-
extracted text
-
Native/ non-Native Watershed Management in an Era of Climate Change:
Freshwater Storage in the Snohomish Basin
by
Nahal Ghoghaie
A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
September 2011
2011 by Nahal Ghoghaie. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Nahal Ghoghaie
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
__________________________________________
Zoltan Grossman, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Native/ non-Native Watershed Management in an Era of Climate Change:
Freshwater Storage in the Snohomish Basin
Nahal Ghoghaie
Climate change impacts are mounting in the Pacific Northwest, including
reduced snowmelt flow quantities and altered runoff timing. Rapidly shifting
natural cycles strain Washington river basin resources and communities,
causing water managers to seek previously overlooked solutions to resource
challenges. An increasingly utilized method for climate change adaptation builds
on collaborative watershed management efforts implemented across the state
since the 1980s. These management structures pool input from diverse
interests, with the shared objective of salmon recovery. Native American tribes
have contributed to, and led, a number of Washington watershed collaborations.
Tribal input is increasingly vital in an era of climate change, as tribal knowledge
contributes place-based and time-tested understandings of natural cycles that
significantly enhance problem-solving capability. While there is a relative
abundance of work addressing collaborative watershed management, there have
been few attempts to explore the central role of tribes. Using case study
methodology, this study addresses the gap in the research by investigating three
cases of Native/ non-Native watershed collaboration: the Nisqually watershed in
South Puget Sound, the Snohomish watershed in mid-Puget Sound, and the
Skagit watershed in the upper Puget Sound. Relevant criteria are assessed to
determine factors that encourage or discourage prospects for successful
collaboration between Native and non-Native watershed residents. Derived
from the research are the following interrelated factors: levels of community and
agency involvement, shared and disparate values of watershed residents to
aquatic resources, legal standing of tribes, and tribal capacity to develop and
implement watershed programs. While each case experienced unique outcomes,
the Nisqually Tribe has led the most successful watershed project in the region.
Consideration of factors assessed in this study yields a proposal for a tribally-led
water storage project in the Snohomish Basin, along with further
recommendations for communities, agencies, and tribes to work toward
successful partnerships in collaborative watershed management.
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
Theory & Background
Methodology
vi
vii
1
Chapter 2. Climate Change & Freshwater Resources
Global Climate Change
Effects in the Pacific Northwest
Impacts to Water Resources
15
Chapter 3. Adapting to Protect Watersheds
Current State of Freshwater Resources
Beyond Dams
Water Management
23
Chapter 4. Engagement with Tribal Nations
TEK & Climate Change
TEK Challenges
Treaty & Non-Treaty Tribes
Historical, Spiritual, & Cultural Connections
Tribal Community
32
Chapter 5. Collaborative Watershed Management
Watershed Partnerships
Watershed Collaboration in Washington
Collaborative Management Success
Tribes & Collaboration
44
Chapter 6. Case Studies
Case Study Background
Nisqually Watershed
Nisqually Tribe
Collaborative Management in the Nisqually Basin: Nisqually Delta
Restoration
Skagit Watershed
Swinomish Tribe
Collaborative Management in the Skagit Basin: Swinomish Climate
Change Initiative
Snohomish Watershed
Tulalip Tribes
Collaborative Management in the Snohomish Basin: Tulalip Biogas
Partnership
55
iv
Case Studies Comparison
Chapter 7. Tulalip Water Storage Project
Tulalip Tribes History
Cooperative Management: Tulalip & Snohomish Watershed Stakeholders
Further Collaborations
Climate Change Impacts to the Snohomish Basin
Snohomish Basin Water Storage
Background
Tulalip Water Assessment Project
76
Chapter 8. Conclusion & Recommendations
94
Works Cited
98
v
List of Figures
Figure 1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels over time
15
Figure 2 Pacific Northwest regional map
17
Figure 3 The hydrologic cycle
19
Figure 4 Climate change impacts to watersheds
22
Figure 5 Water storage as an adaptation strategy to reduce climate
variability
25
Figure 6 Wetland filtration diagram
29
Figure 7 Levels of analysis in traditional knowledge and management
systems
36
Figure 8 Nisqually Watershed map in Puget Sound
56
Figure 9 Skagit Watershed map in Puget Sound
61
Figure 10 Snohomish Watershed map in Puget Sound
67
Figure 11 Snohomish River Basin tributaries map
76
Figure 12 Snohomish homes built on stilts for flood disaster adaptation
84
Figure 13 Priority surface storage map
89
Figure 14 Pilchuck River Basin map
90
vi
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support
of many individuals and organizations. Eternal thanks to Zoltan Grossman for
offering his glowing encouragement and many years of expertise in Native/ nonNative power sharing. Thank you also to Martha Henderson, Craig Partridge, and
Ralph Murphy – three very committed faculty members who nurtured my interest
in the cultural, political, and scientific aspects of water resource management. I owe
very special thanks to Terry Williams for being there from the beginning, advising
me and sharing his decades of experience in Washington Native resource
management issues. Dave Batker, Jennifer Harrison-Cox, and Rowan Schmidt
deserve special thanks for inviting me to be part of their team and for believing in
me. Kate Berry from the University of Nevada, Reno and Gregory Knapp from the
University of Texas, Austin offered me their time and invaluable insights to this field
of study. My mom, dad, and my sister, Hadis, provided me with love, warmth and
much needed confidence. My parents also helped me with substantial financial
support through my graduate career. Additionally, the loving support of Eric Sarai
enabled me to persevere in my most stressed moments. Furthermore, I would like
to thank Abby Hook for providing me with information from her research in the
Snohomish Basin, Kurt Nelson for guiding me on an enlightening tour of wetland
restoration projects on the Tulalip Reservation, and to Frieda Williams for kindly
assisting me with my Tulalip visits and correspondences. Also, immense thanks to
the Native tribes highlighted in this thesis, whose inspiring work led me to pursue
research in this area: the Tulalip Tribes, the Swinomish Tribe, and the Nisqually
Tribe.
Thanks to my friends and housemates in Olympia and beyond for making the
process more enjoyable, in particular Sara Haston, Graziamaria Grillo, Courtney Bell,
Sheila Shapouri, Miguel Hinojosa, Adam Beadel, Diane Grundy, Jordan Milliman,
Fared Shafinury, Dimitri Lebid, Benjamin Groves, Leslie Simonds, Luke Noble, Carlos
Gemora, Elizabeth Antonio, Kira Nelson, Marlo Winter, Justin Crawford, Alexis Wolf,
and Austen Walsworth.
I am endlessly grateful for Sophie and John Bilezikian who financially
supported me through the Sara Anne Bilezikian Fellowship, which they founded in
loving memory of their daughter. Sara’s legacy will remain with me in my
endeavors towards environmental justice.
vii
CHAPTER I. Introduction
In response to the growing concern over climate change, governments
around the world are seeking the best technologies and practices for sustainable
development (Mihelcic et al. 2007). In the quest for building sustainable
capacities, enhanced knowledge of ecosystem cycles and efficient resource use
are the primary goals. Integrating the, “… best and most appropriate knowledge,
methodologies, techniques, principles, and practices from developed and
developing worlds” can provide natural resource managers with unique insight
to the human relationship to the dynamic environment (Mihelcic et al. 2007).
Sustainability planners around the globe are turning to Indigenous
nations to enhance understandings of environmental change, as these groups’
long histories of practical innovation and application of knowledge are
increasingly recognized as useful tools for adaptive resource management
techniques. Fikret Berkes defines these knowledge systems, or Traditional
Ecological Knowledge (TEK), as “... a cumulative body of knowledge, practice,
and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through
generations through cultural transmission, about the relationship of living
beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment
(Berkes 2008). These specific systems of knowledge and cultural practice are
developed and accumulated over generations and are unique to that natural
region.
The Pacific Northwest is distinguished by its moist climate, yet with
increasing pressures from population growth, changes in snowpack, stream flow
variation, and inter-annual variation in the water budget, water scarcity has
1
increasingly become a concern in the region (Luce and Holden 2009). A rise in
the rate of drought occurrence places incremental stress on water distribution
infrastructure while causing detrimental impacts to typically moist Northwest
ecosystems (Luce and Holden 2009). Recent analyses indicate that glacial runoff
quantities are declining and timings are shifting to earlier in the year than mid20th century averages (Marr 2010). Such declines in water flow will worsen
with population growth and continuing climate change effects (Marr 2010).
Knowledge of these changes is critically significant to future water management
strategies.
The onslaught of climate change (and the rapidly deteriorating state of
the environment) has led academics and scientific researchers to pursue an indepth exploration of ecological knowledge shared by Indigenous peoples. More
experts are adopting the belief that TEK is essential to sustain future
communities (Berkes et al. 2000). Indigenous people around the world have
spent generations observing and understanding the land and local resources.
Based off these advanced understandings of local ecosystems, Indigenous
nations formed their laws and customs to fairly manage and allocate resources.
Their extensive history of co-inhabiting the land with the animals and plants has
provided them with a keen awareness of ecosystem functions.
While maintaining traditional lifestyles has been exceedingly difficult, as
industrial and urban landscapes have dominated development in the state of
Washington for the past 150 years, some members of Indigenous groups have
retained a connection to their traditions, and traditional interactions with the
land. Tribal elders, along with tribal experts on environmental change hold a
2
degree of knowledge that can rarely be matched by scientific data. Therefore,
many environmental authorities agree that it is crucial to incorporate this
information into adaptive resource management strategies (Berkes 2008).
Some natural resource policies around the world require the integration
of Indigenous and Western decision-making (Gagnon 2009). The sharing of
resource management powers is referred to as co-management, defined as “…
any one of a variety of institutional arrangements in which groups of resource
users – individuals, communities, or companies – share with government the
property rights, and thus the responsibility for managing a natural resource”
(Armitage et al. 2007). A widely referenced example of this type of management
structure comes from Washington State, regarding the government-tribal
collaborative agreement to share management responsibility of salmon
fisheries. Co-management regimes usually emerge in response to a crisis facing
a common pool resource (CPR) in the commons (Yandle 2006). The commons
“is a vast realm that lies outside of both the economic market and the
institutional state, and that all of us typically use without toll or price” (Rowe
2011). The atmosphere, oceans, watersheds, land, and forests are all considered
commons in traditional societies (Barlow 2009). Despite the tragic narrative on
the commons described by Garrett Hardin, equitable sharing of the commons is
emerging within co-management systems and outside of the market systems
that led to the rapid depletion of these resources (Hardin 1968; Barlow 2009).
Watershed disputes involve social, ecological and cultural issues and
have traditionally been settled using litigation. However, the Pacific Northwest
(and Washington State in particular) has gradually restructured its dispute
3
settlement process. “The collaborative conservation model has emerged as an
alternative to deadlocked negotiations and protracted court battles over natural
resource management decisions” (Cronin 2005). A focus for these collaborative
management groups in the Puget Sound is on watersheds, which are by no
means exempt from the scarcity crisis occurring around the globe. Native
Americans’ contribution to the success of these adaptive water management
regimes is not fully understood. Therefore, tribal input and leadership is
underutilized in watershed management negotiations. Yet, it is crucial to utilize
the role of Native American tribes, their TEK, commitment to Native lands, and
legal standing as sovereign nations to enhance the effectiveness of these
collaborative watershed-wide resource management strategies.
Theory & Background
A collection of theoretical concepts, derived from academic researchers
and Indigenous communities, helped guide the research presented in this paper.
Models of relationships between human beings and the waterways on which
they live have assisted public understandings of water management conflicts
and potential resolutions throughout the world. With the application of such
models and a close reading of historical accounts from settlers’ as well as
Indigenous peoples’ experiences, an examination not only guides public
understandings of the consequences of past and present water-human
relationships, it also reveals the persistence of Native tribes during and after
colonial settlement (Smith and Wobst 2005). Environmental issues regarding
natural resource management conflicts can be examined through a variety of
approaches. The theoretical lenses I have chosen to apply to the subjects of this
4
study include Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), collective action and
common pool resources, collaborative watershed planning, environmental
justice, participatory democracy, Indigenous sovereignty, and affinity politics.
Collaborative and participatory forms of water management are relatively
new governance structures in Washington. Prior to the growing appreciation
for community-based management, decision-making on water resources was left
to individuals who possessed water rights, regulated only by state and federal
agencies. The move away from this structure began to take place in 1908 with
the Winter’s Doctrine, which recognized prior use of water by tribes. A
significant shift in Washington State took place with the honoring of Native
American treaty rights to natural resources through the 1974 Boldt Decision
(Wilkinson 2000, p. 56). The Nisqually, and other treaty tribes of Washington,
have been initiating co-management agreements with the state of Washington
regarding fisheries, timber, and wildlife since 1989. With the experience gained
from working on collaborative salmon habitat recovery, tribes are in a uniquely
advantageous position as scientists begin urging collaborative resource
management structures in response to the threat of climate change.
The 1974 decision of Federal Judge George Boldt, which re-affirmed tribal
treaty-reserved rights to access to resources in Usual and Accustomed (U. & A.)
places, has increased in significance with the growing concern around climate
change. Climate change realities have encouraged a renewed awareness of a
concept central to many societies throughout history, “the Commons” (Barlow
2009). In numerous traditional societies around the world (both rural and
urban) community members had equal access to common resources and
5
contributed equally towards management decisions. Barlow explains that in
such societies, it was inconceivable to deny people their rights to common
resources such as air, land, and water (Barlow 2009). Such structures were
deeply ingrained in these communities, and permeated spiritual beliefs, social
behavior, and other aspects of their culture. Yet, in contemporary societies
where respect for common pool resources is not central to cultural or economic
structures, CPR management injustices are prolific.
From inadequate management structures to conflicts over access to the
resources, users of these resources are encountering growing problems as they
face rapid depletion and suffer from environmental degradation (Adams et al.
2002). As modern societies have become exponentially more complex over the
years, a CPR that once may have supported a community of fewer than a
thousand people is now expected to support millions. Groups that depend on
the resource have also diversified significantly, which has resulted in more
divergent perceptions of the appropriate use of said resource.
