Incorporating Tribal Interests in Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies of Treaty Tribes on the Washington Coast

Item

Title

Eng Incorporating Tribal Interests in Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies of Treaty Tribes on the Washington Coast

Date

2014

Creator

Eng Bush, Otis M

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

Incorporating Tribal Interests in Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies of Treaty Tribes on the Washington Coast

by
Otis Bush

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2014

©2014 by Otis Bush. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Otis Bush
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Zoltan Grossman, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT

Incorporating Tribal Interests in Marine Protected Areas:
Case Studies of Treaty Tribes on the Washington Coast
Otis Bush
Although Tribal natural resource managers and other Tribal leaders are strong
advocates of conservation for marine areas and natural resources, they generally do not
favor Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a means to those ends. Conservation and
Tribal goals overlap to a great extent, but the present design of MPAs often fail to
adequately incorporate Tribal interests. Tribes have an interest in how future MPAs
could be better designed, and how current MPAs might be altered, to strengthen Tribal
powers and perspectives in the process. Through an assessment of the responses to a set
of open-ended questions from interviews conducted with Tribal natural resource
department representatives and Tribal policy authorities on the Washington coast, as well
as with authorities on National Marine Protected Areas, this study considers two main
research questions:



How have Marine Protected Areas in western Washington affected the rights and
interests of the Tribes?
Can protections for marine environments be designed, established and
implemented in a way that they achieve conservation goals and recognize Tribal
rights and interests?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms ………………………..……………. vii
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………...…………………. viii
Map of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and
Tribal reservations ……………………………………...……………………... ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………….…...…………… 1
PART I: RESEARCH ………………….…………………………………………… 7
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGIES and RESEARCH DESIGN …..…..…… 8
Interviewee list ………………………………….……………………………... 10

CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND ………………………...……..………………… 13
Northwest Tribes and Treaties …………………………………….……..……. 13
Coastal Treaty Tribes of the Olympic Peninsula ……………………………… 15
Makah Tribe ...……………………………………………………….………… 15
Quinault Indian Nation ….……………………………………………….……. 16
Quileute and Hoh Tribes ...……………………….……………………………. 17
Interpreting and Implementing Treaties: Boldt Decision, Co-management and
Habitat Protection of Tribal Resources ………………..……...…..…………… 19
Fisheries Management ….………………………………………………….….. 25
Protected Areas …………………………………………………………….….. 27
Indigenous/Protected Area Relationship ………………..……………….….… 28
Indigenous PAs …………………………………………………………….….. 29
Indigenous/Tribal View of the Environment and Resource Management ....…. 30
America’s First National Parks ………………………..……………………… 37
Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite National Parks ………….…….………… 40
Protected Areas of the Washington Coast ………………………………..…… 44
Olympic National Park …………………….……………………..…………… 44
Olympic National Park and the Tribes of the Washington Coast ……..….…… 45
Quileute and Hoh Tribe Boundary Issues ……………………….………..…… 48
Marine Protected Areas …………………………….……………………….… 54
Marine Protected Areas of the U.S. …………………………………...……… 55
National Marine Sanctuaries ……………………………..…………………… 58
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ………………………………....… 59
Tribes and the OCNMS ……………………….…………………………….… 61
Intergovernmental Policy Council …………………………….………………. 63

iv

PART II: INTERVIEWEE RESPONSE CHAPTERS …..……..……………. 65
CHAPTER 4: TRIBAL VALUES AND TREATY RIGHTS ……..………… 67
Background on Traditional Resource Management: Traditional Culture,
Values and Knowledge ……………..…………………………………………. 67
Tribal Resource Management ………..…...…………………..……………….. 70
Treaty Rights: Uniqueness of Washington State Treaty Tribes ………...……. 71
Boldt Phase II: Co-management ……………………….………………..……. 73
Boldt Phase II and the Culvert Case: Habitat Standing and Stewardship ….… 76
Taking Boldt Phase II to the Next Level: Asserting Treaty rights to Mandate
the Conservation and Restoration of Treaty Resources …………...…………... 79
Increasing and Incorporating Tribal Role in Local Management ………...…… 80

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH QUESTION 1: “How have Marine Protected
Areas in Western Washington Affected the Rights and Interests of the
Tribes?” ……………………..……………………………………………….… 83
Tribal Experience with PAs ……………………………….……......……….… 83
Tribal PAs on the Olympic Peninsula Coast …………………...…………...… 85
Hoh Tribe Spawning Grounds PA Case Study …………….…….…...…..…… 86
“You Respect Our PAs and We’ll Respect Yours” ……...………………….… 88
Marine Policy Initiatives ………………………………………………………. 89
Tribal Relationship with National Marine Sanctuaries …………...….……...… 90

CHAPTER 6: PRESENT NEGATIVES OF TRIBAL/MPA
RELATIONSHIP: What has Gone Wrong ……………………………….…… 95
Sustainable Resource Conservation vs. Resource Protection …….………....… 95
Creating MPAs in Tribal U&As ………………………………………………. 97
Fisheries Management in and Around OCNMS ………………...……….….… 98
Attempts towards Fisheries Management by the NMS Program ……….….…100
Attempts towards Fisheries Management by the OCNMS ………...…...……. 101
NMFS/PFMC: Existing Management and Jurisdictional Authorities …....…. 103
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ……………………………………………...…. 104
Demonstrating the Conservation Concern …...…………………………….… 105
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Attempts to Regulate Fishing ….… 108
“Don’t Punish the Tribes for Something they didn’t Do” ………..….…….… 109
Tribal Conflicts with Environmental NGO Agendas …………..………….… 113
Implementing Federal Policy at Local Level ………………………..…….… 116
Bureaucracy ……………………………………………………………...…... 117
Consistency: Employee Turnover and the Need for Education of New Staff.. 118
Small Staffs and Large Number of Tribes …………………………….…...… 120

CHAPTER 7: FUTURE REFORMS: Proposals for Fixes to NMS System to
Better Incorporate Tribal Concerns ………………………………………….… 121
Incorporating Tribal Rights and Interests in MPAs ………….………………. 122
“Do it Right the First Time” …………………………………………………. 124

v

Find Common Goals in Habitat and Resource Conservation and
Management……………………………………………………………………124
NMS Staff can be Predisposed to NMS Goals and Environmental Agenda .... 127
No-fishing Zones in Treaty Areas are a Source of Conflict .…..….……….… 128
Include Tribes at the Table ……………………………...…..…..…………… 129
Consultation …………………………………………………….……….…… 132
Tribes Need Funding Parity …………………………...……….………..…… 133
MPAs should be Temporary, Changeable ……………….…….…….………. 134
Educating PA Managers and Staff on Tribal Rights and Interests …..….…… 135
Take Responsibility for Education about Tribal Rights and Interests ….….… 136
Embed Tribal Interests in Core Documents and Mission Statements ….……. 137
Be Aware that the Definitions of Terms can be a Source of Conflict and
Misunderstanding ………………………………………………………..…… 139

CHAPTER 8: FUTURE VISIONS: Incorporating Tribes in MPAs ..…… 141
Incorporating Tribal Interests in Environmental Protections ………..….…… 142
Tribes Need to be Clear on What They Want from MPAs ………...………… 144
Power Sharing: MPAs Inclusionary of Tribes ………..….………………..… 145
Incorporating Tribal Liaisons in MPAs ………………...………………….… 146
Incorporating Tribes and Tribal Members in MPAs ……………...……….… 147
Establishing Tribal Protected Areas …………………………………………. 150
Jurisdictions and Jurisdictional Issues in Tribal MPA Creation ………..….… 151
Tribal/Indigenous Ability: How to Declare MPA Specifics ………..……….. 153
Federal Processes for Tribal MPA Creation ……………...………………….. 154
Human Rights, Inherent Rights, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) …………………………………………..…... 156
Asserting Tribal Authority …………………...……………..……..….……… 159
Creating Tribal MPAs: How to Assert Specifics …………………….……… 161
Expanding Tribal Reservation PAs into Tribal U&A MPAs ………….…….. 162
Funding Tribal PAs ……………………………………………………...…… 163

CHAPTER 9: OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS….…… 165
“How have Marine Protected Areas in western Washington affected the rights
and interests of the Tribes?” …………………………………………………. 166
“Can protections for marine environments be designed, established and
implemented in a way that they achieve conservation goals and recognize Tribal
rights and interests?” ……………………………………...……………….… 171

SOURCES...………………………………………………………….………....…… 182

Index:
Interview Questions ……………………………...…………………………………… 188

vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATED TERMS

ARPA: (National) Archaeological Resource Protection Act
BCCA: Bottom Contact Closed Area
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs
BTCA: Bottom Trawl Closed Area
EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH: Essential Fish Habitat
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EK: Ecological Knowledge
ESA: Endangered Species Act
FMP: Fisheries Management Plan
IPC: Intergovernmental Policy Council
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature
MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
MPA: Marine Protected Area
MPA FAC: Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee
MSA: Magnuson-Stevens Act (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act)
NAGPRA: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
NMS: National Marine Sanctuary
NMSA: National Marine Sanctuaries Act
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWIFC: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
OCNMS: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
ONMS: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
ONP: Olympic National Park
PA: Protected Area
PCGFMP: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
PFMC: Pacific Fishery Management Council
PSMFC: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
U&A (U and A): Usual and Accustomed fishing grounds and stations

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the following governments and agencies: Makah Tribe, Quileute
Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Nation,
Nisqually Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, NWIFC and
NOAA.
Thanks to the following individuals: James Jaime, Rob Jones, Joe
Schumacker, Micah McCarty, Joe Gilbertson, Daryl Williams, Katie Krueger, Joe
Uravitch, Craig Bowhay, Valerie Grussing, John Gates, Zoltan Grossman, Randy
Kinley, Jim Woods, David Troutt, Scott Mazzone, Eric Delvin, Dorothea Collins,
John McLain, Selmarie Stacy, Kristina Ackley, Ted Whitesell, Martha
Henderson, and to all my friends and family for your contributions to this study.
Thanks also to TESC Foundation Activity Grants at The Evergreen State College
for supporting this research.

viii

NOAA map of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). From north to
south, the map locates the reservations of the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault.
(Downloaded from http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/atlasmaps/images/oc_2000.jpg)

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
I first became interested in researching about the relationship between
Tribes and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) after coming across a paper entitled
“Protecting Washington's Marine Environments: Tribal Perspectives” while doing
some background research for one of my classes during my second year in the
Master of Environmental Studies program at The Evergreen State College. This
2007 paper, written by Ted Whitesell (one of my Evergreen graduate professors),
Fran Wilshusen Schroeder of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(NWIFC), and Preston Hardison of the Tulalip Tribes, piqued my interest in a
topic I knew very little about. Their research, using semi-structured interviews
with prominent tribal leaders and marine natural resource managers in western
Washington, found that though the tribes are deeply concerned about declining
marine environments and that they have supported some MPAs in the region, they
were concerned about the push for more MPAs. In reading the results of their
research, I found a model of research which I found intriguing and a topic that I
felt could be expanded upon through my own personal research six years later in
2013.
Marine Protected Areas have already been shown to be of concern to the
tribes of Washington State (Whitesell et al. 2007). However, both the recent
experiences of Tribes with MPAs and other types of Protected Areas (PAs), and
the continuing push for the creation of more MPAs, call for an examination of the
effects that existing MPAs have had in relation to Indigenous Peoples and their
rights and interests. My goal in documenting Tribal experiences with MPAs was

1

to determine whether MPAs could be better designed so that they incorporated
Indigenous rights and interests and if so, how this goal might be best
accomplished.
Through a process of conducting regional and historical case studies, my
study focuses largely on the experiences of the Tribes of western Washington
State while bringing a more particular focus to the Olympic Peninsula’s coastal
Treaty Tribes (the Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and the Quinault Indian
Nation) and their relationship with the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
(OCNMS) and other protected areas of the Olympic Peninsula. I chose to focus
my research on the Olympic Peninsula coastal Tribes because I had done some
previous research on the Quileute and Hoh tribes and I had some personal
contacts within these Tribes who were able to get me started in the right direction.
My decision to conduct case studies focusing on Washington State’s four
Pacific coastal Treaty Tribes’ relationships with OCNMS was made in part
because these four Tribes have relationships with only this one, relatively
longstanding federal MPA established in 1994 as opposed to Washington State’s
Salish Sea tribes, who are affected by multiple but smaller state and local MPAs.
This enabled my research to focus on the examination of the MPA/Tribal
relationships of four different tribes with one specific MPA, while at the same
time providing an opportunity for a more contained study and somewhat limiting
the number of interrelationships.

2

There were two other recent papers documenting studies similar to my own.
One was the 2011 thesis of the University of Washington’s Amanda Murphy; A
Collaborative Approach to Intergovernmental Coordination: A Case Study of the
Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, and the other was a 2012 paper
by University of Michigan’s Geiger et al.; An Assessment of Institutional
Relationships at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Murphy’s paper
focused on intergovernmental and interagency collaborative efforts and
approaches in the management of OCNMS, and Geiger et al. focused on the role
that institutional relationships play in the management of OCNMS and its marine
resources. While the focus of these papers is different than mine the information
provided in these two papers is a good supplement to my thesis as they cover in
detail other aspects surrounding and related to the OCNMS/Tribal relationship.
In conducting this study, the focus of my research broadened to include
varied topics such as the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Protected
Areas (PAs), treaties, law and legal cases, fisheries management, boundary issues,
human rights and environmental justice. When I started my thesis research, I
originally thought that the OCNMS was merely a no-fishing zone where the
Tribes fishing rights were being drastically restricted. After subsequent research I
found that Tribal fishing rights were not subject to the kinds of restrictions that I
had thought. Learning that the OCNMS fell under the internationally recognized
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Protected Areas
Management Category IV (habitat/species management area) instead of the
highest level of protection (Category I: Strict nature reserve or Wilderness area)
3

helped me to realize that the source of conflict between the Tribes and the
OCNMS was more institutional in character (Ostrom 1990).
For background, I felt that it would be helpful to research the effects of
some the longstanding Protected Areas on and off of the Olympic Peninsula, in
order to understand how these types of area designations have come to affect the
Olympic Peninsula coastal Tribes. Federal and state land management confronts
many of the same issues that federal and State management of marine areas deals
with, so they are relevant to the larger area of research of Tribal/Protected Area
relationships. In addition, when looking at these issues from a more holistic point
of view, it becomes difficult to separate issues that affect the protections placed
on land and marine areas and resources. Migratory fish, mammals and birds and
the habitat and resources that support them are often both marine and terrestrial.
Additionally, the experiences that Tribes and other Indigenous peoples have had
with land designations and Protected Areas flavors their perceptions of how they
may be affected by marine area designations and protections for marine
environments.
Researching the topics of Tribal/Protected Area relationships and
environmental justice helped me to realize that the root of the issue for the coastal
tribes of western Washington is not just the varying levels of environmental
protection of the many Protected Areas on and around the Olympic Peninsula, but
also the transference of the control of traditional tribal territories and resource
areas to the U.S. government and its agencies (Spence 1999). The fact that some
of these traditional areas have been declared to be Protected Areas perhaps will
4

prove to be less adverse to tribal interests in the long run than if they had been
transferred into the private ownership of citizens and corporations. Federal
protection will protect habitats and resources from some sources of degradation,
and stop one of the last remaining undeveloped areas in western Washington from
being degraded by competing fisheries and fractured into small private
landholdings (Perfecto 2009). In the meantime, the many and varied marine and
land designations (with their various boundaries) on the Olympic Peninsula, and
the various U.S. and State institutional agencies and departments that control
them, are often a source of conflict with Tribes and tribal interests.
Dealing with all these separate entities can be a distraction from the larger
picture. While the fundamental issues underlying the Tribal/Protected Area
relationship really concern the inherent rights of Indigenous people to their
traditional lands and resources and the injustices done to the Native cultures of the
area, this thesis largely focuses on the U.S. treaty obligations to the Olympic
Peninsula coastal Tribes and the overlap of these obligations with protections of
the environment. Two recent reports by the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC): Treaty Rights at Risk: Ongoing Habitat Loss, the
Decline of the Salmon Resource and Recommendations for Change (NWIFC
2011), and the 2012 State of Our Watersheds report (NWIFC 2012) discuss the
status of the environment within western Washington’s Tribal Usual &
Accustomed areas (U&As) as well as the unfulfilled obligations to provide for the
welfare of Tribes stated in treaty agreements. While these reports focus
particularly on river drainages and shoreline development (and other causes of
5

salmon habitat degradation) and not Protected Areas, they are especially relevant
to the discussion behind this research. The reports combine basic assessments of
the health of the watersheds in the region with Tribal perspectives concerning
environmental degradation and how it threatens Tribal cultures and treatyreserved fishing rights. At their roots these reports are a “call to action for the
federal government to fulfill its trust responsibilities” established by its treaties
with the Tribes of western Washington (NWIFC 2012).
Overall, the part of my thesis research which I found the most difficult (but
also the most rewarding) was in the identification of interviewees and in the
conducting of the interviews. The process of building relationships with people to
the point that they were willing to participate in interviews (or to provide
references for other potential interviewees) was an extended process. In the end, I
found that these efforts were well worthwhile, as the interviewees’ responses
about many important topics provided what I believe to be the most interesting
and important parts of this thesis’s contribution to existing data and literature.

6

PART I: RESEARCH
This thesis is separated into two parts. Part I gives background information
detailing the research behind this thesis. Part II presents the interviewee
responses to questions posed by the researcher.
Part I is comprised of two chapters: Chapter 2: Methodologies and
Research Design, and Chapter 3: Background. The Methodologies and Research
Design chapter describes the methods used by the researcher for this research
project. The Background chapter is divided into sections that provide a context
for understanding the Tribal/Protected Area relationship on the Washington coast.
It begins with a brief history of Northwest Tribes and treaties, then discusses the
Tribal/Protected Area relationship, the relationship between of Washington
State’s coastal Treaty Tribes and Protected Areas and concludes with background
on the Tribal relationship with MPAs and the coastal Treaty Tribes’ relationship
with Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

7

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGIES AND RESEARCH DESIGN
This study relies on qualitative methodologies that include personal
observations and discussions, a review of literature of published and unpublished
materials, building relationships and references, conducting interviews (either in
person and on-site, by phone, or by email), and transcribing and analyzing these
interviews for common themes of interest. The study uses the responses of 10
interviewees to 10 open-ended questions and an examination of case studies of the
coastal Treaty Tribes in western Washington to answer two main research
questions: How have Marine Protected Areas in western Washington affected the
rights and interests of the Tribes? Can protections for marine environments be
designed, established and implemented in a way that they achieve conservation
goals and recognize Tribal rights and interests?
This study is meant to be exploratory and descriptive. It uses an
examination of multiple case studies to discover common themes for further
analysis. It is not intended to prove a theory or hypothesis; rather it is meant to
provide new information. The main objectives of the project were to compile
responses and examine information that might be useful to Native and non-Native
governments, Protected Area managers, and other interested parties regarding the
relationship between Native Peoples and protections for marine environments.
Welcome assistance was provided by TESC Foundation Activity Grants from The
Evergreen State College.

8

To answer the two main research questions behind this study, additional
and more specific exploratory and explanatory open-ended research questions1
were developed to be used in semi-structured interviews. The interview questions
and interview process used in this study were approved by The Evergreen State
College Human Subjects Review Committee. The open-ended questions that
were used in the semi-structured interviews were developed after a review of
literature and through initial discussions with individuals who were approached
because of their knowledge of Tribal/MPA relationships. The review of literature
and the initial discussions provided background information regarding the four
coastal Treaty Tribes, the history of federal and state relationships with
Washington State’s Treaty Tribes, and the interplay of federal, state and Tribal
laws, policies and experiences in regards to MPAs. The review of literature and
the initial discussions also helped to identify potential interviewees.
Ten interviews were conducted in Olympia and Sequim, Washington from
March to November 2013. Three interviewees sent email responses and seven
interviews were recorded, either in person or by telephone, all depending on the
preference of the interviewee. The interview questions were used to guide the
interview; however, interviewees were encouraged to freely express their own
ideas and provide information they felt was important. Because of the varying
experiences, backgrounds and expertise of the interviewees, they were allowed to
choose which questions they wished to answer and also to omit any questions
they chose to. The email responses ranged from one page to six pages in length.

1

List of interview questions can be located in index on pg. 188.

9

Recorded interviews ranged in length from 35 minutes to one hour and 30
minutes. Interview recordings were made with the participant‘s knowledge and
consent, and later transcribed.
Participants were not randomly selected; instead interviewees were
identified through a literature review of key documents and policies or identified
by tribal community members and tribal natural resource departments as key
information holders because of their knowledge and experiences regarding the
relationship between tribes and MPAs. Additionally, each interviewee was asked
for recommendations for other potential interviewees. The interviewee selection
process was completed when all suggested participants were either interviewed,
declined interviews or failed to respond to repeated efforts to establish
communication with them. If suggested participants declined an interview they
were not asked repeatedly, so that no person felt pressured to participate if they
did not feel inclined to do so. At the completion of the interviewee selection
process, ten individuals from tribal natural resource departments, past and present
federal representatives (from NOAA) and tribal policy experts had been identified
and interviewed.
Interviewees
Tribal representatives:
Joe Schumacker
MPA Federal Advisory Committee,
Marine Resources Scientist,
Quinault Indian Nation Department of Fisheries
Micah McCarty
MAFAC Member, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce,
10

Special Assistant to the President for Tribal Government Relations, The
Evergreen State College,
Former Vice-Chair, National Ocean Council’s Governance Coordination
Committee,
Former Chairman, Makah Tribal Council
Joe Gilbertson
Fisheries Management Biologist,
Fisheries Manager,
Hoh Tribal Fisheries
Katie Krueger, J.D.
Staff attorney and policy analyst,
Quileute Natural Resources,
Quileute Indian Tribe
Daryl Williams
Environmental Liaison,
Tulalip Tribes Fisheries Department
Federal representatives:
Joe Uravitch
Founding Director, National Marine Protected Areas Center at NOAA,
Formerly:
Chief, Coastal Programs Division at NOAA,
Associate Director, Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management at NOAA,
Chief, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division at NOAA
Valerie Grussing, Ph.D.
Cultural Resources Coordinator,
National Marine Protected Areas Center at NOAA
Tribal policy experts:
Craig Bowhay
Fisheries Policy Analyst,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Rob Jones
Coastal Program Coordinator,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
John D. Gates, J.D.
Master in Public Administration faculty, The Evergreen State College,
J. William Fulbright Senior Scholar
11

Once the data collection period was concluded, interview transcripts were
coded according to recurring themes that emerged. As themes emerged, the data
from those themes were compared to other themes, and were refined and
modified. From this process, core themes emerged for analysis. In order to
maintain a level of anonymity and to put the focus on the emergent themes rather
than on the interviewees themselves, the grouped responses of the individual
interviewees were sometimes summarized and were not attached by name to the
interviewees in the final written product. In cases where specific and direct
quotations that exemplified or illustrated emergent themes were used, the
originator of the quotation was identified in order to help provide context.
Although this research project aims to facilitate understanding of tribal
perspectives about Marine Protected Areas, this report can in no way speak for the
Tribes. It was prepared by a non-tribal researcher who has neither the authority
nor the presumption to speak for the Tribes. And although the research findings
consist predominately of the statements (and this researcher’s interpretation of the
statements) of tribal members, tribal natural resource managers, and tribal policy
experts and past and present NOAA representatives, it should not be assumed that
they or the Tribes or departments that they represent approve of the ways in which
their words have been presented. In addition, no attempts were made to prove or
disprove the comments and observations of the interviewees, but rather these
comments and observations were presented and analyzed in an attempt to
document experiences and perceptions. The author assumes full responsibility for
any errors that may be found within this report.
12

CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND
Northwest Tribes and Treaties
People have lived in the northwestern corner of Washington State for at
least 10,000 years prior to the arrival of European-Americans (Wray 1997). A
series of treaties and agreements by European powers and the U.S. would prove to
have a profound effect on the lives of the Indigenous populations of this area. An
agreement between England and the U.S. and a subsequent Act (Act of August
14, 1848, 9 Stat. 323) passed by the U.S. Congress in 1848 placed the area under
U.S. control as part of the “Oregon Territory” (Wray 1997). The Act states that
its enactment was not meant to affect “the rights of person or property now
pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain
unextinguished by treaty between the U.S. and such Indians (Wray 1997).” At
this time, the Native Peoples of Oregon Territory had had very little contact with
Europeans or European-Americans. The wording of the Act indicates both that
“the Indians in said Territory” were not considered U.S. citizens and that they
were entitled to personal rights as well as property rights in the Oregon Territory.
1853 proved to be a pivotal year for the Native peoples of the Pacific
Northwest. It was the year that Washington Territory split off from Oregon
Territory and the year that the U.S. government enacted legislation that was
indicative of a critical shift in policy. This new legislation was reflective of new
motivations and tied to the continuing westward expansion of U.S. settlements in
North America.

13

The Appropriation Act of 1853 authorized the President of the U.S. to
negotiate with Indian Tribes to extinguish their title to their land (Wray 1997).
The purpose of the Act was to open up Native American land for settlement by
U.S. citizens and to confine Native peoples to smaller reserved territories. At the
point in time that this act was signed, Native land title was still intact in the
Northwest. In 1823, Chief Justice John Marshall had stated that the Tribes were
then “the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just title to retain
possession of it… It has never been contended, that the Indian title amounted to
nothing. Their right of possession has never been questioned” (Johnson's Lessee
v. McIntosh 1823). In other words, the U.S. government needed to acquire the
land title from the tribes to try to legitimatize the acquisition of tribal lands for
settlement and exploitation.
In 1854, Isaac Stevens, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs in
Washington Territory, began negotiating treaties with the Native nations of
Washington Territory. He had been directed by the U.S. federal government to
unite the “various bands and fragments of tribes into tribes” (U.S. v. State of
Washington 1974). Stevens noted in his first address to the Territorial legislature
on February 28, 1854:
“The Indian title has not been extinguished, nor even a law passed to
provide for its extinguishment east of the Cascade Mountains. Under the
land law of Congress it is impossible to secure titles to the land, and thus
the growth of towns and villages is obstructed, as well as the development
of the resources of the Territory” (found in Wray 1997).
From 1854 to 1856, seven treaties were made by Stevens with Washington tribal
nations on the behalf of the U. S. In signing these treaties, and through other
14

agreements with the United States government, the tribal nations of the Pacific
Northwest ceded most of their traditional lands and were largely confined to
assigned reservation lands. The assignment to reservation lands restricted the
traditional mobility and movement of the people of the area which had been tied
to weather, seasonal changes, resource availability and social and cultural
activities. As stated in a later interpretation of these treaties in U.S. v. Washington
by Judge George Boldt in 1974, “the treaties were not a grant of rights to the
Indians, but a grant of rights from them, and a reservation of those not granted”
(U.S. v. State of Washington, 1974).

Coastal Treaty Tribes of the Olympic Peninsula
As this paper focuses on the relationship between the coastal Tribes and the
Protected Areas of the Olympic Peninsula; for the purposes of this paper the
treaties of note are the Treaty of Neah Bay with the Makah Tribe in January 1855
(for the Northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula) and the Treaty of Olympia in
July of 1855 with the Quinault, Hoh, and Quileute Tribes among others.
Makah Tribe
The Makah Reservation consists of more than 27,000 acres located in the
northwestern most corner of the contiguous U.S. It is bounded by the Pacific
Ocean and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Makah Tribe is the only tribe in the
U.S. that is part of the Nootkan culture group, which includes two other First
Nations in British Columbia, Canada (Wray 1997).
15

The Makah Reservation on Cape Flattery was created in 1855 with the
Treaty of Neah Bay and it was enlarged in 1873 to include four Makah villages
outside of the Cape (Wray 1997). In 1893 the Ozette Reservation was established
to protect Ozette village, the southernmost of Makah villages (Wray 1997). The
population at Ozette was severely reduced when families were forced by the U.S.
government to move to Neah Bay so that their children could attend school. By
1932, there were only two residents at Ozette Village. In 1970, Ozette
Reservation was put into trust for the Makah Tribe (Wray 1997). The town of
Neah Bay is now the main residential area on the Makah Reservation.
Traditionally, Makah subsistence was acquired almost entirely from the
ocean; with whale and halibut being their most important food products, followed
by seals, salmon, cod, perch, shellfish, crab, octopi and squid. Because of the
importance of fish and mammals to the Makah culture, Makah treaty negotiators
made sure that marine resource acquisition guarantees were included in the Treaty
of Neah Bay. Their treaty is the only Washington treaty that specifies the right to
take whales. The major tribal economy of the Makah continues to be fishing.
Quinault Indian Nation
The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), whose reservation was created by the
Treaty of Olympia, consists of the Quinault and Queets tribes and descendants of
five other coastal tribes (Quileute, Hoh, Chehalis, Cowlitz, and Chinook). The
Quinault language, spoken by the Quinault, Queets and Copalis Peoples, is a
branch of the Salishan language family (in common with Salish Sea and Olympic

16

Peninsula Tribes as well as British Columbia First Nations) (Wray 1997). The
Quinault Indian Reservation, established in 1861 (and later enlarged in 1873), is
located in the southwestern corner of the Olympic Peninsula and includes 23
miles of Pacific coastline, many streams and rivers (the largest of which are
Quinault and Queets Rivers), and 208,150 acres of forested land (Murphy 2011).
Traditionally, the peoples of this area relied on salmon as a food staple and
as such, many of the Quinault and Queets villages were alongside rivers (Wray
1997). Additionally, marine resources such as halibut, rock cod, sea bass, sole,
herring, clams, oysters and mussels were regularly harvested. When the Treaty of
Olympia was negotiated in 1855, the intention of U.S. negotiators was to
concentrate all of the “fish-eating Indians” along the Washington coast onto one
reservation (Wray 1997).
The QIN now has a large resource management staff which provides
scientific data in order to make fisheries management and policy decisions. In
part this helps to maintain the tribes’ self-regulation status regarding tribal fishery
policies that were recognized under U.S. v. Washington (Wray 1997). The QIN
reservation now has its own seafood processing plant and fishing remains a large
contributor to its economy.
Quileute and Hoh Tribes
For thousands of years, the predecessors of the Quileute and Hoh Tribes
had permanent and seasonal settlements on the Pacific Coast as well as along and
at the mouths of the Quillayute and Hoh Rivers and their tributaries. Historically,
17

they practiced seal and whale hunting and they harvested many other marine
resources such as halibut, salmon, cod, bass, and shellfish.
The Quileute and Hoh are now recognized as separate Tribes although
historically the Hoh River Indians are considered to be a band of the Quileute.
Their Chimakuan language family is now represented only by the Quileute and
the Hoh Tribes (and formerly by the Chemakum Tribe). This language family
distinguishes them from other tribes on the Olympic Peninsula and is one
indication of their distinct cultural history. Quileute tradition relates that the
Quileute-Chemakum controlled a larger area of the Olympic Peninsula before the
arrival of the Makah and the Klallam (from Vancouver Island) pushed them
southward (Wray 1997). The Chemakum population was decimated around 1850
after a raid by a Salish Sea Tribe on their settlement in the Port Townsend area,
and their remnants were absorbed by Klallam, Skokomish, and other Tribes
(Wray 1997).
In 1889, President Grover Cleveland signed an Executive Order creating
the 595 acre Quileute Indian Reservation. The location and boundaries of the
reservation indicated in the Executive Order were based on an 1881 survey, which
was the first official U.S. Land Office survey of the area (Wray 1997). The
Quileute Reservation land base was indicated as a roughly one square mile of
territory at the mouth of the Quillayute River, what is now called LaPush,
Washington State. A 443-acre Hoh Reservation was created at the mouth of the
Hoh River four years later by an 1893 Executive Order (Wray 1997).

18

Interpreting and Implementing Treaties: Boldt Decision, Co-management
and Habitat Protection of Tribal Resources
Two landmark court cases for Washington State Treaty Tribes occurred in
the Northwest as the result of a turbulent period in the region during the 1950s1970s known as the “fish wars” (Cronin et al. 2007). In addressing tribal treaty
rights in the 1969 United States v. the State of Oregon decision, the State of
Oregon was mandated to adopt practices that would not impinge on tribal fishing
rights (Cronin et al. 2007). A stronger legal pronouncement for the tribes of
Washington was made in the 1974 case, United States v. Washington (also known
as the Boldt Decision); where Judge George Boldt reaffirmed and mandated the
recognition of the treaty fishing rights of the Tribes of Washington State which
had been guaranteed by treaties.
This judicial process was initiated at least in part by the actions of some
members of the Nisqually tribe, notably Billy Frank Jr., who stated that they had
fishing rights which were guaranteed by the U.S. government. It was further
claimed that these rights could not be regulated by the State of Washington.
When the intent of the treaties at the time of their signings was interpreted in the
1974 Boldt Decision, there were clauses in the treaties that were of particular
significance that would prove to be of benefit to the Washington State Treaty
Tribes. Gov. Isaac Stevens had included clauses in the treaties securing to the
tribes the right to take fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations” and
of fishing rights “in common” between Indian and non-Indian fishermen.

