HomeMy WebLinkAbout018Donna Frostholm
From:
David W. Johnson
Sent:
Monday, March 03, 2014 8:40 AM
To:
Stacie Hoskins; Donna Frostholm
Cc:
David W. Johnson
Subject:
FW: Secondary Peer Review
Attachments:
Secondary Peer Review Summary Memo.doc; Cultural Resource Assessment Comment
Matrix.docx; Economic Benefit Comment Matrix.docx; Forestry Report Comment Matrix.docx;
Geotechnical Investigation Comment Matrix.docx; Golf Course BMPs Comment Matrix.docx;
Grading and Drainage Comment Matrix.docx; Habitat Management Plan Comment
Matrix.docx; Neighborhood Water Supply Plan Comment Matrix.docx; Prescriptive Vegetation
Management Plan Comment Matrix.docx; Wastewater Reclamation Comment Matrix.docx;
Water Quality Monitoring Plan Comment Matrix.docx; Water Supply and Groundwater
Comment Matrix.docx; Wetland Mitigation Plan Comment Matrix.docx; Draft Technical Report
Comments .pdf; PH-WastewaterReclamationPlantProcess-Jul22-09-draft(BP review).doc;
PH-WaterSupply&GroundwaterlmpactAnalysis-Dec17-08-draft(BP review).doc; PH-
WQMonitoringPlan-Aug18-08-draft(BP review).doc; Porto comments on NWSP.pdf; water
quality monitoring EH comments.pdf
Donna,
Per your concerns regarding peer review comments.
From: Swenson, Karen [mailto:kswenson@eaest.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:06 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Craig Peck (peckassoc@comcast.net)
Subject: Secondary Peer Review
Here is the Secondary Peer Review Memo and associated matrices for the County's review to fulfill Task 4 of Phase 1 of
our scope: "Compare final round of peer review/county comments on technical studies to final draft of all technical
studies. Draft memo to County regarding adequacy of revisions."
As noted in the attached memo, we reviewed the comments from the County or peer review consultants in relation to
the original reports, noted how the technical consultant/author responded to these comments, and compared these to
the final report to be included in the SEIS. Finally, we evaluated if any of the responses, or lack thereof, affected the
adequacy of the Draft SEIS. We prepared a comment matrix for each of the reports (attached) to indicate where
comments were only partially addressed or not addressed in the final report — these comments are noted in yellow and
blue, respectively.
We have also attached the original comments from County staff and the peer review consultants, including the
embedded comments by Brown & Caldwell in three of the reports (noted as BP review in the file name, for the reviewer
Bill Piersch).
We have not attached the original reports to this e-mail due to size constraints. The County delivered these original
reports to EA via a DVD the last week of January. We can post these to our FTP site if desired. Similarly, the County also
provided us with the responses to the comments from the original authors/consultants on that DVD. These responses
are included in the response column within each of the attached matrices. These written comment responses (generally
in memo or e-mail format) can be posted to our FTP site as well.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
1
Karen. Stnwe*vo-s v
Karen Swenson, AICP
Senior Planner
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 1 Seattle, WA 98121
206.452.5350 x 1716
kswenson@eaest.com
225 Schilling Circle, Suite 400
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: 410-584-7000
in Fax: 410-771-1625
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Johnson, Jefferson County Community Development Department
FROM: Karen Swenson, Project Manager
DATE: February 27, 2014
SUBJECT: Pleasant Harbor Resort SEIS Technical Report Secondary Peer Review
Peer Review Scope
Per Task 1.4 of our scope of services for the Pleasant Harbor Resort SEIS, we have completed
the second round of peer review of the technical documents that have been developed for the
SEIS. These technical documents include:
• Grading and Drainage Plan (Craig Peck; September 2008 and May 2012)
• Habitat Management Plan (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and January 2012)
• Wetland Mitigation Plan (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and January 2012)
■ Golf Course Best Management Practices (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and January 2012)
• Wastewater Reclamation Plant (Esvelt Engineering; April 2009 and June 2013)
• Water Quality Monitoring Plan (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and June 2011)
• Neighborhood Water Supply Program (Subsurface Group; December 2009 and February
2010)
• Geotechnical Report (Subsurface Group; November 2008)
• Forestry Report (Resource Management Group; August 2009 and September 2009)
• Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis Report (Subsurface Group; November
2008)
• Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan (Resource Management Group; August 2009)
• Cultural Resource Assessment (Western Shore Heritage Services; December 2006)
• Economic Benefit Report (April 2009 and March 2014)
Each of these reports/plans was reviewed by County staff or peer review consultants in the fall of
2009. These comments are attached, including the comments embedded in the reports edited by
Brown & Caldwell, one of the County's peer review consultants. The technical consultants/
authors of these reports then responded to these comments generally in the form of a memo and
an updated report. We reviewed these comments in relation to the original reports, noted how the
technical consultant responded to these comments, and compared these to the final report to be
included in the SEIS. Finally, we evaluated if any of the responses, or lack thereof, affected the
adequacy of the Draft SEIS. We prepared a comment matrix for each of the reports to indicate
where comments were only partially addressed or not addressed in the final report.
No comments on the August 2008 Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Addendum prepared by
David Johnson
Jefferson County DCD
February 27, 2014
Page 2
Transportation Engineering Northwest were included in the packet of 2009 County/peer review
comments. We understand this second round of peer review for Transportation was conducted
internally by County staff and is separate from this peer review conducted by EA. A 2012 Second
TIS Addendum, which was also reviewed by County staff, is included in the SEIS.
