HomeMy WebLinkAbout195Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Julie Shannon
Thursday, October 05,2017 12:37 PM
jeromys@pgst.nsn.us
Letter re: JC BoCC response to PGST August 9, 201-7 Letter
Letter re_ PGST August9,2017 Letter to JC BoCC response.pdf
Dear Chair Sullivan,
Please find attached the Letter from Jefferson County. The Original 'hard copy' is coming to you by way of U.S.P.S
postmarked today, October St 2oa7.
Julie Shannon
Executive Secretary I
Jefferson County Commissiorrers Office
360 385 9100
1
Board of County Commissioners
1820Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Kate Dean, District I David Sullivan, District 2 Kathleen KIer, fjistrict 3
October 4,2017
Via email and reqular mail
Jeromy Sullivan, Chair
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
31912 Little Boston Road NE
Kingston, WA 98346
Re: Response to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's August 9, 2017 Letter to the
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Dear Chair Sullivan:
I am writing as a follow-up to my August 10,2017 letter to you on behalf of the Jefferson
County (County) Board of Commissioners. This letter acknowledges our respect for the
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) and its treaty rights, and further responds to the
concems raised in your August 9,2017 letter (PGST's 819117 letter) that you sent to the
Board of Commissioners regarding potential impacts from the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort (MPR).
The PGST's 819117 letter points out that the County has not responded in writing to the
PGST's May 1 ,2017 comments. We apologize for not responding in writing sooner. As
Commissioner David Sullivan pointed out at the August 16, 2017 government-to-
government meeting, the County focused on gefting the developer to provide all the
necessary and substantial reports and memoranda of understanding required to meet the
thirty conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08. For instance, it was only shortly before the
County received the PGST's 819117 letter that the developer provided a wildlife
management plan in a form acceptable to share with the PGST for its review.
Since our initial exchange of letters, I am pleased that our two govemments' @nsultation
process has continued with a number of substantive meetings, and more are expected.
On Augusl 16,2017, the PGST and the County met in a government-togovemment
meeting including you, Commissioner Sullivan, and staff from both organizations. lt was
an excellent opportunity for the County to hear and better understand the PGST's
concerns directly, and for the PGST to hear some of the considerations the Coung must
operate within as it works to revise drafts of a Development Agreement and Development
Phone (360) 385-9100 Fax (360) 385-9382 jeffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us
Regulations. Two technical staff meetings followed that meeting on September 8 and
September 15,2017 that included key staff of the PGST, the County, and the developer.
Those recent meetings have yielded refinements that the developer has offered to
address further the PGST's @ncems about the MPR's potential impacts on cultural
resources, water quality, and wildlife management (specifically Elk). The consultation
process is continuing.
However, we also realize that ful! @nsensus betureen the PGST and the County about
these and other issues may not have been reached. The Gounty's goal continues to be
to reach such a consensus, if that is reasonably possible. We also acknowledge and
reiterate our deep understanding and appreciation that the PGST is a sovereign nation,
with treaty rights under the Point No Point Treaty that exist outside the process the County
is compelled to follow under state law and previously adopted local ordinances.
