Public Comments Received on the CORE Comprehensive Plan Amendments as part of the periodic update.

This document was last updated on 7/1/2019. SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

Comment Unique ID: 100

May 31, 2017

Commissioner John Hutchings Commissioner Gary Edwards Commissioner Bud Blake Thurston County Commissioners and Board of Health Thurston County Courthouse, Building One, Room 269 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Olympia, WA 98502-1045

Re: Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update

Dear Commissioners:

The Squaxin Island Tribe ("Tribe") greatly appreciates the opportunity to submit preliminary comments on the update to Thurston County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The Tribe, as a sovereign government, co-manager of fish and wildlife, and holder of senior unadjudicated instream flow rights, looks forward to a collaborative process that results in thoughtful planning, sustainable growth, and real protection to and restoration of fish habitat. We respectfully urge the County to update the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in a way that addresses the challenging issue of water availability, by which the County ensures that groundwater is legally available to supply water to new development without harming senior instream flows required for fish. The Tribe stands ready to assist at this early stage in the update process.

The Tribe is pleased about two statements in the County's Scope of Work. First, it states that the update's purpose is to bring the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations into compliance with state law and court rulings. We assume that the latter includes the Supreme Court's Hirst decision, which requires counties to take affirmative action to ensure that groundwater is legally available to support development, and prohibits reliance on ineffective Ecology Water Resources Inventory Area ("WRIA") rules that perpetuate proliferation and non- regulation of permit-exempt wells at the expense of fish habitat. Additionally, the Tribe is pleased that the update will address impacts from climate change. The cumulative de-watering

1

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE / 10 S.E. Squaxin Lane / Shelton, WA 98584 / Phone (360) 426 -9781

Fax (360) 426 -6577 www.squaxinisland.org Comment Unique ID: 100 of fish streams by permit-exempt wells is only compounded by the predicted water scarcity that accompanies climate change in Western Washington.1

A meaningful update to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations is greatly needed. Thurston County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations as written exacerbate longstanding problems because they allow growth without ensuring that groundwater is available without harm to senior water rights — which include instream flows. Groundwater that is in hydraulic continuity with surface waters having unmet instream flows or subject to closures, may not be legally available. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor development regulations appear to require any showing that water is legally available before the County issues building permits or approves subdivisions that will rely on permit-exempt wells.

The remainder of this letter provides information about the Tribe's interest in this important issue; the impact of unregulated, proliferating permit-exempt wells; the rules that govern instream flows and closures; the risks of maintaining the status quo; the requirements of the GMA and state water laws; and various ways to ensure sustainable development in the County's rural areas.

The Tribe's interest

The Tribe is extremely concerned about the impact of depleted fish-bearing waters on its federally protected rights. In return for relinquishing vast acreage, the Tribe in the Treaty of Medicine Creek reserved the right to fish on all runs that pass through its "usual and accustomed" fishing areas ("U&A"), as well as to sufficient instream flows to support productive fish habitat. The Tribe's U&A includes all of Southern Puget Sound south of Tacoma Narrows. United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 378 (W.D. Wash. 1974). Within this U&A, the Tribe also holds unadjudicated federal reserved instream water rights in amounts that are sufficient for healthy salmon production. See, e.g., United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394, 1410- 11 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1252 (1984); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905).

The impact of unregulated, proliferating wells

At stake here is the steady, cumulative dewatering of fish-bearing streams by proliferating and unregulated permit-exempt wells that are hydraulically connected to compromised fish-bearing streams. Permit-exempt wells are categories of wells that, by statute, are exempt from the Groundwater Code's permitting requirement. RCW 90.44.050. They include wells that withdraw less than 5,000 gallons per day for domestic or industrial uses. Importantly, permit- exempt wells remain subject to all other limitations of Washington water law and are subject to curtailment and regulation. Hydraulic continuity refers to the fact that water can move from

1 See, e.g., EPA, Climate Impacts in the Northwest, www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/clinnate-impacts-northwest.

2 Comment Unique ID: 100 the groundwater to surface waters and vice versa, such that groundwater withdrawal can affect surface water.

Although the water volume a single permit-exempt well uses is small, the cumulative effect of permit-exempt wells in a given watershed can be significant. That is why statements about the overall small amount of water consumed by permit-exempt wells statewide is misleading. The Tribe has a fixed number of fish-bearing waters within its U&A, and cannot seek better fishing areas elsewhere once a stream's fish habitat deteriorates through dewatering, warming and otherwise. Anadromous fish must have sufficient quantities of clean and cold water throughout their life cycles. Less fresh water means less fish habitat, which means less fish for the Tribe to harvest. Reduced flows also lead to higher temperatures that harm anadromous fish habitat. Also, as temperature rises, dissolved oxygen decreases in shallow water, making it less habitable for salmonids.

Rules governing instream flows and closures

Ecology's WRIA rules establish minimum instream flows and closures for numerous streams in Thurston County. See, e.g. WRIA 13 (WAC Ch. 173-513), WRIA 14 (WAC Ch. 173-514). Instream flows are specific stream flow levels (measured in cubic feet per second) at a specific location on a given stream, and usually change from month-to-month. Closures recognize that when a creek's surface flows are insufficient to meet existing rights and provide adequate base flows, surface water is unavailable for appropriation during that period — whether by surface diversions or withdrawals of groundwater in hydraulic continuity. In watersheds where instream flows are unmet during times of the year, or where there are closures, groundwater may be physically accessible but not legally available for withdrawal.

Instream flows for those creeks listed in Ecology's rules are surface water rights with priority dates as of when Ecology adopted the rules. As such, these instream flow rights trump all later surface and groundwater rights, including permit-exempt withdrawals. Moreover, the Tribe has yet-unquantified reserved water rights under federal law for sufficient fish flows, and these federal rights are senior to all rights created by state law.

Risks of maintaining the status quo

The County does a disservice to applicants and increases its own risk when it finds that water is available without first asking for evidence that new wells will not impair senior instream flows. The County needs to inform applicants that having a water right, including one attached to a permit-exempt well, does not shield them from the possibility that they may not be able to take water at certain times. Water rights can be curtailed when necessary to protect senior instream flow rights, as is the case in Skagit County and elsewhere. Unless Thurston County or the state takes action, the Tribe at some point may seek to curtail certain water withdrawals in order to achieve instream flows. Up-front planning is always preferential to later curtailment.

3 Comment Unique ID: 100 If no one asks if groundwater is available without harming senior rights (consumptive or instream) before buildings and subdivisions are approved, then the cumulative effect of unregulated permit-exempt wells will increase. Salmon habitat will shrink and degrade. Less salmon will return to Washington streams. This is exactly the "uncoordinated and unplanned growth" that the GMA disfavors, and infringes on the Tribe's federal treaty rights. See RCW 36.70A.010.

Requirements of the GMA and state water laws

Accordingly, the Tribe has a vested in interest in ensuring that the County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations comply with state law. The GMA requires local governments to protect ground and surface water, to ensure that land uses are compatible with fish and wildlife, and to address water availability in its Plan and development regulations. Comprehensive plans are guided by fourteen goals, the tenth of which requires that the County "Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air, and water quality, and the availability of water." The GMA discourages construction that cannot be supported by available water resources. Moreover, state law requires that the County, whenever possible, carry out its powers in a manner that is consistent with protecting instream flows, respecting closures, and not sanctioning land and water use that conflicts with senior instream flow rights. RCW 90.54.090.

The Comprehensive Plan's Rural Element must include measures that apply to rural development and protect rural character by "Protecting critical areas...and surface water and groundwater resources." "Rural Character" means patterns of land use and development in the Rural Element that are compatible with fish habitat and consistent with protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater recharge. The Land Use element must "provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies." RCW 36.70A.030(15)(d) and (g), .070(1) and (5)(c)(iv).

The GMA also mandates that the County require building permit applicants, for those buildings needing potable water, to provide "evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use of the building." RCW 19.27.097. For subdivisions, the County must make a recommendation on the adequacy of the proposed means of water supply. RCW 58.17.150. The County's findings must address both physical and legal water availability. Legal availability means the applicant must prove it has a right to take the water. The County's water adequacy regulations should be designed to produce "enough data to make such a determination, addressing both water quality and water quantity issues." WAC 365-196-825. The County must obtain this information and make water adequacy findings before approving building permits or subdivisions. If the County has technical or legal questions about water availability, it should consult with the Department of Ecology.

GMA regulations further require that the County include the "best available science" when developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical

4 Comment Unique ID: 100 areas (which include fish-bearing streams), and must give "special consideration" to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. RCW 36.70A.172(1). Including best available science in the development of critical areas policies and regulations is "especially important to salmon recovery efforts, and to other decision-making affecting threatened or endangered species." WAC 365-195-900. The County's development regulations must be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.040(4)(d).

Using best available science means that the Comprehensive Plan update reflects a quantitative understanding of the impact of land use and groundwater use on senior water rights, including instream flows. The update will be incomplete if it does not incorporate sustainable groundwater use into the County's land use planning.

There is much work to do. The current Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are devoid of directive language that restricts or conditions new development relying on wells throughout the rural area, when those wells could be in hydraulic continuity with streams having unmet instream flows or closures. Accordingly, wells associated with buildings and subdivisions will continue intercepting water that is otherwise needed to meet instream flows or during periods that closures are in effect. Directive language would ensure that surface waters and fish habitat in Rural Areas are protected, as the GMA requires. The Plan and development regulations also fail to comply with the GMA by presuming the legal availability of water throughout the Rural Areas, which is certainly not the case.

And, for the above reasons, neither the Plan's policies nor development regulations comply with the GMA by employing best available science to protect the functions and values of streams when it comes to ensuring the required flows for fish. They also deviate from the GMA by not affording "special consideration" to conservation and protection measures necessary to preserve and enhance anadromous fisheries. Rather, the current Plan and development regulations ensure that the County will continue making planning and land use decisions that are incompatible with protecting instream flows and stream closures, and in derogation of senior instream flow rights.

These defects violate the GMA and are errors that require correction in the update. The County should correct these defects or risk following the path now seen in Skagit County where that county continued approving new buildings and subdivisions despite the lack of legally available water. Also, please understand that current efforts to reverse the Hirst ruling through legislation will not reduce the current overappropriation of water, or insure the long-term sustainability of rural development. A drastic legislative "fix" will just increase the stakes when Indian tribes seek to declare and enforce their federal reserved water rights to instream flows, which are both senior to state instream flows and often reserve more water. See United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394, 1410, 1414 (9th Cir. 1983).

5 Comment Unique ID: 100 GMA compliance means that the County cannot keep doing business as usual by only ensuring that water is physically available before approving new buildings and subdivisions; by failing to ask the applicant to submit evidence demonstrating that water is legally available for the intended use; by ignoring the best available science; by failing to seek Ecology's technical and water rights-related assistance; and by engaging in unsound and unsustainable planning practices.

Some ways to ensure sustainable development in Thurston County's rural areas

Finally, there are tools available to the County to ensure sustainable rural development that include: (1) reducing densities or intensities of uses; (2) limiting impervious surfaces to maximize stream recharge; (3) imposing low impact development standards; (4) requiring water conservation and reuse; (5) encouraging the use of reclaimed water; (6) developing mitigation options; (7) directing growth to urban rather than rural areas; (8) using water banks; (9) extending physical piped water infrastructure to support new development or to augment stream flows; (10) encouraging the development and use of water storage facilities; and (11) requiring that exempt wells be metered and limit their use.

To conclude, we respectfully ask that the County update its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in a way that satisfies the legal mandates of water availability, sustainable development, and protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The Tribe looks forward to working closely with the County during this important process.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Arn Id Cooper, Chairman Squaxin Island Tribe

cc: Brent Butler, Resource Stewardship Director, [email protected] Cynthia Wilson, Planning Manager — Resource Stewardship, [email protected] Allison Osterberg, Senior Planner, [email protected]

6 Comment Unique ID: 101

Input for the Thurston Comprehensive Plan Update Ag Section – Chapter 3 (section I and V) and Economic Dev - Chapter 8 Loretta Seppanen and Bill Zachmann on behalf of South of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust (SSCFLT) November 5, 2017

South of the Sound Community Farmland Trust (SSCFLT) was founded in 1997 in Olympia, Washington by a small group of local food advocates, sustainable farmers, and other interested community volunteers. SSCFLT received its IRS 501(c)(3) designation in 1999. The mission is to promote vibrant local food and farming systems through community supported farmland preservation strategies, educational outreach, and partnerships that increase opportunities for farms and farmers to flourish.

Chapter 3 – Natural Resources

Recommended overall Policy statement: Policy statement: Promote preservation of agricultural land for agricultural uses, minimize non-farming uses on agricultural lands; and develop incentive programs to promote farming - no net loss of current total farm production acreage to non-farm/agricultural use acreage.

Guiding Principles – (include these or reword objectives) • Preserve agricultural land for agricultural use and limit new non-ag uses and activities on ag land • Provide education and support services that maintain the farming economy and lifestyle • Promote the economic benefit to the county of farming

Intro to include language like the Number of Farms by Size, following: (From recent Ag Thurston County Producers Needs Assessment) - 700 The number of very small Thurston County faces trends that farms is growing; changing challenge the viability of agriculture in 600 the ag landscape in the the region. These include long-term county. 500 trends in farmland loss (6,500 acres Farms under 50 acres in size since 2000; 90,000 since 1950; an aging 400 are the norm in Thurston farm population (average of 59 in Thurston County); development 300 pressure (126,000 new residents by 200 2040) pushing up farm start-up costs such as for land; the continued loss of 100 large farms1 and contiguous farmland; new food safety and conservation 0 1 to 9 acres 10 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 999 1,000 acres regulations; and corporate entry into acres acres acres or more local and sustainable food markets that shifts conditions for high-value farm- 2002 2007 2012 direct sales through farmers markets, Source: US Ag

SSCFLT Comp Plan Input Ideas Page 1 Comment Unique ID: 101 farm stands and box subscription programs (CSAs).

Since 2000, there has been a growth in the number of small farms in the county due to high-value farm- direct sales through farmers markets, farm stands and box subscription programs (CSAs)

Remove out dated references: The plan says: “For Thurston County, the predominant parcel size is 20 acres or more, which, in conjunction with soil type, provides economic conditions sufficient for managing agriculture lands for long-term commercial production.” However, a major change in ag in Thurston County in the past two decades has been the growth of small farms. The number of farms under 10 acres in size has grown 77% since the 2002 Ag Census. In the 2012 census 44% of farms in the county were 10 acres or less in size. The Census does not show acreage 10 to 19, but based on the available data, it is reasonable to assume that slightly more than half of all farms today are less than 20 acres (that compares to 41% in 2002.)

Keeping Farmland in Production: The current wording describes farming viability as a result of external market forces; thus placing no requirement on the county to take action. There is, however, much the county has control over that can impact farming viability: promoting a local market for products (some counties have county or regional branding campaigns, for example) and addressing the pending generational transfer crisis. Here is data from the National Young Farmers Coalition that could fit into the chapter related to generation land transfer crisis:

• In the National Young Farmers Coalition’s 2011 survey of over 1,000 farmers across the country, 68% listed access to land as a challenge. • Three-quarters of farmers in our 2011 survey didn’t come from farming backgrounds, meaning they aren’t in a position to inherit land. • Farm real estate is more expensive than ever—average prices have more than doubled since 2004. In many cases making it is impossible for farmers to pay for their land using agricultural profits alone. • Farmland prices are being driven up beyond what a farmer can afford or reasonably pay off on a farm income due to competition from developers and estate, or second home, purchases. • Young farmers are entering agriculture with significant debt from student loans and other sources, reducing their ability to access the necessary credit and capital to buy land. • Land around urban areas can be more than double the cost of rural land – yet this is where farmers need to be located for their businesses to be successful if they are participating in a direct market model. • Two-thirds of all farmland (573 million acres or 63%) will need a new farmer over the next two and a half decades as older farmers retire. • 10% of all farmland in the contiguous US and 25% of rented land is expected to transfer ownership in the next 5 years.

Goals and Policies section: This section has the common problem of being uneven in when something is regarded as a goal, objective, policy or action step. That needs a good review and clean up. Here is wording that could clarify some of the items already in the document:

SSCFLT Comp Plan Input Ideas Page 2 Comment Unique ID: 101

• Use Conservation Futures: Promote the preservation of ag land for use as farmland by recommending purchases of land or agricultural conservation easements by qualified nonprofit organizations.