Water policy in the American West is inefficient, outdated, and moreover it
does not treat water as a CPR. In his publication Crossing the Next Meridian,
Charles F. Wilkinson explains that, “… developers have been allowed to tap into
any western stream without charge and extract as much water as desired, so
long as the water is put to beneficial use… Diverters of water under this system
obtain vested property rights that cannot be taken away unless the government
pays full compensation” (Wilkinson 1992, p. 21). This appropriation doctrine
was developed in the mid-1800s. Since the 1908 Supreme Court ruling of the
Winters Doctrine, which reserved a sufficient quantity of water rights to meet
6
the economic needs of Indian reservations, water right reforms have been
almost non-existent. One of the leading reasons behind this problem involves
the major players who have been controlling the economy of the West. Major
industries such as railroads, timber companies, agribusiness, and mining
companies were amongst the leading drivers of resource-management policies
(Wilkinson 1992, p. 22).
While these industries drove local economies, their resource management
practices primarily served their own interests and paid little to no regard to
others. A specific group of communities who have suffered from resource
injustice since the first European-Americans settled the West are Native
American nations. Native Americans have a long history of harsh competition
over resources with settlers and economic interests. In particular regions of the
country in the late 20th century, “tribes fighting for their treaty rights dealt with
local white farmers, ranchers, commercial fishers, or sportfishers as the main
obstacle to securing treaty guaranteed access to fish, game, and water”
(Grossman 2005). Even after treaties were signed between tribal nations and
the federal government in order to recognize tribal sovereignty and protection
of their distinctive identities, tribal members were regularly regarded as
obstacles to control of the land and the resources. Although some tribes had
their own territories and were considered by the federal government as
sovereign nations, they were often subject “geographies of exclusion.” This
concept describes the control of social spaces, including barriers to equal
resource allocation. It defined indigenous peoples as the “outsider” who did not
deserve equal treatment as the “insider” settler group, especially involving
7
access to natural resources (Grossman 2005).
In the 1980s, Washington natural resource managers and governments
were introduced to new ways of addressing declining natural resources that
upheld treaty negotiations. Phase II of the Boldt litigation, filed starting in 1977,
emphasized environmental protection and habitat restoration for salmon
fishing. The environmental stewardship described in Phase II suggests
collaborations between Native and non-Native stakeholders. Therefore, the
water laws and extractive behaviors that established the West were reaching a
point of obsolescence. Water management professionals and decision-makers
in the state are increasingly recognizing the merits of adopting the concept of
water as a commons and are allowing room for Indigenous involvement, and
Native tribes are often taking the lead role in these efforts (Grossman 2005).
Native communities have been affected by a variety of adverse conditions
including colonization, disease, industrialization, urbanization, as well as several
past climate shifts (Klosterman and Ballew 2006). They have thereby learned
to adapt to various climate and resource crises and have developed thorough
understandings of local natural system functions. Until recently, tribes were
excluded from natural resource decisions. During the last two decades the value
of locally developed TEK has been increasingly recognized as important in
effectively addressing resource management (Berkes 2008). Indigenous
peoples provide wisdom on how we may reverse the shortcomings of industrial
development and contemporary resource management (Menzies 2006). Yet,
incorporating TEK as a complementary component to resource management
decisions often leaves tribes in a discordant position, unless they have a seat at
8
the table and share the power of making decisions. Indigenous peoples’
opinions of their recent involvement in the watershed planning process vary;
while some believe in active participation in the dissemination of TEK, others
are reluctant cooperate with the same institutions that have spent the majority
of historical interactions with Natives ignoring their warnings of ecological
collapse (Inglis 1993). The former perspective participates in collaborative
management processes for a variety of reasons, which include close dependence
on the land and the integrity of the ecosystems that ensure their cultural
survival, an understanding that they share a common goal of sustainable
resource use with fellow watershed citizens, they believe resource bases surpass
political, social, and cultural boundaries, as well as the perk of distributing
capacities to make such arrangements cost-effective (Berkes et al. 2000).
According to CPR literature, there are a variety of ways to manage
resources. Collaborative management models are becoming more widely
utilized, as they are able to evolve and adapt with each application. While there
are still cases in which tribal members are unwilling to share TEK due to
experiences with territorial exclusion, commercial exploitation, cultural
appropriation, and the conversion of TEK into a tool of Western science
(Menzies 2006). There exist other situations where tribes are committed to
sharing the specialized data and insights on adaptive planning strategies to help
the greater community address natural resource problems (Bushnell 2006). In
some cases, collaborative water management methods attempt to incorporate
systems used by non-human species. For instance, the presence of beavers
provided important functions to the resiliency of the pre-colonial landscape.
9
While learning science from the beaver might seem odd to some, the concept of
bio-mimicry, or “learning from and then emulating natural forms, processes, and
ecosystems to create more sustainable and healthier human technologies and
designs,” is gaining credibility amongst researchers, planners, and
decisionmakers (Biomimicry Institute 2011). An understanding can be gained
from all communities of a landscape, and beaver water storage science is a
model that several successful stream restoration projects mimic (Pollock et al.
2004). Chapter three includes an in-depth exploration of the beaver’s role in
water storage.
Native American values are distinctive from the values clearly revealed
through the formerly described American West water rights doctrine.
Indigenous cultures tend to focus on extended family and not as much on the
individual or the nuclear family (Papiez 2009). Instead of giving unlimited
common pool resource use rights to an individual user, most Native American
communities have a history of encouraging group loyalty above individual
interests. Therefore, many tribal governments have well-established
cooperative resource management and group decision-making structures that
could offer lessons to other levels of government in shaping resource
management models. Communities and governments from Canada to South
America are learning lessons in commons management by incorporating local
knowledge from tribal members (Berkes 2008). Collaborative environmental
management platforms that resemble those of traditional communities are
emerging around specific watersheds, and thus are democratizing water and
riparian ecosystem management amongst previously disparate groups of
10
individuals and species (Warner 2007). As multi-stakeholder platforms
effectively address issues of resource conflict and efficiency they are,
“…increasingly recommended and applied to the management of common-pool
resources” (Warner 2007).
The Boldt Decision process served as a springboard for Washington
Indigenous Nations to assert their self-determination and in turn led them to
take on leadership roles in restoration and natural resource issues. The
Western, scientific form of management is not the only structure undergoing
adaptation and change in order to incorporate new information and technology.
Indigenous communities are dynamic and their styles of governance and
function have also evolved. In my experience working with Washington tribes, I
encountered numerous non-Native natural resources staff, which revealed that
Western knowledge has expanded the scope of Tribal Nations’ management
tools and their ability to adapt to changing environments. Employing nonNative specialists with Western skills is a means for tribes to adapt to
environmental and societal pressures while also helping to train Native staff to
acquire these skills. At the same time, tribal natural resource agencies are
unique by incorporating traditional forms of adaptive management to help
empower everyone on the land, not just themselves.
The dichotomy between Native and non-Native communities is becoming
less of an issue where the public realizes sustainability is a matter of being in a
place together (Johnson 2011). The definition of TEK often includes the
accumulated knowledge of many different communities, which have developed a
detailed understanding of the environment around them over the centuries
11
(Menzies 2006). Thus, the concern is no longer about tribes “taking power” away
from the State and putting it back into their own hands, because the power is
being shared and expressed in the form of “Affinity Politics.” The Canadian
sociologist Richard Day explains; “… it is necessary to find more ways to link
actually existing groups through a shared commitment to groundless solidarity
driven by infinite responsibility to the extent that this commitment drives
concrete action, to the extent that it brings about changes in daily practices,
obstacles based on traditional divisions can be overcome. This is, of course, an
endless process, but is essential to creating and maintaining the affinity-based
relationships that compose the coming communities” (Day 2005). Collaborative
resource management is one example of how humans and other beings can “cobelong” in heterogeneous networks that are infinitely interconnected (Day
2005).
Methodology
I use case study methodology by collecting data from a variety of sources
including original documents and artifacts used by scientists, engineers, and
tribal resource managers. Data is also drawn from interviews with project
managers and staff people of appropriate agencies, as well as direct observation
from site visits and Tribal/ agency meetings. The analyses of these data vary
depending on their contribution to this study of Native/ non-Native collaborative
watershed groups. Using findings from a review of case studies of co-management
water resource projects from the Puget Sound, I borrow a system of evaluation,
which allows me to determine the varying levels of success experienced by each
study group. I assess these factors to determine the overall benefits and barriers
12
to the collaborative management case studies and develop a case for whether or
not the benefits have outweighed the barriers or visa versa. Another set of data
is collected first-hand from observations and interviews regarding a project on
the Tulalip Tribes’ reservation. I conduct a comparative evaluation and analysis
of the three case study projects to understand the potential challenges and
benefits to these specific projects. Based off of my findings, I develop best
practices guidelines and recommendations for a future water storage project
outside the Tulalip Reservation boundaries.
This thesis is comprised of eight chapters that are organized into
three sections distinguished by geographic scale. Section I is a thorough
literature review of work relating to the large-scale projected effects of climate
change on water resources, and broad adaptive measures being developed in
response. Section II is a continuation of the literature, which narrows in on
watershed-based collaboration in Washington State and Indigenous tribes’ roles
in collaborative watershed management. Section II concludes with an
assessment and comparative analysis of varying levels of tribal participation in
three Washington collaborative watershed management case studies. Section III
focuses specifically on the Tulalip Tribes’ history and relationships to other
Snohomish River Basin communities. Finally, using discourse from the fields of
collaborative watershed planning, environmental justice, participatory
democracy, indigenous sovereignty, and affinity politics, this study concludes by
exploring the feasibility of a water storage project led by the Tulalip Tribes, and
implemented as a watershed-wide collaborative project in the Snohomish Basin.
This study aims to contribute to the field of natural resource management
13
addressing adaptation issues connected to climate change. An overview and
analysis of the measures necessary to implement a successful collaborative
resource management project is intended to aid resource specialists, policymakers, and community members in making sound decisions on adapting to an
increasingly unpredictable freshwater supply.
14
CHAPTER 2. Climate Change & Freshwater Resources
Global Climate Change
Climate change is significantly impacting ecosystems, economies, and
cultures around the world. Anthropogenic activities have caused concentrations
of various heat trapping, or greenhouse, gases (GHGs) to increase at a more
rapid rate than scientific records show from Earth’s past. The three dominant
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2),
are reaching extreme highs that have not existed in at least the past 650,000
years – shown in figure 1 (IPCC 2007 WG1 Ch.6). This trend is causing radiative
forces to increase, and is warming temperatures and the climate at an alarming
rate.
Figure 1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels over time
The United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
recognized the necessity to provide global decisionmakers with a scientifically
15
sound outlook of the changes occurring to the world’s climate. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 to
address this need, with output objectives such as reviewing the social and
economic impacts of climate change, possible adaptation and mitigation
strategies, and assessing all related information to understand human causes of
climate change and potential risks to the health of society (IPCC 2011). The
significance of IPCC’s findings were indisputably crucial to future decision
making, which led to the 1994 creation of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, an international treaty to reduce human contributions to
climate change. IPCC’s assessment reports have since guided scientists and
decision-makers worldwide on scientific data, methodologies, and perspectives
on various related topics of interest.
On a global scale, climate change is threatening human health, agriculture
and food supply, forests, ecosystems and biodiversity, coastal zones, water
resources, energy production and use, public lands, and recreation (Samenow
2011). Scientific evidence reveals the accelerating rate at which climate
disasters are occurring and if we do not plan to adapt, our natural resources and
our societies are likely to face devastation. Changes are occurring more rapidly
than trends from past eras have shown, and scientists are beginning to share
insights regarding even more abrupt changes that will result in higher human
and ecosystem casualties. The IPCC projects average temperature increases to
be between 2° and 5°C over the next century, which will increase intensity of
storms, hurricanes, floods, droughts and various other troubling events (IPCC
2007).
16
Sea-level rise already is and will continue to be one of the most notable
effects of climate change. Ocean levels are expected to rise anywhere from 1 to 6
feet along coastal regions. Water scarcity is also affecting regions around the
world, including places that are traditionally considered water abundant. In
conjunction with increasing demand for freshwater resources due to population
growth, climate change is placing pressures on water systems. Changes in
precipitation over the seasons will affect water availability while decreasing
aquifer and reservoir recharge rates. Snowcover, glaciers, and permafrost are
thawing and decreasing which is leading to earlier spring peak flows in river
basins, and in some cases leads to major flooding (IPCC 2007). Stream dynamic
disruptions are causing vegetation changes, reduced infiltration, and increased
erosion of streambeds. Sediment loads being transported downstream scour
streams and diminish already vulnerable aquatic habitats.
Figure 2 Pacific Northwest regional map
17
Effects in the Pacific Northwest
Melting glaciers and related impacts on fish populations are major
concerns in the Pacific Northwest region, where economies, cultures, and
ecosystems are heavily dependent on these aquatic species (CIG 2008). The
Pacific Northwest is already experiencing these effects, along with many others.
In an article written for the Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous
Nations report, “Impacts on Indigenous Peoples”, Terry Williams and Preston
Hardison list the impacts observed and studied by the team of scientists at the
Tulalip Tribes’ headquarters in Marysville, Washington. One of the most
substantial impacts thus far is ecohydrologic alterations and the resulting
reduced infiltration of sediments and pollutants. This infiltration is destroying
streamside vegetation and near-shore transitional salmon habitats.
Temperature alterations, which are leading to reduced base flows, increased
stream temperatures, and eventually to dried streams, are another cause of
concern amongst tribes in the Pacific Northwest. Aquatic invertebrate numbers
are dropping steadily, while salmon populations are enduring higher rates of
disease. Williams and Hardison connect higher temperatures to increased rates
of disease, pests, and invasive species infestations, which are already attacking
forest health and may soon begin to impact human health. Other issues
described in this report include invasive species, species range shifts, sea-level
rise, island erosion, and ocean acidification (Williams and Hardison 2006).
The 2006 Department of Ecology report, “Impacts of Climate Change on
Washington’s Economy: A Preliminary Assessment of Risks and Opportunities,”
provides a scientific assessment of climate change evidence in the region:
18
Glaciers: Up to 75 percent of North Cascade glaciers are at risk of
disappearance.
Snowpack: North Cascades snowpack has declined at least 73 percent.
Peak flows: Stream flows in the Columbia basin and most watersheds in
the state are reaching their peaks much earlier in the year.
Wildfires: State wildfires have increased from about 6 per year to almost
20 per day.
