Way back in 2002, boat launches at historic Point No Point were shut down. In addition to the fishing and boating opportunities the launch would offer, there is a need for emergency access there. For fishing Possession, Double Bluff, or Mutiny Bay, boats have to run 10-15 miles from Kingston (for me) in the open Sound, whereas the PNP launch would provide asses in 3-5 miles. Therefore, the PNP launch would provide better safety and economy/ecology too.
For many years, the WDFW has supported the launch, stating in 2004 that it was a top priority. Since then, there have been many hurdles, permitting issues and tribal objections, and ALL have been addressed by the WDFW. The CORPS OF ENGINEERS is the last signature needed. Yet, the permit has been sitting on their desk for years now, unsigned. I have asked for a legal reason why they cannot perform their job and duty to us, but they refuse to answer.
Last year, they had a closed door, internal meeting of their attorneys. I asked for access, but was denied. I believe the Corps is afraid of getting sued by the tribe, and they don't want that blemish on their record. After resolving tribal objections for 8-9 years now, the latest objection is “ The Tribe’s claim is based on a belief that the boat launch will cause additional fishing pressure within their usual and accustomed fishing grounds…, which in turn, will displace tribal fisheries and/or result in damage to their fishing gear… “. This is from a WDFW letter to the Corps, Dec 4, 2015. Keep in mind this objection was after the WDFW changed engineering plans, bought 515’ of shoreland to mitigate, removed 90 pilings for mitigation, all of which addressed pevious tribal objections. But their list has no end.
The tribe cannot identify how the launch would damage their gear. The last I heard, they said it was inherent if there is more boat traffic, their gear was at greater risk. I cannot understand that.
However, based on that claim, I think the CORPS decided, in their closed door meeting, they would rather not sign the permit, as it may result in a lengthy lawsuit, even though based on a claim without merit.

This will result in 2 things:
1. The tribes have learned that the CORPS will not sign permits if there is ANY tribal challenge, so the tribes will eventually use this precedent to control every boat launch, even on those outside the reservation boundaries. Look for your local launch to be shut down when a remodel or repair permit has to go through the Corps. This Corps behavior is a precedent will apply statewide.

2. The PNP launch will never happen. The CORPS will not do their job, even though WDFW director James Unsworth wrote, “The tribes have no legal authority to delay (the Corps) processing of the WDFW’s permit application, and WDFW asks the Corps to review the material in the record, determine that any unresolved tribal concerns are not factually or legally warranted, and grant WDFW’s permit.”
(This from the same letter.)

Costs: $400,000 tax money spent to buy neighboring land to mitigate to offset the “damage” the 25’ wide ramp will cause. Mitigation costs there (my est): $100k. $860k to buy the original launch site. $2.1 million to install the current parking, restroom, ADA requirements. Here’s the big one: Costs for CORPS,WDFW, NOAA, County, Tribal, legal and administrative costs over the last 15 years: PUT YOUR ESTIMATE HERE: $_____________.

So, my estimate of cost to date for the fancy parking lot we have, without a ramp, is $3.46 million + 15 years of admin expenses, NOAA reports and NMFS participation. The CORPS is blocking the ramp based on unsubstantiated claims, and the clock is still ticking on the 15 year bill for administrative and legal costs.

Lastly, from James Unsworth, “…we dispute the Tribe’s claim about fishing interference because that claim implies that the Tribe has exclusive rights to the surface waters in their U&A. WDFW believes the Tribe’s off-reservation treaty fishing rights must be exercised in common with all other state citizens. The public has the right to recreate and fish over the state’s navigable waters.”. That's right! It seems the tribe is blocking MY Boldt decision rights to my half of the fish, and they are doing that off the reservation in a public park.

SO CORPS, so Wdfw, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS? I am not challenging the tribal right to fish, or the Boldt decision, or UA boundaries, or any of that. I am asking the CORPS: “What about my rights to fish? Why are you wasting tax dollars while costs rise exponentially to the taxpayer, as there is no legal basis to prevent the launch, and so, why isn’t the CORPS doing their job in their mandated jurisdiction?

After talking constructively with the Corps for the last 10 years, I call them about 2ce a year now, but they quit returning calls.

Be aware we are approaching the second decade of work on replacing this old, single lane ramp.. (Space Needle built in 400 days, New Tacoma Narrows Bridge, less than 5 years)

I'd welcome a response from them here on the forum.

