Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout212PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 October 26,2017 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Porl Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Response to Jefferson County's October 4,2017 Letter Dear Board of County Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe ("Tribe"), in order to respond to the letter submitted by Jefferson County ("County") on October 4, 2017. The County's letter purported to provide an overview of the County's planning process, as it relates to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort ("Resort"). However, the Tribe noted several omissions in the County's overview of the planning process. In this letter, the Tribe provides additional facts and context to the events and documents discussed in the County's letter. In the letter, the County notes that various Environmental Impact Statements (*EIS") were prepared for the Brinnon Subarea Plan in 2002, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2007 and the Resort in 2015. The County's overiew of the environmental review processes does not provide a full accounting of all of the actions taken by the County. The Tribe does not agree with the overview provided by the County. However, below, the Tribe addresses each of these environmental review processes and provides information to supplement the overview provided by the County. Overall, the County's actions during its environmental review processes demonstrate that the County has a pattem of discounting the Tribe's input, by either failing to solicit comments from the Tribe or by failing to substantively address the Tribe's comments. I. Brinnon Subarea Plan2002 In regards to the Brinnon Subarea Plan, the Tribe will note that Jefferson County first issued a Determination of Non-Significance ("DNS"). It was only after the DNS was appealed that an EIS was prepared.l As detailed in a letter sent to the County by the Point No Point Treaty Council on Decembet 21,2001, the Tribes provided comments and public testimony on early drafts of the Brinnon Subarea Plan. However, as noted by the Point No Point Treaty Council, the County issued the December 12,2001 Ttu'eshold Determination before the Tribes' concerns were addressed. Accordingly, from the outset, the County has attempted to move forward on the Resort without appropriate and meaningful tribal consultation. Through the Point No Point Treaty Council, the Tribe communicated to the County multiple concerns about the Threshold Determination, including the lack of I See Appeal by Mark Rose, Belter Brinnon Coalition, to SEPA Determination of Non-SigttiJicance IDNSJ Isutecl on l2/12/2001 by the Jffirson Couttly Depa,'tmenl of Community Developnrent, No. MLA02-00014 (Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County Mar. 12,2002). PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAT RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 consideration for "lmpacts to Regionally-Significant Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat" and the cultural significance of the area. The December 21,2001 letter specifically mentions that the Tribes are concerned with the preservation of the kettles, stating: During a recent field visit to Black Point, Tribal staff verified the existence of numerous sensitive environmental features that would likely be degraded by unmitigated resort development, and documented several offl-site mitigation opportunities that could be used to condition any future development at the site. Several ponds lying within what appear to be unique "kettle holes" dot the landscape of Black Point. Extremely rare in Puget Sound, kettle holes are pitted depressions formed in recessional outwash when glacial ice blocks become covered with sediment, isolated, and then subsequently melt. These particular ponds are bounded by steep slopes, lack integrated outlet or feeder streams, and though they do not harbor fish populations, are likely important amphibian breeding and refuge environments. Steep side slopes render these ponds extrcmely vulnerable to surface runoff from surrounding development, and several lying north of Black Point Road have already been degraded by runoff originating from adjacent residential development. It is not clear how these features would be protected if Black Point were to be developed as a resort-golf course complex. The December2l,200l letter also specifically noted: Finally, we take issue with the County's SEPA environmental checklist which declares that the area is "not a cultural site." The shore line of the Brinnon area is dotted with numerous S'Klallam and Skokomish cultural sites including two winter camps, and several seasonal camps, two of which are on Black Point. In the book Structure of Twana Culture, by William W. Elmendorf, these sites are identified and named. The cultural significance of the area to the Tribes should be more thoroughly documented in the BSAP, and sites surveyed for archeological remains before any development proceeds. Accordingly, as early as 2001, the Tribe notified the County of the Tribe's concem over the kettles and the cultural significance of the area; further, the Tribe noted that the area should be studied and surveyed. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe was not the only tribe to notifr the County of the cultural significance of the area and request additional study. These concems and requests were also echoed by the Skokomish Indian Tribe. The Skokomish Indian Tribe sent a letter to the County that provided: As you are aware, Elmendorf (1992) noted two major village sites within the vicinity of the project area. In addition to these sites, which were extensive Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 2 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 villages comprised of single large houses combined with numerous smaller houses extending along the shoreline, there are a number of sites of tremendous spiritual, cultural, and historical significance to the tuwaduq people (known today as the Skokomish Tribe) within the proposed project area. These locations include an additional major village site and associated burial grounds within Pleasant Harbor itself, a guardian spirit locality, a locality which continues to be used use by practitioners of traditional tuwaduq lifeways and is extremely integral within tuwaduq (Skokomish) creation