Rising sea levels: Puget Sound shoreline is expected to experience 1 to 5
inches of sea level-rise per decade (Brodie 2006).
Figure 3 The hydrologic cycle
Impacts to Water Resources
Water quantity issues are amongst the most troubling climate changerelated concerns at a global, national, and regional scale. Although precipitation
19
rates are expected to increase, this trend does not translate into more water
availability for human beings and the rest of nature. Higher amounts of
precipitation are expected to fall in the form of large storms, which will be too
rapid for soils to absorb, thus leading to increased flooding and faster runoff into
marine waters. Models developed by the Tulalip Tribes and Battelle Pacific
Northwest show that one-third of the freshwater that was recharging
groundwater storage is now being lost to the ocean (Batker 2010, p. 50). Loss of
freshwater supply is likely to increase conflicts among competing water users.
Municipal water supplies, instream flows for salmon, agricultural irrigation,
hydropower, navigation, and recreation will all endure the effects of water stress
in the region (CIG 2008).
Precipitation that traditionally fell as snow accumulated in the mountains
is now quickly releasing as large volumes of meltwater, and is significantly
contributing to the water storage loss. Over extended periods of time, such
changes can become permanent, which means lost aquifer storage capacity and
collapse of various natural water storage structures (Williams and Hardison
2006). Quality and quantity of freshwater will also experience intense
reductions due to salt-water intrusion into freshwater supplies from rising sea
levels and increased flooding (IPCC 2007). Snowpack, stream flow, and sea level
rise impacts in the Pacific Northwest are amongst the highest observed in the
nation (Mote et al. 2008, as cited in Marr 2010). In another study across North
America, the largest decreases of snowmelt flows from April to July were
observed in Pacific Northwest basins (Stewart et al. 2005, as cited in Marr
2010).
20
Profound impacts to Washington water resources due to climate change
are abundant. Tribal natural resource managers emphasize that many of these
problems would continue to exist, even if climate change never happened.
Regardless, tribal and state water managers are facing increasing challenges as
development trends continue to affect rivers, streams, lakes, and groundwater
basins. Climate change is intensifying these problems, which will make it
increasingly difficult to meet the needs of people, the environment, and related
species. It is thus important for water resource managers to understand
watershed characteristics and effects from changing water resource regimes.
Each watershed should be assessed from several perspectives in order to
understand how hydrologic cycle variability will influence natural and social
systems connected to that watershed. This is why each basin has been
designated with a Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) code to streamline
watershed activities and allow for shared planning strategies across watersheds
in Washington (CIG 2008). Water managers may therefore understand the full
scope of impacts to Washington’s hydrology in order to prepare for
implementing adaptive strategies. It is important to enact such strategies
immediately to ensure the improvement of water quality and supplies,
protection of ecosystems, and enhancement of flood management. These
measures will thus assist society in adapting to and in some cases, averting
climate change impacts to water resources.
21
Figure 4 Climate change impacts to watersheds
22
Chapter 3. Adapting to Protect Watersheds
Water covered the Earth in the beginning. Beaver lived in this
water. They dived and brought up the mud. The Great Spirit
Manitou created the dry land from this mud.
Creation myth of the Amikonas
(“People of the Beaver”)
Never had the rains been so torrential in the forests of the lush
Cascade Range. The plants, foliage, ferns, moss, and lichen became
inconceivably vibrant. The roads in the upper portion of the
mountains were deserted and the trails below were treacherous
with mudslides and were virtually impassable. The people of the
villages and town sat grumbling in their homes with their hearths
ablaze waiting for the long, dark winter to pass and become the
unimaginable perfection of summer. It was also a hard time for the
animals of the region. Many of the small ones were unable to stave
off the rains from destroying their intermittent shelters. There
were only a few creatures accustomed with dealing with these
unusually harsh conditions. Amongst such creatures was the
steadfast and resilient beaver of the marsh, pond, and river.
Lessons from a River Beaver, Eric Sarai, 2011
Repeated encounters with uncertain water dynamics led beaver’s
evolution to consist of a compromise of life on land and life in the
water. Today, beaver is a superb semi-aquatic animal, living in
wetland lodges that are built to adjust to varying water levels.
Throughout the ages, naturalists and engineers have considered the
beaver’s structures as remarkable examples of adaptation and they
strive for beaver’s evolved understanding.
Dietland Muller-Schwarze and Lixing Sun, 2003
Historical data suggests that beavers’ microdams assisted in water flow
through hydrologic systems in the precolonial era, hydrating the systems with
ponds and wetlands, and allowing surface water to recharge aquifers. The
positive contributions of beaver dams were lost as non-Native settlements and
industrial agriculture spread throughout the region and wiped out beaver
habitat. According to these reports, “the landscape began to dry out in many
places during this same period” (Buckley 2010). Beavers were almost
23
completely eradicated from the Western U.S. by the early 1800s, as their fur had
become a colonial trade item in high demand. Recently, the beaver has become
more important for its role in wetland restoration and other water storage
projects. Watershed enhancement projects have become a priority for
communities concerned about changing water dynamics brought about by
climate change. While some wetland managers might look down on the beaver’s
wetland practices, as their ponds have often flooded existing wetlands and
associated restoration projects, others are beginning to realize that the untiring
beaver (along with other knowledgeable members of watershed communities)
can be an important ally in rehydrating the landscape. Beavers are providing a
model for adaptive management techniques for scientists, natural resource
managers, and concerned citizens to prepare for water scarcity and interannual
variation of stream flow. This relationship between beavers, wetlands, and
human beings serves as an example of how learning from nature and
collaborating with one another can serve as a successful approach to adaptive
watershed management.
Current State of Freshwater Resources
Although projected changes in the 21st century are not completely clear,
IPCC scientists have assessed several possible future scenarios. Based on 20
models that measure GHG levels, projections show near 2 C increase in global
temperatures by mid-century. We are beyond the tipping point, and have no
choice but to confront the challenges that are already appearing as a result of
climate change (IPCC 2011). As we are better able to understand these
challenges, scientists and decision makers are beginning to agree that water will
24
be the primary indicator of climate change stress on societies. Climate has not
been the only impact on the state of water systems over the past several
decades. Non-climatic influences have also posed significant damage in the form
of water pollution, river damming, drainage of wetlands, and irrigation that has
greatly lowered the groundwater table (IPCC 2007). It is almost certain that
climate change will increase rainfall variability, which will cause additional
stress to agriculture and to the general population. Water security and
agricultural productivity are already in vulnerable states in many regions of the
world, and vulnerability will increase as the climate becomes less predictable.
The ability to make informed decisions about protection and allocation of this
increasingly scarce resource requires an understanding of latest adaptation
planning measures.
Figure 5 Water Storage as an adaptation strategy to reduce climate variability
25
Beyond Dams
In the past century, it was common for water managers to address water
uncertainty by constructing large dams, which would often double as sources for
hydroelectric power. These large structures have assisted in water resource
predictability, yet they have also been major sources of habitat alteration and
health detriments to fish and other aquatic species. Dams are barriers to the
migration and movement patterns of salmon and steelhead. They alter habitat
by creating stagnant reservoirs and increasing temperatures in rivers that
provide productive spawning habitat for salmon. Dams in the Columbia-Snake
River Basin permanently block over 55 percent of the historic salmon and
steelhead habitat (NPCC 2011). Dams also alter downstream ecology through
changes in sediment transport. Irrigation dams can contribute to salinity levels,
which impacts agriculture in the river basin.
Other forms of water storage include natural wetlands, groundwater
aquifers, and ponds (McCartney and Smakhtin 2010). Each individual storage
type, including large dams, may outperform the alternative option, depending on
the geography of the region and the purposes for which they are required.
Additionally, the allocation and accessibility of the resources retained in each
storage mechanism can vary. While some are only accessible by users with the
proper technology, others are open to all human and animal populations. Some
situations will allow for the viability of certain water storage options where
other options will prove ineffective or even detrimental.
Wetlands and beaver ponds have provided water to society and
ecosystems for millennia. Mimicking these natural storage options is relatively
26
inexpensive, as they do not require costly infrastructure, and are implementable
by individual farmers and local communities (McCartney and Smakhtin 2010).
Another common technique utilized by water managers is using groundwater
and aquifers as storage banks, which can capture high peak flows, provide cold
water release for fish, protect water quality, and offset lost snowpack storage
(Snow 2008). “Under the right circumstances, small-scale water storage
interventions can contribute to both food security and increased economic
prosperity at a local level” (McCartney and Smakhtin 2010). While subterranean
storage options also include such benefits as reduced evaporation and decreased
susceptibility to climate variability impacts, a few significant setbacks also exist.
Costly detailed geologic information is required in order to locate prime sites for
wells, and many aquifers in the U.S. are contaminated with toxic substances,
which require remediation before proving useful to water managers (Snow
2008). Regardless of the potential obstacles, groundwater recharge is becoming
a widely used avenue of water storage. It involves either pumping surface
waters directly into an aquifer, assisting the infiltration process by increasing
permeability of surfaces and substrate, or by diverting channels and streams in
directions that will flow back into a local aquifer (McCartney and Smakhtin
2010).
An understanding of physical and socioeconomic characteristics of the
region is required in order to best determine current and future needs of the
area, and thus to choose the most suitable type of storage (McCartney and
Smakhtin 2010). Research is currently under way to enhance water resource
managers’ understandings of what type of storage is most suitable (cost-
27
effective, socially apt, resilient, and reliable) to a site (McCartney and Smakhtin
2010). This is a difficult task, as all storage types have strengths and
weaknesses, and the scientific information needed for robust planning is often
insufficient. These barriers to reliable planning are leading managers to pursue
‘storage systems’ comprised of different storage types that complement one
another and have proven to be the most effective technique in several cases
(McCartney and Smakhtin 2010). While each type of storage option contributes
to water security at different levels, they all remain potentially vulnerable to
climate change impacts.
Water is the CPR that governments, scientists, and industries around the
globe agree warrants most attention. Freshwater provides a metric to gauge
societal stress felt from climate change. It is without a doubt that climate change
will increase the severity of rainfall, droughts, and floods, which will cause
significant health risks to communities. Wisely planned water storage can offset
climate change impacts by providing a buffer, which will enhance water security,
aquatic organism and habitat health, and agricultural productivity (McCartney
and Smakhtin 2010).
28
Figure 6 Wetland filtration diagram
Water Management
As with water storage methods, management regimes can vary greatly.
Management decisions can lie with farmers, private industry, government
agencies, and in some cases with the entire community surrounding the
resource. Regardless of the designated storage technique, water managers
increasingly agree that ubiquitous improvements are required to enhance the
hydrologic cycle within watersheds and between regions. As climate change
impacts are uncertain, planning must be adaptive and flexible to allow for
dynamic conditions within individual watershed regions. Management
strategies that are organized across regions result in better flood management,
29
reliability of water systems, and improved responses to uncertain supply and
use (Snow 2008).
Water storage and allocation regimes must be managed concurrently to
ensure efficient and effective plans to meet the needs of citizens, industries, and
the environment. It is important to utilize updated mitigation and adaptation
measures in the water sector. Mitigation includes actions taken to minimize
anthropogenic influences on climate change, such as regulating emissions and
enhancing carbon sinks. Adaptation, on the other hand, refers to adjusting
systems in order to either anticipate or prevent climatic effects that may be
harmful, such as constructing new reservoirs, or improving conservation
strategies (Parry et al. 2007, as cited in UNDP 2010).
Although mitigation efforts should continue, impacts to the environment
from human activities have already occurred, and scientists argue that even if all
emissions stopped, residual GHGs would remain in the atmosphere for decades
to come. Thus, governments and environmental management institutions
should place greater emphasis on adaptation projects. Innovative, waterefficient technologies, water recycling, and using more water efficient
agricultural techniques are adaptive means of protecting communities from
climate change-related water quantity impacts. Adaptation also involves
educating society to equip the public with an understanding of alterations they
can make to their lifestyles, not only to prepare for changing conditions, but also
to empower them in their lives and within their communities (UNDP 2010).
In order to create resilient societies that are able to survive future
changes to their environment, a range of actions must be utilized concurrently to
30
more effectively reduce projected climate change impacts. An assessment of the
needs, effectiveness, and suitability of the different water storage and
management options must be done for each system in order to properly
determine the most complementary system (McCartney and Smakhtin 2010).
While a specific water storage option might be advantageous for a certain place
and time, grouping water storage systems that mimic nature (by acting as an
interconnected organism) is likely a more effective strategy (McCartney and
Smakhtin 2010).
Yet developing and implementing holistic water resource regimes that
are planned and managed as complex units in an even more complex system will
require a fundamental shift in the way many managers implement water
management decisions. It will require taking a wider range of social, economic,
and environmental factors into consideration than in past planning programs
(McCartney and Smakhtin 2010). Planning that involves the coordination of
other regional efforts, increased community input, and enhanced government
interest and responsibility is required to ensure well-planned water storage that
can result in water security and increased public and ecosystem well-being.
Growing awareness of this issue is leading to an emergence of collaborative
management platforms in Washington State. Communities are implementing
such projects around the shared vision of protecting their local watersheds and
enhancing connected ecosystems’ functions. In many cases, Indigenous nations
are initiating and leading these collaborative watershed-planning projects.
31
Chapter 4. Engagement with Tribal Nations
Tribal members use their own methodologies of gathering and
interpreting information about the natural world. These methodologies have
emerged from deeply embedded values and time-tested understandings of
natural cycles and management strategies, which can help set priorities for
strategic planning and adaptation. Cultural stories and historical documents are
just as useful in Indigenous resource management as taking pH and other types
of data measurements. Using a scientific approach alone inadequately addresses
cultural and socio-economic factors that need to be taken into account for
adaptive water management planning. Scientific knowledge of ecosystems such
as wetlands, for example, can be limited and is sometimes inaccurate as far as
gauging the functions of the wetland for a human community. Cultural
assessments and uses of wetlands can greatly enhance an overall understanding
of wetland functional valuation, which will better protect and preserve the
wetland ecosystem. Yet, the distinct cultural differences between tribes and
majority communities might discourage the level of involvement and
communication required to effectively unite the two communities into one
refined system (Cronin 2005).
Tribal nations are tied to their homelands in a unique relationship that
includes their place-based identities and legal standing as sovereign entities.