As the County consults with the PGST in its efforts to assert its treaty rights, the County
also must comply with the prccedures and limitations placed on the County by state law
and the previously adopted localordinances. The PGST's 8/9/17 letter provided general
and specific concems that the PGST has regarding the ongoing planning and future
development of the MPR. We wish to respond to the PGST's 819117 letter in both general
and specific terms. The PGST's 8/9/17 letter maintains that:
"The MPR would increase vehicular traffic along the highway, toads and parking
lots, resulting in water quality impacts in the Hood Canal through stormwater
runoff, which has an impact on the Tribe's fish and shellfish resouroes.' PGST's
8l9l17letter, page2;
o
a
"Additional MPR system overflows or contiaminated stormwater runoff from the
increase in impervious areas in these sensitive areas could result in poor water
quality in the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers leading to additional
downgrades in status or area in regards to shellfish and tidelands." PGST'sBl9l17
lefter, page 3;
"The proposed MPR project would be located in an aquifer recharge area and
would significantly impact kettle ponds and wetlands, in addition to potentially
impacting marine waters.' PGST's 819117 letter, page 2;
"The Kettle B wetland would be cleared of vegetation, filled and lined, eliminating
any opportunity to evaluate cultural resour@s linking the Tribe's ancestral ties to
the land and water." PGST's 819117 letter, page 2;
2
o
o "The proposed MPR would create an increase in visitors, both temporary and
permanent rcsidents, intensiffing the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and
Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is sporadic
and increased pressure from additional harvesters without an annual
enhancement would result in a decline in the existing resource overtime." PGST's
8l9l17lefter, page 3; and,
"The Tribe is concemed about impacts to the elk herd that forages to the west of
this project area in the lower end of the Duckabush River Valley and the
development of an 'attractive nuisan@' in the form of highly alluring elk and deer
forage opportunities.' PGST's 8/9/17 letter, page 3.
It is our goal to continue a positive working relationship with the PGST. This letter serves
to review the MPR prcject history, and to help build a mutual understanding in addressing
the PGST's @ncems, including how the project's sixteen-year history and prior mitigation
measures inform and may constrain the County in its efforts to achieve consensus with
the PGST.
Jefferson Countv Roles and Resoonsibilities
Jefferson County, like all Washington counties, operates under specific enabling state
legislation that allows the 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, the Growth Management Act, and the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Detailed regulations promulgated by the Washington Department of Ecology in Chapter
197-11 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implement SEPA. The SEPA
responsibilities include acting as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations,
preserving important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of the national heritage, and
achieving a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.r SEPA integration with agency
activities must be at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect
environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential
problems.2
The County takes very seriously its responsibili$ to comply with these laws; both
substantively and procedurally, including extensive review by affected tribes, other
govemment agencies, and the public. ln doing so, the County is locally responsive and
l RCW 43.21C.020.
2WAC 197-11-055(1)
a
3
locally accountable to affected tribes and to all public and private groups and individuals,
and we are committed to maintaining a high quality of life in Jefferson County.
The planning, public involvement, review and commenting, legislative and legal history of
the MPR is substantia!. All the project history and results-todate occuned in with active
review and involvement by affected tribes and the public, utilizing well-established, legally
sound processes based on state and locallaws, rules, and stiandards. The PGST's 819117
letter describes concems with impacts that the MPR poses to cultural resources, water
quality, wildlife, and adjacent properties. Even as the County continues to consult with
the PGST on these issues, we are constrained by the history of how these issues
previously have been raised, evaluated and assessed during the project's sixteen-year
history. We respectfully direct the PGST to published reports and SEPA Environmenta!
lmpact Statement (ElS) documents, which we discuss more fully in this letter, which
analyze, consider, and respond to comments from the affected tribes, other govemment
agencies, and the public on these issues.
Jefferso n Countv's S ixteen-Yea r Pla nni nq P rocess
ln the sixteen-year history of Brinnon planning (starting with the planning that resulted in
the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan), the County has sought the input of affected tribes and
adhered to the requirements of applicable stiate, federal and Iocal laws. Forthe MPR, the
County is the official lead agency and we have relied on the preparation of three extensive
ElSs pursuant to SEPA:
First, for the Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002);
Second, for the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation of a Brinnon Master
Planned Resort (2007); and,
Third, to analyze site and project-specific altematives for developing the MPR in
preparation for adopting development regulations and a development agreement
(2015).
The preparation of these three separate ElSs utilized the rigorous, well{ocumented
SEPA prooesses that included seeking and receiving feedback and involvement from
affected tribes, other govemment agencies, and the public. The PGST always has been
included as an affected tribe. The County used the tribal consultation and public's
comments to establish the scope, breadth, and depth of the numerous and varied studies,
assessments and technical reports that went into draft SEPA documents.
