Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1702_001July 2i,'2016 Quinault Indian Natioi, POST OFFICE BOX 189 • TAHOLAH, WASHINGTON 98587 • TELEPHONE (360) 276-8211 Joel Peterson, Associate Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: MLA 16-00008, Proposal by Delaware North to construct 24 luxury cabins at 15573 Highway 101, Forks, WA 98331 Dear Mr. Peterson, Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) provides this comment letter regarding the above -referenced project (Project) proposed by Delaware North Company to build 24 cabins atop a bluff situated within the Quinault Indian Reservation, between the Pacific Ocean and Highway 101. These comments were requested by Public Notice posted July 6, 2016.1 Additionally, we reiterate our request for formal government -to -government consultation with the Jefferson County Commissioners and your Department of Community Development, made by letter dated July 13, 2016 and attached as Exhibit A. I. QUINAULT INDIAN NATION A. Governance Treaty Rights QIN is a federally -recognized Indian tribe, which is headquartered the Quinault Indian Reservation, which was established by Executive Order dated November 4, 1873 (I Kapp. 923). Z The parcels and proposed development in question is within the Quinault Indian Reservation. 1 littp://www.co.'effer :son. wa. us/et)mmdcve l€rpmcn t/PublieNotice. him z "Commencing on the Pacific coast at the southwest corner of the: present reservation, as established by Mr. Smith in his survey under contract with Superintendent Miller, dated September 16, 1861; thence due east, and with the line of said survey, 5 miles to the southeast corner of said reserve thus established; thence in a direct line to the most southerly end of Quinaielt Lake; thence northerly around the east shore of said lake to the northwest point thereof; thence in a direct line to a point a half mile north of the Queetshee River and 3 miles above its mouth; thence with Page 1 of 23 The QIN is a sovereign government organized pursuant to a Constitution adopted March 22, 1975. (Attached as Exhibit B). Through its Constitution, the QIN asserts its sovereign authority and jurisdiction over all "lands, resources and waters" within the boundaries of its Reservation, "all persons acting within the boundaries of those reserved lands or waters." Constitution of the Quinault Indian Nation, Art. I, Section 1. The QBC has broad executive and legislative authority to govern all people, resources, lands, and waters under the jurisdiction of or reserved to the Quinault Nation. Id. at Art. V, Section 1. The QIN first adopted Zoning laws that cover the entire Quinault Reservation in 1967, and has a current Land Use and Development Code (Attached as Exhibit C), and other codes that apply to proposed development within its Reservation. Per the Executive Order establishing the Quinault Reservation, and pursuant to federal law, the QIN owns the beaches within its Reservation between the ordinary high tideline and extreme low water mark. This ownership has been confirmed by the Washington State Attorney General's Office and Department of Interior. (See attached Exhibits D and E). The QIN exercises rights memorialized in the Treaty of Olympia (1856) ("Treaty"), under which Quinault ceded territory to the federal government, but retained other territory. In this Treaty, the QIN reserved the right of "taking fish, at all usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations . .. together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on all open and unclaimed lands," among other rights, in exchange for ceding lands it historically roamed freely. The federal court confirmed those fishing rights and established the tribes as co -managers of off - Reservation fisheries resources entitled to half of the harvestable number of fish returning to Washington waters. United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974). Based on evidence provided, the court determined the usual and accustomed areas of the QIN include "the waters adjacent to their territory" and the Queets River. Id. at 374-375; see also United States v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 1978), aff'd 645 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1981). The proposed Project is within the QIN's usual and accustomed fishing areas, and within its ceded lands where it traditionally has gathered and hunted. B. Jurisdiction Federal case law explains the bounds of tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers in the following manner: "A tribe may ... retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non -Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe." Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 566, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 1258, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1981). Therefore, the QIN has jurisdiction over the planning and construction of the proposed 24 guest cabins on the Reservation, because that project will have a direct effect on the QIN's political integrity. the course of said river to a point on the Pacific coast, at low-water mark, a half mile above the mouth of said river; thence southerly, at low-water mark, along the Pacific to the place of beginning." Page 2 of 23 The ability to regulate the use of land is one of the most basic indicia of governmental authority. The U.S. Supreme Court long ago recognized that, in order to protect the health and welfare of a community, a government must be able to exercise comprehensive regulatory powers over lands within its borders. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); See also, Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit articulated an important rationale for protecting tribal control over Indian Reservations: ... [S]ubjecting the reservation to local jurisdiction would dilute if not altogether eliminate Indian political control of the timing and scope of the development of reservation resources, subjecting Indian economic development to the veto power of potentially hostile local non -Indian majorities. Local communities may not share the usually poorer Indian's priorities, or may in fact be in economic competition and seek, under the guise of general regulations, to channel development elsewhere .... Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 532 F.2d 655, 664 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 429 U. 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). In 2008, the Jefferson County Superior Court issued its decision in Quinault Indian Nation v. Sea Crest Land Development Co., Inc. In that decision, the court considered the applicability of QIN land use regulation of the parcel currently at issue, when Sea Crest proposed to build a single building. At that time, the court determined that "construction of a small single family cabin" was not "such an activity that [would allow] the Tribe to impose its zoning and land use regulations on property owned by a non -Indian under the Supreme Court decisions cited [in the decision]." Memorandum Opinion and Order, at 7, Case No.: 07-2-00377-0 (Filed 2/19/08). However, the court went on to say that it did not "intend to stamp its approval on the issuance of the building permit by Jefferson County Department of Community Development without requiring a similar permit to be issued by the Quinault Tribe." Id. The scope of this Project, of course, is significantly greater than the initial development. In that case, the court expressly pointed to the relatively small scope as a factor that contributed to the court's conclusion. However, the expanded scope of this Project underlines the court's direction that the County recognize QIN zoning provisions. Jefferson County zoning authority, in this case, runs the risk of "eliminat[ing] Indian political control of the timing and scope of the development of reservation resources." 