They offer alternative perspectives on resource use that are based on locally
developed practices (Berkes et al. 2000). Their identities are deeply rooted to
their lands, which are believed to be the places from which they emerged, where
their ancestors still dwell, about which their stories and languages refer, and to
32
which they have continuing spiritual and collective obligations (Williams and
Hardison 2006).
Conservation scientists are increasingly seeking sources of TEK, which
are often shared through rituals and everyday cultural practices, as they believe
it can contribute to the fields of ecological conservation, ethnobotany,
anthropology, and to pharmaceutical research (Berkes et al. 2000). “The
analysis of many Traditional Ecological Knowledge systems shows that there is a
component of local observational knowledge of species and other environmental
phenomena, a component of practice in the way people carry out their resource
use activities, and further, a component of belief regarding how people fit into or
relate to ecosystems” (Berkes et al. 2000). TEK has proven to be more adaptive
than Western science, and is perceived by some Western scientists to be
complementary to scientific ecology. This trend has developed to the point that
some Indigenous peoples are objecting to the exploitation of their knowledge for
commercial profit, particularly by the pharmaceutical industry.
There has been a recent growing demand for insights gained from
exploring local practices of resource use, as steps towards the next phase of
natural resource and environmental planning are becoming more urgent with
climate change (Berkes et al. 2000). Traditional knowledge is also beneficial
because it can help highlight research priorities by contributing a local,
established community’s perspective (Riedlinger 2000, as cited in Bushnell
2006). Locally evolved ecosystem management practices are helping resource
managers and scientists in general to monitor, interpret, and respond to
increasing environmental changes.
33
TEK & Climate Change
Native tribes federally recognized treaty rights apply to their
reservations and “usual and accustomed” places for fishing and harvesting.
Therefore, moving away from these lands to adapt to large-scale environmental
decline would cut them off from their origins, from the places of their collective
memory, and from their right to self-determination. Their long-standing
connection to the places they inhabit provides an intimate understanding of past
climatic trends, which is why it is important to listen to their concerns regarding
climate change. (Papiez 2009). “From villages in Alaska suffering from unstable
ground associated with melting permafrost and ice, to Pacific Islanders
becoming the first climate change refugees due to sea-level rise inundating small
island nations; Native people are experiencing the first major effects of global
climate change” (Papiez 2009). Since first European-American contact and
through earlier climate shifts, tribal people’s persistent connection to their
traditional homelands has remained strong. Evidence reveals millennia of
successful occupation, and is proof of their enhanced adaptive capacities (Hunn
et al. 2005). This long-standing perspective is crucial to the success of adaptive
resource management. Such efforts tend to be multi-phased and span the course
of ten or even twenty years, and therefore require strongly committed
stakeholders (Cronin 2005). Inherited Tribal wisdom and place-connected
identity as a people reveals a strong personal stake in solving environmental
problems, which justifies broader utilization of these time-tested resource
management strategies.
34
TEK Challenges
Developing research and practices that apply TEK has proven successful
in many cases, yet it also involves some significant challenges. In a study on the
Alaskan Fisheries Monitoring Program, which was designed to involve TEK,
these specific challenges are explored in detail (Wheeler and Craver 2005). As
this program has clear structural guidelines, researchers were able to highlight
some of the issues involved in applying TEK to a government run program. They
present two key issues, which include: 1) methods for documenting TEK; and 2)
approaches for summarizing, analyzing and presenting TEK (Wheeler and
Craver 2005). Beyond those described in the Alaskan fisheries case, there are
myriad of challenges associated with incorporating TEK into resource
management and conservation.
Although tribal sovereignty has supported their environmental
management capacities, integration and communication barriers are prolific
amongst tribal and non-tribal managers. Tribal representatives have distinct
beliefs and knowledge bases from managers who use Western science. Some
tribes have their own natural resources departments with staff who are often
non-tribal (and who are trained in Western academic institutions) while others
might lack an environmental department altogether (Cronin 2005).
Perspectives on the significance of scientific fact also vary greatly, and can
present a greater rift between Native and non-Native decisionmakers. “The
challenge ahead is not just more science but rather how to understand the
interactions between science and ideology- facts and values- and most
importantly how to integrate them systematically in a more comprehensive
35
analysis” (Fischer 2000).
Beyond these challenging factors, the trust relationship between tribes
and the federal government has also been problematic. Over the past century
and a half, treaty tribes have allegedly been considered sovereign nations by the
federal government. Yet, they are often treated as second-class citizens, and in
the case of resource management, as mere “stakeholders,” equivalent to local
governments or non-governmental organizations. This designation does not do
tribes justice. To give an entire nation the consideration and level of input as
any other citizen is invalid and represents the injustices tribes have continued to
endure. This lack of recognition has resulted in the refusal of many tribes to
accept requests from scientists and managers exploring TEK and tribal
participation. Overall, lack of tribal resources, inability to communicate in
scientific jargon, and lack of existing trust relationships with managers and
other stakeholders contributes significantly to the exclusion of Native Americans
(Foster 2002).
Figure 7. Levels of analysis in traditional knowledge and management systems
36
Treaty & Non-Treaty Tribes
The 1974 Boldt Decision is the primary reason why Washington tribes
have a stronger bargaining position vis-à-vis the State than other tribes in the
rest of the United States. Federal Court Justice George Boldt, recognized the
treaty rights of tribes who were party to the 1855 Stevens Treaties and
mandated a co-management relationship between Tribes and the state of
Washington to manage fisheries. Although treaties were a result of coercion to
cede territories and acquiesce to a Western governance model, Tribal Nations
with treaty rights have reserved a priority status in natural resource issues. The
Boldt Decision served as a springboard for Tribal sovereignty, while it also
highlighted the need to learn to work together, as there existed a significant lack
of candor between the State and the tribes.
In the Pacific Northwest, each jurisdiction must manage natural
resources within its jurisdictional boundaries and to cooperatively create a
comprehensive plan to management with neighboring jurisdictions. “Although
treaties are legally binding, specific tenets of many treaties were routinely
broken following signature” (Cronin 2005). Through the Stevens Treaties, tribes
ceded title to thousands of acres of land to allow for the peaceful settlement of
the Washington Territory by non-Indian settlers and to provide for tribal
survival by guaranteeing tribal access to off-reservation resources. In return, the
tribes were to receive reservation homelands for their exclusive use and were
promised assistance from the United States. The treaties also retained the rights
of tribes to continue to hunt and gather resources at their “usual and
accustomed” places in order to ensure they could maintain their lifestyles and
37
economies. At the time of the treaties, the tribes had a strong reliance on their
surrounding natural resources. Fish was a staple food of the communities and
fishing constituted the principal economic activity (IPCC 2007).
The United States Constitution describes all treaties as considered the
supreme law of the land: “… and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” (U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2).
Although both treaty and non-treaty tribes’ involvement in management is
driving efforts to prevent and resolve resource conflicts, tribes with most power
and legal standing off-reservation are those with treaty rights.
Judge Boldt established a legal pronouncement that strengthened treaty
tribes’ rights in the 1974 case, United States v. Washington. This case followed a
turbulent period in the Northwest during the 1950s-1970s, popularly known as
the Fish Wars (Cronin 2005). The Boldt Decision mandated a co-management
relationship between the tribes and the state of Washington, which meant that
the tribes are entitled to half of salmon and steelhead annual harvest (Wilkinson
2000, p.52). While the Boldt Decision benefitted tribes by increasing active
management of ancestral lands and waters, it also spurred substantial public
opposition against the tribes. Tribal and non-tribal communities continue to
face numerous conflicts, yet the public is gradually recognizing treaty tribes’
rights to control their resources, both on tribal land and within ceded territories
that cross jurisdictional boundaries (Cronin 2005).
Non-treaty tribes in the Pacific Northwest region, on the other hand, have
38
not experienced the same degree of success in their tribal/ non-tribal
relationships as those tribes that signed the treaties. Although non-treaty tribes
desire cooperation with local and regional partners to draw upon their
Traditional Ecological Knowledge in efforts to protect and manage their
culturally significant resources, they have encountered immense difficulties in
securing opportunities (Cronin 2005). A major reason for this is their lack of
administrative capacity and trained personnel. This issue exists in both treaty
and non-treaty tribes, yet is more common amongst those without treaties.
Tribes must hire non-tribal contractors in order to pursue environmental
planning projects, which proves to be more costly than contracting with a tribal
member. Sending contractors to regular meetings is often unrealistic, as it
consumes significant time and monetary resources (Cronin 2005). Legal
standing, along with the financial capacity of the tribes, is key in establishing
their status as equally respected co-managers of the resource (Cronin 2005).
Treaty tribes with reservation lands within a given WRIA (Water Resource
Inventory Areas), which the Department of Ecology developed and manage as
administrative and planning boundaries for watershed-wide resources, must be
invited to join the "initiating governments” (DOE 1998). The initiating
governments choose a lead agency, establish a planning process and the
"planning unit," and choose whether to consider additional components other
than water quantity. "Affected tribes" are those tribes with federal fisheriesresource rights in the WRIA, tribes with federally reserved water-rights claims
on WRIA resources, and tribes that have federally approved water-quality
standards in the WRIA or are affected by the waters of the WRIA. These affected
39
tribes must be consulted by the initiating governments in setting up the
planning process (DOE 1998). The law requires that all tribal governments that
may have a "fiscal impact, a redeployment of resources or a change of existing
policy" be allowed a seat in the planning committee. Tribes with fisheriesresource rights must be involved in the watershed plan to address the
requirements analysis regarding federally reserved rights. Watershed plans are
prohibited from containing provisions that conflict with existing tribal treaty
rights (DOE 1998). Tribes without treaty rights must make a great effort to
achieve involved roles. Additionally, they must volunteer their time and effort to
attend meetings. A further analysis of the barriers non-treaty tribes regularly
confront is required, as they are prolific, yet are beyond the scope of this
research.
Historical, Spiritual & Cultural Connections
Regardless of treaty status, tribal peoples’ cultural connection to local
resources is sacred, thus they have struggled with notions of ownership since
early interactions with European-American settlers. While families often owned
resources, individual resource ownership is foreign to Indigenous ways and has
diminished quality of tribes’ cultural connection to these resources (Cronin
2005). The Western concept of resource ownership, which is intensified with
climate change stress, has often dissuaded tribes from collaborating with nontribal communities on resource management issues. The current situation does
not promote collaboration, as Native peoples, who have contributed very little to
climate changes, have few options, but to stay in place and attempt to survive
and sustain their cultures. Climate change has the potential of scattering the
40
resources on which Native cultures are based (Williams and Hardison 2006).
Indigenous peoples face the risk of seeing their homelands washed over by
waves of climate change, and see species guaranteed in the treaties shift out of
their territories. Herein lies the paradox of the relationship between Indian
tribes and non-tribal natural resource managers; on one hand, tribes should not
need to invest their resources in solving climate change problems and on the
other hand, tribes are ideally positioned to take leadership roles in resource
management projects. This is a principal reason why resource protection works
best with tribes in the lead; they have nowhere else to go, so they have a
substantial incentive to enforce the most effective, resilient, and reliable
resource management strategies.
As evidenced by rituals, stories and art, certain natural areas and
organisms have superior value to Indigenous people, especially from a spiritual
perspective (Batker et al. 2010, p. 52). Although non-Native people often feel
emotional and spiritual connections to landscapes, the spiritual values Native
peoples associate with these places and resources is a significant component to
their history. “Spiritual and religious values are very difficult to assess
monetarily, as there is no real way to measure their quantity or importance
across individuals” (Batker et al. 2010, p. 52). The Pacific Northwest is home to
many tribes who see water and marine species as spiritual and cultural relatives.
“While each tribe is distinct, one commonality is an intrinsic connection to land
that permeates their modern way of life” (Cronin 2005).
A report on ecosystem services found in Washington’s Snohomish Basin
provides a local example of tribal peoples’ connection to the resources that are
41
core to their economic and spiritual ways of existence. This case study explains
the central role of salmon harvests in the Tulalip Tribes’ way of life. Salmon
ceremonies have always been a part of Tribal culture and religion, yet the
disappearance of salmon and other fish species has prevented the Tulalip from
recently holding these ceremonies (Batker et al. 2010, p. 52). The Tribes have
since taken active roles participating in and leading collaborative projects with
the community on restoring salmon runs. The Tulalip sacrificed a significant
amount of their harvest levels to bring fish populations back with hopes of
lowering their risk of extinction (Batker et al. 2010, p. 53). Along with the
majority of U.S. Indian tribes, the Tulalip do not exclusively possess the
resources to save their ancestors and sacred sites from extinction and
destruction. Regardless of their lack of finances, many Washington tribes are
prioritizing fundraising to support efforts, as the disappearance of these
resources will undoubtedly result in the loss of their entire culture.
Tribal Community
Fundamental to Indigenous systems is community involvement.
Everybody in the tribe is responsible for upholding the principles of sustainable
resource management and for participating in the work it takes to maintain the
ecosystem and community health (Broderick 2005). It was understood that
ecosystems provide important services to society, including necessary
resources, nutrient cycling, and a sense of place and well-being. Today, with
over half of the world’s population (including Native Americans) living in cities,
there is a severe disconnect between people and the environments and
resources that sustain them. By looking to indigenous systems and associated
42
values, we can gain knowledge and inspiration for creating the models that will
sustain us in the 21st century and beyond (Brower 2006).
43
Chapter 5. Collaborative Watershed Management
Most scientists are aware that we are past the point of preventing the
effects of climate change, and their attention is moving towards adaptive
strategies for communities to best cope with the inevitable changes ahead.
Human beings have adapted ways of living to extreme environmental conditions
throughout our existence (Aerts and Droogers 2004). Adaptation is generally
defined as “responses to climate change that may be used to reduce
vulnerability” (McCarthy 2001). When examining varying stream flows, for
instance, scientists studying the ecosystem must ascertain the resilience of the
communities of human beings, flora, and fauna. In order to be equipped with the
adaptive tools for climate change’s impacts, decisionmakers need to work
closely with watershed communities and resource managers to pool as much
relevant knowledge as possible to maintain the integrity of sensitive watersheds
and streams.
In order to completely understand the significance of collaborative
environmental management, it is important to review the political and social
structures that have defined watershed management throughout U.S. history.