Ned, we feel your utter frustration and anger. It goes beyond the Corp. Our own State is just as guilty. The unwillingness to engage the Tribes permeates this States Government. The good intentions of “The Centennial Accord” have been twisted to present the Tribes as some all powerful separate nation who is beyond the jurisdiction of any state law. The willingness of our department to drink the cool-aid that any meeting with the Tribes is “Government to Government” is a symptom of a greater cancer of appeasement. Couple that with the suspected tremendous and un-reported amount of money being pumped into the political coffers through lobbyists and campaign donations and you get a pretty good idea why our fisheries are in such a dismal state.

The USACE updated its Dept of the Army Regional General Permit RPG-6; Structures in Inland Marine Waters of Washington State effective 20 April 2017; link:

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27...85425-%20%20550

In that regulation one of the stipulations regarding issuance of a project permit is:

"10. Tribal Rights. No activity authorized by this RGP may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights."

On the one hand that language would seem to preclude issuance of a permit for a project which would impair reserved treaty rights at any level and without any latitude by either tribes or permit applicants. Or does it really mean that once a project permit is issued the subsequent project cannot impair said rights which would leave the approval process open to objection by tribal interests even if de minimis as with the PNP project.

So how is it that the Corps fails to take action on the PNP permit and continues to tell the parties to work out their differences? Are they saying that reserved treaty rights are really negotiable and can be waived by tribal interests if the permit applicant is willing to pay off the tribes? If so, the Corps is facilitating extortion. Want a permit? Pay up front for prospective damages even if there is no reasonable expectation of actual damage.

The ironic part is the tribes have actively blocked this launch for years, yet in negotiations, one of their terms is they want access. Gets right back into the catch is half theirs, but the other half is mine.

So why do tribes prevail? Why is my government actively suppressing my rights as a US Citizen, while supporting other objectives. Remember, WDFW has already challenged their (Corps and tribal) legal standing, but there has been no response.

Therefore, the Corps will just make laws to fit their objective. Seems the Tribes could not wish for a more supportive lobbyist team.

Meanwhile, those of you reading might extrapolate and apply this to your nearby community launch, because the Corps has decided the rules may apply to non-reservation waters as well.

Response from the Corps:
" WDFW is aware of the option to request a permit decision over tribal objections.

They are choosing to engage with the tribes in an effort to resolve the issues and are not asking for a permit decision at this time. Please direct your inquiries to them in the future as the ball is and has been in their court for some time.

Should WDFW reverse course and ask for a decision over tribal objections, I will let you know. "

Wow, I do not believe this is the WDFW position. I've emailed this web link and support material to Dir Unsworth, The Corps, and others involved. Let's see where this takes us.

I predict a lesson in politics is coming my way...

I think the lesson is who controls fishing in WA.

WDFW will probably tell you that the Tribes are a Sovereign Nation and this a “Government to Government” issue. They will add that WDFW cannot force the Tribes to agree and cannot proceed without the Tribes giving them permission.

This is how our WDFW handles conflict with the Tribes. Just ask all the guys that used to fish the skokomish river!

Baywolf and Carcass, You are spot on. I don't necessarily blame the Corps, WDFW, or anyone specific. I am just trying to push the pricess along. 17 years for a launch? I wish I had the luxury of wasting that much time and money. I had visions of launching at PNP to fish with my boys when they were in preschool and this all started. Still no ramp, and they are in college now.

Back to your point: I've found evidence of meetings or statements about the launch from stare representatives, congress, county commissioners, and other politicians. But when contacted and asked to implement their support, they have a convenient excuse. ie: The county Commissioner told me that was not his concern. The Rep says they are monitoring the situation....no action, one way or the other. No surprise to me, but just a sin and and demonstrates why a project as simple as this takes 17 years, with no end in sight.

Some quotes that keep my fire lit:

"This (ramp) is a major priority, because a lot of people depend on that launch," Sue Patnude former FW Regional Director, 2003.

Seattle Times, 2003: "State Fish and Wildlife estimates the cost of renovating the boat launch at $1.3 million to $1.5 million"
and
"Patnude hopes to put the boat launch back in operation within three to five years"

Larry Peck, Deputy Director of state Fish and Wildlife:, 2002 Seattle Times: "If the ramp can be built in a reasonable amount of time it could be done by the summer of 2003,"

Of course, I support WDFW and the CORPS in getting this project finished. Back to Baywolf's original point, the enthusiasm of the statements above show how ambition of the masses can be manipulated and spoiled. Applies to a lot of things these days....what a waste.

So, I pushed the Corps, and they responded by saying it was out of their hands, they were waiting on the WDFW. I figured I should post WDFW Director Unsworth's letter of 2015, where he asks for the permit in paragraph one and in the last paragraph.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/12/dec1115_08_usarce.pdf

Though not its intended use, folks have been launching small craft there since the parking lot was completed. At least it is getting some use rather then being a total waste.

