetation are not given, or are inaccurate or not meaningful.

SEPA requires a description of vegetation found on the site, and a description of the kind and amount of vegetation that will be removed or altered. SEPA requires that the consultants prepare a list of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. These activities were conducted in an erroneous, incomplete and inadequate fashion.

Evidence of significant error and botanical incompetence involved in the preparation of the DEIS, FEIS and PDR proposal is presented in the list of plants presented in Appendix A of Appendix I of the DEIS. The plants section was rife with inaccuracies, and contained at least 36 misspellings (approx. 15% of the plants listed), some so bad as to render the name of the plant unintelligible. Furthermore, 27 genera (over 10%), including many with known threatened or endangered taxa, were never identified beyond the genus level. Such a cavalier attitude to potential threatened and endangered species leads to serious doubts about the integrity of the contractor or developer. This erroneous, incomplete information is a violation of the intent and purpose of SEPA.

As a test of the completeness of the survey, we compared a list of plants prepared by an independent 3 hour survey by a team of expert botanists through a small part of the development, with the list provided by the applicant in the appendix to the DEIS. We found 34 taxa (approximately 15% of those listed by the applicant, after matching most of the misspellings to the closest species) that were not identified by the contractor, including Botrychium virginianum, a plant listed by the WNHP as monitor species, which is known to be an indicator for other endangered, threatened and sensitive species. We also found a Listera species different from the Listera cordata identified by the contractor that was too immature to identify, but could be the sensitive Listera borealis.

In plant list, we also found that the applicant did not mention several common and important indicator and wildlife shrubs, like Salix scouleriana, Scouler's willow, and Philadelphus lewisii, the mock orange. This is further evidence of incompetent plant survey. The contractor for the applicant also reported finding plants far from their normal range, such as Betula glandulosa var. glandulosa, bog birch, Acer circinatum, vine maple and Carex geyeri, elk sedge. These species were likely misidentified. Voucher specimens, or even a close-up pictures, if they had been taken, would settle the matter of whether such unexpected occurrences were correctly identified.

Obviously, the plant survey in the EIS is inadequate with many species present on the site not included, many species misidentified and some important rare plants not inventoried. A couple errors or a few disagreements in taxonomy is normal among botanists, but for the EIS to largely rewrite botanical nomenclature and classification is neither scientifically credible nor acceptable under SEPA.

The EIS did not give specific information on which noxious weeds were located in the project area, nor what significant effects to the environment would result from the spread of noxious weeds as a result of the project. Independent plant surveys of the area have found several noxious weeds, but no satisfactory guidelines were presented in the EIS on how the PDR would manage these. The spread of noxious weeds and other alien plants as a result of disturbances caused by development is well documented in the scientific literature. The failure of the DEIS and FEIS to adequately address this significant irreversible environmental impact is a violation of SEPA.

2. The FEIS and DEIS present erroneous and misleading claims for retained original vegetation on the proposed PDR site. Several comments were submitted in response to the DEIS (Methow Valley Citizen’s Council, Friends of the Methow, Sierra Biodiversity Institute, etc.) noting that the DEIS incorrectly stated that the proposed PDR would retain 71% of the site in its original vegetative condition. This is in direct contradiction to the Conceptual Landscape Plan (DEIS and Addendum Figure 5) which indicates that the existing vegetation zone would occupy significantly less that half of the site. The little existing vegetation that would remain within the residential areas, the golf course and other developed areas would be so heavily fragmented and influenced by human activity and edge effects that it cannot be credibly described as "natural open space". These areas will have no habitat value to any wildlife species of conservation concern. The presence of some coniferous trees around houses built on 2/3 acre or smaller lots (as planned in the PDR) may offer some aesthetic relief to humans, but it is a fantasy that it will provide effective wildlife habitat to any species of conservation concern.

Under the topic of Wildlife - Conversion of Habitat (DEIS p. III-122) the DEIS states that "development of the site under the proposed action would result in the direct loss or alteration of about 30 percent of the existing plant communities on the site." This is in direct contradiction to the Conceptual Landscape Plan map (DEIS and Addendum Figure 5). The impact of the result would be much greater. As currently designed the PDR development would nullify the habitat value of well over half of the existing plant communities on the site through direct elimination or intense fragmentation. Other references found throughout the EIS as to the limited impact that the PDR will have on existing plant communities and wildlife habitat are in error and are grossly misleading. The EIS does not present an honest and scientifically defensible evaluation of the impact of the proposed PDR on existing plant communities and wildlife habitat.

