The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1971 Shannen Cartmel From:Michelle Farfan Sent:Monday, October 09, 2017 10:02 AM To:David Sullivan Cc:Patty Charnas Subject:Agenda for 10-13-17 Government to Government Meeting w/PGST Attachments:Agenda 10-13-17.docx Importance:High Dear Commissioner Sullivan: Please review the attached agenda and let me know if you have any additions or changes by Tuesday afternoon please. I’d like to send the agenda to Roma for distribution to her team on Wednesday. I’m also waiting for the list of attendees from Roma, but she thought it may be the same as the last government to government meeting. Thank you! Regards, Michelle Farfan Associate Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 V: 360-379-4463 F: 360-379-4451 Work hours – M, T, W mfarfan@co.jefferson.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. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment DRAFT Meeting Notes Summary Government to Government Meeting with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort October 13, 2017 10am - Noon Public Works Conference Room, Port Townsend ATTENDEES: Jeromy Sullivan, Tribal Chairman, PGST Amber Penn-Roco, Attorney PGST Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager, PGST Stormy Purser, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST (via speaker phone) Laura Price, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administrator Patty Charnas, Director, Jefferson County DCD Michelle Farfan, Project Planner, Jefferson County DCD Meeting Summary: Updates:  PGST Tribal Council supported PGST staff recommendation to pursue designation of further study or inclusion of the kettles as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP).  PGST expects a response very soon. Water quality/shellfish: 2  PGST repeated their concern of size and scope of the project including stormwater runoff into Hood Canal. Water quality is of great concern since 75% of tribal shellfish come from the Dosewallips and Duckabush.  Han Daubenberger is working with DFW with mussel cages in Duckabush to monitor water quality.  PGST understands developer is using natural materials and proposing zero runoff discharge for the resort.  PGST asks about water quality monitoring plan.  PGST concerned that there will be increase with pedestrian traffic on beaches and more intense recreational shellfish harvest.  Jeremy: total perceived occupancy over time/successors.  DFW oversite for shellfish harvest discussed and the fact that DFW seeds shellfish beds.  Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) has this on their radar. Not as hot as salmon but there are requirements of DFW.  PGST believes there is neglect on shellfish harvest management.  PGST would rather not have to sue the state on protection of shellfish.  PGST shellfish staff have come up with proposal: seeding oysters on Dosewallips and Duckabush every 4 years and seeding clams every 3 years. Update from Roma on 10/25/17 cost of seeding: 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips beaches. Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $16,880 for 400 bags, including labor cost to spread the seed. 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips beach: Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $8,500 per 1 million 4000 mm clam seed. The Tribe would be willing to cover the cost of delivering the seed and spreading it, which is not included in the cost estimate. Wetlands:  Corp of Engineers jurisdictional determination (JD) has expired. PGST has heard that now DOE issues a permit if Corp does not have responsibility.  Philip: Roma to share email to Corp about if wetland is not under federal regulations then under state. What is trigger to submit new JD?  Patty: New JD done at permit application level. 3  Roma: Corp and DOE under the impression that applicant was staying out of wetlands – avoiding permitting by developer by stating staying out of wetlands.  PGST stated there was confusion regarding which proposal was moving forward. (PGST was provided a copy of a document dated August 2016 by the developer (in 2016) of a different proposal than the preferred alternative 3 in the FSEIS). Wildlife management:  David: We thought about getting things done earlier than at permit level by imposing the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.  Wildlife management site visit is scheduled for 10/19 that includes DFW wildlife biologists to look at possible fencing options and to look at developer owned triangular parcel on west side of Hwy 101 and habitat.  Discussion on Tim Cullinan’s (Point No Point Treaty Council) update on elk management and fencing configurations.  Jeremy: Listen to state WDFW on suggestions for elk management.  Roma: Fence and triangle piece would probably resolve the elk issue.  Statesman understands that a fence is probably necessary but site visit will help. Cultural resources:  Stormy: TCP assessment done and submitted to DAHP. Working on process for eligibility. Dr. Brooks, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) spoke with PGST on applying for eligibility nomination.  Amber: Documents uploaded to DAHP wizard – preliminary decision on TCP expected soon. DAHP will write a letter to county on eligibility.  Roma: SHPO will decide relatively soon. Does county have a response plan to DAHP decision on TCP?  Laura: We are trying to get you this information as soon as possible.  Jeromy: I’m certain our tribe to the south are devastated by the impacts to their village.  Amber: County letter regarding kettles “more aspirational.”  Philip: legal framework for the county and developer is Ordinance 01-0128-08, SEPA and critical area ordinance. At some point county will decide issues are either resolved or “agree to disagree” and issue a public review draft. A 2 month public review is expected. Roll out 4 proposed Dev. Agreement and proposed Development will present to PGST and other tribes. Prior to roll-out, county to continue with technical meetings.  Amber: PGST will respond to county letter.  Jeremy: What does TCP eligibility mean? What does that preclude under the law? What are the general legal effects?  Laura: Probably comes into play when Corp becomes involved (review).  Roma: That’s why we want a JD now because it triggers a Section 106 process. Advise developer that you’re getting down the road and the Section 106 process kicks in and may cause the project to substantially become delayed.  Amber: issues better addressed now than later on TCP.  Philip: Can’t make applicant contact Corp for JD. Can’t prevent applicant from making bad decisions.  Jeremy: Applicant doesn’t want Tribe to be negative down the road to cause potential issues. Corp permit responsibility to protect tribal treaty rights.  Roma: Looking at other kettles and cultural resources.  Amber: PGST desires MOU; MOU to include tribe, developer and county: o Tribe issues, o Stewardship plan, o Water quality plan, o Wildlife management plan, and o Shellfish maintenance/protection.  David: Something needs to be in writing.  Philip: The Skokomish agreed to the Cultural Resources report.  Amber: 1) Condition K requires agreement with local tribes and 2) inadvertent discovery plan for archaeology is different than cultural resources plan.  Philip: Why MOU?  PGST: 1) A way to work out treaty rights and 2) if property is sold, good to have these agreements ahead of time.  Roma: stewardship plan around the wetlands.  Philip: County will review the idea of MOU and would review a draft MOU from PGST. Next steps: 5 County:  Wildlife management site visit and plan  Water quality plan  Draft meeting notes PGST:  Provide comment on county letter  Draft MOU between Developer and PGST  Complete registration on TCP 6 AGENDA Government to Government Meeting Jefferson County & Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Meeting Date: October 13, 2017 Time: 10 a.m. to Noon Place: PWD conference room, PT INVITEES: Jeremy Sullivan, Tribal Chairman PGST Amber Penn-Roco, Attorney PGST Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager, PGST Stormy Purser, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council Laura Price, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administrator Patty Charnas, Director Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner 1. Welcomes and updates 2. Review the three major issues: a. Water quality/shellfish b. Wildlife management c. Cultural Resources 3. Next steps