532 F.2d at 664. While QIN carefully manages Reservation patterns of development, Jefferson County administrative offices are some three hours away, in an entirely different area of the Peninsula. Jefferson County priorities and QIN priorities are not necessarily aligned. This development threatens to create a domino effect of encouraging other development in this otherwise pristine and generally undeveloped area. This development, and the potential for additional such development, threatens the health and welfare of the Quinault people and their natural resource- based economy base by altering the natural character of the Reservation upon which the Quinault Page 3 of 23 people rely for their cultural and spiritual connection to the land, the ocean, fish, shellfish and wildlife. C. Ouinault Indian Nation Codes at Issue The Project Proposal ignores QIN jurisdiction and fails to account for the following requirements Jefferson County must consider as part of its review of the Project application materials. 1. Title 48 — Land Use and Development As mentioned above, the QIN has regulated development on its Reservation for decades. Its current Land Use Development Code dictates zoning and designated uses that must be applied to this Project. See Exhibit C. 2. Title 52 and Beach Use Regulation By regulation adopted pursuant to Title 52 of the Quinault Tribal Code, the Quinault Business Committee has closed the beaches of the Reservation to non-members unless those nonmembers are in the presence of a tribal member. (See Exhibits F and G). That regulation states that "Beach lands of the Quinault Indian Nation ... are closed to any person other than an enrolled member of the Quinault Indian Nation except as provided herein 3." R52.01. That closure reflects a long- standing policy of the QIN. As part of its prior development of two cabins on the Project site in 2007-2008, Sea Crest cut a road through the coastal bluff to the coastal dune area below it, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the beach. (See Exhibit H). QIN has routinely observed ATV and pedestrian use from this parcel on its closed beach. In an effort to eliminate this unlawful use, QIN has previously communicated this beach closure to Jefferson County, affected property owners, and Sea Crest management, by letters in 2012. (See Exhibits I, J, and K, respectively). These letters explain the beach closure and the ramifications of that closure on property owners. Nonetheless, the VRBO website advertising the existing Sea Crest cabins goes to great lengths to assert that guests will enjoy beach access.4 Those assertions include statements that "the driftwood -lined beach alone is worth the entire trip out here," and lists "boogie boarding, beach jogging, ... beach walks, tide pooling, [and] driftwood," as activities that guests might enjoy while staying on the property. The management of the existing cabins already disregard QIN policy, and adding 24 cabins to the existing two cabins will inevitably lead to conflict. 3 The exceptions provided in the regulation include guests of tribal members; guided, permit -holding fishing clients; QIN staff and contractors; and persons authorized to use the beaches at the discretion of the Quinault Business Committee.. Beach Use Regulation. y hlt Wff e. W E r11O.L'On.1/7.1055 3 Page 4 of 23 In fact, that disregard has created friction between guests, QIN law enforcement, and Jefferson County law enforcement. One example of such friction occurred August 2, 2014, when two QIN Resource Protection officers reported an interaction on the beach in the vicinity of Sea Crest with two individuals that were guests of Sea Crest. Upon being informed by the QIN officers that they were trespassing on QIN property, the guests responded by claiming that Sea Crest had informed them that Sea Crest owns the beach. The guests' claim (but not the underlying assertion) was supported by a phone call that the QIN officer had that night with a Jefferson County Deputy who asserted that Sea Crest owns property into the ocean. See attached Exhibit L. Again, this claim is contrary to the Executive Order creating the Reservation, and Opinions of the State Attorney General's Office and Department of Interior. (See above). This level of blatant disregard for QIN laws will only increase if Sea Crest is allowed to multiply its number of guests twelvefold. Such an increase will significantly impact QIN tribal members' ability to use their beach and impact QIN's law enforcement activities. In sum, this proposed Project triggers significant jurisdictional conflicts that would be best addressed through government -to -government consultation. II. LAND USE ISSUES ARISING UNDER STATE AND COUNTY LAW A. Lack of Zoning/Land Use Designation Must Result. in Deference to ()IN To begin, Jefferson County has never zoned the Quinault Indian Reservation. Rather, the official "Jefferson County, Washington Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Designations Map"5 (Adopted per Resolution 72-98, August 28, 1998, and amended as recently as November 4, 2013) depicts the Reservation as "Quinault Indian Nation" and includes no use designations or other classification. Additionally, the Jefferson County website provides a Jefferson County Comprehensive Map - Land Use Designations that includes land use designations for the western portion of the county. "West Jefferson County land use designations continue to be presented in the 1998 map style in separate PDF files for the west portion (256 kb) and the east portion (210 kb) of the West End. ,6 On the map of the "west portion," the area comprising the Quinault Reservation is covered in diagonal lines (West End Map) along with the words "Quinault Reservation." A separate document, which serves as a legend or key to the 1998 map, identifies the diagonal lines as "Quinault Tribal Reservation." This understanding was in place when the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. Within the "Findings of Fact in support of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan adopted August 28, 1998" (Findings of Fact) is a bulleted list of the Land Uses, which includes the following designation: "Lands under tribal control (i.e. Hoh and Quinault tribal reservations)." 5 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/itljiis/pdfs/""otiing36Rpdf 6 http://www.eo.jefferson.wa.us/ccem[ntlevel(ipme[iI/mttpindex.htm Page 5 of 23 This language, it is to be noted, follows an earlier resolution of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, which directed the Jefferson County Planning Department to draft comprehensive plan language that would incorporate "all lands of the Quinault Tribal Reservation located in Jefferson County." Res. 65-90, adopted 6/18/90, attached as Exhibit M. The resolution states that, in the absence of such language, "no construction or land development permit will be issued by Jefferson County unless a similar construction or land development permit is issued first by the Quinault Indian Nation." Id. In addition, by Jefferson County's own code, "No land shall be subdivided or developed for any purpose which is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or applicable provisions of this code." JCC 18.05.020 Finally, under the Washington State Planning Enabling Act "guiding and regulating the physical development of a county, by which Jefferson County obtains its authority to zone (Chapter 36.70 RCW), after a map is adopted, any area that is not zoned on a map "shall be given a classification affording said properties such broad protective controls as may be deemed appropriate and necessary to serve public and private interests." RCW 36.70.780. The Reservation HAS been given a classification, on a map that Jefferson County put forward as its official map. That classification is "Quinault Reservation." (West Jefferson County land use designations, west portions). Accordingly, Jefferson County has no authority under state law, its Code, or its Comprehensive Plan to authorize development on the Quinault Indian Reservation under any land use designation of its own and must defer to the QIN's zoning and land use designations and applicable land use