19

In 1974, Judge George Boldt interpreted the intent of the “at all usual and
accustomed grounds and stations” (now commonly referred to as a Tribal U&A)
clause as meaning that in addition to exclusive rights to fishing on reservation,
Native fishermen had reserved rights to harvest fish outside of their assigned
reservations because they had historically fished in a wide variety of areas
depending on the season and the abundance of fish at different areas at different
times of year. In addition, Judge Boldt interpreted the “in common” clause as
meaning that there would be a 50 – 50 division of salmon and steelhead between
Native and non-Native fishers (Cronin et al. 2007). Judge Boldt’s aim in making
his court decision was to interpret the intent of the treaties. In doing so, he chose
not to just break the treaties down to the literal meaning of the words and phrases
contained in the treaties, but instead he chose to try to ascertain how the Tribes
themselves might have understood the agreements they were signing.
For Native Americans in the Northwest, the Boldt Decision and U.S. v.
Oregon have helped bring about many positive effects over the past forty years.
Judge Boldt had further interpreted the intent of the “in common” clause of the
treaties to articulate Washington's relationship with the Treaty Tribes by
mandating a co-management relationship between the Tribes and the State of
Washington. Co-management is the government-to-government process by
which the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington and the Washington State
jointly manage the shared salmon resource (NWIFC 2010). An important
byproduct of mandating this co-management relationship was the resulting
increase in active management of ancestral lands and waters by the Tribes.
20

Through the co-management process, Tribes and the State of Washington
maintain individual sovereignty while jointly managing shared resources. Comanagement minimizes the duplication of management activities and enhances
the management efforts of the Tribes and the State through incorporating data
sharing and review, and through the development of joint management objectives
and monitoring, and a dispute resolution system (NWIFC 2010).
After the Boldt decision, the Tribes began to take steps to ensure the
decision was implemented through hiring biologists, training enforcement
officials, and forming fisheries committees (Murphy 2011). In 1975, 19 Treaty
Tribes created the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) as an
administrative agency to provide staff and support to implement the process of
management of the salmon resource (Brown and Footen 2010). The Commission,
now composed of Commissioners from 20 member tribes, provides a forum to
jointly address natural resource management issues and enables them to speak
with a unified voice on issues of mutual concern (Murphy 2011). The NWIFC
assists member tribes in their role as natural resource co-managers by providing
direct services to member tribes in areas such as biometrics, fish health and
salmon management (NWIFC 2010)(Brown and Footen 2010).
From the beginning, the Boldt Decision generated a great deal of backlash
from certain parts of the public. However, in part because the Tribes have
demonstrated an ability to manage the resource effectively in cooperation with
local and regional partners, there has been a gradual shift of public opinion
(Cronin et al. 2007). In addition, given that natural resources rarely follow
21

political boundaries, collaboration has become recognized to be necessary for
both Tribal and non-tribal resource managers in order to achieve management
objectives (Cronin et al. 2007). Tribal successes in managing the resource in the
Pacific Northwest region can be attributed to an ability to draw upon their cultural
ties to salmon (and other resources) and to their ability to incorporate Indigenous
science with Western science in the co-management process (Cronin et al. 2007).
There is also an increasing set of literature, court rulings and Tribal/state
agreements related to the continuation and furthering of Boldt’s ruling (Bernholz
et al. 2008). The 1980 ruling by Judge Orrick, commonly called Phase II of the
Boldt Decision (United States of America et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington
et al., Defendants Civ. No. 9213 – Phase II), expanded on the interpretation of
tribal treaty harvest rights by applying them to habitat protection of the tribal
resource. The U.S. v. Washington (1980) decision was concerned in part with
treaty obligations to protect the environment, while specifically focusing on
habitat issues. This case and decision is particularly relevant to the discussion in
this thesis as it involves the idea that the interpretation of tribal treaty rights could
be expanded to involve more than just the right to fish (Belsky 1996). Judge
Orrick stated in his ruling “habitat is essential to the survival of the fish, without
which the expressly-reserved right to take fish would be meaningless and
valueless.”
In 1989, the federally recognized Indian tribes signed the Centennial Accord
with the State of Washington. This agreement formally recognized the
tribal/state government-to-government relationship as the foundation of natural
22

resource co-management in Washington and provided a framework to translate
the tribal/state government-to-government relationship into more efficient,
improved, and beneficial services to Indian and non-Indian people (Washington
Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs 1989).
The Tribes, which have far fewer staff than the government entities, have
had to work with a multitude of state agencies, as well as regional authorities, and
county and local government entities to protect and restore fish habitat (Brown
and Footen 2010). By acknowledging the Tribes as an equal government in the
Centennial Accord, the state introduced a new era of partnership and created a
renewed opportunity for state/tribal communication, cooperation and coordination
(Reynolds 1997). This agreement was renewed in 1999 as the New Millennium
Agreement (Washington Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs 1999).
In 2001, the Tribes again sued the State of Washington stating that their
“treaty-based right of taking fish had been impermissibly infringed” by the state’s
construction and operation of culverts that hindered free passage of fish and thus
“reduced the quantity and quality of salmon habitat, prevented access to spawning
grounds, reduced salmon production in streams, and diminished the number of
salmon available for harvest by treaty fishermen” (United States v. Washington,
C70-9213, 2007).
Culverts are structures used to pass roads over streams and streams under
roads. As defined in the text of the litigation: “One cause of the degradation of
salmon habitat is blocked culverts, meaning culverts which do not allow the free

23

passage of both adult and juvenile salmon upstream and downstream” (United
States v. Washington, C70-9213, 2007). The Tribes asked the Court to find that
the State of Washington had an unfulfilled “treaty-based duty to preserve fish
runs, and sought to compel the state to repair or replace state culverts that impede
salmon migration to or from spawning grounds” (United States v. Washington,
C70-9213, 2007).
In a 2007 court decision (commonly called the Culvert Case), U.S. District
Judge Ricardo Martinez found in favor of the Tribes and declared that “…the
right of taking fish, secured to the Tribes in the Stevens Treaties, imposes a duty
upon the state to refrain from building or operating culverts under statemaintained roads that hinder fish passage and thereby diminish the number of fish
that would otherwise be available for Tribal harvest. The Court further declares
that the State of Washington currently owns and operates culverts that violate this
duty” (United States v. Washington, C70-9213, 2007). In 2013, after the state
showed insufficient progress on correcting their fish-blocking culverts, Judge
Martinez granted a 2009 motion by the Tribes for a Permanent Injunction by
ruling, “Under state and federal law, barrier culverts must be corrected” (United
States v. State of Washington Case no. CV 70-9213, Subproceeding 01-1
(Culverts), 2013).
The end result of these judicial process showed that the intent of treaties
could be used for the purpose of decolonization even though the original intent
behind the creation of these treaties was largely meant to facilitate the
colonization of Native American lands by the U.S. government. The treaties
24

provide a key context for any Protected Areas in western Washington, which have
to take their legal and political framework into account.

Fisheries Management
Fisheries management is also crucially important to the Tribal/non-tribal
relationship in Washington State. For more than 100 years, state regulations have
been in effect on domestic fisheries alongside the coasts of Washington, Oregon,
and California. While many fisheries overlapped state boundaries and
participants in these fisheries operated in more than one state; during that time,
management of coastal fisheries fell under the jurisdiction of the states and each
state acted independently in both management and enforcement (PFMC 2008).
The lack of uniformity of management and regulations led to the formation of the
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in 1947 (PFMC 2008). The Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission had no regulatory power but acted as a
coordinating entity that submitted recommendations to states (PFMC 2008).
During the period of 1950–1980 economic growth and modern technologies
expanded the scope of world fisheries and free and unregulated fisheries depleted
ocean fish stocks (Huppert 2005). In order to reverse this trend, coastal nations
responded by developing a variety of institutional regimes aimed at conserving
fish stocks and limiting harvests to levels that are biologically sustainable
(Huppert 2005).

25

Management of foreign fishing operations on the U.S. Pacific Coast first
began in 1967, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. signed a bilateral fishery agreement
(The U.S. later signed bilateral agreements with Japan and Poland) affecting trawl
fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California (PFMC 2008). When the U.S.
implemented its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), extending its jurisdiction to
200 nautical miles from shore (after signing the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976), state jurisdiction of waters were articulated as
extending three miles from shore, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
was developed as an agency to manage U.S. fisheries and a management plan for
the foreign trawl fishery off the Pacific Coast was implemented (PFMC 2008).
In 1977, as directed by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(later amended and renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act or Magnuson-Stevens Act), eight regional fishery management
Councils, including the Pacific Fisheries Management Council for the west coast
of the contiguous U.S. were established (PFMC 2008).
In the case of the State of Washington, the coastal Treaty Tribes had
already been declared as co-managers of the coastal fisheries resource within the
state’s jurisdiction since the time of the 1974 Boldt Decision. Through the
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), Washington State’s
Coastal Treaty Tribes now became fisheries co-managers of the federal waters
within their Tribal U&As that extended well beyond the state’s three-mile
offshore jurisdiction (Magnuson Stevens Act; 16 U.S. 1801 et seq.). The
implementation of the MSA and the creation of the Pacific Fisheries Management
26

Council (PFMC) have created a unique tribal/federal/state co-management
framework and forum for managing fishery resources and for the coordination of
fishery management efforts (OCNMS 2011).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) is part of NOAA’s
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and it is made up of representatives
from the Tribes and the states of Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho
(Geiger et al. 2012). The PFMC has developed Fisheries Management Plans
(FMPs) for the fisheries that it manages to identify thresholds for both the fishing
mortality rate constituting overfishing and the stock size below which a stock is
considered overfished. The PFMC manages 119 fishery species along the Pacific
Coast by issuing permits and setting catch limits (Geiger et al. 2012).
Though the motives behind them were largely economic, it could be said
that the implementation of the EEZ and the creation of the PFMC created what
was in effect the first federal Protected Area off of the coast of the State of
Washington.

Protected Areas
Different definitions of Protected Areas exist. The globally recognized
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) uses this definition: “A
Protected Area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and
managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”
(Bertzky et al. 2012). The IUCN has also developed a system of Protected Area
27

management categories which help to classify Protected Areas based on their
primary management objectives. These categories are often used by the United
Nations and others for Protected Area planning and reporting (Bertzky et al.
2012). The Protected Areas with the strictest protections are classified as
Category I and the Protected Areas with the lowest level of protection are
classified Category VI, with other varied levels of land use and protection in
between them. The IUCN Protected Area management categories are: Ia. Strict
nature reserve, Ib. Wilderness area, II. National park, III. Natural monument, IV.
Habitat/species management area, V. Protected landscape/seascape and VI.
Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources (Bertzky et al. 2012)

Indigenous/Protected Area Relationship
There is an increased trend for collaborative, multi-stakeholder processes in
the governance of biodiversity and protected areas (Bertzky et al. 2012). The
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
supports moral and practical claims of indigenous peoples to govern areas and
territories where they possess customary rights, traditional ownership or
occupation (Bertzky et al. 2012).
While in practice there are still significant challenges in empowering more
of a diversity of actors in conservation, recent decades have lead to increased
engagement of local communities, Indigenous Peoples, private groups, and shared
management models in the governance of Protected Areas (Bertzky et al. 2012).
28

This trend is seen in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), which
currently has governance information for half of the world’s total protected area
(Bertzky et al. 2012). By 2010, the WDPA recorded some 700 Protected Areas
known to be governed by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities, covering
over 9.3% of the total protected area with a known governance type (Bertzky et
al. 2012).

Indigenous PAs
Some countries have national legislation which recognizes a broader range
of governance types. For example, Australia has developed a category of
Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) within its national reserve system (Bertzky et
al. 2012). Communities are able to decide whether or not they will become
officially declared IPAs following a consultation period (Bertzky et al. 2012). At
present, nearly 25% of Australia’s national reserve system is governed by
Indigenous Australians, including through co-management arrangements with
government agencies (Bertzky et al. 2012).
In a 2012 review of 21 case studies of natural resources management by
Hill et al. (in which they classify resource management initiatives as indigenous
governed collaborations, indigenous-driven co-governance, agency-driven cogovernance and agency governance) they conclude that “indigenous-driven cogovernance provides better prospects for integration of Indigenous ecological
knowledge and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems”
29

than agency-driven co-governance and agency governance (Hill et al. 2012).
They stress the importance of supporting indigenous governance and distributing
decision making into “wider networks of families and communities” (Hill et al.
2012).
Globally, there are also other examples of areas that have recently been
declared as Protected Areas by Indigenous Peoples. The Ngati Konohi, Native
People from Whangara, near Gisborne in Aotearoa (New Zealand), are the first
tribe in the country to establish a marine reserve. Their reserve has been running
for 10 years and now feeds an adjoining mataitai (traditional Maori MPA), where
no commercial fishing is allowed, out in front of their marae (tribal gathering
place). In 2013, the aboriginal Dhimurru people of northern Australia made
additions to their terrestrial IPA (designated in 2000) when they and the
Australian Government formally announced the designation of the first “seacountry” Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) in Australia (Schumacker MPA
Connections 2013). Also in 2014, the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation on Vancouver
Island created its third Tribal National Park by making a unilateral tribal park
declaration to control mining developments on their traditional territories
(Hoekstra 2014).

Indigenous/Tribal View of the Environment and Resource Management
The need for Protected Areas in and around western Washington can be
directly attributed to the value system of European-American newcomers to the
30

Pacific Northwest. At first they only saw an opportunity to exploit natural
resources; for instance, they saw the trees in terms of their value in board feet and
old-growth trees as non-productive (Russo 2011). This perspective is very much
in opposition to the value system of a Native culture that had a long-standing
relationship to the environment and saw the same trees in terms of their spiritual
power; as one piece of the interconnected and interrelated system that they and
their ancestors were tied to by tradition and for personal and cultural survival
(Russo 2011).
“It is very hard to value what you do not understand. For example, boardfeet is a unit of production that foresters use to measure the volume of
harvestable timber. In the case of old-growth trees, as the trees age they
add less volume and, therefore, less value. At a certain point, they are
considered non-productive (or ‘decadent’ in the terminology of forestry).
(In the Coastal Salish language), skwadi‘lic signifies a spiritual power of
the cedar tree. As the tree ages, and the growth rings grow closer together,
the spiritual power it possesses increases. This is not to say that the
Lummi Indians are not loggers or that foresters are not religious people,
but that in certain situations these values can, and do, collide” (Russo
2011).
The differing value orientations and predispositions of people and the prejudgments that people make filter their perceptions and help to form their
responses in regards to what is believed to be “real” or “true” (Russo 2011). An
offshoot of this orientation is that the people in positions of power often try to
control what is to be considered the “truth,” and that “truths” seem to change over
time. Because of this tendency, it is important to recognize that there are other
viewpoints on what is truth. Dr. Kurt W. Russo, who worked with the Lummi
Tribe for many years, said “At the present time, the western scientific frame of
reference, ostensibly impartial and objective, is the final arbitrator of what is real
and true knowledge” and also; in the dominant culture “science is positioned as a
31

‘neutral’ arbiter (Russo 2011).” But the scientific frame of reference cannot
provide the whole truth.
“I don’t know why it is, but it seems like non-Indians think they can plan
as well as nature when it’s the Creator’s plan. Our old people knew this:
real knowledge of nature comes to you spiritually, humbly. We know you
can set the (fishing) net, but you can never control the tides. If you think
you can control nature, you abuse it. And if you abuse it, you lose it”
(unidentified Lummi Tribal member, Russo 1989).
I would suggest that attempts to separate the Native Peoples surrounding
Protected Areas from conservation policies that affect them will fail in the long
run. Part of the learning process for conservation strategists is find out how to
engage and incorporate the populations surrounding Protected Areas in the
planning and implementation of conservation practices within the Protected
Areas. The level of success of conservation within the Protected Areas is tied to
the actions of people in the areas surrounding them, not just people’s action inside
the conservation areas. This is, in part, because natural systems and animal
species also rely on inputs from areas outside of the areas that are protected, and
even if people are excluded from Protected Areas, nature cannot be contained in
Protected Areas. In this way, it becomes impossible to separate people from
attempts at conservation in their geographical area.
While some progress has been made in the direction of better management
and protection of Native American cultural resources, an underlying issue beneath
the surface remains; the marginalization of Native American traditional
knowledge and tribal cultural values (Russo 2011, Williams 2013). In addition,
there is an issue of how land managers can address the sacred and the secular, the
private and the public, when addressing Native American cultural use of public
32

lands (Russo 2011). There seems to be a dominant view among Protected Area
advocates and natural science-focused academics that human beings are to be
considered the enemy of the environment, and as such they need to separate
people from nature and natural processes or their attempts at conservation of
species will fail. To me, this is not only an elitist but a defeatist attitude. This
type of viewpoint presents the idea that only natural scientists and wilderness
advocates can save the species of the natural world because other people are
either ignorant, do not care about anything but themselves, or simply cannot be
trusted.
Another current point of discussion is about the seemingly opposed
preservationist and utilitarian conservation goals and of the merits of “fortress
conservation” versus community-based conservation and the sustainable use of
natural resources (Adams 2004). Utilitarian and sustainable use of resources is
more in line with traditional cultural ecosystem management of the tribes in the
Pacific Northwest (and other Native/Indigenous communities that have
longstanding ties to their environment, which included the use and management
of natural resources around them). Anthropologist Darrell Posey of Oxford
University characterized the indigenous cultural practice of sustainability in this
way:
“Traditional livelihood systems embrace principles of sustainability that,
across cultures and regions, generally emphasize the following values:
cooperation; family bonding and cross-generational communication,
including links with ancestors; concern for the well-being of future
generations; self-sufficiency and reliance on locally available resources;
rights to lands, territories and collective and inalienable (as opposed to
individual and alienable) resources; restraint in resource exploitation; and
respect for nature, particularly sacred sites”(Mander et al. 2006).
33

There is much to be learned about conservation of resources from people
with long-standing connections with particular environments. Incorporating the
sustainability practices of indigenous communities in conservation strategies for
areas where they were traditionally successful contributes to the likelihood that
these strategies will succeed. Incorporating these practices is especially important
if there is a desire to engage or maintain the engagement of local people with
conservation of local resources. By maintaining their cultural practices,
Indigenous people’s cultural connections to local environments are reinforced.
However, Indigenous peoples are in many cases, increasingly surrounded by nonIndigenous people and influences and cultural conflicts can and do occur when
traditional local knowledge and cultural environmental values are not consistent
with the values of a wider public (Gupta 1991). Larry Merculieff, Aleut elder
from the Bering Sea's Pribilof Islands, said this regarding what he called “Animal
First” activists and their attempts to prohibit his culture from continuing its
traditional sustainable cultural practices:
“They do not understand that in their desire to protect animals, they are
destroying culture, economic and spiritual systems which have allowed
humans and wild life to be sustained over thousands of years... Theirs is
based upon a belief that animals and humans are separate and they project
human values into animals. Ours is based on the knowledge from
hundreds of generations which allows us to understand that humans are
part of all living things – and all living things are part of us. As such it is
spiritually possible to touch the animal spirit in order to understand them.
Our relationship with animals is incorporated into our cultural systems,
language and daily lifestyles. Theirs is based upon laws and human
compassion. …Because we are intricately tied to all living things, when
our relationship with any part of such life is severed by force, our spiritual,
economic, and cultural systems are destroyed, deep knowledge about
wildlife is destroyed, knowledge which western science will never
replace... I leave you with this last thought – we have an obligation to

34

teach the world what we know about proper relationships between humans
and other living things” (Merculieff 1990, found in Gupta 1999).
Many natural scientists involved in conservation lack a background in
social science and so seem to have trouble coming to grips with the connection
between the welfare (including economic development) of local people and
conservation issues, but when looking at the larger picture, the two issues are
inseparable (Fraser 2009). Instead of deciding that conservation aims are
fundamentally at odds with Indigenous cultures that have traditionally lived
sustainably, it is a better idea to find ways to invest in Indigenous communities,
while reinforcing the common interests within the larger framework of
conserving, restoring and protecting the environment and the living things in it
(Fraser 2009). However, each situation is unique due to the differing
environments and their plant and animal communities and differing histories and
present realities of the people nearby (Fraser 2009). Economic pressures and
other outside influences have much to do with the existing states of different
environments, but local people will inevitably play a leading role in the success or
failure of local conservation issues in the long term (Fraser 2009).
“Biodiversity cannot be conserved by keeping people poor even if,
historically biodiversity survived largely under such conditions. Our
studies have shown that many of the communities which conserve
diversity have remained poor because of their superior ethical values…
When they decide not to pluck more plants than are necessary for
immediate use, they forego an opportunity of accumulating wealth by
processing the herbal diversity in larger quantities and sell or dispense it to
others for consideration. There are others at the same time (including
local people as well as large corporations-national as well as international)
who have no hesitation in extracting biodiversity without taking care of
regenerating the same. The challenge is to modify ethical positions that
threaten biodiversity and, at the same time, to ensure improvements in
livelihood prospects for indigenous peoples... These communities will
35

then continue to conserve biodiversity along with their associated ethical
and cultural values” (Gupta 1999).
Incorporating functioning natural systems in food production systems can be
beneficial to human and non-human species as well as to the food production
systems themselves (Perfecto et al. 2009). In Nature’s Matrix, Perfecto et al.
present the idea that social injustice, not the need for increased productive
capacity that is incorporated within the capitalist mass-production based
economic system, is the cause of hunger of many people in the world.
Development and increased production has problems of its own. The creation of
large corporations to mass produce agricultural products disenfranchises local
populations, destroys traditional communities, small-scale farmers and local
markets and separates people from their connection to their traditional lands
(Perfecto et al. 2009).
While I tend to agree that development has been and continues to be one of
the main causes of environmental degradation, it also seems obvious that the
welfare of the environment is tied to the welfare of people (Fraser 2009). The
relationship between people and the environment can be a mutually beneficial
relationship. Our ability to establish and reinforce this type of relationship
between people and the environment is the issue that will decide whether
conservation of the environment will work in the long run. I would like to think
that by recognizing and reinforcing Indigenous Peoples’ connections to their
traditional areas, and by analyzing their traditions of sustainability; it could be
possible to develop new traditions of sustainability that incorporate the well-being
of the environment and the species within it, including human beings.
36

“The environmental movement must involve itself in the human rights movement
of indigenous people and other such disenfranchised people to build trust and
develop a radical new environmentalism. The idea that preservation equals the
absence of human occupation and/or use is no longer consistent with either
evolving principles of ecology or international norms of indigenous rights. Joint
management models may provide an ideal mechanism for supporting the ideals
and goals of both the environmental movement and indigenous sovereignty over
lands and resources” (Kellermann 2007).
Establishing and applying new traditions of sustainability (that incorporate
traditionally proven managers and methods) into the management of Protected
Areas would be a logical step. Collaborative management and Indigenous
engagement or ownership of Protected Areas coupled with scientific land
management techniques could provide a highly sustainable system of use and
protection (Stevens 1997, Birkes 1999). However, this would entail a
paradigmatic change in the way Protected Areas are envisioned, especially
because the dominant vision of nature preservation, ever since the creation of
America’s first National Park, Yellowstone National Park, has viewed human use
and inhabitation as in opposition to environmental protection (Kellermann 2007).

America’s First National Parks
“The National Park Service is not the first landlord of the ‘pristine’ and
‘untouched’ landscapes we now call national parks. In fact, in large part
due to the profound influence American Indians have had on all levels of
biological organization within ecosystems, the very concepts of ‘pristine
37

area’ and ‘wilderness area’ are now being dismantled. By setting aside
protected areas, it is recognized that the Park Service has succeeded in
halting disturbances by hordes of arriving immigrants—but it is also
recognized that this very same setting aside has put an end to much of the
traditional environmental management of lands and plant communities by
indigenous populations” (Ruppert 2001).
An early and strong basis for Native American mistrust of the motives and
intentions of non-Natives behind the creation of Protected Areas stems from
negative experiences with U.S. National Parks. From the very beginning of the
creation of America’s first National Parks there has been a history of land
dispossession and physical removal of Native Americans from Protected Areas
(Spence 1999). America’s shifting priorities regarding land use and land
protections have been reflective of U.S. policy. They have also been reflective of
the shifting understandings of the American people when looking at land and
Native peoples. The whole idea of the existence of an “uninhabited wilderness”
was a construct seemingly created to excuse the dispossession and exclusion of
the Native inhabitants from the land they inhabited or seasonally utilized for
thousands of years (Spence 1999). The creation of National Parks in lands said to
be “unspoiled by humans” was representative of the times and very much in line
with the goal of westward expansion by Americans and its policies aimed toward
the cultural destruction and relocation of North America’s Native inhabitants
(Spence 1999).
Treaties and systematic Native American removal were used to
manufacture a “wilderness” that was exclusive of human habitation in National
Parks (Spence 1999). The idea of reserves for animals and reservations for
human beings helped to bring about an environment that was not reflective of
38

historical realities. Protected Area lands that had been deemed to be “unspoiled
by humans” had actually been shaped by the cultural practices and natural
resource use practices of the original inhabitants. The removal and exclusion of
the Native Peoples from parklands had very real impacts on these historically
human-influenced ecosystems. Overgrazing on particular plant species by
ungulates (previously held in check by Indigenous hunting) resulted in the
alteration of the make-up of plant communities, and the cessation of
anthropogenic burning resulted in the forestation of land that had been previously
been maintained as prairies or other open habitat types (Spence 1999). These
factors and others affected many plant and animal species that had come to rely
on these human-maintained ecosystems.
The idea of Native Americans as being a “vanishing race” was partially
brought about by reductions of the Native population due to diseases, but it was
also helped along by U.S. policy through the use of the U.S. military which
enforced land dispossession (Spence 1999). Changing land-use priorities were
also reflected in U.S. policy in regards to Native populations and National Parks.
Government priorities were at first geared towards settlement, agriculture, land
exploitation and Indian removal. Priorities then shifted towards the preservation
from exploitation of certain lands and the creation of National Parks, with an eye
on tourism, recreation and preservation of beautiful or scenic sites.
The National Parks were also a manifestation of American nationalism and
its ideal of democracy (Spence 1999). Scenic areas were seen to be illustrative of
the idea that North America had open places Europe could not match, while at the
39

same time they were areas to be set aside for the public; the lands would be
protected from private exploitation for the good of public enjoyment (Spence
1999). Historically, there were varied and shifting rights and privileges allowed
by the government or mandated by treaties (which were usually disregarded) with
the Native peoples who traditionally inhabited or seasonally utilized the areas that
would become the first National Parks; Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite.
However, in all three of these instances of National Park creation, Native
residence came to an end in the traditional areas that became National Parks.

Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite National Parks
America’s first National Park was created by the Yellowstone Act in 1872.
Yellowstone Park’s rules and regulations (with the backing of plenary power)
were used to override the usufructuary treaty rights of the Bannock and Shoshone
Indians to hunt off-reservation through the 1896 Ward v. Race Horse court
decision (Spence 1999). In creating America’s first National Park, the historical
connection between Protected Area creation and Native American dispossession
was firmly established at the very beginning, when the Congressional Act creating
Yellowstone was used to facilitate the abrogation of a treaty with Native
American nations.
Though the impetus for the Ward v. Race Horse court decision was largely
created by the citizens and game laws of the State of Wyoming (incorporated as a
state in 1890 but part of Wyoming Territory at the time of Yellowstone’s
40

creation) the precedents cited for the decision were the Yellowstone Act and the
Lacey Act (Spence 1999). The 1894 Lacey Act, which was enacted by Congress
with the intention to restrict non-Native hunting in Yellowstone (and did not
mention altering treaty rights), gave “the rules and regulations made by the
Secretary of the Interior for the government of the park, and for the protection of
the animals, birds, and fish and objects of interest within,” the power of federal
law (Spence 1999).
The justices’ ruling on the Ward v. Race Horse decision stated that the 1868
Fort Bridger Treaty with the Bannock and Shoshone Indians should be viewed as
only a temporary expedient (Spence 1999). Their decision was made even though
under Article VI of U.S. Constitution, treaties are recognized as being the
“supreme law of the land.” Congress’s plenary power (absolute authority over
Indian affairs) it was said, had unilaterally (even if unintentionally) terminated
certain provisions of the Fort Bridger Treaty thus nullifying Shoshone and
Bannock off-reservation hunting rights in the State of Wyoming as well as in
public lands such as Yellowstone.
The termination of the Bannock and Shoshone off-reservation usufructuary
rights was stated as having been previously being demonstrated as the will of
Congress, because Congress had already neglected to recognize the U.S. treaty
with the Bannock and Shoshone by enacting the Yellowstone Act and the Lacey
Act (Spence 1999). These two congressional acts were interpreted by Justice
Edward Douglas White, who wrote the majority opinion of the court in the Ward
v. Race Horse court decision, to be evidence of the government’s desire to
41

abrogate its treaty (Spence 1999). As a result, state and federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were now obligated to keep Native
hunters out of Yellowstone and to confine Bannock and Shoshone hunters to their
reservation (Spence 1999). The Ward v. Race Horse court decision has yet to be
overturned and remains the basis for restricting Native off-reservation hunting in
the State of Wyoming (Spence 1999).
In the case of the Yosemite people, who inhabited the lands of Yosemite
Park (established in 1890) in California, they were not a federally recognized tribe
and had no treaty rights and thus lacked BIA jurisdictional protection. As a result,
they fell under the power and discretion of Yosemite National Park
representatives; who stated and enforced their idea that Native residence was a
privilege not a right and subsequently (though protractedly), their residence was
ended (Spence 1999).
A situation similar to the one experienced by the Bannock and Shoshone in
Yellowstone National Park also occurred in Montana, where what is now Glacier
National Park land (created in 1910 by the Glacier National Park Act) is the
traditional land of the Blackfeet and other Tribes. The eastern half of Glacier
National Park was once a part of the Blackfeet Reservation. The Blackfeet tribe
has maintained that an 1895 agreement with the U.S. ceded some of these lands
(although oral history of the Blackfeet maintains they ceded some mineral rights
but nothing else associated with the lands) but permanently reserved usufructuary
rights within that eastern part of the park. The 1895 agreement has a clause
qualifying Blackfeet rights by making them subject to the Game and Fish laws of
42

the State of Montana, but there is some question as to whether this provision of
the agreement was actually understood by the Blackfeet as being part of the
agreement (Spence 1999). There is no question that the agreement specifically
reserved the Blackfeet’s right to access lands, to cut and remove timber and to
hunt and fish in traditional lands as long as they remained U. S. “public lands.”
However, even these rights soon came into conflict with the Department of
Interior’s vision of Glacier National Park after its creation fifteen years later.
Cooperative efforts between park rangers, state game wardens and
Blackfeet Reservation officials to exclude Native Americans from the park and to
restrict Native hunting inside and outside the Park began soon after the Park came
into existence (Spence 1999). The right of Blackfeet to hunt the animals that
moved back and forth across the park boundary with the Blackfeet Reservation
bordering Glacier National Park was also questioned at that time (Spence 1999).
In attempts to end Native hunting, the Department of Interior, spurred by Glacier
National Park administrators, would cite the precedence of the Ward v. Race
Horse decision and concluded that Blackfeet privileges had been terminated when
Congress enacted the Glacier National Park Act (Spence 1999).
A 1932 court case involving four men arrested and convicted for hunting in
the park and who had based their right to do on the 1895 agreement between the
Blackfeet and the U. S. brought the issue into a judicial focus (Spence 1999). The
convictions were eventually upheld by the U. S. District Court in Helena,
Montana. In the case of the Blackfeet, court decisions and the actions of Glacier
National Park administrators over the years have caused a great deal of mistrust
43

and hostility within the Tribe which hamper their desire to cooperate with the
park on joint conservation measures to this day (Spence 1999).

Protected Areas of the Washington Coast
The Washington coast, and specifically the Olympic Peninsula region, is
among the most protected regions in the State of Washington, as it has many state
and federal PAs. The IUCN Protected Area management categories (and the
management agencies) of the federal Protected Areas on the Washington coast
are: Category II (National park): all of Olympic National Park (National Park
Service); 95% of ONP is Category Ib (Wilderness area): Olympic National Park
Wilderness (National Park Service), Category IV (Habitat/species management
area): Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA), Flattery Rocks
National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife), Quillayute Needles National
Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife) and Copalis National Wildlife Refuge
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife) and Category VI (Protected Area with sustainable use of
natural resources): Olympic National Forest (Forest Service).

Olympic National Park
Olympic National Park (ONP) has gone through several changes in name
and designation since its creation. The area that is now Olympic National Park
first came under federal protection when President Grover Cleveland designated

44

most of the Olympic Peninsula's forested land as the Olympic Forest Reserve in
1897 (Wray 2013). President Theodore Roosevelt enhanced its protection in 1909
by designating part of the reserve as Mount Olympus National Monument, in part
to protect the native herds of Roosevelt elk (Roloff 2010). In 1939, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt signed legislation establishing Olympic National Park on
the lands that had been Mount Olympus National Monument (Wray 2013). The
main result of this legislation was to further cement the park’s status as a
Protected Area.
A 1953 proclamation by President Harry S. Truman made additions to
Olympic National Park which included an ocean coastal strip of 41,969 acres that
had been acquired as part of the 1939 Public Works program (Richardson 1968).
This portion of land is situated along 50 miles of Pacific Ocean front starting in
the north at Cape Alava above Lake Ozette (separated only by state-owned ShiShi Beach which was later to the park’s coastal strip), extending south (while
surrounding the Ozette Reservation and largely surrounding the Quileute
Reservation) to the Quinault Reservation and connected with the Olympic
Mountains by a narrow corridor of forest along the Queets River.

Olympic National Park and the Tribes of the Washington Coast
The ONP/tribal relationship is among the most complicated Park/Tribal
relationship within the National Park system because there are numerous tribal
reservations and land bases near its borders (Makah, Ozette, Lower Elwha,
45

Skokomish, Jamestown S’Klallam, Quileute, Quinault, Hoh, Port Gamble, and
Squaxin Island). Although treaty rights were explicitly protected in ONP’s
enabling legislation, tribes were not consulted during discussions about the Park’s
creation (Keller and Turek 1999). Each of these separate Tribes has had its own
history of relations with the Park, but for the purposes of this paper only the
coastal Tribes’ (Makah, Quinault, Hoh and Quileute) experiences are touched on
in this section.
The Makah had no common border with National Park Service land until a
50-mile coastal strip was acquired by the Park Service in 1940. Much of the
Makah’s early interaction with the Park Service centered around the depopulated
Ozette reservation, which both the Makah and the Park Service sought to acquire
(Keller and Turek 1999). The Makah ultimately acquired the Ozette Reservation
in 1970 by defeating the efforts of the National Park Service (NPS) and its
environmentalist allies (in particular the Olympic Park Associates) (Keller and
Turek 1999). The Makah and the NPS later cooperated extensively and positively
on an Ozette archaeological excavation in the 1970s as well as on combating a
major oil spill on the coast in 1990 (Keller and Turek 1999).
The relationship between the Quinault Tribe and ONP has been
complicated since the creation of the Park because of disputes about the location
of the Quinault reservation’s northern boundary. Additionally, in 1982, Quinault
Tribal members, Gregory Hicks and Steven Shale were arrested for killing three
elk (despite a Quinault Tribe’s ban on taking park game) in the Queets River
valley inside of Olympic National Park (Keller and Turek 1999). They argued in
46

court that they had a treaty-guaranteed right to hunt on any traditional land that
was “open and unclaimed” (Keller and Turek 1999). A lower court agreed, but an
appeals court reversed the decision and upheld National Park Service regulations
banning hunting within ONP and ultimately convicted the two Quinault Tribal
members (Keller and Turek 1999). After the ruling, Tribes continued to assert
their right to hunt in the Park although most officially opposed tribal hunting in
the Park at the time (Keller and Turek 1999). The Quinault elk hunting event
more than any other earlier events seemed to awaken ONP officials to the fact that
they were adjacent to Indian Tribes which could no longer be ignored (Keller and
Turek 1999).
The Hoh Tribe and ONP have had jurisdictional clashes over Hoh
traditional land claims within the Park as well as over the harvesting of fish and
clams (Keller and Turek 1999). Hoh tribal members recall hearing other tribal
members’ complaints about loss of land to the Park in 1953 after tribal members
on the north side of the Hoh River were assigned new homes new homes on the
south side and told to move (Keller and Turek 1999).
Like the Makah, Quinault and Hoh, the Quileute Tribe has had a sometimes
contentious relationship with ONP. Some Quileute Tribal leaders worked to
oppose the creation of a national park the 1930s (Keller and Turek 1999). The
Tribe has had disputes with the National Park Service over hunting (like the
Quinault and other Tribes, the Quileute also contend they retain treaty hunting
rights within the park), law enforcement, firearms, power transmission lines, net
fishing in the Quillayute River, tribal closure of the Quillayute River to
47

sportsmen, and vandalism (Keller and Turek 1999). After the Park expanded after
1938, most of the Quileute Tribe’s traditional homeland had been enveloped
inside Park boundaries, enclosing the Quileute Tribe on the coast in LaPush.

