“In summary, the DuPont Municipal Code requires a Type III Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) application with a public hearing and SEPA review for the project. The combined SAO application and SEPA review filing fee is $4,500, payable at time of filing. The processing time is approximately 4.5 to 5 months from submittal of a complete application to final decision.”

- Letter from Bill Kingman, Senior Planner with the City of DuPont to SCWC

This is very interesting since Glacier plans to expand the mine and drain the Vashon aquifer. This would of course have a negative impact on the Edmonds Marsh–that is if you think draining the marsh is a bad thing? If it smells like something DuPont would do and looks like something the City of DuPont would do, then it is DuPont. I find it ever more obscene that while those of us as individuals or small community groups want to restore the flow to the creek the city puts up all sorts of road blocks in order to make sure those citizens that actually care about DuPont are up a creek without a paddle. Yet golf courses can cut down trees as needed, people can put signs out regardless of laws but the important things that can never be brought back after they are destroyed goes by unnoticed.

Perhaps the City knows that Glacier will solve the beaver issue by destroying the wetland. Actually the Centex Wetland issue doesn’t really matter that much anyways since the City of Glaicer–Err. DuPont hasn’t stopped the mine yet thus there will be no more edmonds marsh.

Anger and frustration are too heavy on things like this and I dare not write another word for the City of DuPont may just send there threatening letters once again in order to try to shut up the few who actually care.

Why should you care about Edmonds Marsh?

Edmonds Marsh fills from ground water and Sequalitchew Springs. Which then historically runs down through DuPont under Center Drive and out to the Sequalitchew Delta (For Fait). Those waters also supplied food for the Sequalitchew People and the Hudson Bay Company (Ft. Nisqually). It’s been used by many people the DuPont Company ever purchased the land. It was along the site of the Historic Methodist Mission as well. The Wilkes Observatory flanks it to the South and the Inskip Observatory flanks it to the North. From saw mills, missions, trading posts, native american villages, united states explorers, the spies from England Vavasour and Warre to the many infamous names Huggins, Tolmie, Richmond, Lee, Wilkes, Heath, La Ha Let, Chloe Clark to sheep shearing dams, flume dams and the generations of kids who grew up with the Sequalitchew Creek.

If anyone wants a historic tour and has 3-4 hours, contact me I’ll be glad to take you on the tour or farewell tour depending on how the future plays out. I recently came to understand that not only does DuPont lack leadership it also lacks a company culture an administrative culture. Passion, execution and keeping their word impeccable would be a good start for the City.

As Posted in the Tacoma News Tribune – Legal Notices: Date Listed: May 22 Newspaper ID #13953364

CITY OF DUPONT
1700 Civic Drive
DuPont, Washington 98327
Phone: 253-964-8121
FAX: 253-964-3554

Notice of Sensitive Area Application

Bell Hill Lots 1 & 2 ESM Engineers, on behalf of Centex Homes, filed a complete Type III sensitive area application with the City of DuPont on May 20, 2010, to reduce a steep slope buffer from 50 to 25 feet, reduce a wetland buffer from 200 to 100 feet and request an exemption from the sensitive area regulations to allow a sewer line through a steep slope and buffer and wetland buffer to facilitate construct of two single family homes. The two home lots are located at 1087 Bell Hill Place and 1099 Bell Hill Place. Both are bounded on the north and east by City-owned property; the south by Bell Hill Place, and the west by the City of DuPont Bell Hill Reservoir. The lots are located in DuPont, Washington, Section 25, Township 19 North, Range 1 East, W.M., parcel numbers 3000060011 and 3000060021. A Type III sensitive area approval and Type I environmental decision must be obtained from the City of DuPont.

The public may comment on this notice of Type III sensitive area application by submitting written comments to the City of DuPont no later than 5 p.m., June 21, 2010.

Please contact for additional information

Bill Kingman, AICP
Senior Planner
253-912-5393 (phone)
253-964-1455 (fax)
Mail:
1700 Civic Drive
DuPont, 98327

Date of Notice: May 21, 2010

The interesting aspect of this map is that in 1890 the maps put the Union Pacific Rail R

oad across the Sequalitchew Creek and then heads west along the South side of the creek before turning South then heading down along the bluff.

