Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout017JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COiIiIUNITY DEVELOPiIENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.'1450 | Fax 360.379.445'l I Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us SquareOIYE Resource Center I Buildtng Permits I lnspecfions I Development Revlew I Long Range Plannlng FINAL Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-up Action ltems Pleasant Harbor MPR Discussion Technical Workgroup Web meeting: Thursday, January 26,2017 @ 8:30 - 10:30am ATTENDEES and Location: Garth Mann, Statesman Group (Calgary, Alberta) Jamie McArthur, Statesman Group (Calgary, Alberta) Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina (Brinnon, WA) Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) Participants (Kingston, WA) Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager Laura Price, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Tamara Gage, Shellfish Program Manager Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council (Poulsbo, WA) Michelle Farfan, Jetferson County DCD (Port Townsend, WA) Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD (Port Townsend, WA) Meetinq Summary [Ihese meeting notes include additional notations in italics from Michelle referring fo secfions of the FSEIS and Ordinance 01 -01 28-08.1 The meeting began on time with the participants listed above. lntroductions and Agenda Review was provided by Roma. This meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of the proposed development relative to PGST tribal treaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and wildlife. This web meeting was acting on the previous (December 14,2016) meeting the first two follow-up items. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's staff provided a summary of comments regarding shellfish resources, water quality protection and wildlife protection/management for the discussion (attached to this summary). Cultural Resources discussion . Laura reviewed cultural resource issues connected with the planned use for surface water management of Kettle B and other project impacts. Laura stated that the Tribe has commented about concerns that cultural resources would be lost from the proposed plans to create a lined storage pond within Kettle B and other project impacts. The Tribe has commented on the significance of the site as a traditional cultural property that meets multiple criteria for being eligible for the national register of historic places and the Tribe does not want to lose the opportunity to explore that history. Laura reported that, on January 23, 2017 , the PGST tribal council supported a "path forward to protect Kettles B and C" and will sign a letter being prepared to send to the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to request reconsideration of Kettle B and C for further study or listing on a national register. Second, the Tribe would like to work with the Statesman Group and others to develop a Stewardship Plan for Kettles B and C. The Stewardship Plan would include measures to protect cultural resources, as well as outline procedures for the management and maintenance of the cultural site. o Garth asked for PGST to share documentation on hodwhat qualifies Kettle B and C as a site for eligibility for further study or inclusion on a national register. Garth mentioned that Statesman wishes to make the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) a leader in environmentalstewardship. o Roma offered to set-up a separate meeting if needed to talk in more detail about the cultural significance information and steps needed to have a site listed rather than go into specific detail at this meeting. o Additional discussion regarding shared management and stewardship of Kettle B and C with regard to its cultural significance were deferred also. o Garth stated that, with timely feedback on the documentation of the cultural significance of Kettle B and C, Statesman will move forward with modifying surface water management from Kettle B to that which was contained in an unofficial, conceptual site plan proposal that was prepared August 19,2016. Garth reminds attendees that the conceptual proposalwas in response to PGST communicated concerns regarding Kettle B and C. . Roma clarified that because potential modifications to surface water management are not formally proposed, PGST must confine all comments to the formal preferred alternative published in the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) and focus on the loss of Kettles B, C and the wetlands. o Patty and Michelle confirmed that discussions (pro or con) on a modified stormwater management proposal have not moved forward and concurred that the current discussion had to formally focus on the preferred Alternative 3 analyzed in the FSEIS until a modification was formally submitted. o Patty and Michelle noted that the County will review project modifications under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) guidelines so that a proper determination of SEPA supplement or addendum can be made. INEXT STEPS: 1) Laura willfollow uo with DAHP: 2) Statesman Group will confirm its position on the 8/16 proiect prooosa! to protect the kettles and wetlands: 3l PGST. Statesman Group. Gountv and others will meet to discuss Stewardship Plan development.l Shellfish Resources Manaqement and Protection o Tamara reviewed the concerns regarding existing shellfish resources. Tamara noted the project would be located between two public beaches (the Duckabush and Dosewallips) which provide significant shellfish resources for commercial, recreational and subsistence harvest. The two delta flats are two of the most important intertidal areas to tribal harvesters. Tamara noted the tribe's concern regarding polluting runoff from 2 the proposed development and operation of the PHMPR. She noted the tribe's concern regarding increased temporary and permanent residents from the resort that would increase the harvest pressure to the beach and tide flats. lncreased pressure from additional harvesters without seeding and annual enhancement would result in a decline in the existing resource over time. . Patty and Michelle reminded Tamara that the Black Point currently does not have existing access to the beach or tide flats and that the PHMPR proposes no beach access. Tidelands in the immediate project area include privately owned as well as state-owned and managed shellfish areas. lRefer fo FSE/S Secflon 3.