The County also relied the SEPA process not only to prepare draft EIS (DEIS) documents,
but to facilitate meaningful envircnmental review of issues raised by affected tribes, and
a
o
o
4
to ana!1ze and mitigate potential significant adverse environmental impacts from the
MPR.
Feedback, involvement and written and oral comments from the PGST and from other
affected tribes with usual and accustomed hunting, fishing, and gathering treaty rights in
the MPR project area were considered in the three sets of draft and fina! ElSs. Through
this SEPA pro@ss, we believe all the issues outlined in the PGST's August 9,2017 letter
have previously been raised and assessed. Project modifications, mitigation measures,
and the thirty conditions imposed by the County on the developerthrough Ordinance 01-
0128-08, setting development standards for subsequent design and permitting of the
MPR, were made to help address comments from affected tribes and others.
The PGST's 819117 letter acknowledges, "On multiple occasions the PGST has
commented on the potential impacts of the proposed MPR on adjacent shellfish
harvesting areas." The PGST letter, page 3. A programmatic Final EIS (FEIS) prepared
in 2007 was a basis for the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 2008 decision,
reflected in Ordinance 01-0128-08, to designate the Pleasant Harbor and south Black
Point Peninsula as an MPR and to set the thifi conditions for subsequent development.
We also make special note that in carrying out the SEPA prooess, there was an
unsuccessful legal challenge to the FEIS (2007) that ended in 201'1. The Growth
Management Hearings Board reviewed the FEIS in its 2008 decision approving it under
SEPA.3
fl'he Brinnon Groupl alleges that the SEPA analysis is inadequate with
respect to stormwater management to be able to determine if it m(;ht be
possible to reach zero discharge from the golf @urse site.78 Further, they
allege that the FEIS fails to analyze water quality impacts of the anticipated
traffic associated with the development.4
The Growth Management Hearings Board decided as to the FEIS: "The environmential
impacts of this project were studied at an appropriate level of detail, with provision for
further environmental review at the project level stages of development."s The Thurston
County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
The Court of Appeals specifically mentioned in its decision some of the concems listed in
the PGST's 8/9/17 letter copied into the bullets above. Brinnon Group v. Jefferson
3 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, lntervenor, 2008 WL 4618460 (2008).
a Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, lntervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008)
Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, lntervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at .26 (2008).
5
County,159 Wn. App. 446, 480-2 (2011) ("Although the final EIS contemplates greater
environmental impacts than Statesman's proposal in some respects-for example,
increased impervious surfaces and increased development intensity west of Highway
101<ur Supreme Court has approved EIS altematives that "present greater impacts in
some areas, and fewer impacts in others.')
A second, supplemental, final EIS was prepared on a prcject basis in 2015 (FSEIS). The
FSEIS process also included consultation with affected tribes, including the PGST, on the
EIS documents, which included technical reports.
!n short, the SEPA process resulted in mitigation measures that reduced potential
impacts. Those mitigation measures combined with the thirty implementing conditions
contained in Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 were subsequently litigated through
an appeal, and have been found to be responsive, appropriate, and comprehensive with
respect to the issues the PGST describes. Some of the thifi conditions listed in
Ordinance 01-0128-08 call for items to be prepared in consultation with the affected
tribes. Review and feedback on those items (such as the water quality monitoring plan,
cultural resources management plan and wildlife management plan) is the most efficient,
standard method to accomplish consultation with affected tribes.
The PGST's 8/9/17 letter states that the "County and the developer have not provided a
description for the proposed MPR' that is required by Jefferson County's Unified
Development Code Title 18, Chapter 18.15 for master planned resorts. PGST's 819117
letter, pages 2-3. lmportantly, JCC 18.15.126 begins, "An appllcantfor an MPR must
meet the following requirements: ..." This provision applies at the application stage,
which passed when Stiatesman's application, MLA06-87, was approved in 2008 by
Ordinance 01-0128-08. The 2007 FEIS assessed how the MPR'relates to sunounding
properties and how its design and anangement minimize adverse impacts and promote(s)
compatibility among within the development and adjacent to the development,' and
concluded with a SEPA determination of no unacoeptable adverse impacts of the MPR.
ln other words, Statesman met these requirements already. As already noted, Ordinance
01-0128-08 was challenged and upheld by the Growth Management Hearings Board
which, and then was affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and the Court of
Appeals.