So that would make the trestle (don’t be confused by the circa 1912 trestle at the mouth of Sequalitchew Creek) existing before the Dupont Co purchased the land and moved in. Depending on which trestle was actually used if the most western trestle was used it’s a very good chance they went through the mission site. There is no way to say for sure but 30 years later the Dupont Co. placed the marker of the mission or what they perceived to be the original site.

However do I know if this is an existing Rail Road or perhaps more of a proposed route? That I’m unsure of.

University of Washington Libraries Manuscripts, Special Collections, University Archives Division.

I suppose if we could find the well the mission would be very near. Huggins would say in later years that they would get water from the well near the mission. Perhaps we can be lucky enough to get Time Team America here with ground penetrating radar as that would most likely show the palisades/outline of structures in that area.

Now while I don’t seem to agree with the mission marker because I would like more evidence and more studies done. Which I would happily donate my time to help with the dig. But what I really don’t agree with even more than that is the City’s attempt to move the marker so Quadrant can build more homes. Bill McDonald shared in the council meeting that they would like to give Quadrant the ok for soil samples and possibily move the marker closer to the new trail.

I have a hard time understanding this, Bill’s wife is President of the Historical Society here in DuPont. How could anyone tied to historical preservation think this would be ok? I wonder what David Axe would think of this? He has spent far more time than myself on the mission.

I say if they want to move the marker now then get in here with GPR and experts and volunteers and find out what is here? A little digging won’t devalue the land (glacier wants to dig big holes and quadrant wants to build homes) but if something is found then it’s a reward for all our efforts. However the City, Cal-Portland and Quadrant would be screwed out of more profit and land however the historical record and land will be saved.

So I ask that the DuPont Historical Society actually do something here and take a stand against the desctruction of history.

Other than the “Yes, we know the mission was here” and “Yes, Natives burned it to the ground” is the normal everyday events about the mission. However,  I tend to agree with the other side that believe the HBC had burned it to the ground. Why? You have to remember that at the time the Catholics were not happy with them encroaching on teachings and well I think the British had a change of heart with Americans settling on their land. Which was probably around the time when tensions were raising over this new American nation moving westward. 

Keep in mind up until the the Richmond Mission there were no known American Settlers north of the Columbia River. This was all british land and all part of what we labeled the Oregon Territory.  So to me it only makes sense to erase any trace of American settlers would mean to destroy/burn down their structures, stockades and compound.

There is much greater need for fact finding and research to ever conclude this to be anything other than some fictional theories. However you may feel it even adds another level of mystery and allure to this historical area.

One other belief is the Methodists Mission doesn’t have much historical record because the Methodist Church didn’t want to really remember this site. Why? That’s another one for debate and something that a monthly history group of have a good time with. What I can say based on previous dialogues and blue sky discussions with other folks and Methodist Historians is they believe because it a way it was used to help ensure American Settlers North of the Columbia by the U.S. Government. Now this is purely another theory, but I’ll cite an interesting read here.

The following winter Lee felt that a special effort should be made to arouse a greater interest in the religious work of Oregon, and began to realize that it was not alone to the Indians that the Gospel should be preached, but that the gradually increasing population of the whites should also have Christian privileges. With this in view he started east overland in March, 1838, carrying with him a memorial to Congress from the American settlers in Oregon which aroused such a degree of interest on the part of the President and Congress that five thousand dollars was given out of the “Secret Service” fund of the Government to aid in Americanizing Oregon. Lee’s efforts produced a sensation, arousing the missionary authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church to vigorous action. This resulted in the equipment of the Ship Lausanne for a voyage around the Horn to Oregon, and upon October 25, 1839, she set sail for the Far West carrying 51 souls, known as the “Great Reinforcement,” arriving in the Columbia in May, 1840. and finally debarking at Vancouver on June 1st. Soon after, three buildings were erected in Salem—the first there—and thus that place became the headquarters of the Methodist mission field. The preaching force brought on the Lausanne were allotted as follows: Nisqually, Puget Sound, J. P. Richmond; Clatsop, J. H. Frost; Umpqua, Gustavus Hines. W. W. Kone; The Dalles, Daniel Lee, H. K. W. Perkins : Willamette Station, Daniel Leslie; Willamette Falls, A. F. Waller.