*2 which sfafes "including closing the current dangerous trail access to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. " Sfafesma n owns Tideland Tax D (approximately 10.1 1 chains) which is located at the mid-east portion of the Black Point shoreline bluff.lTamara responded that the PHMPR is located just a short distance from the tidelands and would be easily accessed by PHMPR residents and visitors. o Substantial conversation followed regarding existing versus potential polluting runoff sources and potential impacts to shellfish. Don reminded attendees that the PHMPR is based on a zero-runoff development plan both during and after construction. Don expressed concern that the PHMPR is/would be singled out as a sole source of pollution over and above the existing sources from land, river and the substantial flooding events that occur due to large rainfall and other storm events. o Don Coleman also commented on the improvements planned for Dosewallips Campground. This will increase year-round occupancy and have a more intense impact on recreation shellfish harvesting than visitors to Pleasant Harbor Recreation Community. Pleasant harbor Resort cannot be held accountable for monitoring public beaches. o Garth reiterated the zero-runoff plan and described how the redevelopment of the marina is proving its effectiveness. Garth encouraged those who have not seen the marina surface and stormwater infrastructure to do so. Garth agreed with Don that the PHMPR would be a "peanut" (runoff source) to the other sources that occur during large flooding events. [FSE/S page 3.2-7 under "Stormwatef identifies the stormwater management plan would meet the project's requirements for zero-discharge of water to Hood Canalfrom the golf course resort area, and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the Harbor. Additionally, BoCC Condition 63(q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires no runoff from the golf course ls to enter Hood Canal regardless of the size or frequency of the runoff event.J o Tamara mentioned a shellfish resource management and protection plan as a way to work together and ensure impact avoidance to shellfish. r Garth reviewed the existing water quality impact avoidance described in the FSEIS. Garth proposed a standing "committee" of area water quality interests and experts to meet and engage regularly and set up a monitoring program with regard to pollutants in runoff. Garth mentioned that Pleasant Harbor staff have been approached to provide area for a shellfish nursery by a member of the PGST. IBoCC Condition 63(r) of Ordinance 01- 0128-08 requires a County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for a minimum of monthly water collection and testing in conceft with an adaptive management program prior to any site specific action utilizing BMPs and appropriafe sfafe agencies.l INEXT STEPS: Tribe. Statesman Group. and Gountv will meet to discuss the development of a Shellfish Protection Plan.l 3 Water Qualitv Protection r Sam raised the issue of wetland determinations and expiring wetland jurisdictional determinations under US Army Corps rules, stating the 2007 determination expired in 2012 and is no longer valid. lf the wetlands will be impacted an updated determination of wetlands jurisdiction is required from the Army Corps. . Sam also admifted that he has made his recommendations without reading the reports submitted by the experts representing the Applicant as well as Peer Review Reports commissioned by Jetferson County. Sam also admitted to not having visited the site to review the protection provided under the BSP application for mitigating pollution from water run-off from Highway 101. o Garth updated the group that they had been in contact recently with the Army Corp Seattle District. Garth said he would not need approval from the Corps if the wetland impacts are avoided (as suggested in the new proposal). An updated jurisdictional determination will be needed if wetlands are to be impacted as described in the FSEIS. . Sam described the desire to work with Statesman on a water quality monitoring program to specifically look at fate and transport of chemical pollutants to monitor whether pollutants are in fact removed from the environment as planned. As described in the summary of comments, this may include event-based monitoring of stormwater systems and monitoring of storage pond water, groundwater and ambient water, including mussel tissue analysis from the adjacent nearshore waters. . Patty and Michelle noted that water quality monitoring is one of the conditions of the MPR implementing ordinance and development agreement which is published in the FSEIS. Patty agreed that PGST staff would work with the County and State agencies on a water quality monitoring plan. [BoCC Condition 63(r) ot Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires a County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for a minimum of monthly water collection and testing in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site specific action utilizing BMPs and appropriafe sfafe agencies. A draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan was completed by the applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Water Quality Depaftment in August 2014; Appendix F of the FSE/S.l PGST staff will participate in the development of the final Water Quality Monitoring Plan to ensure the plan meets PGST approval. o Garth explained the details contained in the FSEIS regarding treating water for not only biological but other potential contaminants too. Garth reminded all that the membrane filter treatment will result in tertiary treated water and is part of the model of environmental quality that Statesman wishes to