Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout202JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-3794450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jeffe rson.wa. us/co m mdeve lo pment FINAL Meeting Notes Summary Government to Government Meeting with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort October 13,2017 1Oam - 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, Director of Cultural Arts and History, PGST David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administrator Patty Charnas, Director, Jefferson County DCD Michelle Farfan, Project Planner, Jefferson County DCD Meeting Summarv: Updates: o 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). o PGST expects a response very soon. Water quality/shellfish: o 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. o Han Daubenberger is working with DFW with mussel cages in Duckabush to monitor water quality. o PGST understands developer is proposing to use natural materials and proposing zero runoff discharge for the resort, but we need to have appropriate monitoring and response plans in place. . PGST asks about status of water quality monitoring plan. o PGST concerned that there will be increase with pedestrian traffic on beaches and more intense recreational shellfish harvest. o PGST concerned with not just amount of shellfish harvest by pedestrians increasing, but also the way the shellfish harvest is performed; need to ensure shellfish harvest is done in a way that ensures future harvests o Jeroffiy: total perceived occupancy over time/successors. o DFW has oversite for shellfish harvest on public beaches and seeding of shellfish beds. o Northwest lndian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) has this on their radar. Not as hot as salmon but this is a major concern that the requirements of DFW are not being met. . PGST believes there is neglect on shellfish harvest management, but would rather not have to sue the state on protection of shellfish. o The increase in 890 residents at Pleasant Harbor MPR will add to the cumulative impacts on shellfish beds in the area. . PGST shellfish staff have come up with a proposal for mitigation of the Pleasant Harbor MPR impacts on shellfish beds in adjacent areas: seeding oysters on Dosewallips and Duckabush every 4 years and seeding clams every 3 years. Update from Roma on 10/25117 cost of seedino: 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. 2 Wetlands: . Corp of Engineers jurisdictional determination (JD) has expired. PGST has heard that now DOE issues a permit if Corp does not have responsibility. . Clarification after the 10/13/17 Meeting: DOE has wetland permit requirements on all projects that will impact wetlands whether or not the Corps has jurisdiction . 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? o 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. . PGST stated there was confusion regarding which proposal was moving forward. Developer provided PGST, and informed agencies, that it was proceeding with a proposal that would not impact wetlands or kettles. (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). Both DOE and Army Corps were informed that the proposal would not impact wetlands; Developer has not updated agencies that that proposal would not be moving forward. Wildlife management o David: We thought about getting things done earlier than at permit level by imposing the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01 -01 28-08. o Wildlife management site visit is scheduled tor 10119 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. o Discussion on Tim Cullinan's (Point No Point Treaty Council) update on elk management and fencing configurations. o Jeroffiy: Listen to state WDFIV on suggestions for elk management. o Roma: Fence and new habitat for elk would probably resolve the elk issue. . Statesman understands that a fence is probably necessary but site visit will help. Cultural resources: 3 . 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. o 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. How will county respond to DAHP decision on TCP? . Laura: We are trying to get you this information as soon as possible. o Amber: County letter sent to PGST regarding kettles makes it sound like its goals regarding preservation of kettles are "more aspirational." o 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. . Amber: PGST will respond to county letter. o Jeromy: 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 may trigger a Section 106 process and we would like to know that sooner rather than later. 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. o Amber: issues better addressed now than later on TCP. o Philip: Can't make applicant contact Corp for JD. Can't prevent applicant from making bad decisions. o Jeromy: 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 wetlands as cultural resources. o Amber: PGST desires MOU; MOU to include tribe, developer and county: o Tribe issues, o Stewardship plan, o Water quality plan, 4 o Wildlife management plan, and o Shellfish maintenance/protection . Philip: The Skokomish agreed to the Cultural Resources report. . Amber: 1) Condition K requires agreement with localtribes 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 kettles and wetlands. . Philip: County will review the idea of MOU and would review a draft MOU from PGST. o Wildlife management site visit and plan o Water quality plan . Draft meeting notes r Edits to Development Agreement section on treaty rights and cultural resources o Provide comment on county letter . Draft MOU between Developer and PGST . Complete registration on TCP Next steps: County: PGST: 5 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 Welcomes and updates Review the three major issues: a. Water quality/shellfish b. Wildlife management c. Cultural Resources 3. Next steps 1 2 6