Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1741 Shannen Cartmel From:Patty Charnas Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:38 AM To:Philip Hunsucker; Michelle Farfan Subject:ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION -Please review and finalize Attachments:September 2017 JeffCo to PGST.docx PhilH Attached please find a draft letter responding to the PGST letter of August 9, 2017 to the BoCC. You are encouraged to edit freely as I will be out of the office and will not be able to easily consolidate drafts and bring them to the Board for consideration for review and signature. Please see also where I have bolded words. These are areas where I believe footnotes referencing laws, legal case, ordinances, draft and final and supplemental environmental impact statements can be inserted. I defer, however to your edit PhilH. If Michelle can help you in any way, please contact her directly Thanks and I will be on the road starting at 1 today but will have work phone/email with me. This will be the case for the rest of the week, too. DO not hesitate to call or email as needed I look forward to seeing this get finalized. Thank you very very much! PattyC September 2017 Jeromy Sullivan, Chair Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Road NE Kingston, WA98346 Dear Chair Sullivan: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of and to respond to your correspondence of August 9, 2017 to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Your letter outlined the ongoing concerns of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). Your letter provided general and specific issues that PGST has regarding the on-going planning and future development of the MPR. We wish to respond to your letter in both general and specific terms. It is our goal to continue a positive working relationship with the PGST, to review the MPR project history and to build a mutual understanding of the MPR. Jefferson County Roles and Responsibilities Jefferson County, like all Washington counties, operates under specific enabling state legislation that allows Jefferson County to meet social, economic, environmental, geographic and other challenges at the local level. Examples of state enabling legislation include the Washington State Planning Enabling Act, State E nvironmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Growth Management Act. Jefferson County takes very seriously its role to be locally responsive and locally accountable to all public and private groups and individuals, including area Tribes, who are committed to maintaining a high quality of life in Jefferson County. We are very pleased at how we deliver our services and carry out broad roles and responsibilities within very limited staff and budget capacities. The planning, public involvement, review and commenting, legislative and legal history of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is substantial. All of the project history and results-to-date have been conducted in a public setting with active public review and involvement , including area Tribes, utilizing well established, legally sound processes based on state and local laws, rules and standards. Your letter describes concerns with impacts that the Pleasant Harbor MPR pose to cultural resources, water quality, wildlife, and adjacent properties. We respectfully direct review and attention to the publications that thoroughly analyze, consider and respond to public comments and provide how the Pleasant Harbor MPR may proceed within acceptable limits of environmental impact. The SEPA Process In the twelve-year history of MPR planning, Jefferson County has demonstrated a clear adherence to the strict requirements of all applicable state, federal and local laws. For the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Jefferson County relied upon SEPA to establish the County as the official lead agency and to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement first, for the proposed establishment of a MPR; and, second for analyses of site and project-specific alternatives. The preparation of these documents utilized the well-documented SEPA public processes that included seeking and receiving feedback and involvement from public and private groups and individuals , including area Tribes. That feedback helped establish the scope, breadth and depth of the numerous and varied studies, assessments and technical reports that went into draft SEPA documents. Jefferson County uses the SEPA process to prepare draft environmental impact statements so we can have meaningful review. The SEPA process for the Pleasant Harbor MPR resulted in Jefferson County requiring diverse and wide-ranging conditions to offset any adverse environmental impacts. Jefferson County exercised its authority under SEPA, among other enabling laws, to address the issues outlined in your letter. The evaluations and resulting conditions have been demonstrated to be responsive, legally-sound and ensure that impacts to earth, land, water, air, and related natural, cultural, economic, social and ecosystem resources are at acceptable levels. We wish to make special note that feedback, involvement and written and verbal comments from the PGST and from other area Tribes with usual and customary hunting and fishing treaty rights in the MPR project area, are documented in the draft and final environmental impact statements. The final supplemental environmental impact statement and its accompanying studies and reports address many of the items listed in your letter of August 9. We are perplexed that PGST maintains that the Pleasant Harbor MPR poses significant adverse environmental impacts when the SEPA process we relied upon concluded with mitigation measures that reduced impacts to acceptable levels. Those mitigation measures combined with the specific implementing conditions contained in local law Ordinance 01-0128-08 amending the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and