• Agricultural Conservation Easements: (in this chapter use the modifier “agricultural” in front of conservation easements as these are special versions of conservation easements with stipulations designed to keep the land permanently in ag use, to the extent that is it is possible to use an easement to do that.)

• (this from Skagit Valley’s Comp plan could be added) Donation of Ag Conservation Easements: Where legally subdivided land would promote incompatible residential development, encourage the voluntary donation of ACEs or other development restrictions to the county or to a qualified nonprofit organization for the purpose of preserving the perpetual ag use of the land.

Other Changes in Policy that could be recommended: Wording about events at the farm, farm businesses in the area, deed restrictions on residential nearby to know the farms are there and have rights, strategies to keep future farmland purchase costs lower. (Language mostly from Skagit Valley Comp Plan) • Residential Setbacks: All residential development adjacent to ag land shall be set back from common property lines in order to protect ag from the impacts of incompatible development and to mitigate against the effects of ag operation on the residential development • Deed Restrictions: All real estate transactions involving residential development on or within one mile of agricultural land shall contain recorded documentation of the residential owners’ acknowledgment of the potential farming activities and receipt of the Right to Farm information. • Farm Based Business: Farm-based businesses shall be allowed as an accessory use in Ag Land. Farm-based business are an accessory use, secondary to the primary ag use of farm property, and shall not interfere with adjacent farming operations, cause nuisances for nearby residences or generate large amounts of traffic. • Serve as Information Resource on Sustainable Agricultura: Information will be made available about sustainable agricultural practices, best management practices. Create and facilitate opportunities to promote and market ag products grown or processed in the county through local branding. • Support Services: Facilitate agricultural production by allowing agricultural processing facilities, direct farm sales and agricultural support services that support long term agricultural use in areas zoned long-term agriculture. • Support the Agricultural Advisory Board for the purpose of promoting a viable Agricultural land base and health agricultural economy. • Promote Education: Encourage educational programs for public schools related to the importance of local agriculture as part of the basic education of the county’s youth. Emphasize the contributions of agriculture in the county and need to protect and preserve this valuable resource base.

SSCFLT Comp Plan Input Ideas Page 3 Comment Unique ID: 101

• Farm Transition Planning: Encourage other agencies to sponsor financial and estate planning with emphasis on options to protect farmland and farm transition planning.

Chapter 8 – Economic Development

Need to have a section in this chapter about agriculture. While Ag represents about 1.4% of total Thurston employment it is a critical industry sector that is left out of the discussion in the current chapter.

One approach to keep it at the top of mind is to use a chart like this one used in Skagit Valley with Ag (though small) at the top of the list because the chart is in alpha order (Thurston county has about 2,000 people employed in Ag in last several years, but a growth from a decade ago:

The ag sector can be described as state below (not described in current language):

Thurston County enjoys significant economic and community benefits from agricultural activities, with over $122 million in agricultural sales (4th among Puget Sound counties; top ten statewide in livestock sales), an increasing number of farmers, and steady increase (4%) in sales between the most recent U.S. agriculture census cycles. Like the nation as a whole, the long-term trends in Thurston County are farmland loss (6,500 acres since 2000; 90,000 since 1950); an aging farm population (average of 59 in Thurston County); development pressure (126,000 new residents by 2040) pushing up farm start-up costs such as for land; the continued loss of large farms1 and contiguous farmland (Figs 1, 2); new food safety and conservation regulations; and corporate entry into local and sustainable food markets

Since 2000, there has been a growth in the number of small farms in the county due to high-value farm- direct sales through farmers markets, farm stands and box subscription programs (CSAs)

SSCFLT Comp Plan Input Ideas Page 4 Comment Unique ID: 101 Strength and Weaknesses: The current chapter does not have this type of analysis, but it could be added. In describing our regions strength for economic development, include that geographic proximity to the major markets for farm products in King and Pierce counties and not too great a distance to the Portland markets. In those larger urban areas less land remains in agricultural production, thus increasing the value of the specialized ag products from Thurston County, if we can maintain farmland, rebuild farming infrastructure including storage and process facilities and keep adequate transportation routes to the larger urban areas.

A weakness for our area is the threat that farmland on high quality agricultural soils could be lost to development including second homes rather than remaining in farm production.

Include reference to the policies in chapter 3 that are the need for the county to develop incentives for farmland preservation - for example purchase of development rights which can reduce reliance on subdividing the land to raise operating capital for a farm.

SSCFLT Comp Plan Input Ideas Page 5 Comment Unique ID: 102 816 Second Ave (206) 343-0681 Ext. 118 Suite 200 [email protected] Seattle, WA 98104 futurewise.org

March 28, 2018

Comprehensive Plan Update ATTN: Allison Osterberg Thurston County Long Range Planning Division 2000 Lakeridge Dr. SW Olympia, Washington 98502

Dear Ms. Osterberg:

Sent via U.S. Mail and email to: [email protected]; [email protected]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Thurston County's Comprehensive Plan Update. Futurewise strongly supports the update. We do have several suggestions for improving the update discussed below.

Futurewise works throughout Washington State to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable, and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests, and water resources. Futurewise has members across Washington State including Thurston County.

Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Update Scope of Work states that as part of the update to the land use element, the county will “[r]eview provisions for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies[.]”1 We strongly support this part of the scope of work.

The Washington State Supreme Court held in the Kittitas County decision that “the County must regulate to some extent to assure that land use is not inconsistent with available water resources. The GMA directs that the rural and land use elements of a county’s plan include measures that protect groundwater resources. RCW 36.70A.070(1), (5)(c)(iv).”2

The rural element must also protect rural character.3 “‘Rural character’ refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive

1 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Update Scope of Work p. 5 (Feb. 2017) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/comp-plan/comp-plan- update.htm?utm_source=Open+House%3A+March+27+and+March+31+Comprehensive+Plan+Update&ut m_campaign=Comprehensive+Plan+Open+Houses&utm_medium=email 2 Kittitas Cty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144, 178, 256 P.3d 1193, 1209 (2011). 3 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) and (c). Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Page 2 Comment Unique ID: 102 plan … consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater and surface water recharge and discharge areas.”4

Much of the water in Thurston County “has already been spoken for.”5 The instream flow rules applicable to the river basins in the county close and partially close numerous rivers and streams to additional water with diversions and withdrawals as well as adopt instream flows for other streams and creeks.6 These rules limit new water uses. New water appropriations need mitigation for the impacts of their use of water will have on surface water bodies and on groundwater.7 The Laws of 2018, ch. 1, §§ 101, 202, and 203 require mitigation payments and updated basin plans for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 11 the Nisqually basin, WRIA 13 the Deschutes basin, WRIA 14 the Kennedy-Goldsborough basin, WRIA 22, the Lower Chehalis basin, and WRIA 23 the Upper Chehalis basin.8

As part of the review of the provisions for the protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater, Futurewise recommends that Thurston County adopt densities in its land use element and rural element consistent with available water resources. We also recommend that the update adopt the regulations required by Laws of 2018, ch. 1.

The rural element must protect rural character.9 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) also requires that:

The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development; (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area;

4 RCW 36.70A.030(16). 5 State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, Focus on Water Availability Nisqually Watershed, WRIA 11 p. 1 (Publication Number: 11-11-016: Nov. 2016) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1111016.html and enclosed with the paper original of this letter; State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, Focus on Water Availability Deschutes Watershed, WRIA 13 p. 1 (Publication Number: 11-11-018: Nov. 2016) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1111018.html and enclosed with the paper original of this letter; State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, Focus on Water Availability Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed, WRIA 14 p. 1 (Publication Number: 11-11-019: Nov. 2016) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1111019.html and enclosed with the paper original of this letter; State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, Focus on Water Availability Lower Chehalis & Upper Chehalis Watersheds, WRIAs 22 & 23 p. 1 (Publication Number: 11-11-027: Nov. 2016) https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1111027.html and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 6 Id. at pp. 1 – 2. 7 Id. 8 Also referred to as ESSB 6091 and accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6091-S.SL.pdf. 9 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) and (c). Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 3

(iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and groundwater resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170.

Thurston County has prepared a series of reports analyzing the impacts of the allowed growth in various water basins and recommending measures to protect water quality and habitats including reducing the permitted densities in parts of the basins.10 We recommend that those measures be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan update.

Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout also has many helpful recommendations to protect salmon and the other fish and wildlife that depend on them such as the orcas. We recommend that those recommendations be adopted as measures to protect rural character. They include:

 Limiting impervious surfaces and retain native vegetation and native soils.11 We also recommend provisions calling for retaining native vegetation and native soils. These measures will protect water quality and quantity, and better protect fish and wildlife habitats, and help assuring visual compatibility of rural development.

 “Discourage new dwelling units or expansion of existing structures within the [channel migration zone] CMZ.”12 “Allow no development in CMZ plus 50 feet.”13 Exceptions must be mitigated and not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. Like directing development away from floodplains, this measure will protect fish and wildlife habitat and people and property.

Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Update Scope of Work states that as part of the update to the comprehensive plan the county will “[r]eview and update policies for agriculturally designated

10 Thurston Regional Planning Council & Thurston County, Deschutes Watershed Land Use Analysis: Current Conditions Report pp. 57 – 58 of 142 (Dec. 29, 2015); Thurston Regional Planning Council & Thurston County, Guiding Growth – Healthy Watersheds: McLane Creek Basin Water Resource Protection Study p. 40 (June 2015); Thurston Regional Planning Council & Thurston County, Guiding Growth – Healthy Watersheds: Black Lake Basin Water Resource Protection Study p. 39 (June 2015) copies of the reports are enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 11 K. Knight, Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout p. 42 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington: 2009) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/ and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 12 Id. at p. 71. 13 Id. Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 4 lands limiting nonagricultural uses.”14 Futurewise strongly supports this aspect of the work plan. As the American Farmland Trust explains:

To make substantial progress protecting farmland in the Puget Sound region, minimum parcel size would be at least 40 acres and preferably larger. This would ensure that parcels will remain large enough to allow commercial agriculture in the future, help prevent residential development of farmland, and keep per-acre land values down to a level affordable to farmers.15

Professor Arthur Nelson agrees writing that “[l]ot sizing for agriculture at up to 40 acre densities merely causes rural sprawl.”16 Agricultural zoning should have a minimum lot size and density of one dwelling units per 40 acres like the Nisqually Agricultural District.

The American Farmland Trust also explains that:

Non-agricultural uses of land in agricultural zones can lead to conflicts between farmers and other residents over the sounds, smells, and appearance of normal agricultural activities. However, it is important that farmers be allowed to operate businesses associated with farm production, such as farm stands and processing facilities. In general, a short list of allowable uses restricted to farming, farm-related businesses and other compatible uses is desirable.17

We support this recommendation.

The list of prime farmland soils on pages 3-4 and 3-5 of the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan were the soils that the County used to designate agricultural resource lands of long-term

14 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Update Scope of Work p. 5 (Feb. 2017). 15 Dennis Canty, Alex Martinsons, and Anshika Kumar, Losing Ground: Farmland Protection in the Puget Sound Region p. 9 (Jan. 2012) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: https://4aa2dc132bb150caf1aa- 7bb737f4349b47aa42dce777a72d5264.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/Losing-Ground-Farmland-Protection-in-the-Puget- Sound-Region.pdf and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 16 Arthur Nelson, Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon 58 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 467, 471 – 74 (1992) enclosed with this letter. The Journal of the American Planning Association is a peer-reviewed journal. Journal of the American Planning Association Instructions for Authors webpage p. 1 of 8 enclosed with this letter. 17 Dennis Canty, Alex Martinsons, and Anshika Kumar, Losing Ground: Farmland Protection in the Puget Sound Region p. 9 (Jan. 2012). Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 5 commercial significance.18 These lands have the “Agriculture” designation and “Long-Term Agriculture (LTA)” zoning. This list, however, is not a complete list of the prime farmland soils in Thurston County. On May 20, 2014, Thurston County adopted Resolution No. 15019 which amended the soils criteria for agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance to provide that “[t]he enumerated list of prime farmland soil types below is not intended as exclusive criteria.”19 This statement continues to be a part of the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan.20

However, Thurston County has not reconsidered the designation of agricultural lands using the current list of prime farmland soils. Therefore, there is an inconsistency between the designation criteria in the comprehensive plan which requires consideration of all prime farmland soils and the agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance designated on Thurston County’s Future Land Use Map. Thurston County needs to update the designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance using the full list of prime farmland soils as part of the current comprehensive plan update. Futurewise, as part of a 2013 settlement agreement with Thurston County, agreed not to file an appeal challenging this inconsistency until after June 30, 2016 when the parties anticipated that Thurston County would complete is comprehensive plan update and update the designations of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. We respectfully request that this inconsistency be corrected as part of this update.

Increasing the designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance is necessary protect working farms from development. “More than 700 acres of farmland were developed between 2000 and 2011” in the Deschutes Study Area.21 Another 3,726 acres of farmland in the Deschutes Study Area is vulnerable to development under the current comprehensive plan and zoning.22 As the American Farmland Trust concluded:

Based on our estimations, most agricultural land is classified as RRR 1/5, which allows one dwelling unit for every five acres. Farmland in this zone is on smaller property sizes, dispersed among residential properties, and allows for many residential uses. Generally, agriculture in rural residential zones is poorly protected from developmental pressures. With large areas of farmland within the RRR 1/5 zone, the County is apt to experience increased conversion to non-farm uses in the future.23

18 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Chapter Three -- Natural Resource Lands p. 3-4 (Revised 01/14) and accessed on March 26, 2018 at: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/comp- plan/docs/2009/comprehensive-plan-chapter-03.pdf 19 Thurston County Resolution No. 15019 Attachment F cited pages enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 20 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Chapter Three -- Natural Resource Lands p. 3-4 (Revised 01/14). 21 Thurston County and the Thurston Regional Planning Council, Deschutes Watershed Land Use Analysis: Scenario Development Report p. 11 (Nov. 2016) enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 22 Id. at p. 30. 23 Dennis Canty, Alex Martinsons, and Anshika Kumar, Losing Ground: Farmland Protection in the Puget Sound Region (Jan. 2012) Appendix B: Thurston County Scorecard p. 21. Appendix B accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://extension.wsu.edu/thurston/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/01/Thurston-Co-Agricultural- Protection-AFT.pdf and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 6

At 19 percent, Thurston County has the second lowest percentage of farmland in agricultural zoning of the eleven Puget Sound counties.24 Increasing the land designated as “Agriculture” and zoning the land “Long-Term Agriculture (LTA)” with a more protective minimum lot size and other improvements can protect the farmland from being paved over for development.