Potential lmpacts on Cultural Resources
The County inrolved the PGST as early as 2d)2 in the planning process for the Brinnon
Subarea Plan.6 Ted Labbe attended a SEPA meeting on January 22,2002 on the then
proposed Brinnon Subarea Plan and associated amendments to the County Unified
6 Meeting Minutes for SEPA Meeting on Brinnon Subarea Plan and Associated UDC Amendments,
January 22,2002 at Whitney Point Shellfish Laboratory, Brinnon, Washington (2002 Meeting Minutes).
6
Development Code. Al Scatf of the County asked Mr. Labbe about a @mment from the
PGST about kettle holes.T The concems Mr. Labbe expressed were about landslide
hazards and that they were habitat for amphibians, which he acknowledged were not
listed. Mr. Scalf also asked Mr. Labbe aboutwhetherthe PGST's archeologicalsites had
been mapped.s Mr. Labbe rcplied they were but the level of mapping was not appropriate
for site level review.e Mr. Labbe said that he had leamed that there were cultural sites on
Black Point that had not been fully inventoried and their precise locations were unknown
at that time. Mr. Labbe pointed out this was an opportunity for cooperative work, but the
PGST did not bring this up again untilafterthe close of the comment period forthe FSEIS
(201s).
On May 8, 2006, after timely and proper notice, the County held an EIS Scoping Meeting
for the proposed MPR at the Brinnon School, Brinnon, WA.10 Ted Labbe again attended
on behalf of the PGST. The Meeting Minutes contain a discussion about @noems raised
by Mr. Labbe, but there is no mention of cultural resources in the minutes of this meeting.
The PGST (Mr. Labbe) sent the County a letter dated May 19, 2006 expressing the
PGST's conoems about the development and its possible impact on fish, shellfish, and
wildlife. As to the kettles, the May 19, 2006 letter states in ful!:
The Statesman Corporation propose (sic) lining the project site's natural
kettle ponds to receive and store stormwater runoff as part of their water
conservation and reuse scheme. However, it is unknown if this practice
would be allowable under state law since - to my knowledge - none of these
ponds have ever had biological inventories to determine if they harbor rare,
threatened, or endangered species. These rare, steep-sided kettle ponds
represent a regionally unusual biological community type and are important
habitat for native amphibian populations, since they are completely isolated
from fish-bearing streams. As part of the proponent's wetland inventory,
these ponds should be surveyed for amphibian species under the EIS
development process. Details on measures to protect wetland hydroperiod
and water quality should also be outlined in the ElS.11
Concems about cultural resouroes were not mentioned
On June 23,2006, Statesman reached out to the PGST, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe,
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Skokomish Tribe, and the Suquamish Tribe, informing
7 2OO2 Meeting Minutes, page 11.
8 2AO2 Meeting Minutes, page'12.
s ld.
10 Meeting Minutes for Environmental lmpact Statement Scoping Meeting May 8, 2006 for MLA06-87,
Statesman Group, Proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort, Brinnon School, Brinnon, WA (2006
Meeting Minutes).rl PGST's May 19, 2006 Letter, page 3.
7
the affected tribes that an archaeologica! reconnaissance was being performed for the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, and requesting information to support the
reconnaissance.l2 The PGST did not respond.
Delbert Miller of the Skokomish Tribe did respond on June 28, 2006, and mentioned sites
of historica! significance to the tuwaduq people (known today as the Skokomish Tribe).
