Point No Point News and Area 9 Reports (A combo!)

So, the excavators and trucks are tearing down the old boat house and house, making way for the new launch. Thanks to everyone who worked on that, especially the Poggie Club for "calling out" the now-replaced County Commissioners and getting the project back on track. The original funds were penned in in 2001. (This is how long your government takes to get their act together.) Good job to the new Commissioners for following through. When/IF the various tribes sign off (last word they had not) on the in-water ramp work, they'll start that when the seasonal and permit requirements are met.

ALSO, How'd 9 do this weekend? Saw 15 boats off PNP fishing the outgoing rip in the sun today , and lots of seagulls occasionally marking surface bait too.

Info I have received indicates that WDFW had only recently put in their request to the Corps and nothing has been received from the tribe(s) regarding possible mitigation demands.

What I find interesting is that WDFW offered up mitigation consisting of 400 LF of salt water rehabilitation during the hearings but in almost three years still doesn't have any project identified let alone funded, permitted and ready to go. I have been told that the earliest the in-water work would be accomplished is late 2014 so write it off for summer 2014 unless you fish out of a kayak or car topper boat.

And if you are a real cynic you might be concerned that delays could morph into no ramp at all and, voila, you end up with the Kayak and Cartopper Park.

Geeze, almost makes me nostalgic for the old trolley ramp, getting strapped up by Vic for the ride down to the fish!!

True, there was no resolution on their issues as of December, but the Corps permit is anticipated in the May/June timeline. ( I said anticipated). One step at a time is all you can do, and I appreciate DFW keeping on it.

Growing up,my dad worked for Leo before he sold the resort to Vic. Both my brothers and I worked for Vic during the summer.

Its going to be strange to be fishing PNP and not see the old boathouse.

Yes, a sign of the times. It was sad to see the demo crews there. I was in the boat shed a little while ago, and there was alot of history still in there. The locals are arguing over the remaining cabins and structures by the store at Forbes/Norwegian Point, Some want them torn down, some want them preserved. I wish they could have put the new launch by the store to support the retail, and separate the beachcombers from the fishermen and truck/trailer traffic, but it could not be done.

Ned:

Thanks for your update on this long running project.

Do you have any insight on the Corps' permitting process relative to the following two factors?

1. Lack of tribal input or unreasonable input.

2. Ability or lack thereof for WDFW to identify a satisfactory (and to whom???) mitigation project. Again, I find it strange that WDFW coughed up a commitment three years ago and apparently still doesn't have a specific rehab project identified let alone the specifics of money, etc., etc.

The Jamestown and Pt. Gamble S'Klallam tribes, and the Suquamish have filled Section 106 Survey Request for Denial with the Corps, based on environmental and treaty rights claims, and so the State has to negotiate those issues. Corps has a liason for the tribes but I don't think they are in contact yet. I do not know details about the specifics.
On the mitgation, I was told there are partial funds available (so it appears they have initiated somewhat), but they have not identified a project yet. I see your point: How can the mitigation requirement be fulfilled without a project identified or funded? DFW seemed to think that was not a major issue as the project "is not that big". (Mitigation requires environmental restoration of a similar scope to the impacts caused by the new launch project.) I may not have been talking to the right person on this.

The Corps has initiated the Biological Evaluation to determine levels of impact on ESA species, and Fisheries participates in that. Overall, Corps and WDFW seemed to think it was all going to work out, and it seemed like this was par for the course (gov't agencies, right?). When, and if this confidence was based on blind faith or experience, I do not know.

Thanks for your insight Ned. This ramp and all questions about it should have been behind us by now. Looked up 106 survey and discovered that it is basically our money paying for the legal fee's for the tribal interests...........after casino's, wa gas sta's tax losses, and 50 percent of the fish....ok I'll stop.

Seems it's time to renegotiate the Treaties.

Renegotiate? I know Custer lost the battle, but I thought we won the war. LOL.

You all know that is not going to happen............Note, all three of the tribes mentioned here have Casino's, and at least two have gas stations...........How many of you are spending money in there casino's, and how about the gas stations where the state loses tax dollars.........things that make me go......hMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...........my problem with all this is that we are already fishing all the area's of concern, just have to run boat a long way, I can see more small boats at the point ONLY and that is not going to increase pressure as they would just fish in another area anyway. In Gorst Creek last year, even with all the nets out there, thousands of Chinook made it back to the creek. Most of them were processed to food bank specs and were not wasted. In other words many fish made it PAST THE SPORTSMEN and the NETS.

I think the appropriate word here is obstructionism.

As I recall tribal interests fought WDFW over having a marked selective fishery. Then they fought this project at the County level. Now they are fighting it at the Corps' level - so far only by not coming to the table in a timely manner. I imagine they will stretch this out as long as they can and then jump in with a litany of complaints.

So, not only do the rest of us citizens not have safer access to this area while this drama/tragedy plays out there is a real concern about the ongoing (forever??) availability of the current funding.

Ned, are you referring to 36 CFR 800 and The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended?

If so, here is a link: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html#tribes.

And if not to that legislation then to what did Section 106 refer?

Not a lawyer, but that looks like it fits the context of what we discussed perfectly.

Environmental concerns? I doubt it. I don't see how the launch would have a worse effect than...???... say, the Casino sewage treatment plant pumping 400,000 gallons a day into Pt Madison Bay in only 60 feet of water depth, with the effluent pipe just a half-mile out from the beaches of the historic tribal wintering grounds. (Oh wait, there's money involved there.)

The wrangling is just a sign of the times, nothing more.