Since the Geologic Hazard Areas goal, policies, and regulations where last amended, the March 22, 2014, Oso landslide “claimed the lives of 43 people, making it the deadliest landslide event in United States history. Of the approximately 10 individuals who were struck by the landslide and survived, several sustained serious injuries.”25 Landslide hazards are capable of damaging property at significant distances. The 2014 Oso slide ran out for over a mile (5,500 feet) even through the slope height was 600 feet.26 Recent research shows that long runout landslides are more common than had been realized.27 This research documents that over the past 2000 years, the average landslide frequency of long runout landsides in the area near the Oso landslide is one landslide every 140 years.28 The landslides ran out from 787 feet to the 2,000 feet of the 2014 landside.29 The 2013 Ledgewood-Bonair Landslide on Whidbey Island extended approximately 300 feet into Puget Sound.30 In a study of shallow

24 American Farmland Trust, Assessment of Farms and Farmland Protection Programs in Puget Sound Counties – DRAFT p. 13 (Oct. 2013) and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 25 Jeffrey R. Keaton, Joseph Wartman, Scott Anderson, Jean Benoît, John deLaChapelle, Robert Gilbert, David R. Montgomery, The 22 March 2014 Oso Landslide, Snohomish County, Washington p. 1 (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER): July 22, 2014) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://www.geerassociation.org/index.php/component/geer_reports/?view=geerreports&layout=build&id=30 enclosed with the paper original of this letter. If the American territories are included, then the Oso landslide is the second deadliest landslide in American history. R.M. Iverson, D.L. George, K. Allstadt, Landslide mobility and hazards: implications of the Oso disaster 412 EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS 197, 198 (2015). 26 Jeffrey R. Keaton, Joseph Wartman, Scott Anderson, Jean Benoît, John deLaChapelle, Robert Gilbert, David R. Montgomery, The 22 March 2014 Oso Landslide, Snohomish County, Washington p. 56 & p. 144 (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER): July 22, 2014). 27 Sean R. LaHusen, Alison R. Duvall, Adam M. Booth, and David R. Montgomery, Surface roughness dating of long- runout landslides near Oso, Washington (USA), reveals persistent postglacial hillslope instability GEOLOGY pp. *2 – 3, published online on 22 December 2015 as doi:10.1130/G37267.1; Geological Society of America (GSA) Data Repository 2016029, Data repository for: Surface roughness dating of long-runout landslides near Oso, WA reveals persistent postglacial hillslope instability p. 4 both enclosed with the paper original of this letter. Geology is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Geology – Prep webpage accessed on Feb. 1, 2018 at: http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Publications/Journals/Geology/GSA/Pubs/geology/home.aspx#overview and enclosed with enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 28 Sean R. LaHusen, Alison R. Duvall, Adam M. Booth, and David R. Montgomery, Surface roughness dating of long- runout landslides near Oso, Washington (USA), reveals persistent postglacial hillslope instability GEOLOGY p. *2, published online on 22 December 2015 as doi:10.1130/G37267.1. 29 Geological Society of America (GSA) Data Repository 2016029, Data repository for: Surface roughness dating of long- runout landslides near Oso, WA reveals persistent postglacial hillslope instability p. 4. 30 Stephen Slaughter, Isabelle Sarikhan, Michael Polenz, and Tim Walsh, Quick Report for the Ledgewood-Bonair Landslide, Whidbey Island, Island County, Washington pp. 3 – 4 (Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 7 landslides along Puget Sound from Seattle to Everett, the average runout length was 197.5 feet (60.2 m) and the maximum runout length was 771 feet (235 m).31

In addition to protecting people from natural hazards, updated geologically hazardous regulations also protect a family’s largest asset: Their home. Homeowners insurance does not cover the damage from landslides. “Insurance coverage for landslides is uncommon. It is almost never a standard coverage, and is difficult to purchase inexpensively as a policy endorsement.”32

None of the Oso victims’ homes were covered by insurance for landslide hazards.33 And that is common when homes are damaged by landslides.34 For example, on March 14, 2011, a landslide damaged the home of Rich and Pat Lord.35 This damage required the homeowners to abandon their home on Norma Beach Road near Edmonds, Washington. Because their homeowners insurance did not cover landslides, they lost their home.36 This loss of what may be a family’s largest financial asset is common when homes are damaged or destroyed by landslides or other geological hazards.

Landslide buyouts are rare and when they occur the property owner often only recovers pennies on the dollar. The property owners bought out after the Aldercrest-Banyon landslide in Kelso, Washington destroyed their homes received 30 cents on the dollar.37 This underlines why preventing development in geologically hazardous areas is just plain ordinary consumer protection.

Division of Geology and Earth Resources: March 28, 2013) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_qr_whidbey_island_landslide_2013.pdf and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 31 Edwin L. Harp, John A. Michael, and William T. Laprade, Shallow-Landslide Hazard Map of Seattle, Washington p. 17 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1139: 2006) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1139/ and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 32 Robert L. Schuster & Lynn M. Highland, The Third Hans Cloos Lecture: Urban landslides: socioeconomic impacts and overview of mitigative strategies 66 BULLETIN OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 1, p. 22 (2007) accessed on March 27, 2018 at: ftp://193.134.202.10/pub/TRAMM/Workshop_EWS/Literature/Schuster_and_Highland_2007_Bulletin_of_E ngineering_Geology_and_the_Environment.pdf and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. The Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment is peer-reviewed. See the Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment “em Editorial Manager” login page accessed on Jan. 23, 2018 at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/boeg/default.aspx 33 Sanjay Bhatt, Slide erased their homes, but maybe not their loans The Seattle Times (April 2, 2014) accessed on Jan. 23, 2018 at: http://old.seattletimes.com/html/latestnews/2023278858_mudslidefinancialxml.html 34 Id. 35 Ian Terry, Abandoned and trashed after mudslide, Edmonds house now for sale The Herald (Feb. 11, 2015). The house is for sale after the bank who held the Lord’s mortgage took ownership of the home. Id. Accessed on Jan. 23, 2018 at: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20150211/NEWS01/150219829 and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 36 Id. at p. *6. 37 Isabelle Sarikhan, Sliding Thought Blog, Washington’s Landslide Blog Landslide of the Week – Aldercrest Banyon Landslide July 29, 2009 accessed on Jan. 23, 2018 at: https://slidingthought.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/landslide-of-the-week-aldercrest-banyon-landslide/ Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 8

For these reasons, we recommend that Thurston County update its policies and regulations for geological hazards including landslide hazards. Enclosed with this letter is a Policy Brief: Landslide Hazards which includes our specific policy recommendations.

We understand that Thurston County may be considering expansions to the urban growth areas as part of the comprehensive plan update. The Growth Management Act limits the size of urban growth areas (UGAs) for many reasons; one is that compact UGAs save taxpayers and ratepayers money. In a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson analyzed urban areas throughout the United States including Thurston County.38 They found that the per capita costs of most public services declined with density and increased where urban areas were large.39

The Washington State Supreme Court held in the Thurston County decision that a “UGA designation cannot exceed the amount of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by [State of Washington Office of Financial Management] OFM, plus a reasonable land market supply factor.”40 According to the Buildable Lands Report 2014 “[t]here is sufficient land supply to accommodate projected population growth (to year 2035) in Thurston County’s urban areas (cities plus unincorporated [urban] growth areas or UGAs) …”41 There is also “enough vacant, partially-used and redevelopable land to support the employment growth forecast to the year 2035 for urban areas in Thurston County.”42 Since there is adequate land in the UGAs, it is not legally possible to expand the urban growth areas. Therefore, we recommend that Thurston County not expand its UGAs to save taxpayers and ratepayers money and to comply with state law.

Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information, please contact me at telephone 206-343-0681 Ext. 118 or email [email protected]

38 John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson, Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Public Services 30 ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503, 511 (2003) enclosed with the paper original of this letter. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design is a peer-reviewed journal. See the enclosed Planning and Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design webpages on page 3 of 10. 39 Id. at 518. 40 Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 351 – 52, 190 P.3d 38, 48 – 49 (2008). 41 Thurston Regional Planning Council, Buildable Lands Report 2014 for Thurston County Final p. 38 (March 2014) accessed on March 26, 2018 at: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/comp-plan/docs/buildable-lands- analysis.pdf and enclosed with the paper original of this letter. 42 Id. p. 65. Thurston County Long Range Planning Division Re: Comprehensive Plan Update March 28, 2018 Comment Unique ID: 102 Page 9

Very Truly Yours,

Tim Trohimovich, AICP Director of Planning & Law

Enclosures From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 105 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:07:56 PM

Your Name (Optional): Julia Brayshaw

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: I feel strongly that it is time to adopt more restrictive codes regulating cell-tower placement in Thurston county. They should be limited to industrial areas and be a minimum of 3-4 miles from homes, wildlife areas, watersheds, schools, hospitals, and eldercare facilities. Parts of Europe as well as some municipalities in Oregon and California have adopted such restrictive codes. Health concerns are not a viable legal argument against installing a cell tower near homes, schools, etc. This is an outrageous perk for the cellular corporations, and it was instated in 1996 when only the thermal effects of EMFs had been measured and found to be negligible (and thermal changes are not even what causes the dangers to health). Now there are many, many reputable studies (such as the Bioinitiative Report) and much research which shows cellular radiation's potential to cause harm to humans, wildlife, and all living systems. Shouldn't at least the precautionary principle hold sway over corporate profits? Also, since a growing number of people are concerned about the potential risks of cell towers, a tower placed in an area causes property values to depreciate. In my area north east of Olympia alone 5 towers have been fought in recent years. People of many diverse backgrounds are saying no to having these near their homes and children's schools. These battles take tremendous efforts and resources. Let's adopt more stringent restrictive codes regarding placement to support the health, well-being, and vibrancy of our residents and natural lands!

Time: March 29, 2018 at 4:07 am IP Address: 174.21.99.138 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 106 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:36:45 PM

Your Name (Optional): Emily Stephens

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: I'm concerned about the cell tower that is slated to go up near 33rd Ave NE and Gull Harbor Rd. My family and I live not far from here, and we walk, bike and run by frequently. Not only am I concerned about the ecological impact, but I also am wary of living so close to such a large and powerful tower. Those of us who live here have chosen this spot because we value the natural beauty and minimal infrastructure. And when we go to sell our homes, we hope they will be as enticing (and financially sound) as they were when we bought them! Thank you so much for your consideration and for listening to the voices of the people who would shoulder the impact of this.

Time: March 31, 2018 at 1:36 am IP Address: 174.24.164.18 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 107 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Saturday, March 31, 2018 9:57:02 AM

Your Name (Optional): Patricia A. McLachlan

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: I would like you to include the following ideas in the revised Comp Plan: 1. Ensure No Net Loss of farm production acreage to non-farming usage. Thurston County needs a clear goal that supports agriculture and promotes the preservation of agricultural lands. 2. Endorse the use of Conservation Future tax funds for an annual competitive grant process. These competitive grants should fund land trusts, cities, and other entitites to purchase the land or the rights to future development of the land conservation easements for the protection of threatened areas of open space, farmlands, timber lands, wetland, and habitat areas. 3. Address the pending generational transfer crisis. Farmers are aging out; we must incentivize young farmers to continue to farm the land. 4. Promote an economic benefit for local agriculture. The county must actively promote a local market for agricultural goods. Creating county or regional branding campaigns, for example, can do this.

I want to see in implementing language within the Comprehensive Plan that promotes the preservation of accessibly farmland within Thurston. I am advocating for preserving farmlands and keeping them farmed forever.

Part of our local food security is having working farms forever right here in Thurston County. We must recognize the need for local food is essential. Especially with climate change and storms, etc. making some of our food that is transported in from faraway ungrowable or untransportable, we must have enough locally produced food to feed us. This is a #1 priority for us to keep us able to live in this community.

Time: March 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm IP Address: 67.183.200.87 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 108 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Sunday, April 1, 2018 6:58:56 AM

Your Name (Optional): Juanita Taurman

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: Good day! Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review. Here are my thoughts: I have been on the Thurston County Agritourism Advisory Committee since it became an official committee, and years before it was established. We have had several people attend the meeting looking for direction regarding the stringent permitting regulation because we are an “advising committee”, anticipating that we can influence the commissioners. The response is a fear that if they move forward and participate in the Bountiful Byway tourism movement, they will be a target. I know that the regulations are there for public safety and I can reassure you that no one wants to jeopardize this. We have new and established small businesses that are capable of bringing revenue to this county through so many revenue streams! Increased spending in our community benefits local businesses and provides more tax revenue for Thurston County. These businesses are struggling to stay or be in business because of the stringent, expensive, and decapitating permitting process and regulations. The county needs to take a look at how they can promote small businesses to be successful and get established. I feel like there should be a different permitting process for smaller, seasonal businesses than sub-divisions, box stores, restaurants, etc. At the very least, if we want to further promote our Bountiful Byway, businesses that want to participate, or are participating should receive the same leniency that was offered to the folks in the Thurston County Overlay District. People should not feel intimidated by their county departments, state departments or any divisions thereof. I know this may not completely radiate with all the staff or powers that be, but if you have ever been in a position where any of these entities hold your future in their decision-making hands, you would understand. Being a small business owner or starting a new business in Thurston County is a challenge and the people I have come in contact with are incredibly frustrated by the “County of No” reputation. I am encouraged by this opportunity and would like to be an advocate for changing this perception! Thank you, again! Juanita

Time: April 1, 2018 at 1:58 pm IP Address: 73.11.238.101 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 109 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 4:34:26 PM

Your Name (Optional): Terrill A Browne

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: Please don't loosen restrictions on cell towers in residential areas. We don't buy homes and property in rural areas and neighborhoods expecting to have a cell tower built within view. They are unsightly, noisy and bad for wildlife. They belong in areas with industry, businesses etc and not by neighborhoods.

Also please continue to require them to use existing towers whenever possible if they need to add coverage.

Thank you for your time.

Time: April 4, 2018 at 11:34 pm IP Address: 67.170.111.115 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. From: PlanningCommission Comment Unique ID: 110 To: Allison Osterberg Subject: FW: No passing Lanes 148th St to 153rd on Vail Rd. Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:41:27 PM

In the PC Inbox

From: Thurston County | Send Email [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 12:29 PM To: PlanningCommission Subject: No passing Lanes 148th St to 153rd on Vail Rd.

This email was created by the County Internet web server from the email masking system. Someone from the Public has requested to contact you with the following information:

To: Planning Commission

Subject: No passing Lanes 148th St to 153rd on Vail Rd.

From: john whitten

Email (if provided): [email protected]

Message: Hi, I was at the open house today and greatly apprecaited the information and expertise of the peopple there. Well Done. But I forgot to ask one thing: On Vail Rd from 148th to 153rd is a very busy corridor and should be a NO PASSING Zone. There are numerous intersection roads and driveways onto Vail. Additionally, the NO PASSING zone should extend farther South on Vail as it is a rough road that makes passing difficult any way. Thank you.

Revised 1/22/2017 From: [email protected] Comment Unique ID: 111 To: comp-plan Subject: Incoming Comp Plan Comment Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:41:27 PM

Your Name (Optional): Matt Myer

Your email address: [email protected]

Comment: Please take into consideration planning for cell towers and antennas with regard to protecting families and critical habitat for wildlife. Cell towers that encroach upon residential property can be detrimental to property values and family health. In addition, cell towers that disturb critical wetland habitat and rookeries can be detrimental to the wildlife that rely on those habitats.

Thank you.

Time: April 24, 2018 at 9:41 pm IP Address: 50.193.201.226 Contact Form URL: https://thurstoncomments.org/comment-on-the-comprehensive-plan- update/ Sent by a verified WordPress.com user. From: Joel Carlson Comment Unique ID: 112 To: comp-plan Subject: Thurston Comprehensive Plan Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 3:56:51 PM

North Thurston's future is affordable, walkable urban villages built with 3D printing connected by rail similar to Europe, Scandinavia and the US before the oil lobby took over. I strongly advocate home ownership because it is one of the best ways for people to gain wealth and move into the middle class. Sincerely, Joel Carlson, 3634 Loren St NE, Lacey, WA 98516 Comment Unique ID: 113

Comment Unique ID: 114

I I Comment Unique ID: 115

Comment Unique ID: 116 1 lill.J_r1 lflu�,li,llJil11wffit!lJit(l111L/111l l 1Lb.}1111 /il1ftt lfl'','.lllf M t)$e,-::-,,-··-· � r::--·-._ .. :-:::;-"•(__ - P � C '::)U..ff'"r, { rrcvsf d'Yi e / ��H!tA-1 .fhttf w: ll r�i.A'e(A,,! p,vv,'s,�� s �t' pro +��h ...<>"'- c>t -he 'f,114 (,' f-; °'"',( t uttn.f, h 11f,es �f. jf'O'-C."J (,U4�e� u.se..{ fo, f""b{,'? S't 1 R.

Unique Comment ID: 117

Unique Comment ID: 118 From: Barbara Craven To: Allison Osterberg Unique Comment Subject: Comprehensive Plan ID: 1605 Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:53:11 PM

Hi Allison, I couldn't make it to the meeting yesterday.

Two comments on the Plan:

The term "Utility" makes no sense as applied to stormwater, solid waste, and water and sewer. Preference would be "management" as in Stormwater Management. I assume "Utility" has been in place a long time. Maybe now's the time to change it.

I tried 3 times to understand the LOS standard of service table in the Stormwater section. It just does not make sense to me. It is not referred to anywhere else in that section, nor is it explained so that someone with no experience with it can understand it.

Hope all goes well with you.

Thanks, Barbara

Sent from my iPad From: Barbara Craven To: comp-plan Unique Comment Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan ID: 1605 Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 6:57:03 PM

Well, King County doesn't call it a utility: https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/wlr/sections-programs/stormwater-services- section.aspx

We got the SSWAB agenda for next week's mtg, and it looks like it's full, but the Comp Plan is not on it.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 8, 2018, at 5:41 PM, comp-plan wrote:

Thank you for your comments, Barbara. I will note them in our record and review them with the Stormwater staff, who developed the language for the LOS standard. We could consider adding more language that explains the standard, or we could consider moving it back to the Capital Facilities Plan.

As for your comment about the applicability of the word “Utility”, the definition of a public utility is an organization that performs an essential public service and is subject to special governmental regulation. Typically their operation involves the maintenance of infrastructure to support the public service, and is provided in exchange for the collection of rates or fees. In the example of stormwater, Thurston County performs the public service of stormwater management, including constructing and maintaining stormwater infrastructure, as guided by state and federal regulation, by charging a rate to property owners specific to that purpose. A similar argument can be made for the solid waste, water, and sewer programs within the county, all of which collect a specific rate from the population that benefits from (or utilizes) the public service provided.