3. The EIS fails to assess the unavoidable adverse impacts on wildlife populations from the elimination and alteration of the mixed conifer forest types on the proposed PDR site. The response to comments in the FEIS regarding this topic are grossly inadequate, misleading and in error (FEIS p. IV-66). The applicant’s response that the "natural open space" will include the undisturbed area within individual single family lots is ludicrous, and indefensible. The small area outside of building envelopes on the small lots proposed (2/3 to 1 acre) would provide no effective open space as it is customarily defined. These areas would be heavily modified by intense human uses and activities, fences, intense edge effects, noise, cat and dog presence, alien species invasions, and many other factors which would negate their value as natural open space or wildlife habitat to any but the most tolerant species. Table 33 (DEIS p. III-121) is incorrect, very misleading and deceptive in stating that 67% and 70% of the open and closed canopy forests would be retained. Comparison of the Vegetative Cover and Habitat Map (DEIS Figure 18) with the Conceptual Landscape Plan (DEIS Figure 5) indicates that only a very small fraction of these two cover types would be retained in their natural condition. The DEIS makes the faulty assumption that mixed conifer forests present in the residential and developed areas of the PDR will be retained and will continue to provide habitat value to wildlife species. This is a totally unsupported and not defensible. The degree of alteration, fragmentation and human activity within the existing forests in the residential and otherwise developed portions of the property is so great that it will eliminate essentially all habitat value presently offered by these forests. It is deceptive and not scientifically defensible to make the assumption that these areas provide wildlife benefits to any but a few very ubiquitous species that are extremely tolerant of disturbances and human activity. The DEIS should clearly state that the mixed coniferous forest habitat on the site would be greatly altered to the point that it would not provide habitat value for any species of conservation concern.

4. The FEIS failed to adequately address noxious weeds. The FEIS failed to adequately address noxious weeds, both on site at the PDR and off-site. The noxious weed portion is not addressed adequately in the EIS. It identified some weeds but did not mention how they would effect the areas throughout the project and what measures would be taken to address the soil disturbance.

O. Wetlands

1. The EIS fails to accurately identify wetlands and to assess the unavoidable adverse impacts on wetlands on the proposed PDR site. The applicant failed to accurately identify and locate wetlands lying within the project area. Significant wetlands are well known in the area and National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate likely areas where they might exist. The applicant did not adequately inventory many of these known wetland sites, nor contact local residents who are more familiar with the area and its ecology. The claim in the EIS that the delineation of wetlands is in agreement with other parties is false with regard to the National Wetlands Inventory. The replies to comments in the EIS acknowledges this discrepancy without proposing to correct the problem. The applicant failed to respond adequately to questions of the adequacy or sufficiency of their wetland determinations in their reply to comments published in the Final EIS. The applicant ignored the known presence of large areas of deciduous wetland and riparian forest. Wetland mapping and assessment of impact of the development on wetland habitat was not an honest attempt at documenting environmental effects, and violates SEPA and Clean Water Act requirements for an EIS.

The FEIS also fails to respond to or adequately answer the concern that there should be a 300 foot setback on each side of wetlands and riparian zones. The Forest Service Ecosystem Management Assessment recommends this type of set back. All houses, shops, recreational facilities and trails should be at least 300 feet from wetlands and riparian areas in order to protect wildlife and its habitat.

P. Habitat Buffers

The Addendum to the PDR shows 23 single family lots (or portions of single family lots) within the habitat buffer areas. This is a clear violation of the Okanogan County Zoning Ordinance. The placement of 23 single family lots within the habitat buffer area is completely inconsistent with the purpose of these buffers, violates the RD Merrill Co. stated environmental objectives, and is inconsistent with all PDR objectives. The failure of the FEIS to assess the environmental impact of the placement of 23 dwelling units inside designated habitat buffers is a clear violation of SEPA.

V. Proposed and Potential Mitigation Measures

l. A system of checks and balances for a project of this significance should have been a major focus of the FEIS. A master timeline which could display the implementation and progress on all mitigations would enable better and clear tracking of all programs. The FEIS should have displayed how the various amenities and support systems are balanced with the stages of build out. 2. A long term monitoring system and the ability to react to changing conditions should have been a part of a project of this size and sensitivity. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict all the conditions of the future. Having a monitoring system as a key tie to this project would set this proposal as a leader in dealing with environmental conditions that we will face in the future. The FEIS should have presented details for monitoring systems and other long term systems such as education that could be used to address changing environmental conditions relative to the resort development. 3. The EIS failed to state that the developer must help fund additional public work employees to handle the water system.

VI. Off-site Impact

The FEIS makes no attempt to predict the specific amount and type of off-site growth.

1. The authors state "It is expected that some additional increment of population growth, not associated with employment, could be attracted to the Methow Valley as a result of development of the Arrowleaf resort and its associated amenities. New residents that move to the area to establish vacation/second homes or primary residences as a result of development of the proposal cannot be quantified." The general impacts of growth are known: increased population will bring more traffic, more wood stoves, more demand for housing, greater demand for the Town's limited water resources, higher land prices, more business for local merchants, more clearing of riparian areas and filling of wetlands, and so on. Some of these could impact Winthrop and Twisp.