'These locations include a major village site and associated burial grounds within
Pleasant Harbor itself; a guadian spirtt locality, a locality which continues to be used by
practitioners of traditional tuwadug lifewap and is extremely integral within tuwaduq
(Skokomish) creation and sacred history; significant fishing and shellfish gathering
locations; and numerous seasona! camp sites." Skokomish Tribe's June 28, 2006 letter,
page 1. Mr. Miller asked to be fully involved in all phases of the reconnaissance project.
We cannot measure the PGST's conduct, levels of support or concem by that of other
affected tribes. We only point out that the PGST could have been an active participant in
the preparation of the cultural resources management plan.
The County issued the DEIS on September 5, 2OO7. After proper and timely notice to the
affected tribes, the FEIS was released on November 27,2007. On December 6, 2007,
after the FEIS was already published, the PGST submitted a comment letter written by
Hans Daubenberger. No mention of cultural resources was made. The Point No Point
Treaty Council, by a letter from Tim Cullinan, commented on December 9,2007. There
was a discussion of elk issues, but no discussion of cultural resources.
The Board of County Commissioners deliberated and voted to approve MLA06-87 on
January 28,2008, with thirty attached conditions, in Ordinance 01-0128-08. Relevant to
the kettles, the ordinance adopted Conditions 63(h), 63(i) and 63fi), discussed above.
After Ordinance 01-0128-08 was adopted, the Point No Point Treaty Council wrote a letter
to the County dated November 24, 2009, in part about compliance with the 2008
ordinance. The November 24, 2009 letter stiates:
The 30 ordinances (sic) adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners show that various management and monitoring plans are
to be developed, and scientific reports conducted as conditions for this
proposed development. ln some instances, the ordinances (sic) state or
allude to management plans being created for cultural resources, wildlife,
stormwater and mitigation. These actbns are necessary and reports should
be released to the affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review.l3
12 Letter from Camille A. Mather, Archaeologist, to Marie Herbert, dated June 23,20Oo
13 November 24,2OOg Point No PointTreatyCouncil Letter, page2.
8
Reports on all the issues mentioned were part of the 2015 FSEIS and were provided per
the SEPA process to affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review. Other
agencies commented on the FSEIS with approval.
The PGST's 8/9/17 letter expresses a concem that:
The Kettle B wetland would be cleared of vegetation, filled and lined,
eliminating any opportunity to evaluate cultural resources linking the Tribe's
ancestral ties to the land and water. The prcposal provides inadequate
compensatory mitigation for these effects with the plan to manufacture a
wetland in existing Kettle G that urould also serve as a stormwater runoff
basin for the MPR. We do not consider this plan to be acceptable for
compensating impacts on cultural and natural resources and we do not in
any way consider this to be a peseruation of the Kel'ile.14
Condition 63(h) of Ordinance 01{128-08 states, "The possible ecological impact of the
development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined,
and possiDly one kettle preserved." (Emphasis added.) Condition 63(i) of the
ordinance stiates:
ln addition, Condition 63 0) of the ordinance further states, "Tribes should be consulted
regading cultural resources, and possiDly one kettle preserved as a cultura! resource."
(Emphasis added.)
A cultural resource management plan that complies with Condition 63(j) of the ordinance
was finalized on March 27 ,2012, after it was approved by the Washington Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Skokomish Tribe on January 14,2012,
and became part of the FSEIS. We understand the PGST does not agree that the cultural
resource plan is sufiicient, so the County continues to facilitate communications among
and between the PGST and the developer on the kettles and cultural resources concem.
Potential lmoacts to Water Qualitv
la PGST's 8l9l17letter, page 2 (emphasis added).
9
Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall
include a distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the
impacts to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the
develope/s intention to use one of the existing kettles for water storage.
Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a second scientist mutually chosen
by the developer and the county. The developer will bear the financial cost
of these reports.