and sacred history; significant fishing and shellfish gathering locations; and numerous seasonal camp sites. There may well be additional significant sites within the proposed project area. The fact that the vicinity has been inhabited by tuwaduq people for countless generations, and that there were two major villages nearby, greatly increases the likelihood that ground disturbance will lead to the inadvertent discovery of human remains, and sensitive cultural resources, within the project area. Development and construction within the vicinity also has the potential to negatively impact the ability of the tuwaduq people to freely continue spiritual practices associated with sites and landscapes within the project area. Accordingly, the County had ample notice, from multiple tribes, regarding the cultural significance of the area. The County's October 4,2017 letter cites a May 19,2006letter by Ted Labbe, noting that he did not mention concerns about concerns about kettles in the letter. First, Mr. Labbe was a Natural Resources Specialist, not a Cultural Resources Specialist. Accordingly, he provided comments and testimony focusing on his expertise and specialty. Further, although Mr. Labbe was not a Cultural Resources Specialist, he did identiff the need for an inventory of cultural resources in the project area in his 2002 comments. Also, as noted above, multiple Tribes, very early in the process, noted the cultural significance of the area and rcquested further study. After the multiple tribal parties identified the need for furlher study, it was the responsibility of the Applicant and the County, rather than the Tribe, to actually perform the further study. Accordingly, any implication by the County that the Tribe has ceded its rights to protect cultural resources, because it did not continue to raise the need for a cultural resources investigation is an error. The County and the Applicant's reliance on the Tribe's capacity and resources to research the eligibility of the site's traditional cultural properties within the timeframe of the project permit process is inappropriate. The Applicant's 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment by Mather, Chambers and Schumacher, which consisted of a "review of existing information; no field investigations..." suggested a high probability for pre-contact or ethnographic archaeological sites in the project area" and further stated: The presence of the two known ethnographic village sites (north and south of project area) signifies substantial activity in the immediate area. Ethnographic accounts also 3Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 state "during the salmon season, Twana and Klallam visitors would camp nearby" (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992:41). Therefore, the Applicant and the County were well informed of the risks involved in the project for potentially impacting cultural resources and were responsible for providing further investigation. The 2012 Proposed Plan for Archeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol by Cultural Resource Consultants, [nc. addressed the archeological monitoring needs of the proposed project, but is not a substitute for a comprehensive cultural resources investigation. [. ComprehensivePlanAmendment200T After the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Tribe noted its concems with the County's process in a 2009 letter from the Point No Point Treaty Council. The Council informed Jefferson County that: However, the S'Klallam Tribes have not been involved in the planning process since we participated in developing the 30 ordinances adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners in 2008. We fully expected the project proponent would be required to work with us, It seems only one Tribe, out of the four that have interest in the project, has been approached and included in the planning activities. This is not acceptable. The MPR is located within the S'Klallam Usual and Accustomed Area (U&A) and there will be impacts to our treaty resources as well as disturbances to potential cultural resources. Not only are the surrounding waters and land historically important to the S'Klallam Tribes, but the Hood Canal and the fertile beaches of the Duckabush River estuary remain crucial to our tribal members for finfish and shellfish harvesting. Overall, the S'Klallam tribes and PNPTC feel there has been a lack of information provided to us on technical reports as well as monitoring and management plans. Again, the Tribe expressed concem with the County not allowing it to participate in the review of the Resort and with the lack of information being provided to the Tribe. It is not enough to merely solicit comments from the Tribe; in order for there to be meaningful consultation, the Tribe's comments must then be incorporated into the review of the Resort. III. Master Planned Resort EIS 2015 As for the EIS for the Resort, the Tribe was forced to, once again after an environmental document was issued, voice its concems with the County over the County's lack of continued consultation. On December 16,2015, the Tribe noted that: 4Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 3i912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 While we appreciate the February 18, 2015 meeting, the tribal consultation process is not yet finished. We understood that Jefferson County DCD would work with PGST staff to address the concems raised at the meeting and in our comments. However, PGST staff were not consulted after the February meeting and were not given any notification of the FEIS prior to its release. In view of the incomplete consultation process, and as stated in our January 5, 2015 letter, we continue to oppose this project. We request a 60-day extension of the process in order to allow time to complete the Tribe's consultation. These issues were not satisfactorily addressed in the FEIS. Although the document covers potential environmental effects to some extent, we are concerned that it does not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treaty rights. In order to adequately address the Tribe's concerns, we are requesting a 60-day period to work with Jefferson County staffas needed to complete the tribal consultation process. Accordingly, the Tribe was, again, noting that it was not enough to merely solicit comments from the Tribe, but that the County must actually