I do agree that the county-operated utilities can seem to be strange bedfellows with the non-county owned utilities. We can certainly continue this discussion at the next SSWAB meeting.

Best regards, Allison

Allison Osterberg Senior Planner Thurston County Community Planning & Economic Development (360) 867-2102 [email protected] www.thurstonplanning.org | www.Thurston2040.com

Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56

Unique Comment ID: 1605

From: Barbara Craven [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:53 PM To: Allison Osterberg Subject: Comprehensive Plan

Hi Allison, I couldn't make it to the meeting yesterday.

Two comments on the Plan:

The term "Utility" makes no sense as applied to stormwater, solid waste, and water and sewer. Preference would be "management" as in Stormwater Management. I assume "Utility" has been in place a long time. Maybe now's the time to change it.

I tried 3 times to understand the LOS standard of service table in the Stormwater section. It just does not make sense to me. It is not referred to anywhere else in that section, nor is it explained so that someone with no experience with it can understand it.

Hope all goes well with you.

Thanks, Barbara

Sent from my iPad From: Ilene Silver To: comp-plan Unique Comment Subject: Proposed Land Use Amendment for The Evergreen State College ID: 1617 Date: Monday, December 3, 2018 2:03:27 PM

Allison Osterberg

Senior Planner

Comprehensive Plan Update

Thurston County Community Planning Division

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Evergreen State College Land Use Amendment. As a property owner on Simmons RD NW, I would be directly affected by certain aspects of this proposal.

Following are the circumstances that I believe should continue to require a Special Use Permit.

If the entrance to any new building would be directly off any of the local roads, such as Simmons, Sunset, Lewis, etc., the community should be able to review that proposal through a Special Use Permit because it would directly affect our access to our homes, as well as the rural nature of the neighborhood.

If Evergreen comes up with another Biomass proposal (which would have overloaded our community roads and polluted our neighborhood), it is essential that such a proposal require a Special Use Permit. We cannot count on the “good judgment” of Evergreen executives in this regard – they previously did not even consider the effect of huge trucks on our rural roads, and the smoke emitted from burning in our neighborhood.

Given that our homes are set back well over 100’ from the road, I think the proposed Evergreen land use setbacks should be MUCH more than 50’ or 100’ as currently listed. Unless it is inside the core campus, such a proposal should require a Special Use Permit.

With this same spirit, any landscaping that faces the community roads should be subject to a Special Use Permit. I also encourage that a team of forestry experts, including arborists and conservationists, be included in any decisions to cut trees on the campus, including “landscaping” decisions. Unique Comment ID: 1617

As a local resident for the past 36 years, I hope my suggestions, which are intended to maintain the rural nature of our community, can be incorporated into the proposed Evergreen Land Use Amendment.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Open House at the McLane Fire Dept. was very useful.

Sincerely,

Ilene F. Silver

2810 Simmons RD NW

Olympia WA 98502 [email protected] 12.3.18 From: Phyllis Farrell To: Brad Murphy; Allison Osterberg Cc: [email protected]; Anne Van sweringen; Sam Merrill; Lois Ward Unique Comment Subject: Fw: shellfish aquaculture Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 1:21:53 PM ID: 1619

Greetings! I am forwarding an e mail I sent to the Department of Ecology with my concerns and questions about industrial aquaculture practices and the impacts in Puget Sound, especially Thurston County shorelines. Totten Inlet is almost completely "farmed" resulting in a loss of biodiversity. Thurston County shorelines are especially important for forage fish and juvenile salmon habitat. With salmon and Orca recovery efforts a priority of Washington State, please consider SMP language that will regulate and limit the expansion of industrial aquaculture to protect our shorelines.

Thank you!

Phyllis Farrell

P.S. After a meeting and conversation with CPL Hilary Franz last Saturday, I sent her a similar letter.

Sent from Outlook

From: Phyllis Farrell Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 1:08 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: shellfish aquaculture

Thank you for your service and leadership in protecting Washington's natural resources.

I am concerned about the expansion of industrial aquaculture in Washington's shorelines, especially in Puget Sound. I am concerned about the industry's practices in bed preparation (scraping, removal of sand dollars, starfish and eelgrass), the use of heavy equipment on fragile beaches, plastic pollution with pvc pipes and netting, the spraying of pesticides and hydraulic harvesting disrupting the substrate. The industry has lobbied for preferential language in regulations and has benefited from inadequate monitoring.

I am not opposed to agriculture and feeding hungry people, but the oyster and geoduck producers are providing luxury foods. Geoducks are shipped mostly overseas and Washington does not collect tax revenues from these exports. On p. 56 of ToxicPearl, it states there is no sales tax on exported shellfish, or shellfish sold outside of the state., no export tax, no enhanced shellfish tax (excise tax) on shellfish grown by seed by the grower, no B & O tax on unprocessed shellfish that are exported, and exceptionally low property tax rates on tidelands. How can this be?

Here is Cliff Mass’s Reviewhttps://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-important-new-book-describes-how-wa.html

Approximately 50,000 acres of Puget Sound tidelands are in aquaculture production allowing the industry to profit from the use of public waters and resources at the expense of precious habitat for salmon. How can we not consider the effects of industrial aquaculture on habitat for salmon and orca recovery? A 2017 Army Corps of Engineers study indicates industrial aquaculture poses a significant risk to eelgrass and forage fish habitat so critical to salmon and Orca recovery. This draft Cumulative Impact Analysis (CIA) is an assessment of what the science shows will likely happen if this industrial scale aquaculture is allowed to continue. For example, with regard to eelgrass, a critical habitat for Salmon and other listed fish, the Corps concluded: “​ The proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for several species listed under the ESA including Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer run chum salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead.”1 ​ ​

The study includes: ​​ “Given the magnitude of the impacts in acreage, the importance of eelgrass to the marine ecosystem, and the scale of the aquaculture impacts relative to other stressors, the impacts are considered significant.”2 ​ ​

Re State and Federal law, the Corps also noted that in their view: ​ ​“The action does threaten a violation of State requirements under the Shoreline Management Act to achieve no net loss of eelgrass and Federal​ requirements to protect eelgrass imposed under the ESA for aquaculture activities. The proposed action is not consistent with either of these requirements.”3 ​ ​

Similarly, for key forage fish species such as Pacific Sand Lance (sometimes called Candlefish) and Surf Smelt, on which salmon and Orca rely, the Corps concluded in the analysis that: ​“​ The conclusion therefore is that significant cumulative effects to surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat would occur due to the proposed action.”4 ​ ​

And with regard to compliance with State law related to these forage fish, the Corps concluded: " The proposed action is inconsistent with State requirements under the SMA to protect forage fish spawning habitat.”5

The link to this Army Corps Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis is: http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/3/7/5/12218573/assets/2017_NWP48_Draft_Cumula tive_Imapct_Analysis.pdf

I am aware this ACE report was not released (heavy industry lobbying?), but the science, references and conclusions are still valid.

I urge a careful review of industry practices to limit expansion and more rigorous environmental protections.

Respectfully, Unique Comment Phyllis Farrell ID: 1619

Sent from Outlook From: Thurston County | Send Email To: Allison Osterberg Unique Comment Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update ID: 1620 Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 9:09:28 AM

This email was created by the County Internet web server from the email masking system. Someone from the Public has requested to contact you with the following information:

To: Allison Osterberg

Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update

From: Kathy Hargrave

Email (if provided): [email protected]

Message: Allison,

Do you have an updated schedule for when the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan update will be completed/adopted?

I am also interested in which version of the Parks Scenario Map is going forward with respect to the Mineral Resource Lands updates.

Please send a response to my questions to the email address attached.

Thank you,

Kathy Hargrave

Revised 1/22/2017 From: Madeline Bishop Unique Comment To: comp-plan ID: 1621 Subject: protect our agricultural land Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:25:09 AM

As a Thurston resident, I am asking the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the County for the Comprehensive Plan that will protect our agricultural land. I am concerned about the the new state requirement that counties map all potential mineral lands, which in Thurston is gravel pits. Now there are many acres more designated as mineral lands, many acres of which overlap prime agricultural land.

I am asking you to protect our agricultural land by making recommendations to improve Chapter 3 of the Thurston Comprehensive Plan:

No Mining on Long-term Ag Land (policy option A1) Achieve No Net Loss of Farmland (Goal 1A) Creating an Agricultural Protection Overlay District to protect a large portion of the 60,000 acres of land currently being farmed that currently has no protection similar to Whatcom County. Residential Setbacks: All residential development adjacent to long-term agricultural lands shall be set back from common property lines in order to protect agriculture from the impacts of incompatible development and to mitigate against the effects of agricultural operations on the residential developments. (from Skagit County Comp Plan) Bring Ag Protection Closer to Level of Other Counties Examine the costs and benefits of increasing the farm acreage protected as Long-term Ag. Seek a goal of at least half of all commercial ag land by not later than 2025. Include in the cost the amount required through purchase of development rights and other processes to “make whole” the cost to farmland owners of changes to their existing zoning and development rights. Limit Mining on Other Farmland (similar to Whatcom) Keeping in mind that agriculture is a sustainable industry, while mining is an industry that relies on a fixed, nonrenewable resource. For the 60,000 acres of land currently in agricultural production that are not protected as Long Term Agricultural lands mining should be permitted only when:

a. Soils can be restored to their original productive capabilities as soon as possible after mining occurs.

b. Mining would enhance farming by leveling knolls and ridges when appropriate. In these areas, reclamation of mineral extraction sites shall occur in a timely fashion.

c. Mining serves to provide financial return to the farmland owner that supports continued farming operations.

To achieve No Net Loss of Farmland (Goal 1A) Policy 1A6, add Conservation Futures funding: Policy 2A7, focus on avoiding de-designation Sincerely, Unique Comment Madeline Bishop ID: 1621 9529 62nd Ave SE Olympia, WA 98513 Unique Comment ID: 1909 Unique Comment ID: 1910 Unique Comment ID: 1911

�...- - ' PROUD MEMBER League of Women Voters Unique Comment ID: 1912 Unique Comment ID: 1913

/tJ-cJ'g'�U' S£_,,,

6/ !t f 9/fb T.1 ,COM P� V1.,:,, ·Sif:'f3 {.)l '•·�,PIA v,r.,"'=-.:-,,,.. .23.APR.2019 PM4 L

:'- Unique Comment ID: 1914

l>c. °':_' / la.f\ fl i� ( t>,1,u'vu',; r.; /en, R�a.,tl,·,27 l:lv:,.pter 3 - .U/l.)tv

,3W6J@ Ate A.Jt:IPlr'.\ \>liD\

.:.•.

C 2016 USPS O recycled Unique Comment ID: 1915 From: Howard Glastetter Unique Comment To: Allison Osterberg Subject: Planning Commission Sept 5 Comprehensive Plan Update meeting ID: 1916 Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 11:52:43 AM

Allison,

Just a thought: Part of the discussion includes “updated population projections and background information, updated policies to ensure compatible development near Joint Base Lewis-McChord”.

Since Holroyd’s pit in Nisqually Valley appears to be getting close to being mined out, it might make a good future candidate for a Park n Ride. This could reduce traffic to JBLM and freeway traffic in general. It could serve increasing amounts of North Thurston residents and could even double as a future bus / train station. The Olympia train station sits on a recycled gravel mine site.

-Howard

Howard H Glastetter [email protected] (360)491-6645

Everything should be as simple as it can be, but no simpler. Albert Einstein Unique Comment ID: 1917

Unique Comment ID: 1918

Unique Public From: j chavey Comment ID: 1919 To: comp-plan Subject: Protect the LTA and farmland in Thurston County Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:30:50 AM

Hello Thurston County Planning Commission,

We value farmland as a part of the community, and how it adds to our quality of life and long-term local sustainability. We support achieving Thurston County's stated goal of “no net loss of farmland.”

We must minimize risk of de-designation of LTA in Thurston County. We need to expand the farming acreage we already have, and only permit mining on non- LTA ag land when those soils can be restored to original productive capabilities.

Resource extraction may be needed to an extent, but it should not take place on the designated farm lands and the land must be returned to productive soil when extraction is completed.

Thank you.

Jane and Steve Chavey 3229 Capitol Blvd Tumwater, WA 98501 From: Nicolette Oliver Unique Public To: comp-plan Comment ID: 1920 Subject: Protect local farms! Date: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:41:21 AM

I saw this article in the Olympian and am very concerned about local agricultural land. Please support our local farms and environmental Sustainability! https://www.theolympian.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article226358855.html

Niki Oliver PCO Kaiser 35

-- Nicolette Oliver PCO Kaiser 35 Team Tye -- Nicolette Oliver PCO Kaiser 35 Team Tye Ian Lefcourte

From: James Williams Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:28 AM Unique Public To: comp-plan Comment ID: 1921 Subject: Preserve the farmland

We need to preserve and increase local sustainable farming for the future. As food feul prices continue to rise. Buying local will be more and more a Necessity for our community.

1 Ian Lefcourte

From: Sandler & Seppanen Unique Public Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:59 AM Comment ID: 1922 To: comp-plan Subject: Recommended changes in Chapter 3 of Draft Comp Plan to clarify meeting or address inconsistencies

Categories: PblcCmmnt - Added

Allison Osterberg,

I am sharing these suggestion for wording changes or organization changes in Draft Comp Plan chapter 3 to address some confusing language and inconsistency lack of clarity between new material in the introductory text and subsequent policies. I don’t regard these as substantive changes.

Different farming of “Existing Programs to Support Ag” (pages 3‐5 to 3‐8) Using the table on page 3‐8 as the organizing principle for this section – 6 Ag Protection Programs – would clarify the work and move Conservation Futures to a different level in the organization of the section. The existing Ag Protection programs/strategies would be – Open Space, PDR, Fee Simple Purchase, Ag Conservation Easements, TDR, VSP. Conservation Futures is not a program to support ag, but more appropriately described as a tax that can be used by the county to provide funding for land trusts and conservation agencies to acquire Fee Simple Purchases or Agricultural Conservation Easements – 2 of the Ag protection strategies . If the county also regards Conservation Futures as a source of funds for Purchase of Development rights by the county, so indicate that the CF can serve that purpose as well. Because Conservation Futures is a tax funded source not just for agriculture but also for habitat and open space in general, it should not be listed as a Ag Protection Program, but as a tax source that provides funding for Ag protection programs/strategies as well as for other purposes.

VSP – (page 3‐6), the description is confusingly written (the passive voice may be part of the problem). I did not find a clear description of how VPS works nor the benefit for ag. I suggest the text be rewritten around these points:  WA Farm Bureau describes the goal of VSP: “to reduce tension between competing GMA goals related to agricultural viability and protection of critical areas.”  Since 2011 (when critical areas leg was enacted??), owners of ag land in the county have been under the burden of a regulatory approaches related to the uses of their land.  VSP lifts that regulatory burden for farmland owners who choose to develop and implement strategies that both protects critical areas and maintains (or possibly improves) agricultural variability.  If the VSP program is fully funded by the state, farmland owners receive help from technical support staff at the Thurston Conservation District to develop plans and may secure funding support from a variety of federal and state sources. (Note that funding of that technical assistance is up to the 2019 legislature. By the time this comprehensive plan is finalized the county will know if some reasonable level of funding will be provided. If at least the request level in the Governor’s budget is NOT funded, the plan should note that funding of the technical assistance remains an issue. As it stands at this moment, VSP is only an idea that is not well enough funded to do anything to reduce the tension between ag viability and critical areas and critical areas will win, ag likely will lose, in such a tug of war.)

1  It is inaccurate to state that “The VSP is one of the methods the county is using to promote economic viability of local agriculture …” It is a method to address the threat posed to ag viability by the need to address critical areas. It is more accurate to state that VSP is a method to mitigate one of the threats to economic viability of ag.  Delete the statement about VSP having identified five elements of ag viability. If you pull together another group to identify the elements, you would get a different list. This is just one group that needed a framework for their decision making and these 5 elements became their framework. Unique Public Comment ID: 1922 Slight changes recommended to past wording on fish farming and livestock (page 3‐4): The unchanged text reference fish farming. We have significant aquaculture in Thurston County, but I am not aware of any significant amount of farming that would be called “fish farming.” Page 3‐15 says we have a handful of fin fish farms and that may be out of date. Hatcheries are not commonly called farming. Wording such “Shellfish farming operations continue to located as they have for centuries, finding the clean water needed to meet safety requirements for growing the products for human consumption. “ Immediately following that is the odd unchanged wording about chicken cows and sheep and llama and emus. I suggest striking that entire odd sentence or at least changing it to reference livestock in a more traditional way: livestock farming including beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry.