In connection with Rev. J. P. Richmond it may be said that he was the first minister to begin work north of the Columbia River: that in the summer of 1840 he went to a point about twenty miles from the present city of Tacoma, and built a log cabin, and surrounded it by a stockade for defense from the Indians, about three-quarters of a mile from old Fort Nisqiially. which was a post of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, a branch of the Hudson’s Bay Company, established in 1833. and that here, on August 16, 1841, Dr. W. H. Willson and Miss Chloe A. Clark were married. The first child of this union was the late Mrs. J. K. Gill of this city. ¹

Finally! Something Bill McDonald can agree on as stated in his Friday letter on 01/08/2010 he mentions the Mission Site and also says there is no definitive evidence that it is where the marker current lays. For more information and views: Methodist Mission

3. Mission Site Proposal The City has been meeting with a representative of Quadrant Corporation to produce a final transfer of property which meets the City objective of preserving the historical record of the Methodist Mission in the early days of the Hudson Bay presence. Quadrant has proposed to give the City a piece of property adjacent to the new trail alignment which is a short distance from the current trail marker. There is no definitive evidence of the true site of the Methodist Mission. I will discuss this issue briefly at the City Council meeting.”

As far as the remaining portion here

2. Sequalitchew Trail Alignment
The City Administrator and Councilmember Trotter walked a new alignment for a section of trail close to the start of the Sequalitchew trail. The new alignment pulls the trail parallel with the new boundary of the City acquired Lot Z. The alignment satisfies both steep slope and sensitive area setbacks required by the City’s Development Code. Landmark trees including Savannah Oak and Douglas Fir are highlighted as the trail meanders through a beautiful meadow area. I will display a map of the alignment during the City Administrator’s report on Tuesday. Quadrant and Glacier will provide for the trail improvement which will include paving the new section down to the connection to the current paved trail. This will provide a stretch of trail with a hard surface leading to the property on which a historical marker recognizing the Methodist Mission will be established.

I think that probably Judy Krill & Steve Wyant should be walking that or the rest of the SCWC. Hopefully Bill and Kathy’s locating party adheres to the 1994 settlement agreement.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR GLACIER NW MINING EXPANSION

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is dated this _____ day of August , 2009, and executed by and among GLACIER NORTHWEST (“Glacier”); the WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (“Ecology”); the CITY OF DuPONT (“City”); and the NISQUALLY DELTA ASSOCIATION, THE TAHOMA AUDUBON SOCIETY and WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL (collectively, the “Environmental Caucus”).

RECITALS

A. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) are signatories to a 1994 “Settlement Agreement for Lone Star Northwest DuPont Project” (hereafter, the “Settlement Agreement”), concerning Glacier’s sand and gravel mining operation and transshipment facility (together the “Existing Mine”).

B. In 2006, as part of its annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the City expanded its Mineral Resource Overlay to include an approximately 200-acre area southeast of the Existing Mine (“South Parcel”) and an approximately 200-acre area north of the Existing Mine (“North Parcel”).  See EXHIBIT A hereto.

C. In 2007, the City issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Glacier’s proposed mining of the South Parcel.

D. There is currently a dispute between the parties as to whether Glacier’s proposed mining operation for the South Parcel, as described in Glacier’s land use applications to the City and/or the City Staff Report dated January 16, 2009 (City File Nos. CUP 07-01, LU 07-01, SA 07-01), is consistent with Section II.B.5 of the Settlement Agreement.

E. In January 2009, the Nisqually Delta Association invoked the Settlement Agreement’s dispute resolution process, and the parties conducted formal mediation with a professional mediator on May 4 and June 4, 2009.