Quileute and Hoh Tribe Boundary Issues
Most of the Quileute Reservation village of La Push is located within a
coastal flood plain on the Olympic Peninsula, with the Tribe's administrative
buildings, school, elder center, and housing all located in a tsunami zone. For
many decades, the Quileute Tribe and Olympic National Park have had disputes
over the Tribe’s Reservation boundaries (Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.R.1162.RDS), but these boundary issues predate the creation of the Park. In
more recent years, boundary disputes intensified as the Tribe pointed to an urgent
need for lands outside the tsunami and Quillayute River flood zones for housing,
schools, and other infrastructure, particularly with forecasted climate changegenerated sea-level rise (Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.1162.RDS).
After a lengthy process with many twists and turns and disagreements over
details, “An Act to provide the Quileute Tribe Tsunami and Flood Protection and
for other purposes” was signed into law by President Obama on February 27th
(Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.1162.RDS). One key to this transfer
is that 275 acres of the land are on higher ground outside of the tsunami and flood
hazard zones. These lands have been identified as areas where housing, the Tribal

48

headquarters, the school day-care center, elder center, and other facilities can
safely move (H.R.1162 2012).
This legislation attempts to resolve several issues involving the Quileute
Tribe’s Reservation lands and is a culmination of a long policy and legal journey
for the Tribe to obtain a secure land base from the U.S. federal government. The
Quileute experience may prove to be important for other Native communities
along the Pacific Northwest Coast and elsewhere because other Native
communities now face similar issues or may face similar issues in the future. The
land bases of many of these communities are experiencing physical changes or are
threatened due to the unpredictable nature of natural systems and natural events.
Although the legislative process to enlarge the Quileute Reservation was in the
end spurred by concerns about flooding and tsunamis, their experience could
prove to be an important precedent in this time of global climate change as more
Native communities will be faced with new or compounded environmental threats
to their land bases. The Quileute Tribe’s experience might be indicative of a
trend which is soon to be a sign of the times for Native communities that reside
inside U.S. borders.
Tied to this issue for the Quileute Tribe was the importance of land
designations such as reservation, private, National Park, National Forest, State
Forest, public easements and Wilderness. Each designation has different
implications for the land that is designated (Turner 2012). Changing from one
land designation to another involves various processes, some more complicated
than others.
49

In 1975, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued an opinion determining
that there were errors specifying the Quileute Reservation boundary due to the
1953 Truman proclamation and in the survey that was approved in 1916. They
concluded that parcels of land that were part of the original land grant to the
Quileute Tribe should be reaffirmed as being part of the Quileute Reservation
(Ralston 2008). In 1976, the U.S. Congress revised the reservation boundary and
220 acres of land were administratively returned to the Quileute (Wray 1997).
The 1976 legislation however did not address all the disputed lands and set the
stage for continuing boundary disagreements between the Tribe and the Park.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Quileute Tribe continued to press the Park
for resolution of the boundary agreements.
In 2005, the disagreement about Quileute Reservation boundaries came to a
head when Quileute Tribal Council Chairman Russell Woodruff announced a
decision to close a trail to a popular tourist location in ONP called “Second
Beach” on the grounds that it crossed reservation lands (Ralston 2008). This
announcement was in response to an incident where a Tribal member was cited
for collecting firewood near a disputed Park boundary (LaCorte 2006). Although
these charges were dropped, the Tribe decided further actions were warranted.
Second Beach is public, but the parking lot and access to the trail to Second
Beach are on Quileute Reservation ground. The Tribe had allowed the public
access to the popular beach even though its access trail crossed Reservation land
(LaCorte 2006). When they closed access to the trail, the Tribe offered a land
swap with the federal government: It would hand over eight acres of disputed
50

land at Rialto Beach and reopen access to Second Beach if the National Park
would cede or buy other lands for the tribe (LaCorte 2006). "We don't have
anything against the public… It was the only way to get the federal government's
attention,” said James Jaime, the Quileute Tribe’s Executive Director at the time
(LaCorte 2006).
The Park Service soon proposed a land exchange to address the Quileute
Tribe's concerns. In May of 2006, the Olympic National Park (ONP) published
its Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement that
included a plan to adjust the boundaries of the Olympic National Park (ONP
2006). The next year, the Tribe offered to reopen the beach and settle the
boundary dispute if the National Park Service agreed to a land exchange that gave
the Tribe higher ground.
Around this time, the Hoh Tribe also began discussions with the Park,
Washington State, and private businesses about the possibility of adding some
surrounding lands to their reservation land base (LaCorte 2006). The Hoh Tribe
stated a desire to move its members, who live in a flood and tsunami danger zone,
to higher ground (LaCorte 2006).
A precedent for the introduction of legislation to provide the Quileute Tribe
protection from flooding and tsunamis was introduced by Rep. Norm Dicks on
February 13, 2009 (H. R. 1061, 2009). Because of its location along the river and
ocean, the Hoh Reservation has repeatedly suffered flood damage to homes and
infrastructure and its habitable land had been reduced over time due to storm

51

surges, flooding and erosion (H. R. 1061, 2009). At the time the bill was
introduced, about 90 percent of the Reservation was located within a flood zone
and 100 percent of the Reservation was within a tsunami danger zone (H. R.
1061, 2009). Because of these circumstances, the Hoh Tribe purchased
approximately 260 acres of land from private owners near the Reservation in
order to move key infrastructure out of the flood zone.
In 2010, “The Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act” was signed into law
by President Obama. This act transferred ownership of land from the National
Park Service and the State of Washington's Department of Natural Resources to
the Tribe (H.R.1061, 2009). These lands, along with lands that the Hoh tribe had
purchased were put in trust as reservation lands and became part of the Hoh
Reservation (H.R.1061, 2009). This act was of significance as a precedence of
land switching designation from National Park to a Tribal reservation.
Both the Hoh Tribe legislation and the Quileute Tribe legislation are
precedent setting as they are the first instances of National Park land and National
Park Wilderness land switching their land designation to Tribal Reservation land
designations. The legislation may also prove to be an indication of a coming
trend as more Tribes are faced with environmental threats due to the effects of
global climate change. Coastal Tribes with small land bases face flooding and
tsunami threats now, but these should not be the only factors considered when
looking at environmental dangers faced by Tribes that warrant securing safer land
bases.

52

Many reservations and other tribal lands of Pacific Northwest tribes are
located near coasts, river systems or other bodies of water. Traditional practices
tied to resource availability have historically connected tribes to these kinds of
geographical areas. Due to global climate change, rising sea levels and changing
climate patterns now increasingly threaten the people and infrastructure on tribal
land bases as well as wildlife habitat and resource abundance in traditional
resource areas. As a result, Pacific Northwest tribes will be particularly impacted
by the effects of global climate change or other changes to water systems or
bodies of water in the Pacific Northwest.
“In Washington State, the Shoalwater Bay, Quinault, Hoh, Quileute,
Makah, Skokomish, Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, Port
Gamble S’Klallam, Squaxin Island, Suquamish, Tulalip, Swinomish, and
Lummi are all coastal dwelling people that will have to respond to storm
surges, warming seas, and sea-level rise. Many other tribes in
Washington are located on rivers only a short distance from the coast”
(Papiez 2009).
The Quileute and Hoh Tribes may have benefitted from their unique set of
circumstances; because their Reservation lands are surrounded by parklands or
less populated and less developed areas when many other Tribes are faced with
different situations. In both the Quileute and Hoh cases there may have been
fewer land stakeholders and other interests surrounding them and thus there was
less to lose, so there was less outcry here than other Tribes may face. However,
environmental threats are a reality for many Tribal communities and this is only
likely to get worse as global climate change comes into play.

53

Marine Protected Areas
“Marine Protected Area” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide
variety of approaches to U.S. place-based conservation and management
(Whitesell et al. 2007). The National Marine Protected Areas Center in 2006
described Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in this way: “In practical terms,
marine protected areas are delineated areas in the oceans, estuaries, and coasts
with a higher level of protection than prevails in the surrounding waters” (found
in Whitesell et al. 2007). Around 1.6% of the global ocean area is protected, but
marine protection is concentrated in the near-coastal areas (0–12 nautical miles
from land), where 7.2% of the total area is protected (Bertzky et al. 2012). If
considering the total marine area under national jurisdictions, which extend from
the national shorelines to the outer limit of the EEZ at 200 nautical miles, this
figure decreases to 4% (Bertzky et al. 2012).
MPAs reflect human values and goals; they are created and function in the
context of societal and/or community objectives (Charles et al. 2009). The goals
of MPAs often begin with biological and ecological goals; such as improving the
fish stock by protecting spawning fish, biodiversity conservation, and insurance
against stock collapse, but most MPAs must balance multiple objectives and
combine biological goals (biodiversity) and resource management goals
(increased fish catches) with human-oriented ones, such as tourism development
and conflict resolution (Charles et al. 2009). MPAs, by necessity, must
incorporate human-orientated objectives, such as; acknowledging the rights and
interests of those affected by the MPA and developing participation and buy-in
54

into the MPA creation process in order to incorporate the interests of other
participants and stakeholders in the MPA (Charles et al. 2009).

Marine Protected Areas of the U.S.
According to the National MPA Center’s Analysis of United States MPAs,
there were 1,729 MPAs in the U.S. as of March 2012, with 71 of them in
Washington State (National MPA Center 2012). In 2009, the United States
established the National System of Marine Protected Areas in order to conserve
the nation’s marine resources by facilitating more effective MPA management
(National MPA Center 2012). Authorized by President Clinton’s Executive Order
13158 in 2000, the national system brings together federal, state and territorial
MPAs managed by diverse agencies that are working toward national
conservation objectives (National MPA Center 2012).
Executive Order 13158 defines an MPA as “any area of the marine
environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local
laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and
cultural resources therein.” The U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center’s
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce)
MPA Inventory 2012 states that as of March 2012 there were 355 MPA member
sites in the national system and that an additional 741 sites were eligible for
national system membership.

55

U.S. MPAs, regardless of whether or not they are members of the national
system, vary widely in purpose, legal authorities, managing agencies,
management approaches, level of protection, and restrictions on human uses
(National MPA Center 2012). About 41% of all U.S. waters are in some form of
MPA; nearly all (86%) are multiple-use sites (meaning they combine
conservation, sustainable production, recreation, etc.) that allow a variety of
human activities, including fishing and other extractive uses (National MPA
Center 2012).
Most MPAs have legally established goals, conservation objectives, and
intended purpose(s) which influence design, location, size, scale, management
strategies and potential contribution to surrounding ecosystems (National MPA
Center 2012). The National MPA Center uses the following three main
descriptors for the conservation focus of MPAs:
1. Natural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in part to
sustain, conserve, restore, and understand the protected area’s natural
biodiversity, populations, communities, habitats, and ecosystems; the ecological
and physical processes upon which they depend; and, the ecological services,
human uses and values they provide to this and future generations.
2. Sustainable Production: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in
part with the explicit purpose of supporting the continued extraction of renewable
living resources (such as fish, shellfish, plants, birds, or mammals) that live within
the MPA, or that are exploited elsewhere but depend upon the Protected Area’s
habitat for essential aspects of their ecology or life history.
3. Cultural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in part
to protect and understand submerged cultural resources that reflect the nation’s
maritime history and traditional cultural connections to the sea.

56

The goal for cultural heritage MPAs is to advance the comprehensive
conservation and management of marine cultural resources; defined as the broad
array of stories, knowledge, people, places, structures, objects, and the associated
environment that contribute to the maintenance of cultural identity and/or reveal
the historic and contemporary human interactions with an ecosystem (OCNMS
2011).
At present, about half of the MPA area in the U.S. is focused on natural
heritage, and half on sustainable production, with less than 1% focused primarily
on cultural heritage protection (National MPA Center 2012). About 8 percent of
all U.S. waters are in an MPA focused on conserving natural or cultural resources
(excludes fishery MPAs which often have specific gear restrictions over large
ocean areas) and about 3 percent of all U.S. waters (14% of the area within U.S.
MPAs) are no-take areas, established to prohibit the extraction or significant
destruction of natural or cultural resources (National MPA Center 2012).
In terms of the numbers of MPA sites, state (72%) and territorial
governments (3%) manage approximately 75% of the nation’s MPAs and 22% of
the nation’s MPAs are under federal jurisdiction (with the remaining 3% managed
by a local agency or a partnership) (National MPA Center 2012). While state and
territorially managed areas are typically quite small, federally managed areas such
as federal fishery closures and National Monuments are often very large. In
addition, areas under state, territorial, local and partnership management can also
overlap with and fall under federal management jurisdiction. For these reasons,

57

approximately 98% of the total MPA area is managed by federal agencies
(National MPA Center 2012).
Although it is at this point in time largely economics-based; in terms of
size, the most prominent of the America’s federally managed marine areas is the
EEZ. In terms of the level of protections, National Marine Sanctuaries were
designed to provide the highest level of federal marine resource protections
available in the larger MPA system.

National Marine Sanctuaries
Congress created the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1972
through the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (also known as
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (Murphy 2011). Among other
purposes the Act was designed to identify and designate special nationally
significant areas and to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated
conservation (Murphy 2011).
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), also created by
NMSA, is an office within the National Ocean Service of NOAA whose stated
purpose is to “work with other governments, agencies, resource users and the
public to protect the living, non-living, and cultural marine resources of
sanctuaries while allowing recreational and commercial activities that are
compatible with the NMSA’s primary goal of “resource protection.” (OCNMS
2011) The NMSA serves as a trustee for a system of 14 marine protected areas
58

(13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahanāumokuākea Marine National
Monument) which encompass more than 290,000 square miles of marine and
Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the Florida Keys and from New
England to American Samoa (OCNMS 2011).

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) was established
in 1994 under the NMSA “for the purposes of protecting and managing the
conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and
aesthetic resources and qualities of Washington‘s coast” (OCNMS 2011). The
OCNMS is located off of Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula coast. Spanning
2,408 square nautical miles of marine waters which extend seaward 25 to 45 miles
and to depths of over 4,500 feet, the sanctuary covers much of the Continental
Shelf as well as the heads of three major submarine canyons (OCNMS 2011).
Approximately 17% of the sanctuary is located within State of Washington waters
(OCNMS 2011).
“The sanctuary borders one of the few undeveloped coastlines remaining
in North America, enhancing the protection provided by both Olympic
National Park, which includes 52 miles of wilderness shoreline adjacent to
the sanctuary and the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, which includes more than 600 offshore islands and emergent
rocks within the sanctuary… Located in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone,
the sanctuary supports high primary productivity and is home to a
diversity of organisms and habitats. Commercially important fish species
in the sanctuary include groundfish, shellfish and five species of salmon”
(OCNMS 2011).

59

Washington State resource management involves a complex system
incorporating federal court decisions, treaties, executive orders and statutes
(Geiger et al. 2012). Management of Washington’s coastal resources involves
state, treaty tribes as well as federal agencies and organizations, including:
Tribal Governments: Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault Nation.
Federal Agencies: Navy, Coast Guard, Olympic National Park, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey and the Pacific Fishery Management
Council.
Washington State: Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources,
and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Local Governments: Chambers of Commerce, Marine Resources Committees,
and city and county governments.
Non-Governmental Organizations: Academic institutions, non-profit groups,
fishing industry and tourism representatives. (OCNMS 2011)
In addition, there are differing interpretations of jurisdiction in the ocean.
When tribes ceded lands in treaties, they never ceded marine areas. Tribal
interest and management authority extends beyond reservation boundaries to
include the Usual and Accustomed fishing areas (U&As), as defined for each tribe
in United States v. State of Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W. Dist Wash. 1974).
In the case of the OCNMS, the management and regulatory authorities of the
coastal Treaty Tribes is noteworthy because the OCNMS is located within the
U&As of the four coastal Treaty Tribes. This situation is unique among the
National Marine Sanctuary system as tribal Treaty rights to resources becomes a
crucial factor in management of the OCNMS.

60

Tribes and the OCNMS
The Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault Peoples historically lived along the
Olympic coast and sustainably utilized the fish, shellfish, seabirds and marine
mammals that the ocean provided there. This area of the ocean also linked the
Native Peoples along the coast; as travel was often easier by canoe because of the
dense forests bordering much of the coast. Archaeological remains as well as
Native stories, dances, traditional knowledge and practices, traditional place
names and language demonstrate the strong cultural ties of Makah, Quileute, Hoh
and Quinault to specific areas on the Olympic Peninsula. They also show the
strong relationship of these cultures with the sea and resources of the marine
environment along and off the coast of the Olympic Peninsula (OCNMS 2011).
“Beyond its ecological significance, the sanctuary has extraordinary
cultural significance. For time immemorial, American Indians have
inhabited and cared for the coastal and marine ecosystems that are now
part of the sanctuary. The Hoh, Makah and Quileute tribes, and the
Quinault Indian Nation continue to make their home on the Olympic
Peninsula’s outer coast maintaining the continuity of cultures that remain
intimately connected with the ocean and its resources” (OCNMS 2011).
The Treaty of Neah Bay and the Treaty of Olympia reserved, in perpetuity,
for the coastal Treaty Tribes their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to access
and utilize the plants, mammals, fish and other resources in their respective treaty
areas on the Olympic Peninsula and its adjacent waters. To this day, the marine
ecosystem and its associated natural resources are the foundation for economies
and cultures of these Tribes (OCNMS 2011). In addition, their continued ability
to harvest and utilize this region’s resources is critical to the protection of their

61

treaty rights and the continuity of the distinct cultures of the Tribes (OCNMS
2011).
Prior to OCNMS’ designation, two oil spills (in 1988 and 1991) near the
Makah Reservation spilled hundreds of thousands of fuel oil and diesel fuel
(Cooke and Galasso 2002). This led the Makah Tribe to support the designation
of OCNMS within the Makah tribal U&A as a means to protect their resources
from oil spills and the possibility of offshore oil drilling (Cooke and Galasso
2002).
In 2000, a working group of the OCNMS advisory council that was formed
to evaluate marine zoning as a management tool within OCNMS became a cause
of concern for the coastal Tribes (Cooke and Galasso 2002). A technical advisory
panel (consisting of coastal ecologists and no tribal members or staff) soon
identified and recommended sections of the coast (both on and off Tribal
reservations) that they felt warranted increased protections because they had
ecological significance (Cooke and Galasso 2002). Tribal members were
concerned when the recommendations for increased protection did not
acknowledge that some of the areas identified fell under Tribal land ownership
and jurisdiction (Cooke and Galasso 2002). Tribal members further stated that
the sections of shoreline which had been identified as being ecologically
significant were ecologically significant as a result of the thousands of years that
they were protected under tribal management practices (Cooke and Galasso
2002). This OCNMS action became a cause for much mistrust between the
coastal Tribes and the OCNMS for several years.
62

Intergovernmental Policy Council
Management of the area in and around OCNMS is multinational and
multicultural in nature; it is within the U.S. EEZ, it is adjacent to Canada and its
EEZ, and it is encompassed by the U&As of the coastal Treaty Tribes (OCNM
2011). Because the coastal Treaty Tribes have treaty-protected fishing rights and
share co-management responsibilities for fishing activities within the sanctuary
with the State of Washington and the federal government; there are overlapping
jurisdictions as well as joint authorities. These complexities (and Tribal
experiences with OCNMS) helped lead to the creation of the Olympic Coast
Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC), the first of its kind in the nation.
A 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) signed by the coastal Treaty
Tribes, the State of Washington, and NOAA formed the IPC as a council
comprised of representatives of the coastal Treaty Tribes, the State of Washington
and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (Murphy 2007). The IPC was created
to provide a regional forum where sovereigns with regulatory jurisdiction over
marine resources and activities within the boundaries of the Sanctuary could
exchange information, coordinate policies, and develop recommendations for
resource management (OCNMS 2011). The Council meets six times per year in
rotating locations within the region for non-public meetings where the OCNMS
participates as invited but does not set the agenda (Geiger et al. 2012).

63

The IPC provides an opportunity for regularly scheduled and structured
government to government level discussions by providing more regular
opportunities for face-to-face communication (Murphy 2011). The IPC also
presents an opportunity for participants to establish personal connections that
could aid in producing more informed and cohesive working relationships
between the parties (Murphy 2011).
The importance of continuing to listen for and documenting the Native
voice is the foundation behind the research in this thesis. The ability by Protected
Area managers and others to hear the Native voice will help to determine whether
OCNMS will be successful. The upcoming Interviewee response chapters present
an opportunity to hear some voices that speak to the Protected Area/Tribal
relationship.

64

Part II: INTERVIEWEE RESPONSE CHAPTERS
The upcoming chapters (Chapters 2-6) are a compilation of the responses of
ten interviewees to 10 open-ended questions in interviews conducted from March
to November 2013. The ten interviewees are staff and/or Tribal members from
Tribal natural resource departments, past and present federal representatives (from
NOAA) and/or tribal policy experts.2 The responses of the interviewees were
intended to answer two main research questions posed in this thesis: How have
Marine Protected Areas in western Washington affected the rights and interests of
the Tribes? Can protections for marine environments be designed, established
and implemented in a way that they achieve conservation goals and recognize
Tribal rights and interests?
The responses of the interviewees were grouped in accordance to recurring
themes that emerged. Some of the responses do not speak directly to the two
main research questions but were included in the response section because they
were deemed important and relevant by this researcher and/or the interviewees.
While some of the topics raised do not speak directly to the Tribal/MPA
relationship these responses are important in and of themselves and they add
background to the overall research.
Many of the topics and themes that are included in the Interviewee response
chapters were touched on in the Background chapter, and so there is some overlap
and repetition between the two. While there is some overlap between chapters,

2

Interviewee list is located in Methodologies and Research Design chapter.

65

this format provides an opportunity to present background and context before
getting into interviewee responses while at the same time keeping separate the
responses chapters in order to highlight the new data that this thesis provides to
existing literature. Readers are encouraged to consult the Background chapter for
additional context on issues covered by interviewee responses.

66

CHAPTER 4: TRIBAL VALUES AND TREATY RIGHTS
This chapter will give the reader some background on traditional resource
management as well as Tribal treaty rights before dealing with interviewee
responses related to this study’s two main research questions (which will be
covered in subsequent chapters). The responses of interviewees in this chapter
show that the Tribes have both a cultural tradition as well as a continuing history
of sustainable resource conservation tied to resource utilization within the Tribes’
traditional areas.

Background on Traditional Resource Management: Traditional Culture,
Values and Knowledge
In examining the responses of interviewees, one of the first points that
interviewees stress is that natural resource management is part of the traditional
culture of Native peoples. Tribes are not against the concept of protections for
resources and the environment; they simply go about it in a different way. As
Native cultures and identities are tied to their history within particular areas,
sustainable use and management of their area’s natural resource has historically
been and continues to be a vital to characteristic of Native peoples. Tribes and
other Indigenous peoples have a long history of resource management geared
towards resource utilization.
In Washington State and elsewhere, Tribes were and continue to be part of
the local ecology of their areas. Indigenous cultures view human beings as being
an integral component of the environment, rather than solely as stewards of
67

natural resources (MPA FAC 2011). Their experiences and observations within
their areas over time have contributed towards the historic management of the
resources of the local environment (MPA FAC 2011). Resource management has
been integral to maintaining the cultural survival of Native peoples. Native
cultures still depend on the natural resources of their areas spiritually, as well as
for nutritional subsistence and economic livelihood (MPA FAC 2011).
One main difference between Native and non-Native people is in Native
peoples’ long-term relationships to places and the resources within these places.
Because Tribal cultures are tied to the access and use of resources in particular
places, ensuring that these resources are available to future generations of tribal
members is essential for the survival of tribal cultures (MPA FAC 2011).
Tribes have a long-term viewpoint and approach that is ingrained in their
goals and objectives for natural resource management (Bowhay). Through the
knowledge that sustainable use of resources has been and is now integral to
supporting the people; tribes have by necessity become the custodians of their
environment. Tribes and Tribal members have taken on a responsibility to
maintain resources for future generations. This responsibility is ingrained in their
traditional cultural practices and their traditional management structure and
philosophy and it is a part of their current cultural practices and management
practices and goals (Bowhay).
“There’s a clear mandate to consider the impacts for seven generations
into the future. So decisions made now are supposed to consider the
impacts for seven generations. You’ll hear that ubiquitously up and down
the coast. I’m not sure the origin of that, but everyone seems to know it.
So, I think that it is the same today as it was, traditionally. …Decisions
68

made now are supposed to consider the impacts for seven generations into
the future. So from our perspective, the fish that we catch in the lower
river fishery are there for us to use and the fish that make it upriver are for
the future’s use. They are considering the seven generations. Tribes want
to make sure [that] seven generations from now, Hoh River fishermen can
go out there and get wild steelhead, as a way to make a living… not just as
a museum style activity” (Gilbertson).
Tribes have developed and benefited from an intergenerational knowledge
of what an area produced and how it can be managed sustainably. Tribal
knowledge provides guidance on how to maintain that productivity and health for
future generations. Traditional knowledge of traditional areas that has been
passed to current generations can provide information that will help to maintain
the kind of environment that provides the resources that will ensure the continuity
of their cultures (MPA FAC 2011). As two of the interviewees note,
“This intergenerational and local focus on ensuring that what makes the
people who they are is always available is obviously at the root of the
health of the marine environment here” (Jones).
“Traditions have been a strong guiding point to maintaining that
relationship with the environment and the access to our traditional
resources, traditional foods and culture. It’s an interdependency... the
natural environment surrounding us is the habitat of our culture.
…[Through] the long-term perspective and long-term observation of our
people and the oral history of a people that have been in one area for so
long, I think we have a better understanding of what has happened to our
environment. I think we’ve gained a collective and longer-term
consciousness of what our environments have as far as a community of
organisms and life...and then also of [consciously] maintaining an equal
reliance on the multitude of species in the form of integrated resource
management. I think traditionally, it’s already ingrained as an ecosystembased management system” (McCarty).

69

Tribal Resource Management
In Washington State, Tribes are heavily involved in fisheries management
in their treaty areas. Treaty Tribes are now restricted to the fishing areas
(commonly referred to as Usual or Accustomed areas or simply U&As) that were
described for them under United States vs. Washington (Boldt Decision). For
Tribes, fisheries management focuses on both marine and non-marine areas.
Tribal fisheries management focuses on maintaining fish populations so that tribal
fishermen can continue to harvest; in part through protecting the habitat needed to
maintain those harvest levels (Williams). Traditionally, resource management
relied less on modern scientific techniques than on familial ownership and
stewardship of areas and resources. As Quinault and Tulalip fisheries leaders
observe,
“Tribes would have been able to manage relatively more simply compared
to their current situation. They would have a home area that would be
tribally controlled. Tribal councils or committees of elders would
determine who could fish, as well as when and where and in their
traditional areas. Disputes and jurisdictional issues between tribes would
be handled through meetings that would be held on a semi-regular basis”
(Schumacker).
“We [Tulalip Tribes] try to manage the harvest in a way that allows for
proper escapement into the river systems. For the salmon fisheries, we’ve
established escapement goals for each species to head up river. We
manage our fisheries to allow those fish to head up river and spawn.
We’re a marine fishing tribe, so we don’t have commercial fishing in the
rivers themselves. We have rights to fish in the river, but we prefer to
keep the fishing in Puget Sound...then we’re catching the fish when
they’re at their highest value” (Williams).
Tribes are also involved in restoration projects and reopening habitat in
their areas. In many ways, Washington State is a beneficiary of tribal
involvement in resource management (Williams). The state benefits from Tribal
70

access to funding, in part because in some instances Tribes have access to more
funding at the federal level than the state agencies have (Williams). In addition,
some of larger Tribes (such as the Tulalip) are able to subsidize their fisheries
programs and are not solely operating off of state or federal funds (Williams).
The Tulalip Tribes, for example, also benefit from living in a high population
zone because they derive some income from surrounding population, but the high
density developments have affected the rivers and they do not support the fish
populations that they used to (Williams).
“We need to protect the habitat along our shorelines if we are going to
restore our fisheries. And you know… every year we’re causing more
damage to our habitat and the marine areas. And it’s getting harder and
harder to actually keep our salmon alive just getting in and out of Puget
Sound. Because it’s not only the habitat where the salmon go to feed but
it’s the habitat needed to produce the feed-fish and for the
plankton…which we’re (Tulalip Tribes) starting a big study now, on
what’s going on with the plankton populations within Puget Sound,
because our whole food-web in Puget Sound is falling apart. We need to
figure out what it takes to rebuild it” (Williams).

Treaty Rights: Uniqueness of Washington State Treaty Tribes
The long and storied history of legal conflict in Washington State between
the state and the Treaty Tribes has created a state/tribal relationship that is unique
in many ways. There has been over 100 years of history of legal conflict
regarding recognizing tribal rights and in regards to the exercising of treaty rights
in the state. Protests from state agencies, governors and citizens about tribes
exercising their treaty rights and about having management authority, as well as
the attempts to prohibit that expression or activity through the years, date back to

71

the early 1900s (Bowhay). U.S. v. Washington (1974 Boldt Decision) is the
seminal case that characterizes that conflict with the Treaty tribes in Washington
and its unique outcome.
“When you look at treaty rights nationally, this is a unique status. There’s
over 650, I believe, federally recognized tribes and tribal entities in the
U.S. and about 31 have federally recognized rights, which also include
off-reservation, and 24 of those are here in Washington State or the
Columbia River. Once you get out of the Northwest the only other area
where you are going to have the same kind of situation is in the Great
Lakes. …And when you talk about tribal rights and management
authority, people in the Northwest and agencies in the Northwest at the
state level understand that …varying degrees of the substance of it, but
they understand what they need to do at a minimum, and they have been
trying to incorporate it more and more from what it was in the 1980’s vs.
what it is now. At the federal level you still to push to have that
recognition… but it’s a constant educational process to get people to
understand” (Bowhay).
“Tribes without that [treaty] right should be engaged… no matter what.
So, treaty rights are strong, but tribes that live on the coast of this country
have all fished. They don’t live on the beach for nothing… you live on the
beach because you harvest things in that area, you use the ocean as your
waterway, and it has been your breadbasket for your community”
(Schumacker).
Treaty rights have also been a source of conflict between Tribes and the
U.S. public. Interviewees point to the fact that some in the public resent the idea
that certain people could have rights that other do not. Treaty rights have been a
source of resentment because they are construed as “special rights” of a racial
minority, even though they deal with nations rather than a race. Treaty rights may
also seen by some as a temporary expedient; a part of history that is no longer
relevant in contemporary American society. The basic lack of understanding of
what treaty rights are or what a treaty represents can also be a source of conflict or
misunderstanding between tribes and the general public (Bowhay).

72

“America is a country that is founded on the rights of individuals. And
historically, when issues of tribal sovereignty come up... the notion that
there are collective rights of people that are recognized by the federal
government and guaranteed through treaties has been a source of conflict
since this country was founded” (Gates).
“One is just basic ignorance of what the rights of the tribes are. And then
you have the possibility of people not particularly caring what the rights
are. I’ve seen this in parts of the Great Lakes where people think that
yeah, those rights are there, but that’s in the past. You know, it’s a nonunderstanding of what these things mean…a treaty as being a legal and
binding document” (Uravitch).

Boldt Phase II: Co-management
When the Treaty Tribes of Washington State signed treaties with the U.S.
government in the 1850’s, they insisted that their people must be allowed to
continue to fish in and beyond the reservation boundaries (U.S. v. WA 1974). In
U.S. v. WA in 1974, Judge Boldt’s court found and held that, “every fishing
location where members of a tribe customarily fished from time to time at and
before treaty times, however distant from the then usual habitat of the tribe, and
whether or not other tribes then also fished in the same waters, is a ‘usual and
accustomed ground or station’ at which the treaty tribe reserved, and its members
presently have, the right to take fish" (U.S. v. WA 1974). These “usual and
accustomed grounds and stations” are now more commonly referred to as Tribal
U&As.
As established by the Boldt Decision in 1974, and further determined in the
1980 Orrick Decision (commonly called Phase II of the Boldt Decision), Tribes
have the legal authority as well as the responsibility to protect their natural and

73

cultural resources. The federal court-ordered authority and responsibility
manifested the current co-management relationship between Washington’s treaty
Tribes and the State of Washington in which they jointly manage the region’s
resources, as described by tribal resource managers.
“Anything that impinges upon treaty rights or has direct or indirect effects
on those treaty rights, anything of that nature is covered under those
treaties” (Schumacker).
“It’s also a constant that is evolving. If you asked tribes right now what
co-management means... in our membership of the 20 tribes, you’re gonna
get 20 different answers. And that answer that you get today; a year from
now or two years from now [it] is going to be different, because it’s
constantly going to have to evolve. Fishery management when I first
started was all about managing harvest. You managed harvest, you
provided then for what was necessary for spawning… and almost for
every species. But when you talk about what we have to do for fishery
management now...it’s less about harvest, and it’s more about habitat
protection and all these other land-use issues that affect habitat or other
activities that affect the marine near-shore or whatever you have: the dam
operations... everything. So it’s become much more complicated. The
Tribes’ management has gone from being typically just a fishery
management issue to now being more land-use oriented, in terms of what
we are looking at, because we are involved in restoration and those types
of things” (Bowhay).
“We’ve been doing a pretty darn good job enhancing [the] fisheries
management environment. Certainly with the co-management relationship
with the state, who are down-stream beneficiaries of this federal trust
responsibility relationship ...I think all concerned parties …should see a
champion in what we can do” (McCarty).
Through the co-management relationship Tribes and non-tribal entities,
agencies and other groups are potential allies in combating the degradation of the
environment, natural resources and cultural sites. There are some obvious
commonalities in interests. The Nisqually River and the Qwuloolt (Snohomish
River) estuary restoration projects are the largest estuary projects that have been
conducted on the West Coast. Both have had strong tribal leadership by the

74

respective tribes of those watersheds (Nisqually and Tulalip). In spite of this,
particularly in watersheds around the Salish Sea, new developments are damaging
habitat faster than it is being restored (Williams).
The Elwha River dam removals, the largest dam removals in the U.S. to
date, were largely initiated by the Lower Elwha Tribe.
“For instance the Elwha dam removals… those structures created a huge
obstruction to the free migration of fish over time. The government
realized that that was having a detrimental effect on the population; not
just the tribal citizens but for non-tribal… beyond just the whole
ecological integrity of it. And now they are coming down and that’s going
to be a benefit to citizens and non-Indian citizens alike” (Gates).
“The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, even though being one of the smallest
Tribes in western Washington, has some of the biggest projects going on.
And they’ve been pushing for that [Elwha River dam removals] for a long
time. They had good tenacity and kept going at it and managed to get the
work done. So yeah, the Tribes are doing some good things all around the
Sound and out on the Coast. We’re doing our part to try to restore fish
anyway” (Williams).
Tribes have also taken the lead in the development of MPAs or other types
of protections of the environment (both marine and terrestrial).
“And yeah, I do think Tribes can take the lead in developing some
MPAs... our Port Susan management area, it actually started out as a
Tribal project and then it expanded to include more people. …We worked
with the state, the county and some non-profit groups to establish the
Marine Management Area in Port Susan, so that was really one where
Tulalip took the lead on to start with” (Williams).
“So we are looking at that [tribal MPAs], it’s not that this is a new
concept…we have been doing it in some form or fashion in earnest, for the
last 20 plus years. Arguably, you could look at certain ways that the tribes
have done business… from the fisheries standpoint or a hunting
standpoint, and say they have been utilizing this conceptually, all along.
So, I guess the take-home message is that…you know, the Tribes are out
there and dealing in all of these management forms. They do have a
recognition… they often are included in the various policy level boards
that guide management… whether it is forest practices, whether it’s Puget
Sound Partnership, they sit on various councils and it’s in recognition of
their right and their standing as resource managers and their interests in
75

protecting the environment and doing management of natural resources.
So I think it’s evolving... and it’s gotten better, but we are always looking
to improve” (Bowhay).