The historical eras of watershed management have been concisely outlined in
Melissa Newell Paulson’s 2007 MES Thesis entitled “Collaborative
environmental management: Stakeholder participation and watershed
partnership success” (Paulson 2007). Paulson cites Sabatier et al.’s text,
“Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management,”
and begins with the era of “Manifest Destiny,” from the 1860s to the 1890s. As
the name implies, there was no concern for management of watersheds in terms
44
of preservation during this era. The primary focus was on economic growth and
development, and resources such as water were seen for their role in
transportation, power generation, waste disposal, and other trade-related
functions (Sabatier et al. 2005, as cited in Paulson 2007).
“The Progressive Era” followed in the 1890s to the 1930s, which included
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. This era aimed to emphasize correcting
environmental damage caused during the era of “Manifest Destiny.” Although
this era initiated concern for environmental issues in the U.S., government
priorities were placed mostly on recreation rather than subsistence. This
emphasis led to increased conflicts between the states and tribes, as states
limited treaty harvesting in the name of conservation. While relatively
progressive projects were developed and implemented during this time,
conservation policies tended to deny access to resources for the tribes, and thus
this era is not recalled by tribal historians as progressive. Nevertheless,
accomplishments that paved the way for current collaborative management
techniques include the establishment of forest reserves that were delineated
according to watershed boundaries, increased government regulations on
resource use, as well as a growing awareness of the need for multi-use,
environmental and economic, watershed management (Sabatier et al. 2005, as
cited in Paulson 2007).
Natural resource paradigms gradually shifted along a conservationfocused trajectory in following eras. The “New Deal” era, from 1924 to 1964,
was dominated by federal oversight and regulations. This led to the emergence
of Soil Conservation Districts, which resembled the forest reserves model by
45
highlighting watershed issues and (as stated by Sabatier et al. 2005) was a
precursor to today’s watershed councils.
The decades from the 1950s to the 1970s, a time referred to as the
“Environmental” era, marked a significant advance in citizen involvement.
Societal values shifted because of numerous environmental disasters that were
poorly handled by government agencies, which also led to a lack of confidence in
government regulatory power. U.S. citizens gradually began taking
environmental issues into their own hands, which finally gave way to the era in
which we have found ourselves since the 1980s, the “Collaboration” era. This
research focuses on collaborative resource management within watershed
regions. Amanda Elizabeth Cronin defines collaborative watershed management
groups as “The voluntary association of stakeholders, which may include local
community leaders; state and federal agency employees; elected officials; tribal
environmental, and industry representatives; and community members” (Cronin
2005).
Although tribes across the nation have traditionally believed broad
citizen participation in decisionmaking and environmental stewardship is
essential to successful sustainable resource use, non-tribal environmental
managers more recently adopted it to solve the problem of expensive court
cases that resulted in gridlock (Cronin 2005). During the 1980s, environmental
issues escalated to the point of aggressive polarization among
environmentalists, farmers, timber workers, ranchers, and agency
representatives (Brick et al. 2001). Environmental managers grew frustrated at
46
the fact that “no one was winning” and they needed to find a new platform for
negotiations (Cronin 2005).
Communities can effectively participate in resource management and
thereby improve their overall understanding of environmental processes, which
can change individuals’ behavior and support resource reliability (Broderick
2005). Through collaborative resource management, communities can generate
knowledge and tools to help watershed districts initiate adaptive strategies to
respond to climate change. As cited by Warner, Steins and Edwards’ definition
for these types of platform is, “A decision-making body comprising different
stake-holders who perceive the same resource management problem, realize
their interdependence for solving it, and come together to agree on action
strategies for solving the problem” (Warner 2007). Such collaborative decision
making models have become a popular way of solving multifaceted CPR-related
problems amongst groups such as Indigenous nations, agricultural producers,
county governments, habitat restoration groups, water quality groups,
ecological researchers, fishing and hunting groups, nature and wildlife groups,
as well as individual landowners (Cronin 2005). Collaborations amongst these
groups serve as proactive techniques to aid the success of communities during
crises.
Watershed Partnerships
An increasing application of collaborative resource management
platforms has occurred in watershed basins, which commonly take the form of
watershed or river councils. Water governance is a top priority for climate
change researchers and decision-makers. While there are a multitude of
47
challenges associated with collective decision-making processes, they are
generally proving successful when applied in watershed regions. One reason
watershed collaborations are proving to be more effective than collaborations
taking place in mountain ranges or deserts, for instance, has to do with the fact
that water is equated to life across cultures, and is a key lifeblood of economic
development. “Water represents an integral link in a world view where water is
sacred and extremely important in preserving precious balance. Water is the
origin of and essential for the survival of all life” (Umatilla 2004, as cited in
Cronin 2005). Many tribal cultural areas correspond to watersheds, but
hydrology rather than territorial administrative or cultural boundaries is
beginning to dictate management implemented at the state and regional scale
(Warner 2007). “Government authorities are working together across
boundaries and treat water bodies as part of ecosystems. Involving
stakeholders in decision-making, with the accountability and transparency that
it brings, these developments necessitate a new phase in an already changing
deal between the public, private, and civil society sectors…”(Warner 2007).
Watershed Collaboration in Washington
New communities of concerned and proactive citizens are emerging and
democratizing water management as well as the management of the ecosystems
in Washington State. Watershed management in Washington State relatively
recently became an agenda item with Governor Christine Gregoire’s
implementation of an advisory panel called the Puget Sound Partnership
(Paulson 2007). The partnership of 22 stakeholder agencies, including all levels
of government, tribes, businesses and citizen groups, began collaborating in
48
2007 to create a Sound Health strategic plan. The Puget Sound Partnership
serves, “… in a coordination capacity, taking a collaborative, holistic approach to
the recovery of the Puget Sound ecosystem” (Paulson 2007). Although this
agency was formed as the result of Washington State policy decisions, the
management and organizational structure has been utilized for many years
amongst citizen activist groups and for centuries amongst tribes. Often, the
state-created structure incorporates regionalization to maximize costs and
services, which is not always beneficial or ideal for tribes. Until the 1980s, the
state of Washington resembled the rest of the United States in how it addressed
watershed-related issues. Currently, Washington leads the national movement
towards a new co-management paradigm of water resources, which is largely
attributed to the leading role of the tribes.
Washington watershed councils helped establish the foundations of
collaborative resource management strategy in the United States. A
collaborative, holistic approach strives to serve as an alternative to the
litigation-based environmental policy format by inviting, “… all stakeholders to
participate in place-based watershed management on more or less equal
footing” (Sabatier et al. 2005, as cited in Paulson 2007). This resource
management and leadership approach can be difficult to implement, as it is both
time-consuming and slightly ‘elusive’ due to its lack of clear definitions and laws
that would normally set precedents, nevertheless it has proven to be the
preferred choice for the majority of watershed communities in Washington
state.
49
Collaborative Management Success
Georgiana Kautz, Natural Resources Director for the Nisqually Tribe,
summed up tribal perspectives on watershed collaborations in her statement,
“Everyone needs a healthy watershed. It’s not just the Nisqually who need
salmon, clean water, flood protection it’s everyone” (Earth Economics 2009). In
order to ensure the success of collaborative watershed management projects,
decisionmakers who recognize this technique as the established code for many
tribes are pursuing more tribal involvement and leadership. In addition to tribal
participation and the participation of the stakeholders listed in Cronin’s
definition, resource managers, economists, and tribal leaders have tailored
assessment guidelines to determine the potential successes of watershed
collaborations.
This research builds upon a model developed by Craig Partridge, the
Washington Department of Natural Resources Policy and Government Relations
Director. Partridge’s model of collaborative problem solving and assessment
criteria “essentially calls for an assessment of evidence for some specified
encouraging and discouraging factors, leading to an overall evaluation, with
rationale, of the reasonable prospects for successful collaboration and
development of a collaborative objective, along with critical limiting factors that
present a risk of failure and need to be addressed, perhaps in advance of
attempting a collaborative process (Partridge 2011). The model allows resource
managers and decisionmakers to address potential methods and the likelihood
of successful outcomes for each method. This assessment also provides
justification for choosing non-collaborative action. Process method
50
considerations range from whether they will be more science-centered or valuecentered, centralized or decentralized, short- or long-time range of the project
activities and goals, as well as deliberative or consensus-oriented
decisionmaking (Partridge 2011). Several of the listed factors can be paired to
allow a more focused analysis.
Partridge’s assessment criteria are divided into four categories: issue,
context, involved parties, and process. Through Partridge’s application of this
method to years of resource management cases, he has been able to conclude
with a list of criteria that lead to higher chances of success. Some of which
include:
The issue is timely and well-framed.
A sense of urgency among the parties involved.
No disagreement about the relevant facts.
“Official trust” is high due to perceived competence of leadership.
A reasonable balance of power among interests.
One or more interests has a strong economic or personal stake in a
solution.
Fair representation, collaborative capacity (skills) of interests, effective
facilitation, and sufficient time for data gathering.
The preceding methodology is helpful in structuring a collaborative
management group with high potential for success. In the cases included in this
research, several of the criteria Partridge highlights are known. Therefore, it is
possible to conduct a further analysis of how Tribal involvement contributes to
project success rates. A relative abundance of work is aimed at addressing
collaboration and resource management focuses on managers, bureaucrats and
local stakeholders, but does not explore tribes’ involvement in collaboration
efforts (Cronin 2005). This research aims to address the gap in the literature by
51
examining the specific role of tribes in collaborative watershed management.
The case studies provided in the next chapter include and surpass the list
provided by Partridge and share specific criteria, which allow for a more indepth analysis of factors contributing to or hindering project success. These
criteria are borrowed from a list developed by Cronin, which include:
There is one or more established collaborative group in each watershed.
All three watersheds include tribal land ownership.
Issues of water quality and water quantity exist and are topics of
discussion in all cases (Cronin 2005).
Tribes & Collaboration
The democratization of water management, and increased tribal
participation, is a step forward in watershed management practices, yet social
structures must also advance in order to keep up and to ensure the effectiveness
of new resource management practices. The new paradigm of collaboration has
led researchers to see “the unequal representation and influence that underlie
conventional decision making processes” (Fischer 2000). Although many
watershed collaborations that involve tribes have proven successful, several
issues associated with tribal involvement exist. Three authors provide a brief
explanation of these issues in a report prepared for a tribal collaboration
workshop (Azelzadeh et al. 2003, as cited in Cronin 2005). Their paper
addresses and explains the topics of tribal sovereignty, trustee responsibility,
consultation with tribes, sacred sites, environmental justice, tribal politics,
limited resources of tribes, tribal customs, existing public land paradigms,
separation of church and state, traditional ecological knowledge, and science and
communication (Azelzadeh et al. 2003, as cited in Cronin 2005).
52
Rollins and Warren also present the fact that recognizing Indian tribes as
a common stakeholder is not in line with the sovereign nation status of tribes
(Rollins and Warren 2004). Beyond their status serving as support for tribal
involvement, it also places them in an ideal situation to take leadership roles.
With regard to other work specific to tribes and natural resource collaboration,
Donoghue and Thompson presented a paper at the Community-Based
Collaborative Research Consortium’s 2003 conference entitled “Characterizing
Tribal-Federal Collaborative Resource Management,” in which the authors
subdivide tribal-federal relationships into five categories (comanagement,
contractual, cooperative, working relationships, and conservation easement).
The authors do note that cultural values were not only recognized in each case,
yet they played a key role in the process. For example, a case from Oregon is
referenced where a “shared ideology between Nez Perce Tribe and local
landowners and local government was the secret to success of the Wallowa
County/Nez Perce Salmon recovery Plan (Waage 2001, as cited in Cronin 2005).
Climate change adds a sense of urgency to these collaborative resource
management projects. Building relationships with neighbors who share
common interests in protecting CPRs is an indispensible strategy to prevent
conflicts before they begin. Agreements can be made amongst members of these
collaborations to work together to protect CPRs for future human and wideranging species use. The actions of these collaborators can also often lead to the
support of local resource extractors, and build public support of government
representatives and agencies that have contributed. The primary goal of
collaborative management is the efficient and successful management of CPRs,
53
but the additional benefit of cross-cultural and cross-sectoral learning emerges
from such structures, making them less temporary and easier to set up for the
next challenge. Native/non-Native environmental alliances do not as much
“cross” social boundaries but rather reconfigure those boundaries in the face of
an outside threat (Grossman 2005). Groups that might have formerly been in
conflict with one another can now learn from one another through cooperation,
which leads to joint gains (Warner 2007). According to Warner, any consensusseeking council comprised of members in conflict with one another should
include good facilitation to assist members in bringing their issues out into the
open in order for compromises and mutual learning to take place.
54
Chapter 6. Case Studies
The research presents a comparative analysis of three Western
Washington case studies. By investigating three cases of Native/non-Native
watershed collaboration located in Washington State, this study addresses a gap
in the literature, while also providing a solid foundation from which to propose
further collaborative projects in the region. A comparison of relevant criteria
listed in the previous chapter on collaborative watershed management helps to
assess factors that encourage and discourage prospects for successful
collaboration between Native and non-Native watershed residents. Derived
from the research are the following interrelated factors that influence success
rates of watershed collaborations with tribal involvement: levels of community
and agency involvement, shared and disparate values of watershed members,
tribes’ cultural connections to aquatic resources, legal standing of tribes, and the
capacity of tribes to develop and implement watershed programs. The cases are
taken from the Nisqually watershed in South Puget Sound (Nisqually Tribe), the
Skagit watershed in the upper Puget Sound (Swinomish Tribe), and from the
mid-Puget Sound Snohomish watershed (Tulalip Tribes).
Active participation in fishery and water resource management by
Washington tribes is secured by several state and national orders, which began
with the 1850s treaties. The legal standing of Pacific Northwest tribes was
strengthened when they acquired major federal backing in the 1974 Boldt
Decision. Political clout of Washington tribes was further strengthened with the
55
passage of Phase II of the Boldt Decision, starting in 1977, which dealt with the
environmental rights reserved by treaty tribes and further clarified the sufficient
protection of fish habitat (Cronin 2005). It was Boldt II that enforced habitat
protection and has obliged state and federal agencies, farmers, and industries to
work with Coast Salish tribes.