F. This MOU reflects the parties’ understanding of the process that will be followed in an effort to avoid protracted litigation concerning the 1994 Settlement Agreement.  The MOU also sets forth the parties’ understanding of the process that will be followed to include the North Parcel in a future Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

G. Except for Sections B.2, B.3 and F, it is understood that this MOU is non-binding.  Except where this MOU waives and releases claims (Section F), the parties reserve all rights to make any argument or claim in future settlement decisions or litigation.

AGREEMENT

A. Sequence of Additional Review

1. Feasibility Study. With input from the parties and stakeholders, Glacier will prepare a Feasibility Study to identify and evaluate opportunities for improving or restoring ecosystem functions in the Sequalitchew Creek watershed.  See Section C below.

2. Settlement Discussions/Mediation. In light of the Feasibility Study, the parties will continue settlement discussions in an effort to resolve all issues and disputes concerning the proposed mining expansion’s consistency with the 1994 Settlement Agreement and other issues of concern to the parties.  If agreement is reached, the parties to this MOU anticipate entering into a new settlement agreement.  See Section D below.

3. SEPA Review. Following the completion of settlement discussions and Glacier’s submission of any revised project description, the City of DuPont will proceed with supplemental SEPA review to include:  (i) all proposed mining expansion within the City of DuPont’s designated mineral resource overlay and described in any revised project description received by the City; and (ii) the dewatering method and mitigation measures for the South Parcel identified in any new Settlement Agreement.  See Section E below.

4. Permit Review. The City and Ecology anticipate being able to issue permit decisions within the time period set forth in this MOU.  To the extent necessary, Glacier will submit a shoreline permit revision application consistent with the new Settlement Agreement and applicable law.  See Section F below.

B. Reimbursement for Costs of Additional Review

1. Environmental Caucus. Glacier will reimburse the Environmental Caucus for the following costs:

• $15,000 for the costs expended through the date of this MOU.  Payment will be made upon execution of this MOU.

• Up to $12,500 for the costs associated with Feasibility Study.  Payment will be made monthly upon receipt of itemized invoices submitted by the Environmental Caucus.

• Up to $17,000 for the costs of future settlement discussions.  Payment will be made monthly upon receipt of itemized invoices submitted by the Environmental Caucus.

2. City. Glacier will reimburse the City for costs related to permit and SEPA environmental review as provided in the DuPont Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 23.01.180, as it currently exists or may hereafter be amended.

3. No City Obligation. The City has no obligation to reimburse any party hereto for any costs incurred by the other parties, whether for actions related to the Settlement Agreement, the mediation, this MOU, any document or process set forth herein, or otherwise.

C. Feasibility Study (Complete by approximately February 20, 2010)

1. Purpose. The purpose of the Feasibility Study will be to identify and evaluate potential alternatives for improving or restoring ecosystem functions in the Sequalitchew Creek’s watershed.  The parties expressly recognize that mine dewatering is one such potential alternative, but that both the potential environmental costs and benefits of such an alternative will be evaluated in the Feasibility Study, as set forth below.  Glacier and its consultants will take the lead in preparing the Feasibility Study with participation and input from the Parties to this MOU and other stakeholders as described below.

2. Steps. The Feasibility Study will be performed in the following steps and according to the schedule set forth in EXHIBIT C hereto:

(a) Preliminary Identification of Potential Alternatives. The parties to this MOU, and representatives of Fort Lewis, the Nisqually Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Army Corps of Engineers, will meet to develop a list of possible actions that would mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed project by improving, enhancing, or protecting ecosystem functions in the Sequalitchew Creek watershed.  It is anticipated that the list of possible actions could include:  (a) conveying or channeling groundwater from any dewatered mine areas, including the South Parcel, to Sequalitchew Creek or other location; (b) improving flows and habitat conditions to upper Sequalitchew Creek; (c) improving flow and habitat conditions at the mouth of Sequalitchew Creek; or (d) avoiding any changes to existing flows or habitat conditions.  During this same meeting, the parties will conduct a “fatal flaw” evaluation and seek to reach consensus about which alternatives appear sufficiently viable to warrant further study (“Preliminary Study Alternatives”).  It is anticipated that the Preliminary Study Alternatives will include the mine dewatering alternative described in Glacier’s land use applications to the City.  The parties will also develop an agreed scope of work for the Preliminary Draft Feasibility Study described in sub-section 2(b) below.

