Franklin County postpones decision on Underwood PUD after dispute over archaeological survey

The Franklin County Board of Commissioners continued a closed-record appeal of the Underwood planned unit development (PUD) on May 14 after county staff, the applicant and a tribal representative disagreed about whether the project requires a limited archaeological survey prior to construction.

The hearing resumed as a closed‑record appeal and consolidated review of the PUD and related SEPA determination. Mark Fickas, the applicant’s land use attorney, asked the commissioners to adopt the planning commission’s unanimous recommendation for approval but to replace a staff- and SEPA‑imposed condition requiring a professional archaeological survey with an inadvertent discovery protocol (IDP). “An archeological survey … takes about 3 to 4 months and 15 to $20,000,” Fickas said, arguing the development’s work is limited to uplands long used for farming and therefore does not merit a full survey.

County planner and SEPA responsible official Mr. McCart said the record shows comments from the Colville tribes and the Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation that justify a limited archaeological survey for portions of the project that include undisturbed land. McCart noted the SEPA DNS issued March 20 included mitigation measures and stated that the mitigation measure requiring a limited archaeological survey applies to the project unless the board modifies the DNS. In response, Jeff Briggs of the county prosecutor’s office clarified the county was not contesting whether the appeal was ripe and explained the applicant is entitled to a closed‑record appeal under county code and SEPA rules.

County staff described the survey requirement as excluding shoreline jurisdiction and Tract H except where the private road crosses, but including the remainder of the plat because the SEPA review must consider the project’s full, foreseeable impacts — such as septic systems, homes and landscaping. The applicant and project manager Peter Harpster countered that substantial portions of the platted acreage have been farmed for decades and that the red‑hatched areas submitted in the planning record mark land that will not be disturbed by development.

Commissioners discussed whether they could modify the SEPA mitigation to require a limited survey only on the undisturbed portions (including where Road H crosses Tract H) while applying an IDP to previously farmed areas. County staff advised that any change to the SEPA mitigation measures would require notifying comment agencies because it would alter the DNS. Given legal and procedural questions about whether and how the board could craft findings to support a split approach, the board agreed to continue deliberations and return to the matter at the board’s May 21 meeting at 7 p.m.

The board made the continuance motion and approved it during the meeting; no final decision on the PUD or the SEPA mitigation was made on May 14. The continuation gives parties and staff additional time to prepare exhibits and legal input for the commissioners’ consideration.