develop and practice for the PHMPR. . Sam noted that it appears that there is an opportunity to work together on water quality issues. Patty stated that the Tribe would participate in the development of the final water quality monitoring and adaptive management plan. Garth described interactions that he has had with the County's water quality manager Mike Dawson. Garth repeats his idea for a water quality committee. . Sam raised the issue of the reduced 9-hole golf course fertilizers and pesticides as described in the summary of comments, in which PGST requests advance notification if chemicals pesticides, herbicides or fungicides are applied and for a log sheet to record all fertilizers, pesticides herbicides and fungicides to be accessible to PGST staff. Garth reviewed what is in the FSEIS regarding the use of Xeriscaping and Dakota's REV product 4 which is a 100o/o liquid humic compound, biologically based way to fertilize and manage pests on the proposed nine-hole golf course. JNEXT STEPS: As required under BoGG Condition 63(rl of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Tribes. County. Developer. and State Aqencv Representatives will meet to develop the final water qualitv monitorinq and adaptive manaqement plan.l Wildlife Protection r Tim asked if there was available any update on habitat and wildlife information. A lengthy discussion on wildlife management followed and a distinction between habitat management versus wildlife management was also discussed. Garth reviewed the eartagging and collaring elk crossing concepts covered in the FSEIS. o Tim noted that while proximity sensor is good, the tribe is still concerned that the PHMPR development will attract elk due to changes in vegetation. o Garth reviewed the total cover type change percentage in the PHMPR. . Tim showed 2013 elk location and home range data on where elk usage and assemblies have occurred. The data show elk congregating in cleared areas throughout the studied landscape west of the Highway 101. Creating cleared areas on the PHMPR is certain to attract elk east of Highway 101. o Garth requested a copy of Tim's presentation. o Tim reminded everyone that the higher risk of mortality to elk crossing the highway is only one concern. The most important issue is the attraction of elk away from usual hunting areas to the PHMPR. The latter reduces opportunities for Tribal citizens to hunt, and thereby diminishes their treaty right. Tim reiterated the idea of elk- proof fencing which Garth has said is not feasible for the pQect because of studies which indicate that elk are very difficult to contain, and to erect a 10 foot wall anchored to resist the strength of the elk, it would prove to contravene the County's mandate to protect the habitat of wildlife and the management of wildlife. Wildlife includes more than elk, but other ungulates would be removed from the property with this wall, and the property would then be impacted with a significant change in its biology and ecological significance. Garth stated that they would work with the Tribe through Xeriscaping programs, since historically the elk herd have not shown any migration pattern on the property, even in the times when considerable grass areas were planted for the purposes of the American Campground. lJefferson County imposed a "no shoot" zone for Black Point as esfabfished under Ordinance 05-0519-97 in 1997 and Olympic CanalTracts located on the west side of Highway 101 as esfab/rshed under Ordinance 12-1202-02 in 2002.1 o Wildlife Protection as described by Tim is not to protect the habitat and management of the elk herd, but to harvest the elk herd based on Tribal hunting rights. Tim was concerned that even though the elk herd in question has never occupied the Pleasant Harbor Resort propefi, they might in the future because of the 9- hole golf course fairways and greens. flt would be valuable to have a subsequent meeting to try and resolve issues regarding elk, with PGSTI INEXT STEPS: PGST/PNPTC. Statesman. Group. Jeffercon Countv. and possiblv the wildlife conflict specialist from the Washinqton Dept. of Fish and Wildlife will meet to discuss wildlife protection. We 5 recommend meetinq in Februarv since staff will be an thc field durins the month of ll,larch and not available.l PGST Closino Comments: Roma stated that there has been some confusion regarding the status of the Statesman Group's new 8/16 proposal. lf the Statesman Group moves forward with protecting Kettles B and C and the wetlands, the scope and design of the project will change significantly. At this point, we are still focused on the existing proposal in the FSEIS. The Tribe continues to oppose the project as long as there are impacts to the kettles and wetlands. INEXT STEPS: Statesman Group will confirm its position on the status of the 8/16 prooosal. includino desiqn chanqes. as wel! as protection of the kettles and wetlands.I Michelle and Patty provided a summary: - Appreciation for everyone's availability and to PGST for preparing advanced information. - The web based meeting provided an opportunity to review known issues and have specific dialogue on those issues which is not as easy to do over email and/or comment periods. - This meeting allowed for the group to see and discuss the bodies of information, where information resides in existing documents and where plans, projects and monitoring are described and where they may need additionalwork. - Many of the issues are part of the development agreement. 