(b) Preliminary Draft Feasibility Study. Glacier and its consultants will prepare a preliminary evaluation of Preliminary Study Alternatives in accordance with the agreed scope of work.    This evaluation will include a summary of what factors currently limit salmonid populations in Sequalitchew Creek.  The evaluation will also provide a cost/benefit analysis that includes each Preliminary Study Alternative’s:

• Potential environmental benefits and impacts with regard to Sequalitchew Creek watershed and ecosystem functions;

• Effectiveness;

• Implementation time frame;

• Cost;

• Stakeholder acceptance; and

• Level of uncertainty.

The evaluation will also include a data gaps analysis with recommendations about what additional information would be needed to prepare a more detailed evaluation of the Preliminary Study Alternatives, including both the potential benefits and costs of mine dewatering alternatives.  The data gaps analysis will also identify what additional information might be needed to complete a reasonably thorough analysis of the factors limiting the current salmonid populations in Sequalitchew Creek.

(c) Meeting to Discuss Preliminary Draft. After a comment period on the Preliminary Draft, parties to the MOU, Fort Lewis, the Nisqually Tribe, and WDFW, will meet to discuss the Preliminary Draft and to select those Preliminary Draft Alternatives that will be evaluated in an additional, more detailed study (“Select Alternatives”).  Based on the data gaps analysis in the Preliminary Draft, the parties will develop an agreed scope of work for the further evaluation of the Select Alternatives (including the mine dewatering alternative).

(d) Second Draft Feasibility Study. In accordance with the agreed scope of work, the Second Draft Feasibility Study will provide additional information about the Select Alternatives, including additional data and analysis as necessary, and cost/benefit analysis of the factors identified above.

(f) Meeting to Discuss Second Draft Feasibility Study. After a comment period on the Second Draft, the parties to the MOU, Fort Lewis, the Nisqually Tribe, WDFW, and the Corps of Engineers, will meet to discuss the Second Draft.  The parties will seek to reach consensus about what recommended alternatives will be presented in the Final Feasibility Study and about the scope of work for such Study.

(g) Final Feasibility Study. In accordance with the agreed scope of work, the Final Feasibility Study will provide a final, detailed discussion of the potential project impacts and the recommended alternatives.  This Study will be made available to the public and will form a basis for continued settlement discussions as discussed in Section D below.  The Study may also inform future SEPA analysis and/or a possible Sequalitchew Creek Restoration Plan.

3. Public Participation and Review Process.

• The proposed schedule for the Feasibility Study tasks and meetings is attached as EXHIBIT B.  Three meetings will be held between October 2009 and February 2010.  These include a (1) a meeting to develop a mutually agreeable list of Preliminary Draft Alternatives and an agreed scope of work for the preliminary draft feasibility study; (2) a meeting to develop a mutually agreeable list of Select Alternatives and an agreed scope of work for the second draft feasibility study; and (3) a meeting to identify an mutually agreeable list of recommended alternatives and a scope of work for the final feasibility study.

• Glacier will provide the parties to this MOU with electronic copies of the Preliminary Draft, Second Draft, and Final Feasibility Study immediately upon their completion.  At the same time, Glacier will make the documents available on its website, and will provide notice to the parties listed in Exhibit B that the documents are available on Glacier’s website.  Ecology and the City will also provide copies on their websites.

D. Settlement Discussions/Mediation (January 1, 2010-May 1, 2010)

1. Settlement Issues. The parties recognize that the meetings discussed in Section C above will be an important part of the settlement process.  Then, upon completion of the Final Feasibility Study, Glacier will prepare a new project description and parties will seek to resolve issues relating to 1994 Settlement Agreement.  Anticipated issues for discussion include:

• Preferred dewatering method for North and South Parcel Mining Operation;

• Mitigation measures relating to project’s impact on Sequalitchew Creek and wetlands;

• Mitigation for impacts to the North Parcel;

• Parties’ respective roles in potential Sequalitchew Creek Restoration Plan;

• Cultural resources and historic preservation;

• List of required permits (including potential Shoreline Permit revision), and permit application schedule necessary to achieve permit decisions from Ecology and the City by November 1, 2010.