Boldt Phase II and the Culvert Case: Habitat Standing and Stewardship
Tribes are engaged in restoring habitat and reopening habitat and have been
engaging the State of Washington through legal avenues to do the same. The
Culvert Case decision was a reinforcement of Phase II of the Boldt Decision,
including Judge Orrick’s 1980 decision that told the state that it has to provide for
fish habitat to meet the tribes’ treaty rights to resources. Judge Orrick stated in
his ruling “habitat is essential to the survival of the fish, without which the
expressly-reserved right to take fish would be meaningless and valueless.” The
2007 Culvert Case decision (United States v. Washington, C70-9213, 2007)
specifically stated that fish-blocking culverts prevent fish from accessing a large
portion of their traditional habitat and so the state would have to reopen existing
fish-blocking culverts and also refrain from building more fish-blocking culverts
(Bowhay). Tribes are also engaging local governments on habitat issues and
development in habitat areas.
“Treaties are the most proactive and most practical example of
environmental law, because without a natural environment healthy enough
to support the traditional resources… the Treaty can be deemed to be
broken by the irresponsible parties who destroyed the environment. And
that’s a natural resource damage assessment that can be applied to the
dependence of traditional peoples on the natural environment. And if [the]
U.S. jurisdictions fail to protect the health of the natural environment that
supports the traditional resources then the federal government and all of its
beneficiaries have failed in the trust responsibility to the Tribes”
(McCarty).

76

“So really, besides opening up these culverts… we need to get local
governments to do a better job of protecting the habitat that’s still there.
And that’s something that we have been continually working on over the
last three decades now. But we’re finally starting to make some headway
and getting agencies to do a better job. We still have a long way to go…
but at least we think we’re on a good direction to get there” (Williams).
“The Culvert Case is an example. Fish-blocking culverts are a reduction
in treaty rights. The Tribes sued the state and said all of these culverts on
state roadways that block fish passage and constrain or reduce habitat
productivity… [they] are takes and they reduce the Treaty right and they
need to be fixed. And the state objected in court and the Tribes won. The
state is on the hook to fix their culverts on their lands” (Gilbertson).
In practice, the actual implementation by the state of Phase II of the Boldt
Decision and the Culvert Case decision has been varied (Bowhay). Although
Tribes are encouraged by the Culvert decision and signs of progress on habitat
issues, in many instances the state has been slow to rectify its fish-blocking
culverts, in part by citing inadequate funding for culvert replacement.
“You think that they would have [learned]… with the history that goes in
there. But they are saying well... that’s a lot of money and you know, we
just don’t want to do it. Yet the federal government and the other sister
agencies won’t take them to task because there isn’t the political will or
leadership at the higher levels in D.C. to say, yeah we have to do what’s
right and what’s legally required of us. They won’t take that step. So it
forces us to look to go back to the federal courts and say ok… once again,
will you rule that we have this right and that needs to be protected... you
know, from a habitat standpoint. And that’s where we sit today”
(Bowhay).
“I mean honestly, like we’ve seen… you can prove the point in court,
[but] do you actually get some action out of it? Sometimes
yes…sometimes no. Culvert Case we’re still waiting…and we’ve waited
a long time… years… for the judge [to make a decision]… and then, now
the state saying we still won’t address the issue. And so, the fact is that
there are probably more state blocking culverts now than there was when
we filed the court case. So you tell us if we really won” (Bowhay).
“Just because you win in court doesn’t mean anything… that’s the takehome message of the Culvert Case. The judge said yeah, you won. Well,
we’re still waiting for both the judge and the State of Washington and the
federal government to make good on that…when are you going to change
your ways? When are you going to fix these wrongs that we’ve identified
77

and you’ve acknowledged? We’re still waiting. And you know, we still
have other examples of that… the Corps of Engineers is gonna replace the
dams on the White River and the Green [River] but they are not going to
put in a fish bypass or a passage” (Bowhay).
The question also remains whether federal court decisions about Tribal
treaty rights to resources in Washington State apply to culverts on federal lands in
the State of Washington. However, respondents recognize that as the case was
brought against the state, at this time it has no legal effect on federal culvert
management.
“Are they [state and federal agencies] actually providing for fish passage
as they should? Are they taking remedial action to fix those that have
been identified as blockages in a timely manner? …and that’s the
question. And depending on who you talk to you might get a different set
of answers. Certainly, when I look at blockages I can see that there’s
some that occur on state land, there’s some that occur on private land and
there’s some that occur on federal land. How many are being fixed?
Well, a few here, a few there… but are we making a positive of negative
gain? I would argue we’re losing ground. So, everybody has a role here
and some fault. But the Culvert Case was, as all your legal actions,
specific to an individual and an action. So, we have focused on the state”
(Bowhay).
“Yeah, the National Park [ONP] is on some federal lands…and they have
some pretty bad culverts too, where they should put in some bridges,
frankly. …Taft Creek could use a bridge and it’s a culvert. Taft Creek is
a shame… it’s got to be probably the most dense [Coho salmon] spawning
area in the state; and there’s this awesome spring-fed pond, but that little
gem of a piece of water has a plugged culvert. It’s right at the National
Park’s visitor’s center and they have to dig it out with an excavator most
years because the culvert plugs up with this avulsion from just above it
from a constructed roadway. So that risks blocking this pristine ShangriLa, year-in and year-out, by plugging up the culvert… right on the
National Park. So yeah, they could use a bridge there” (Gilbertson).

78

Taking Boldt Phase II to the Next Level: Asserting Treaty Rights to
Mandate the Conservation and Restoration of Treaty Resources
When interviewee respondents were asked whether Tribal treaty rights to
resources legally mandate the conservation and restoration of treaty resources the
response was uniformly affirmative. Several respondents pointed to recent
reports by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC).
As stated in the Introduction of this thesis, the two NWIFC papers; Treaty
Rights at Risk: Ongoing Habitat Loss, the Decline of the Salmon Resource and
Recommendations for Change (NWIFC 2011) and the 2012 State of Our
Watersheds report (NWIFC 2012) discuss the status of the environment in
western Washington’s Tribal U&As as well as the unfulfilled obligations to
provide for the welfare of Tribes stated in treaty agreements. These reports focus
to a large degree on river drainages and shoreline development and other causes
of salmon habitat degradation. They combine basic assessments of the health of
the watersheds in the region with tribal perspectives concerning environmental
degradation and how it threatens tribal cultures and treaty-reserved fishing rights.
At their roots these reports are a “call to action for the federal government to
fulfill its trust responsibilities” established by its treaties with the Tribes of
western Washington (NWIFC 2012).
“The Treaty Rights at Risk document… that’s what this is really all
about... Which I think is an attempt to say, we have a right to these
resources…and if you are not taking the actions to protect and restore
these resources, then that’s something that needs to be done” (Uravitch).
In response to a question about whether U.S. trust responsibilities to protect
the Tribal Treaty right to resources might be used as leverage to reduce or

79

eliminate potentially detrimental effects of development (particularly those
resulting from new or expanded coal or oil terminals in Washington State) one
respondent was cautious but optimistic in replying affirmatively that it was
possible.
“You have to prove harm… and the potential of harm is also harm. So
boy, that’s tough… that’s a heavy stone to roll…uphill. But I think that’s
what you do, right? And so yeah, I believe the Treaties are going to
provide... because treaties are the law of the land, right? And for the
trustees… the federal government as our trustees, that’s supposed to come
first. One thing we are going to have to do to be able to yank on that lever
is we’re going to have to be able to demonstrate what is at risk. So we
need to do a better job of characterizing, mapping and capturing for
posterity and for science, the status of our near-shore environment. …We
need to demonstrate the near-shore population and the different major
habitat types and the population assemblages in there and demonstrate
how those resources provide for the Tribe. We need to do a better job of
clearly painting the picture to clearly illustrate the risk. If we don’t clearly
illustrate what is at risk, what might be lost, what could be harmed and
how important it is to us… If we are not clear, it won’t be very
compelling. We’ll just look like we’re obstructionists, standing in the way
of development” (Gilbertson).

Increasing and Incorporating Tribal Role in Local Management
Strengthening and enhancing the Tribal status and position relative to the
co-management of local resources and local habitat management issues was also
seen to be an important next step in the protection of tribal right to resources.
Tribes would like to see their role in local permitting to be enhanced so that they
would have more say in development issues within their traditional Tribal areas
(terrestrial as well as marine and near-shore). Up to this point in time Tribes have
not had as much input as they would like into local government decisions that

80

potentially affect the welfare of tribal resources and the habitats that those
resources rely on.
“Well, we have the authority over our own, but we don’t have the
authority over the non-tribal user-groups. I think that’s a huge problem, is
that we don’t have that authority. A huge issue is the permitting that goes
on by the local and county governments…for permitting this parking lot,
that development, that culvert, that little municipal road. With the failure
of the ability to [of fish] pass impassible culverts, and impermeable
surfaces that drain all these toxins in the first rains of the year, there’s so
much toxic run-off that all the fish in the creek die… and these are a
product of local permitting. So, I believe that the local permitting needs to
change, and that’s a big issue. It needs to be addressed that local and
county governments are totally disrespectful of the Tribes in their area…
and totally unaware. I can think of the Dungeness as an example, where
there is a battle between developers and in-stream flow rules. And if the
Tribes had a direct connection to permitting on the more local level, that
would help” (Gilbertson).
The Culvert Case was cited as an example of how Tribes might be able to
use their legal leverage of tribal treaty rights to resources to assert more control
over local permitting and development in their tribal areas.
“The only way the tribes are gonna get there is to sue their way to get
there. …These local and county governments aren’t facing that cost [of
their development’s effecting resources and habitats]. Tribes are supposed
to be equal with State of Washington, but they aren’t given equal
jurisdiction. …We’re supposed to have equal jurisdiction on setting our
fishing and we do, but we don’t have equal jurisdiction on the other
sources of impact. So that’s part of the issue with the Culvert Case, is
kind of equating those. So yes, the Tribes do have a right call the state on
the carpet on these issues and yes they are correct …those non-tribal
developments are a take. They need to be taken off of the non-tribal side
of the ledger, when we are doing our catch sharing… and their impacts
need to be characterized and that take needs to go away from one side of
the equation and not the tribal side. …We need to hold these non-tribal
user groups accountable for their impacts. So to answer your
question…yeah, I could ‘foresee the Tribes having policy authority in the
design and implementation of PAs,’ on a local, highly localized level.
Like tribes by tribes, aware of what watersheds and areas are important,
and with some control over the permitting and development within their
U&A. It’s gotta happen” (Gilbertson).

81

Interviewees also viewed Tribal treaty rights to resources as a position of
strength that may attract non-Native individuals or groups to ally themselves with
tribes. In this way, treaty rights could be invoked by non-tribal people with tribal
backing when there are concerns about development or other actions could have
effects on resources and habitats.
“And maybe we do have a pretty strong handle to yank on, you know.
The Treaty rights, especially out here, they can really carry a lot of weight,
right? You want to make a developer nervous tell them that the Tribe is
looking into their project; they would be like ‘oh great.’ So I guess,
having the Tribes and the Treaty rights be able to be evoked more, maybe
by others, if there is a development issue that maybe the Tribes aren’t
totally aware of. If other people in the population were more aware of the
clout and the strength behind the Treaty rights, they might pursue further
collaboration with tribes in their conservation efforts. So like, if someone
wants to do a habitat project on their own, good luck, but line up with us
and if we think it’s a good idea…boom. We got a lot better access to
money, we got a lot better access to permitting, we’ll cut through the red
tape” (Gilbertson).
The responses of interviewees in this chapter establish that the Tribes have
both a cultural tradition as well as a continuing history of sustainable resource
conservation tied to resource utilization within their traditional areas. They
furthermore show that treaty rights have become an important tool for habitat
restoration by tribal governments, and for pressuring other governments to protect
habitat. These responses provide a larger context for the interviewees’ discussion
of MPAs.

82

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH QUESTION 1: How have Marine Protected
Areas in Western Washington Affected the Rights and Interests of the
Tribes?
The previous chapters show that the Tribes have both a cultural tradition as
well a continuing history of sustainable resource conservation tied to resource
utilization. The responses of interviewees in this chapter point to a history of
conflicts with non-tribal management of resources and with non-tribal
development in the Tribes’ traditional areas. This chapter deals with interviewee
responses related to Research Question 1: How have Marine Protected Areas in
western Washington affected the rights and interests of the Tribes?

Tribal Experience with PAs
Situations that have occurred and circumstances that arise at an established
PA could also happen in MPAs and so are relevant to the discussion of the
management of MPAs. There are some similarities in the management of PAs
and MPAs, and in addition, it is difficult to separate the marine and terrestrial
environments, especially when examining the ecosystem holistically. When
speaking to Olympic Coast Tribal representatives about PAs, their experiences
with Olympic National Park (ONP) inevitably arise. These experiences flavor
their perception of PAs in general, including MPAs.
“ONP is a federal entity that affects Tribal treaty rights, Tribal fisheries,
the habitat of Tribal fisheries and also the Tribes’ own PAs. Additionally,
because ONP jurisdiction overlaps with the coastal marine environment
and it contains and/or affects the habitat of some marine resources it can
be looked at as a MPA as well as a PA. As one Hoh Tribal representative
observed, “ONP reduces a treaty right. For a Tribal member to go hunting
83

in ONP, they are going to encounter a lot of difficulties with enforcement
and cops and regulations… and a lot of things… to exercise their Treaty
right in that traditional area” (Gilbertson).
“We had a Tribal [Hoh] group of clam diggers accosted [late August
2013] on an ONP beach by a Park Enforcement Officer, who came down
to see what was going on. At that point it wasn’t a problem to our guys.
…Our diggers provided their BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] I.D.s and
Olympic National Park’s cop said ‘we don’t accept those.’ Department of
Interior said, ‘We don’t accept those… and we’re closed.’ …So all this
with the National Park, the MOU, these annual meetings, this feel good,
scratching each other’s back, that we have been doing with them. So [this
is] a blatant conflict, a total crash between the non-tribal jurisdiction and
the tribal jurisdiction. And their complete failure to acknowledge… this
was a cop. His failure, like our [Hoh Tribal member] said, ‘We have our
own cops, we have our own seasons… we’re not closed.’ And this guy’s
complete lack of awareness, having been here for three years (was) kind of
flabbergasting. And so I have to wonder; is he truly unaware? Is he going
to over-ride his education about treaty rights” (Gilbertson).
In Washington State and California, as well as other places, tribes are
involved with the National Park Service and the National Marine Sanctuary
program. Even some of the tribes that lack treaties and/or are not federally
recognized, such as the Chumash in California, are heavily involved and
coordinate with the Park Service and the Marine Sanctuary program, and the State
of California (Uravitch).
In Washington State, Tribes are active natural resource co-managers with
federal, state and fellow Tribal agencies. Olympic Peninsula Tribes have an
MOU with Olympic National Park which both recognizes Tribal rights within the
park as well as helps to formalize the Park/Tribal relationship. The coastal Tribes
had a hand in the development of the OCNMS and helped shape it from the start
(Bowhay). As discussed in the Background chapters, the coastal Tribes also take

84

part in the Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC), the council that helps to
provide local tribal input to the OCNMS.

Tribal PAs on the Olympic Peninsula Coast
Tribes and other Indigenous Peoples have traditionally had areas or
resources that they that they set aside from utilization, both seasonally and long
term in nature. As opposed to the more protectionist federal PA management
such as that of ONP, Tribal management is focused on maintaining the
productivity and services of a given area, ecosystem or fishery in perpetuity
(Jones). This is in part because natural resources are the foundation and basis of
the economy, culture, and health in many Tribal communities and are not just one
of many missions within the broader federal family (Jones). Because of this,
according to Tribal resource managers, Tribes often do a better job in remaining
consistent and maintaining their traditionally established roles as stewards of the
environment (Jones).
“Tribes had been doing just fine [with resource management] until thrust
into the Western co-management situation we face today. In other words,
the Treaty right to resources, on or off reservation, for the Tribe includes
many fisheries... and the management of those fisheries includes
management and maintenance of their habitat, harvest, monitoring,
regulation of the fisheries, [and] projections and monitoring to forecast
species numbers returning. Management has become much more
complex. Tribal management involves many venues and many types of
personnel. We work from a technical level, from the boots on the ground
all the way to a policy level where we negotiate agreements with our comanagers in order to secure our seasonal harvests of whatever species we
are working on. This can be fishing, hunting and harvesting and other
things of that nature” (Schumacker).

85

“You know, the Quinaults have a special area ordinance for a particular
stretch of coastline on their reservation which they manage for a kind of a
wilderness area. You have the Tribes not allowing certain types of take or
activity on the beach for protection of natural resources such as clams, and
razor clams in particular. You have in front of all the mouths [of the
rivers] and on the coastal area; an exclusion zone for harvest. So they are
protecting salmon and steelhead as they return, so that there’s no fishing in
areas that they school up before they enter the river. So they have these
type of MPAs that they have had on the books forever and so they are
utilizing this type of practice, it’s just it’s not maybe as some people want
to define as a sanctuary... you know, a permanent no-take area” (Bowhay).
“So in some ways, we [Hoh] have one [Tribal PA]... like our spawning
grounds, right? [And] like the Quileute Tribe, they don’t fish above the
Sol Duc confluence... another example. That’s a huge Protected Area…
all of those traditional fishing villages and fishing camps, all of that
opportunity being forgone” (Gilbertson).

Hoh Tribe Spawning Grounds PA Case Study
The Hoh Tribes’ spawning grounds PAs provide a good case study
regarding the difficulties that Tribes have had in getting non-tribal recognition of
Tribal PAs from the public, the state and the federal government. Although this
case study points to a Hoh Tribal success in getting recognition (though
begrudgingly) from the federal government of their spawning grounds PA, there
is a long history of non-tribal people and agencies disrespecting Tribal PAs and
Tribal fisheries management.
“We [Hoh Tribe] have our fishery from river mile 0 to 15… and [from]
river mile 15 to 75; we don’t conduct our fisheries up there. There are
some traditional fishing grounds up there and we don’t presently fish in
those areas. Our Tribal knowledge is active and that’s where the
spawning occurs. We update that knowledge annually with on the ground
surveys and we operate with the state, our co-managers, to determine
where the spawning occurs... and it’s mostly upriver and so we don’t fish
in that area and we provide a sanctuary from the whole upper area, once
fish reach that area they are not going to encounter a Hoh Tribal
commercial fishery. So from our perspective, the fish that we catch in the
86

lower river fishery are there for us to use and the fish that make it upriver
are for the future’s use” (Gilbertson).
An interviewee points to this example of existing Tribal PA for spawning
that has gotten begrudging federal recognition due to Tribal pressure:
“This is the first year [2013] though, that the Park [ONP] was closed on
the spawn. The Park didn’t open this summer, they were closed for
fishing because of Spring/Summer Chinook spawning… up there. So that
was good, this was like the first year where we’ve had our Treaty
Protected Area respected by the non-treaty …the one that matters most for
the Hoh, right now. … and that was Olympic National Park that did that.
And it was it only at our coercion… basically our complaining in a MOU
meeting in front of a bunch of other tribal leaders. That’s the only way we
got it. And we totally had to yank teeth… and we had to shame the policy
leaders in front of all the other Tribal policy leaders” (Gilbertson).
“And their [ONP] biologists were kicking and screaming because they
didn’t want to field the grumpy phone calls. And imagine the phone calls
I get [from Hoh Tribal fishermen] when we’re closed in July and August
and there’s [non-tribal] sport fishermen up on the spawning grounds seven
days a week. These guys have no treaty rights… and they’re up there…
you know? We’re not fishing because the abundance is below the
escapement floor and those guys are up there… merrily going about their
business” (Gilbertson).
While the Hoh Tribe regulate their own tribal members in regards to fishing
practices in the Hoh River, in part through the establishment of their spawning
grounds PA, their PA cannot be effective when it is disregarded by non-tribal
members.
“When, because of diminished abundance, the Tribes aren’t comfortable
moving up into these up-river areas, because we don’t want to molest the
fish that happen to finally get to those spots… it’s really frustrating to see
those places disrespected, in some ways, by guides and outfitters. A sport
fishery on spawning grounds is a reduction of the Treaty right … And
there’s a recreation fishery occurring on top of those fish on their
spawning grounds…seven days a week. And so there’s a lot of molesting
and interference in addition to the outright hooking impact” (Gilbertson).

87

“You Respect Our PAs and We’ll Respect Yours”
When Tribes create PAs, jurisdictional and resource allocation issues arise
between the Tribes and the federal and state governments and the public.
“The Tribal right is to 50 percent of the resource... and it needs to be
harmonized with the non-treaty and how they want to take and utilize that
resource. And so now, because of downturns in abundance for some of
these species in the marine environment, what we’re seeing is the nontreaty is allocating their take less from a consumption standpoint but more
for a recreational standpoint. …Where the Tribes are saying we still want
to maintain ours… which is for subsistence, ceremonial or commercial
take... and so that’s a conflict” (Bowhay).
“The state’s insistence that they can’t take away those [recreational fishing
on spawning grounds] opportunities... it creates problems for us. …And
that’s what the state asks us to do… to reduce our fishery, essentially
putting more fish up-river on the spawning grounds so those guides and
out-fitters can have a better time with them” (Gilbertson).
When Tribal PAs are not respected by non-tribal natural resource managers
and the public it creates a situation where there is little incentive for Tribes to
regulate the fishing of Tribal members because others are benefitting from Tribal
restraint. The resources that the Tribes are trying to protect are still being
impacted whether or not members fish.
“If the non-tribal guys would consistently respect the spawning grounds
and our closure areas I don’t think they would feel a sense of being
slighted. If the state; whether it’s in the National Park or in state waters
above the bridge… if they had more historically protected the spawning
grounds when abundance was low, I don’t think it would be such a huge
deal to their constituents when it came up from time to time, had they been
in the practice of doing that” (Gilbertson).
“They tell us that 80 percent of the impacts happen by guides and
outfitters. And so, we maintain that you could eliminate or reduce the
guides and outfitters and conserve and improve that opportunity for all the
citizens. We feel that commercial fishing should only occur from river
mile 15 down… and that we can’t have guides and outfitters making
money by molesting the spawners” (Gilbertson).

88

In addition, Tribes feel less compelled to respect non-tribal PAs because
they are not given the same level of respect. The lack of reciprocation and
coordination between the Tribal and the non-tribal becomes a disincentive for
resource protection and a cause of conflict which negatively impacts the resource
and Tribal/non-tribal relations.
“It really creates a problem when the Hoh Tribe is closed in July and
August for Chinook, which used to be the peak for our Summer Chinook
fishery, and we see the state open seven days a week upriver. If we had
coordinated on some of these PAs then it wouldn’t create this strain. But
when the state disrespects the Tribe’s PAs and goes with their seven day a
week sport fishery on top… it really creates a strain. And it makes our
Tribal members less inclined to make any further concessions. Why
would we put more fish up on the spawning grounds if it [just] means a
better angling experience for guides and outfitters up there? Our goal isn’t
to catch and release a fish” (Gilbertson).
One interviewee points out that there is potential for tribal backlash if the
federal government and state do not respect Tribal PAs.
“Because we can change our regulation tomorrow…to fish up there and
join them. And believe me, there’s a lot of people… voices in the Tribe
that want us to fish all the way up to the glacier, because the state fails to
work with us on these areas… people say ‘well screw them, we’ll just go
up there with them,’ and it’s totally understandable. …Maybe we do need
to just go up there for a year and totally blow it out of the water and then
get back to the table, and that may be what it takes. But I think the Park
realized that we were at that point. And so, well…at least the Park did
something. But if the state doesn’t make a change here pretty soon to
respect our goals to protect some spawning grounds, we’re gonna fish
right up there with them. And it’s gonna suck… abundance is gonna go
down for a few years, but if that’s what it takes…I think, then we’re gonna
be alright” (Gilbertson).

Marine Policy Initiatives
Some interviewees point to tribal perspective that there are some
increasingly positive Tribal experiences with some of the more recent initiatives
89

geared towards environmental protection. This is in part because of recognition
between the Tribal and the non-tribal policy-makers that decisions that are made
need to consider both the Tribal and the non-tribal perspectives before initiatives
are implemented. Perhaps more importantly, there is a more recently developing
non-tribal recognition that they need to address Tribal rights and desires when
they propose initiatives that might affect the Tribes.
“In general, current initiatives are making more of an attempt to
harmonize with the rights and needs of tribes. On the ground (or water) in
the U.S., there isn't a yes/no answer to this, categorically. How well they
are succeeding at this depends on the particular initiative. A number of
current initiatives are making a concerted effort to harmonize with rights,
needs, and desires of tribes. It is a delicate process that depends on the
lead agency or organization's ability to seek tribal input at the very
beginning of the process, and to take the time required to build
relationships and respect tribal protocols” (Grussing).
“I think with the initiatives that have come up in the last decades… the
Tribes have been involved in the processes of whether to adopt them or
not, so I think that the Tribes have been able to kind of get the ones that
have been adopted to fit within their needs. And the one’s that haven’t
been able to fit their needs just haven’t been adopted. So, I don’t that’s
really been a problem in recent years” (Williams).

Tribal Relationship with National Marine Sanctuaries
The only Tribes that have rights within the National Marine Sanctuary
(NMS) system that are comparable to Pacific Northwest coastal Treaty Tribes are
the Great Lakes Treaty Tribes, who have rights in Lake Superior and Lake
Michigan (Uravitch). In the marine waters of Washington State and in the Great
Lakes, Tribes have treaty rights that extend well into the ocean and the lakes.
Because these two groups of tribes have treaty rights in marine and Great Lakes
areas they have a position of strength from which to negotiate with the NMS.
90

This has had the effect of increased interest and participation by these particular
groups when it comes to issues that arise that might affect their treaty rights
within sanctuaries in their areas.
“There’s over a hundred coastal tribes… not all of them are heavily
involved. I know in the national MPA system, we’ve had the most
participation from Northwest tribes, the Great Lakes tribes, New England
tribes and then some Alaska natives and folks out in the Pacific islands”
(Uravitch).
The primary MPA that Tribes on the Washington coast deal with is the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). The four coastal Treaty
Tribes (Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault) were involved with the process of
designating the area as a PA (Bowhay). One main factor; mentioned by several
Tribal representatives, in the tribal support for the designation of the OCNMS
area as a MPA was the desire for greater protection for the area and its resources
from oil spills and oil exploration. In many ways there are compatible interests
between the tribes and OCNMS, but it is the differences in interests that seem to
be stressed in many of the responses. In many of the responses, the positive
aspects that were pointed to in regards to OCNMS, MPAs and environmental
agendas were attached with what they could be doing better in order that they fit
with tribal needs and desires.
“The Tribes had a hand in the development of the OCNMS. And so, they
helped shape that program from the start… and they did that as way of
helping them address issues they had a problem with” (Bowhay).
“We [Quinault] allowed the designation of that Sanctuary [OCNMS] in
order to eliminate any opportunity for off-shore oil drilling to be
established in that area. This was during the post 70s oil embargo
times…where off-shore oil was expanding rapidly, because we [U.S.]
were trying to expand domestic production …and there was the potential
for somebody to go out and start prospecting and to even maybe drilling
off-shore Washington State” (Schumacker).
91

The Tribal desire for enhancing the protection of the area and its resources
was tempered by a requirement that Tribal fisheries in the area would not be
affected by the designation of the area as a MPA. Interviewees point out that the
Tribes that supported the creation of OCNMS did so because they received
assurances that their ability to manage the Tribal coastal fisheries would not be
effected.
“Initially, in deciding whether to support establishment of the Sanctuary,
the Tribes relied on a couple of primary factors: they saw the OCNMS as
a means to prevent or minimize future oil spills and they received
assurances from the federal government that the Sanctuary would never
regulate fishing” (Jones).
“So, this PA out there was established in order to help the tribal resource
at that time. They felt there was real threat of oil development off of the
coast. One of the parts of the [OCNMS] charter that was critical to the
Tribes was that we maintain our management of fisheries… that the
Sanctuary does not enter into managing fisheries in any way shape or
form…that we would we would continue to manage them with our comanagers and the federal fisheries management system for the ocean
waters and with the State of Washington with things like crab and so
forth” (Schumacker).
“We can benefit from the PAs, especially in terms of habitat protection
and protection from devastating events and that sort of thing… or
increased shipping traffic or other issues that might diminish our fishery.
We benefit from the National Marine Sanctuary if they reduce the
likelihood of… let’s say… an oil spill or a poorly navigated tanker
running aground in hazardous waters. We don’t want that of course...so if
the NMS helps reduce likelihood of some devastating event, why then, of
course we benefit. You know, we are going to stand to benefit from some
of those components of those PAs for certain. But when they start to get
into the arena of fisheries management… our benefits start to turn into a
reduction in Treaty rights” (Gilbertson).
Since the time of the establishment of OCNMS, Tribes continue to be wary
of attempts by the sanctuary to exert influence that might affect tribal rights to
resources. Tribes are particularly concerned when OCNMS makes decisions that
affect Tribes without tribal input and perspective in the decisions that are made.
92

“They consistently try to keep the Tribes at their arms length and that was
not what was originally envisioned. There have been some steps made to
correct that with the establishment of the IPC [Intergovernmental Policy
Council], but even then there has been reluctance by the National program
to fully incorporate and involve the co-managers…both the state and the
Tribes, that sit on that council and take the advice that body provides the
sanctuary program on management. And they are saying we’re not really
going to incorporate you in a formal sense…they move really slow on
that” (Bowhay).
Interviewees also point feel that the OCNMS often does not fully
incorporate the interests of the Tribes or allow them to fully participate at the
management level. Interviewees state that OCNMS is sometimes putting on a
public front that it is interested in the concerns of the Tribes and including Tribes
at the table while actually pushing an agenda against Tribal interests.
“The problem that we have is; while they [OCNMS] are good at talking
about tribal rights and respecting tribal rights, they are very slow about
incorporating that recognition and understanding within their core
document in terms of the mission statement at the national legislative
level, or even at the management level within the Sanctuary and its
management document in terms of really fully acknowledging the tribes
and bringing them to the table as a co-manager to the resource” (Bowhay).
“The Conditions Report that the Sanctuary did after its 10 year
anniversary is still one that rubs me wrong, that they had the audacity and
the condescending, supremacist attitude that they can write the Conditions
Report without integrating the Tribes’ perspectives… They spin-doctored
the Conditions Report to prime the imagination [that there were] public
participants in the issue of prioritization part of the Management Plan
Review of the Sanctuary. So to me, they clearly wanted exclusive
editorial rights to plant seeds in the minds of the public before they
engaged the public. It’s a classic [case of] we don’t want your opinion
until we’ve given it to you. …If they are trying to sway the public
opinion before they engage the public and they don’t want the Tribes to be
engaged... they clearly were pushing an agenda against our interests. You
know…the Tribes play ball with them and play nice and they still act like
this? ...the arrogance is disgusting” (McCarty).
When asked for examples of how Tribes had been affected by OCNMS,
one interviewee brought up sanctuary attempts to override the right of self-

93

determination of the Makah Tribe by trying to limit their ability to pursue energy
resources in developing wave energy technology within the Makah U&A.
“One specific one is; the Sanctuary lost three or four hearings under the
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), where, eventually a
FERC license was granted for wave energy in the Makah U&A. …The
notion that the NMS looks at itself as a MPA against ocean energy, I think
that has affected the self-determination of the Makah Tribe and its right to
enjoy the natural resource within our U&A area… where it’s an
adjudicated marine space where Treaty rights lie within …and the way we
define our Treaty rights with our relationship with the environment as comanagers of the environment and resource trustees of the environment… I
think the notion that the OCNMS is a MPA against ocean energy is a
terrible lack of trust responsibility and recognition as government-togovernment. That behavior was extremely paternalistic, condescending
and I think downright disrespectful…worthy of a lawsuit. So, I think that
certain brands of MPAs have negatively affected” (McCarty).
The interviewee responses in this chapter illustrate that Tribes have a long
history of sustainable resource management and that Tribal culture is tied to
continuing the availability of resources with which their traditions are tied.
Additionally, the responses point to the fact that the Tribal rights to resources and
Tribal prominence as managers of resources have been reinforced through Judge
Boldt’s interpretation of treaty rights and through the co-management system.
The chapter also illustrates that Tribes are very much interested in maintaining the
health of the environment and in the conservation of resources although they have
had conflicts with PAs and MPAs. An important take away from the chapter is
that although Tribes have had conflicts with Protected Areas, both marine and
terrestrial, they are strong allies of the environment and natural resources.

94

CHAPTER 6: PRESENT NEGATIVES OF TRIBAL/MPA
RELATIONSHIP: What has Gone Wrong
The interviewee responses in the previous chapters show that the Tribes
have both a cultural tradition as well as a continuing history of sustainable
resource conservation tied to resource utilization. The responses of interviewees
in the last chapter point to a more recent history of conflicts with non-tribal
management of resources and PAs, and with non-tribal development in the
Tribes’ traditional areas.
This chapter continues with interviewee responses related to this thesis’
Research Question 1: How have Marine Protected Areas in western Washington
affected the rights and interests of the Tribes? This chapter presents interviewee
responses that speak to what has gone wrong in the present Tribal-MPA
relationship. The beginning of this chapter discusses the basic conflict between
Tribal and non-tribal resource managers (sustainable resource conservation vs.
resource protection) and the remainder discusses other problems inherent in
federal management of Protected Areas in Tribal territories.