Policy Add to be consistent with Table 3‐1 (page 3‐29) Add to policy 1.A.7 about working with conservation groups, fee simple and ag conservation easements – not just PDR.

Policy Add to be consistent with Table 3‐1 (page 3‐33) Add to policy 2.B.1 about working use of TDR and PDR also educate about working with land trusts and conservation agencies to use fee simple and ag conservation easements.

Clarify Objective about Public Education Goal 1, Objective B: (page 3‐30) As reworded the objective implies that farmers are the focus on the counties education efforts, but the first two policies are about the community. The objective could say: Encourage and educate the community to understand the value the county’s agricultural lands.

Loretta Seppanen [email protected] 360 786 9775 Olympia, WA

2 From: Pat Rasmussen To: Maya Teeple Cc: Douglas Mackey; Elizabeth Rodrick; dianam1814 Unique Public Subject: History Section of Comprehensive Plan - Tribes Comment ID: 1924 Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:36:45 PM Attachments: History of Steh-chass People June 2016 5-2.pdf

Hello Maya,

Thank you for your interest in this information for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. We had read the history section and realized it is incorrect in some places and lacking detail regarding the Squaxin, Nisqually and Chehalis Indians.

In 2011, I began in-depth research and then wrote an eighteen page "Report: What Happened to the Steh-Chass People." It is documented with footnotes and a lengthy bibliography. I asked the Squaxin Island Tribe and Nisqually Tribe to review it before I released it. Since then I have shared it widely in Thurston County. Many people are interested and we created a local group Learning Right Relations to share the history, culture and events of the local Tribes through monthly meetings, events, publications and support.

It pulls together and documents history of the people who have lived here for 10,000 years and still live here and are active in our County. This is a good time to update and improve the history section of the Comprehensive Plan. We are happy to help to gather historical information that can help you in a rewrite.

I'm attaching the Report and it's also available on our website. We will also share other pertinent articles, booklets, and maps.

The Squaxin Tribe produced a history of Steh-Chass last year that we will drop by for you.

The Nisqually historian, Cecelia Carpenter, published numerous books on the history of the Nisqually Indians:

Carpenter, Cecelia. Ft. Nisqually, Documented History of Indian and British Interaction. Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1986.

Carpenter, Cecelia. Leschi – Last Chief of the Nisquallies. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2004.

Carpenter, Cecelia. Tears of Internment. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 1996.

Carpenter, Cecelia. The Nisqually, My People. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2002.

Carpenter, Cecelia. They Walked Before – The Indians of Washington State. Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1989.

We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Unique Public Pat Rasmussen Comment ID: 1924

-- Pat Rasmussen World Temperate Rainforest Network PO Box 13273 Olympia, WA 98508 Phone: 509-669-1549 Website: www.temperaterainforests.org Pat Rasmussen PO Box 13273 Unique Public Olympia, WA 98508 Comment ID: 1924 Phone: 509-669-1549 E-mail: [email protected] November 23, 2014 What happened to the Steh-chass people?

The Steh-chass people lived in a permanent village at the base of Tumwater Falls for thousands of years. The Steh-chass village was a permanent settlement – property and food were stored there. They lived in gabled cedar plank homes of rectangular, slightly slanted sides of cedar posts and planks. In the mid-1850’s there were three cedar plank homes there.1 A community of up to eight families lived in each with bed platforms along the walls. The village was a ceremonial site, a sacred site, where at least five tribes - the Nisqually, Squaxin, Chehalis, Suquamish and Duwamish - gathered for ceremonies, feasts, potlatches and to harvest and preserve salmon, clams, mussels, whelts, and moon snails, as well as crabs, barnacles, Chinese slippers, oysters and cockles, by drying, smoking or baking in rock-lined underground ovens.2 Layers of seashells recorded many years of habitation.

The village was named Steh-chass and the river, now the Deschutes, was named Steh- chass River.3 The Steh-chass people fished and gathered seafood all along the shores of Budd inlet.4 T. T. Waterman’s maps of Budd Inlet from the mid-1800’s show the Steh-chass Indians lived along the shores of the entire inlet.5 The Steh-chass people were led by Sno-ho-dum-set, known as a man of peace.6 At the Medicine Creek Treaty Council of December 24-26, 1854, Sno-ho-dum-set represented the Steh-chass Indians and was the second name on the Treaty, after Quiemuth and before Leschi.7

Their other main village, Bus-chut-hwud, “frequented by black bears,” was located near what is today the corner of 4th Avenue and Columbia in Olympia.8 Sites around Bus- chut-hwud show evidence of fire-cracked rock, indications of a small village.9 There were twenty or more Indian huts in 1851.10 All along the beach there were Indian huts and the beach was lined with canoes.11 Chief Seattle wintered with 250-300 Duwamish and Suquamish Indians on the peninsula near Bus-chut-hwud, north of today’s State Street.12

Priest Point was a traditional area for potlatch and parts of Budd Inlet shorelines were sacred burial grounds with tree burial sites.13 The inlet there was a favorite gathering place for Indians.14

The location of the Steh-chass permanent village below Tumwater Falls is documented: Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 *** A map by T.T. Waterman from the mid-1800’s documents the Steh-chass village location on the Deschutes River at Tumwater.15

***A map by George Gibbs also locates Steh-chass at that site in his 1855 book Indian Tribes – 16 Land Ceded by Treaty. Maps below by TT Waterman show the Steh-chass & Bus-chut-hwud villages in the mid-1800’s

*** A map included in the report of Archaeological Excavation of the Tumwater Site (45TN119) shows Steh-chass at the same location. This report documents people living there from 2,380 years ago, with some implements dating from 13,000 BP.17

*** In The Puyallup and Nisqually by Marian Smith, a map shows the Steh-chass village site.18

*** The 1854 “Map of Washington Territory Showing the Indian Nations and Tribes,” purportedly carried by Isaac Stevens in his pocket during treaty making, shows the original name of the Deschutes River as Steh-chass River and hangs as a blown up display on the second floor of the Washington State Capitol Museum.19

*** The City of Olympia website recounts, “The falls of the Deschutes River at Tumwater called "Stehtsasamish" by the Nisqually Indians may have been occupied as a Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 permanent village site for shellfish and salmon harvesting for 500 years or more before the coming of white settlers.” 20

*** Another village on the west side of the peninsula just below the downtown Olympia bridge was the village named “b’TSUH-t’kood” (frequented by black bears) and further north still, at Doffmeyer Point, was a place called “cheh-tsah-AHL-too”, ‘housepits,’ named for depressions in the ground showing where houses had once stood long ago.21

*** From the City of Olympia website, “The end of what we now know as Budd Inlet was a favorite shellfish gathering site for many Coastal Salish tribes, including the Nisqually, Duwamish and Squaxin. Evidence exists that potlatches, the Northwest tribal custom in which tribal leaders shared their wealth with neighboring tribal groups, were held both east and west of the Inlet near Olympia.”22

*** One Nisqually village dated over 5,000 years old. Human occupation of southern Puget Sound dates from 12,000 years ago, ancestors of the Nisqually tribe.23

*** Steh-chass is among locations of other tribes: Elo'sedabsh, on Medicine Creek and the lower reaches of Nisqually River, including a main settlement at the mouth of Nisqually River and Tuda'dab, at the mouth of McAllister or Medicine Creek. The Sahehwamish belonged to the Nisqually dialectic group: Sahehwamish or Sahe'wabsh, on Shelton Inlet, including the main settlement of Sahe'wabsh, at Arcadia, and a village opposite the town of Shelton; Skwayaithlhabsh, on Mud Bay or Eld Inlet; Statca'sabsh, on Budd Inlet, with its principal settlement at Tumwater; Tapi'ksdabsh, with its main settlement on Oyster Bay or Totten Inlet below the town of Oyster Bay; Tutse'tcakl, on South Bay or Henderson Inlet, between the creek at the head and that on the south. The group to which this tribe belonged is estimated by Mooney (1928) to have numbered 1,200 in 1780, and he gives 780 for the year 1907.24

The first white settlers to come to Washington State displaced the Steh-chass Indians from their village below Tumwater Falls, today the site of Tumwater Historical Park.

In October of 1845, the first white settlers to come to Washington State traveled up the Cowlitz Trail from Fort Vancouver to Steh-chass. Led by Michael T. Simmons, the settlers arrived at Steh-chass and thought to settle there, but borrowed canoes from the Indians to look around the area. They liked Steh-chass best and chose to settle there, spending their first winter in a cabin near the lower falls of the Deschutes River.25 The Simmons party met Chief Leschi, a Nisqually, at Tumwater Falls.26 George Washington Bush, another settler in the party, recalled how Leschi brought urgently needed supplies on pack horses to help the settlers through their precarious first days and taught them how to enjoy unfamiliar types of seafood in which the area abounded. “Leschi was as good a friend as we ever had,” Bush said.27 And another, James McAllister, became close friends with Leschi who helped McAllister’s family settle near his home at Muck Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 28 Creek. Seattle, Chief of the Duwamish and Suquamish, met and helped the settlers at Steh-chass too.

Michael T. Simmons built a grist mill on the site and later a saw mill. In 1851 Clanrick and Phoebe Crosby arrived in Tumwater and bought the land from Michael T. Simmons. Crosby filed a land claim under the Land Donation Act of 1850 for 640 acres, virtually all of the land on both sides of Tumwater Falls and including the Steh-chass village site.29 In1860 a house was built for Nathaniel Crosby III (grandfather of Bing Crosby, now the Crosby Museum House). Crosby’s claim to the land under the Land Donation Act of 1850 depended on extinguishing Indian title and removing the Indians. By 1854 there were only twenty Indians counted in Tumwater.30 By fall of 1855, Michael T. Simmons had rounded up any remaining Indians and put them in the internment camps on Squaxin and Fox Islands. If any did drift back to their original village site after the internment camps, a drastic change was in order as of December 21, 1869. The minutes of the Tumwater Town Council show that on a motion of Mr. Crosby, the Council ordered that the Indians be required to get out of the town limits by the first of May, 1870.31

Left: Clanrick Crosby’s Claim of 640 acres including the Steh-chass village at Tumwater Falls

In the winter of 1846, Levi Smith and Edmund Sylvester arrived at the Bus-chut- hwud village (centered at today’s 4th Avenue and Columbia Street) and staked a joint claim of 320 acres, taking over the Indian village and the entire peninsula comprising Olympia and the State Capitol of today.32 Smith built a cabin among the Indians, trading with them on a daily basis, and enclosed two acres for a garden and livestock near the current intersection of Capitol Way and Olympia Avenue.33 When Smith drowned in 1848, Sylvester alone held the claim.

January 12, 1850, Sylvester platted the town, named it Olympia after the Olympic Mountains, and donated blocks for a public square, a school, a customs house and 12 acres for the Capitol grounds.34 The area around Chinook Street (Columbia Street today), which once housed a thriving Coast Salish community, was now dotted with cabins and a few store fronts. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 Left: Edmund Sylvester’s Land Claim of 320 acres, comprising Olympia and the Capitol Campus of today.

By 1855, the Indian village had disappeared, the past residents of Bus- chut-hwud no longer called the peninsula their home. A massive stockade had been built along 4th Avenue where their village was located and most tribal people were living in internment camps on Squaxin and Fox Islands where many became sick and died.35 In early fall of 1855, Michael T. Simmons had interned 460 Indians on Squaxin Island and 1,200 on Fox Island.36 After the stockade, Indians never returned to settle in any considerable numbers in the immediate neighborhood of the town.37

In 1839, American Methodist missionaries led by Dr. John P. Richmond had arrived with the purpose of converting the Indians. They had settled near Fort Nisqually on Sequalitchew Creek, a half mile up from the Sound. Fourteen missionaries ran the mission and taught fifty Indian children at the mission school. The “Great Reinforcement” had sailed from New York October 9, 1839 with fifty-two missionaries and workers. The missionaries treated the Indians harshly, calling them “heathens and savages.” After two years, in 1842, the mission was shut down and their buildings were burned by the Indians.38

In 1848 French Catholic missionaries of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate came to Budd Inlet where they established a mission to minister to local tribes, led by Father Pascal Ricard. They named the mission St. Joseph’s of New Market. Father Ricard and three other priests cleared the land, planted a large garden, built a chapel and operated a school for Indian boys organized for the purpose of converting the native population and to teach carpentry and other industrial skills mainly to young converts. Father Pascal fell ill and left in 1857 and in 1860 the mission closed.39 The mission was built on the site of an Indian village where there was a native cemetery of tree-burials. Nisqually, Puyallup, Chehalis, Suquamish, Duwamish and others shared access to shellfish beds and seasonal encampments and year-round Indian dwellings dotted the shores of Budd Inlet and Priest Point. At Priest Point, a natural spring and a productive fish trap located on Ellis Creek supported permanent residents. Ricard filed a Donation Land Claim that encompassed the mission site and the current park lands.40

Lethal diseases that the Indians were not immune to were brought first by ships exploring Puget Sound and the Columbia River, then by the influx of white settlers. By 1776, English and Spanish voyagers had sailed up the Pacific Coast as far as Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 Washington State. In 1778 the British Captain Cook arrived; and in 1787 the English Captain Charles Barkley explored Juan de Fuca Strait. In 1792 Captains Vancouver, Puget and Whidbey explored Puget Sound and Peter Puget surveyed Budd Inlet. Vancouver went as far south as Eld Inlet, trading. Captain Vancouver noted evidence of smallpox, and said the Sound tribes had a great calamity previous to his visit in the spring of 1792.41 Also in 1792, Captain Robert Gray explored the Columbia River. Lewis and Clark spent the winter of 1805-06 at the mouth of the Columbia. The Hudson’s Bay Company established Ft. Vancouver in 1824 and by 1833 had a fur trading fort at Fort Nisqually; Catholic priests lived there. In 1838 Lt. Charles Wilkes explored the Pacific to expand U.S. commerce and seek the best harbors – he chose San Francisco and Puget Sound. In 1841 a ship explored Thurston County.

Diseases began to take their toll – in some cases entire villages were wiped out. In 1836 intermittent fevers killed Nisqually people and the 1836-37 influenza in south Puget Sound led to 10,000 deaths. Near Walla Walla half the Cayuse Tribe died of smallpox in 1836. Following the explorers, the invasion of American settlers also brought diseases – measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria and the aigue. In 1847 Nisquallies had a measles epidemic. In 1853 a smallpox epidemic killed half the Makah. The Chinooks, in the 1830’s a powerful people, were almost all gone a year before the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.42 George Gibbs observed on the Columbia River and at Shoalwater Bay there were a few remnants of the once numerous Chinooks “the smallpox having nearly finished its work in the past year. In winter and spring it spread with a great virulence along the coast as far north as Cape Flattery. Some lodges upon the southern peninsula of Shoalwater Bay were left without a survivor, and the dead were found by the whites lying wrapped in their blankets as if asleep. Quite extensive cemeteries are scattered along the bay…the Makahs had been lately visited by the smallpox, with its customary devastating effects. The Cowlitz, likewise a once numerous and powerful tribe, are now insignificant and fast disappearing. The few bands remaining are intermingled with those of the Upper Chehalis – two united are not over 165 – scattered in seven parties between the mouth of the Cowlitz and the Satsop. The whole number of all Indians south of Puget Sound, and between the Cascades and the coast would be around 850, in place of 3000, the estimate of Captain Wilkes in 1841. The Makahs numbered until recently 550. During the last year the smallpox found its way to their region, and, it is reported, reduced them to 150. The S’Klallams had 1500 fighting men – in January only 375. The Chief said they once had 140 canoes, of 18 to the larger and 14 to the smaller, a total of 2,240 men.”43 Gibbs estimated there had been 26,800. In the 1835 census, there were numbers like 20,000, now a malignant fever and aigue had raged among them. In 1853 tribes suffered a fourth smallpox epidemic since the white men had come. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 The settlers who filed land claims under the Land Donation Act of 1850 complained that they could not get free title to the land because federal law said that the Indians held legal claim to the land. The Northwest Ordinance of 1789 had promised that no Indian land would be taken without tribal consent. For this reason, when Isaac Stevens was appointed the first Washington Territorial Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs after Washington Territory was created on March 2, 1853, his first order of business was to extinguish Indian ownership of the land and remove the Indians. A white male who farmed a claim for four years got 320 acres at no cost plus 320 acres for his wife. As Stevens traveled west to Olympia he surveyed land for the Northern Pacific Railway with George Gibbs, an ethnologist and lawyer who spoke Indian languages and had written the first treaties for the Territorial Governor in Oregon in 1851-53. Those treaties had been too generous with land for tribal reservations for the settlers to accept so were not ratified by the Senate. With this experience, when Gibbs wrote the treaties for Governor Isaac Stevens, he gave less land away to the Indians so ratification would be swift. The settlers were arriving in large numbers, building houses and fences in Tumwater, Olympia and Steilacoom and wanted the land title. In 1852 Olympia had a few hundred residents. An 1853 tally of the Washington region showed 2,000 settlers but six times that many Indians. Isaac Stevens determined to make the treaties fast to speed settlement.