Technical Report Status
The following reports were updated in response to the County/peer review comments. These
include:
■ Grading and Drainage Plan (Craig Peck; May 2012)
• Habitat Management Plan (GeoEngineers; January 2012)
• Wetland Mitigation Plan (GeoEngineers; January 2012)
• Golf Course Best Management Practices (GeoEngineers; January 2012)
• Wastewater Reclamation Plant (Consultares/Esvelt; June 2013)
• Water Quality Monitoring Plan (GeoEngineers; June 2011)
• Neighborhood Water Supply Program (February 2010)
The 2009 Forestry Report appears to still be in draft form (titled "Post Review Edits"), with red
text referring to additional detail to be added relating to figures and photos. No written response
to comments was generated by the technical consultant, Resource Management Group. In
general, the comments on this report were questions of report intent, rather than the specific
methodology or findings of the report.
The following reports were not updated in response to the 2009 County/Peer review comments:
. 2008 Water Supply and Groundwater Report (an Addendum Memo was completed in
2012, and written responses to comments were completed in February 2014)
• 2008 Geotechnical Report (a Soil and Earth Impact & Mitigation memo was completed by
Vinnie Perrone on January 2012; no substantive comments were made regarding this
report)
• 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment (a Plan for Archeological Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery was completed in 2012; only one substantive comment was made that was
added to the SEIS but did not change the report)
• 2009 Economic Benefit Report (a completely new Economic report was completed in
March 2014 and therefore previous comments no longer apply)
• 2009 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan (no specific/substantive comments were
made regarding this plan)
County/Peer Review Comments and Author Responses
Some of the County/peer review comments were minor in scope (punctuation, typos, correction
of references), while other comments addressed potential missing information. As mentioned
above, for the reports that were updated, the technical consultant generally responded to the
County/peer review comments in written form and noted whether a change to the report was/will
be made or why a change was not made due to difference in professional opinion or explanation
David Johnson
Jefferson County DCD
February 27, 2014
Page 3
of the project. No responses to comments were drafted by the authors of three reports, as these
minor comments no longer applied (Economic Benefit Report), were minor in nature (Cultural
Resource Assessment) or were subjective (Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan).
A matrix has been prepared for each report for which comments were only partially addressed or
not addressed (see attached). Those comments that were only partially addressed are highlighted
in yellow and those comments that were not addressed are highlighted in blue. Each matrix
indicates the original comment, the name of the commenter (if known), the response (by the
technical consultant), and what changes were made to the document, if any. The reports for
which a matrix was prepared include:
Grading and Drainage Plan
• Habitat Management Plan
■ Golf Course Best Management Practices
• Wastewater Reclamation Plant
• Water Quality Monitoring Plan
■ Neighborhood Water Supply Program
• Water Supply and Groundwater Report
* Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan
■ Geotechnical Investigation
■ Forestry Report
■ Cultural Resource Assessment
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan appears to be revised from a multi -page full report by
GeoEngineers (August 2008) to a simpler, more prescriptive plan drafted by the Subsurface
Group (June 2011). Therefore, it appears that a substantial number of the comments on the
preliminary text at the beginning of the 2008 report no longer apply, since this text was deleted in
future drafts. In addition, a written response was not drafted by the plan's author for each
comment, but changes to the document were completed where noted. This is so noted in the
comment matrix for the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
A substantial number of the County comments focused on the Wetland Mitigation Plan. All of
these comments were addressed in the final Wetland Mitigation Plan and responded to by
GeoEngineers in memo format. Thus no matrix was drafted for this report since all comments
were addressed.
Next Step
With the exception of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, most reports have remaining comments or
questions that were only partially addressed or not addressed. County staff has the opportunity to
review the attached comment matrices and determine if the response by the technical
consultant/author is sufficient in addressing their question or concern (if partially addressed),
and/or whether those comments or questions that were not addressed in the updated reports are
critical to the review and success of the proposed project.
The remaining comments (highlighted in blue or yellow) do not affect the adequacy of the SEIS.
Ei
0
A
7:s
U Q
0
-b
°, Z
"CsN
O O
as
N
Ur.
2
o
as N
ay
cn
i --
as
cd
as
a.)
R
N O
N N
zWtiCA
�:zC7QNz
�
O
U aD
WD
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
u
O
i
o
Ocn
a� cn
0 0
a�
a�
a�
a�
a�
rAEn
u
u
cncn
°
a�
a�
U fx
>4
c
o
0
0
0
aO
00
O
00
O
00
O
01
00
O
N
N
O
N
O
y
C)N
�
oar
¢
Q
z
z
U)
Cll
bb
o
0
0o:oUas
CIO
U)
En
bp
as
IS
-05U
C7
�
o
�
as
+r"
En
O
cUd
tuo
Q
bo
bba
�,�
obp
as
�.
U
�,
as
L
�.
as
A
C7xa�
C P
-4
Zv)
C7
;L4
DC7
a
r
G�
N
cd
0
v
U to
N
° Q)
sU.
O
O a
N
O
0
°cc 0
U
°�' O
5� °
o
�
s.
Con
"O
4-. O
'd O
v'
N
O
F- O• a;
Q
O
Cr
O sv °
Z
A
�O O
Z
o
A
N
O
N
--
U �.
N
N
0
ccO
O
N °
s�
cd .
O c.
O
U
N
U
0 0
cd �
O o
o E
a
o° W
cn
o
o°
Z En
o
U �
Z
� U �
c•
�
0
0
I
0
N
'G O
Q' N
N
u
to
°
0
o
o
Y.I
w
VD UD
0
N
O
�
p
iii U
..U—i
�••,
0
C
° Q.