The potential impact of the development on water qualiU impacts was ana!1zed in the
FSEIS, including the potential water quality impacts posed by increased vehicular tr:affic
along the area roadways. ln assessing these concems, the project plans were amended
downward in size, resulting in the develope/s prefened altemative in the FSEIS. That
prefened altemative substantially reduced MPR land clearing and development from the
original project proposal.
With respect to the concems about the project's potentialto increase stormwater runoff
from impervious surfaces, the developeradjusted the project downward in size, including:
As previously noted, the FSEIS prefened altemative is much smaller than the
original proposed size of land development and buildings;
lmpervious surfaces added to the site will not exceed 12o/o ol lhe project area; and,
r Site development is designed to achieve zero discharge from the site.
This site development engineering is responsive to stormwater management conditions
in Ordinance 01-012848, even though water quality analysis for the FSEIS fully
considered off-site impacts.
Finally, stormwater management in terms of infiltration into subsurface aquifers and
potential seepage to Hood Canal watenrays is the subject of continuing technical
consultations between the County, the Developer and the PGST. As of this writing, the
additional negotiation is ongoing about the potentia! for enhanced monitoring of
groundwater, to detect potential contamination before it has the time or potentialto seep
into Hood Canal.
Potential lmoacts to Wildlife
The PGST's 8/9/17 letter outlines concems regarding impacts to wildlife, in particular
elk, that the MPR has the potentialto impact. ln response to the PGST's concems, the
developer has reduced the size of the golf course from 18 holes in the original proposal
to nine holes in the prefened altemative analyzed in the FSEIS. ln addition, the
prefened altemative reduced the amount of grass in the MPR and emphasized plants
not attractive to deer and elk.
Finally, in response to continued consultation with the PGST, the County continues to
negotiate with the developer on the wildlife management plan. The PGST's concems
were discussed in detail at the August 16,2017 govemment-to-govemment meeting
and potentia! solutions were discussed in the September 7,2017 staff meeting that
included representatives of the developer. Furthermor€, a meeting with the Point No
Point Treaty Council's wildlife biologist (on behalf of the PGST and some other affected
a
10
tribes), the developer and the County is scheduled for October 19,20'17 at Black Point
to discuss additional potential enhancements to the draft wildlife management plan.
Potential lmoacts to Shellfish Harvest
The PGST's 8/9/17 letter describes @noems that the MPR will intensify the harvest
pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips sheltfish tidelands. This issue was
mitigated for SEPA purposes in the FSEIS, including:
The MPR prefened altemative in the FSEIS was downsized its overal!
development and building footprints, thereby reducing the total number of
expected visitors;
The Developer has agreed to decommission an existing beach access trailthat
had been used since the site was a large campground resort; and,
a The MPR provides no direct access from it to the tidelands below.
Consultation between Jefferson Countv and the PGST
We respectfully disagrce with the PGST that the County's tribal consultation process for
the MPR 'has and continues to be seriously flawed." There arc welldocumented
consultations with affected tribes, including the PGST, throughout the substantial
planning history of this project. ln the paragraphs above, this letter attempts to outline
just some of the instances wherc the County has consulted with affected tribes and has
worked with the developer to address conoems of affected tribes.
We acknowledge there have been periods during which the County was waiting for the
developer to provide draft documents or changes to draft documents that responded to
conoems raised by affected tribes. ln some cases, providing such documents or changes
requircd the collection of data or performing a technical analysis which themselves simply
took time. We apologize that we did not sufficiently communicate with the PGST during
these periods. We also acknowledge that the County relied on the fina! EIS documents,
which we thought clearly responded to concems raised by affected tribes.
There also were instances in the planning history of the MPR when the PGST feedback
and involvement regarding resouroe issues and impact avoidance was sought. In some
cases, the County did not receive the PGST comments during the published timeframes.
We think it is significant that the County has received positive acknowledgment by all
involved Washington state resource oversight agencies regarding the MPR planning and
analysis process. Therc is nothing in the record to indicate that the County did not meet
state legislative, administrative, or programmatic requirements, many of which address
the same issues discussed in the PGST's 819/17 letter.