Governor Stevens came up the Cowlitz Trail to Olympia November 25, 1853. At the time, Olympia was the largest town because it had been settled first so the Washington State Capitol came to be based there. He surrounded himself with a coterie of thirty settlers and appointed Michael T. Simmons, the first white settler who had located at Steh-chass, as head Indian Agent. Simmons was from Kentucky, a tough guy, barely literate, who regularly vented his displeasures. George Gibbs, his opposite, was cultured, his family had a fortune, he was a lawyer, he recorded Indian language and customs, and became the drafter of the Indian treaties. Stevens directed George McClellan to compile data on every aspect of tribal life west of the Cascades.44 On February 28, 1854, Stevens’ speech to the first session of the newly chosen Washington Legislature stressed that Indian title to the land had to be formally voided so that settlers’ Land Donation Act claims could be certified and white settlement quickly 45 expanded once the treaties were in place. In autumn of 1854, in preparation for the first treaty at Medicine Creek, Stevens instructed a three man team to prepare: George Gibbs was to draft a treaty text that could serve as a template for future treaties, while Michael T. Simmons and Frank Shaw46 were to travel to tribal homelands to figure out which tribes to meet with in what order and groupings and to advise the natives that the new governor would soon invite them to learn about the new living conditions; they preached the necessity of compliance. They traveled to the Puget Sound tribes, looked for friendly leaders, and appointed them as Chiefs so they could sign the papers making the change of title legal. They appointed Quiemuth chief of the Nisqually and his brother Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 Leschi as sub-chief. George Gibbs conducted an Indian census and found 893 people living in the area – 650 Indians attended the Medicine Creek council.

On December 4, 1854, Stevens’ second annual address to the Washington Legislature stressed that the arrangement with the Indians would be imposed, not negotiated: “the time has come for their final settlement.”47 He asked the settlers for their support. He toyed with the idea of moving all western tribes to the east of the Cascades or put all western tribes on one single reservation about forty miles above Olympia at the head of Hood Canal. Gibbs saw that as combustible – it was better to bunch a few friendly tribes on several smaller reservations. At a December 10, 1854 planning session the commission decided to divert the Indians from white settlements at Olympia, Steilacoom and Seattle. When the commission asked Shaw if he could really prevail upon the tribes to accept the pact, he said: “Yes, I can get the Indians to sign their death warrant.”48

The first treaty was the Medicine Creek Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawksin, S’Homamish, Steh-chass, T’Peeksin, Squiattle and Sa-heh-wamish – they lived closest to Olympia. The Noo-Seh-Chatl of the Henderson Inlet watershed, the Steh-Chass of the Budd Inlet watershed, the Squi-Aitl of the Eld Inlet watershed, the T’Peeksin of the Totten Inlet watershed, the Sa-Heh-Wa-Mish of the Hammersley Inlet watershed, the Squawksin of the Case Inlet watershed and the S’Hotle-Ma-Mish of the Carr Inlet watershed were to be joined together in the Squaxin Island Tribe.

They met for three days, December 24-26, 1854, at Medicine Creek, a sacred retreat where tribal shamans went to restore their curative powers. Shaw read the thirteen articles of the treaty drafted by George Gibbs on December 25. At the time Stevens did not have accurate maps of the tribes’ traditional areas, so Shaw asked them to draw maps of their own homelands for a single large map of Indian country. Leschi stopped working on his map when he saw that they were giving the Nisqually a piece of land that was heavily timbered on a high bluff. Leschi said they could not live there – there was no place for their horses to graze, no place to grow food and it was not on the Nisqually River, their traditional home where they lived by fishing. Stevens told him that was the reservation they would get. Leschi was further upset hearing that Stevens planned to move all the Indians to a more remote location – the reservations being negotiated were “temporary.” The Puyallups’ reservation too would be far from their river. The Indians complained of Stevens’ bullying tactics – the command-and-obey process was not a negotiation. He had translators who knew Salish but insisted on using the 500 word Chinook jargon.49 When Stevens addressed the Indians, he spoke to them like children: “The Great White Father felt for his children. He pitied them, and he has sent me here today to express these feelings, and to make a treaty for your benefit.”50 On the second day, December 25, 1854, Leschi said they would move to a reservation but it had to be on the river. Stevens said no. Leschi took the paper naming him sub-chief out of his pocket, threw it on the ground and stomped on it, then he and his brother Quiemuth left. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 Michael T. Simmons had told Leschi that if he did not sign the Treaty, he would sign it for him.51 Leschi was not present on December 26, 1854 when the Treaty was signed, but there is an X by Leschi’s name. Five witnesses documented that Leschi did not sign the treaty.52 Others too did not sign but an X is there. When sent to the U.S. Interior Department, there were sixty-two Indian names on the treaty with marks beside them. Stevens was happy with the results of the treaty council – none of the reservations would slow down future white settlement. He wrote to George Manypenny, commissioner of the U.S. Office of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, that Article 6 allowed the President to move or consolidate reservation sites whenever it suited the U.S. Government, and he planned to move the Medicine Creek Treaty tribes onto a single, consolidated reservation, perhaps as early as the summer of 1855.53

After the new year, 1855, Stevens left to make more treaties west and east of the Cascades. At the time it was estimated there were 10,000 Indians west of the Cascades and 12,000 east of the Cascades. On the east side, there was only one council meeting and 6,000 Indians came. After a three week council, on June 11, 1855, three treaties were signed: one with the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla; one with the Yakima; and one with the Nez Perce. An Indian council that summer between Yakima, Klickitat and Walla Walla tribes plus Leschi expressed dissatisfaction over the treaties and loss of land. Leschi, whose father was Nisqually and mother was Klickitat with Yakima relatives, carried the message back to the lower Columbia tribes and Nisqually. The tribes had been used to counting coup, stealing horses or slaves as war. They now knew they had to fight the American way: kill the enemy.54

Stevens declared Washington Territory open to settlers before the treaties were ratified, which angered the Yakimas. Gold was discovered near Spokane and eight gold seekers crossing Yakima lands were killed as was federal Indian agent Andrew Bolon. Settlers were alarmed and outraged. The 350 or so regular army men posted around the Territory were not enough to quell the natives if they refused to surrender their lands and go to where they were told. On October 14, Acting Governor George Mason (Stevens was away on his treaty-making mission) issued a call for formation of two companies of volunteer militiamen under territorial not federal jurisdiction, one for Olympia and the other for Ft. Vancouver. On October 16, 1855, James McAllister, whose friendship with Leschi had become strained over the Medicine Creek Treaty, wrote to Mason that he should stop Leschi from preparing for war. Mason invited Leschi to meet in his office October 22, 1855 where Leschi again expressed his desire for peace and a reservation on the river. Mason asked Leschi and Quiemuth to bring their families and stay in Olympia until the reservation issue was settled. Leschi apparently said he would think about it, and Mason made no threats of what would happen if they did not. The army asked Mason to summon four additional volunteer militia units – one was put under Captain Charles Eaton, white son-in-law of Leschi, “Eaton’s Rangers,” Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 with second in command Lt. Jim McAllister. They joined with the U.S. Army under Captain Maurice Maloney to go to Yakima country to avenge the deaths there. An October 23, 1855 letter sent to Mason by Second Lieutenant John Nugen of the Olympia militia reported: “The Volunteer Company got off in fine order at 2 p.m. yesterday – the men in fine spirits and apparently with determination of taking the Scalp of every Red-skin who may be so unfortunate as to fall in their way.”55 After two days, Leschi had not reported back to Mason, so Mason called on Captain Eaton to form a detachment of nineteen of his rangers, with himself at their head, to apprehend the Nisqually half-brothers at their Muck Creek farm twenty miles away and bring them back to Olympia. When Eaton arrived at the farm, the plow was left standing in the field and Leschi was nowhere in sight. Eaton waited two days, then left, taking fifteen of Leschi’s horses. Leschi had joined other Indians in the deep forest beyond the Puyallup River, in secluded uplands between the White and Green rivers, an ideal haven, only two days from their villages and along the Naches Pass to Yakima country. Two years later Leschi said, “I did not intend to make war on the western side of the mountains.” He met up with Chiefs Kitsap and Nelson who were upset by provisions in the Point Elliott Treaty, and Muckleshoots, Nisqually, Puyallup, Duwamish and Klickitat warriors . “It was they who persuaded me into it.”56

On October 27, 1855, Eaton’s men continued to meet up with Maloney, but split in two, with McAllister in charge of a reconnaissance crew that crossed the Puyallup River and pushed toward a reported encampment of roughly 500 natives, including women and children, who were fishing on the White River. McAllister asked Eaton if he might approach the group and try to beguile his old friend Leschi into giving himself up and renouncing all thought of violence against the whites. He took along Connell and two Indian guides. As they approached, a Nisqually named Toopapyti fired two shots and Mc Allister was dead, the first fatality in the fighting west of the mountains. Then Connell was shot. The next day, October 28, 1855, warriors out of the control of Leschi, fell upon the cabin of Harvey Jones, his wife and three small children and a hired man. The adults were shot and the children escaped and were helped by a friendly Indian. Five more down the river were killed and an infant taken hostage. Word spread fast of what came to be known as the White River Massacre. A wave of hysteria hit the settlers. Acting Governor Mason ordered the emergency construction of blockhouses and settlers moved into them.

At the same time, in fall of 1855, Indian Agent Michael T. Simmons, his fellow Indian agents and their deputies, began rounding up the 4,000 or so natives on the west side of the mountains who had not gone off to evade forced movement to reservations, to be put in internment camps.57 Simmons called on “friendlies” to assemble, promised them protection from the volunteer militia who shot Indians first and asked questions later.58 The Indians interned on Squaxin and Fox Islands suffered and many died. There was Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 no fresh water on Squaxin Island and not enough food. They had to travel by canoe at night to an adjacent island to get fresh water. If they were found off the islands they were shot. Michael T. Simmons continued up Puget Sound interning Indians as far as the Lummi Indian Nation, with a total of seven internment camps: 847 at Bellingham Bay, 1400 at Holmes Harbor, 1522 on the Olympic Peninsula, 1300 at Penn’s Cove, 942 at Ft. Kitsap, 460 at Squaxin Island, 1200 on Fox Island.59 Fox Island interned 1200 Steilacoom, Shattmahmish, Shamahmish, Puyallup and Nisqually Indians. Squaxin Island held 460 Squaxin, Nisquallies, and Sahawamish. Hostile Indians who were captured went to Fox Island. Fox Island was an internment center for 13 months. From May to September, 80 Indians died, 150 came from the war zone. Many died of consumption (bleeding from the lungs). Isaac Stevens instructed the militia that any Indians not in the internment camps were to be exterminated. Stevens had instructed the volunteer militia: “All Indians found in your field of operations are to be considered as enemies.”60 Indians were shot and hung. Indian families peacefully fishing were massacred.

Meanwhile Maloney’s men had to turn back and October 31, 1855 sent Tidd and six others back, including three militiamen well known around Olympia and Antonio Rabbeson, a longtime sidekick and sometimes business associate of Michael T. Simmons, and part of the tight coterie of Isaac Stevens. Knowing nothing of the recent events, they came upon Leschi and others fishing in the White River at Connell’s Prairie. After leaving the camp they were ambushed and Miles and Moses were dead. Lieutenant Slaughter and 100 regulars and militia followed the natives – one night Slaughter was shot. He was well known in Steilacoom and Olympia and his death shocked the whole white community including the thirty members of the Legislature. The flow of farmers and other civilians into blockhouses increased. Uneasiness ran through the 5,000 Americans in Washington Territory. At any given time Leschi probably did not have more than 300 men. Isaac Sterret, commander of the U.S.S. Decatur, berthed in Seattle, wrote to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis on December 5, 1855: “The valor and prowess of the Indians has been greatly underrated…The whole military resources of the Territory are totally inadequate to conduct war with success, even to afford protection to the settlers.”61

Early December, General Wool, Pacific Coast regional commander of U.S. Army forces and critic of Stevens’ volunteer militia, had his worst fears about the tactics of the militiamen confirmed when the Walla Walla Chief Peopeomoxmox tried to improve race relations in his area – he had been unable to prevent Indian looting and livestock- rustling against settlers still without title to the land as the Treaties had not been ratified. Peo, accompanied by forty warriors, approached the militia camp under a flag of truce. The white commander demanded that Peo turn over his tribe’s livestock to pay for the stolen head and their firearms as a preventive measure against further violence against Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 the settlers. Peo objected, saying he had struck treaty terms with Stevens. He and his five bodyguards were arrested and confined. After he failed to appear, the rest of Peo’s party began skirmishing with the militiamen. That evening, the chief, objecting to being tied up, was shot to death in a scuffle. Peo’s volunteer militia captors then scalped him, pickled his ears in a jar of alcohol, and brought selected body parts with them to display in a boozy celebration in Portland. The atrocity sent the message to the Indians that however they behaved, they would be abused by the whites once they had the upper hand.62

Stevens, in his wrath, wrote in his December 22, 1855 letter to Manypenny: “My plan is to make no treaty whatever with the tribes now in arms; to do away entirely with the reservations guaranteed to them; to make a summary example of all the leading spirits, and to place as a conquered people, under the surveillance of troops, the remains of those tribes on reservations selected by the President, and on such terms as the Government in its justice and mercy now vouchsafe to me.”63 Most of the noncombatant Nisquallies whom Michael T. Simmons had rounded up in the fall were taken to a five-mile long island called Bu-ta-u and known to the whites as Fox Island. The 1,000 or so internees were dependent on white man’s food and sickness was rampant. On January 5, 1856 Leschi brought six canoes manned by thirty-three Indians onto the shore in front of the cabin of John Swan, the white warden on Fox Island. Leschi asked Swan to convey a message to the white authorities: his people were not fighters by nature and had taken up arms only because they had been misled at Medicine Creek into accepting a hellish reservation; they wanted no more than enough space to live as they were accustomed;…they would gladly talk peace and reconciliation with any Indian agent but Simmons for whom he harbored a “deadly hatred,” as Swan recounted their conversation a few days later to the Puget Sound Courrier. Mindful of the horrified response by the white community to the White River Massacre, which he always claimed to have counseled against, Leschi insisted to Swan that the braves under his command did not attack innocent or helpless civilians - it was cultus (bad) Indians who had committed the atrocity.64 Swan sent a messenger to Ft. Steilacoom, just six miles away, to Captain Erasmus Keyes who decided to try instead to capture Leschi. He borrowed the Beaver, the Hudson Bay’s paddle wheel steamer to carry troops. When Swan paddled out to see if the U.S. Army was willing to advance a peace arrangement, Maloney told him he had no such intentions. Swan returned to tell Leschi, who had used the time to enlist as many as two dozen new recruits. With no success in their peace mission, they paddled away. The Courrier noted, “It is in vain that we look for a parallel case of bravery in the annals of Indian warfare…which proves to us we have sadly underrated the courage and daring of the Indians on the Sound.”65

Two weeks later Stevens returned to Olympia and within a week of his return addressed a packed session of the Washington Territorial Legislature, whose members he told – to Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 “deafening cheers,” according to the account in the Pioneer and Democrat – that “the war shall be prosecuted until the last hostile Indian is exterminated.” Far from altering the Nisqually and Puyallup reservations, the governor cried fiercely, “Let the blow be struck where it is deserved,” and promised that “nothing but death is a mete punishment for their perfidy – their lives only shall pay the forfeit…The guilty ones shall suffer, and the remainder placed on reservations under the eye of the military.”66 The governor then issued a new call for six new companies of militiamen to replace those whose terms were expiring – the new recruits would enlist for six months. Major General John Wool, the U.S. Army Pacific Coast commander, strongly disapproved of the civilian militia, considering them little better than vigilantes, generally ill-trained and poorly disciplined, who posed a greater threat to the peace than irritable Indians did and who often took their empowerment as a license to kill, plunder and profiteer.67 The general expected the war could be brought to a close within a few months “provided the extermination of the Indians, which I do not approve of, is not insisted upon…and the volunteers are withdrawn from the Walla Walla country.”68 Stevens reacted by going over Wool’s head and writing directly to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis to urge Wool’s dismissal from his high post.69 A few days after the speech to the legislature, that every last hostile Indian would be done away with, Indians attacked Seattle (only 100 permanent residents and nearly as many friendly natives lived there). Leschi is said to have led the attack but he denied it. A few buildings were torched in one day and then they left, with little damage done. But the psychological impact was great. A few days before, Stevens had visited and reassured Seattle, “I believe the cities of New York and San Francisco would as soon be attacked as Seattle.”70

Leschi tried again to have Stevens hear his request. He asked John McLeod to deliver a message to the new commander, Casey, at Ft. Steilacoom. He reiterated the natives’ desire to end the war and insisted that neither he nor his warriors had been at Seattle. He invited John Swan to hear his peoples’ desire to coexist amicably with the whites. Swan met with Leschi and reported in the Courrier, “Leschi is anxious for peace but wishes that his people will receive no punishment and that a new reservation shall be set aside for their use.”71 Stevens was not receptive to Leschi’s terms. He dispatched his volunteer units in every direction to inflict all possible pain on any natives at liberty (instead of being in internment camps) and built forts and blockhouses and ferry landings. Stevens ignored Manypenny’s urging to “avoid vindictive and unnecessary bloodshed” and to bear in mind that Indians “who were criminal may be treated with magnanimity after laying down arms.”72 In Stevens’ March 9, 1856 letter to Manypenny, the Indians were on the rampage, he wrote, threatening “entirely unprotected” settlements, targeting supply trains, inciting hostility among friendlies by “wiles and falsehoods” – all requiring that the white community be saved from “the treacherous and ferocious Indians who have barbarously murdered men, women and children and laid waste nearly two entire counties…and whilst they shall be made to unconditionally Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 surrender and their leaders to be made to suffer death, the Indians generally shall be dealt with in a spirit of humanity and kindness.” …”73 The Duwamish were attacked by marines who killed half the 120 natives. Leschi headed to Naches Pass.