6 DRAFT fan. 19, 2017 PGST Summary of Comments Regarding Shellfish Resources Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort The Black Point Resort will be located between two public beaches fthe Duckabush and the Dosewallips) which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are two of the three most important intertidal areas to Tribal harvesters. The increase in visitors from the Resort, both temporary and permanent residents, is expected to increase the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without seeding and an annual enhancement will result in a decline in the existing resource over time, Both tidelands have areas of concern to the Washington Department of Health (DOHJ. In 2015, DOH reported that one water sampling location on Dosewallips and two locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and an additional location on each tideland were falling into Concerned status. Additional system overflows into the Duckabush or contaminated stormwater runoff from the increase in impervious areas could result in poor water quality in the rivers leading to problems with shellfish on the tidelands. A closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues would have a cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. a a a a We would like to develop a Shellfish Resources Protection and Management Plan with the developer for the protection and restoration of tribal shellfish resources in the area. The Plan may include seeding and enhancement of the beaches by the landowner on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers where tribal members harvest. It may include conservation easements to protect the tidelands adjacent to the project area. Additionally, the Plan would include response plans in the event of a water quality incident. fan. 19,2017 DRAFT Summary of Comments: Water Quality Protection Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Contact U.S. Army Corps representatives to request a new determination of wetlands jurisdiction for the purposes of USCOE permit review. The 2007 determination (FSEIS Vol. 2 Appendix f .A) expired in 201.2 and the document is no longer a valid determination that the wetlands in question are not Waters of the U.S, Consult with PGST Natural Resources Dept. staff to develop and implement a plan for the protection of water quality in the project area and in waters adjacent to the project area. Amend the existing Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan to include these protections: a a o Water quality monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and shellfish harvesting areas, including monitoring for pollutants. The monitoring plan will consider the transport and fate of pollutants with a mass-balance approach. This will incorporate the following:. event-based monitoring of stormwater conveyances and detention basinsr monitoring of the proposed storage pond (Kettle B or alternative)r monitoring of sea-level aquifer groundwater. monitoring of nearshore ambient waters. monitoring of shellfish tissue and/or other biota o An evaluation of alternatives for constructing additional swales and contours near roadways to redirect stormwater runoff away from Hood Canal, particularly in the areas of Phase 1 construction. Provide advance notification to PGST Natural Resources staff before any application of chemical pesticides, herbicides or fungicides in the event that organic management is not sufficient. Maintain a log sheet for all fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides used on site, made accessible to PGST Natural Resources staff. 2 a fan, L9,2017 DRAFT Summary of Comments: Wildlife Protection and Management Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Management of Roosevelt elk has not been adequately addressed The requirements specified in Jefferson County Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08, 63.1, have not been met. That ordinance requires: "a wildlife managementplanfocused on non-lethal strategies...in consultation h)ith the Department of Fish and ll/ildlife and local tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources...to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions... [and] to reduce the conJlicts from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping. . . " [Emphasis added.] The 2012 Habitat Management Plan prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. does not meet these requirements. It does not provide assurances that elk will be managed by non-lethal means when they enter the project site and cause property damage. The plan was developed without consultation with the Tribes or the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It does not address vehicle collisions, except to note that a fence will be constructed to discourage wildlife from crossing the highway. It does not address conflicts regarding wildlife foraging on high-value plants, and how those wildlife will be managed. The Habitat Management Plan, without any supporting evidence, concludes that elk will not likely cross highway 101, and concludes that because elk are not currently using the project site they will not use it in the future. This is wishful thinking. The Point No Point Treaty Council has more than 10 years of habitat use data showing that elk are attracted to open, grassy habitats, particularly those where the grass is fertilized and irrigated. Elk are known to cause significant damage to golf courses. We find it difficult to believe that such damage will be tolerated for long by the golf course managers. Long-term measures to prevent elk from crossing the highway and entering the property are needed. Installing caution lights (like the ones near Sequim) on the highway to warn motorists that the elk are nearby is a valuable addition to the mitigation package. Does Statesman understand that it is necessary to attach telemetry sensors to the elk to activate the lights? We would be happy to cooperate with Statesman to implement such a system. Highway caution lights will reduce collisions, but they will not prevent elk from entering the project site. A fence is still needed. We already know that the highway is not a barrier to elk movement (and have evidence thereof), despite the uninformed conclusions in the Habitat Management Plan. Elk access to the east side of highway 101 is likely to be improved by the recently authorized Duckabush estuary restoration and highway re-alignment project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will remove the causeway that currently carries highway 101 across the estuary, and replace it with an elevated highway supported by concrete piers spaced at 110-foot intervals. This is expected to make it easier for elk to disperse east of the highway. 3