HomeMy WebLinkAbout213Final
Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-up Action Items
Pleasant Harbor MPR
“Staff to Staff” meeting
Meeting date: December 14, 2016 @ 2pm; DCD conference room
ATTENDEES:
Garth Mann, Statesman Group
Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina
Roma Call, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST)
Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County DCD
Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD
MISSING:
Jeromy Sullivan & Technical Representatives of PGST.
Meeting Results /Follow-up Action Items
Roma will consult with her technical colleagues and get a list of questions/concerns regarding water quality, wildlife management recognizing there are exiting reports from Geo-Eng.
on Habitat Management as required by BOCC and Water Management Reports for the proposed application.
Roma will work with tribal anthropologist on a) what does it mean to be eligible for further study or inclusion in to a national register and b) what is/how long is the process to move
from being eligible to actual becoming listed, and does the Tribe wish to go through this expense to learn if Kettle B does qualify and what this means in terms for future Registration
and Management of this Kettle?
Roma will request to get on the agenda of the January tribal council meeting so that she can request further clarification as to whether there is interest in spending time and resources
on pursuing national register status for Kettle B. Patty offered to help Roma with information, etc.
Michelle will set up the next meeting and Technical Agenda which can use video and/or teleconferencing instead of being in-person.
Michelle will work with Roma on getting the necessary information together for that meeting and target for it to be in January.
Michelle will work with Patty on what the schedule is for preparing and adopting final development regulations that have been submitted by the Applicant, Statesman, in preparation for
adoption with the Development Agreement.
Michelle will work with Don on the finalizing the status of all MOUs and scope for the development agreement.
The meeting began on time with the participants listed above.
Michelle opened the meeting, describing how Commissioner Sullivan requested that this meeting be convened. The first agenda item was to have the PGST review their concerns with everyone
present.
Roma began by asking whether the project plan revision from August 19, 2016 was still being considered by Statesman. Garth went over the background as to why that conceptual site plan
was prepared to address the issues raised by PGST and the ensuing discussion following the Government to Government meeting of April 18, 2016. Garth described that the site
plan contained and analyzed in the FSEIS is still valid (Alternative 3 of FSEIS). The August 19, 2016 version was proposed by Statesman in response to personal communications with PGST
Chair Jeromy Sullivan.
Discussions continued regarding Kettle B. PGST had described in an earlier comment letter that Kettle B met several criteria for cultural and historic significance and therefore was
potentially eligible for further study or inclusion into a National Register (e.g., National Heritage Area or National Register of Historic Places). Garth stated that it was important
for the significance of Kettle B to be more firmly documented so if it was no longer considered for on-site stormwater management and additional evaluations might proceed with alternative
stormwater management outside of Kettle B. Roma said she would consult the PGST anthropologist and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) on exploring further the national eligibility
of Kettle B. After more discussion, Roma offered to go before the PGST Tribal Council and request clarification on whether PGST wishes to pursue further study and analysis into having
Kettle B be potentially included into a National Register.
Garth further explained that if Kettle B would no longer be considered for on-site stormwater management, then its maintenance over the long-term was also an issue. Garth proposed that
the PGST would maintain Kettle B and provide for invasive plant removal and other vegetative management. Michelle noted that the riparian setback of 200 feet from the OHWM of Hood Canal
was proposed as a Conservation Easement and therefore, perhaps Kettle B could be included in this easement area. Roma would review this with Tribal Council in January 2017 including
Registration and Long-Term Management requirements. Roma described this kind of maintenance as stewardship and that Kettle B could potentially have a conservation stewardship plan
prepared and carried out by PGST and/or other tribes but that this would involve a process, Roma asked about use of fertilizers to which both Garth and Michelle said were detailed in
the FSEIS. Garth provided detail that the FSEIS describes how a special kind of peat is proposed which requires very low maintenance and limits weed growth. Garth described also how
the FSEIS details the use of fertilizers that are biologically friendly and break down without long term impact.
Roma raised two remaining concerns: water quality/shellfish and wildlife management. Garth described the investigative work done including identifying the present migration pattern
of the Elk Herd which is 2 to 4 miles further to the North of the Black Point Property. Further, the Habitat Study shows no sign of the Elk Herd ever migrating to this area in the
past. Washington State Fish and Wildlife already are utilizing a National Park program for mitigating risks of elk crossing the highway with GPS ‘proximity-reader’ is attached to
either the ear or a collar on the lead bull elk. If the herd nears the highway, the proximity reader alerts traffic with properly placed signals. At the request of PGST the golf course
has been reduced by 50% of grassed area that could attract grazing. Fencing was not considered feasible as investigated in other areas where habitat migration of other species would
be impacted, and elk fencing is extremely unsightly and impractical to pursue. Roma said she would consult with the PGST wildlife biologist to see if tagging/collaring and alert signaling
would be considered
sufficient wildlife management for elk. Roma also said she would consult with the habitat biologist regarding any lingering concerns not analyzed in the FSEIS relative to water quality
and shellfish areas. Garth expressed disappointment that this meeting did not have the ability to specifically discuss and potentially resolve remaining concerns without the presence
or additional consultation of tribal technical specialist. Roma agreed to have those tribal specialists list any specific concerns in writing so that they could be responded to either
separately in writing or at the next convening of this group or both. The next meeting was discussed as being able to be done over teleconferencing or video conferencing.
Roma returned to the issue of Kettle B’s cultural significance and asked how the parties intended to proceed if the historic designation process involved a lengthy time frame, such as
several years, or if the analysis was cost prohibitive. Garth replied that in the case of not pursuing formal designation, there would need to be a decision to keep the original proposal
or further consider the alternative relative to its potential significance. Garth mentioned that it would be very helpful that, at the very least, the significance for being listed
as eligible for further study or inclusion would be good to know more about. Garth said the conceptual site plan of August 19, 2016 showing an alternative borrow-pit to accommodate
13.5 million gallons of recycled water reservoir would need more formal engineering and site plan development. Michelle and Patty described how if the alternative did not add aspects
or add impacts that were not already analyzed in the FSEIS then the alternative would be published as a FSEIS addendum. Roma reiterated her intention to go before tribal council and
Patty offered to help prepare anything Roma might need for that.
Patty listed action items for all to hear and offer comments to. Roma said she would help ensure a technical-level discussion with a list of tribal technical feedback that could be
planned for in January. Garth and Michelle discussed the time frame of finalizing and adopting the development regulations and drafting the development agreement. Garth described an
issue with a road to the boat launch with Michelle that should no longer be required with the adoption and change in development plans due to setback amendments of the new Shoreline
Management Plan. All attendees gave permission to continue to participate but that video conferencing or teleconferencing would be sufficient. Michelle promised to work on setting
up the next meeting.
AGENDA
Pleasant Harbor MPR
“Staff to Staff” meeting
Meeting date: December 14, 2016 @ 2pm; DCD conference room
Introductions
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe concerns: kettle ponds, elk, shellfish, wildlife management plan
Development Regulations next steps
Development Agreement next steps