If I remember correctly, the tribe wanted to basically have 24 hour access to the parking lot and use it as a processing area for their catches. Someone please correct me if that isn't correct.

That would be a total no go with the homeowners that live nearby and totally outside the intended use for the launch.

I think the ramp will get built eventually once the final tribal extortion price is met.
SF

This is a slippery slope for sure. Allowing tribal influence to dictate what the state public builds on non-tribal lands.... Unfortunately various tribes have used "impacts to their U&A's" successfully to thwart various projects Sound Wide in the past.

Collectively all the issues raised: Ramp, Skokomish, North of Falcon and more...when is enough, enough?

"As long as you continue to step back, they will continue to move forward"

As long as the Tribe's have the treat to shut down development in the state (Boldt II/Culvert Case) they will get whatever they want.

Your memory is fairly good but let me add some of my recollections.

The tribal interests also initially demanded a significant cash payment for the prospective adverse impact on their ability to exercise their Treaty rights. It was that cash payment to which WDFW balked in large part because the Tribal interests could not and did not provide any specificity to the Corps despite being directly asked for it and given an extended time line for submittal of any such additional information (have those Tribes even come close to not extracting their 50%?). That came out during the Commission meeting in Port Townsend.

When it came to mitigation (as if removing the old over the water facility with its pilings wasn't enough) the initial projects offered up by WDFW were deemed both inadequate and not sufficiently within the Suquamish U&A. WDFW then increase the overall mitigation package to include more within the Suquamish U&A.

As to use of the facility it is first important to recognize that its use is constrained by both the primary funding type (RCO) and the Kitsap County permit. The RCO funds come with constraints to commercial usage. WDFW has said that they allow launch and retrieval of commercial boats but do not allow sale and transfer of product at facilities developed with RCO monies. That runs counter to the tribal desire to be able to transfer product (primarily crab but probably also geoduc) to buyers with their refrigerated trucks on site.

The tribes also wanted to be able to utilize the facility 24 hours a day which is in conflict with the permit issued by Kitsap County after significant public input particularly by concerned residential neighbors during the public hearing process. One only needs to ask residents near the Salisbury launch about 24 hour tribal activity to include diesel trucks with refrigeration units running 24 hours/day as the neighbors try to sleep.

Edit: As a part of the 24 hour usage the tribes wanted to be able to park vehicles and boat trailers on what is a limited parking lot meaning limiting availability for recreational trailer boaters and other recreational users when the facility would be open to them.

Subsequent demands by the Tribes included a limitation on the size of recreational boats to be launched and also that any permit would have an expiration date meaning this whole fiasco would be revisited in future. Clearly more investment and actual recreational usage would give the Tribes more leverage to extort money for their approval (or for not objecting to re-issuance).

That is my old guy's recollection of events without going to my extensive pile of documents so if anyone has corrective or additional information please feel free to post.

I am somewhat disturbed by the kayak/small boat usage if that is actually occurring. Why? Well, that is exactly what Kitsap County wanted to reduce the site's usage to despite the fact that the planning/design/permitting had been for trailer boats AND it was RCO money generated by boaters purchase of fuel which was used to purchase the facility and design the redevelopment. Fortunately, push-back from the trailer boat stakeholders got it back on track.

So, is inaction by WDFW and the Corps leading to a significant change in the scope of usage for this facility without the benefit of any public hearing?

And, finally, I would be interested to know the administrative appeal process should WDFW push the Corps for a decision (issue the permit or deny with justification) and receive a denial.

Larry,

Thanks for the additional info.
I can only tell you what I've seen since the parking lot was completed.

It isn't much of an ordeal for people to carry kayaks and small cartoppers down to the water from the parking lot.
I've also seen rigs with empty trailers siting in the parking lot multiple times.

I've seen it happen a few times while fishing out there. I'm actually glad someone is using it rather then it sitting empty.
SF

I am just concerned that the cartopper/kayak usage will become the new reality by default. If that facility were to be totally closed to public usage there might be more public pressure on the Tribe(s).

Understand your concern.
Kind of a double edged sword....close it and nobody can use it or leave it open so people can use it but it gets finished based on its intended use and plans.
SF

Didn't you mean to write "doesn't get finished based on its original intended use and plans" and I would further opine "and is not usable by the stakeholders who championed this project and substantially paid for it."

I don't want it to be a kayak or walk in launch only.
I also think that just because it isn't completed, people still should be able to utilize it as they see fit as long as it is open.

We need more access to PS, not less.
SF

I'm kinda suprised that the tribes are blocking this... we had a two week salmon season in july and crab sucked a$$... why block that?

they would own 351 days to sell whatever they can catch