HomeMy WebLinkAbout057NOTE TO FILE - March 29. 2015
RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR Phase ll - Staff Response to Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) letter dated
March 15,2016 (attachment #1)
Consu
above
7
2
3.
4. On November L9,20l4,Stqff released the draft SEIS for public and agency comment. The PGST
was sent the notice of availability on November 18, 2014.
5. Staff received a comment letter on the Draft SEIS from the PGST on January 5, 201-5 (attachment
#5 - date stamp of 2OL4 in error). The letter requested "the opportunity to consult more
directly with the project applicant and Jefferson County." As such, staff contacted the Tribal
representative Roma Call and scheduled a meeting on-site.
6. On February 18,2Ot5, Staff and the Project Manager, Craig Peck met with representatives of the
PGST to discuss their concerns. As we recall, the topic of cultural resources and the Kettles was
not discussed, but water quality, shellfish and elk were. At the conclusion of the meeting, Tribal
Representative Roma Call asked if the Tribe could submit a request to the County to include
additional monitoring for water quality. Staff agreed to review any request submitted by the
Tribe, and indicated there would be time for them to submit their request.
27,20L2
on the
facilitate
Staff and the Planning Commission received the attached the record, staff is providing this
response as a way to address the issues contained in the to File will be provided to the
Planning Commission prior to its public meeting of
it.
As part ofthe Phase I approval for a n amendment to property for a
future MPR, the Board of County Commissioners 30 of No.01-
0-0128-08). Staff made clear, and the applicant cond to signing the
development agreement, was the of the a the concerns PGST stated
in their letter dated March 15,2016 and Resources, concerns that were
thoroughly analyzed in the SEIS as
by and Staffto meet the
tribes:
Management Plan sent letters to all six local
on identifying cultural resources on-site
one to respond.
sent Resources Management Plan dated
The respond to this request to review and/or
with the Tribes, staff elicited the assistance
of the and Historic Preservation who sent Staff a letter dated
January #4) confirming that "three tribes had concurred with the plan and
three others
7. DCD does not provide notice to interested parties that the Final SEIS is about to be released and
SEPA does not require that such notice of impending Final SEIS publication be provided.
8. On December 9, 2015 the final SEIS was released ten months after the meeting with the PGST,
sufficient time for PGST to submit their request. The release of the final SEIS included a four
page response to the PGST's comments on the Draft SEIS (attachment #6)
9. On December 76,2OL5, staff received a letter (attachment #7) regarding a 60 day request to
"complete the Tribe's consultation." The letter also confirms that, "although the document
(FSEIS) covers potential environmental effects to some extent, we are concerned that it does
not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treatv rights."
11. On March t5,2OL6, the PGST submitted the subject I chment #1) requesting that
"Jefferson County work with the developer and the ement the following mitigation
actions, and meet the requirements of Ordinance (the 30 conditions of
approval). From the perspective of DCD, the 15,20L6 lly concluded the
n on February 18,consultation process between the PGST a County
10. On January 22,2OL6, The Planning Commission and staff
"complete the tribal consultation process," as requested
to grant the PGST 60 days to
ment #8).
udes rsultation process between PGST and
comp March 15,2OL6 with submission of
2015.
Conclusions:
Based upon the attached correspo
Jefferson County began on February 18,
the subject letter (attachment #1).
to determine
r
Although the PGST a ges the FSEIS mentaleffects to some
extent," it is clear that beli the SEPA is and proposed mitigation, while presumed to
be compliant with State I the en ntal protection standards the Tribe asserts
are necessa triba
o.
The fo nditions of No. relate to the PGST:
j) Tribes Ited resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a
cultural resource.
Staff Comment: The "shou indicates that discretion is allowed, while the word "shall" is
mandatory (JCC 17 MPR Code)
Applicant Compliance:t collaborated with the Skokomish Tribe in preparation of the
Cultural Resource Manageme an (attachment #3) and letters requesting consultation were sent to
the PGST and other local Tribes prior to drafting the plan. Kettle C will be preserved as part of the
proposal.
1:
k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of anv shoreline permit or approval of
anv preliminarv plat. there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting
the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and
the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources
management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject
property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures
regarding future ground-disturbing activity, assure traditionaltribalaccess to cultural properties and
activities, and to provide for community education opportunities.
Staff Comment: Since the Maritime Village was relocated outside the Marina, and no new development
will take place within Shoreline jurisdiction, no shoreline permits are likely to be required or applied for.
Also, the applicant could process the development zones and residential areas with a Boundary Line
Adjustment instead of a Plat, unless there would be a sale or lease of new parcels. However, the intent
of this condition is to ensure that cultural resources are protected.