2. Restoration Plan. Although the Feasibility Study may help inform a restoration plan, the completion and implementation of a Sequalitchew Creek Feasibility Study will not be a precondition of SEPA review or permit process.  However, implementation of portions of a Restoration Plan could be part of a mitigation plan for project impacts and/or part of a revised project description.

3. Completion of Settlement Discussions. The parties will exercise good-faith efforts to complete settlement discussions, including executing any settlement agreement, by May 1, 2010.

4. Future Appeals. The parties recognize and agree that Glacier’s rights and obligations in any new settlement agreement will be conditioned upon favorable permit decisions; provided, however, that this section does not obligate or bind the City to grant, condition, or deny any permit application, or to take any other specific action with respect to a permit application.  The parties anticipate that any settlement agreement will include limitations on the rights of signatories to appeal permits that are consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement.  It is further anticipated that any settlement agreement will explain the signatories’ rights and options in the event of a third-party appeal.

E. Additional SEPA Steps

1. Lead Agency. The City will be lead agency; it is anticipated that Richard Weinman will continue to be the lead SEPA consultant.

2. Scoping. If Glacier submits a revised project description by May 1, 2010, the City will publish a Scoping Notice for Revised Project by May 30, 2010.

• Notice will state that SSEIS will include: (1) the North Parcel; and (2) any other new or revised Creek mitigation or enhancement measures that may be incorporated into Glacier’s revised project description.

• City will allow a 21-day comment period per WAC 197-11-408(2)(a)(i).

If no revised project description is submitted, the City has no obligation to undertake additional SEPA environmental review.

3. Draft SSEIS. If a revised project description is submitted by May 1, 2010, the City will seek to issue a Draft SSEIS by August 15, 2010. City will allow a 30-day comment period per WAC 197-11-455(6).

4. Final SSEIS. If a revised project description is submitted by March 1, 2010, the City will seek to issue a Final SSEIS by November 15, 2010.

F. Permit Review

• Date for Permit Issuance. Assuming that the parties are successful in negotiating a new settlement agreement by January 1, 2010, Glacier will submit complete permit applications following a timeframe that allows permit decisions to be made by the City and Ecology by December 1, 2010.  Any new settlement agreement will include a detailed permit process timeline.

• Extension of City’s Time Period for Permit Issuance. Within 30 days of this MOU, Glacier will advise the City in writing that it agrees to an extension of the time period for decision set forth in DMC 25.175.050(8)(c).  The extension will cover the time period between the date of the City staff report (January 16, 2009) and May 1, 2010.  Further time extensions may be part of any new Settlement Agreement signed by the parties.

• Waiver and Release of Claims.  Glacier, Ecology, Environmental Caucus and the City, individually for themselves and on behalf of their successors, heirs and assigns, hereby waive and release any and all claims, lawsuits, arguments, and causes of action asserting that this MOU, or the City’s decisions to take procedural actions when and in the manner contemplated herein (e.g., delay in processing Glacier’s permit applications, review and comment upon the Feasibility Study and its drafts, preparation of supplemental environmental documents, and issuance of permits)  violate local, state or federal law.  This waiver and release specifically includes but is not limited to claims, lawsuits, and causes of action for damages, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or review pursuant to RCW 36.70C or RCW 34.05; provided, however, that this waiver and release does not include challenges to the substance of any supplemental environmental review or permit decisions.

G. Public Outreach.

1. Feasibility Study. Parties, stakeholders, and the public will be notified of and participate in the Feasibility Study as described in Section C above.

2. SEPA. The City will provide for public comment on scoping and draft EIS as described in Section E above.  In addition the City will provide a copy of the SEPA distribution list to the Environmental Caucus at least 14 days prior to issuance of the scoping notice, the Draft EIS and the Final EIS.