2. The FEIS inaccurately predicts that there will be an increased need for only 14 more housing units for persons employed in the resort area.

3. The FEIS fails to address key scenic corridors. Scenic corridors should be identified and preserved.

4. No attempt is made to predict the specific amount and type of off-site growth which could be expected from having a major resort and golf course in the area. The authors state "It is expected that some additional increment of population growth, not associated with employment, could be attract to the Methow Valley as a result of development of the Arrowleaf resort and its associate amenities. New residents that move to the area to establish vacation/second homes or primary residences as a result of development of the proposal cannot be quantified.

VII. The FEIS fails to consider the manner in which the resort as planned violates the Okanogan County Zoning Ordinance. SEPA regualtion WAC-197-11-440 (6) (d) (i) states that:

the EIS shall contain "a summary of existing plans (for example: Land use and shoreline plans) and zoning regulations applicable to the proposal, and how the proposal is consistent and inconsistent with them."

PDR Chapter 17.20. 010 violations:

A. Golf does not complement the natural and cultural attractiveness of the area.

B. l. Habitat of threatened and endangered species is not protected by large increases in density, traffic and pets. 2. The location of the village and other residential units that will be sold on the 100-year flood plain (ref FEMA map) is contrary to the Shoreline Management Act. (ref DOE) 3. Key and Critical Wildlife Habitat areas are not protected. FEIS maps show residential units in the most biologically diverse and fragile part of the acreage as well as blocking the deer migration corridor.

PDR Chapter 17, 20, 030 Violations:

The FEIS has failed to show how, prior to each phase of the resort, the developer should show compliance with all permit requirements.

D. The developer does not provide an enforceable program that adequately demonstrates that the 2.5 to l ratio of permanent residential units to visitor rented dwelling units "will not be exceeded at any time in the development of the project." The County should explain how it intends to administer this provision of the zoning ordinance. In particular it does not show how the County determines whether second homes are in fact being rented, given that they may be advertised on the west side or through word of mouth and whether the numbers of homes available for rental are enough to continually maintain the required ratio.

F. No Public Transport proposals to satisfy public transportation demands generated by the PDR were included in the FEIS. p. 89 FEIS "no transportation mitigation is warranted or proposed."

G. According to Figure 4, Preliminary Open Space Plan in Addendum to PDPP parts or all of 23 different building envelopes are planned in the Habitat Buffer areas where no structures are permitted.

PDR Chapter 17.20.050 PDR Application:

C1.e. Significant vegetation has not been correctly identified. C1.f. Important natural features of the site including habitat of threatened and endangered species, riparian vegetation and significant wetlands are not included in the site plan.

The PDR zone compliance discussion is too equivocal. Either the proposal is or is not consistent with the "requirements." If it is not, non-compliance should be specified clearly. Applicant analysis appears to indicate that shuttle vans apparently would not meet the requirement for transit in the PDR code This conclusion is questionable and the internal shuttle system should be discussed with the applicant. At any rate, this discussion should be reevaluated and revised.

VIII. The EIS fails to consider policies of the Methow Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan which are violated by current plans for the resort.

The resort as planned is not in compliance with the Methow Valley Addendum.

A. In its concern to see that jobs are provided through recreation, the plan states: "realizing that the two basic items we have in the valley which draw people here to live and visit are CLEAN AIR and CLEAN WATER, we must at all times endeavor to protect the Air and Water. All industry, present and future, must be monitored for highest qualities in air and water standards." (The resort, in planning 237 fireplaces, could not be considered to be aspiring to the highest quality in air standards.)

B. The following policies of the Comprehensive Plan appear to be contradicted by the development as planned:

l. Regarding development in alluvial fans:

a. Pg. 24, Policy 3: "Encourage subdivision design which will cause the adaption of subdivision to the topography" (not cause the topography to be adapted to the subdivision, regarding diversion of floodwaters from Early Winters Creek particular.)

b. Pg. 24, Policy 4: Determine the general density levels for areas of future residential developments within the limitations of the land and water table. The limitations of the land include at least floodplains, alluvial fans, deer migration corridors which are not in floodplains of exclusively in riparian zones, and meteorological conditions which can produce severe air quality degradation.

c. Pg. 24, Policy 6: Prohibit development designed for human habitation in the 100-year floodplain or subject to destruction from geologic hazards.

d. Pg. 43, Policy 1: No structures for permanent human habitation or any sewage disposal facilities shall be allowed in the areas inundated by the 100 year floodplain.

e. Pg. 45: Protect the natural character of the shoreline. The previous discussion to this policy makes it clear that it refers to, among other things, meandering and multi-channeled streamways, development within the velocity corridor, encroachments that lead to disruption and loss of streamway heritage values. these would need to be disrupted in order to protect the sections of the resort planned for alluvial fans.