On April 4, 1856, Wool wrote to his superiors in the capital that if the governor were not so “anxious for a long and expensive war and the barbarous determination…to exterminate the Indians, I would soon put an end to the Indian war.”74 Stevens now spurred his volunteers to a new level of death dealing by issuing his unit commanders a license that all Indians not in internment camps were legitimate targets: “All Indians found in your field of operations…are to be considered as enemies.”75 Hamilton Maxon’s76 Washington Mounted Rifles used the new license to kill with particular viciousness. Entire Indian families in the foothills were annihilated. Americans sought out and hung Indians accused of killing Americans.

An April, 1856 massacre of unarmed Indians by volunteer militia led by Captain Maxon at the Mashel River left 17-35 Indians dead. Nisquallies who had refused to leave their lands were on the run, trying to survive, trying to avoid the fighting, and had been in hiding for a year. The Mashel Massacre is documented because a militiaman, Private A.J. Kane, kept a diary and published his journals as did a civilian witness, Robert Thompson. Fifty-five mounted militia under Maxon came upon peaceful Indians, old men, women and children, fishing, hid in the trees, then in a complete surprise attack, from twenty feet away, Maxon yelled “Close in,” and the militia shot into the family, shooting fleeing women carrying children, in the back. Soldiers shot at everything that moved, starting with the slow and decrepit, and chased the fleeter ones into the river which soon ran red with their blood. Some infants had their skulls dashed on the rocks, according to the oral tribal rendition of the massacre. Thompson noted there were almost no able-bodied men among Maxon’s prey and that 15-17 Indians were killed. Maxon got promoted to major for his accomplishment and he and his volunteers continued their mounted manhunt, Stevens’ genocidal instruments in the field.77 In early March Maxon had suggested taking Muck Creek white families who were not supportive of the war and had remained neutral into custody and Stevens had done it, with no due process of law. Stevens pointed out that while others were in blockhouses, some white farmers remained and “whoever can remain on his claim unmolested is an ally of the enemy and must be dealt with.”78 A dozen Muck Creek white farmers were taken into custody and held indefinitely. Five of the them, including John McLeod, escaped after several weeks and returned to their farms only to be recaptured, labeled prisoners of war, and told they would be tried for treason – a capital crime – not by a civil court but by a five-man military tribunal chosen by Stevens. The Muck Creek Five hired a lawyer who got a judge to order the freeing of the prisoners. To keep them from being freed, the next day, April 14, 1856, Stevens decreed martial law in Pierce County, suspending all functions of civil government, including courts and called the prisoners “evil-disposed Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 persons.”79 Judge Lander, chief justice of Washington’s Supreme Court, held firm that he would hold court and rule on the Muck Creek Five’s request. The judge wrote that Stevens’ decree “shows no necessity whatever for taking the law into his own hands.”80 Stevens sent Frank Shaw to stop the court so martial law could not be challenged. Another judge asked Stevens to withdraw martial law. Stevens would not. Judge Lander ordered every able-bodied male over sixteen in the county to attend court as posse comitatus to protect civil law. Shaw ordered twenty armed men to empty the court if gaveled into session. Thirty citizens, many of them lawyers, defended the court and civil rule over martial law, among them George Gibbs. Shaw said he would arrest the judge and take him to the fort. Judge Lander submitted at gunpoint to Shaw and the militia. Steilacoom, in shock over the thuggish tactic that shut down the court, held a torchlight parade and street rally. Gibbs drew up a resolution of outrage sent to territorial newspapers and a petition to President Pierce, attacking the governor for “flagrant usurpation of power” and conduct of a despot.81 Stevens drew up an anonymous rebuttal that was published in the local press. No Indian warriors had been seen for two months prior to Stevens’ imposition of martial law. Gibbs and other former close associates of the governor wrote to Secretary of State William Marcy that Stevens was “a diminutive Napoleon” who was “actuated by arrogant and unbridled love of power” and that he was a drunkard.82 The judge got out after a few days in custody and was to open court in Thurston County. On May 14, 1856, Stevens declared martial law there as well. The judge issued a bench warrant to Stevens. The U.S. territorial Marshall assigned to serve the summons on the governor found the door to Stevens’ office barred by as many as a dozen of his bulkiest loyalists among the militiamen, including Adjutant General James Tilton and Tony Rabbeson. When the Marshall forced the issue, a fistfight broke out, with Stevens himself reportedly part of the scuffle, and the summons went unserved. The militiamen then marched to the house that served as Lander’s court and, finding that the judge had barricaded himself in his clerk’s room, broke down the door and for the second time in eight days hauled away the chief justice of the territory. The chief justice’s defiance landed him in the territorial jail at Camp Montgomery, the militia headquarters, in a cell alongside the Muck Creek Five.83 The following week, Judge Chenowith, his health restored, returned to his courtroom in Steilacoom and denounced Stevens for his continuing usurpation of executive power. Chenowith issued a fresh habeas corpus writ ordering Shaw to produce the prisoners in his courtroom. Stevens then ordered Maxon to send thirty volunteers and arrest the judge if he reopened court on May 24, 1856. Chenowith called on the law-abiding citizenry to protect his courtroom, asking the Pierce County Sheriff to round up enough power to form a defense posse. The judge further enlisted the help of Colonel Casey of Fort Steilacoom. Between fifty and sixty armed citizens had mustered in front of the courthouse when a force of thirty volunteer militia approached. Colonel Casey told the militia that if his men used force to drive off the civilian guardsmen and arrest the judge, Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 a force of army regulars would stop them. The militia leader backed down. The military tribunal the governor had appointed to try the Muck Creek Five declined to hear the case on the ground it was a civil matter over which the militia did not have jurisdiction. The prisoners were brought to the county courthouse and the charges were dropped. On May 28, 1856 Stevens ended his protracted tantrum by rescinding the martial law decree.84

Letters protesting Stevens’ conduct began to appear in The New York Times and other leading papers. In July, 1856, Judge Lander issued a warrant for Stevens’ arrest on a contempt-of-court charge for having refused to accept the summons and explain why he had ignored Judge Chenowith’s original habeas corpus writ. Stevens momentarily submitted and appeared before Lander, but when the judge found him guilty and fined him a token fifty dollars to establish the principle that no official, not even a governor, could flout the law with impunity, Stevens invoked the powers of his office to pardon himself temporarily until President Pierce had an opportunity to review the entire matter. His friends stepped in and paid the fine for him. A September 12, 1856 letter to Stevens from Secretary of State Marcy advised him of President Pierce’s opinion of the governor’s martial law misadventure. The President “has not been able to find in the case you have presented a justification for that extreme measure,” Marcy reported, and added the President’s distinct disapproval of his conduct.85 The Territorial Legislature voted to reprimand Stevens for the martial law and the U.S. Senate registered “strongest condemnation” of his conduct.

In mid-June, 1856, Stevens ordered Shaw to lead 200 volunteers to kill Indians in the east. Stevens asked Wright to render up murderers and instigators of war for punishment – “Leschi, Nelson, Kitsap and Quiemuth and to suggest no arrangement be made which shall save their necks from the Executioner.”86 He promised fifty blankets to the man who would lead a party of soldiers to Leschi’s camp. Pursuit of Leschi was now becoming Stevens’ consuming obsession.87 The U.S. Army offices said persecution of the Indians’ chief after the fighting had ended would only serve to stir his people to a new round of violence. Shaw, with 500 militiamen, went to look for the Yakimas and Klickitats and found none. On July 17, 1856, in the Valley of the Grand Ronde River they found 500 Cayuse and other Indians, mostly women and children gathering edible roots. The Cayuse said there were no warriors in the camp. Shaw charged, and sixty Indians were killed. They burned 120 of the natives’ lodges and destroyed their food stores. They stole some of their 200 horses and slew the rest. Shaw lost four men, four others were wounded.88 James Tilton, commanding general of the volunteer militiamen wrote to Shaw, “We were all delighted with the report of your brilliant success.”89 Stevens pointedly told Colonel Wright and his regulars that Shaw’s men had delivered a “severe blow” to the natives, then crowed to Jefferson Davis, “The Walla Walla campaign has been completely successful.”90 Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 Satisfied that Shaw’s actions at Grande Ronde was the coup de grace that would end further resistance to his treaties, Stevens began to disband the militia corps and fulfill his promise to adjust the harsh reservations assigned to Medicine Creek tribes. Tribal leaders of about 500 Nisquallies, Puyallups and other tribes were still in the Fox Island internment camp. It was overcrowded and debilitating. One hundred had died of tuberculosis and other diseases. The War Department told Stevens to give larger reservations to the Indians and end the war.91 Stevens went to Fox Island to end the war and grant the reservations. The surrendered hostiles were 300 men, women and children. The whole number of Nisquallies and Puyallups was 750. By 1856-1857 internees had been sent to new homes. Over a hundred people had died on Fox Island. Puyallups were only 200 and were dying off rapidly. In June, 1857 only five Indian houses remained on Nisqually. English names were given to the Indians. First names from the list of Americans killed in Indian wars were given to Indian families as their last names. Old village sites off the new reservations became parts of homesteads, fenced or destroyed to make room to build homes. Sidney Ford was Fox Island Warden and Territorial Indian Agent for the Sound. Stevens told the Indians it was all their fault. He said, “Reservations were suggested by yourselves. I surveyed and found them not good and sent word to Leschi and all Indians that the reservations should be changed.”92 He now agreed to reassign the Nisquallies and Puyallups to a “large reservation“ for each of them along their ancestral rivers and a new one for the Muckleshoots in the White and Green River uplands.

The Nisqually’s new reservation was 7.5 square miles of fertile bottomland and adjacent prairie for about four miles from where Muck Creek joined in to a point close to the estuary. The Puyallups were given a more generous 36 square miles.93 In a letter to Manypenny three weeks after the Fox Island concessions, Stevens said the Nisquallies would not be allowed to occupy their new reservation until their fugitive chief surrendered or was handed over. He said the Indians should be established on a reservation suitable to their wants and where they could be contented “with the exception of certain leaders and murderers.” General Wool was urging the War Department to get Stevens sacked for his vengeful and provocative attitude toward Indians.94

In early June, 1856, Leschi had met with Wright to seek help to go home, but Wright said no, it was better to wait. A few weeks later Wright received a letter from Stevens demanding “no arrangements be made which shall save their necks from the Executioner,” said to grab Leschi even if he came under a flag of truce and told Casey the native warriors no longer active but still at large “are notorious murderers…treachery and bloodthirstiness almost beyond example.”95 Leschi slipped into Ft. Nisqually to visit Tolmie who told him he should place himself under Casey’s care, but Casey advised him to stay in the woods longer – Stevens thirsted for an Indian scapegoat for Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 the war. Stevens told Casey Leschi was endeavoring to raise a force to prosecute the war anew. Stevens doubted “any country or age has afforded an example of the kindness and justice which has been shown towards the Indians by the suffering inhabitants of the Sound.” Stevens wrote the Indian operations “have been from the beginning…those of murderers and outlaws – no tribe as such having broken into hostility – and they are therefore entitled to none of the rights of war.”96 Casey said, “There are whites at large who have wantonly murdered innocent Indians...” Wool backed Casey and said, “His removal from office of governor alone can prevent it (a return to war).”97 Wool expressed regret over Stevens’ vindictive spirit. He said, “Do not fail to give protection… to Leschi and all Indians peaceably inclined to the whites…if Stevens’ militia return to the fray arrest them.”98

Stevens placed a reward of $500, or fifty blankets for an Indian, for whoever would bring in Leschi. On November 3, 1856, Stevens summoned a grand jury to consider a charge against Leschi for the ambush murder one year earlier of Abram Moses. Rabbeson was seated on the grand jury and then testified, weighing his own evidence. No one had said they had seen Leschi kill Moses, but now Rabbeson changed his story and said he saw Leschi. Killing an enemy combatant had never been considered murder; that was personal, war was societal. The military considered him a prisoner of war; Stevens considered him a criminal and determined to hang him. On November 13, 1856, Sluggia, Leschi’s sister’s boy, went to Leschi’s hidden camp in Nisqually, pounced on him, bound and took him to Sidney Ford (Indian agent) at Ft. Steilacoom. The next day Leschi was taken to Stevens’ home. Stevens asked Chenowith to hold court immediately, November 17, 1856, but the court ended in a hung jury. Quiemuth, Leschi’s brother, asked Longmire to take him to Stevens’ home the same day as the trial, arriving at 2 a.m. Early in the morning, November 18, 1856, Quiemuth was stabbed and shot while sleeping in Stevens’ office. In a November 21 letter to Manypenny, Stevens wrote: “Since Casey would not hunt down the brothers I have resorted to other methods, which have resulted in their apprehension.”99

Leschi was retried in March of 1857. For Stevens’ excessive zeal in the treaty making campaign, resulting in open warfare, and the martial law outrage, Congress stripped Stevens of his appointment of Commissioner of Indian Affairs and assigned it to the Indian commissioner for Oregon Territory. In 1857 Stevens campaigned for Washington Territory’s lone delegate to Congress. He won and left for Washington, DC. Fayette McMullin replaced him as Governor.100 Wahelut, “Yelm Jim,” tracked down Sluggia and killed him. The whites let it go. On December 25, 1857, more than 1,000 natives who had gathered on Squaxin Island to receive their annuities, placed their marks on a 101 petition to the government to spare Leschi. McMullin denied clemency. The military at Ft. Steilacoom refused to hang Leschi so the Washington state authorities built a scaffold a mile east of the fort and hung him February 19, 1858. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924 In 2004 the Washington State Legislature passed a Resolution proclaiming Chief Leschi was a great leader who protected his people. The Supreme Court gave a ruling: “If Leschi did kill Moses, they were lawful combatants in time of war, so the murder charge was not justified.”102

Footnotes

1 http://coastsalishmap.org/Village_Descriptions_Nisqually-Olympia.htm 2 Ruth A. Masten, Editor, Investigations in the Tumwater Historic District: Archaeological Excavation of the Tumwater Site (45TN119), Thurston County, Washington. Report Number 100-59 (Cheney, WA, Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History, Archaeological and Historical Services, 1987) 31 and Marian Smith, The Puyallup-Nisqually (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940) 243-45 and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Register of Historic Places – Nomination Form, Tumwater Historic District, https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/documents/RN/0/3/3724.pdf.