laws. B. ,Jefferson County's Asserted Density Allowance is Inapt The Project application asserts an "Undesignated Rural Residential within Jefferson County's West End Planning Area (WEPA)." (SEPA checklist, A.12). Putting aside the issue of Jefferson County's failure to ever zone the Quinault Indian Reservation or establish a use designation, the Project application's assumption of a Rural Residential designation and 1 unit per 5 acres density do not conform to this assumed designation because the Project area is sparsely developed and largely non-residential. The Jefferson County Code says of the 1:5 district designation that: The purpose of this district is to allow for continued residential development in areas of Jefferson County consisting of relatively high density pre-existing patterns of development, along the county's coastal areas, and within areas within or adjacent to rural centers and rural crossroads. In addition, this district seeks to support and foster Jefferson County's existing rural residential landscape and character by restricting new land divisions to a base density of one unit per five acres. Page 6 of 23 18.15.015 (1)(a). The proposed Project is a high density tourism -directed development, located in an area of very low density. There are only a handful of homes north of the Queets River in this portion of the Reservation. The "pre-existing pattern of development" of the area is one cabin, small and individually -owned, per parcel, with little clearing of the properties in the vicinity, and generally used seasonally as a single family residence, This Project is not consistent with the area's character of minimal development in keeping with the pristine nature of this portion of the Reservation, but, instead, would increase the number of people by shoehorning two dozen additional buildings onto the parcel for a density that is approximately one unit per one acre. To assert that the project would align with existing use or density misreads the facts of the area and is patently incorrect. If the County ignores the QIN's zoning restrictions and purports to permit this development, in keeping with past practices in development of this area, it would be more consistent to require a density of 1:10 or 1:20. III. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES WITH PROJECT APPLICATION A. Master Application Form The Project application on the Jefferson County website is undated and unsigned. This presents several issues. First, and most fundamentally, the application is simply incomplete without that information. Second, while the application reviewer is directed to contact the "Authorized Agent/Representative" with project information, the absence of that individual's actual signature creates a potential vacuum. It is simply unclear to whom should be attached ultimate responsibility for the information asserted in the application, because no individual has actually affixed his or signature. Finally, the lack of a date on the application creates a problem for the tolling of any statutory periods. For example, it is unclear why July 21St was set as the due date for the comment period. B. Conditional Use Permit Application The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application asserts that the Project, when completed, would be "a rural recreational lodging per chapter 18.20.350(1) of the Jefferson County code." Such lodging would be a "small-scale recreation and tourist use," and subject to requirements that include, in relevant part, "compatib[ility] with the rural character of adjacent lands and shorelines," (18.20.350 (3)(j)(i)); "[a]dequately protects environmentally sensitive areas including surface and groundwater resources," (id. at (iv.)); a restriction against "creat[ing] a development pattern that constitutes low density sprawl; ... or be otherwise incompatible with or injurious to the rural character of the area." (id. at (v)). If the requirements of this section cannot be met, "the use must be denied." Id. at (3)(k). The CUP asserts that the additional clearing and construction "will be screened from Highway 101 and will not be visible to the traveling public." However, as the Reasonable Economic Use Variance points out, "the property is ... relatively long and narrow." It is difficult to conceive of Page 7 of 23 how an additional 24 cabins, along with the guests' cars, would not be visible from Highway 101 on such a narrow building site. In claiming that the "conditional use [would] have merit and value for the community as a whole" the CUP also asserts that the Project will provide economic opportunities, but these opportunities appear limited. "Construction of the new cabins will occur primarily offsite," (CUP, at 2). Moreover, the cabins, when operational, are geared towards self-sustaining guests, with small kitchens (Project Description, at 2) and propane tank for cooking (id. at 1). Noting that no entities listed on the Application are community residents, it is unlikely that the Project would actually "have merit and value for the community as a whole." The addition of twenty four buildings is incompatible with the rural character of the area, and would drastically alter that rural character. Additionally, as is demonstrated elsewhere in this comment letter, the Project as proposed would not adequately protect environmentally sensitive areas. (See below at D. SEPA Checklist) Accordingly, the Project does not meet the requirements for a "small-scale recreation and tourist use" and must be denied. C. Reasonable Economic Use Variance Under JCC 18.22.090, a reasonable economic use variance may be granted only if seven findings can be made demonstrating unique hardship. The project, as proposed, fails to satisfy even the first finding, which requires that "[n]o reasonable economic use with less impact on the critical area or its buffer is possible." JCC 18.22.090(4)(a). Noting that the existing development does not encroach into the buffers and setbacks, it appears that a single-family home per lot would still be an economically viable use. The wetland and the setbacks do not preclude all development or value of the properties. The presence of the coastal lagoon does not create a sufficient hardship that would allow for the issuance of a variance to allow this project to proceed as proposed. Under this variance, the Project must "not cause degradation to surface or ground water," (id. at (4)(e)), and must comply "with all federal, state and local statutory and common law," (id. at (4)(f)), but the Project's insufficient SEPA checklist leaves significant questions as to the compliance with both of these requirements. See infra at D. When considering approval of a variance, the County should take into consideration not only the monetary value of the project to the property owner, but also the negative effects that the project may have on the local ecosystem. If, as the applicant states, the coastal lagoon is unique to the Jefferson County coast, the ecological value to shoreline and migratory species is great enough that the County should not reduce its buffer by half. This is not an instance of asking for a variance to allow for the building of a home on an otherwise unbuildable lot by reducing the setback by a foot or two. This proposal would halve the size of the buffer by a distance of 100 linear feet. Page 8 of 23 The applicant asserts in the Variance Application narrative that the "buffers, setbacks and unbuildable areas within the site make it impossible to provide a project that is otherwise allowed for this property." However, the proposed use is subject to a conditional use permit; therefore, the use is not an as -of -right use and is not specifically an "allowed" use. Like a variance application, a conditional use permit application is a request for treatment of land in a way not otherwise permitted within the particular zoning district. The appropriateness of a project given of the subject parcel should be a consideration during review of a use permit and the permit not issued as a matter