consider the Tribe's concerns. ry. Recent Interactions with the County 2016-2017 Contrary to the County's assertions, the Tribe has been timely in raising its concerns about the kettles and wetlands. The Applicant and the County have consistently implied that it is too late in the review process to consider the impacts to the kettles and wetlands. First, as noted above, the Tribes highlighted the cultural significance of the area, and requested additional studies, as early as 2001. Further, in 2001, the Tribes specifically mentioned their concerns regarding the preservation of the kettles. Finally, as described in detail below, the Tribe was, based on documents provided by the Applicant, operating under the assumption that the Resofi would be constructed according to a revised plan that would avoid impacts to the wetlands and kettles. On September 19, 2016, the Applicant provided the Tribe with a letter and revised plan for the Resort. Under this revised plan, Kettles B and C would not be impacted and would be protected based on their status as cultural resources. From that date forward, the Tribe, relying on the documents provided to it by the Applicant, operated under the assumption that the revised plan was being advanced through the County's review processes. The Tribe is not the only entrty that was operating under this assumption. The Tribe has contacted staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps), the staff indicated that the Applicant a/so communicated to the Army Corps that the Resort plan had been revised and would no longer impact the wetlands or kettles, consequently avoiding the need for a jurisdictional determination or wetland permit. The Washington State Department of Ecology received a copy of the Applicant's communication and was also operating under the assumption that the wetlands and kettles would not be impacted. In August of 2017, the Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 5 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 County communicated to the Tribe the County planned to proceed with the original project plans, i.e., plans that would impact the wetlands and kettles. Until that notification from the County, the Tribe was still operating under the impression that the 2016 revised plan, which avoided impacts to the wetlands and kettles, was the working alternative. Accordingly, any perceived or implied delay in advancing the Tribe's interest in the kettles was because the Tribe, relying on documents provided by the Applicant, was proceeding under the assumption that based on the revised plan for the Resofi, the kettles would not be impacted. Contrary to the County's assertions, the Tribe's concerns are not new. The Tribe informed the County of its concerns at the outset of the Project. The Applicant's own 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that the "probability for historical cultural resources within the project area is considered to be high." Importantly, there is no time limitation to the Tribe's protection of its sacred sites. The Tribe's increased emphasis on protection stems from an evolving understanding of the area and its importance to the Tribe. As the County is still conducting a review of the Resort, the Resort has yet to be awarded any permits and multiple state and federal agencies must still review the Resoft, the Tribe believes the County still has ample time to address the Tribe's concems. Additionally, the County has been reluctant to consider the Tribe's suggestions to involve other agencies. The Tribe, on multiple occasions, have noted that the County should encourage the participation of the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as both of these agencies will need to review the Resort. From the Tribe's communications with these agencies, the earlier these agencies are involved, the better. The County has, thus far, ignored the Tribe's urgings to involve either agency, including ignoring the Tribe's request that the Resort obtain a new jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the Resorl's prior jurisdictional determination has expired. The Tribe's interactions with the County earlier this year demonstrate the County's typical lack of follow through on the Tribe's concerls. The Tribe and the County met on January 26,2017 to discuss the Tribe's issues with the Resoft. After the meeting, the Tribe sent a list of next steps to the County, outlining the follow up actions that the County and the Applicant should pursue in order to address the Tribe's concems, including steps to clarifr which project plans for the Resort would actually be moving forward. The Tribe did not receive a response from the County. In fact, the Tribe heard nothing from the County for months. In July of 2017, the Tribe received notice from a third party that the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") would be considering a Development Agreement and Development Regulations for approval at their August 14,2017 meeting. In response to this information, the Tribe sent the County another letter, once again outlining its concems, the letter additionally included the Tribe's concems about the lack of govemment-to-government consultation on either the Development Agreement or the Development Regulations; 6Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOI.IRCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 consultation would be particularly imporlant, give that the Development Agreement would purportedly directly address the Tribe's treaty rights and cultural resources. Subsequently, the Development Agreement and Development Regulation approval discussion was removed from the BOCC meeting agenda. Overall, these additional facts and documents demonstrated that the County has a history, a pattern of behavior, where it either fails to solicit comments from the Tribe, and therefore fails to allow the Tribe to participate in the review process of the Resort, or solicits comments and then fails to contact the Tribe again or address any of the Tribe's concerns. In order to provide meaningful consultation, the County must incorporate the Tribe's concems into its review processes. ru {romy Sullivan Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Cc:Phillip Morley, Jefferson County Administrator Patty Chamas, Director, Jefferson County DCD 7Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 297-6342 or ieromys@pgst.nsn.us. Thank you.