3. Glacier Website. Glacier will update its website to include:  (a) public documents; (b) EIS documents, including scoping notice, Draft EIS and Final EIS; and (c) project permit applications and permit decisions submitted or obtained after the date of this MOU.

4. Distribution of MOU. All parties will coordinate on an announcement describing the creation and expected outcome of this MOU. Ecology will coordinate the announcement.

5. Distribution of any Revised or New Settlement Agreement. All parties will coordinate on an announcement describing any revised or new settlement agreement.

DATED this _____ day of ____________, 2009.

GLACIER NORTHWEST  By  Name:  Title:

THE CITY OF DuPONT, WASHINGTON  By  Name:  Title:

THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY  By  Name:  Title:

THE NISQUALLY DELTA ASSOCIATION  By  Name:  Title:

THE TAHOMA AUDUBON SOCIETY  By  Name:  Title:

THE WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL  By  Name:  Title:

Exhibit B

Schedule for Sequalitchew Creek

Feasibility Study

List of stakeholders :

• DNR

• WDFW

• Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

• Puget Sound Partnership

• EPA

• Corps of Engineers

• Chambers/Clover Creek Watershed Group

• Fort Lewis

When the DuPont Company purchased the land for the Powder Works plant they construction crews were housed in the tar paper shacks in 1906. I also recall that some men were living in box cars as well during the construction phase. These shacks were erected at and around the 1843 site of Fort Nisqually. A boarding house was across Sequalitchew Creek from the village and was for the bachelor’s. A well , which was probably associated with the boarding house is located approx 400m east of it.

The main entrance to the plant was via the road through Old Town. The road continued across the plant and to the beach just south of the mouth of the Sequalitchew. Along this beach were a Dance Hall, a smokehouse and a boat house (DuPont Company 1908). Old town was occupied until the village was built and was then torn down. Some houses remained until the 1920′s.

About a week ago, I was taking my son back to the emergency room and as I was leaving the City of DuPont, I noticed at the intersection of Barksdale and Wilmington there were crews there clearing the land.  This corner marked so many memories for me as a child and had already been changed so much – several years ago there wasn’t this large, busy intersection that there is today.  The traffic used to be much less, and it used to look a lot different.  In fact, one of the greatest joys we had as children was to ride out bikes up to the front of town and pick blackberries on this corner, with the Iafrati’s sometimes there to oversee us.  We could walk from their property if we wanted to pick blackberries, right to that infamous corner at the front of town.

We could also walk from the Iafrati’s property through a small underground tunnel (which bypassed the road/traffic) and came out) where the Starbucks and Better Business Bureau are today.  This is where the City Hall used to be and where we would go sometimes to drop off miscellanous things for our parents.  This was  also where we colored Easter Eggs a few times as volunteers.  The underground tunnel was destroyed when the intersection was put in several years back.  The blackberry picking was the highlight though…it was a contest between all of us kids to see who could get the most and then when we got home with our buckets we’d rinse them all off and then Grandma Anna would show us how to make blackberry jam.  She’d walk us through the pectin process and getting the jars ready, even right down to letting us make the labels.  She was a real teacher from start to finish and was so patient.

What I remember most about my grandmother was her love for details and saving everything.  Whenever I’d arrive to her house the routine was the same, enter through the back door, walk down the long hallway to where you’d find her sitting in her rocking/recliner chair and then we’d talk for a few minutes.  She’d most likely be watching the news and talk with you about the record tempatures for the day.  Then she’d show you an article she’d recently cut out that fascinated her and most likely it would have been about DuPont or it would be a comic that reminded her of you.  These memories I’ll hold with me forever.  I haven’t had a Family Circus cartoon by Bil Keane cut out for me since my Grandmother’s passing in June 2001.  Now, I also will no longer be able to pick blackberries at the front of town, which is where I’ll always remember picking them. Saving history is more than just writing history, it is also about saving our landmarks.  Today its the blackberries, but what might it be tomorrow?