HomeMy WebLinkAbout201JEFFERSON 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.
• Roma: Corp and DOE under the impression that applicant was staying out of wetlands –
avoiding permitting by developer by stating staying out of wetlands.
3
• 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
proposed Dev. Agreement and proposed Development will present to PGST and other
tribes. Prior to roll-out, county to continue with technical meetings.
4
• 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:
County:
5
• 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