Sustainable Resource Conservation vs. Resource Protection
The core of the problem between Tribes and MPAs is a potential conflict of
interests between the Tribal right to resources in their Treaty areas and the
creation of protections of the environment that would affect these Tribal rights.
This conflict of interests is enhanced by the fact that each separate Tribe has
Treaty rights that are tied to specific areas.
95

As stated in previous chapters; in the case of the Treaty Tribes of
Washington State, when they signed treaties with the U.S. government in the
1850s, they insisted that their Peoples must be allowed to continue to fish as they
had in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in and beyond the
reservation boundaries. These “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” are
now more commonly referred to as Tribal U&As.
The legal establishment of U&As where specific Tribes have specific
treaty-reserved rights has created what amounts to treaty “boxes” where Tribal
rights are contained. While the sum of all Tribal U&As when combined
encompasses all of Washington State’s waters, each separate Tribe has treaty
rights circumscribed only to delimited boxes (oftentimes overlapping with nearby
Tribes’ boxes) within these waters. This brings about the situation where Tribes
are particularly concerned with anything that would affect their treaty rights
within their specific treaty-reserved boxes.
“Treaty Tribes are restricted to the fishing areas that were described for
them under United States vs. Washington. So if an MPA is set up, tribes
can’t just fish somewhere else. Their livelihood and treaty rights are
curtailed. A state fisher can go anywhere. The impact is very different”
(Krueger).
“Tribes are place-based and so they each have their own specific U&A
where they can exercise a Treaty right. …Any activity or development
within that area [Tribal U&A] has the ability to affect in a negative way
their right of exercise or access or resource abundance in their area so it’s
of concern to the Tribes” (Bowhay).

96

Creating MPAs in Tribal U&As
Tribal fishing has always been a central part of Tribal culture in the Pacific
Northwest. The right to continue fishing as guaranteed in their treaties with the
U.S. is something the Tribes will not hesitate to fight for and as such has
sometimes become a source of conflict with non-tribal citizens, organizations and
agencies. As stated in the Boldt Decision, “The right to fish for all species
available in the waters from which, for so many ages, their ancestors derived most
of their subsistence is the single most highly cherished interest and concern of the
present members of plaintiff tribes… The right to fish, as reserved in the treaties
of plaintiff tribes, certainly is the treaty provision most frequently in controversy
and litigation involving all of the tribes and numerous of their individual members
for many years past” (U.S. v. WA 1974).
Without the backing of Tribes, the creation of MPAs in Tribal U&As,
whether for resource protection or for other purposes is a source of conflict
between Tribes and MPA creators and supporters. This is not because Tribes do
not support protections for resources, but because the reasons for the protections
can conflict with Tribal rights and interests in regards to access and utilization of
resources in their U&As.
“There’s been conflict in the past about people wanting to look at the
diversity that is occurring out on the coast. The National Park and some
academics have looked at a survey of the coastline and saw that in
particular areas there’s this wealth of species and diversity and they want
to protect it into a no-take zone. Well, most of the areas that were being
circled on the map were [near the] Tribal reservations… and that diversity
is there because they [Tribes] manage for that, but they manage it as a
take, for utilization, for their subsistence, ceremonial or commercial
purposes…and so there’s your clash and conflict that occurs” (Bowhay).
97

“Really, between the shipping lanes and the shoreline developments, our
Tribe [Tulalip] has lost about half of their fishing area just because they
can’t do a drift gill-net where there’s an object in the way or vessels
travelling regularly. …It’s been probably 20 years since we’ve really had
any fishermen actually fishing in the shipping lanes …Those shipping
lanes basically created a default MPA because those are areas our
fishermen can’t really fish, so establishing new MPAs in the areas that we
do typically fish would reduce the area our fishermen can fish in even
more than what it’s already been reduced by” (Williams).
“Other places it [MPA creation in Tribal U&As] occurred, like at Sund
Rock in Hood Canal…an area where the divers wanted to have a nofishing zone so that they wouldn’t have to worry about gear conflict. And
that was an area where again... the Tribes were fishing in… so that’s a
conflict. A lot of conflict stems from people proposing MPAs as a way of
excluding certain activities, primarily fishing… and it’s not really tied to
conservation, in any means, it’s just a way of giving themselves some
exclusive access. And so, that’s been a problem that the Tribes have
faced throughout Puget Sound and the coast, because again, they are
place-based they have a certain area where they can exercise a Treaty right
and if people want to exclude them from doing that…that’s a problem”
(Bowhay).

Fisheries Management in and Around OCNMS
The relationship between the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
and the four coastal Treaty Tribes (Makah, Hoh, Quileute and Quinault) who have
treaty rights to resources in and around the area that the sanctuary occupies is a
unique relationship within the National Marine Sanctuary system. The
relationship between the four coastal Tribes and the OCNMS is also a unique
among the Treaty Tribes of Washington State as these four Tribes are the Tribes
which are recognized as having U&As that overlap with the Sanctuary.
In the case of the State of Washington, the coastal Treaty Tribes had
already been recognized as co-managers of the coastal fisheries resource within

98

the state’s jurisdiction since the time of the 1974 Boldt Decision. The Boldt
Decision also established that the tribal right to resource access and utilization can
only be restricted if there is a demonstrated conservation concern. It states: “The
state has police power to regulate off reservation fishing only to the extent
reasonable and necessary for conservation of the resource. …conservation is
defined to mean perpetuation of the fisheries species” (U.S. v. WA 1974). U.S. v.
Washington further states: “If alternative means and methods of reasonable and
necessary conservation regulation are available, the state cannot lawfully restrict
the exercise of off reservation treaty right fishing, even if the only alternatives are
restriction of fishing by non-treaty fishermen, either commercially or otherwise,
to the full extent necessary for conservation of fish” (U.S. v. WA 1974).
As previously stated in the Fisheries management section of the
Background chapter; through the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was developed as the
agency to manage U.S. fisheries and Washington State’s coastal Treaty Tribes
became fisheries co-managers of the federal waters within their Tribal U&As
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This jurisdiction extends well beyond that with their
state co-managers three-mile offshore jurisdiction. The implementation of the
MSA and the ensuing creation of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (one
of eight regional fishery management Councils) have created a unique
tribal/federal/state co-management framework and forum for managing fishery
resources and for the coordination of fishery management efforts (OCNMS 2011).

99

Attempts towards Fisheries Management by the NMS Program
There is a basic conflict of interests between Tribes and the mission of the
National Marine Sanctuary system. Resource protection, the “primary objective”
of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (which established the NMS system) can
be in conflict with the Tribes’ focus on resource conservation (Jones). The
NWIFC’s Coastal Program Coordinator contrasted resource protection with
conservation in this way: “Conservation is ongoing sustainable use while
protection is reducing or eliminating all potential threats including extraction/use”
(Jones).
“Their [NMS] prime mandate under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
is to ‘protect the resources’ within Sanctuaries. Tribes are concerned with
being able to fish, gather, and sustain their way of life in perpetuity. That
means conserving, adapting, watching. Sanctuaries are established to setaside areas, prohibit certain activities, and so forth to protect resources.
They are similar in their desire to keep the resources around (forever if
possible), but the mechanisms they employ and philosophy for doing so
are quite different…that, of course can cause conflict” (Jones).
One interviewee points out that NMS regulation of fisheries in California
sanctuaries puts Tribes on the Washington coast on edge, in case there are
attempts by NMS to impose regulations of fisheries in other sanctuaries. He does
point out that Treaty Tribes in Washington State have additional leverage to
oppose the imposition of fisheries regulations in Tribal U&As because of their
Treaties with the U.S. government.
“There has been a recent push by sanctuaries from the national office, the
National Marine Sanctuary program, to regulate fishing within their
boundaries. This has upset more than one group of public around
Sanctuaries, because most of them were under the impression that
sanctuaries would stay out of fisheries management. They [NMS
program] decided that they wanted to get into it. We have pushed back
much harder here, with a lot more leverage than other areas have...as
100

Treaty tribes… and have been able to say to this sanctuary, stay out of it.
That has not stopped the Sanctuaries further south in California from
limiting fisheries, including bottom contact and in some cases, water
column fisheries… where you don’t even touch the bottom… from
occurring within their boundaries. So, that PA in particular certainly has
affected the rights and interests of the tribes and tribal members, because it
just keeps us constantly working to remind people of the rights of the
Tribes and their ability to manage… and [that] you can’t do anything that
interferes with that” (Schumacker).

Attempts towards Fisheries Management by the OCNMS
When OCNMS was designated in 1994, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined that existing fishery
management authorities were adequate to address fishery resource issues
(OCNMS Mgmt. Plan 2011). As a result, the OCNMS designation document
does not authorize the regulation of fishing. However, in part because of the basic
conflict of interests between Tribes and the National Marine Sanctuary system
(sustainable resource use vs. resource protection), NMS staff can be predisposed
to environmental agendas that affect Tribal rights to resources within and around
its sanctuaries.
“The Marine Sanctuary [OCNMS] designation document, under the
heading of fisheries management, it says existing management and
jurisdictional authorities exist and are sufficient and the Marine Sanctuary
will have no role in fisheries management. …But in re-designation
documents and drafts, the intention of many is for the Sanctuary to be able
to assert some authority over fishing and fisheries management in their
areas” (Gilbertson).
“The National System [is] trying to impose its will on a sanctuary that is
the most unique in the whole system... with respect to the only sanctuary
that has significant Treaty policy rights out in the ocean” (McCarty).

101

While OCNMS is not authorized to regulate fishing, and the overriding
intention of NMS may not be to curtail Tribal treaty rights, their predispositions
towards resource protection objectives for resources in and around the Sanctuary
directs them to protect these resources through whatever avenues are available to
them. In this way, Tribal treaty rights can be affected by NMS policymakers and
staff (sometimes through their backing of people or entities outside of NMS
whose objectives they support) through processes of the PFMC/NMFS or
Congressional acts such as the ESA (Endangered Species Act), or the MMPA
(Marine Mammal Protection Act).
From the point of view of Tribes, NMS is seen by interviewees to be
disregarding tribal sovereignty and the U.S. government’s federal trust
responsibility to Tribes by prioritizing NMS’s (as well as non-governmental
organizations’) conservation goals over Tribal treaty rights to resources and the
ability for self-determination by Tribal governments.
“I think that, for the most part, (OCNMS) has been problematic. Their illfated attempts to act as a conservation insurgent into the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council and attempting to impose their perspectives on
fisheries management, I think has caused some hysteria and also a distrust
in certain schools of thought with the scientific community, and more
specifically, friends or associations that seem to be like-minded with
leadership within the OCNMS” (McCarty).
Interviewee responses stress in particular that the regulation of Tribal
fishing and harvesting by the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (or any
other PA) is not something that the tribes will agree to. However, Tribal
representatives are aware that this can lead to non-tribal public resentment from
people or entities focused on resource protection goals or who take exception to

102

the idea that Tribes could continue to fish when they cannot. As far as responses
of interviewees representing Tribes, attempts at fisheries regulation by OCNMS is
the biggest potential problem they have with it (and MPAs in general).
“The ability of the Tribes’ right for Treaty fishing cannot be usurped by
Sanctuary regulations, no matter what. So if this sanctuary were to ban all
fishing within it… commercial, recreational, etc., that would not stop
Treaty fishing, unless there was a demonstrated conservation issue. And
you would have to go specie by specie on that, it wouldn’t be the whole
area. So, in other words, treaty law is higher law than any other. It’s the
highest law of the land. …It’s surpassed by the U.S. Congress, so they
usurp these other regulations... But that puts us in the position of being
the last people fishing and it adds a public resentment of the Treaty right
to the equation. That public resentment becomes a public relations or
public image factor… and causes us to have to continually defend and
explain to people what a treaty right is. So that is one thing that I can
point to for the OCNMS” (Schumacker).

NMFS/PFMC: Existing Management and Jurisdictional Authorities
As previously stated in the Fisheries management section of the
Background chapter; the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) was
created through the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and it is
part of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The PFMC is
made up of representatives from the Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon,
California, and Idaho (Geiger et al. 2012). It manages 119 fishery species along
the Pacific Coast by issuing permits and setting catch limits (Geiger et al. 2012).
The PFMC has developed Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) for the fisheries
that it manages in order to identify thresholds for both the fishing mortality rate
constituting overfishing and the stock size below which a stock is considered
overfished (PFMC 2008).
103

Among these FMPs (and most relevant to the discussion presented by
interviewees in this thesis) is the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (PCGFMP) which was implemented in 1982. The groundfish covered by the
PFMC’s groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) include over 90 different
species of rockfish, flatfish, roundfish, sharks, skates and others that, with a few
exceptions, live on or near the bottom of the ocean (PFMC 2008). Since there is
such a wide variety of groundfish, many different gear types are used to target
them. These different gear types can have varying impacts on fish habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Fishery Management Plans to
“describe and identify essential fish habitat…, minimize to the extent practicable
adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat” (PFMC 2008). The
MSA defines essential fish habitat (EFH) as “those waters and substrate necessary
to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (PFMC 2008). In
order to mitigate the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH, the PFMC
can close areas to certain kinds of fishing practices by putting area restrictions on
fishing gear designed or modified to make contact with the sea floor.
When the NMFS determines a stock is overfished in a region, the Fisheries
Management Council for that region must develop and implement a plan to
rebuild it to a healthy level (PFMC 2008). EFH closed areas can be categorized
104

as Bottom Trawl Closed Areas (BTCAs) and Bottom Contact Closed Areas
(BCCAs). A large portion of the EEZ adjacent to Washington, Oregon and
California is under a Bottom Trawl Footprint Closure (PFMC 2008). There are
bottom contact closed areas in Oregon and California, but only bottom trawl
closed areas off of Washington State (PFMC 2008). The PCGFMP states that
there are 50 EFH closed areas identified within the PFMC management area, five
of them are off the coast of Washington State: Olympic 2, Biogenic 1, Biogenic
2, Biogenic 3, and Grays Canyon (PFMC 2008).
The increasing trend for the creation of more or larger EFH closed areas in
Tribal U&As are a cause of concern for Tribes. Tribal concern about this trend
was pointed to both interviewees from NWIFC and all of the interviewees that
were representatives of the coastal Treaty Tribes. Specifically they point to
current conservation concerns connected to rockfish and rockfish EFH. Rockfish
are a slow-growing, late-maturing and long-living species; which potentially
makes them more vulnerable to being overfished.
“Another example of a MPA would be the groundfish closure zones… like
Olympic 2. There’s gonna be some new proposed MPAs off of the
Quinault Canyon that are being discussed and deliberated, currently.
Those no-fishing zones are intended to address some bottom fish concerns
with Yellow-eye and Canary rockfish. Those also represent a reduction in
the Treaty right, because tribal members can’t go somewhere else”
(Gilbertson).

Demonstrating the Conservation Concern
Marine areas off of the Washington coast encompass a variety of habitats
important to groundfish, such as rocky reef habitat supporting juvenile rockfish
105

(primarily north of Grays Harbor), estuary areas supporting numerous
economically and ecologically important species and sandy substrates (primarily
south of Grays Harbor) important for juvenile flatfish (PFMC 2008). A large
proportion of this area is also contained within the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary.
To a large extent the current condition of seafloor habitats must be inferred
because detailed information on historic and current conditions in the Sanctuary’s
seafloor habitats is limited due to technological challenges and expense (PFMC
2008). Thirteen species of rockfish are identified as state species of concern, and
three of these are also federal species of concern (OCNMS 2011). Four species of
rockfish found in OCNMS have been classified as overfished by the NMFS
(OCNMS 2011).
“There are bottom trawl contact closed areas and bottom contact closed
areas identified in the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to
minimize the impacts of fishing on EFH. The Tribes have always been
concerned that the justification for some of these areas is that coral and/or
sponge may be important EFH (and that) it is vulnerable to fishing impacts
and therefore should be protected. However, no one is measuring how
much coral/sponge is out there, there is little information on their role as
groundfish habitat (except they like hard bottom areas as do rockfish, so
there is some co-occurrence), and there are no defined thresholds or
targets for how much is an acceptable impact. In the eyes of many
environmental NGOs as well as some Sanctuary staff they are considered
sacred… all need to be protected. The (coastal Treaty Tribes’) U&As
have some of the richest concentrations of hard bottom and coral/sponge.
The Sanctuary is also seeking to further protections for them” (Jones).
The coastal Treaty Tribes are particularly concerned that areas are being
closed to fishing when conservation concerns about species are not backed up by
concrete data that demonstrates a need for fishing closures. The OCNMS 2011
Management Plan states, “Analysis of seafloor habitat data used for groundfish
106

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designation indicates that approximately six percent
of the sanctuary is hard substrate with potential to host biologically structured
habitat. Of this, 29 percent lies within the Olympic 2 EFH conservation area.
Recent surveys by OCNMS researchers have documented corals and other
biologically-structured habitat in other areas (Brancato et al. 2007), which
indicates this analysis may underestimate the historic or current distribution of
biologically-structured habitat” (OCNMS 2011).
“That leads to conflicts like the proposal by OCNMS and WDFW to
expand Olympic 2 (one of the closures). This is just one example, but it
impacts tribes when you close off a lot of fishing ground and have species
that cannot be surveyed in rugose habitats (groundfish abundance is
measured with a trawl survey with smaller footrope gear) and then cut off
commercial fishing (or the possibility of future fishing). There is no
information to determine how much 50% of the harvestable surplus in that
area is any more. Also, fishing is now closed to everyone else to protect
something that is ‘beautiful, rare, and threatened’ in the minds of some
(without measurement on the extent of the latter two), and the Tribes are
left looking like the bad guys who won't protect this resource along with
everyone else. This is similar to the situation [public pressure and MMPA
affecting Makah Treaty right to whaling] the Makah find themselves in
now with whaling, so it's not just an abstract concern” (Jones).
“Initially, the MPAs [EFHs] off our coast were for deep-sea sponge and
coral. But then we said well, ‘if we save everything in your box…what
does it mean for the population as a whole on the West Coast?’ No
answer… all the Marine Sanctuary said was ‘well, we have an obligation
to protect the resources in the Sanctuary.’ So they would eliminate all the
Treaty fishing if they could to make sure their resources were protected.
Even if there is or isn’t a conservation concern. …Pacific Fisheries
Management Council asked the Sanctuary for some context: ‘What
percent of the corals and sponges are in the box? If we save every last
one, are we gonna save 90% of the species?... 1% of the species?... Is it
gonna make a difference?, because you are going to take these Tribes’
fishing away from them.’ And they couldn’t answer the question in terms
of coral or sponge conservation, so then they changed the goal and now
the goal became coral and sponge are essential juvenile rockfish
habitat…and that’s why we have to protect them” (Gilbertson).

107

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Attempts to Regulate Fishing
In recognition that new scientific information could reveal other important
habitat areas or call into question the importance of the habitat of existing areas,
the PFMC can designate new areas or eliminate existing areas (PFMC 2008).
Additionally, organizations and individuals are allowed to petition the PFMC to
consider a new designation, or to modify or eliminate an existing designation
(PFMC 2008). Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) have begun to use this
venue to propose new or expanded EFHs that would limit or close fishing in areas
off of the Washington coast. However, Tribes have made sure that their voices
will be heard and recognized whenever EFHs are proposed that might affect them.
“Recently, Non-Governmental organizations have been coming to the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council with proposals for groundfish
Essential Fish Habitat…in the ocean waters off of Washington State.
…We never had seen them before and they surprised us with this… They
were right smack in our areas and they were talking about bottom contact
prohibitions and things of that nature. And we just said, ‘No, not only do
we not support you…,’ but we wrote a scathing letter about the fact that
these guys were going forward with these types of actions without
consulting… and put that on the table there at the Pacific Council and just
shut the whole process down” (Schumacker).
Oceana, an NGO founded in 2001, was named specifically by several
interviewees as an organization that had been pushing for EFH creation in Tribal
U&As without Tribal support. Oceana’s website gives this descriptor of their
organization: “the largest international organization focused solely on ocean
conservation. Our offices in North America, South America and Europe work
together on a limited number of strategic, directed campaigns to achieve
measurable outcomes that will help return our oceans to former levels of
abundance. We believe in the importance of science in identifying problems and
108

solutions. Our scientists work closely with our teams of economists, lawyers and
advocates to achieve tangible results for the oceans.”
Interviewees point out that Oceana has disregarded the standards of sound
science while using their influence to attempt to impose their protectionist agenda
in Tribal U&As.
“And so it just flies off the lips of Oceana, ‘Oh, we should close these
MPAs… closure off Quinault Canyon, Gray’s Harbor sponge reef, glass
sponge protected reefs out on Destruction Island, …expand Olympic 2,
move Olympic 2 and expand it, expand Olympic 1’ …all future MPAs, by
Oceana. …So these (proposed closures) are all on the horizon, and they
are all gonna reduce the Treaty right because we aren’t gonna be able to
go anywhere else” (Gilbertson).
“I believe Oceana filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries
Service to get them to change the recovery plan on certain rockfish
species…and ignored additional evidence that indicated a much larger and
stronger population of breeding biomass of the species. And the judge
coming from that same philosophy ignored the new evidence when it was
to be introduced. And so, the end justifies the means… which I think is a
nasty, slippery slope away from sound ethics” (McCarty).
“Oceana is using the presence of deep-sea coral and sponge... but they
haven’t demonstrated any conservation concern associated with those
species. They haven’t demonstrated how any of their MPAs are going to
help those species’ populations” (Gilbertson).

“Don’t Punish the Tribes for Something they didn’t Do”
Interviewees assert that restrictions to the Tribal right to resources can be
seen to be punishing Tribes for something they did not do. The Boldt Decision
acknowledged that Tribes are not responsible for the overfishing practices that
affect both the Tribal and non-tribal fisheries “For several decades following
negotiation and ratification of the treaties all of the tribes extensively exercised

109

their treaty rights by fishing as freely in time, place and manner as they had at
treaty time, totally without regulation or any restraint whatever, excepting only by
the tribes themselves in strictly enforcing tribal customs and practices which,
during that period and for innumerable prior generations, had so successfully
assured perpetuation of all fish species in copious volume. The first other than
naturally caused threat to volume or species came from non-Indian population
growth and non-Indian industrial development in the rapid westward advance of
civilization” (U.S. v. WA 1974).
When MPAs that affect Tribal treaty rights to resources are created in
Tribal U&As, Tribes are in effect being punished for something they did not do.
One Tribal representative pointed out that unless new restrictions on fishing are
designed to affect non-tribal fishing, Tribes on the Washington Coast are being
forced to compensate for the overfishing practices of others. Specifically, he
points out that Tribes may be forced to compensate for the overfishing practices
of others that depleted fishing stocks in areas to the south, outside of the Tribal
U&As, even though Tribes had no part in these actions and the fishing stocks are
not depleted within the Tribal U&A.
“An MPA is gonna reduce the Treaty right, unless they expressly exempt
the Tribes, that’s one way, or they have to have some sound science as to
why they are necessary for our use. Right now a lot of our MPAs [those
within coastal Tribal U&As] goals are to keep our abundances at a higher
level because abundances to the south have just been decimated. And that
really sucks. I mean those populations to the south should be recovered
and they should feel the pain down there. And if our stocks up here are
healthier, then we shouldn’t be held down. That’s an ongoing issue, with
the Canary and Yellow-Eye [rockfish]” (Gilbertson).

110

One interviewee points out that Tribes are being put in the position of
maintaining higher levels of fish populations than needed for addressing
conservation concerns in their U&As in hopes it will compensate for overfished
areas outside of Tribal U&As. In effect, this creates the situation whereby Tribes
on the Washington coast will be punished because of the fact that they
traditionally maintained their area as a healthy and productive environment
through their sustainable resource utilization practices and because the comanagers (Tribes and Washington State) have been better managers of their own
fishing stocks.
“They [NMFS] aggregate the population across the whole Pacific on some
of these stocks in order to justify those southern fisheries. So that’s kind
of annoying, that the Treaty areas have to be reduced and no-fishing zones
imposed up here in OCNMS, because in California and Oregon, their
abundance is so low. So, it’s like they’re shopping around and we have to
keep our bank account up and charged up…. essentially they are fishing
on our biomass” (Gilbertson).
“And these MPAs, like for example the MPAs that are intended to ensure
that abundance of Canary and Yellow-eye rockfish stay high... Well, our
abundance up here is pretty high. …California and Oregon have depleted
their reserves and so we have to make sure our reserves stay high, because
they have blown through their stocks. So rather than force the southern
fisheries to close and recover their stocks, they constrain our fisheries to
make sure we don’t further reduce the abundance, since they couldn’t
handle being forced to recover stocks on their own to the south”
(Gilbertson).
Another interviewee points out that although MPAs can be created that
would not apply to non-tribal people and not to Tribes, this is potentially a cause
of resentment from the public. This also effectively punishes Tribes by making
them look like the bad guy even though they are not responsible for the
overfishing practices that caused the need for an MPA.

111

“It’s the blowback, and for a lack of a better term, it’s the public
perception of ‘How come they can fish?’ And you know, it’s not just in
the education process on Treaty rights, it’s also the process of telling
people, ‘Hey, we didn’t cause the issues;’ that the Tribes don’t have the
fishing power nor the ability to damage these areas or to overfish these
fisheries out here that have caused us to be in these positions where MPAs
seem to be advised. So, what we are saying is, you can’t be punishing the
tribes for something they didn’t do. Unless it’s a conservation concern, a
demonstrated conservation concern, that says if the Tribes fish they will be
seriously depleting this fishery, something of that nature” (Schumacker).
Tribes do have some commonalities of interests with the objectives of
people and entities that advocate protections for resources in Tribal U&As from
non-tribal sources of resource degradation. One interviewee points out that
fishermen from areas outside of the region, who have already overfished their
own areas, are a source of resource degradation within Tribal U&As that needs to
be addressed before any discussions of affecting Tribal Treaty rights to resources.
“Tribes have a longer-term, built-in interest in maintaining a healthy
environment to sustain that long term relationship. I think it’s a more
balanced relationship… where it doesn’t resemble a smash and grab,
locust type management of non-tribal fisheries who would come in and
pillage an area and move on to the next one, leaving whoever was left
behind to pick up the pieces for recovery plans. I think a lot of the
conservationist’s agendas have been built to counterbalance that effect.
And there are areas where that effect needs to counter-balanced, so don’t
waste your time in an area that doesn’t need to be fixed go on to
somewhere else… or help us do a better job with what we’re already
trying to do” (McCarty).
Additionally, NGOs that would help to protect the Tribal resource could
find potential allies in Tribes as long as Tribes are engaged and consulted and
their interests are addressed.
“We have draggers [fishing boats] from California and Oregon all over in
our waters up here in our Treaty area. National Marine Fisheries Service
will let those guys come up here. …They have depleted their reserves
down to the south so they are up here. And in order that they don’t
deplete all these reserves up here too, we [could] have to have no-fishing
zones… which constitute a reduction in Treaty rights” (Gilbertson).
112

“Like Oceana, the group that is sponsoring these MPA proposals; I don’t
think they really want to take it out on the Tribes, but we are just collateral
damage. They really want to keep these California and Oregon and
Washington interests from dragging every last square inch. …And I could
sort of understand, I kind of have a problem with California and Oregon
draggers being up here in the first place. And that because California and
Oregon draggers have come up here and had this impact, presumably, and
caused the need for this MPA” (Gilbertson).

Tribal Conflicts with Environmental NGO Agendas
While Tribes have some commonalities of interests with the objectives of
people and entities that advocate protections for resources in Tribal U&As from
resource degradation, interviewees point out that when groups with conservation
agendas try to impose their will in Tribal U&As with little or no consideration of
the Tribes, their efforts can conflict with Tribal rights and interests. Tribes want
to be involved in discussions for anything that might affect their Tribal U&A in
order to ensure that Tribal rights and interests are acknowledged and incorporated
in conservation plans.
“It’s just… environmental conservation; we’ve seen it used sort of against
us. And when they don’t really articulate what their goals are and they
don’t really define what a healthy environment is, or what constitutes
success or successful recovery, then we gotta shy away from that, because
it just seems like there’s a lot of interests that want to push all users out of
the way. I can understand why, but it doesn’t work out to push the tribes
away. I mean, that’s been the American Way right? Kick the Indians off
their land… and take it. So, that’s just what’s going on out here”
(Gilbertson).
Interviewees point out that groups with protectionist agendas often
sensationalize issues and concerns in order to gain more funding and support from
the public and more attention from the government in order to push their agendas.
One interviewee also points out that organizations and employees of groups with
113

protectionist agendas have jobs and careers which are tied to their ability to get
support and funding from the public. This creates the situation that they are
incentivized to sensationalize situations in order to support the agendas that
provide for their livelihood regardless of whether there are genuine conservation
concerns.
“I think for the most part some of these are pre-existing agendas that were
spawned out of emotionally charged public relations campaigns by
‘Conservation Incorporated,’ where it’s their job and their business model
and it’s their career path to cause people to have an emotionally-charged
incentive to make private contributions to these 501C3 organizations…
who then in turn, pressure the government to do certain things based on
exaggerations. I think they need to be more methodical and forthright in
their perspective and not to sensationalize the data and not to ignore new
data in the situation. It seems as if they are more interested in advancing
and fast tracking their special interests agenda that they have little groundtruth on what is going on in the ocean” (McCarty).
Interviewees condemn the situation where groups and individuals with
specialized conservation agendas (such as protecting whales) actually disregard
some conservation goals that concern the Tribes (such as ocean acidification) and
sensationalize issues in order to continue to push a specific agenda which is tied
to receiving funding for their own personal livelihood.
“No it is [conservation is a loaded term]. We used to be the poster-child
of conservation and now people want to take it to the next extreme.
…And so, what happens when the cash-cow is gone? I mean the threat is
gone, is the cash-cow gone? No, they just keep conjuring up more threats.
…And so, when so many whale species have been saved they still have to
conjure up more threats about whales so that they can keep themselves in
the job they love and the careers they made off of saving whales. They
have to learn how to adapt to the reality. How many of these bozos
actually want to do something about one of the worst threats to the world’s
oceans... ocean acidification? But if they are protecting whales and their
contracts are paid for by big-oil... they aren’t going to touch ocean
acidification. So, if they really care about the environment… they have
painted themselves into a corner, where they can’t do the right thing”
(McCarty).
114

Interviewees also point out that Tribes would be much more likely to support
the efforts of conservation groups if they utilized the standards of sound science
to demonstrate conservation concerns. Tribes are particularly concerned when
groups or individuals appear to be single-mindedly fixated on pursuing their own
personal pre-existing protectionist goals in Tribal U&As when these goals are not
demonstrated by sound science to be warranted.
“And it’s their fault, not ours. So I know there’s a lot of people that have
tried to ramshackle their own agenda in an area that wasn’t gonna accept
it. And it’s their waste of money and it’s a waste of our time” (McCarty).
“I think there’s an aversion for real science. …I think the interest of the
non-tribal fishermen and fishing industry also suffered from some of these
agendas that use MPAs as the cure-all to establish them everywhere”
(McCarty).
Interviewees point out that both the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as having been used by groups
with protectionist agendas which are in conflict with Tribal rights and interests.
Both the MMPA and the ESA can affect Tribal treaty rights if there are
demonstrated conservation concerns associated with them. Interviewees have
expressed that Tribes are concerned about MMPA restrictions placed on about the
status of taking marine mammals (such as whales) as a resource or (such as sea
lions) if their catch or safety is threatened (Krueger). This concern has been
under negotiation with NOAA (Krueger).
“Anderson v. Evans … is the big case that told Washington Treaty Tribes
they can’t target marine mammals. That is not an MPA issue. Nor is it
ESA. It applies everywhere and is premised on the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, which only Congress can change” (Krueger).
“So, I think the ESA for one, has become this rigid, inflexible, dogmatic
fight that’s become very politicized… It seems like this hallowed ground
of no man’s land and that can’t be touched by either Republicans or
115

Democrats, when in reality it’s becoming one of the worst environmental
disasters under the U.S. jurisdiction with respect to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the species that have shown some great recovery. And
now you have MMPA species… that we can’t manage their predation on
endangered species” (McCarty).
The Center for Biological Diversity, an NGO founded in 1989, was pointed
to specifically as a group with an environmental agenda that potentially affects
Tribal rights and interests. The Center for Biological Diversity website states that
it “is a nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members
and online activists, known for its work protecting endangered species through
legal action, scientific petitions, creative media and grassroots activism.”
“[An example is] Center for Biological Diversity’s attempt to ramshackle
the federal family with 80 species of coral to be listed under the
Endangered Species Act. I think the Endangered Species Act is
flawed…there’s no standard matrix in the way in which recovery plans
and stock assessments of different species are really assessed” (McCarty).
Beyond the basic clash of interests between the Tribal right to resources in
their traditional areas and the creation of protections of the environment that
would affect these Tribal rights, cited by Tribes as the main potential cause of
conflict between Tribes and protections for the marine environment, there are
other problems inherent in federal and state PA management of resource and
habitat protections that were discussed by interviewees. These problems and
concerns are presented in the remainder of this chapter.

Implementing Federal Policy at Local Level
One basic problem inherent in federal management is the difficulty of
implementing federal policy at local level. It is difficult to design broad policies
116

and procedures that will be successful in all instances in all regions. While this is
an understandable problem, eventually federally implemented management will
necessarily have to face the fact that each region has local issues that are unique.
There is no one-size-fits-all management template that will be effective in all
regions. In the case of the coast of Washington State, the uniqueness of the
coastal Treaty Tribe/PA relationship creates issues that can be particularly
problematic for federal managers.
“They [Treaty Tribes] probably weren’t thought of when they were putting
together the Marine Sanctuary Act or any of the Park Service legislation or
anything like that at the federal level” (Uravitch).
“Tribal management …is focused on maintaining the productivity and
services of a given area/ecosystem/fishery in perpetuity. These resources
are the basis of the economy, culture, and health of the community. They
are the very foundation. They are not one of a million other things as with
the broader federal family” (Jones).

Bureaucracy
Interviewees pointed to bureaucracy as a problem inherent in federal
management. Federal managers from outside of a region who do not have
knowledge of local issues are often more empowered to make decisions than
regional managers who do have knowledge of local issues.
“The goals of the federal government are varied even within NOAA. They
try to balance multiple uses across the nation with a centralized
hierarchical bureaucracy. An example: The lady at HQ has no idea what
is happening at the mouth of the Juan de Fuca Canyon, yet she can
override decisions made by subordinates in the region” (Jones).
“There are numerous agencies with specific missions based on their
enacting legislation. Those agencies can have numerous programs,
numerous regulatory responsibilities. Eventually, you are left with
individual bureaucrats or departments writing rules and regulations that
117

will make a call and check a box as to whether the rule affects tribal rights
and sovereignty” (Jones).
It can be especially problematic when, because of the hierarchical nature of
federal management, local regional managers who are subordinates to others
outside of the region are more concerned with what their superiors would like or
might think of their decisions than how these decisions will affect the local region
they are supposed to be focused on managing.
“Basically, it is rare in any bureaucracy to have folks that are looking to
stand up to their superiors. All bureaucracies operate in a hierarchical
manner, with a lot of the most important decisions coming from
headquarters (DC) where there is much less understanding of treaty rights
or the importance of those rights and resources to the tribes. So, even as
you work to educate folks on the ground here, build relationships, and
even start to get common understandings and agreements, all of that can
be overruled directly by headquarters. Or more insidiously, there
are occasions where agency personnel will say all the right things to
Tribes while basing decisions on the mandates of their agency's
implementing legislation and the directions coming out of headquarters”
(Jones).