Case Study Background
Figure 8. Nisqually Watershed
Nisqually Watershed
One shining example of Pacific Northwest co-management of ancestral
lands and waters is the Nisqually River Basin and delta restoration project. The
Nisqually is an entire watershed protected by legal mandates. This is the only
watershed in the country that has headwaters in a National Park and mouth in a
National Wildlife Refuge. The Nisqually River’s source is in Mt. Rainier National
Park, where streams form from glacial runoff, snowmelt, and rainfall. The
56
Nisqually watershed encompasses parts of Thurston, Pierce, and Lewis Counties,
tribal and federal lands, Joint Base Lewis-McCord, and several protected areas –
Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Tacoma Public Utilities, Nisqually Indian
Reservation, and the Nisqually Land Trust (Batker et al. 2009, p. 19). The
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge also protects Nisqually Delta habitat, water
quality, and various species of fish and wildlife. Although much of the watershed
is minimally impacted by human activity, relative to the other two case study
watersheds, increasing development and climate change impacts are making it
more critical for the watershed community to implement stringent watershed
protection, restoration, and management efforts (Batker et al. 2009, p. 21).
Land use includes farming, forestry, hydroelectric dams, rural residential
development, and towns with rapidly growing populations. The expected
increase in population will place significant pressure on the watershed and its
resources. The watershed has also been the site of several restoration projects.
The Nisqually Tribe and watershed community members have implemented
several initiatives in the region to ensure the health of the Sound and have been
working to protect and restore the Nisqually River since the 1980s. The
Nisqually Delta Restoration Project is one of the most effective in this effort to
recover Puget Sound wildlife populations and represents one of the most
significant advances to date towards the recovery of the Sound.
Nisqually Tribe
“Archeological evidence estimates that people have inhabited the
Olympic Peninsula for at least 12,000 years- not long after the glaciers receded”
(Warren 1982, as cited in Cronin 2005). Marine resources are the primary
57
source of food and other essential materials used by Native people in the Puget
Sound. Nisqually elder Willy Frank declared that, “when the tide goes out the
table is set” (Wilkinson 2000, p. 22). By the mid-1800s, conflicts between white
settlers and Native inhabitants escalated and threatened Nisqually land. Chief
Leschi fought hard to ensure the Nisqually Tribe had access to the river and
prairies for sustenance. Regardless of Leschi’s refusal to sign, the first Indian
treaty signing in Washington, the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 occurred in the
Nisqually River Basin. The treaty recognized Nisqually rights to fish on the river
in their canoes, to hunt and gather their food, and it established the foundations
of the present relationship between the U.S. and the Nisqually Tribe. It also set
aside a small plot of land (1,280 acres), which was on a rocky plain and did not
have direct river access (Grossman 2005). This new reservation was scarcely a
fraction of the Nisqually’s original homeland, which was ceded with the signing
of the Medicine Creek Treaty.
Treaties initiated an era of extreme lifestyle changes for tribal members.
The Allotment Act of 1888 further divided reservation land into smaller plots
and, attempting to “civilize” Native people, it forced tribal members to leave
their roles as hunters and fishermen to become farmers. Tribal people, who
were not trained farmers, often struggled with the new livelihoods into which
they were forced. The U.S. government viewed the Nisqually people’s failure to
establish productive farms as justification for reclaiming allotments, which
further decreased land left for the Tribe’s reservation. In the late-1800s to the
early-1900s, deprivation was made worse with the removal of Nisqually
children to what were referred to as “boarding schools”. Native children were
58
tortured more than they were taught at these institutions. They were punished
for speaking their own language and for having tribal names, which
psychologically affected the Nisqually people (Georgiana Kautz, personal
communication, April 10, 2011). Boarding schools were a further attempt to
assimilate Indian people, where traditional ways could be erased and replaced
by those approved by the government and churches. Nisqually life continued
this way for at least a century and a half before the Boldt Decision reinterpreted
and reestablished Indian rights that were written in the treaties.
Collaborative Management in the Nisqually Basin:
Nisqually Delta Restoration
In spite of an extended history of discord with settler communities, the
Nisqually have successfully established a leadership role as stewards of the
watershed. Management of the Nisqually watershed is comprised of a
partnership, characterized by a collaborative approach led by the Nisqually
Tribe. The Nisqually River Council has provided a dependable template for
other Puget Sound watershed collaborations to follow. “The Nisqually River
Task Force, consisting of federal, state and local governments, business
representatives, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, and interested citizen activists,
created the Nisqually River Management Plan in 1985” (Nisqually River Council
2011). As a result of over a decade of efforts, the Nisqually River Council
produced one of the largest restoration projects in Washington State, and the
largest tidal marsh restoration project in the Pacific Northwest, the Nisqually
Delta Restoration Project.
On November 11, 2009, the Nisqually Indian Tribe restored 57 hectares
of wetlands to assist in recovery of Puget Sound salmon and wildlife
59
populations. The Nisqually Tribe and partners including Ducks Unlimited, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, along with a list of over 20
other partners, “… have restored more than 35 km of the historic tidal slough
systems and re-connected historic floodplains to Puget Sound, increasing
potential salt marsh habitat in the southern reach of Puget Sound by 50%”
(Nisqually Delta 2011).
Prior to the formation of the council, activities affecting the watershed’s
ecosystems were inefficiently delegated across independent institutions, as
jurisdictional boundaries were more recognized than watershed boundaries.
Council agencies realized that if such activities were better coordinated, related
efforts could prove less costly and more effective. Additionally, it was beneficial
to the project’s success that the designated location was on territory that had
been collaboratively protected from industrial projects including a port
development proposal, a landfill proposal, and several other proposals made by
commercial interests. They thus created Nisqually River Management Plan,
which was adopted in 1987. By 2003, the council came to a consensus that
water management issues not only transcended municipalities and counties, yet
went beyond riparian zones as well. Thus, they developed a new stewardship
plan that emphasized watershed-wide goals (Batker et al. 2009, p. 19).
The Nisqually Watershed has been the site of several examples of
collaborative management through restoration projects, including salmon
recovery, land use planning, and storm water management. The Nisqually Delta
Restoration Project is amongst the most recent as well as most successful in the
region (Nisqually Delta 2011). What makes this project truly unique is that the
60
Nisqually Tribe is recognized by state and federal governments as the leading
government coordinating the management plan process.
The natural ecosystems of the Nisqually Watershed provide many goods
and services to its residents. The Nisqually Tribe has valued nature's gifts
throughout history, and descendants of American settlers have recently joined in
their efforts. The watershed is a unique and exceptional place and the delta
restoration project proves that full community participation is an effective
leadership and management model, as it, “… increases procedural legitimacy,
builds problem-solving capacity, and increases likelihood of overall success,
leads to more complete understanding of environmental problems, increased
likelihood of project implementation, and successful completion of planning
projects” (Paulson 2007).
Figure 9. Skagit Watershed
61
Skagit Watershed
The Skagit River is the third largest river on the West Coast of the U.S. and
the largest watershed in the Puget Sound region. The river originates at Allison
Pass in the Cascades of British Columbia. At approximately 158 miles long, the
Skagit flows southward into Washington State. As it receives numerous
tributaries it passes through the towns of Sedro-Woolley and Mount Vernon. At
Skagit City, the river forks to both the north and to the south, both forks empty
into Skagit Bay in the upper Puget Sound. The Skagit provides habitat for all five
native Washington salmon species, trout, bald eagles, snow geese, and various
other wildlife (Skagit Watershed Council 2006). The delta hosts some of the
most productive farmland in the area, yielding berries, potatoes, organic
vegetables, and is well known for its fields of daffodils and tulips (Shared Salmon
Strategy 2011). Three major dams were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s on
the upper river, and provide power to Seattle and local communities (Kunzler
2005). Today, the Skagit is a major whitewater rafting and fly-fishing
destination. “Fifty percent of the Skagit system is in private ownership, 44
percent is National Forest System land, and 6 percent is owned by the State and
other agencies” (Shared Salmon Strategy 2011).
Washington State, Tribal governments, and the Skagit Watershed Council
have identified the Skagit Basin as a major restoration and recovery region, as
they have measured high rates of habitat loss near agricultural centers.
Agricultural practices, such as diking and draining, have reduced tidal wetlands
by over 90 percent (Shared Salmon Strategy 2011). The prevalence of private
property in the basin has led to jurisdictional disputes between tribal and local
62
governments. But recently, some farmers and tribal representatives from the
Swinomish and Sauk-Suiattle tribes began to join forces with goals of finding
solutions that work for both the farms and fish. As a region with one of the
highest population growth rates in the state, farmers, tribal representatives, and
environmental activists are beginning to work to prevent these lands from being
developed for residential or other uses (Shared Salmon Strategy 2011). The
Swinomish are familiar with the issue of rapid development, which has been a
source of conflict between the Swinomish Tribe and the local governments
throughout their history, particularly in such a rich agricultural and recreational
region.
Swinomish Tribe
Native people have lived, hunted, fished, and gathered along the Skagit for
at least 8,000 years. Located on the small peninsula of Fidalgo Island in the
upper Puget Sound, the Swinomish Indian Reservation is almost completely
surrounded by water. The Swinomish Tribe is a confederation of several tribes
and bands of Coast Salish communities, including Samish, Kikiallus, and Lower
Skagit. They lived in villages during the winter and in encampments during the
summer to gather resources from the river, sea, and forests. With the growing
American settlements of the 19th century, the allied bands of the Swinomish,
Lower Skagit, Kikiallus and Samish tribes reluctantly signed the Point Elliot
Treaty of 1855. The treaty was written in order to set land aside for the
Swinomish Reservation, which is now approximately 7,000 acres of tribally
owned land, partially held in trust. The treaty included a provision to harvest
fish at “usual and accustomed” sites, as the Swinomish are a fishing people
63
(Kincade 1990).
Similar to the rest of the Puget Sound treaty tribes, major changes affected
Native lifestyles after the treaty signing. In the 1850s, spirit dancing and other
Indigenous religious practices were prohibited and instead, the Swinomish were
pressured to follow the Roman Catholic tradition. The churches were
determined to “save” U.S. Indian communities. Swinomish people were subject
to boarding schools, the allotments of the late 1880s, and many tribal
assimilation initiatives. The Swinomish Tribe has since constituted a governing
body and has petitioned to regain reservation lands promised to them in the
Point Elliott Treaty, but carved off from the original land base. One location of
interest to the Tribe, the March Point enclave, is ironically now the site of an oil
refinery. So far, their attempts have not been successful, but they have begun
repurchasing their reservation lands (Swinomish 2009).
Collaborative Management in the Skagit Basin:
Swinomish Climate Change Initiative
In recent years, the Swinomish Tribe has taken the lead in cooperative
resource use planning projects. Its Cooperative Land Use Program provides a
forum for resolving issues that might arise amongst landowners of the
“checkerboarded” plots of land in the Swinomish reservation. The Swinomish
Indian Tribal Community (SITC) established the program with Skagit County to
reduce permitting and regulation uncertainties with which they had been
regularly confronted since the early 1980s. “The resulting confusion over
jurisdiction and allowable land use engendered anti-Indian and anti-non-Indian
sentiments, a litigious atmosphere and serious difficulty in attracting
investment” (Swinomish 2009). Both governments admitted that they were not
64
entitled to make resource and land use decisions without consulting the other,
and gradually started working together towards mutual agreements on
comprehensive land use planning. This 1987 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) led to the creation of a Planning Advisory Board, which is made up of four
tribal appointees, four County appointees and a neutral facilitator (Swinomish
Tribe 1999). The Draft Land Use Plan was the first planning effort between a
tribe and a county. The SITC and the County’s commitment to cooperative land
use enhanced cross-cultural understanding and improved overall relations
between the SITC and the County.
Over the past few decades, the Swinomish Tribe has learned lessons in
cooperation as a means of strengthening self-determination (O'Haracohara
2000). It has since pursued funding for further environmental projects. For
instance, in 2002, the SITC was awarded a $1.2 million research grant by the
EPA to investigate shellfish contamination. Later, in 2008, the Swinomish asked
the Department of Ecology to investigate and correct what the Tribe perceived
to be illegal irrigation practices by farmers in the Skagit Delta. The Tribe
explained to Ecology that illegal water uses were taking stream flows away from
salmon. Yet, after repeatedly being ignored, the Swinomish began to look into
environmental issues independently. The State of Washington eventually
identified the Lower Skagit as at high risk for sea-level rise, which increased
local awareness of climate change issues. A 2006 storm surge and flooding on
the reservation also provided a catalyst for developing the Tribe’s next research
project. In order to determine appropriate responses to climate change for both
the reservation and to assist the broader Skagit watershed community, the Tribe
65
secured funding through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for
a $400,000 Climate Change Initiative (Swinomish 2009).
The Swinomish Climate Change Initiative provides the Skagit watershed
community an action plan for implementing strategic climate change planning
policies and actions (Swinomish 2009). The two-year project, begun in 2008,
addressed the possible effects of climate change, and how the Tribe could adapt
to these changes. Although initiated by the Swinomish Tribe, the project
required the participation of neighboring jurisdictions including Skagit County,
Town of LaConner, and Shelter Bay Community, as well as public and private
entities, and scientific researchers such as Skagit River System Cooperative,
Center for Science in the Earth System University of Washington / Climate
Impacts Group, and Administration for Native Americans (SITC 2010). The
action plan includes a wide range of strategies for adaptation to and mitigation
of potential impacts, relying upon expert scientific advisors to assist with
analyzing data and seeking coordination with local jurisdictions where common
interests exist with the Swinomish Tribe.
The success of the Swinomish Climate Change Initiative has put the Tribe
at the forefront of planning for climate change on a national level, which has led
it to adopt more leadership roles in the region. This collaborative project has
given the SITC a place to educate non-Indian partners about the cultural
importance of the land and how it can serve as a venue for community
development (Swinomish 2009). The Swinomish Tribe continues to prove that
Tribal leadership is essential to natural resource management, especially in an
era of climate change.
66
Figure 10. Snohomish Watershed
Snohomish Watershed
Located in the east-central Puget Sound Region, the Snohomish River
Basin is 1,856 square miles, which makes it the region’s second largest basin. It
includes the Skykomish, Snoqualmie and Snohomish Rivers, the counties of
Snohomish and King, and the Tulalip and the Snoqualmie tribes. The Snohomish
Basin is one of the most rapidly growing areas in Puget Sound. The Snohomish
River empties into Puget Sound north of Everett, the region’s third largest city,
which includes the Port of Everett (Shared Salmon Strategy 2011). Nutrient-rich
river water comes into contact with saltwater in the Snohomish River estuary.