of course. In this case, the comments herein demonstrate this Project as proposed is not suitable for this requested variance. D. SEPA Checklist The vast majority of the responses in the Project SEPA checklist are woefully inadequate. Regardless, based on the review we conducted and the various comments included in this letter, the QIN believes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project to be significant and warrant an Environmental Impact Statement under SEPA. Specifically, we note the following: Section A. Background • Question 7 needs to state specifically what future plans for the Project site consist of. • Question 9 does not list any state or federal permits that will be required. The Project will require, in addition to those permits and applications listed, a State HPA, a federal section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act for mitigation taking place in a wetland adjacent to a "Water of the U.S.," as well as additional Quinault Indian Nation permits. A state JARPA form should also be completed for these applications. Section B. Environmental Elements • Question I should indicate a Yes or No response and describe/summarize the findings of the referenced geotechnical report. • Question le only addresses total affected area and does not address approximate quantities of fill, excavation or grading. Sources of fill materials are not specified either. ■ Question lh needs to define "SWPPP." The proposed 30 ft buffer for "most" places is not adequate for reducing erosion or other impacts to the earth. The setback needs to be in all places and should be the standard setback required in Jefferson County Code, not just 30 ft. • Question 2a does not address all emissions that would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed. Later responses in the Energy section of the SEPA mention that the cabins will have propane storage tanks, the use of which will contribute to emissions. Additional vehicle traffic will also contribute to emissions. The project plans indicate the number of proposed fire pits, yet it is not specified the approximate quantities of emissions from these fire pits. Page 9 of 23 • Question 2c should specify, for example, the size of allowed fires, posting/enforcement of burn bans, and the material allowed to be burned etc. • Question 3a (1) fails to mention the proposed mitigation site. The proposed mitigation site is a wetland adjacent to a "Water of the U.S." because it is the headwaters of a stream which eventually flows into the Pacific Ocean. • Question 3a (3) states that this question does not apply to the proposed Project when in fact it does. The proposed mitigation plan indicates the amount of area that will be affected by fill or dredge material. • The response to Question 3a (5) is inaccurate. The geotechnical report states that the toe of the slope is within the meander zone of the mouth of the Queets River. Large woody debris was observed at the site that could only have been deposited by the river or the ocean well within the last 100 years. • There is no response to Question 3a (6). • Question 3b responses need to describe impacts to groundwater in the context of these questions. • Question 3c responses need to address the particular information requested and not just reference a separate document that may or may not contain the requested information. • It appears that at least partially in Question 4a responses from a different or example application were not deleted as evidenced by the bold text. The responses not in bold are inadequate based on personal observation of the site from the adjacent parcel, which include: Stereocaulon grande, Carex obnupta, Athe rium filix femina, Salix sitchensis, Carex macrocephala, Plantago lanceolata, Lotus corniculatus, Callitriche heterophylla, Blechnum spicant, Hypochaeris radicata, Picea sitchensis, Tsuga heterophyla, Gaultheria shallon, Lonicera involucrate, Rubus spectabilis, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Holcus lanatus, Galium palustre, Racomitrium canescens, Rumex acetosella, Rumex occidentalis, Alnus rubra, Angelica lucida, Fragaria chiloensis, Lathyrus japonicas, Lilaeopsis occidentalis, Elymus mollis, Potentilla anserine, Tanacetum bipinatum, Orthotrichum lyellii, Trientalis borealis, Scapania bolanderi, Dicranum scoparium, Rhizomnium glabrescens, Lichenomphalia umbellifera, Oenanthe sarmentosa, Aira praecox, Vaccinium ovatum, Agrostis stolonifera, Cephaloziella divaricate, Eleocharis palustris, Juncus sp., Carex lyngbyei, Juncus ensifolius, Iris pseudacorus, Juncus effuses, Artimisia suksdorfii, Anaphalis margaritacea, Ranunculus repens, Ulex europaeus, Vulpia myuros, Hypnum circinale, Cladonia furcate, Rubus lacineatus, Peltigera sp., Cladonia sp., Cirsium arvense, Senecio vulgaris, Senecio jacobea, Sonchus asper, Rubus ursinus, Maianthemum dilatatum, Polystichum munitum, Fontinalis sp., Scleropodium sp., Rubus armeniacus, and Trifolium pretense. • Question 4b asks for the amount of vegetation that will be removed or altered. "Some" is not an amount. "Mostly small spruce and salal in upland area" is not specific enough. The response should include a list of species that will be impacted/removed. • Question 4c is not adequately addressed. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act as either endangered or threatened are known to occur in or near the project Page 10 of 23 area. These species are mapped here: littix//ecos.fws. Fo€ v/ccp0/reports/specie.s-listed-by- state-report7state=W A&,,tat us -1 isted • The response for Question 4d is copied from 4b, which does not provide an appropriate response. The response states that "native species will be planted or transplanted," but it is not specified how many, where exactly, and which species. The response to Question 4e should specify the number/estimated of individual scotch broom plants. "Miniscule" is too vague of a response. During the site visit I observed several other invasive species (from the Highway 101 right-of-way using binoculars) such as Iris pseudacorus, Senecio jacobea, Lotus corniculatus, Hypochaeris radicata, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera, Ulex europaeus, Ranunculus repens, Vulpia myuros, and Rubus armeniacus. Question 5a should have included the following: Birds: American goldfinch, Barn swallow, belted kingfisher, brandt's cormorant, brown pelican, common merganser, Marbled murrelet, northern pintail, northern shoveler, crow, peregrine falcon, red knot, red-tailed hawk, rufous hummingbird, common raven, common snipe, cooper's hawk, great blue heron, gull multiple species, kill deer, long - billed curlew Many species of small mammals: voles, mice and rabbits, raccoons, skunks Larger carnivore species include: black bear, coyotes and bob cats Ungulate species include: Roosevelt elk and black -tailed deer The estuarine habitat supports river otter, beavers and muskrat. Question 5b needs to be field verified or explained by giving supporting documentation. There was no documentation confirming that there was a protocol survey, or documentation from the QIN or Olympic National Park that the area contains no ESA habitat or species. Marbled murrelet potential nesting habitat that could use old-growth characteristic forests stands near the coastline for nesting are contained on Project parcel. Large coastal spruce trees contain potential platforms 4" to 7" in size. Red knot often feed on their migration routes along intertidal and marine environments and are likely present on the Project site. Question 5c states that it is unknown if the Project site is part of a migration route. In fact, the site is located within the Pacific Flyway. The habitats found on the proposed action area will support a wide diversity of resident and migratory birds that consists of waterfowl, shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds and birds of prey. Migratory birds are defined as any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle_ These species of birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Quinault