HomeMy WebLinkAbout024Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Michelle Farfan < M Farfan@cojefferson.wa.us>
Wednesday, February 01,20L7 2:32 PM
Patty Charnas
MF edits to draft meeting notes from )an 26 2077
Draft Meeting Notes from 01_26_L7.doc
Hi Patty
Attached are my edits in red...
Thanks,
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Brinnon MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
62l Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
Y:360-379-4463
F:360-379-4451
mfa rfa n @co. iefferson.wa. us
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail
and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTTIiENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Sheet, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us
SquareOIUE Resource Center I Butlding Pernits & lnspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning
Preliminary Draft
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, BC)
Jamie McArthur, Statesman Group (Calgary, BC)
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 (Kingston, WA)
Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County DCD (Port Townsend, WA)
Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD (Port Townsend, WA)
Meetinq Results /Follow-up Action ltems
The meeting began on time with the participants listed above
lntroductions and Agenda Review was provided by Roma.
Cultural Resources discussion
o Laura reviewed cultural resource issues connected with the planned use for surface water management of
Kettle B and other project impacts. Laura reported that, on January 23,2017, the PGST tribal council
supported a "path forward to protect" Kettle B 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 for further
study or listing on a national register.
This meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of the proposed development relative to PGST
tribal heaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and elk. This web meeting
was acting on the previous (December 14,2016) meeting first two follow-up items.
. Garth asked for PGST to share documentation on hoMwhat qualifies Kettle B 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 environmental stewardship.
o Roma offered to set-up a separate meeting 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 with regard to its cultural
significance were deferred also.
. Garth stated that, with timely feedback on the documentation of the cultural significance of Kettle B,
Statesman will move fonrard with modifying surface water management from Kettle B to that which was
contained in an unofficial, conceptual site plan proposalthat was prepared August 19, 2016. Garth reminds
attendees that the conceptual proposal was in response to PGST communicated concerns regarding Kettle B.
o 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 use of Kettle B.
. Patty and Michelle confirmed that discussions (pro or con) on a modified storm water management proposal
have not moved fonrvard 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.
. Pafty 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.
S hellfish Resou rces Manaoement and Protection
o Tamara reviewed the concerns regarding existing shellfish resources. Tamara noted that tidelands in the area
possessed significant shellfish resources for commercial, recreational and subsistence shellfishing. Tamara
noted the tribe's concern regarding polluting runoff from the proposed development and operation of the
PHMPR and noted the tribe's concern regarding increased public access to the beach and tide flats by
PHMPR visitors and potential increased recreational harvesting.
r 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 shellfishing areas. (Refer to FSEIS Section 3.5-2 which
states "including closing the current dangerous trail access to retain the natural condition and minrmal use of
the southern shoreline." Statesman owns Tideland Tax D (approximately 10.1 1 chains) which is located at the
mid-east portion of the Black Point shoreline bluff).
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.
2
. 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. (FSEIS page 3.2-7 under "Stormwater" identifies the stormwater
management plan would meet the project's requirements for zero-discharge of water to Hood Canal from 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 is
to enter Hood Canal regardless of the size or frequency of the runoff event).
o Tamara mentioned a shellfish resource management and protection plan as a way to work together and
ensure impact avoidance to shellfish.
. 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 he has been approached to provide area for a
shellfish nursery. (BoCC 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 concert with an adaptive
management program prior to any site specific action utilizing BMPs and appropriate state agencies.)
Water Qualitv Protection
. Sam raised the issue of wetland determinations and expiring wetland jurisdictional determinations under US
Army Corps rules.
o Garth updated the group that they had been in contact recently with the Army Corp Seattle District. Given that
the wetlands depicted in the FSEIS will be avoided, Garth was advised by the Corps to get an updated
jurisdictional determination (JD) if changes were being considered that potentially affected wetlands so that an
updated JD would be done.
. Sam described the desire to work with Statesman on a water quali$ monitoring study to specifically look at
fate and transport of chemical pollutants.
. 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. (BoCC 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 concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site specific action
utilizing BMPs and appropriate state agencies. A draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan was completed by the
applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Water Quality Department in August 2014; Appendix F of the
FSErS).
. 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
3
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. 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 golf course fertilizers and pesticides to which Garth reviewed what is in the FSEIS
regarding the use of xeric landscaping and Dakota peat which is a chemically inert, biologically based way to
fertilize and manage pests on the proposed nine-hole golf course.
Wildlife Protection
. Tim asked if there was available any update on habitat and wildlife information. A lengthy discussion on wildlife
management followed and a distinction on habitat versus wildlife management was also discussed. Garth
reviewed the eartagging and collaring elk crossing concepts covered in the FSEIS.
. 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.
. Garth reviewed the total cover type change percentage in the PHMPR.
. Time showed 2013 elk census 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.
. Tim reminded everyone that it is not the higher risk to elk crossing the highway as much as it is the attraction
of elk away from usual hunting areas to the PHMPR. Tim reiterated the idea of elk-proof fencing which Garth
has said is not feasible for the project. (Jefferson County imposed a "no shoot" zone for Black Point as
established under Ordinance 05-0519-97 and Olympic Canal Tracts located on the west side of Highway 101
as established under Ordinance 12-1202-02)
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.
4