Consistency: Employee Turnover and the Need for Education of New Staff
The lack of consistency due to employee turnover and the ensuing need for
the education of new staff was also highlighted by interviewees as a source of
difficulty in the Tribal/MPA relationship. This is in part due to the uniqueness
within the NMS of the coastal Treaty tribe/NMS relationship. This again comes
back to the basic clash of interests between the Tribal Treaty right to resources in
their traditional areas and the “primary objective” for NMS and its staff of
“resource protection.” It is almost inevitable that new OCNMS staff will have

118

more knowledge of their NMS objectives than of Tribal treaty rights to resources
within the OCNMS management region.
“Since the establishment of OCNMS, MPAs that focus on no-take or
otherwise minimizing fishing impacts have come into broader use.
Likewise as with all government agencies, there has been turnover in
personnel who do not necessarily feel beholden to past promises. Most
Sanctuary personnel (nationally, not just locally) are focused on the
‘primary objective’ within the Sanctuaries Act of ‘resource protection.’
This can be in conflict with the Tribes’ focus on resource conservation”
(Jones)
“In contrast to the previously mentioned intergenerational nature of tribal
management, each new generation of bureaucrat has their own education
history and personal interests. Frequently their understanding of their
mission is limited to, or at least weighted toward, the broad national
mission of the agency and does not recognize the treaties as the supreme
law of the land and superseding their founding legislation” (Jones).
Interviewees also point to the fact that they build relationships with federal
staff over time and by the time that they have a comfortable working relationship
because the federal staff has knowledge of regional issues such as Tribal treaty
rights, that staff member is rotated elsewhere or retires and they have build
relationships with and educate the new incoming staff on the regional issues.
Federal staff education becomes particularly important if the new staff member is
in a leadership position.
“An example of that is the Park’s superintendent for ONP… you build a
relationship with one and then that person transfers to somewhere else, or
up and then somebody new comes in who is from the Everglades …or
from out in the Midwest. And [they might say] ‘I got no idea what you
are talking about,’ and they view the Tribes as a constituency and not as a
co-manager…co-owner of the resource. And so it takes a little education
there and if you can’t embody it in an agreement…you can always push
for an agreement, so that you have something of record. Otherwise, it can
come and go with superintendents” (Bowhay).
“There’s… I don’t know how many different sets of federal
representatives that we went through in talking about the establishment of
the National Sanctuary off the Olympic coast before we finally got it done.
119

I think I dealt with three different, complete sets of federal staff that
worked on it. And it’s no different than…look at how long we talked
about taking out the dams on the Elwha before it actually happened. And
you know …the Tribes went through four different coordinators at Elwha,
working on that issue. When you talk about moving issues like that, it
takes forever when you go through the process” (Bowhay).
Besides turnover in NMS staff there is also turnover at the policy-making
and implementing level due to elections.
“The decisions and actions of the feds. and the state depends on who is in
office at the time” (Gates).
“The federal government flip-flops every 4 to 8 years depending on who is
in the White House, the Congress or the Senate. Tribes need to become
more engaged as resource trustees as opposed to relying on that
relationship with the government; which often changes …depending on
the year, depending on the election” (McCarty).

Small Staffs and Large Number of Tribes
Another difficulty that PA managers and non-tribal resource management
staff face is that often there are a large number of tribes that they deal with, each
with their own areas and their own specific rights, needs and desires.
Interviewees point out that this difficulty occurs at both the federal and state level.
This difficulty can be magnified by budget issues or by a sometimes inadequate or
decreasing number of staff that is charged with dealing a large number of Tribes.
“There’s over a hundred coastal tribes… each with its own priorities, legal
rights or lack of legal rights, semi-formal agreements… and state [but not
federally] recognized tribes” (Uravitch).
“Yeah, budget cuts in recent years… the agencies have really cut back on
their staff and the ones that are left are just overloaded and just can’t do
everything, so we’re having to pick up more of the load to make up for
what they are unable to do. And then you know, when people get
overloaded they don’t communicate as well as they should with other
120

people. And we’re just not getting the good communications back and
forth that we used to have. So somehow we have figure out how to
function with the current economy and the current budgets that we all
have” (Williams).
The interviewee responses in this chapter point out that Tribes potentially
have some commonality of interests with protections for the marine environment
but mostly they speak to what has gone wrong in the present Tribal-MPA
relationship. Additionally, and most importantly, they point to the basic conflict
of interests between Tribal and non-tribal resource managers (sustainable resource
conservation vs. resource protection) before discussing other problems inherent in
federal management of Protected Areas in Tribal areas.

CHAPTER 7: FUTURE REFORMS: Proposals for Fixes to NMS System to
Better Incorporate Tribal Concerns
This chapter and the chapter following it speak to the second research
question posed by this thesis: Can protections for marine environments be
designed, established and implemented in a way that they achieve conservation
goals and recognize Tribal rights and interests? Specifically, this chapter
incorporates the interviewee responses that speak to potential future reforms to
the existing NMS system. It includes short-term proposals for fixes to the NMS
system that would help it to better incorporate tribal concerns and interests in PAs
and resource management.

121

Incorporating Tribal Rights and Interests in MPAs
Tribes and Tribal members have already shared their opinion on MPAs in
Tribal U&As in Tribal policy statements (such as both the NWIFC’s and the
Makah Tribe’s separate but similar 2003 statements). Incorporating Tribal rights
and interests in MPAs can be accomplished, in part, because Tribes have
remained consistent in their views on MPAs.
All of the findings from the 2007 Whitesell et al. paper: "Protecting
Washington's Marine Environments: Tribal Perspectives" were brought up
(though worded in a different fashion) by the interviewees who responded to my
research questions six years later. Although the findings reoccur in the responses
of the interviews I conducted, I feel it is important to repeat separately and fully
the findings of their research in this thesis. Below is the findings section from
their research project:
“Tribal leaders deem MPAs to be appropriate under certain circumstances. [It is]
important to focus on those circumstances, in order to avoid negative outcomes in
the future development and management of MPA systems. The findings of this
research project suggest that the following conditions are good predictors of
positive or, at least neutral, outcomes for place-based marine conservation
policies” (Whitesell et al. 2007).
• “The tribes must be given the opportunity to be meaningfully involved in all
phases of MPA discussions, planning and implementation, through governmentto-government relations.
• Treaty rights to Usual and Accustomed Areas must never be threatened.

122

• Tribal self-determination must be respected at all times.
• To receive tribal support, MPAs must have clear, site-specific, scientific
justifications for resource protection.
• Bureaucracy and regulation must be made less burdensome in MPA design and
management.
• Tribes should be systematically supported financially for carrying out comanagement responsibilities.
• Non-Native organizations and agencies can form successful partnerships with
the tribes over time by proving themselves to be well informed about the tribes
and trustworthy, based upon a proven, long-term track record. A positive
indicator of MPA success would, therefore, be the leadership of such
organizations and agencies in a given MPA initiative.
• MPAs must be accompanied by sustained education of government officials and
the public for the tribes to feel comfortable with them.
• High-level, comprehensive and coordinated data gathering and sharing should
be built into the process” (Whitesell et al. 2007).
The fact that the similar responses that had been mentioned in the previous
Whitesell et al. findings came up again during my interviews is important because
it shows that the Tribes are remaining consistent in their position regarding
protections for marine environments. Additionally, the fact that Tribes have
desired and continue to desire reforms to existing MPAs and to proposed new
MPAs highlight that Tribes’ rights and interests were not and are still not being
consistently incorporated in protections for marine environments.
The remainder of the chapter is based on the responses from interviewees
who participated in interviews for this study.

123

“Do it Right the First Time”
It is important for policy makers and resource managers to realize that it is
much more difficult to fix an unequal, existing management system than to start
from scratch with a management system that incorporates both Tribal and nontribal rights and interests from the very beginning. Interviewees point out that
when MPAs are being created it is very important to make sure that things are
done right the first time. This will help to minimize conflicts in the future and
establish a more conducive framework for maintaining working relationship
between resource managers who are genuinely interested in habitat and resource
management and conservation. Of course, there will always be room for the
improvement of existing management systems.
“Do it right the first time…and constantly seek improvement. I think what
people have to understand is that it is a continuing relationship. You
know, the tribes obviously have a continuing relationship with their lands
and waters… and if what you are doing potentially effects their lands and
waters… and that which say, you also have a co-management
responsibility for… you’d have to keep that relationship alive and well
and current” (Uravitch).
“For staff who haven't previously worked with tribes, or who may not be
familiar with issues, concerns, and protocols involved in working with
tribes, they may not attempt to harmonize their efforts with tribes' rights
and needs, or do so early enough in the initiative. Frequently, this is
unintentional, but can have far-reaching ramifications…on the success of
the initiative, involvement of tribes, and relationships” (Grussing).

Find Common Goals in Habitat and Resource Conservation and
Management
There is great potential for finding common goals between Tribes and nontribal managers in habitat and resource management and conservation. The first
124

step in finding these common goals is to identify what is important to the parties
involved. The next step is to identify the habitat and resource management and
conservation parameters that will address the common goals while at the same
time addressing the rights and interests of these parties. Finding a venue to
discuss and address the interests is also important.
“If the parties agree on the problem, they can come to mutually agreeable
ways to address it” (Jones).
“I think a good example in the Puget Sound is the Puget Sound
Partnership. …There’s a good example of people from different sectors
coming together and agreeing upon common interests, but based upon
recognition of the rights and responsibilities and interests of all the parties.
And any MPA design and implementation needs to have that. Again, it
comes back to clarity… What do you mean by what you are going to do?
What are your goals? Are those compatible? Or, if not, can you come up
with some that are compatible and still… in the case of the MPA...
meeting the legal authority under which you are established” (Uravitch).
If MPA managers want to incorporate the rights and interests of Tribes they
can work with the Tribes on how to design them. Interviewees representing
Tribes point out that they have already developed a MPA policy that lays out the
parameters that MPAs (or other types of protections for the marine environment)
should operate under in order that they do not conflict with Tribal rights and
interests.
“The big thing is just work with Tribes on how to design them [MPAs]
and then follow the policies that the tribes set out” (Williams).
“Back in the late 80s early 90s the Tribes developed a MPA policy which
set out the parameters and the types of questions that we would like to
have answered if you are going to propose a MPA; so we understand what
the nature of it is, what it is trying to do, how it fits into the overall
management of the particular habitat type or resource. And so we operate
under that here within the Commission [NWIFC]. ...We have evolved our
thinking in that regard of what we think a MPA should be utilized for; and
that is in conjunction with management of resource. And it’s not that the
Tribes are opposed to it, they are just saying that it has to be one of the
125

tools and tool boxes being utilized, cognizantly and thought through for
the management of particular habitat type or resource” (Bowhay).
“I think it’s when you have dogmatic agendas that have their pre-existing
goals set out for them without really an understanding of the ground –truth
of the reality of where they are trying to import and impose this
agenda...that’s where they get a huge waste of time and waste of money”
(McCarty).
In the case of both the Tribes and the National MPA program; they have
already established parameters for protections for the marine environment which
are tied to Treaties or legal authorities.
“Part of it is, if you think of it this way, the Tribe goes back to their Treaty
and their treaty rights and any MPA program is going to go back to its
legal authority. What was it established to do? And you have to basically
look for: What you are setting up an MPA for? ...Can it work with what
the rights of the tribe are? ...and obviously if you see an inherent conflict
between those two ultimate purposes then you have got a problem”
(Uravitch).
“They [MPAs] should be developed in conjunction with existing
management plans and approaches for specific habitats and resources.
And so, they would be reflective and add to the objectives and goals and
criteria’s that the tribes or the co-managers, the tribes and the state, have
already established …and so that they would be constructed in a way that
would be adding to the general effort, not done in abstract, without any
thought. So that’s really kind of how we see them being beneficial… is if
they are incorporated in the set or suite of management activities that we
are already undertaking” (Bowhay).
There are some inherent problems that will inevitably arise at the local level
when implementing federal level policies or programs. It is very difficult to
create a single policy or program that will be effective in all situations. There
really is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to federal policy implementation at the
local level. Because of this, federal policies (such as the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act) need to be ingrained with enough flexibility to be shaped
according to each separate local situation. Federal MPA managers also need to

126

have the ability to adapt their MPA (or sanctuary) and themselves to fit local
conditions.
“Need to look at it both from the local and from the federal policy
perspective …what is in the Act itself, like the Marine Sanctuaries Act.
But when you get down to local implementation and designation and
management of the Sanctuary or Park or any other kind of MPA, it’s like
local government; all things are local. And Washington State is a good
example of that; with the individual Tribes and what is their relationship,
each with say the Sanctuary, or the Park on the Olympic Coast”
(Uravitch).
“If you have a program that has some flexibility built into it, you know,
the site manager is going to have enough sense, one would hope, to adapt
to what the local conditions are. In this case, to the rights of the tribes
themselves that are in that locality. And so you have to look at it from a
national and a local perspective” (Uravitch).

NMS Staff can be Predisposed to NMS Goals and Environmental Agenda
The basic conflict between Tribes and MPA managers is one of sustainable
resource management geared towards human utilization vs. management geared
toward protecting natural resources from degradation by humans. MPAs would
gain more tribal support if they would commit and stay committed to the
environmental protections that are compatible with Tribal interests instead of
supporting environmental protections or agendas which are not compatible with
tribal interests. Some protections of the environment and treaty resources,
particularly protections that would exclude certain types of activities are seen by
the Tribes to be incompatible with Tribal interests.
“There is a whole difference in perception of who the tribes are and what
their future is and that tying of the tribes to a specific place which they
identify with… and which is theirs. And I think that your average person
from an agency at any level of government is not likely to understand that
very well …that there’s a strong historical, cultural, emotional tie to a
127

place, which the larger culture in the country does not really appreciate”
(Uravitch).

No-fishing Zones in Treaty Areas are a Source of Conflict
One overriding concern of Tribes is the imposition of no-fishing zones in
Tribal areas. From the Tribal point of view, MPAs (particularly no-fishing zones)
should only be established in tribal areas with Tribal support; unless they are
made to apply to non-tribal members only. No-fishing zones in Tribal areas a
cause of concern for the Tribes because they potentially conflict with Tribal rights
and interests. Because Tribal treaty rights protect the Tribal right to fish in their
U&As, MPAs will not apply to Tribes unless they are for the purpose of
demonstrated conservation issues. Interviewees point out that attempts to
establish no-fishing zones (also referred to as no-takes) in Tribal U&As are a
potential source of conflict between MPAs and Tribes.
“I think the conflict would come, in the situation where someone might
want to establish a no-take MPA in areas where, obviously, the tribes have
their rights to harvest” (Uravitch).
“The Tribes will fight that [no-fishing zones] because it’s the only place
they can fish out there. …Establishing new MPAs in the areas that we do
typically fish would reduce the area our fishermen can fish in even more
than what it’s already been reduced by” (Williams).
Interviewees point out that although no-fishing zones that do not have the
support of Tribes can potentially be a source of conflict between the Tribal and
the non-tribal fishermen, Tribes have traditionally had (and continue to have) PAs
of their own, and they would be more likely to support MPAs if there are

128

demonstrated conservation concerns backed by sound scientific methods that
warrant them.
“We told them that we could understand MPAs if there was solid science
demonstrating those [EFHs] are especially important for reproduction and
rearing. If we got that solid science then we’re all over that, because we
want to protect reproduction and rearing zones. That’s a fundamental
[part of fisheries] management, right? ...protect your nursery areas. But
Oceana didn’t want to work with us; maybe because we weren’t
comfortable with the extent to which they were using the precautionary
principle. I think we all have to consider the precaution, but if you’re
looking to give up your Treaty right, that precautionary principle is
coming at a huge cost” (Gilbertson).
“And we’re familiar with PA’s, but we can also point to our PAs with
specific data to demonstrate why those areas are important, in particular
for reproduction. A lot of the MPA we’ve seen, in particular Olympic 1
and Olympic 2, aren’t associated with data demonstrating their critical
importance to juvenile Yellow-eye and Canary rockfish reproduction and
rearing. There is speculation that they may be important …and that seems
to be sufficient and adequate for some people to reduce a treaty right. And
so it’s a double edged sword” (Gilbertson).

Include Tribes at the Table
Interviewees point out that they should be involved in any discussions
about PA creation in their areas. Tribes not only want to have a place at the table
when discussion are made that effect their rights and interests, but they have legal
right to be there that is tied to their treaties with the U.S. government and property
rights tied to the U.S. Constitution.
“If an MPA is recommended (and we are not saying one should never be
created no matter what), tribes want to be in at the beginning of
discussions and throughout the analysis and development of an area and
the rules for its operation. This is not just because they have a treaty,
although that is a huge reason. It is also due process under the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If one’s life, liberty or property is to
be taken, that entity is entitled to due process: notice and opportunity for
hearing. Between the 5th Amendment and the fact that under Article VI,
129

Treaties are the highest law of the land, we have two big constitutional
grounds for being involved in the decision” (Krueger).
The Tribal right to be included in discussions and decisions that affect their
areas is increasingly, although sometimes begrudgingly, being recognized as
necessary by the public and by NGOs.
“Non-profit groups and citizens involved in the process are getting a better
idea of what Tribal treaty rights are and of the fact that the Tribes really do
need to agree to something before it is adopted. And there’s definitely
been some conflict, besides those on the outer coast. We got a lot of
people that don’t really understand why MPAs can’t just be created
everywhere like they have proposed in the last few years” (Williams).
“There’s a lot of people with money, and there’s a lot of foundations that
have been actually looking at some of the best examples of initiatives that
integrated traditional ecological knowledge, and they found a lot of
success in implementing these projects by having the Tribal leaders early
on engage in the design of the project. And so I think… to recognize that
it is in fact much more cost effective… it’s a much more responsible use
of resources, to engage tribes early on in the initial phase of the design.
And if the Tribes have already designed one, then half of the work has
already been done” (McCarty).
“So they [Oceana] have learned since then… let’s put it this way. And
now there’s another round of these proposals coming up this year and
they’re coming to us first. And I told them ‘that’s great.’ You know, we
see them…and then we ask them also to work with us on explaining to the
public that this is a Treaty area and these prohibitions (EFHs) wouldn’t
apply to us, unless we chose for them to… that kind of thing”
(Schumacker).
Interviewees point out that Tribes would be much more likely to support
MPAs or other conservation measures if they were included in a timely manner,
not as an afterthought. Tribes want to be involved in discussions about anything
that might affect their Tribal U&A in order to ensure that their rights and interests
are acknowledged and incorporated.
Interviewees point out that Tribes should be a leading entity involved in any
MPA creation in their area, or at minimum, be the first consulted rather than being
130

consulted as an afterthought by others who would designate MPAs in Tribal
U&As.
“Oceana isn’t convinced that we’re gonna just slip into their pocket, so
they don’t want to really work with us. That’s what I think. We’re
harvesters. And when we didn’t just jump into their pocket then they
really didn’t want to work with us anymore, because we weren’t a sure
thing. And I have problem with that, because then they weren’t genuinely
listening to us. They only wanted to meet with us, you know, just to get
our buy-in, but they didn’t really want to talk with us about this stuff”
(Gilbertson).
“They [Oceana] wanted to get our buy-in but they kind of came to us in
the eleventh hour and they really weren’t including us in their
considerations they just wanted to check us off the list. So, that was
unsavory. …Proposals to designate MPAs within Tribal areas should
come from Tribes. Oceana is preparing more MPA proposals that aren’t
coming from tribes. …If Oceana would just spend a little more time with
us and try to align with us we might totally support their MPA proposals
out there…and we’d put them forward as our own. And that would be an
assertion of our Treaty right” (Gilbertson).
One interviewee gives this advice to groups or government entities that
would like Tribal collaboration in the design and implementation of MPAs or
other types of protections for the marine environment:
“So a key to all of this is, whenever any type of action is being proposed,
that as soon as it hits the table, the first thing you do is go to the Tribes.
And if you’re Tribal, fine, but if you’re non- tribal and you’d like to
propose some kind of action, you don’t even go much further than shaping
it in your mind, before you go and knock on the Tribes’ door and say, you
know, we’re heading in this direction. And that way, you keep them
informed from the very beginning and you minimize or eliminate
surprises, the last things tribes like are surprises. So when you suddenly
pop something out, that’s been worked on by a number people or groups,
for months and years, and which show some detailed work in an area, that
is actually part of your Treaty area, then you get kind of upset. And that’s
happened” (Schumacker).

131

Consultation
Due to their status as sovereign nations with rights to self-determination,
Tribes have a right to be consulted when decisions are made that affect them.
Because the tribes in western Washington have established treaty rights through
the Treaties they signed with the U.S. government, the federal government has a
trust responsibility to protect these rights (Murphy2011). The tribal right to
government-to-government level consultation has been strengthened by
Presidential Executive Orders 12875 and 13175. These Executive Orders “direct
federal agencies to consult with Native American tribes on a “government-togovernment” basis when proposing to take an action affecting tribal sovereignty
or tribal trust resources or tribal treaty rights” (OCNMS 2011). Additionally,
Executive Order 13175 “requires federal agencies to encourage American Indian
tribes to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives, defer to
tribally established standards, and preserve the prerogatives and authority of
Indian tribes to the extent permitted by federal law” (OCNMS 2011).
One interviewee, when asked how PAs could be improved so that they
lessen conflict, and better incorporate the interests of Tribes and Tribal members,
pointed to “government-to-government consultation that results in mutually
agreed-upon protections, and just as importantly the reasons/needs for those
protections” (Jones). Interviewees stress the importance of government-togovernment consultation when agencies or individuals tied to the U.S.
government are considering any action that could potentially affect Tribal rights
and interests.
132

“It [consultation] should always be... I won’t even say the back of your
mind... it should be in the fore-front of your mind, because that’s
obviously a critical issue when you think of ownership” (Uravitch).
“Early and often consultation, first and foremost… and keep that going all
the way through. Best is to have the tribes, whose area(s) you are
discussing, be with you at the table throughout the entire process, working
with you… No surprises, no surprises… And then find out if there are
common areas, work with tribes to see if they have areas already in mind
that are important to them… both natural resource and cultural areas. And
that’s really the key, from that point…you know, that’s the only way
you’re really gonna get the design and implementation in a manner that
will be fully… I’d say, successful, as a tribal collaboration” (Schumacker).
However, even though Tribal Consultation is mandated by the U.S.
government, Tribes point out that in many cases they are not being truly consulted
to the extent legally required and intended by agencies or individuals tied to the
U.S. government.
“Consultation often seems more of a box to check within their
administrative process rather than truly trying to manage common trust
resources with those who have a property right in them. …Real
consultation takes longer and requires constant engagement and a level of
trust. It is exceedingly rare” (Jones).
Tribes have made a concerted efforts to be part of the discussion when
decisions are made that could affect their rights and interests.
“You are seeing out on the coast them being involved with the Sanctuary;
in terms of sitting on an advisory body [IPC] to them and saying ok, here’s
what we are doing as managers, state and Tribes, this is how you can
better integrate with our activity if you choose to” (Bowhay).

Tribes Need Funding Parity
Several interviewees point out that the government needs to provide
funding so that Tribes can live with the administrative burdens that the U.S. puts

133

on Tribes and so that Tribes can participate in all the venues where decisions are
being made that affect them.
“Funding parity is key. Tribes are also saddled with a comparative lack of
tax revenue. The federal response is typically to provide access to
competitive grants which does not respect the responsibilities of the U.S.
nor does it recognize the additional administrative burden on Tribes (i.e.
another unfunded mandate)” (Jones).
“The federal government has to step up and support tribes, many times,
with the amount of money needed now to participate in the many venues
that we are forced to… traditionally, tribes would have been able to
manage relatively more simply compared to this.. the current situation,
because of the issues… the scale of what we currently face… you know
negotiations and dealings with tribal, state and federal partners as well as
numerous other venues that are associated with habitats, areas, etc.”
(Schumacker).

MPAs should be Temporary, Changeable
Interviewees point to a desire that MPAs and other protections for the marine
environment be temporary and changeable. Tribes are more likely to oppose
permanent protections than temporary protections with very specific goals.
“There need to be standards not just for the creation and operation, but
also for off-ramp. When the goal is met, how do you gage that? When the
goal is met, how do you restore a fishery or an area? But so often the EFH
or MPA is set up without such processes” (Krueger).
“We just kind of look for the policy to have some clearly defined goals...
and also showing that once the goals are achieved the MPA could be
disbanded or removed…you know, those are kind the main things we are
looking for in these policy statements” (Williams).
Tribes are also concerned about the potential for “mission creep” in MPAs
or other protections for the marine environment.
“When they [PAs] start to get into the arena of fisheries management, our
benefits start to turn into a reduction in Treaty rights. And that seems to
be the inevitable pattern of a lot of these PAs. …in re-designation
134

documents and drafts, the intention of many is for the Sanctuary to be able
to assert some authority over fishing and fisheries management in their
areas. And so, it’s an inevitable power grab” (Gilbertson).

Educating PA Managers and Staff on Tribal Rights and Interests
Educating PA managers and staff on Tribal rights and interests in regards to
the protection and management resource was cited as being a key to a successful
Tribal/PA relationship. PA managers need to educate themselves and make sure
that their staff is also educated on Tribal rights and interests before making any
decisions that might affect the Tribes.
“One of the first things that a person working on a new MPA or even
moving in to manage one that is already in place should do, is to really
educate themselves …on all the groups in the area, but particularly to
Indigenous people and their rights and roles and responsibilities. …And
then you gotta make sure your staff knows what is going on. And then
you basically have to work out from there. … But it needs to be an active
process, you need to carve that out and make it part of your fundamental
operations. You have to look at the rights and responsibilities of all of
your co-managers and be clear that you understand what those are and
make sure that those are constantly in front of you and your staff. And so,
that helps to avoid conflict” (Uravitch).
“Currently, agency staffs whose duties include working with tribes, and/or
who are interested, have the option of completing training on working
with tribes. All staff at all levels of all resource management agencies
should have a basic familiarity with tribal rights and jurisdiction,
pertaining to areas of common concern. All resource management agency
staff should be required to complete a fundamental training course,
regardless of whether their particular duties involve tribal consultation.
Although it continually falls on tribes to educate agencies and the public
about their rights and jurisdiction, it is ultimately agencies' duty to uphold
their own trust responsibility” (Grussing).

135

Take Responsibility for Education about Tribal Rights and Interests
Because education on Tribal rights and interests is a key to creating a
successful Tribal/PA relationship, having someone taking responsibility for
education also becomes crucial. Interviewees point out that the responsibility for
educating others on Tribal rights and interests often falls on the Tribes. Often,
Tribes have to take on a leading role in educating others because even though
federal government and state co-managers are responsible, they don’t always
follow through with this responsibility.
An interviewee points to informative literature, public relations staff and
the NWIFC website as tools Tribes have used to educate and explain Tribal rights
and interest to others.
“We feel that it falls on both Tribal and non-tribal shoulders as a
responsibility, often you just really have to get it out there. I think that the
succinct, one pagers [informational brochures] are very helpful…they can
get out there and you can put those in front of people’s noses in various
venues. And then, just making sure that whenever there’s public news
items and things of that nature, that Treaty rights are explained as best as
possible in there. So it’s kind of important to have a P.R. [public
relations] person on your staff” (Schumacker).
“Tribes have some responsibility [for communicating Treaty rights], our
NWIFC website at NWIFC.org, you find a lot of resources that
communicate that Treaty right, what it means and what the responsibilities
are that we have with it. …We take the responsibility to get some of that
information out there… but then we ask that others, who are proposing
actions or implementing actions within areas that Treaty rights exist in that
they explain them as well. We think that that’s only fair… and oftentimes
people like to have Tribal support for these things. If they want that
support, then we’re gonna ask you to do that” (Schumacker).

136

Embed Tribal Interests in Core Documents and Mission Statements
Several Interviewees stressed the importance of embedding tribal interests
in agreements or in core documents and mission statements at the national level.
Because government entities and programs (like the NMS) look to their governing
documents to identify their legal authorities; it is important for Tribes to embed
Tribal rights and interests within these documents. Tribes can then point to these
core documents when their rights or interests are being affected.
“Often what you get when you have someone new, such as a new director
or deputy director that’s in charge of a region; they will go back to their
mission statements and say, ‘what are our basic obligations here?’ And
they read through it, and if it doesn’t say recognition of Tribes and Tribal
rights; then as a manager they are reluctant to do it. So that’s why we
push to have that. Every time there is an opportunity to modify and
change those types of mission statements and implementation
arrangements or enacting legislation for federal agencies then we try to get
that acknowledgement” (Bowhay).
Interviewees point out that when tribal rights and interests are embedded in
core documents at the national level it helps reduce the efforts Tribes need to
make to defend their rights and interests. If tribal rights and interests are
identified in governing documents it helps to reduce conflicts that could arise
because of misunderstandings by the general public.
“We’re constantly [involved] in the process of trying to educate people;
the general public, as well as professionals that are in resource
management and land-use. What we try to do in order to make it better, in
terms of implementing, is to get into the mission documents and the core
documents at the national level, or what we call the organic documents,
that provide the mission statements for the various agencies and embed
that recognition of tribal rights and treaty responsibility in there and what
government-to-government consultation is and means” (Bowhay).
Additionally, interviewees point out that when tribal rights and interests are
embedded in core documents it can reduce any confusion caused by lack of
137

knowledge or misunderstandings about Treaty rights or about obligations of PA
managers and staff. This embedment becomes especially important both during
the creation of new PAs or when employee turnover occurs in PAs, because it can
easily be pointed to by Tribes.
“An example of that is the Park’s superintendent for ONP. You build a
relationship with one and then that person transfers to somewhere else or
up and then somebody new comes in. ….And you can always push for an
agreement, so that you have something of record, otherwise, it can come
and go with superintendents” (Bowhay).
Tribes are also working to make sure that Tribal rights are embedded in
policy initiatives and Executive Orders such as Executive Order 13158, through
which President Clinton established a national system of MPAs. Tribes would
like to make sure that the recognition of inherent and/or treaty rights of tribes and
the Presidential mandate (Executive Order 13175) for Tribal consultation are
embedded in new governmental programs and policy initiatives as well as in older
programs and initiatives that were previously generalized or incomplete.
In the context of MPAs, Tribes are working to ensure that the National
MPA framework includes guidelines that order compliance with the Consultation
Order (Executive Order 13175) of the federal government in instances when
MPAs are being discussed or implemented in a Tribal area.
“Past policy initiatives were lacking a lot of information; it was too
generalized, and didn’t comply with the Consultation orders from the
federal government as well as they should. And either newer policies or
newer rewrites of older policies are beginning to take those things into
effect much better, so I’m finding that things are improving in that regard”
(Schumacker).
“That’s something that the past three Presidential administrations have
tried to mandate through Executive Order... for all the agencies to develop
that policy. We’re finally seeing those now be developed and codified, if
138

you will …or adopted by the various agencies in the federal government
or federal family. Some are good some are bad, but at least it’s a step
forward. And we’d still like to see within their mandates and legislative
language… that recognition” (Bowhay).
“[Past and current marine policy] was done with a lack of recognition of
inherent and/or treaty rights of tribes where areas [MPAs] are being
declared by other non-tribal entities. So, I think that a lot of the current
and past policy initiatives needed a lot of brushing up. …There is a lot of
work going on to make sure that the Executive Order 13175, President
Clinton’s Executive Order on tribal consultation, is being observed
whenever MPAs are being discussed in a Tribal area. …Also the
Executive Order that declared a national system of MPAs around the
nation; …that Executive Order is being strengthened. …The gaps in that,
regarding relations with tribes, in respect of tribal consultation and in
respect to tribes period; …all of those things are being clarified and reentered into the framework for how these MPAs can be devised”
(Schumacker).

Be Aware that the Definitions of Terms can be a Source of Conflict and
Misunderstanding
It is very important to clarify goals and define the meanings of terms at the
very beginning of discussions so that the parties involved in discussions are on the
same page in regards to the intentions and definitions of others. When intentions
are transparent and definitions of words and terms are clear it helps to reduce
conflicts due to both misunderstandings and potentially unwarranted fear that can
be associated with certain words.
One interviewee points out that even the definition of MPAs can be a source
of misunderstanding and conflict:
“I think part of the problem we’ve always had with MPAs is that a lot of
people believe that all MPAs are no-take, in some cases not even entry, as
opposed to a management tool. And so, first you gotta just define what
your terms are. That was one of the first things that we starting doing
when we began developing the MPA Center and the national system of
MPAs, was to define what we meant by an MPA. And that’s always a
139

problem. …Some people just get all jumpy when you say MPA and they
think they will never fish again, they will never swim again, you know,
you will shoot them in their boat or whatever… even if it’s not true. There
is a fear that can become associated with words and so, you look for words
that are less fearful for people. .…You can call them reserves, fishery
management areas, national parks, state parks, ocean sanctuaries,
whatever… but those are just words, you have to look at the function
itself; what is that area doing?, what are the regulations doing? And so,
the first thing to do is to bring people around to some consensus on what
terms mean” (Uravitch).
One interviewee points to differing intentions behind the protection and
management of resources as being a cause of conflict between the Tribal and the
non-tribal:
“This gets back to the level of what you are trying to do. Are you trying to
protect it so you that have a museum piece, so you have something that
people can say, you know, this is what old-growth timber looks like. Or is
it something where you’re protecting, you’re managing so that you that
you continually have that type of ecosystem developed where you have
mature old-growth timber stands… although at some point they could get
cut down or utilized, but it’s a rotational process” (Bowhay).
“When you talk about protecting an area, are you protecting it just so that
you have something that’s a remnant in the future that you can say that’s
what it used to be? Or do you have something that saying you know, ‘this
is what we remember, you know, as something that’s properly
functioning.’ .…So for salmon, are we gonna protect that salmon run so
it’s always around sustainably, in terms of it can thrive on its own and be
viable in a particular river… or are we going protect it and recover it to
where it provides for a sustainable and viable fishery? See, it’s two
different levels. One is from a genetic standpoint… a theoretical value
that has been proven on a chalkboard or a computer screen …versus a
population based on the capacity of the system saying that it was in a
viable or a properly functioning condition based on its current potential”
(Bowhay).
The words “conservation” and “restoration” were also pointed to as
potential causes of conflict by another interviewee:
“Conservation and restoration… man, we’ve struggled with those two
words. ….That’s kind of what was used against us when those terms
didn’t have some specific, quantifiable, objective metrics. …We need to
be careful about how we characterize those terms so that it’s clear and
140

understandable what we mean. Because it will be used against us by like,
NGOs. So conservation, what does that mean? To one person it means
one thing and to someone else it means something else” (Gilbertson).
“Conservation to one person might mean, ‘oh, lock it up for eternity.’
Conservation to someone else means, ‘oh, make sure there’s enough for
me to eat some.’ Make sure we use some metrics… conservation metrics
defining where there is a problem or where there’s not a problem.
Another way of looking at it: What is success? ...that’s another way. You
know, if your goal is conservation or restoration…then define success.
When are you there? You know, that’s important to consider too. Or else
you are just, sort of taking opportunity away from someone. Those
words: conservation and restoration, in and of themselves are
problematic, because I’ve seen them used against us. I see the point, but if
our goal is to protect abundance for seven generation into the future, then
we are going to have to be clear” (Gilbertson).
The interviewee discussions in this chapter establish that much has gone
wrong in the present Tribal-MPA relationship but that there is great potential for
reforming the NMS system. The most important take away from this chapter is
that tribal desires for reforms need to be addressed if MPA managers wish to
incorporate Tribal rights and interests in MPAs. This chapter also addressed
some potential reforms for problems that are inherent in federal management of
Protected Areas in Tribal territories.