Indian Nation's coast line contains some of Washington State's most diverse and undeveloped migratory corridors for migratory birds. This migratory route Page 11 of 23 along the Quinault Indian Nation Coast is referred to as the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway is filled with estuaries, shorelines, beaches, mouths of streams and rivers, mudflats and coastal lagoons. Coastal habitats provide important nesting and foraging areas for breeding and migrating birds. These habitats also provide seasonally for large populations of shorebirds and waterfowl. The coast line sheltered waters provide for wintering waterfowl and seabirds including ducks, gulls and shorebirds (Hickey 1995). It is estimated that 20,000 waterfowl migrate through Grays Harbor (Atkinson 1993). In addition neotropical migratory birds use nearly all of the vegetative habitats in the proposed areas including lagoons forests and landscaped areas. Necotropical birds include most songbirds, shorebirds and raptors. These birds migrate from summer breeding grounds to wintering areas in Central and South American Tropics. Within this proposed action area coniferous forests and coastal lagoons provide the most significant habitats for terrestrial birds. The Coastal lagoon provides very valuable habitat for a variety of raptors, waterfowl and songbirds. • Question 5e should provide documentation showing how it was determined that there are no invasive animal species present. • Question 7a does not provide adequate documentation that there are no historical environmental health hazards. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment should have been conducted in order to identify these potential hazards. If there are any system failures of the propane tanks, up to and including explosion, surely the occupants of the proposed project would require emergency services. Yet the response indicates that no additional emergency services will be required. The response should also indicate what measures will be taken to reduce or control environmental health hazards. • Question 8a asks about what the current use of the site is. The response lists the current zoning. Zoning does not equate to current use. The response also fails to mention the current use of adjacent properties. The proposal will likely affect the adjacent properties in the form of increased emissions, noise, foot and vehicle traffic, etc. • Question 8g should be filled out. Jefferson County recently adopted their updated Shoreline Master Program. • Question 8h refers to critical areas present at the site. The whole reason for the Variance application is to reduce the required wetland buffer, yet the response to this question fails to mention that wetlands and steep slopes, which are critical areas, are present at the site. • Questions 8k thru m lack responses altogether. • Question 9c lacks a response. • Question l lb requires further documentation that shows how the additional lighting that goes along with the proposed project will interfere with the views of the adjacent property owners. One of the reasons many people move to or visit this area is to escape Page 12 of 23 light pollution and be able to see the night sky. The additional lighting that this project will construct would remove this opportunity. • The response to Question 12a just lists places instead of identifying designated and informal recreational opportunities. • The response to Question 12b should mention that the Pacific Ocean Beach is closed to the public and only registered Quinault Indian Nation members are allowed to enter the beach unless accompanied by a Quinault member. Since the proposed project improves access for non -tribal members accessing the beach, this impacts the registered Quinault members who use this area of the beach. The proposed project increases the likelihood that more non -tribal members will trespass on the Quinault Indian Nation owned beaches. • The responses to Question 13 require a professional archeologist to provide documentation which has not been performed. Culturally significant areas are located on the Quinault Indian Reservation and in the surrounding Usual and Accustomed areas. These sites are historically important to the Quinault's beliefs, customs and practices. These sites play an important role in the community. There was no consultation done with the QIN on culturally significant areas on the Reservation. • The response to question 14a refers to a highway 14, which is nowhere near the site. + Question 14f requires a traffic study to be conducted, which has not taken place. The application cannot be considered complete until this occurs. E. Water Supply The QIN does not currently regulate water use on non -Indian fee parcels with the Quinault Indian Reservation so asserts no concurrent jurisdiction over this aspect of the Project. For its water supply, per Appendix E, this Project intends to rely on two ground water right claims filed with the State of Washington Department of Ecology in 1971. Neither of these claims, however, provide a lawful water right that can support the County's approval of an "adequate water ... system" required under JCC 15.05.050. Washington adheres to the prior appropriation doctrine of water rights, under which an appropriator confirms an intent to use water for a beneficial use. Offield v. Ish, 21 Wash. 277, 280-81, 57 P. 809 (1899). Early on, the Washington State Legislature established permit systems that adopted this doctrine and created a centralized water right administration system. The Washington Water Code of 1917 (Chapter 90.03 RCW) applied to permitting the diversion of surface water, and the Ground Water Code of 1945 (Chapter 90.44 RCW) applied to permitting 7 "For those structures, uses, or developments that require review for adequate provision of water and sewage disposal, no building permit shall be issued unless and until application for the permit has been approved by the Jefferson County department of health and human services. The department of health and human services shall review applications to ascertain whether the property does or will have an adequate water and sewerage system." Page 13 of 23 the withdrawal of ground water. Each of these codes requires that water rights meet four criteria for the be met in order to be granted by the state: 1. beneficial use (not wasteful); 2. water is available; 3. no impairment to existing rights; and 4. not detrimental to the public interest. By the 1960s, the Legislature realized that records for water rights established hefore the 1917 surface water code and the 1945 ground water code (known as claims) were incomplete. In 1967, the Legislature adopted the Water Rights Claims Registration Act (Chapter 90.14 RCW) to allow for the filing of claims to water use prior to 1917 for surface water, and prior to 1945 for ground water. See RCW 90.14.041 and .043. It is under this open registry opportunity that claims were filed for ground water use on the Project parcels. On their face, they do not meet the requirements of a valid claim since they indicate the "Date of First Putting Water To Use" as "June 1971" (Claim 005777) and "Unknown, T' (Claim 0057778). Additionally, both claims indicate no water was being "Presently Used" at the time of the claim filings in May 26, 1971. Accordingly, these claims cannot be relied upon as a legitimate right to water supply for the Project. Appendix E also indicates the Project will "be submitting for system approval under water right exempt status as outlined in RCW 90.44.050[.]" State law limits the total amount of water under this exempt permit for group domestic supply to 5,000 gallons per day (gpd). The report at Appendix E assumes a rate of 50 gallons per day per camper (gpdc) based on Water System Design Manual (DOH Publication #331-123, REV. 12/09) designation of "Cottage, seasonal occupancy." This likely represents a significant underestimation of water use, which means reliance on an exempt well for this water supply is questionable. It is more appropriate