Applicant Compliance: The Cultural Resource Management Plan (attachment #3) is intended to comply
with this condition, however, it does not appear to contain provisions for notification of Tribes to assure
traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, or to p de for community education
opportunities.
Staff Recommendation: revise the Cultural Resource Mana n in consultation with the PGST to
include provisions for notification of Tribes of ground d to assure traditional tribal
access to cultural properties and activities, to provide for un opportunities, and to
ensure that contact information is current. This revi n would ed with the Auditor and
referenced as a requirement in the Development
!) A wildlife management plan focused on non-let tegies shall be develo the public interest
in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wi ndl ocal tribes, to p minishment of
tribal wildlife resources cited in the B Sub- Area P ', elk, cougar,, osprey,
eagles, and bear), to reduce the poten collisio U.S. Highway 1Q1, to reduce the
conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging nd attraction to fresh water sources,
to reduce the dangers to predators a prey tat, and to reduce any danger to
humans.
Staff Comment: Staff PGST lan and the Habitat
Management Plan a
Apolicant Compliance:not com this condition and will need to consult with
the local Tribes and the & wild en drafting the plan
This land disturbing activity for Phase 18
SEPA
lna JCC I E review for Resort Plan development requires
additional ntal revi,all p level applications which requires completion of a SEPA
checklist,
more env
bes, a rs, an SEPA determination. Should the determination require
such I ElS, the Tribes will have the opportunity to be
involved in the I study.
Staff Recommen
Beyond the recommendat
PGST and others:
staff recommends the following to satisfy the concerns of the
The applicant may adopt any or all of the following options and the County may only require
implementation of such options or mitigations as are necessary to comply with one or more of the 30
conditions listed in Ordinance #01-0128-08 at Finding #63. Applicant's options include:
1. Redesigning the stormwater and wastewater management systems to completely avoid the use
of Kettles B & C, or in the alternative;
sam
rca
I
F$
}EI
/
ll
u
$L
$/
?
su
I
I
T
0
TL
/+s /
t
t,,
(
\
(rs
q
E
EL
U
fr
7
I
/
V
I
o><_t
(\
\(
I
[il
o $t
t$
,
o
Z
t
ffiri
EE
EN
$1ost
\
\x
$r$
$$frs
UF
nt
F
E
n
s
P*s
L
-$
sS
i$t\
{
u'
,
-1
e
t\\f--g
I
I
I
t
I
-l
TO: DRD Staff
FROM: David Goldsmith, lnterim Director
SUBJECT: Shoreline Exemption Reviews
The subject is concerning what activity requires a formal shoreline exemption review and Statement of Exemption
('shoreline exemption permit'), what activities are a matter of right as a shoreline property owner and those in
between. The Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.25)
articulate what activities are exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, what are
exemption from the process, although exemption form the permit requirements sill require consistency with the
act is.
JCC 18.25.550 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed
and 18.25.570 Statement of Exemption provides guidance on the a of a Statement of Exemption, when
a written review for consistency may be used or when an expla shoreline property owner of their
rights and responsibilities on use their property. lt is up to the i ner to interpret what the property
owner is wishing to do and to place the project in the approp
characterized in one of three levels, or Groups.
Generally review can be
Group 1: Formal Statement of Exemption ('shoreline permit exemption')
a any new structure or development (where non. now exists) withlr shoreline juri(azoeb )exceeds the Fair Market Value th
any new in water (water ward of
navigation aids
td
replacement and/or repair of any st
any project which requires an Army
Group 2: Consistency review and written findings,
a placement of navigation aids by the U.S. Co
a structures below the Fair Market Value thresho
ecol
Group 3: Matter
residential ap
o normal mai
that meets or
ry high water mark) structure or developm except
at exceeds the current footprint or configuration
n 404 permit
c conditions
or port a (JCC18.2s.s60 (7))
a
a
a
a
a
a
which may need to be conditioned to preserve
n, habitat restoration or simila ect (JCC 18.25.560 (15,16,17,18))
ures that is consistent with the current footprint or configuration
nant structure or development that is below the Fair Market Value threshold
foot setback from ordinary high water mark
necessary unless determined to need greater review)
below the Fair Market Value and land ward of the 3Cl,ftrcrt-tback
of an existing structures
o normal maintenan I landscaping
o maintenance of aids by the U.S. Coast Guard or port authority
a Other listed exemptions for which no formal review is required, unless the planner determines that due to
the nature of the request it should be considered for a higher level of review.
NOTE: what is important to determine the scope of the proposal or question and then determine the
appropriate level of review, a minor activity such as building a kayak r.r.-k b.iog oHw f far different ffiaft
covered boat storage structure. UrAWt q
ment of
residential a
r ward of
(no formal
that is
to