CHAPTER 8: FUTURE VISIONS: Incorporating Tribes in MPAs
The interviewee responses in this chapter continue to speak to the second
research question posed by this thesis: “Can protections for marine environments
be designed, established and implemented in a way that they achieve conservation
goals and recognize Tribal rights and interests?” While the previous chapter was
largely aimed at reforms for the NMS system, this chapter is intended to

141

encourage more Tribal leadership in PAs, MPAs and other protections for the
marine and terrestrial environment. This chapter will speak to some potentially
deeper and longer-term changes that would increase the tribal role in PAs and
resource management. Most particularly, it discusses how to transfer some of the
actual power in controlling PAs and resource management to Tribes.

Incorporating Tribal Interests in Environmental Protections
The overall goals of tribes, PA managers and environmental advocacy
groups are in many ways similar, but their approaches to these goals can
sometimes create a clash. Tribes have made many contributions towards
environmental goals and they have shown great potential for making further
contributions. They are more likely to contribute their efforts towards overall
goals if their rights and interests are taken into account during and throughout the
processes of establishing and implementing environmental plans and goals, and
they have some real power in the process.
“If you think about it, and what the Tribes are looking for; the protection,
conservation, restoration of the resources and the broader environment that
is potentially affecting those resources and their quality and quantity
…that’s really what ought to be in the front of the mind of the MPA
manager as well. Because they have that same responsibility; to conserve,
protect and manage the resources within their MPA. ….Theoretically, the
Tribes and the Sanctuary people, or any MPA person or people, should
have ultimately very similar goals in terms of the quality and quantity of
their resource. I think the Tribes and the MPA managers and their staff
ought to have more in common than they differ” (Uravitch).
One way to ensure that Tribal rights and interests are taken into account
during and throughout the processes of establishing and implementing
142

environmental plans and goals is to expand the Tribal role as managers.
Expanding the Tribal role in management could prove to be of benefit to Tribes
and the general public because of the commonalities of interests between Tribal
members and members of the general public.
“Our role [as managers of resources] could be expanded. I think the
Tribal interests are not always the same as corporate interests, and I
believe corporate interests aren’t always in the public interests. And I also
think that the Tribal interests and the public interests are closer generally
than corporate interests and public interests. For me, public interests are,
you know; clean air, clean water, the opportunity to eat healthy food and
live a healthy life. To me that’s what the Tribes want too. Seven
generations, Tribes want to make sure seven generations from now, Hoh
River fishermen can go out there and get wild steelhead, as a way to make
a living, not just as a museum style activity” (Gilbertson).
Tribes have already engaged themselves in making decisions that have had
an impact on the environment and the resource. The desire by Tribes for
increased engagement in resource management and results of present Tribal
engagement are probably among the best arguments for encouraging greater
Tribal participation.
“You are seeing them [Tribes] get involved in deciding issues; whether
it’s for natural gas, port development, coal export, and the off-shore
natural gas lease sales back in the 80s. They have been engaged in the
major activities that have come across the horizon that have an impact on
the environment and the resource, consistently since probably the 1950s,
from a governmental standpoint. So, I think that you are seeing that
engagement ramp up and up and that it’s occurring not just at the local
level or regional level, but at the national level that the Tribes are engaged.
And they are very politically astute on working issues at all three levels in
order to be successful. And so, it’s not a question of what they can do
more…it’s kind of how can they do it better” (Bowhay].
“We [Quinault) do a good job. In our case, we force everybody to engage
us as co-managers, properly. We’re players at all the different tables. We
co-manage with the state, the Tribes, and the feds. And we attend all the
proper meetings to make sure that our voices are heard, and we follow all
the guidelines, and work within those systems. And we choose to do it
that way. We don’t have to. As a self-regulating Tribe here, we can
143

almost do as we wish… just show people the information, making sure
that we only maintain a harvest that was 50 percent or less of the surplus.
But we do this, because we want to manage these resources well and also
keep up a working relationship with our co-managers. So we do this by
choice, in most cases, not all, but most cases. So we engage ourselves as
strong as we can. And I don’t know that we could do better, you know,
Quinault and the other coastal Tribes, and the Puget Sound Tribes for that
matter” (Schumacker).

Tribes Need to be Clear on What They Want from MPAs
In order for Tribes to increase their engagement in MPA management they
need to be clear on what they would like get from MPAs. Tribes will oftentimes
need to point out and explain their rights and interests and describe what
objectives and benefits they would like to see come from the implementation of
MPAs to others who could be potential allies in MPA creation. This will help
Tribes to be a greater part of the process when MPAs are designed.
“I think there is more in common than in difference between the MPA
people and the tribes. And I think during the development and the
continual operation process they basically need to be clear on what it is
they want to get out of that. And the tribes need to be able to be clear; to
state what their rights and their interests are. And it’s only by being clear
about these things that you can hopefully reach some common objectives
and move forward” (Uravitch).
“Tribes can take a proactive approach to collaborating with resource
management agencies and protected area staff. Although it is the
responsibility of agencies to consult with tribes, tribes also have the
prerogative to engage with agencies regarding natural and cultural
resource management. Many agency staff would eagerly welcome
increased tribal input and participation. There are common hurdles among
tribes and agencies that could be increasingly overcome with more
communication: in both cases, cultural and natural resources are managed
by different departments whose staff typically do not work directly
together; and staff at all levels are spread increasingly thin. Tribes and
agencies should assume that the other has good intentions, and redouble
efforts to communicate and work together productively” (Grussing).
144

One Tribal interviewee points out that MPAs can be created that
incorporate Tribal interests if they are geared towards specific goals that Tribes
can agree with and support. Specifically, he points to the idea of establishing
MPAs that would help provide protections for the habitat that supports fish.
“For salmon and other migratory fish I think the big thing is that we need
some habitat MPAs rather than non-fishing MPAs. We need to protect the
habitat along our shorelines if we are going to restore our fisheries. And
you know, every year we’re causing more damage to the habitat and the
marine areas and it’s getting harder and harder to actually keep our salmon
alive just getting in and out of Puget Sound. Because it’s not only the
habitat where the salmon go to feed but it’s the habitat needed to produce
the feed-fish and for the plankton… which, you know, we’re starting a big
study now on what’s going on with the plankton populations within Puget
Sound; because our whole food-we in Puget Sound is falling apart. We
need to figure out what it takes to rebuild it” (Williams).

Power Sharing: MPAs Inclusionary of Tribes
There are at least two obvious ways to increase the Tribal role in PAs
(including MPAs). One way is to increase the Tribal role in existing PAs and the
other is to design new PAs that incorporate Tribal interests. Increasing the role in
existing PAs and designing new PAs that incorporate Tribal interests can be done
in through many forms. Most PAs will need broad support in order to be
effective. PAs outside of Tribal reservations will require involvement of both
Tribal and non-tribal interests. MPAs that are genuinely inclusionary of Tribes
will require power sharing with Tribes.
“I really think that for a MPA to be established now, it needs broad
support and needs a lot of organizations working together to make it
happen… it’s not really something that any one agency is going to do on
their own. But, whether it’s the state, the Tribes, the county or even a
non-profit initiating it; they have to involve everyone else” (Williams).
145

One interviewee points out that Tribal co-management of MPAs with states
or the federal government is one way to incorporate power sharing in MPAs. He
uses the example of existing co-management and cross-deputized staff
arrangements between federal agencies and the State of Florida to demonstrate
this type of power sharing arrangement.
“You see this kind of shared responsibility between federal agencies and
states all the time. In Florida you’ve got the Florida Keys NMS, a number
of Fish and Wildlife Refuges and National Parks, and also a number of
state parks and state preserves and reserves down in the Florida Keys. So
you have a state/federal sharing relationship there, in which, for example
staff are cross-deputized, so that the feds. can implement state law and
state people can implement federal law. You could certainly do the same
kind of power sharing relationship with a tribe and a state or federal
agency” (Uravitch).

Incorporating Tribal Liaisons in MPAs
One avenue for helping to incorporate Tribal rights and interests in PAs is
to have a Tribal liaison. Protected Area agencies should have a tribal liaison in
order to ensure that Tribal rights, knowledge and perspectives will be
incorporated into PA management plans and conservation goals (Grussing). Tribal
liaisons would be a conduit for providing information to policy-makers and PA
managers that could help Tribes and the state or federal government to work
collaboratively (Gates). Although interviewees point out that it may not be an
enviable position for tribal members or tribal representatives; as tribal liaisons
could be looked at as harbingers of bad news (Gates), tribal liaisons can help to
ensure that Tribal rights and interests are considered and that Tribes are consulted
before decisions are made.
146

“The other form [for communicating Tribal interests] would be, in terms
of agencies, with individuals that occupy tribal liaison roles. It’s a very
important position, and it could be very effective. However, if you are
mainly, as that tribal liaison, just recognized to be… or what the state
policy has determined to be… the messenger of bad news, even before
they consult with tribes, that’s not a very enviable position. However, if
the state would take the position that the liaison would work with the
policy makers in Olympia and in Indian Country to devise a policy that’s
truly one that benefits the Tribes and the state collectively, then a liaison
could really be a great conduit for that type of information to state policymakers generally. So that’s a very interesting occupation… and it’s
probably fraught with conflict” (Gates).

Incorporating Tribes and Tribal Members in MPAs
Incorporating Tribes and Tribal members in MPAs is one way of
combining forces between Tribes and protections for the marine environment.
Interviewees point out that there can also be tribally run MPAs.
One interviewee points out that there currently are PAs that are in some
ways essentially tribally run. He cites the example of Canyon de Chelly National
Park inside of the Navajo Reservation in Arizona:
“Theoretically, there’s no reason why the Tribe couldn’t be the manager of
the MPA or have a significant role in it. I mean a good case in point
would be, this is a terrestrial example, but if you think of Canyon de
Chelly National Park in northeast Arizona, it’s in the middle of Navajo
land and basically it’s managed by the Navajo, and I think a lot of the Park
people there are Navajo. So there’s no reason why you couldn’t do
something similar in other parts of the country” (Uravitch).
Incorporating Tribal members as staff at PAs was cited as an example of a
way to combine forces with Tribes as well as get more Tribal leadership and
input. However, he also points out that Tribal members may not want to work for
the U.S. government.

147

“One way is to get more Tribal leadership and input… and that’s why one
of the solutions, if you can do it is; can you hire tribal members to be part
of the staff for a PA? Tribal members know their area best and combining
forces a good idea. I think one of the conflicts there, you know, on
individual level is, I could see some schizophrenia, ‘who am I working
for?’ On the other hand, if you can set up the MPA and implement it with
a common agreement on goals and policies, then that should be less of a
problem. As long as it’s clear what you’re trying to accomplish and how
you are trying to accomplish it…it should at least reduce if not minimize
those things” (Uravitch).
One interviewee, when asked how MPAs could be better designed,
established and implemented so that they would both recognize Tribal rights and
interests and achieve environmental conservation goals, made this statement:
“Let the Tribes design it, pay the Tribes to do it, and watch out for world
class examples how to responsibly manage the ecosystem. ….I think
having the research and the management responsibility carried out by the
Tribes under U.S. federal government contracts with Tribes, where the
Tribes administer these programs, I think that’s the best model. I think
Tribes are best positioned with the Ecological Knowledge and the
traditional memory of the space. Tribes have a longer-term, built-in
interest in maintaining a healthy environment to sustain that long-term
relationship. I think it’s a more balanced relationship where it doesn’t
resemble a smash and grab, locust type management” (McCarty).
In response to a later question about whether he could foresee Tribes
holding direct policy authority in the design and implementation of Protected
Areas the same interviewee points out that it would be not only logical from the
point of view of looking at who has the most local knowledge and the most to
gain or lose from the success or failure of an area’s environmental management,
but it would be more cost effective to support Tribal efforts to protect the
environment within a Tribe’s traditional areas.
“Yes, I think we’re the best positioned to do so. I think it’s also a much
more constructive and a much more pragmatic relationship, that’s already
been defined. I think we do a better job remaining consistent in our role as
the first stewards of the environment. I think money spent through our
efforts would be much more cost-effective. The local knowledge of how
148

we’ve lived with the environment; no scientist can come into our area and
think they know better, just because they have a title behind their name”
(McCarty).
One interviewee discusses the possibility of institutionalizing intertribal
protections for the environment into what would in effect become an intertribal
PA. Developing (or institutionalizing already existing) intertribal protections for
the environment would be a way to empower Tribal governments and ingrain
their traditional holistic management into MPAs or other protections for the
marine environment. Combining the strength of separate Tribes into a unified
institution would potentially give them a stronger position to create or affect
MPAs or other types of protections. The same is true for existing Tribal PAs. If
Tribes recognize one another’s PAs that gives the PA more strength.
“I think empowering a Tribal government in a consortium of intertribal
mangers and environmental protectors… is more of a creation of an
institution to institutionalize this [existing] relationship” (McCarty).
Of course, as each Tribe is a separate sovereign entity, each Tribe has its
own interests which may or not coincide with another Tribe. Even the Tribes on
the Washington coast, though they have many similar interests, can have conflicts
of interests. However, when Tribes maintain a unified voice it also strengthens
each separate Tribe’s voice. Additionally, if the coastal Treaty Tribes are unified
on the types of protections of the environment they would like to see (or not see)
implemented on the Washington coast; they can form a stronger position when
outside entities like NGOs try to impose their agendas in the area.
“You have Makah which is one Tribe, one Treaty… and then you have the
Treaty of Olympia that has Quileute, Hoh and Quinault. And the Tribes
(have) had to deal with some conflicts…and they all happened to be the
IPC Tribes. My hope is that the overarching dilemma with these
conservation supremacists… If they [coastal Tribes] don’t get it
149

together...I think all of the Tribes stand to lose. They can’t separate the
issues...you know, they need to evolve past this little dogfight over
fisheries management related issues...even though it’s a hugely invested
subject matter for the Tribes. But at the end of the day, the Tribes have
way more in common than [they have in common with] ...I’d say the
‘Conservationists Incorporated’s’ agenda” (McCarty).

Establishing Tribal Protected Areas
One way to help ensure that Tribal interests are incorporated in PAs is to
encourage and support the inclusion of Tribal PAs in local, state and federal PA
systems. There is an emerging interest in the application of Indigenous cultural
and traditional area PAs and MPAs.
Tribes in Washington State have already declared areas as protected on
reservation and within their Tribal U&As through establishing seasonal spawning
protections or other types of restrictions on certain types of activities within
certain areas.
“The Quinaults have a special area ordinance for a particular stretch of
coastline on their reservation which they manage for a kind of a
Wilderness area. You have Tribes not allowing certain types of take or
activity on the beach for protection of natural resources such as clams…
and razor clams in particular. You have in front of all the mouths [of the
rivers] and on the coastal area... an exclusion zone for harvest..so they are
protecting salmon and steelhead as they return… so that there’s no fishing
in areas that they school up before they enter the river. They have these
types of MPAs that they have had on the books for… ever. And so, they
are utilizing this type of practice… It’s just, it’s not maybe as some people
want to define as a sanctuary, you know… a permanent no-take area”
(Bowhay).
Tribal protections and restrictions established on reservation lands apply to
both Tribal and non-tribal citizens. At this time, without state or federal backing,
Tribally created off-reservation protections and restrictions are not binding to
150

non-tribal members and apply only to the members of the tribes that created the
protections or restrictions. However, there are avenues that tribes can take to
ensure that tribal protections are respected by non-tribal members.
Most of the interviewees had positive responses when addressing the topic
of the establishment of Tribal PAs and/or MPAs.

Jurisdictions and Jurisdictional Issues in Tribal MPA Creation
When contemplating avenues that tribes can take to ensure that Tribal
environmental and natural resource protections are respected by both Tribal and
non-tribal members, jurisdictional issues are among the first issues to arise. When
it comes to jurisdictional authority on matters that affect Tribal marine U&A areas
and tribal fisheries and other resources, the Tribes operate on a co-management
level with the State of Washington and operate under a government-togovernment relationship with the federal government.
As discussed in previous chapters, post-Boldt Decision, it has been legally
established that Washington State (on its own) does not have the authority to
declare PAs or create other types of restrictions that affect Tribal fisheries or the
Tribal ability to fish. Additionally, although Tribes are co-managers to the
resource with the state, the state can declare PAs that Tribes don’t have to
recognize and Tribes can declare PAs that state does not have to recognize.
However, the federal government can require that Tribes recognize protections for

151

resources or the environment if it can demonstrate that there is a need for them
because Congress ultimately has the ability to affect treaties.
“The state can create a MPA that the Tribes don’t have to follow and the
Tribes could create an MPA that the state doesn’t necessarily have to
follow either. So really, it would have to be adopted by both the Tribes
and the state” (Williams).
There is an important distinction between the Tribes and the state. Unlike
the state, the Tribes are sovereign nations with treaty rights guaranteed by the
federal government. Because Tribal treaties are with the U.S. government, the
U.S. has obligations to ensure that state and federal MPAs also comply with
Tribal treaty rights to resources. Additionally, the federal government can require
that states recognize Tribal PAs.
“Direct policy authority in the design and implementation of PAs? Well,
we have the authority over our own, but we don’t have the authority over
the non-tribal user-groups. …I think we should have” (Gilbertson).
Tribal authorities have the ability to designate terrestrial PAs that affect
their own Tribal members and they have the jurisdiction to designate terrestrial
PAs on their Reservation lands that affect Tribal and non-tribal members. Tribal
authorities also have the ability to designate MPAs that affect their own Tribal
members. However, the Tribal ability to designate MPAs that would affect
anyone other than their own Tribal members is complicated by overlapping
jurisdictions. Tribal U&A marine areas overlap with state and federal
jurisdictions as well as neighboring Tribes’ U&A areas. In some ways the
relationships between these overlapping jurisdictions are still being defined
because most Tribal U&As have not been fully delineated.
“And these states only have jurisdiction to 3 miles... The Makah’s is out
to 40 miles and right now we [Hoh Tribe] don’t have the western
152

boundary adjudicated... so presumably it’s out through the EEZ. And so,
our jurisdiction extends well beyond the state’s” (Gilbertson).

Tribal/Indigenous Ability: How to Declare MPA Specifics
The federal government’s relationship with Tribes is in part defined by the
Treaty reserved rights to Tribal resources. Federal agencies are obligated to
fulfill federal obligations to Tribes. State agencies and U.S. citizens have in some
cases have been held to these obligations by the federal judicial system. It is
difficult for Tribes to get past the jurisdictional issue of Tribal MPAs extending
only to their own Tribal members, but by same accord non-tribal MPAs don’t
have to be observed by Tribes. And while it is true that the State of Washington
does not have to support Tribally designated PAs, MPAs or other Tribal
protections for the environment, they could be mandated to do so with the backing
of the federal government.
“Tribal jurisdiction; that’s an interesting part of Tribally declared MPAs,
which we [Quinault] are working hard on. I don’t believe we’re going to
be able to get past the fact that Tribes will designate these areas and …the
jurisdiction will only extend to their own Tribal members. But that’s
similar to what I just described, in that non- treaty MPAs in a Treaty area
would not necessarily have to be observed by Tribes. Well, a Tribally
declared MPA would not necessarily have to be observed by non-tribal
peoples, unless there was federal back-up on that” (Schumacker).
“So, it’s kind of a balancing act, as I see it… If Tribes begin to assert their
authority to do these types of protections out here and show the feds.
that… you know, ‘hey look, if you want us to respect those [National
MPAs]… well, how about you respect these[Tribal MPAs]’… that type of
arrangement” (Schumacker).

153

Federal Processes for Tribal MPA Creation
Federal agencies are held to agency guidelines and guidelines are subject to
Executive Orders and other mandates of the federal government. As
demonstrated by the Boldt Decision and the Culvert Case; the strength of the
treaty-reserved rights of Tribes in Washington State may give them more leverage
with federal agencies as far as getting federal government to order that state
comply with treaty rights to resources and habitat protections for these resources.
Up to this point, the federal government has held Washington State to a higher
standard than other states (and the federal government itself) in instances such as
the Culvert Case.
“The Culvert Case was brought against the State of Washington
specifically. And [the Tribes] said here are the issues that they have a
problem with, and how the management by the state agencies was in direct
conflict with their requirements under their own laws and regulations.
And so, that specifically was what the court case was. The ruling would
have a wider effect in saying if that is indeed the principle that is being
established here or recognized or affirmed, then it would also then extend
to what is the federal government doing relative to the management of
their lands and culverts, in particular” (Bowhay).
Interviewees point out that Tribes do have the authority to implement PAs
under the National MPA Act program.
“The Executive Order that declared a national system of MPAs around the
nation... ….That Executive Order is being strengthened. …The gaps in
that, regarding relations with tribes, in respect to tribal consultation and in
respect to tribes period, and the rights of the tribes to declare PAs of their
own; all of those things are being clarified and reentered into the
framework for how these MPAs can be devised” (Schumacker).
Additionally, interviewees point out that Tribes could potentially use some
more general statutes of the U.S. government to help to provide for some
protections of the environment and of Tribal resources.
154

“They do have that authority now [to implement PAs]. Under the
National MPA Act program, there’s the ability for tribes to establish
MPAs for cultural purposes and protect historical sites. So there’s two
things; there’s cultural purposes and historical sites. And so, that program
itself allows a tribes ability to do that... and in Antiquities [Act] they also
have that authority. So it’s not that they don’t have it, it’s whether or not
they are exercising it at this point” (Bowhay).
“Some statutes that were written without an Indian Tribe even being in
mind would be really useful: APRA, the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act, for instance, and NEPA. Those types of general federal
statutes that have general applicability, tribes need to definitely be on the
ball about” (Gates).
As previously discussed in the Reforms chapter; since tribal rights
(including the Tribal ability to declare MPAs) have already been established by
the federal government it should be a priority of Tribes to get tribal rights into
governing documents, mission statements and other types of agreements.
“It is important for tribes to have within their organic governing
documents; sections that relate to their authority to regulate in matters
concerning the environment within their Reservations. The Navajo Nation
is very expressive that they have jurisdiction over all water, for instance,
that is within the exterior boundaries both surface and subsurface water.
They claim they have the authority to regulate that quality” (Gates).
“The creation of Tribal PAs that could better protect traditional territories
and resources? Yeah, we need to push on that. And we need some way;
probably a MOU, such that the state will cooperate in respecting these
PAs in development and protection. If the state is gonna respect those
areas, they are going to need to be involved… it seems to me, they are
going to insist upon being involved in some sort of consideration. But
yeah, the state should demonstrate a willingness to come to the table to
discuss areas that we feel should be protected. They should be willing to
have that conversation and, you know, consider the content of our ask.
And I think really, they should be willing to craft an MOU to create these
PAs” (Gilbertson).
At this point there are no Tribal MPAs in the federal system, but the Tribal
ability to declare MPAs is in embedded in the federal MPA framework that was
enacted through Executive Order 13178. “Tribally-designated sites would be
eligible to join the National System of MPAs, and would contribute to its design,
155

planning, and implementation principles, as well as its cultural and natural
heritage conservation goals”(MPA FAC 2011).
“Tribal MPAs? Well, that’s a loaded question for me because I’m pushing
it. That’s exactly what I push. And I’ve been working on this a long time
[through] the MPA Federal Advisory Committee that I hold the Tribal seat
on. I’ve been making sure that this [Executive] Order for MPAs was
clarified. It was generalized previously. They said that Tribes could
declare, that Indigenous peoples could declare their own areas, but it was
just so general… so we’ve been trying to make it fill in the gaps on that
and make it much plainer on what those areas could be, what would be the
requirements for getting them recognized and becoming a part of the
National system of MPAs. So, you know, you’re preaching to the choir on
that kind of a question” (Schumacker).

Human Rights, Inherent Rights, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
A basis for Tribal MPAs (and other rights of Indigenous Peoples) that goes
beyond federal acquiescence to its own treaties with Tribes or other Indigenous
Peoples is that of inherent rights and human rights. Whether or not Tribes or
other Indigenous peoples are recognized as sovereign entities with by the U.S., or
whether they have treaties with the U.S. government, they still have inherent
rights as Indigenous People and as human beings.
“The same thing goes for our right to self-governance, whether you
consider it to be more of a right of sovereignty or as a human right of selfgovernance and self-determination… if you don’t recognize that that
essence comes from within… it’s not given to you by anyone else, that
you have it as an Indigenous person, that your governments have it... And
if you don’t choose to exercise it, it’s going to be lost. You know?”
(Gates).
“The Tribal role in PA and resource management could be expanded
obviously. To me, even a tribe without a treaty right… and recognized
[by the federal government]… you know, hopefully they are recognized
also by the federal government, that’s another big part of this… Without
that federal recognition, it’s easy to step right across them… even though
156

they might have villages and history and government and everything and
those tribes had historically fished in those areas and there’s all kinds of
backing on that…and yet they didn’t get a treaty in place that said they
could continue to fish. Well federal government, don’t use that as a
convenient way to keep tribes out of those discussions” (Schumacker).
“Tribes without that right [treaty rights]… should be engaged, no matter
what. So, treaty rights are strong, but tribes that live on the coast of this
country have all fished, they don’t live on the beach for nothing… You
live on the beach because you harvest things in that area. You use the
ocean as your waterway and it has been your breadbasket for your
community” (Schumacker).
Several interviewees point to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (under the auspices of the United Nations
Human Rights Commissions and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities) as an internationally supported
recognition that Indigenous Peoples have inherent rights that would include the
creation of Indigenous PAs.
UNDRIP was adopted by the U.N. in 2008, and two years later, President
Obama stated that the United States would support the UNDRIP. It is a nonbinding, but historic document that recognizes the responsibility of governments
to fully engage with all Tribal and Indigenous Peoples, whether they are
“recognized” or “non-recognized” (MPA FAC 2011). UNDRIP has provisions
which recognize the importance of the spiritual and cultural ties that Indigenous
Peoples have to their homelands (MPA FAC 2011). UNDRIP states that
Indigenous Peoples "have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive
spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal
seas” and that they must give “free, prior, and informed consent” for any
government actions that may affect them (MPA FAC 2011).
157

“I do perceive tribes holding direct policy authority in the design and
implementation of PAs, and based on not just tribal consultation policies
of the U.S. government, but most recently, the Obama Administration
deciding to support the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP). That document says that you will do just that… the
U.S. government would allow Tribal Protected Areas in traditional
territories and resources based on inherent tribal sovereignty. And it says
that on top of much more, the UNDRIP is an extraordinarily powerful and
dense document…a lot of stuff in there. You can tell that a lot Indigenous
peoples went to work on that thing, it’s very comprehensive”
(Schumacker).
“There are lots of examples within the document [UNDRIP] that speak to
environmental integrity… Some of the key phrases and key points in the
document revolve around… that Indigenous peoples are entitled to prior
and informed consent before any agency actions are made. They also
have a right to meaningful and ongoing consultation …[and to]
discussions with the nation state representatives on matters that concern
their sovereignty, their right to self-governance. So, I think that that
would really elevate the discussion of environmental protection… you
know…it would put it in an international focus on supporting existing
laws of the State of Washington and the U.S… and the Tribes” (Gates).
One interviewee points out that because the UNDRIP is a new source of
law it is necessary to educate Tribal leaders as well as people that work in federal
agencies on the UNDRIP in order to enable Tribes to implement it and use it
effectively.
“It’s such a new source of law that one of the primary and initial focuses
has to be to better understand the Declaration to get our Tribal leaders and
Tribal managers, as well as people that work in these federal agencies to
understand the Declaration. The principles contained in there are
universal human rights and principles, but many of them are very
consistent with the stated policies of the federal government… and as the
trustee of our resources and over our self-determination. So, the trick is
going to be; how do we educate Tribal leaders and non-tribal leaders,
future policy-makers, future managers of the importance of this
document…to begin to understand it better, to learn the commonalities
that it has with domestic law, and how it can be used to complement…and
not be a source of conflict to the domestic laws of the particular nation
state. …Our challenge is to implement it and find ways to educate people,
and to use it in a really effective way. Otherwise it’s gonna all be for
naught” (Gates).

158

Asserting Tribal Authority
Maori author and educator, Linda Tuhiwai Smith speaks to the idea of
“claiming” as part of a decolonization process, in her book Decolonization
Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. When discussing the topic of
claiming for Indigenous Peoples she states: “In a sense colonialism has reduced
indigenous peoples to making claims and assertions about rights and dues. It is an
approach that has a certain noisiness to it. Indigenous people, however, have
transformed claiming into an interesting and dynamic process (Smith 1999).
Although at this point there are no Tribal MPAs in the federal system,
interviewees stress the importance of asserting their Tribal authority to do so.
“The big one for me is… Tribes need to assert their authority. They need
to assert their authority, and stop reacting and start managing. So, we do a
lot of management within the realms of fisheries... We work with comanagers on harvest and on forecasting and analysis of fisheries
populations and things of that nature. But no Tribe here recently in this
area, has stepped up and said ‘You know what? …this area out here in
Puget Sound, this area of the mouth of this river, this area off the coast of
Washington, this area within Gray’s Harbor…is critical to us because of
these reasons... and we’re designating it as a PA with a concurrent
management plan in place.’ By doing this we [would] not only begin to
illustrate... not only do we start to balance the equation with other nontribal designations of this sort, but it just shows that you’re actively
managing …that you know your area as well or better than others …that
you know that there’s reasons... that there’s something very important in
this area …to you, that maybe others didn’t recognize… and you gotta
make sure that they do. So for me, it’s getting Tribes... I really would like
to see Tribes assert that ability and the sooner the better” (Schumacker).
The difficulties for Tribal governments in asserting authority was another
topic of discussion of interviewees. This difficulty is compounded by the myriad
of issues that Tribal governments are also dealing with on a daily basis.
159

“It probably takes a lot of different forms, but we also have to be articulate
and we have to be considerate of the bigger picture. You know, we can’t
live in a bubble, no matter how much we would like to. We have to be
aware of the competing interests. Our role could be expanded …If you
take an ambivalent attitude you’re not gonna change your status or your
level of engagement or whatever. …It’s tough for Tribal leadership to be
aware of all the different issues that are going on in the non-tribal natural
resources arena, there’s so many other issues in their own Tribal politics;
nation building, community building... trying to enhance and preserve and
salvage their cultures. Sometimes that’s enough to worry about. And all
the other engines that are rolling out there, it’s tough sometimes for the
Tribal Councils” (Gilbertson).
“When you talk about moving issues like that, it takes forever when you
go through the process. Now, you can short-circuit that process and
maybe get some designations as a result of Presidential action, but those
are getting fewer and farther between. And so, if you are going to work
these processes where there’s a MPA or wilderness designations and
things like that, it’s along drawn out process…a lot of review, a lot of
comment period, preliminary draft and then final draft. It just takes time.
The Elwha (dam removals), they talk about how they worked to get that
through… you know, a hundred years. It just takes time, things don’t
always happen overnight… nor do they always happen within one’s
career” (Bowhay).
However, interviewees point out that there is recognition by Tribes that
there can potentially be benefits from MPAs for Tribes and they are actively
considering the designs of Tribal MPAs or other types of MPAs or protections for
the marine environment and its resources that would be most beneficial for
Tribes.
“We have been looking very intently at MPAs and saying, ‘what’s the
benefit here for us?’...in terms of how can we fold that into our tool box of
management approach and activity, to make it beneficial for what we are
trying do in the long run with these [fisheries] stocks, whether it is to
manage them or recover them. …These are tools that the Tribes will
afford themselves of or have access to… and will take the opportunity to
implement. It’s just, for some people… you just don’t see it, because you
are not aware of the conversations that are going on or the processes that
are going on…or that these conversations play out over many years before
action comes to be” (Bowhay).

160

“There’s [Tribal]consideration being actively ongoing right now both out
on the coast and the Puget Sound to look at MPAs from a tribal standpoint
…of how they could be constructed to help further what they are try to do
for protecting a certain habitat and resources. So, it’s not whether or not
there is a benefit … there is a benefit… [and] they know how to
implement it… It’s just a question of how to structure...what do they need
the structure to be? But they control their own activity and so it’s a
question of how do they use it” (Bowhay).

Creating Tribal MPAs: How to Assert Specifics
Another subject topic brought up for discussion by the interviewees is the
methods by which Tribes could use to assert their authority and create Tribal
MPAs. Interviewees point out that there are a variety of methods which Tribes to
utilize in MPA assertion. There are also a variety of MPAs or other protections
for the marine environment and its resources which Tribes could utilize.
Interviewees also point out that MPAs do not have to be exclusively
environmental in nature. Within the federal framework for MPAs, MPAs can also
have fisheries related protections or culturally related protections. MPAs can also
be designed for a combination of area protection purposes.
“I think the key there goes back to the definition of what you mean by a
PA. You could call it… if you wanted to a ‘marine managed area,’ in
which you are managing the extraction that takes place …which is
obviously important to the Tribes. But they could also set up MPAs for
the purposes of protecting cultural resources and artifacts. So, there is the
different variety of things you could look at for managing through
MPAs… The way we had organized it at the national level was to look at
what you think of as your traditional MPA, which was a sort of a general
protection…but then there’s areas that were set up specifically for
fisheries management and other areas that were set up specifically for
protection of cultural or archaeological resources… and then, you can
have a mix of any two of those or all three at once. So the Tribes could
use that as yet another overlay of protection of their cultural history and
potentially…if you set it up that way… then it might allow them to
161

compete for various kinds of grants…which could be used to… you
know... advance the knowledge of the resource or for some other purpose”
(Uravitch).

Expanding Tribal Reservation PAs into Tribal U&A MPAs
Tribal ownership of reservation tidelands could also become the basis for
Tribal MPAs. Because many Tribal reservations in Washington State are on the
Washington coast or along the coast of the Salish Sea; many Tribes have
ownership over tidelands as part of their Tribal reservation land bases.
“Well, on reservation, the Tribe [Tulalip] never gave up or sold off the
tidelands. And there were a few [non-tribal] people who had mistakes
made on their titles when they acquired their property that showed
ownership… when earlier versions of the title didn’t… So someone did a
clerical error in the process, where people [outside of the Reservation]
thought they actually owned the tidelands when they really don’t. So
there’s still some small skirmishes going on there, but most of the
landowners adjacent to the tidelands have conceded that they don’t really
own the tidelands. So yeah, the tidelands were just, you know, part of the
Reservation when the Tribe was established… and they never sold that
portion” (Williams).
One interviewee made the observation that Tribal ownership of reservation
tideland areas could be used as the foundation for expanding Tribal PAs into
adjacent Tribal U&As.
“Oh yeah, you could definitely do that. As long as you have the legal
authority over the bottom-land and the water-column, then there’s no
reason why you can’t. Any Tribe could do that as long as they have got
that authority. …To me that would be the easiest kind of MPA for Tribes
to establish. Since they have the ownership, essentially, of the submerged
land as well as the water-column; they already have complete control. So
all you would be doing, in effect, is sort of organizing and codifying it
specifically… and designating it” (Uravitch).