to designate the Transient Community as "Luxury (per camper)" with a projected use of 100 — 150 gpdc. The application materials repeatedly refer to this Project as "1 bedroom luxury cabins" and contemplate year-round use rather than seasonal. This higher, more reasonable water use assumption is also more consistent with the state's recommended assumption for water systems of 350 gpd Maximum Daily Demand per Equivalent Residential Unit. WAC 246-290-22. The QIN recommends requiring revised water system analysis based on this more appropriate designation including addressing the corresponding need for additional storage capacity. Finally, the QIN recommends Jefferson County impose conditions on the use of this water system to insure no more than 5,000 gpd are withdrawn, including the requirement for a meter with quarterly reporting to the County and state Department of Ecology. G. Wastewater Discharge The QIN regulates wastewater through regulations adopted under Title 61 (attached as Exhibit N). The County should coordinate with the QIN for consistency. Page 14 of 23 1. Septic The septic system plan provided in Appendix F is cursory at best and does not provide adequate information upon with the QIN can provide detailed comments. The proposed drainfields may constitute Class V injection wells regulated by the EPA under the Underground Injection Well Program 40 C.F.R. Part 144 because this parcel is included within the definition of "Indian Country": "(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of- way running through the reservation;" (Emphasis added). 40 C.F.R. § 144.3. Accordingly, QIN is not reviewing the septic plan for consistency with any legal requirements, but in the event the EPA does not have jurisdiction, QIN questions the adequacy of the septic proposal to either comply with applicable regulations or to ensure protection against leaching to lagoons below the bluff. A drainfield at a depth of 6' rather than a more shallow drainfield results in minimal treatment to the sewage and a greater threat of pollution of ground or surface water. QIN asserts the application is incomplete and Jefferson County should require more specific information to be submitted as part of the Project proposal in order to clarify whether this system falls under EPA jurisdiction, as well as provide an additional comment opportunity to address this. 2. Storm Water No substantive information is provided with the Project application materials. There is a statement in the "Kalaloch Cabins Project Description" that "(Additional storm water information can be found in Appendix H.)" however, no such Appendix was provided to the QIN or is included in the materials on the Jefferson County Project Laserfiche WebLink. We note that no percolation or infiltration tests have been completed to determine the feasibility of the use of swales. The water table on this site is high, which will be exacerbated by additional tree removal and the creation of additional impervious surface area. This should be accounted for. Additionally, it is unclear where the "vegetated swales" and "small retention areas" will be located or whether they may result in discharge to waters of the United States below the bluff, triggering the need for federal NPDES permits. Accordingly, QIN asserts the application is incomplete and Jefferson County should provide an additional comment period when this Appendix is provided. H. Habitat Management Plan iIIMP1 The QIN provides the following concerns with the HMP: Nowhere in the HMP is it specified what kind of wetland mitigation would take place. It should be specified and quantified, including which ecological functions are impacted Page 15 of 23 and how they will be accounted for. The HMP also should specify if the wetland mitigation is creation or enhancement. • Nowhere in the HMP temporal loss of ecological function accounted for. Mitigation does not automatically or instantaneously account for the loss of ecological functions elsewhere on the site. • The HMP assumes that the existing use of the site was permitted. The wetland that was unlawfully filled for the staging area and is proposed as the mitigation site was not permitted in the first place. See Exhibit H. The applicant should have to restore this area regardless of the outcome of the application. • The plant species list is severely lacking (see comments above regarding the SEPA checklist). Known rare plant populations nearby are not noted. There are no moss/lichen species listed despite the western Olympic Peninsula being known for a high epiphyte diversity, and rare species that only occur along the coast. • There is soil information available through the Quinault Indian Nation Department of Natural Resources, however, no soil information is provided in the HMP. • Some citations of Jefferson County ordinances are for ordinances that have been repealed. The HMP should only cite current Jefferson County ordinances. • The description of critical habitat as defined by Jefferson County Ordinance is inadequate. • The HMP provides no project alternative that shows how many cabins could be built if the variance is not granted. • Table 3 is a chart of NMFS/USFWS critical habitat, but the values are not defined and there are no maps of these areas provided in the HMP. • In section 5.2 Wildlife, it states that it is not known if species or critical habitat occurs within the project envelope. This sentence contradicts all other sections that describe the various species that are present or could potentially be present at the site. • The mitigation site, despite being filled without a permit several years ago, is technically still a wetland. The wetland delineation report does not include a map or rating of this wetland despite it being in the National Wetland Inventory. Page 16 of 23 • The monitoring report should be completed prior to any action taking place, not after the construction of the project. The description of the monitoring plan assumes that no monitoring will be required after 5 years, which is unrealistic given its proximity to vectors for invasive species and unauthorized mechanical disturbances. The performance standards are also unrealistic, stating that there will be 100% survival of planted natives etc. and 100% removal of invasive species. The wording of the performance standards is suspicious saying "Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas." What does targeting mean? Only the ones that are targeted will be removed? Other areas of the proposed project area will have invasive species that should also be removed because they will be a seed source. • A reduced buffer would create additional opportunities for invasive species to become established in the coastal lagoon wetland. • There is no comment in section 6.3 Compliance with Jefferson County Mitigation Requirements — 5th bullet point acknowledging the requirement that the applicant post a bond or provide other financial surety equal to the estimated cost of the mitigation in order to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully. I. Wetlands We note the "Kalaloch Cabins Wetland Delineation & Rating Report," dated May 18, 2016 is not publicly available on the Laserfiche WebLink site where the Project application materials are posted. This oversight should be remedied and an additional comment period provided to the public. Coastal lagoon wetlands represent an extremely rare wetland type, not only on the Reservation, but throughout coastal Washington State. The coastal lagoon wetland below the bluff on the Project site, in particular, is valuable because it is part of the relatively undisturbed Queets River estuary, where all Quinault Indian Reservation Coastal Lagoon wetlands are located. According to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update: Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than I ac are Category I wetlands because they are rare and provide unique natural resources that are considered to be valuable to society. These wetlands need a high level of protection to maintain their functions and the values society derives from them. Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water mix, are among the most highly productive and complex ecosystems where tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients and organic matter are exchanged among terrestrial, freshwater and marine communities. This availability of resources benefits an enormous variety of plants and animals. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most visible. However, there is also a huge variety of other life forms in an estuarine wetland.• for example, many kinds of marine diatoms, macro -algae, and invertebrates are found there. Estuarine systems have substantial economic value Page 17 of 23 as well as environmental value. All Washington State estuaries have been modified to some degree, bearing the brunt of coastal development pressures through filling, drainage, port development, and disposal of urban and industrial wastes. The over -harvest of certain commercial species has also modified the natural functioning of estuarine systems. Many Puget Sound estuaries, such as the Duwamish, Puyallup, Snohomish, and Skagit, have been extensively modified. Up to 99% of the wetlands in some estuaries in the state have been lost. Estuarine wetlands are also put into a separate category because the indicators used to characterize how well a freshwater wetland functions cannot be used for estuarine wetlands. No rapid methods have been developed to date to characterize how well estuarine wetlands function in the state at the time of this update. If this Project is approved, the Quinault Indian Nation will lose valuable ecosystem services provided by this unique wetland type. Moreover, the County should take careful note that there is a significant legal issue related to the ownership of the coastal lagoons on the Project site—a question governed by federal, not state, law. Hughes v. State of Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967). The lagoons likely constitute remnants of the Queets River or Queets River estuary. (See aerial photos dated 1967 and 1977 attached as Exhibits O and P). Under federal water boundary law, when avulsion (a rapid change in a water channel) occurs, ownership of the original underlying bed of a navigable water remains. See, Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359 (1892); Bureau of Land Management, Manual of Surveying Instructions (1973). In this case, the Queets River is a navigable water within the boundaries of the Quinault Indian Reservation, which was established prior to statehood in 1889 at the signing of the Treaty of Olympia in 1855 and the subsequent establishment of the Quinault Reservation by Executive Order in 1873. Ownership of the bed of the Queets River, then, did not pass to the state at statehood because it was previously reserved to the Quinault Indian Nation. Additionally, following are specific comments on the Wetland Delineation and Rating Report: Under Section II. General Site Conditions, first paragraph, 6`" sentence it states that there is an "8 foot wide drainage ditch... was likely used to turn wetland into usable heavy machinery staging area." No permit was issued for this work. The proposed mitigation plan consists of re -disturbing this same site, and the application does not include a Clean Water Act section 404 permit, which is required when conducting work in a wetland adjacent to a Water of the U.S., which this wetland area is. Under section III. Methodology, 4th paragraph, 3rd item lists that the wetland scientists used a GPS unit, but they should specify the make/model and the accuracy they were getting during field investigations. The maps provided do not include the points used to map the delineated wetland, generating suspicion as to where precisely the wetland edge is located. Page 18 of 23 • Under section IV. Background Information, Soil Survey section, it states that soil information was not available. The QIN has soil survey information, but was not contacted by anyone conducting the field investigations. The QIN also has wetland maps in this area of the Reservation, which are more accurate and up to date than the NWI maps used in this report. • Under Section V. Wetland Delineation Results, subsection A. Coastal Lagoon, subsection 1. Vegetation, subsection A. Wetland Vegetation, they list 24 species. This species list is highly suspicious based on the plant list generated during a site visit to the adjacent parcel on 7-15-16, which consisted of 67 species. The wetland scientists should have performed multiple site visits during the growing season in order to capture the actual plant diversity present at the site. This list is also suspicious given that data sheets were improperly filled out with plant information. • Under Section V. Wetland Delineation Results, subsection A. Coastal Lagoon, subsection 2. Soils, they describe the soil profiles down to 16 inches in the BW pit and to 12 inches in both upland pits. Soil pits should be dug to a depth of 20 inches because some hydric soil indicators may not be present in just the upper 12 inches. Test pits were only 16 inches deep in the slope wetland as well. • There are 4 references that are not cited in the text of the report. • For the BD sample point data form, the Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators section is not complete. The soil pit was only dug to 12 inches. Test pits must be dug to 20 inches. • For the BW sample point data form, the Prevalence index worksheet is not filled out. The soil profile is only described to 15 inches. Test pits must be dug to 20 inches. • For the 1D sample point data form the Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators section is not complete. The soil profile is only described to 12 inches. Test pits must be dug to 20 inches. • For the IW sample point data form the Prevalence index worksheet is not filled out. Only the first 6 inches of the soil profile are described. Test pits must be dug and the soil described for 20 inches. 8 NRCS, "Field indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S." http://www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres 142p2_050723.pdf Page 19 of 23 • For the SID sample point data form the Prevalence index worksheet and the Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators section are not filled out. The soil profile is only described to 16 inches. Soil profiles must be described for 20 inches. • For the S IW sample point data form the Prevalence index worksheet is not filled out. The soil profile is only described to 16 inches. Soil profiles must be described to 20 inches. • For the S41) sample point data form, the Hydrophytic Vegetation Present question is checked for both yes and no. This needs to be clarified. The soil profile is only described to 16 inches. Soil profiles must be described to 20 inches. • For the S4W sample point data form the Prevalence index worksheet is not filled out. The soil profile is only described to 16 inches. Soil profiles must be described to 20 inches. • The report refers to the mitigation area wetland as part of a "loose mosaic" (not a technical term) of "seasonally flooded, palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands" that "currently hold little or no environmental value." The site was more valuable before it was filled without permits, and it is not up to the wetland scientist to make a judgement statement such as this. The site provides water quality, water quantity, and habitat functions, just to name a few values. Seacrest Lagoon For the Rating Summary with the wetland name "Seacrest Lagoon" the Overall Wetland Category is indicated as "X." X is not a category. For this rating the wetland scientist did not provide maps of hydroperiods and Cowardin plant classes which are required to answer questions correctly for depressional wetlands in Western Washington. Question 3 in the dichotomous key to Hydrogeomorphic Classifications of wetlands in western Washington is not filled out, yet Question 4 is. Under