2. Regarding the large number of residences and second homes in the proposed development:

a. Pg. 24, Policy 1: Encourage residential and second home developments to locate in proximity of existing community facilities and services. The resort plans to create the services needed by its residential and second home occupants.

b. Pg. 24, Policy 4: Determine the general density levels for areas of future residential developments within the limitations of the land and water table. The limitations of the land are far greater in this part of the Methow Valley than elsewhere, due to the fact that it is at the head of the air shed and water shed and in an extremely critical area for wildlife.

c. Pg. 24, Policy 5: Retain large amounts of open space. The current development plan scatters buildings, parking lots, roads, a golf course, and other structures throughout the site. The area will be divided into tiny areas of "open space" which hardly fulfill the intent of this policy.

3. Regarding wildlife:

a. Pg. 46, Policy 1: Discourage development adversely affecting critical and key wildlife areas. The development contains a large amount of critical wildlife area, particularly the Cassal Ranch and riparian corridor. In addition, significant wetlands have not been identified and accounted for in the DEIS or plans for the resort.

b. Pg. 33, Policy 3: Encourage construction design that allows safe crossing by cattle and wildlife, i.e. underpasses. Does the Highway 20 crossing, considering the increase in traffic, require an underpass with the development as proposed?

4. Regarding water rights:

a. Pg. 22, Policy 3: Encourage protection of existing irrigation systems and appurtenant water rights. In removing water that has not been removed recently, the rights of downstream interruptible irrigators may well be affected.

b. Pg. 35, Policy 5: Provide protection of existing water rights from future water users, i.e. zoning options. Water rights are questionable and now in court.

5. Regarding recreation:

a. Pg. 25, Policy 2: Limit development of access into dispersed recreational areas where a certain amount of "aloneness" is necessary. Where are plans to limit access into the nearby recreational areas in which ‘aloneness" is a premium quality?

6. Regarding fiscal impacts:

a. Pg. 24, Policy 9: Ensure that residental develoments have minimal fiscal impacts in terms of providing community facilities and services.

7. Regarding water quality:

a. Pg. 42, Policy 1: Assure that sewage effluents do not enter ground water.

b. Pg. 42, Policy 3: Not allow siting of sewage disposal systems or other sources of contaminants in areas where groundwater is at unacceptable depths.

c. Pg. 43,Policy 1: No structures for permanent human habitation or any sewage disposal facilities shall be allowed in the areas inundated by the 100-year flood.

IX. Procedural Inadequacies:

A. PDR rezone: Violated Chapter 17.20.060 E 3:

"At the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider all relevant evidence concerning the Rezone application, including consideration of this Chapter, together with any information developed as part of the SEPA review, and any input received from reviewing agencies." No consideration of input received from reviewing agencies was done, in spite of the fact that a citizen asked if it would be (Isabelle Spohn).

B. The EIS fails to comply with WAC 197-11-440(2)(h), (I), and (j):

The "fact sheet" shall include (after the date of issue of the EIS) the time and place of public hearings or meetings, if any and if known, the date final action is planned or scheduled by the lead agency, if known, and the type and timing of any subsequent environmental review to which the lead agency or other agencies have made commitments, if any.

C. The Colville Confederated Tribe was never contacted regarding the Indian "pit site" and did not have the opportunity to comment on that matter.

D. The Colville Confederated Tribe was not sent a copy of the DEIS or the FEIS. This violates WAC 197-11-455 (1) (H), which states that the DEIS shall be sent to "any affected tribe."

E. The FEIS failed to include a section on Unavoidable Adverse Impacts in the summary under ground and surface water quality and quantity. This is required by WAC 197-11-440 (4).

F. It is an inappropriate and incomplete response to DEIS comments to simply state "comment acknowledged". This has occurred in the FEIS many times on many issues.

G. The FEIS failed to address questions raised by agencies and individuals in the comments to the FEIS.

H. The FEIS avoids answering questions by giving incomplete cross-referencing, partial answers to questions, and by stating that the answer to the question is beyond the scope of the EIS.

I. The FEIS failed to present the responsible officials or the public with maps that could be used for informative decision making. The maps used were generally confusing and unreadable because of the scale and the reproduction resolution. Several maps were without "keys".

J. WAC 197-11-425(2) requires that EIS’s be concise and written in plain language. The FEIS is not concise. Many of the sections do not contain a glossary. The lack of organization, the length, and the incomplete referencing results in a document that is difficult, at best, to analyze.

K. The FEIS was not timely distributed to all requesting individuals, groups, and agencies.

Index to MVCC's campaign to avert a destination resort in the Methow Valley, Washington

MVCC

... protecting the rural and agricultural character of the Methow Valley