Located at Possession Sound, the estuary provides habitat for blue heron, eagles,
osprey, salmon, seals, otter, and varieties of other birds, mammals, and plants. It
also provides a service to Snohomish Basin people by acting as a natural filter
67
that cleans water before it passes into the Sound and also slows floodwaters
(Puget Sound Strategy 2010).
The primary economic sectors of the Basin include manufacturing,
forestry, recreation, tourism, agriculture, and retail. The economies of
Snohomish Basin counties and municipalities represent some of the most
populated counties in the state and are increasingly becoming areas of urban
growth and development. Home to some of the best farmlands remaining in
Western Washington, the Snohomish River Basin provides attractive quality of
life, high land values, extensive timber resources, diverse outdoor recreation,
vast areas of public land, and abundant natural resources. The very aspect that
makes the basin so distinctive is also contributing to its ruin. Population growth
and development are leading to a steady decline of the basin’s natural systems
and biological health. Although the Tribes have long been aware of the fact that
the health of their people and cultures are closely tied to the health of natural
systems, the broader Snohomish Basin community has recently begun to adhere
to this perspective, resulting in an increase in habitat restoration efforts (Batker
et al. 2010, p. 52).
Tulalip Tribes
Since the arrival of European-American settlement and new sawmills, the
tribes and the land suffered greatly. Since their 1792 encounter with Captain
George Vancouver, the Tulalip Tribes have lost the vast majority of their
ancestral lands and resources. By 1842, the U.S. government encouraged white
settlers to begin inhabiting the Puget Sound region by selling homesteads to
68
lands which they did not own titles, for minute fractions of their real value
(Tulalip 2011).
In 1855, the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skagit, Suiattle, Samish and
Stillaguamish tribes and allied bands living in the region somewhat reluctantly
joined Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens to sign the Treaty of Point Elliott. Not
only did this treaty establish a permanent home for this group of Coast Salish
tribes, it also granted rights for tribes to access their ceded territories in order to
exercise fishing, hunting, and gathering rights. At the time of the treaties, fish
and other culturally significant resources were abundant, yet continuous
development and settlement by European-American settlers made it more
difficult for tribes to fish, hunt, and gather. While State and Federal government
agencies and other non-Native residents quickly forgot about the Stevens
Treaties, this was not true for the treaty tribes. The Tulalip resemble the two
preceding case study tribes in their movement to regain the rights they were
promised in the Stevens Treaties.
Collaborative Management in the Snohomish Basin:
Tulalip Biogas Partnership
Over the past few decades, State and Tribal natural resource managers in
the Snohomish Basin have worked to resolve issues resulting from increasing
population density and climate change. The quality of water resources have
undergone rapid decline, which has led to increased political conflicts and
lawsuits involving environmentalists, tribes, farmers, developers, and concerned
citizens. Conflicts such as these have taken place between the Tulalip Tribes and
agricultural producers when one or both groups are faced with economic or
cultural pressure (Careless 2009). Clashes have historically taken place in
69
Tualco Valley in Snohomish County between the Tulalip Tribes and dairy
farmers. The growth of dairy herds, coupled with inefficient manure
management practices, has endangered the Snohomish River’s water quality,
which poses a threat to the survival of culturally important fish species.
According to a 2001 report by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) to
assess the basin’s compliance of the Federal Clean Water Act, tributaries to the
Snohomish River were exceeding regulation limits of fecal coliform (Wright et al.
2001). The presence of fecal coliform posed a substantial threat to salmon listed
under the Endangered Species Act, which presented a common challenge to the
Tulalip Tribes and Snohomish County agricultural producers. Faced with
violation fines from the DOE punishing their unsustainable manure management
practices, dairy farmers were struggling financially. At the same time, the
Tulalip Tribes’ treaty rights were being violated and their access to a culturally
significant fish was severely diminished. The pressure led the two groups to
turn to each other and find a common ground to transcend the constant lawsuits
and animosity, and come up with a joint restoration plan (Williams 2011).
The community’s efforts to protect water quality and habitat have
recently paid off with the establishment of the cooperatively run non-profit
group, Qualco Energy (Qualco Energy 2010). Comprised of Snohomish County
dairy farmers, the Tulalip Tribes and representatives from local conservation
groups, Qualco Energy is a self-governed answer to CPR issues such as inefficient
manure management, water quality and species habitat degradation, which also
helps the community in exploring a new industry, renewable energy production.
On December 18, 2008, The Snohomish/ Skykomish Agricultural Alliance, the
70
Tulalip Energy Corporation and Northwest Chinook Recovery opened their
cooperatively managed bio-gas facility, “… to make dairies more economically
viable and help protect water quality for fish” (Williams 2011). The Tulalip
Tribes shared their autonomous status with Qualco Energy Corporation
partners in order to ensure the integrity and success of their restoration project
(Qualco Energy 2010).
The Bio-Gas facility is a sewage treatment system for cow manure, with a
methane collector and power generator attached. Cow manure releases
methane gas, which can be burned to create electricity or compressed and sold
as compressed or liquefied natural gas. Methane is a relatively clean burning
fuel and its emissions are less damaging to the ozone layer than the methane gas
itself. The treated bio-solids collected during the process are free of harmful
bacteria and can be used for creating high quality compost or fertilizer for the
local market. The liquid effluent can be re-used for flushing the manure out of
barns and for irrigating the farms fields (Qualco Energy 2010). The only waste
at the end of the process is the exhaust emissions from the generator.
If this property in the Snohomish watershed is properly managed and
restored, it can also support agricultural uses while aiding with salmon
recovery. The parties to this agreement voluntarily work together to protect
water quality, restore salmon habitat, support agriculture in Snohomish County,
to develop support for the Snohomish Basin Bio-Gas Partnership among all
levels of government, to seek participation of other individuals and organization
in the Partnership, and to obtain funds to support the objectives of the
Snohomish Basin Bio-Gas Partnership (Qualco Energy 2010).
71
Case Studies Comparison
These three cases illustrate how tribes have been able to incorporate
cultural values into resource management by communicating with the entities
that share watershed resources. “Applying and communicating information in
western terms is a function of how well the tribes have been able to build the
capacity to gather that information” (Cronin 2005). All three tribes interpret
and implement solutions to natural resource issues with managers and
scientists trained in both Western science and who can utilize shared tribal
knowledge of place-based TEK. Nobel Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom’s
theories on the self-governance of CPRs serve as useful lenses to analyze and
fully understand the complex dynamics of these collaborative partnerships.
While each watershed example does not involve all of Partridge’s required
criteria for the successful formation of a collaborative association, it does meet
several.
In all the case studies, climate change has added a sense of urgency for
local residents and involved agencies, strengthening their collaborative resource
management projects. While building relationships with neighbors who share
common interests in protecting CPRs is a wise and indispensible strategy to
prevent conflicts before they begin, it is also important for groups with disparate
beliefs to communicate effectively. In the Nisqually case, as well as the Tulalip
case, agreements on relevant facts were more easily reached than in the
Swinomish case. The Swinomish Tribe had to invest more of their own
resources into researching and compiling relevant data to support their requests
for further investigations and adaptive planning projects. The crux of the
72
conflict in the Swinomish case is from the Skagit Delta’s higher proportion of
highly valued and lucrative agricultural land that is in private ownership.
Current property owners fear tribal measures may diminish the high value of
the land, and therefore have strongly resisted tribal involvement.
Levels of official trust also varied amongst the three case studies. The
Nisqually Tribe have had more success in gaining support from local resource
extractors, general public, and government agencies due to a variety of factors.
Such factors include perceived competence of the tribes to provide clear
facilitation based on success of similar past projects. This aspect also
contributes a general sense of confidence in tribal capacity to take on leadership
roles. The Tulalip Tribes have established a similar reputation in the Snohomish
region, while the Swinomish have only recently made strides in this area.
Another aspect of Partridge’s framework that assisted in the comparative
analysis of these case studies involves the balance of power among interests.
Although the three collaborations varied in their power balances, it did not
appear that any of them exhibited a pure 50-50 balance. Instead, in the
Swinomish case, the tribe has struggled to have an influence in their region,
which reveals its ranking in the local power hierarchy is relatively low. The
Tulalip Tribes have also been unable to establish a leadership position
comparable to the Nisqually Tribe. This success is due to the Nisqually’s
multiple positive past collaborations with their watershed community, as well as
the fact that a greater proportion of the land is in public or government
ownership. The Nisqually have a less complex list of stakeholders with which
they must cooperate than the other two case studies included in this research. In
73
other words, Nisqually watershed’s current management employs agencies and
residents with significant shared interests, as well as strong economic and/or
personal stakes in a solution.
Factors that contribute to watershed collaboration project success
referenced from Cronin’s methodology: 1. There is one or more established
collaborative group in each watershed, 2. Watersheds include tribal land
ownership, 3. Issues of water quality and water quantity exist and are topics of
discussion in all cases exist in each of the case studies (Cronin 2005). All three
cases are from the same region in Western Washington, which minimizes the
possible range of diversity that can be observed. Nevertheless, this analysis
suggests important conclusions for the role of tribes in resource management in
regions throughout the U.S. Building a political environment that promotes
productive discussion rather than litigation fosters collaboration between tribes
and other land managers (Cronin 2005). Furthermore, building tribal capacity,
specifically for tribes with treaty rights, is key to collaborative success of these
case studies. Watershed community members in all cases came together to
make urgent decisions regarding their threatened shared resource, and through
their success, may now serve as an inspiring model of collaborative resource
management.
Although collaborative partnership does not eliminate conflicts, the
Nisqually Delta restoration project shows that relatively balanced participation
of each collaborating agency, along with Tribal leadership, entails more benefits
than setbacks. “Collaborative watershed management is also viewed as the only
way to achieve the protection of complex ecosystems while meeting the needs of
74
both natural systems and human populations” (Paulson 2007). Collaborations
allow many watershed stakeholders to come to a common table, which often
results in reduced conflict, increased collaboration, secured sustainability and
improved efficiency for participants (Batker et al. 2010, p. 10). Improved
coordination saves watershed stakeholders millions of dollars and ensures the
more effective allocation of ecosystem goods and services (Batker et al. 2010, p.
10).
75
Chapter 7. Tulalip Water Storage Project
Figure 11. Snohomish River Basin tributaries map
Tulalip Tribes History
Descendants of the Tulalip Tribes have resided in the upper Puget Sound
of the Salish Sea region for 10,000-12,000 years. Over one hundred and fifty
years ago, the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skagit, Suiattle, Samish and Stillaguamish
tribes (and allied bands living in the region) formed the present-day Tulalip
Tribes, a confederation of tribes from the northern Puget Sound region.
Evidence suggests that as recent as one thousand years ago, the Tulalip Tribes
had a functioning and integrated economy that was well in balance with the
natural systems of the region. Until the 19th century, local peoples lived in
longhouses, and during warmer seasons, they slept in temporary homes made of
cattail or tule mats (Tulalip Tribes 2011). Hand-built canoes made of cedar
provided the primary means of transportation and were used for long fishing
and trading journeys. Though many Coast Salish languages were spoken during
76
early times, Lushootseed is amongst approximately twenty surviving Native
languages in the region stretching from Oregon to British Columbia, and some
members of the Tulalip Tribes still speak it today. Other aspects of Tulalip
culture were almost lost when their children were forced to attend governmentrun boarding schools, yet are gradually making their way back into daily life on
the Tulalip Reservation, include basketweaving, beading, carving, story-telling,
gathering of medicinal plants and herbs, and several other essential practices.
Marine and river resources have been key to Native people in the
Northwest since their origins. Salmon harvesting methods were limited to
ensure that healthy populations would return to the region the following year.
The cultural survival of Coast Salish tribes heavily depends on healthy
freshwater resources, so innovative stewardship of watersheds has been central
to local tribes’ culture throughout their history. Nine salmonid species use the
Snohomish Basin’s waters: Chinook, coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon,
steelhead and rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, bull trout and mountain whitefish.
Skykomish and Snoqualmie Chinook salmon are two threatened populations;
both are below 10% of their estimated historic population levels. Today the
basin produces between 25-50% of coho salmon in Puget Sound (Batker et al.
2010, p. 54).
Since their 1792 encounter with Captain George Vancouver, the Tulalip
Tribes have lost the vast majority of their ancestral lands and resources. With
the arrival of European settlement, their canneries in the 1800s, and their later
sawmills, the tribes and the land suffered greatly. By 1842, the U.S. government
encouraged settlers to begin inhabiting the Puget Sound region by selling
77
homesteads to lands which they did not own titles, for minute fractions of their
real value (Tulalip Tribes 2011). Conflicts regarding the lack of treaty
recognition and implementation were abundant and reached a pivotal point in
the late 1950s - early 1970s, resulting in the 1974 Boldt Decision. This federal
court ruling upheld tribes’ rights to fish up to half of Washington’s fisheries.
Now, the 1855 treaty, signed by the Tulalip, is being utilized to address broader
related environmental issues, involving crucial ecosystem habitats upon which
healthy fish and game populations depend.
Cooperative Management:
Tulalip & Snohomish Watershed Stakeholders
The descendants of the Tulalip, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, and
other Native peoples who signed the Treaty of Point Elliott, have lived alongside
each other on the Tulalip Reservation for over 150 years. Although each tribe
had separate villages prior to the treaties, they were urged to form a single
government in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (Tulalip
Tribes 2011). Since before their establishment, the Tulalip Tribes have taken
repeated measures to acquiesce to the requests of the U.S. Government in order
to avoid conflicts and maintain harmony in the region. They have honored
agreements made with the federal government, and have continued to pursue
collaboration with Snohomish Basin neighbors.
In their efforts to reestablish a sustainable economy and address
vulnerable cultural and natural resources, the Tulalip have joined a growing
number of Pacific Northwest tribes in placing a strong focus on restoring their
fisheries. In pursuit of this mission, the Tulalip Tribes quickly realized that the
formation of strong regional and national partnerships would be essential. The
78
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum was established in 1998 primarily to
provide a setting for collaborative projects aiming to protect fish within the
watershed. The Forum is a 41-member group of citizens, businesses, tribal
representatives, farmers and elected officials who guide conservation efforts to
protect and restore the ecological health of the watershed (Snohomish County
2011). It encourages cooperative efforts for implementing fish recovery
projects and has led decision-making members to initiate their own local
monitoring and outreach programs. The Forum’s mission includes hydrology
and water quality in its scope, as these variables contribute to productivity and
diversity of fish stocks.