Habitat functions, section H 1.3 1 point is given for the wetland having 5-19 species that cover at least 10 square feet. This number is suspicious given the high diversity of plant species found during a site visit to the smaller coastal lagoon wetland approximately 300 ft. to the south (67 species). This section should give the wetland 2 points which would raise the site potential for habitat functions to High. In section H 3.0 the wetland is given 1 point, however it should be given 2 points because an additional priority habitat (totaling 3) was not indicated. Mature forest is located within 100 meters which is not indicated on the WDFW Priority Habitat Page. This would change the rating of value for section H3.0 to a High. The categorization based on special characteristics is not properly filled out. Page 20 of 23 Klaloch Slope Wetland • For the Rating Summary with the wetland name "Klaloch Slope Wetland" the Overall Wetland Category is indicated as "X." X is not a category. • Maps of the Cowardin plant classes, hydroperiods, plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, plant cover of dense rigid trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants, and waters listed under 303(d). • In section H1.1 there are 4 Cowardin plant classes checked, but in section 1.4, when it says if there are 4 plant classes the rating for interspersion of habitats is always high, the wetland scientist indicated a moderate rating. This rating should be changed to High and gives the wetland 3 points for this section. • The WDFW Priority habitat "Old-growth/Mature Forests" is present adjacent to this wetland, yet it is not indicated in this rating form. This changes the score for section H3.0 from 1 to 2. Mitigation Ratios for Western Washington According to table 1 a Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency region 10 March 2006 Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1) Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a Olympia, WA, Category 1 Coastal Lagoon wetland reestablishment or creation is not considered possible. No amount of mitigation would be able to account for the lost ecological functions due to the reduced buffer. J. Cultural and Historic Resources An archaeology survey must completed for this site because it has a high likelihood of containing historic, cultural and archaeologic resources. Formal consultation with the Quinault Indian Nation and other affected Indian tribes should also be required. In the mid -nineteenth century, Indian tribes located in what is now Jefferson County, included the Chem-a-kum (or Chimacum), Hoh (a subset of the Quileute), S'Klallam (or Clallam), Quinault, Queets, Snohomish, and Twana (or Quilcene), among others. By signing the Point No Point Treaty and the Quinault River Treaty in 1855, local Indian tribes ceded their lands and waters to the United States, reserving the right to continue fishing, hunting, and gathering in the ceded territories. After the treaties were signed, settlement proceeded rapidly. Page 21 of 23 The Quinault Indians first called this coastal land "Kalaloch" or "good place to land" as the site was one of the few safe landing sites for canoes along the coast. The Pacific Ocean is a major thoroughfare through the Queets area. Accordingly, large winter villages were often along the coastline, usually on defensible terraces. Seasonal satellite groups would branch out to other resource areas such as upriver, to the Olympic Mountains, tide pools and rockeries, along the coastline to take advantage of migratory resources such as birds, large mammals (whale, seals), and wild game, all of these required resource procurement and processing sites, spiritual isolation, and burials located nearby. (See Exhibit Q for map of historic use used as an exhibit in federal litigation regarding treaty fishing rights). These activities required a staging area, meaning that local leaders needed an area to set up a site to formally greet visitors as they arrived to barter, visit, and perhaps be invited to partake of resource acquisition. In addition, seasonal acquisition processing and habitation sites were set up to harvest and gather food, medicinal and textile products for immediate and long-term use, stores for overwinter use as well as extras for trading items. Offshore mammal hunting also required beach launching, procurement, processing sites. In 1902, Laettia Moon, Conard, PhD (university of Idaho) noted that the north banks of the Queets River (near the mouth) were heavily populated with above ground burials and later in 1905, on the south bank the Bureau of Indian Affairs established a modern cemetery requiring below ground burials. These are documented archaeological sites in Jefferson County near Kalaloch and they are on the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic preservation database on WISSARD. Clam Harvesting Clam harvesting was, and still is, an important activity within the Quinault homeland. If fact, in the Quinault language, the word ta'aWsh xa'iits'os means "clam hungry." The Quinault have traditionally been dependent on harvesting the many different types of clams that can be found up and down the reservation's shorelines. Because of this, a lot of information has been provided regarding the locations of clamming in the past and today. Clamming is not only a part of the Quinault culture it has also been a source of economic value. Butter Clams, Razor Clams, Horse Clams, mud clams and short neck clams have all been mentioned as collected on the Quinault Reservation. In a transcribed 1976 interview, Beatrice Black asserts that Razor Clams are best if harvested in May and thought to be poisonous in the month of August. Horse clam shells were used as spoons. Ronald Olson writes that mud clam shells were used to scrape the scum off of boiled whale. (Orwick, 1976) Anthropologist Hodge documents that there were huge shell middens along the coastal shoreline. ONP anthropologist Jacilee Wray noted a midden at the Kalaloch campground trail development, Smelt Page 22 of 23 Elders historically shared stories of smelt harvesting in the Kalaloch area. They say it is a prime location for smelt runs. During the mid -1900s (1920-1970) they would use smelt dipping nets scooping the smelt from the surf, filling wooden boxes which were then carried, lifted and hoisted up to trails and eventually to what is now Highway 101. When David Hudson, Hoh Tribe council member and fisheries/natural resources tribal representative, was a boy, he would ride with his dad in their Model A south along the coast from the mouth of the Hoh River to fish for smelt. "We got 100 pounds in one scoop of a dip net back then. Nowadays, our younger generation have gillnet seines and they can barely fill a cooler with smelt," he remarked. Smelt, like the other abundant resources of the ocean, forest and rivers, were included in meals at family gatherings, naming parties and memorials. Kathy Dickson, a lifetime Hoh Valley resident and daughter of prominent pioneer, Elizabeth Fletcher Barlow, also remembers smelting from her childhood as "a really wet and fun family activity. We cleaned and flattened out the fish, floured and fried them. They were delicious." In addition to their cultural and dietary significance to humans, smelt and other `forage species' are a critical prey item for seabirds, salmon and countless other animals. Their abundance is vital to the health and diversity of the ocean. Although high numbers of individual forage fish exist worldwide, many of these species are vulnerable to overfishing, as well as changes to ocean conditions and degradation of spawning habitat. In conclusion, thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to meeting to discuss them through government -to -government consultation. Sincerely, Fawn R. Sharp, President Quinault Indian Nation cc (excluding attachments): Jefferson County Commissioners Michael Haas, Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County Gretchen Kaehler, Assistant State Archaeologist, DAHP Page 23 of 23