162

Funding Tribal PAs
When and if Tribes establish Tribal PAs or Tribal MPAs the fundamental
question of “How do you pay for it?” inevitably arises. Efforts need to be devoted
to finding ways to make Tribal PAs financially self-sustaining, in part, because as
the IUCN states, “unfunded PAs cannot be effectively managed and are at risk of
becoming ‘paper parks’”(Bertzky et al. 2012). There are many potential sources
for PA funding that Tribes could use to help make PAs more financially selfsustaining. The IUCN lists these major sources: “national government budgets,
international assistance from NGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies, private
institutions, and tourism revenue generated at protected areas” (Bertzky et al.
2012). The IUCN also lists potential public sector funding mechanisms,
including “tourist fees, taxes and surcharges, trust funds, private sector funding,
biodiversity offsets, and payments for ecosystem services” (Bertzky et al. 2012).
Interviewees point to several potential sources for funding of Tribal
management. One interviewee points out that funding Tribal management would
be more fiscally responsible than the current method of funding politically
motivated management programs.
“Traditional [Tribal] perspectives and the traditional ecological knowledge
is really sort of the common sense that should be a rallying point for
people that are into responsible management of tax dollars with respect to
ecosystem-based management under a different perspective and not the
specialized, brand-name ...of whichever organization raised the most
money to influence national politics” (McCarty).
One interviewee points to grants that would be available if Tribes
incorporate their MPAs into the National MPA system.

163

“If you set it up that way then it might allow them to compete for various
kinds of grants. Which could be used to… advance the knowledge of the
resource or for some other purpose” (Uravitch).
He also points to the example of Village PAs in American Samoa (that are
within the U.S. National MPA system) using support from the federal level and
NGOS.
“In American Samoa, [there are] two or three village Protected Areas that
were established that are part of the larger Protected Area, but they are
basically implemented by the villagers who assert traditional ownership
over those reefs. And so, what you have essentially is a form of local
management…and you can find a lot of that going on in the Philippines
and Indonesia and a number of the other Pacific Islands. Looking at local
management of local resources, with some support from the national level
or NGOs in some cases” (Uravitch).
One interviewee, who was speaking in relation to current Tribal funding of
restoration projects and fisheries related habitat projects of the Tulalip Tribes and
the Nisqually Tribe, points out that Tribes have access to funding from the federal
level as well as from revenue Tribes earn on their own.
“One the benefits of living in the high population zone, is that we can
make a lot more money off of the people around us. The bad part is the
high density developments have really hammered our rivers and we don’t
have the fish populations we used to. …Some of the bigger tribes, like
Tulalip here…are able to subsidize our fisheries program so we’re not just
operating off of federal funds like we use to. And we’ve been taking some
budget reductions too, but we’ve been able to maintain our programs
anyway. And we do have access to a lot more funding at the federal level
than the state agencies have” (Williams).
This chapter demonstrates some potential methods by which protections for
marine environments can be designed, established and implemented so that they
achieve conservation goals and recognize Tribal rights and interests. It shows that
there is great potential (as well as some recent momentum) for incorporating more
Tribal leadership in PAs, MPAs and other protections for the marine and

164

terrestrial environment. The chapter also discussed some potentially deeper and
longer-term changes that would increase the tribal role in PAs and resource
management. Most particularly, it discussed how to transfer some of the actual
power in controlling PAs and resource management to Tribes.

CHAPTER 9: OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While Tribal natural resource managers and other Tribal leaders are strong
advocates of conservation for marine areas and natural resources, they generally
do not favor Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a means to those ends. This is in
part due to the fact that, historically, Tribal experiences with PAs have been
mostly negative. Past experiences with PAs (MPAs included) flavor the Tribal
opinion about existing and future PAs and, in particular, make Tribes especially
wary about any potential creation of PAs or MPAs within their traditional areas.
The research behind this paper demonstrates that Tribes have had a
traditional history of sustainable resource management geared toward natural
resource utilization. Because Native cultures and identities are tied to their
history within particular areas, sustainable use and management of their natural
resources has historically been and continues to be a vital to characteristic of
Native peoples. In Washington State and elsewhere, Tribes were and continue to
be part of the local ecology of their areas.
When it comes to resource management, Tribes in Washington State have
developed relationships with the State of Washington and the federal government
165

that make their situation unique in the U.S. The unique relationships between
Washington State Tribes, the state and the federal government are in a large part
due to the strength of Tribal treaties with the U.S. government, which are in a
large part tied to U.S. guarantees of continued Tribal access to their traditional
resources.
However, Tribal treaty rights have also been a source of conflict between
Tribes, the American public and PA managers. Interviewees point to the fact that
treaty rights have been a source of non-tribal resentment because they are
construed as “special rights” of a “minority.”

“How have Marine Protected Areas in western Washington affected the
rights and interests of the Tribes?”
Interviewees responding to questions related to this first research question
stress that protections for the environment are not only a non-Native concept, but
that Tribes and other Indigenous peoples have traditionally had areas or resources
that they that they set aside from utilization, both seasonally and long-term. As
opposed to the more protectionist federal PA management represented by ONP
and OCNMS, Tribal management is focused on maintaining the natural
productivity and services of a given area, ecosystem or fishery for the continuing
benefit of present and future generations.
While Tribes in Washington State have had a history of mostly negative
experiences with PAs, they are concerned with the continuing degradation of the
environment and the continuing push for more development in the region.
166

Because of the commonalities in interests between Tribal and non-tribal citizens,
Tribes and non-tribal governments and non-governmental organizations are
potential allies in combating the degradation of the environment, natural
resources, and cultural sites.
From the perspective of some interviewees, there are a number of
increasingly positive Tribal experiences with some of the more recent initiatives
geared towards environmental protection in Washington State. This is in part
because of a growing recognition between the Tribal and the non-tribal policymakers that decisions need to take into account both the Tribal and the non-tribal
perspective before initiatives are implemented. Perhaps more important is the
recently developing non-tribal recognition that they need to address Tribal rights
and desires before they propose initiatives that might affect the Tribes.
In the State of Washington, Tribes have both a cultural tradition as well a
continuing history of sustainable resource conservation tied to resource
utilization. Tribes play an important role in natural resource management in
Washington State. Interviewee responses show that Tribes are not against the
concept of protections for resources and the environment. Tribes simply go about
resource management in a different way. This is in part because Tribal goals
behind protections for resources and the environment are at times different than
some sectors of the government and/or the general public.
The responses of interviewees point to a history of conflicts with non-tribal
management of resources and with non-tribal development in the Tribes’

167

traditional areas. Although Tribes are deeply concerned about declining marine
environments and they have supported some MPAs in the region, they are
concerned about the recent push for more MPAs.
The core of the problem between Tribes and MPAs is a potential conflict of
interests between the Tribal right to resources in their traditional areas and the
protections of the environment that may affect these Tribal rights. This conflict of
interests is in some ways enhanced by the legal establishment of Tribal U&As,
where specific tribes have specific treaty-reserved rights. The establishment of
Tribal U&As has created what amounts to treaty “boxes” where Tribal rights are
contained. While the sum of all Tribal U&As, when combined, encompasses all
of Washington State’s waters, each separate Tribe has treaty rights circumscribed
only to delimited boxes (oftentimes overlapping with nearby Tribes’ boxes)
within these coastal waters. This brings about the situation where Tribes are
particularly concerned with anything that would affect their treaty rights within
their specific treaty-reserved boxes.
There is a basic conflict of interests between Tribes and the mission of the
National Marine Sanctuary system. Resource protection, the “primary objective”
of the Sanctuaries Act (which established the NMS system) can be in conflict
with the Tribes’ sustainable resource conservation objectives aimed at continued
utilization. Interviewees point out that because of this basic conflict of interests
between Tribes and the mission of the National Marine Sanctuary system
(sustainable resource use vs. resource protection), NMS staffs are often

168

predisposed to supporting environmental agendas that could affect Tribal rights to
resources within and around sanctuaries.
While OCNMS (specifically) is not authorized to regulate fishing, and the
overriding intention of the NMS system may not be to curtail Tribal treaty rights,
the predisposition of the OCNMS and the NMS system towards supporting
resource protection objectives in and around the Sanctuary directs their staffs to
protect these resources through whatever avenues are available to them. Because
of these ingrained NMS staff predispositions tied to NMS objectives, Tribal treaty
rights can be affected by NMS policymakers and staff (sometimes through their
backing or support of people or NGOs outside of NMS whose objectives they
support).
On the coast of Washington State, the Tribal desire for enhancing the
protection of the area and its resources was tempered by a requirement that Tribal
fisheries in the area would not be affected by the designation of the area as a
MPA. The Tribes that supported the creation of OCNMS did so because they
received assurances that their ability to manage the Tribal coastal fisheries would
not be effected by OCNMS. Since the time of the establishment of OCNMS,
Tribes continue to be wary of attempts by the Sanctuary to exert influence that
might affect Tribal rights to resources. Interviewees point out that they feel that
often the OCNMS does not fully incorporate the interests of the Tribes, or allow
Tribes to fully participate at the management level.

169

The coastal Treaty Tribes are particularly concerned that areas in and
around OCNMS are being closed to fishing when conservation concerns about
species in these areas are not backed up by concrete data that demonstrates a need
for fishing closures. Restrictions to the Tribal right to marine resources are also
seen to be punishing Tribes for something they did not do. Interviewees point out
that Tribes are not responsible for the overfishing practices that are now affecting
the abundances of resources. One Tribal representative pointed out that unless
new restrictions on fishing are designed to affect only non-tribal fishing, Tribes
on the Washington Coast are essentially being forced to compensate for the
overfishing practices of others. Although MPAs can be created that would apply
to non-tribal people and not to Tribes, this is potentially a cause of resentment
from the public. This scenario also effectively punishes Tribes by making them
look like the bad guy who continues to fish, while others are not allowed (even
though Tribes are not responsible for the overfishing practices that caused the
need for an MPA).
Interviewees assert that environmental groups with protectionist agendas
often sensationalize particular issues and concerns in order to gain more funding
and support from the public, and more attention from the government in order to
push their agendas. One interviewee also points out that organizations and
employees of groups with protectionist agendas have jobs and careers which are
tied to their ability to stimulate the kind of public attention which will generate
support and funding from the public. This creates the situation where
organizations and individuals have an incentive to sensationalize situations in
170

order to support the environmental agendas that provide for their livelihood,
regardless of whether there are genuine conservation concerns.
Interviewees point out that Tribes would be much more likely to support the
efforts of environmental groups if they utilized standards of sound science to
demonstrate a need for their conservation concerns. Additionally, interviewees
point to the idea that NGOs that would help to protect natural resources could find
potential allies in Tribes if Tribes were engaged and consulted in advance and
their interests were addressed.
Beyond the basic clash of interests between the Tribal right to resources in
their traditional areas and the creation of protections of the environment that
would affect these Tribal rights, there are other problems inherent in federal and
state PA management of resource and habitat protections that were discussed by
interviewees. Specifically, interviewees point to problems that arise due to
implementing federal policy at the local level. Bureaucracy, inconsistency,
employee turnover and the need for the education of new staff, as well as
insufficient federal staffs and funds, were identified by interviewees as
problematic.

“Can protections for marine environments be designed, established and
implemented in a way that they achieve conservation goals and recognize
Tribal rights and interests?”
When interviewees speak to this second research question posed by this
thesis, they recommend potential future reforms to the existing NMS system--

171

both short-term proposals for fixes to the NMS system that would help it to better
incorporate tribal concerns and interests in PAs and resource management, as well
as some potentially deeper and longer-term changes that would increase the tribal
role and decision-making authority in PAs and resource management.
The interviewee responses in this thesis reinforce the findings from the
2007 Whitesell et al. paper: "Protecting Washington's Marine Environments:
Tribal Perspectives." All of the findings from that paper were brought up (though
worded in a different fashion) by the interviewees who responded to my research
questions six years later. The fact that similar responses, mentioned in the
previous Whitesell et al. findings, came up again during my interviews is
important to note because it shows that the Tribes are remaining consistent in
their position regarding protections for marine environments. Additionally, the
fact that Tribes have desired and continue to desire reforms to existing MPAs
(and to proposed new MPAs) highlight that Tribes’ rights and interests were not
then and are not now being consistently incorporated in protections for marine
environments.
It is important for policy-makers and resource managers to realize that it is
much more difficult to fix an unequal, existing management system than to start
from scratch with a management system that adequately incorporates both Tribal
and non-tribal rights and interests from the very beginning. Interviewees point
out that when MPAs are being created it is very important to make sure that
things are done right the first time. This will help to minimize conflicts in the
future and establish a more conducive framework for maintaining working
172

relationships between Tribal and non-tribal resource managers who are genuinely
interested in habitat and resource management and conservation. Of course, there
will always be room for the improvement of existing management systems.
There is great potential for finding common goals between Tribes and nontribal managers in habitat and resource management and conservation. The first
step in finding these common goals is to identify what is important to all the
parties involved. The next step is to identify the habitat and resource management
and conservation parameters that will address the common goals while at the
same time addressing the rights and interests of the involved parties. If MPA
managers want to incorporate the rights and interests of Tribes in MPAs, they can
work with the Tribes on how to design them from the start of the process.
There are some inherent problems that will inevitably arise at the local level
when implementing federal level policies or programs. It is very difficult to
create a single policy or program that will be effective in all situations. There
really is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to federal policy implementation at the
local level. Because of this, federal policies (like the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act) need to be ingrained with enough flexibility to be shaped according to each
separate local situation. Federal MPA managers also need to have the ability to
adapt their MPA (or sanctuary), their staffs and themselves to fit local conditions.
Tribes not only want to have a place at the table when discussions are made
that effect their rights and interests, but they have a legal right to be there. Tribes
are not just another group of stakeholders; they are rather a group of “rights-

173

holders.” The Tribes’ legal rights, entitling them to consultation, are tied to their
Treaties with the U.S. government as well as to Tribal property rights (which are
tied to Article VI the U.S. Constitution). Interviewees point out that Tribes
should be a leading entity involved in any MPA creation in their area, or at
minimum, be the first consulted, rather than being consulted as an afterthought by
others who would designate MPAs in Tribal U&As. Some interviewees point out
that the Tribal right to be included in discussions and decisions that affect their
areas is in some cases being increasingly, although sometimes begrudgingly,
recognized as necessary by PA managers, the public and NGOs.
The Tribal right to government-to-government level consultation has been
strengthened by Presidential Executive Orders 12875 and 13175. These
Executive Orders direct federal agencies to consult with Native American tribes
on a “government-to-government” basis. However, even though Tribal
consultation is mandated by the U.S. government, Tribes point out that in many
cases they are not being truly consulted to the extent legally required and intended
by agencies or individuals tied to the U.S. government. Interviewees also point
out that the U.S. government needs to provide funding so that Tribes can live with
the administrative burdens that the U.S. puts on Tribes, so that Tribes can
participate in all the venues where decisions are being made that affect them.
Interviewees state that is very important to clarify goals and define the
meanings of terms at the very beginning of discussions so that the parties
involved are on the same page in regards to the intentions and definitions of other
parties. When intentions are made to be transparent and definitions of words and
174

terms are made clear, it will help to reduce conflicts due to both
misunderstandings and to a potentially unwarranted apprehension that can be
associated with certain words.
Interviewees also state a desire that MPAs and other protections for the
marine environment be temporary and changeable. Tribes are more likely to
oppose permanent protections than temporary protections with very specific
goals. This desire arises in part because Tribes are also concerned about the
potential for “mission creep” of MPAs or other protections for the marine
environment.
Educating PA managers and staff on Tribal rights and interests in regards to
the protection and management of resources was cited as being a crucial key to a
successful Tribal/PA relationship. PA managers need to educate themselves and
make sure that their staff is also educated on tribal rights and interests before
making any decisions that might potentially affect the Tribes. Often, Tribes have
had to take on a leading role in educating others because even though federal
government and state co-managers are responsible for educating themselves and
the public about Tribal rights and interests, they do not always follow through
with this responsibility.
Several Interviewees stressed the importance of embedding tribal interests
in formal agreements or in core documents and mission statements at the national
level. Because government entities and programs (such as the NMS) look to their
governing documents to identify their legal authorities, it is important for Tribes

175

to embed Tribal rights and interests within these documents. Tribes can then
point to these core documents when their rights or interests are being affected.
Interviewees point out that when tribal rights and interests are embedded in core
documents at the national level, it helps reduce the efforts that Tribes need to
make to defend their rights and interests. When tribal rights and interests are
stated in governing documents it helps to reduce conflicts that could arise due to
misunderstandings by the general public or PA managers and staff. This
embedding becomes especially important during the creation of new PAs or when
employee turnover occurs in PAs, because it can easily be referred to by Tribes.
For the purpose of identifying some potentially deeper and longer-term
changes that would increase the tribal role in PAs and resource management,
interviewees were asked to discuss methods for encouraging more Tribal
engagement in PAs, MPAs and other protection regimes for the marine and
terrestrial environment. While the overall goals of Tribes, PA managers and
environmental advocacy groups are in some ways similar, their approaches to
these goals can sometimes create a clash. Tribes have made many contributions
towards environmental goals and they have shown great potential for making
further contributions. They are more likely to contribute their efforts towards
overall goals if their rights and interests are taken into account during (and
throughout) the processes of establishing and implementing environmental plans
and goals.
One way to ensure that Tribal rights and interests are taken into account
during and throughout the processes of establishing and implementing
176

environmental plans and goals is to expand the Tribal role in management. There
are at least two obvious ways to increase the Tribal role in PAs (including MPAs).
One way is to increase the Tribal role in existing PAs and the other is to design
new PAs that incorporate Tribal interests. Increasing the Tribal role in existing
PAs and designing new PAs that incorporate Tribal interests can be done in
through many forms. Most PAs will need broad support in order to be effective.
Any new PA establishment in Washington State requires the involvement of both
Tribal and non-tribal interests. MPAs that aim to be genuinely inclusionary of
Tribes will require genuine power-sharing with Tribes.
One avenue for helping to incorporate Tribal rights and interests in PAs is
to have a tribal liaison. Although interviewees point out that it may not be an
enviable position for Tribal members or Tribal representatives, tribal liaisons can
potentially help to ensure that Tribal rights and interests are considered and that
Tribes are consulted before decisions are made.
Incorporating Tribes in MPA management and operation is another way of
combining forces between Tribes and protections for the marine environment.
Interviewees point out that incorporating Tribes would be not only logical from
the point of view of looking at who has the most local knowledge and the most to
gain or lose from the success or failure of an area’s environmental management,
but it would also be more cost effective to support Tribal efforts to protect the
environment within a Tribe’s traditional areas. Interviewees also point out that
there can be tribally run MPAs with non-tribal support and/or funding.

177

One way to help ensure that Tribal interests are incorporated in PAs is to
encourage and support the inclusion of Tribal PAs in local, state and federal PA
systems. Worldwide, there is an emerging interest in the application of
indigenous cultural and traditional area PAs and MPAs. Tribes in Washington
State have traditionally declared areas as protected (and they continue to employ
protections on reservation and within their Tribal U&As) through establishing
seasonal spawning protections or other types of restrictions on certain types of
activities within certain areas. Most of the interviewees had positive responses
when addressing the topic of the establishment of Tribal PAs and/or Tribal MPAs.
Although at this point there are no Tribal MPAs in the federal system,
interviewees stress the importance of Tribes asserting their authority to implement
their own MPAs. The difficulties for Tribal governments in asserting authority
was another topic of discussion of interviewees. This difficulty is compounded
by the myriad of other issues that Tribal governments are also dealing with on a
daily basis. However, interviewees point out that there is recognition by Tribes
that there can potentially be benefits from MPAs for Tribes, and they are actively
considering the designs of Tribal MPAs or other types of MPAs or protections for
the marine environment and its resources that would be most beneficial for
Tribes.
The federal government’s relationship with Tribes in Washington State is in
part defined by treaty obligations to protect treaty-reserved rights to Tribal
resources. As an extension, federal agencies are obligated to fulfill federal
obligations to Tribes. Additionally, state agencies and U.S. citizens have in some
178

cases been held to these obligations by the federal judicial system. It has up to
this point in time been difficult for Tribes to get past the jurisdictional issue of
Tribal MPAs extending only to their own Tribal members, but by same accord
non-tribal MPAs do not have to be observed by Tribes. And while it is true that
the State of Washington does not have to support Tribally designated PAs, MPAs
or other Tribal protections for the environment, they could be mandated to do so
by federal courts or agencies.
Interviewees point out that Tribes do have the authority to implement Tribal
PAs under the National MPA Act program. The tribal ability to declare MPAs is
in embedded within the federal MPA framework that was enacted through
Executive Order 13178. Additionally, interviewees point out that Tribes could
potentially use some more general statutes to help to provide for some protections
of the environment and of Tribal resources.
A basis for Tribal MPAs (and other rights of Indigenous peoples) that goes
beyond federal acquiescence to its own treaties with Tribes is that of inherent
rights and human rights. Whether or not Tribes or other Indigenous peoples are
recognized as sovereign entities with by the U.S., or whether or not they have
treaties with the U.S. government, they still have inherent rights as Indigenous
peoples and as human beings. Several interviewees point to the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (under the auspices
of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Commissions and the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities) as an

179

internationally supported recognition that Indigenous Peoples have inherent rights
(including the right to create Indigenous PAs).
Another subject topic brought up for discussion by the interviewees was the
potential methods that Tribes could use to assert their authority and to create
Tribal MPAs. Interviewees point out that there are varieties of methods for
assertion as well as a variety of MPAs (or other protection types for the marine
environment and its resources) which Tribes could utilize to protect their interests.
Interviewees point out that MPAs do not have to be exclusively environmental in
nature. Within the federal framework for MPAs; MPAs can have fisheries-related
protections or culturally-related protections, or they can be designed for a
combination of area protection purposes.
Tribal ownership of reservation tidelands could also become the basis for
Tribal MPAs. Because many Tribal reservations in Washington State are on the
Washington coast or along the coast of the Salish Sea many Tribes have
ownership over tidelands as part of their Tribal reservation land bases.
Protections for these tidelands could be expanded and extended into protections
for the adjacent Tribal U&As.
In conclusion, among the main takeaways from the research behind this
thesis is that conservation and Tribal goals overlap to a great extent, but the
present designs of MPAs often fail to adequately incorporate Tribal interests.
Marine Protected Areas in western Washington have affected and will continue to
affect the rights and interests of the Tribes. Because of this, Tribes have an

180

interest in both how current MPAs might be altered, as well as how future MPAs
and other protections for the marine environment and its resources could be better
designed, established and implemented so that marine protections can achieve
conservation goals, recognize Tribal rights and interests, and strengthen Tribal
powers and perspectives in the process.

181

SOURCES
Adams, William Mark. (2004). Against Extinction: the Story of Conservation.
Earthscan
Bernholz, Charles D. and Robert J. Weiner Jr. (2008). The Palmer and Stevens
“Usual and Accustomed Places” treaties in the opinions of the courts.
Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 778–795. Accessed online at
www.sciencedirect.com
Bertzky, Bastian, C. Corrigan, J. Kemsey, S. Kenney, C. Ravilious, C. Besançon,
and N. Burgess. (2012) Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking progress towards
global targets for protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Belsky, Martin H. (1996). "Indian Fishing Rights: A Lost Opportunity for
Ecosystem Management." J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 12 (1996): 45.
Birkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management; Taylor and Francis: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1999.
Bowhay, Craig. Personal interview on 8/21/13.
Brancato, M.S., C.E. Bowlby, J. Hyland, S.S. Intelmann, and K. Brenkman.
(2007). Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary, Washington. Cruise Report: NOAA Ship McArthur II
Cruise AR06-06/07. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-07-03. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 48 pp.
Brown, Jovana J. and Brian Footen. (2010). Pacific Northwest Salmon Habitat:
The Culvert Case and the Power of Treaties. Enduring Legacies Native Cases.
found at: http://www.evergreen.edu/tribal/cases/ Copyright held by The
Evergreen State College.
Charles, A., and L. Wilson. (2009). Human dimensions of Marine Protected
Areas. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 6–15.
Cooke, Vincent and George Galasso. (2004). “Challenges and Opportunities for
the Makah Tribe and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.” Paper
submitted for The Coastal Society 2004 Conference, May 23-24, 2004.
Cronin, A and David M. Ostergren. (2007). Tribal Watershed Management:
Culture, Science, Captivity, and Collaboration. Source: American Indian
Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), pp. 87-109Published by: University of
Nebraska Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138896 Accessed:
08/05/2013 18:22

182

Fraser, C. (2009). Rewilding the world: Dispatches from the conservation
revolution. Macmillan.
Gates, John. Personal interview on 3/20/13.
Geiger, Kristina, David Gershman, Eric Roberts, and Maggie Wenger. (2012).
"An Assessment of Institutional Relationships at the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary."
Gilbertson, Joe. Personal interview on 8/17/13.
Grussing, Valerie. Personal interview responses received on 10/17/13.
Gupta, Anil K. (1999). Fishing in the ‘Troubled’ Waters: Recognizing,
Respecting, and Rewarding Local Ecological Knowledge, Innovations and
Practices Concerning Aquatic Biological Diversity. 59 (1999): 145.
Gupta, A.K. (1991). Why does poverty persist in regions of high biodiversity? : A
case for indigenous property right system, Paper invited for the International
conference on Property Rights and Genetic Resources sponsored by International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and African Centre for Technological Studies (ACTS) at
Kenya, June 10-16, 1991, IIMA W.P.938
Hill R., C. Grant, M. George, C.J. Robinson, S. Jackson, N. Abel. (2012).
Typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management:
Implications for knowledge integration and socialecological system sustainability.
Ecol Soc 17(1):23
Hoekstra, Gordon (2014). Vancouver Island First Nation declares ‘Tribal park’
to protect land; Latest park meant to thwart potential Imperial Metals mining
project near Tofino. Vancouver Sun article. April 13, 2014. Accessed at:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+Island+First+Nation+declares+tribal+
park+protect+land/9735029/story.html#ixzz2yyQYaVSH
Huppert, Daniel D. (2005). An Overview of Fishing Rights. School of Marine
Affairs, University of Washington. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (2005)
15:201–215. Accepted 13 October 2005
Jones, Rob. Personal interview and follow-up answers in August, 2013.
Keller, Robert H., and Michael Francis Turek. (1999). American Indians &
national parks. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon
Kellermann, Josh (2007) “The Dynamic Relationship of Indigenous Peoples and
Protected Areas: Mutually Reinforcing or Mutually Destructive? Found in: 2007
Western Environmental Law Update. University of Oregon School of Law.
Accessed 4/17/14 at: http://www.pielc.org/WELU/WELU2007.pdf
Krueger, Katie. Personal interview responses received on 10/23/13.
183

LaCorte, Rachel. (2006). “Quileute’s block beach access in push for more tribal
Land” The Associated Press. Pdf found at:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20061124&slug=disp
ute24m
Mander, J., & V. Tauli-Corpuz. (2006). Paradigm wars: Indigenous peoples’
resistance to globalization. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
McCarty, Micah. Personal interview on 10/3/13.
MPA Federal Advisory Committee (MPA FAC). (2011). Recommendations for
Integrated Management Using a Cultural Landscape Approach in the National
MPA System MPA FAC White Paper 2011 found at:
http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpafac_rec_cultural_l
andscape_12_11.pdf
Murphy, Amanda. (2011). “A Collaborative Approach to Intergovernmental
Coordination: A Case Study of the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy
Council.” Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of Master of Marine Affairs,
University of Washington.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). (2010). Co-Management and
capacity. Accessed at: http://blogs.nwifc.org/psp/files/2010/04/co-managementand-capacity.doc)
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). (2011). Treaty Rights at Risk:
Ongoing Habitat Loss, the Decline of the Salmon Resource, and
Recommendations for Change. A REPORT FROM THE TREATY INDIAN
TRIBES IN WESTERN WASHINGTON July 14, 2011. Accessed at:
www.nwifc.org.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). (2003). Tribal Policy
Statement on Marine Protected Areas, Marine Reserves, Marine Sanctuaries, and
Fishery Conservation Zones.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). (2012). 2012 State of Our
Watersheds Report. Accessed at: www.nwifc.org.
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). (2011). Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan and Environmental
Assessment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office
of National Marine Sanctuaries. Silver Spring, MD.
Olympic National Park (ONP). (2006) Draft General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Federal Register Volume 71, Issue 135
(July 14, 2006). Retrieved on 4-17-14 at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR2006-07-14/06-6224/content-detail.html

184

Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). (2008). Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington
Groundfish Fishery as Amended Through Amendment 19, Including Amendment
15. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Papiez, Chelsie R. (2009). Climate Change Implications for Quileute and Hoh
Tribes of Washington: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing Climatic
Disruptions to Coastal Indigenous Communities. Master of Environmental
Studies (MES) Thesis, The Evergreen State College. Accessed at:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/papiez.html
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, & A. Wright. (2009). Nature’s Matrix: Linking
Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. London and New York:
Rutledge. ISN: 9781844077823.
Ralston, Larry. (2008). “Is Your Tribal Land Secure” Enduring Legacies Native
Cases. found at: http://www.evergreen.edu/tribal/cases/ Copyright held by The
Evergreen State College.
Reynolds, Betsy. (1997). Building bridges: A resource guide for tribal/county
intergovernmental cooperation. Seattle, WA, Northwest Renewable Resources
Center.
Richardson, E. R. (1968). Olympic National Park: Twenty Years of Controversy.
Forest & Conservation History, 12(1), 6-15.
Roloff, C. E. (2010). The Mount Olympus National Monument. Washington
Historical Quarterly, 25(3), 214-228.
Ruppert, David E. (2001). "New Tribe/Park Partnerships-The Use of Ethnobotany
in the Restoration of Indigenous Landscapes." CRM-WASHINGTON- 24, no. 5
(2001): 45-48.
Russo, K. & S. Zubalik. (1989). The values project northwest: The Lummi Tribe
and the Department of Natural Resources. Bellingham: Kluckhohn Center
Publications.
Russo, K. (2011). “skwadi’lic, Board Feet, and the Cedar Tree”. Enduring
Legacies Native Cases. found at: http://www.evergreen.edu/tribal/cases/
Copyright held by The Evergreen State College.
Schumacker, Joe. Personal interview on 7/11/13.
Schumacker, E. (2013). “World Indigenous Network (WIN) Conference
Highlights International Indigenous Protected Area.” Article from: MPA
Connections. Special Issue on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples and MPAs July
185

2013. Found at: http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/connections/connections_jul13.pdf
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and
Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
Spence, M.D. (1999). Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the
Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN:
9780195142433.
Stevens, Stanley. Conservation through cultural survival: Indigenous peoples and
protected areas. Island Press, 1997.
Turner, James Morton. (2012). The Promise of Wilderness: American
Environmental Politics Since 1964. University of Washington Press
Uravitch, Joe. Personal interview on 7/25/13.
Washington Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs. (1989). Centennial Accord
between the Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in Washington State and the
State of Washington. Downloaded from: http://goia.wa.gov/Government-toGovernment/Data/CentennialAccord.htm
Washington Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs. (1999). New Millennium
Agreement. Downloaded from: http://www.goia.wa.gov/Government-to
Government/millenniumAgreement.html
Whitesell, E., F. Wilshusen Schroeder, and Preston Hardison. (2007). "Protecting
Washington's Marine Environments: Tribal Perspectives." SeaDoc Society
Williams, Daryl. Personal interview on 9/20/13.
Williams, Terry, and Preston Hardison. (2013). "Culture, law, risk and
governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change
adaptation." Climatic Change 120, no. 3 (2013): 531-544.
Wray, Jacilee. (Ed.). (2013). Native Peoples of the Olympic Peninsula: Who We
Are. University of Oklahoma Press.
Wray, Jacilee. Olympic National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment.
(1997). Prepared for Olympic National Park. Pdf found at:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/olym/wray.pdf

Legislation cited
111th Congress: 1st session. (2009). H. R. 1061: “To transfer certain land to the
United States to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place land into trust
for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.” House of Representatives
(2009).
186

112th Congress: (2010-2012). H.R.1167: “An Act to provide the Quileute Tribe
Tsunami and Flood Protection and for other purposes” (Bill Text 112th Congress
(2011-2012) H.R.1162.RDS) Bill Summary and Status: All Congressional
Actions 112th Congress (2010-2012) H.R.1167 Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.1162: “To provide the Quileute Indian Tribe
Tsunami and Flood Protection, and for other purposes.” Became Public Law No:
112-97
112th Congress (2010-2012) S.636. Bill Summary and Status: All Congressional
Actions Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543, 5 L. Ed. 681, 1823 U.S. L.E.X.I.S.
293 (1823).
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) [Public
Law 94–265, Approved Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 331]
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974). (Boldt
Decision)
United States v. State of Washington, 506 F. Supp. 187 (W.D. Wash. 1980).
(Orrick Decision)
United States v. State of Washington, NO CV 9213RSM, 2007 WL 2437166
(W.D. Wash. Aug. 22, 2007) (Martinez Decision) (Culvert Case)
United States v. State of Washington (2013) Case no. CV 70-9213, Subproceeding
01-1 (Culverts) (Martinez Decision) Permanent Injunction regarding culvert
correction.

187

INDEX
Interview Questions
What does Tribal management/guardianship of the environment look like/entail?
What about traditionally? Could you share any examples of how tribal
knowledge of traditional practices and history within an area has contributed (or
could contribute) to the protection or guardianship of traditional lands, territories,
and resources?
How has the creation of Protected Areas in western Washington affected the
rights and interests of the Tribes and Tribal members? More specifically, how has
the OCNMS (or other marine protected areas (MPAs)) affected the rights and
interests of the Tribes and Tribal members?
Do past and current policy initiatives for marine conservation harmonize with
legal rights, needs and desires of the tribes? Why? Why not?
Have treaty rights or tribal jurisdiction been a source of conflict with non-tribal
citizens or agencies in regards to MPAs? If so, in what way?
How could protected areas be improved so that they lessen conflict, and better
incorporate the interests of Tribes and Tribal members?
Can the treaties’ guarantees of tribal access to natural resources be applied to
environmental concerns, and mandate the conservation or restoration of
traditional resources in marine environments?
How can MPAs be better designed, established and implemented in a way that
they both recognize Tribal rights and interests and achieve environmental
conservation goals?
How can treaty rights and tribal jurisdiction be better communicated to resource
managers, protected area managers, and the general public? Whose responsibility
is it?
How can tribal governments be better engaged as co-managers of natural
resources (marine and terrestrial)? Could the tribal role be expanded or improved?
Could you foresee tribes holding direct policy authority in the design and
implementation of protected areas, based on their inherent tribal sovereignty?
How would you feel about the creation of Tribal Protected Areas that could better
protect traditional territories and resources?

188

Media

Bush_OMESthesis2014.pdf