11
We appreciate the PGST citing the guidelines published by the Washington State
Govemo/s Office of lndian Affairs fora govemment-togovemment consultatlon. Two of
the guidelines state:
"lssues that require consultation should be identified as soon as possible in order
to involve both parties early on in the process.'ls
"Stateffribes should make every effort to respond to and participate in the
consultation process.' 16
As discussed above, the County inrolved affected tribes, including the PGST, during
each stage of the sixteen-year planning process do date, which has resulted in three
separate final EIS documents.
The Limits of the Govemment-to-Govemment Guidelines
These guidelines are not statutory or regulatory in nature. However, they provide useful,
systematic procedures to followfortribalconsultations. The County has and is continuing
to comply with these guidelines.
As technical meetings at the staff{evel show, the County is receiving increasingly specific
ideas and proposed actions from the PGST that serve to address the PGST's @ncems.
These technica! meetings continue to the present. The County does not take onoems
of affected tribes lightly. The County must carefully consider the information gleaned from
the staff technical meetings with the PGST and weigh how the information fits within the
SEPA process. We hope you agree with us that these technical meetings serve to
continue to further address @noems about the potential impacts of the MPR. These
meetings also serve to clarify how the consultation prccess is moving relative to the
govem ment-to-govemment gu idelines.
The PGST's 8/9/17 letter cites a lack of consultation in the drafting of wildlife management
plans, water quality monitoring programs, listed above. Our understanding throughout the
history of this project is that the PGST was consulted to review and respond via
commenting on draft EIS documents in the SEPA process. That consultation fumishes
feedback on draft EIS documents in the interest of creating practicable final documents.
The County believes "in consultation with" affected tribes includes the SEPA process.
Othenrise, the SEPA prooess would be meaningless and the significant effort required
by the SEPA prccess would be wasted. Past practice between the County and affected
I 5 htto://www.ooia.wa.oov/oovernment-to-oovernmenUData/Sectionl L htm
I 0 htto://www.ooia.wa.oov/oovernment-to-qovernmenUData/Sectionl l. htm
12
tribes supports our position. The affected tribes have been consulted and have provided
feedback on draft EIS documents throughout the history of the MPR.
We appreciate yourelevating to the Board of County Commissioners the @ncems stated
in the PGST's 819117 letter. ln response to the PGST's Ugl17 letter, there already has
been one govemment-togovemment meeting where Commissioner David Sullivan and
you attended that took place on August 16,2017 in Port Townsend, as well as tvrlo
consultation meetings between staff of the PGST and the County. County staff has
worked with the PGST to schedule another govemment-togovemment session that
involves both you and Commissioner Sullivan on October 13,2017 in order to continue
the govemment-to-govemment consultation process.
ln conclusion, we believe the process and extensive record forthe MPR is consistentwith
the County's goals and policies, with SEPA, and consistent with the govemment-to-
govemment guidelines on tribal consultations. We are heartened by the staff
collaboration with the PGSTto date and ouron-going consultations, and respectfully point
to the extensive record of communication between our govemments and follow-up by the
County on the PGST's @ncems. We believe that the outcomes of the MPR process
clearly reflect an active consideration of the PGST @ncems that have been
communicated to us. As our consultation continues, we also look fonrard to the
subsequent opportunity for the PGST to review and comment on a draft development
agreement and draft development regulations, and appreciate the opportunity to include
those in the Commissioners' deliberations in taking final adoption actions.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the PGST's 819117 letter. Our hope is that
the history discussed in this letter demonstrates that the County has carefully considered
the PGST's concems and assessed them through the SEPA process. We look fonrard
to continuing to collaborate with the PGST on this project and on the many other important
issues of mutual concem of the PGST and the County.
Yours respectfully,
W^/rq+'@
Kathleen Kler, Chair
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Cc: David Sullivan, Kate Dean, Commissioners
Roma Call, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
13