The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About112Michelle Farfan From: Sent: lo: Cc: Attachments: Subject: Hollinger, Kristy < khollinger@eaest.com> Monday, June 06, 2016 7:59 AM Garth Mann David W. Johnson (djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us); Schipanski, Rich RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Review. Secondary Peer Review Summary Memo.pdf Hi Garth, The Final ElS, including the appendices, is available on the County website at: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Brinnon M PR.htm And attached is a memo from 2OL4 summarizing the peer review process. Best, Krsity From: Ga rth Ma nn Ima ilto:Ga rth. Ma nn @statesma ngrou p.com] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 10:24 AM To: Hollinger, Kristy <khollinger@eaest.com> Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Review. Kristy: The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe requires evidence of the Peer Review Process for the SEIS Review. These would include that technical reports for Grading and Drainage, Golf Course, Water Quality, and Groundwater. I believe you will locate this in your August 21st 2009 agreement for Peer Review Reports With the above, also send a drop box or the location of the reports on-line, that were filed for the Final SEIS Review, attaching a copy of our agreement. Please call if you have any questions Garth M. Garth Mann President & C.E.O Statesman Group of Companies Direct: 403.686.8371 Email: garth@statesman.ca 1 fA 225 Schilling Circle, Suite 400 HuntValley, MD 21031 Telephone: 41 G58+7000 Fu: 410-771-1625 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc. 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 I .4 of our scope of services for the Pleasant Harbor Resort SEIS, we have completed the second round of peer review of the technicaldocuments 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) o Wetland Mitigation Plan (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and January 2012) o Golf Course Best Management Practices (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and January 2012) . Wastewater Reclamation Plant (Esvelt Engineering;April 2009 and June 2013) o Water Quality Monitoring Plan (GeoEngineers; August 2008 and June 201l) . Neighborhood Water Supply Program (Subsurface Group; December 2009 and February 2010) o Geotechnical Report (Subsurface Group;November 2008) o Forestry Report (Resource Management Group; August 2009 and September 2009) o Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis Report (Subsurface Group;November 2008) o Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan (Resource Management Group; August 2009) . Cultural Resource Assessment (Western Shore Heritage Services; December 2006) o 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 Counfy DCD February 27 ,2014 Page2 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. A2012 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) o Habitat Management Plan (GeoEngineers; January 2012) o Wetland Mitigation Plan (GeoEngineers; January 2012) o Golf Course Best Management Practices (GeoEngineers; January 2012) o Wastewater Reclamation Plant (Consultares/Esvelt; June 2013) o Water Quality Monitoring Plan (GeoEngineers; June 2011) o 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 reportwere questions of report intent, ratherthan the specific methodology or findings of the report. The following reports were not updated in response to the 2009 County/Peer review comments: o 2008 Water Supply and Groundwater Report (an Addendum Memo was completed in 2012, and written responses to comments were completed in February 2014) o 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) o 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) o 2009 Economic Benefit Report (a completely new Economic report was completed in March 2014 and therefore previous comments no longer apply) o 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 Investi gation 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 201l). Therefore, it appears that a substantialnumber 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 ofthe proposed project. The remaining comments (highlighted in blue or yellow) do not affect the adequacy of the SEIS. Attachment A Report Author/Consultant Original Report Date County/Peer Review Comments? Author/Consultant Response? Updated Report Date Grading and Drainage Plan Craig Peck September 2008 Yes Yes May 2012 Habitat Management Plan GeoEngineers August 2008 Yes Yes Ianuary 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan GeoEngineers August 2008 Yes Yes January 2012 Golf Course Best Management Practices GeoEngineers August 2008 Yes Yes January 2012 Wastewater Reclamation Plant H.R. Esvelt Engineering April2009 Yes Yes June 2013 (appendix to 2014 Sewer Plan) Water Quality Monitoring Plan GeoEngineers (original); Subsurface Group (revision) August 2008 Yes Yes, but not to all comments June 201 I (draft form with Jefferson County Water Quality Dept. comments) Neighborhood Water Supply Program Subsurface Group December 2009 Yes Yes February 2010 Geotechnical Report Subsurface Group November 2008 Yes, very minor/not substantive Yes Not updated; Soils and Earth Addendum - January 2012 Forestry Report Resource Management Group August 2009 Yes No September 2009 (draft form titled Post-Review edits, but no direct response to comments) Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis Report Subsurface Group November 2008 Yes Yes Not updated; Groundwater Impact Addendum - February 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan Resource Management Group August 2009 Yes, one comment but not substantive No Not updated Attachment A Report Author/Consultant Original Report Date County/Peer Review Comments? Author/Consultant Response? Updated Report Date Cultural Resource Assessment Western Shore Heritage Services December 2006 Yes No; one comment incorporated into SEIS, other two comments were not substantive Not updated; Archeological Monitoring Plan and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol -March2}l2 Economic Benefit Report Unknown April2009 Yes, minor No New report by new consultant (Wright Johnson LLC, March 2014) so comments no longer apply Transportation Report Transportation Engineering Northwest l't TIS Addendum - August 2008 Yes, via email from County Public Works Yes, via e-mail to County Public Works 2'd TIS Addendum - January 2012 (County reviewed for adequacy; not part of this secondary peer review) Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Joh nson < djohnson @co jefferson,wa.us > Monday, June 06, 2016 9:45 AM David Alvarez David Goldsmith RE: Pleasant Harbor -- conference call PHMPR DR-PC Findings How to Decide Worksheet.docx Attached for our discussion today at 10am. -----Origina I Appointment---- From: David Alvarez Sent: Monday, June 06,2OtG 9:09 AM To: David Goldsmith; David W. Johnson Subject: Pleasant Harbor -- conference call When: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Where: My office 1