3 “Map of Washington Territory Showing the Indian Nations and Tribes,” 1854 (Washington State Historical Society,1990.60.1). 4 Del McBride, “A Native American Presence in the Tumwater Falls Area,” The River Remembers – A History of Tumwater by Gayle L. Palmer (Tumwater: The Donning Company Publishers, 1995) 23. 5 T.T. Waterman, Edited with additional material from Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller and Zalmai Zahir, Puget Sound Geography – Original Manuscripts (Lushootseed Press, July 24, 2001) 305-307 and Del McBride. “A Native American Presence in the Tumwater Falls Area” The River Remembers – A History of Tumwater by Gayle L. Palmer (Tumwater: The Donning Company Publishers, 1995) 24. 6 “It’s 1841…Meet the Neighbors,” Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 9 and Del McBride, “A Native American Presence in the Tumwater Falls Area,” The River Remembers – A History of Tumwater by Gayle L. Palmer (Tumwater: The Donning Company Publishers, 1995) 23 and Don Trosper, New Market (Tumwater: Tumwater Historical Association, 1987) 9-10 and J.C. Rathbun, History of Thurston County Washington (Olympia, Washington, 1895) 14 and Carolyn Cock Dunlap, “Ancotty“(manuscript at the Oregon Historical Society) 121. Sno-ho-dum-set was also chief of Nu-she-tsatl village at the South Bay on Henderson Inlet, “It’s 1841…Meet the Neighbors,” Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 9 and the small village at the south end of Henderson Inlet called Nuschatl; Indians from there were sent to Squaxin during the Indian War (Andrew Poultridge, Boomtime: A History of the Natural Resources Area and Woodward Bay (Washington State Department of Natural Resources: Division of Land and Water Conservation, 1991). 7 http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ea/tribal/treaties/Nisqualli_Puyallup.pdf 8 Research – 1856, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 1 and Cheetwoot – 1841, Display, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 7. 9 Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation files. Research – 1841, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia). 10 Gordon Newell, Rogues, Buffoons and Statesmen (Seattle: Hangman Press, 1975) 21. 11 Heather Lockman and Shanna Stevenson, Building a Capital City (City of Olympia Heritage Commission) 1. 12 Gordon Newell, Rogues, Buffoons and Statesmen (Seattle: Hangman Press, 1975) 11 and James Robert Tanis, “The Journal of Levi Lathrop Smith – 1847-1848,” ( PNW Quarterly, Oct. 1952) 279. 13 Public Works Department of Olympia, Washington, “Budd Inlet Historical ShorelineTrail Brochure” (Olympia: City of Olympia Public Works Department, 1996). 14 Shanna Stevenson and Chuck Fowler, Port of Olympia (Olympia, Wash. : Port of Olympia, 1997) 3. 15 T.T. Waterman, Edited with additional material from Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller and Zalmai Zahir, Puget Sound Geography – Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman (Lushootseed Press, July 24, 2001) 8 and 14. 16 Reproduced by the Friends of the Washington State Historical Society, 1982. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

17 Ruth A. Masten, Editor, Investigations in the Tumwater Historic District: Archaeological Excavation of the Tumwater Site (45TN119), Thurston County, Washington, Report Number 100-59 (Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History, Archaeological and Historical Services, 1987) 29. 18 Marian Smith, The Puyallup-Nisqually (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940) 8. 19 “Map of Washington Territory Showing the Indian Nations and Tribes -1854” (Washington State Historical Society,1990.60.1). 20 http://olympiawa.gov/community/about-olympia/history-of-olympia-washington.aspx 21 http://coastsalishmap.org/Village_Descriptions_Nisqually-Olympia.htm#15 22 http://olympiawa.gov/community/about-olympia/history-of-olympia-washington.aspx 23 Charles Wilkinson, Messages from Frank’s Landing (Seattle: University of Nebraska Press, 2000) 17. 24 http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/sahehwamish-indians.htm . 25 Paul Thomas, “Thesis on George Bush” p. 22 and Gordon Newell, Rogues, Buffoons and Statesmen (Seattle: Hangman Press, 1975) 10 and Mrs. David Hartman Manuscript (McAllisters, 1893)1. 26 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 64-65. 27 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 64-65. 28 Cecelia Carpenter, The Nisqually, My People (Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2002) 31. 29 Marie Freeman, Washington Territory Donation Land Claims - a project of the Seattle Genealogical Society (Seattle, Wash.: The Society, 1980) 3. 30 Heather Lockman and Carla Wulfsberg, Images of America: Tumwater (Tumwater: City of Tumwater”s Henderson House Museum, 2010) 11. At the time of concentration in internment camps and on reservations, surviving Steh-chass fled west to the Squaxin or north to the Nisqually tribes. Village 27 on Henderson Inlet as well as 28 (Steh-chass) and 30-32 moved to Nisqually at the time of concentration.12 The Steh-chass were known to have moved onto the Nisqually reservation after they participated in the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. 31 Del McBride, “A Native American Presence in the Tumwater Falls Area,” The River Remembers – A History of Tumwater by Gayle L. Palmer (Tumwater: The Donning Company Publishers, 1995) 24. 32 Marie Freeman, Washington Territory Donation Land Claims- a project of the Seattle Genealogical Society (Seattle, Wash.: The Society, 1980)16. 33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Olympia,_Washington and “The Journal of Levi Lathrop Smith” (PNW Quarterly, October,1952) 279 and The Indian War – Display – 1856, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 3. 34 “Twelve Who Counted,” The Olympian, 12-4-88 and The Indian War – Display – 1856, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 3. 35 The Indian War – Display – 1856, Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display (Timberland Regional Library, Olympia) 1,2,4. 36 Cecelia Carpenter, They Walked Before: the Indians of Washington State (Tacoma, Wash.: Tahoma Research Publication,1989) 32. 37 Georgiana Mitchell Blankenship, Early History of Thurston County, Washington: Together with Biographies and Reminiscences of Those (Seattle, Washington: Shorey Book Store, 1972) 112. 38 Cecelia Carpenter, The Nisqually, My People (Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2002) 99. 39 http://olympiawa.gov/community/parks/parks-and-trails/priest-point-park 40 http://www.olympiahistory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:historypriestpointpark&cati d=7:generaltopicsolympiahistory&Itemid=2 41 George Gibbs, Tribes of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon (Shorey's Bookstore, 1986) 178. 42 Signs on the wall at the Nisqually Tribe library. 43 George Gibbs, Indian Tribes of Washington Territory (Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1978) 33-35. 44 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 49. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

45 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 67. 46 Stevens’ most loyal enforcer and free-wheeling special agent in the Indian service and primary interpreter at treaty councils and Michael T. Simmons’ junior business associate in the grist mill at Steh-chass – and who harbored disrespect for the Indians: “personally, I have always believed there was a great deal of humbug about making any treaties with the Indians…The question was, shall a great country with many resources be turned over to a few Indians to roam over and make a precarious living on, making no use of the soil for timber or other resources, or should it be turned over to the civilized man who could develop it in every direction and make it the abiding place of millions of white people instead of a few hundred Indians.” Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 74-75. 47 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 73. 48 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 105. 49 Charles Wilkinson, Messages from Frank’s Landing (Seattle: University of Nebraska Press, 2000) 17. 50 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 99. 51 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 101. 52 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 93. 53 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 106. 54 Cecelia Carpenter, They Walked Before – The Indians of Washington State (Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1989) 31. 55 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 127. 56 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 130. 57 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 130-136. 58 Cecelia Carpenter, Tears of Internment (Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 1996) 39. 59 Cecelia Carpenter, They Walked Before – The Indians of Washington State (Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1989) 32. 60 Cecelia Carpenter, Leschi – Last Chief of the Nisquallies (Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2004) 32. 61 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 143. 62 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 144-145. 63 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 145. 64 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 148-49. 65 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 149-150. 66 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 150-151. 67 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 151. 68 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 152. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

69 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 152. 70 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 153. 71 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 157. 72 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 159. 73 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 160. 74 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 164. 75 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 165. 76 Maxon volunteered after the Whitman massacre, fighting in the Cayuse War until 1849, enlisted, became a Captain, served under Frank Shaw. In the Yakima wars, Maxon and Shaw slaughtered 50 Indians. Maxon served on the committee formed to prosecute Leschi. Abbi Wonacott, Where the Mashel Meets the Nisqually – the Mashel Massacre of 1855 (Spanaway, WA: Bellus Uccello Publishing, 2008) 26-28. 77 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 165-67 and Abbi Wonacott, Where the Mashel Meets the Nisqually – the Mashel Massacre of 1855 (Spanaway, WA: Bellus Uccello Publishing, 2008) 12. A teacher, Abbi Wonacutt, and her students who heard there had been a massacre near the Mashel River researched it for a class project and wrote the entire history of the incident in Where the Mashel Meets the Nisqually. 78 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 168. 79 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 168. 80 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 169. 81 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 170. 82 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 172. 83 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 173. 84 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 174. 85 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 175. 86 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 176-177. 87 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 177. 88 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 179. 89 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 179. 90 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 180. 91 Cecelia Carpenter, Tears of Internment (Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 1996) 52. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

92 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 180. 93 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 182. 94 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 182. 95 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 188-89. 96 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 191. 97 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 192. 98 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 193. 99 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 212. 100 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 228. 101 Richard Kluger, The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America (New York: Random House, 2011) 237. 102 Abbi Wonacott, Where the Mashel Meets the Nisqually – the Mashel Massacre of 1855 (Spanaway, WA: Bellus Uccello Publishing, 2008) 22.

Bibliography

Access Geneology http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/washington/sahehwamish_indian_tribe_locatio n.htm

Blankenship, Georgiana Mitchell. Early History of Thurston County, Washington: Together with Biographies and Reminiscences of Those. Seattle, Washington: Shorey Book Store, 1972.

Bond, Florence Westover. Chief Seattle: Man of Vision. Nick W. Bon, 2001.

Browne, J. Ross. Indian Affairs in the Territory of Oregon and Washington. Fairfield, WA: Ye Galleon Press, 1977 (original in1857).

Budd Inlet Historical Shoreline Trail Brochure. Carpenter, Cecelia. Ft. Nisqually, Documented History of Indian and British Interaction. Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1986.

Carpenter, Cecelia. Leschi – Last Chief of the Nisquallies. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2004.

Carpenter, Cecelia. Tears of Internment. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 1996. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

Carpenter, Cecelia. The Nisqually, My People. Seattle: Tahoma Research Service, 2002.

Carpenter, Cecelia. They Walked Before – The Indians of Washington State. Seattle: Tahoma Publications, 1989.

City of Olympia Website, History of Olympia http://olympiawa.gov/community/about- olympia/history-of-olympia-washington.aspx

City of Tumwater’s Henderson House Museum, 2010.

Clark, Ramsey. Nisqually, Steh-chass, T’P’, Squaxin and Sahehwamish vs. USA, July 10, 1964.

Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound http://coastsalishmap.org/start_page.htm

Crooks, Drew. Olympia Washington: a people’s history. Olympia: City of Olympia, 2009.

Devine, Kathryn. Historic Preservation Assessment and Action Plan – City of Olympia. Olympia: City of Olympia.

Dunlap, Carolyn Cock. “Ancotty.“ Manuscript at the Oregon Historical Society.

Duwamish et al. vs. United States of America, F-275. Washington, DC: US Court of Claims, 1927.

Eckrom, J.A. Remembered Drums: a history of the Puget Sound Indian war. Walla Walla, Washington: Pioneer Press Books, 1989.

Eels, Myron. “Aboriginal Geographic Names in the State of Washington.” American Anthropologist, Vol. V, pp. 27-35. 1892.

Eels, Myron. The Indians of Puget Sound, Washington Territory. American Antiquarian, 1978.

Fish and Wildlife Services http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ea/tribal/treaties/Nisqualli_Puyallup.pdf

Freeman, Marie. Washington Territory Donation Land Claims - a project of the Seattle Genealogical Society. Seattle, Washington: The Society,1980.

Gibbs, George. Indian Tribes of Washington Territory. Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1978. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

Gibbs, George. Indian Tribes – Land Ceded by Treaty - 1855. Reproduced by the Friends of the Washington State Historical Society Library, 1982.

Gibbs, George. Tribes of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Shorey's Bookstore, 1986.

Haeberlin, Herman. The Indians of Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press, 1952.

Hartman, Mrs. David. Manuscript, McAllisters,1893.

Jackson, Helen Hunt. A Century of Dishonor. New York: Harper, 1881.

Kit Sylvester 2005, Olympia Display. Timberland Regional Library, Olympia.

Kluger, Richard. The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash between White and Native America. New York: Random House, 2011.

Lockman, Heather and Stevenson, Shanna. Building a Capital City. City of Olympia Heritage Commission.

Lockman, Heather and Wulfsberg, Carla. Images of America: Tumwater. Tumwater: City of Tumwater’s Henderson House Museum, 2010.

“Map of Washington Territory Showing the Indian Nations and Tribes,” 1854 (Washington State Historical Society,1990.60.1).

Masten, Ruth A., Editor. Investigations in the Tumwater Historic District: Archaeological Excavation of the Tumwater Site (45TN119), Thurston County, Washington. Report Number 100-59. Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History, Archaeological and Historical Services, 1987.

McBride, Del “A Native American Presence in the Tumwater Falls Area,” The River Remembers – A History of Tumwater by Gayle L. Palmer. Tumwater: The Donning Company Publishers, 1995.

Milroy, Robert Huston. Robert Huston Milroy Papers. Portland: Oregon Historical Society, 1872-1890.

Newell, Gordon. Rogues, Buffoons and Statesmen. Seattle: Hangman Press, 1975.

Olympia Downtown Historic District – packet.

Olympia History http://www.olympiahistory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:histo rypriestpointpark&catid=7:generaltopicsolympiahistory&Itemid=2 Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

Olympia Washington Government http://olympiawa.gov/community/about- olympia/history-of-olympia-washington.aspx

PNW Quarterly, 1945.

PNW Quarterly, 1952.

Poultridge, Andrew. Boomtime: A History of the Natural Resources Area and Woodward Bay. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: Division of Land and Water Conservation, 1991.

Priest Point Park Current Information Packet Including History.

Public Works Department of Olympia, Washington. “Take a walk back in history on the Budd Inlet Historic Shoreline Trail - Budd Inlet Historical Shoreline Trail Brochure.” Olympia: City of Olympia Public Works Department, 1996.

Puget Sound Geography (Olympia, WA website).

Rathbun, J.C. History of Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington, 1895.

Ruby, Robert H. and Brown, John A. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Normen and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.

Sicade, Henry. The Indian Side of the Story – Building a State, Volume 3. Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society Publications, 1940.

Smith, Marian. The Puyallup-Nisqually. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Stevenson, Shanna and Cameron, Marie. Historic Preservation in Olympia: a Discussion of Issues. Olympia, 1983.

Stevenson, Shanna. Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey – a pictorial history. Norfolk, Virginia: Donning Co., 1996

Stevenson, Shanna. Port of Olympia – 60th Anniversary. Olympia: Port of Olympia, 1982.

Stevenson, Shanna and Fowler, Chuck. Port of Olympia. Olympia: Port of Olympia, 1997.

Tanis, James Robert. “The Journal of Levi Lathrop Smith – 1847-1848.” PNW Quarterly, October,1952.

Taylor, Jean. In Search of History – The Early Years on Puget Sound. Unique Public Comment ID: 1924

The Olympian. “Twelve Who Counted,” The Olympian, 12-4-88.

Trosper, Don. New Market. Tumwater: Tumwater Historical Association, 1987.

Thomas, Paul. “Thesis on George Bush.”

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. National Register of Historic Places – Nomination Form. Tumwater Historic District. https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/documents/RN/0/3/3724.pdf

Waterman, T.T. Edited with additional material from Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller and Zalmai Zahir. Puget Sound Geography – Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, July 24, 2001.

Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Olympia,_Washington.

Wilkinson, Charles. Messages from Frank’s Landing. Seattle: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Wonacott, Abbi. Where the Mashel Meets the Nisqually – the Mashel Massacre of 1855. Spanaway, WA: Bellus Uccello Publishing, 2008.

Wray, Jacilee. The Native Peoples of the Olympic Peninsula: Who We Are. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002. Ian Lefcourte

From: Bob Hodges Unique Public Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:26 AM Comment ID: 1928 To: Ian Lefcourte Subject: TESC land use zoning designation

I'm in favor of granting TESC's request to change the land use zoning designation of the college from Rural Residential/Resource One Unit per Five Acres (RRR 1/5) to a new institutional land use category.

I live immediately adjacent to the TESC campus/land. They are good stewards of their 1100 acres, and I trust their good judgement.

Bob Hodges 5034 Sunset Drive NW Olympia, WA 98502 360.888.4781 cell/text

1