establishing the MPR have been found to be responsive, appropriate, and comprehensive with respect to the issues PGST describes. We find it curious that PGST raises the process that is in Jefferson Co unty Code that describes the initiation, planning and public process of a MPR. This is applicable to the entire county and that process was carefully followed in the earlier stages of planning, environmental assessment and public legislative actions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. That same code process was part of an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board, which upheld Jefferson County’s evaluations and procedures for the Pleasant Harbor MPR. That decision was further brought before Superior Court where it was upheld and elevated further to the Court of Appeals where it was again upheld. The planning and environmental review process addressing how the Pleasant Harbor “relates to surrounding properties and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote(s) compatibility among within the development and adjacent to the development” concludes with no unacceptable adverse impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. We again respectfully direct PGST to the draft and final environmental impact statements and to the draft and final supplemental environmental impact statements and the substantial special reports, technical studies and other assessments that provided the basis of that satisfactory outcome. Tribal Consultation We respectfully disagree with PGST that Jefferson County’s tribal consultation process for the Pleasant Harbor MPR “has and continues to be seriously flawed.” There are well-documented tribal consultations and outreach with and to all area tribes, including PGST throughout the substantial planning history of this project. As you are aware, there were instances in the planning history of Pleasant Harbor MPR when PGST feedback and involvement regarding resource issues and impact avoidance was sought and no responses were received by the County. In addition we wish to note that we have received positive acknowledgment by all involved Washington state resource oversight agencies regarding the MPR planning and analysis process. There is nothing in our records to indicate that we did not meet state legislative, administrative or programmatic requirements, many of which address the same issues PGST has concerns over. We appreciate PGST citing the guidelines published by the Washington State Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs. We are very familiar with and frequently measure our actions against these state guidelines on tribal consultations and on the government-to-government recommended process. It is acknowledged that these guidelines are not regulatory in nature however provide useful, systematic procedures to follow for tribal consultations. We believe we have and are continuing to proficiently meet these guidelines and have not heard the same level of concerns with respect to inadequate consultation from any of the other involved tribes. As our technical meetings at the staff-level show, we are receiving increasingly specific ideas and proposed actions from PGST resource experts that serve to address tribal concerns. These ideas and actions are reasonable and practicable from the standpoint of the existing implementing conditions, the mitigation measures of the Pleasant Harbor MPR environmental impact statements and federal, state and local law. These technical meetings continue to the present and are expected to address final, ou tstanding issues on wildlife management, water quality, shellfish and cultural resources. We do not take these issues lightly. We hope you agree with us that these technical meetings not only serve to continue to reduce impacts beyond the impact minimization mechanisms of the Ordinance and the environmental statements but they also serve to clarify how the consultation process is moving relative to the state guidelines. In summary, there will always be impacts associated with development. The substantial history of environmental review, land-use and environmental planning, public process and legal reviews of the Pleasant Harbor MPR has informed much if not all of the decision-making to date. The items required in the next steps of this project, namely the Pleasant Harbor MPR development agreement, utilize this same decision -making and Board direction. They will be released for public review and comment very soon. We look forward to review and comment from all interested and involved public and private groups, agencies, organizations and individuals. We look forward to receiving timely and responsive comments from area tribes, including PGST. In conclusion, we believe the process that has been followed for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is consistent with Jefferson County’s goals and policies, with SEPA and consistent with the state guidelines on tribal consultations. We are heartened by the staff collaboration with PGST resource experts to date and are dismayed that PGST letter casts our consultations in such a negative light. We believe that all of the outcomes of the Pleasant Harbor process clearly reflect an understanding and active consideration of PGST concerns. We are confident that the same is true of the items forthcoming for public review and comment. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your letter of August 9, 2017. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with PGST on important actions affecting Jefferson County and its future. Sincerely, Kathleen Kler, Chair Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Cc: David Sullivan, Kate Dean, Commissioners PGST staff Jefferson County staff Statesman offices designation and use of southern Black Point Peninsula as a Master Planned Resort to become known as the and to meet challenges and solve issues with locally initiated strategies.