Although this Snohomish watershed group was founded with a focus on
salmon recovery, it has gradually been broadening its roles in response to
increasing knowledge on climate change issues. The members have sought
funding to support their recent conservation plan, which encourages planning
towards regional conservation and adaptation, on issues ranging from engaging
with Puget Sound Partnership to strategies for effective policy guidance. The
Tulalip Tribes Natural Resources Program is leading in efforts to work with
partners to outreach and improve coordination with regional interests. The
Tribes’ harvest management strategies have informed concerned Snohomish
Basin landowners and individuals, as well as tribal and state managers
throughout Washington. Therefore, they are quickly building capacity to
continue this stewardship and education leadership effort.
A recent example of the Tulalip Tribes’ creative and collaborative
solutions to regional natural resource issues is described earlier in the Qualco
79
Energy partnership case study. The successful creation of this facility serves as a
guide for future tribally led watershed-related projects. The Tulalip Tribes
developed an effective solution to degraded water quality with an aim to avoid
the need for lawsuits and further conflicts with local dairy producers. The
desire to find common ground has proven to be an effective means of working to
improve water quality and enhance salmon runs. Thus, the Tribes are looking to
future conversations with agricultural landowners and habitat conservation
initiatives on methods for improving water quality and other water projects
upstream from the Tulalip reservation (Qualco Energy 2010).
Further Collaborations
Due to experience gained from their many successful environmental
projects, the Tulalip Tribes are expanding their capacity, as well as their
influence on environmental problem-solving beyond the Snohomish River Basin
salmon recovery activities. Terry Williams, the Commissioner of Fish and
Wildlife for the Tulalip Tribes, is heavily involved in national and international
initiatives to address biodiversity and climate change issues. Williams is leading
an effort to examine the effects of climate change on the Snohomish watershed
from the perspective of treating it as a complex organism, starting from its
source in the Cascade Mountains to its mouth in Puget Sound. Williams’ climate
change research team is analyzing soil quality and forest cover to measuring
river flows and the level of carbon in each piece of this intricate system. The
Tulalip-led research team is diligently working to document other climate
change implications to the region.
80
The Tribes are working with the University of Washington’s Climate
Impacts Group, faculty from the University of Colorado, and the Tacoma-based
non-profit group Earth Economics to map out the carbon budget of the Puget
Sound system with a focus on the near-shore environment to understand how
increased levels of carbon are affecting pH levels in the ocean (Batker et al.
2010, p. 59). Terry Williams’ team is administering a near-shore plant carbon
sequestration project (with eelgrass and kelp) to help remove some carbon from
the environment. This project is part of a broader campaign for the Tribes to
demonstrate the value of adaptation projects in stabilizing the effects of climate
change versus the more often utilized, yet less effective avenue of mitigation
(McCloud 2011).
On a global scale, the Tulalip Tribes have been recognized as leaders
since 1997 when the Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Office of the
U.S. Department of the Interior appointed Williams to represent U.S. Indigenous
peoples on the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity
(Parker et al. 2006). Williams and other global indigenous representatives have
worked hard to propose negotiations to effectively combat climate change, as
Indigenous peoples are some of the most vulnerable to climate change impacts
and realize that their local failing ecosystems are indeed connected to one
another. Williams is a lead U.S. representative at annual global gatherings,
where he teaches and strategizes on adaptation goals to address climate change
concerns amongst various related issues.
Indigenous nation representatives along the Pacific Rim also began
discussing a treaty in 2002 that would serve as an alliance on common goals to
81
secure their influence and political leverage on a global scale (Parker et al.
2006). What is now known as the “United League of Indigenous Nations” works
collectively towards the following goals: protecting cultural properties, sacred
items and traditional knowledge, developing a method for trade amongst
Indigenous nations easing transit across international boundaries, and creating
a unified political body that would protect Indigenous nations’ rights to fully
participate in agreements and conventions regarding global climate change
(Parker et al. 2006). Indigenous nation representatives from the U.S., Canada,
Australia and New Zealand signed the Treaty in the Lummi Nation in 2007.
Climate Change Impacts to the Snohomish Basin
The Snohomish Basin, like other Pacific Northwest river basins, is already
experiencing warmer temperatures, which is leading to more precipitation in
the region’s mountains in the form of rain, reducing snowpack, earlier and more
rapid peak spring runoff results in higher peak flows, lower and warmer
summer stream flows, and increased channel erosion (Parker et al. 2006).
Further projected increases in temperatures, reduced precipitation, and
increased evaporation will not only lead to higher rates of water stress, but will
cause a significant impact to salmon populations. High spring flows can lead to
more erosion and sedimentation, which decreases the quality of riparian
filtering functions in runoff, and inhibits important stream nutrients from
reaching forest riparian zones (Parker et al. 2006). Increased streambed
scouring poses major risks to salmon eggs and disturbs juvenile migration cycles
(CIG 2011).
Pacific Northwest winters have shortened by several weeks, while spring
82
flows occur earlier than regional records show. Reduced snowpack and
intermittent high volumes of water flows reduce infiltration and lead to higher
rates of erosion, which degrades in-stream habitats (Williams and Hardison
2006). Water flow amounts and timing are important to ecosystem stability on
various levels, including cool water provision for salmon migration, drinking
water for humans and other animals, irrigation water for agriculture and
riparian ecosystems, as well as their contribution to properly functioning
hydroelectric dams (Batker et al. 2010, p. 42).
The Snohomish Basin is flood prone and would suffer greatly from a
drastic increase in flood events. USGS’s flood history 2009 data includes
“Recurrence intervals equal to or greater than 100 years were most numerous in
the Puyallup, Chehalis and Snoqualmie-Snohomish Basins” (USGS 2009). In
2007, Western Washington rivers, including the Skagit and Snohomish, set new
record highs (USGS 2009). Typical hazards to local communities include large
trees and other debris being flushed down the river, damaged crops and
livestock, and destroyed homes. Flooding events most commonly occur between
the months of November and February during periods of heavy rain or rapid
snowmelt (SCSWM 2011).
In November 2006, Snohomish County experienced a Phase 4 flood that
will long be remembered as one of the most dramatic flood events in the valley
“Normally the Skykomish River at Gold Bar flows at a rate of 700 to 1,000 cubic
feet per second (CFS). At the peak of the flood event on November 6, 2006 the
mighty Skykomish was raging at over 100,000 CFS. Translation: that is a freight
train comin' your way son” (Sky Valley 2008). A 2009 report put out by the
83
Snohomish Times, titled “Record Flooding is Being Predicted!” warned of the dire
state of Snohomish rivers. The region is seeing regular record crest levels on the
Snohomish River, which poses extreme risks of landslides (Snohomish Times
2009). Several areas were cut off from the surrounding communities in 2006,
2008, and again in 2009, due to the rapidly rising high floodwaters.
Figure 12. Snohomish homes built on stilts for flood disaster adaptation. Photo by Zoltan
Grossman.
Flood managers, key decision makers, and residents of the Snohomish
Basin are facing more complex resource management issues and have been
pursuing various avenues to offset the effects of climate change in their region.
As with most parts of the country, conditions of the natural environment are
suffering and it is crucial that decisionmakers develop more effective tools to
address the issues of deteriorating resources and climate change. A recent
approach to flood protection at the confluence of the Tolt and Snoqualmie Rivers
involved setting a levee back 800 feet to reconnect the river with the floodplain
and allowed more habitat for salmon and trout (Batker et al. 2010, p. 42).
84
Further management strategies that recognize the significance of adapting to
rapidly changing water flow dynamics must be developed and implemented in
the region to establish resilient natural systems (Batker et al. 2010).
Snohomish Basin Water Storage
Background
The Snohomish Basin is the second largest in the Puget Sound, at 1,856
square miles. It includes the Skykomish, Snoqualmie and Snohomish Rivers.
The Snohomish Basin is classified as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 7
and is home to the Tulalip Tribes and the Snoqualmie Tribe. Coast Salish
peoples’ teachings refer to a glacier that retreated 13,000 years ago, providing
further evidence of the extent of their ancestral connection to the land. The
Snohomish Basin counties and municipalities today represent some of the most
populated counties in the state and are increasingly becoming areas of urban
growth and development.
Snohomish County residents receive the majority of their drinking water
from snowpack. Current reservoirs in the Puget Sound depend on snowpack to
supplement water storage, so snowpack can be viewed as a large system of
natural reservoirs (Batker et al. 2010). Losing snowpack creates a need for
development of replacement artificial reservoirs, which will be substantially
more costly. The Tulalip Tribes have been monitoring climate change’s potential
impacts to water resources in the Snohomish Basin, and are leading actions
required to assist residents of the basin in offsetting future water problems.
Such efforts involve documenting current initiatives in the Snohomish Basin,
identifying representational climate change impacts, assessing the carbon cycle
85
budget to provide income for the Tribe, assisting in statewide efforts, and
targeting potential funders for adaptation projects (Batker et al. 2010).
Tulalip Water Assessment Project
A crucial project towards which the Tulalip Tribes are currently working
involves freshwater storage. Relocating is not an option for the Tribes, as their
culture is so intimately tied with the lands and resources of their current
reservation and specific treaty fishing areas. Preventative measures are
required to ensure future generations of the Tulalip peoples will have the ability
to reside on their ancestral lands. A water storage project that could meet
increasing provision demands involves storing glacial and snowpack runoff in
the spring, for use in the drier summer months, rather than continuing to allow
it all to flow to the sea and damage gravel-bed salmon spawning areas in
intensifying spring flood events.
The Tulalip Tribes, in partnership with hydrology experts at the Surface
Water Management Division of Snohomish County, are using watershed
characterization methods to determine the ideal volume of water to be stored,
channel maintenance flows, normative flows, the speed at which water moves
through the system, and the best techniques for redistributing this volume of
water over the landscape in order to protect and help habitat building processes
that are happening upstream (A. Hook, personal communication, 9/15/2011).
The project team will develop a multi-phased plan to control, accommodate and
discharge storm and glacial melt runoff. The ideal plan will also recharge
groundwater, control sediment, stabilize erosion, establish monitoring
capability, and rehabilitate stream and drainage corridors for hydraulics,
86
aesthetics, and fisheries benefits (Bylin 2011). In this proposed management
plan, an emphasis is placed on diverting snowmelt runoff into upland water
catchments and storing it underground in gravel formations, aquifers, forested
wetlands and in areas with forested cover to be released during low-flow
periods. This adaptation strategy would substantially reduce climate change
impacts on stream flow, as it involves filling storage reservoirs and pre-existing
aquifers with a freshwater supply to be released when natural flows decline.
Currently, the Tribes do not have full the authority to implement water
storage projects upstream and outside of their reservations. Yet they do have
treaty interests in their ceded territories (including the entire basin) and should
have input on how projects are administered upstream. The only way for them
to extend proactive water management up the mountain slopes is in
collaboration with local, state and federal agencies, similar to tribal strategies in
the Nisqually Basin.
Terry Williams has initiated a partnership with Debbie Terwilleger, the
Director of Surface Water Management Division at Snohomish County. The
Division awarded a Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant from the Department of
Ecology in 2001 to protect groundwater resources in Snohomish County. It now
attends regular meetings on watershed-scale climate change adaptation
strategies, and at the top of the list of future projects is a comprehensive ground
water management program. A Ground Water Management Plan (GWMP) was
created in 1999 for Snohomish County and is led and administered by
Terwilleger’s team at the SWMD. The program involves compiling groundwater
data and providing public access to the database, preparing a study to evaluate
87
groundwater issues and recommend solutions, protecting groundwater quality
for residential consumption, identifying standards and policies that would
protect and assist recharge and prevent contamination, and coordinating with
county, state, and federal departments on actions for achieving goals set forth in
Snohomish County’s GWMP (Bylin 2011).
Progress with this program has been slow, as administrative and
technical details have yet to be fully understood. Implementation currently
cannot extend beyond the boundaries of Snohomish County, and the Snohomish
Basin includes parts of King County, which is why watershed-wide issues and
related projects should be addressed at a watershed-wide scale. (Point Elliott
itself is also included in the basin, although the effects of this treaty span
multiple counties.) King County has devoted efforts towards similar projects
and has data regarding aquifer health and critical recharge areas. Snohomish
County, on the other hand, has made less progress with this program and would
greatly benefit from the Tribes’ assistance, as they have demonstrated
groundwater management success in the past. Terwilleger’s team has been
coordinating with Williams’ department to create a GIS map designating priority
aquifer recharge areas in the Snohomish Basin. According to Abby Hook, Tulalip
Tribes GIS Specialist, this is one of many current projects at a conceptual stage,
and is far from being implemented (A. Hook, personal communication,
8/31/2011). Hook shared her expertise on this project; “The idea in our office is
to combine the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization project results from
Department of Ecology with the historical wetland data that Batelle did for
Snohomish County. Watershed characterization will point out areas that storage
88
is of high importance and is degraded. The historical wetland information from
the County should point out within those subbasins where the most appropriate
sites for wetland or storage restoration areas are located” (A. Hook, personal
communication, 8/31/2011). Hook is in the process of collecting GIS layers
from both Snohomish county and Ecology. Hook and her team will overlay
historical wetland information from Battelle’s “wetness indicator studies” over
the current watershed characterization maps, which include the following
criteria: importance of delivery, restoration and protection for delivery, surface
storage importance, surface storage degradation, and discharge rates (A. Hook,
personal communication, 9/15/2011). Figure 13 is a map from Ecology’s Puget
Sound Watershed Characterization Project geodatabase, and provides an
example of how surface storage importance attributes can be shown with GIS.
Figure 13. Priority surface storage map (arrow pointing to Pilchuck River Basin)
89
So far, Hook and the team at Tulalip have developed sub-basin rankings
for the Pilchuck River Basin. They are utilizing the methods from the
characterization shown above, where shades of blue display importance of
storage. According to Ecology, the upper watershed is still intact and the
projected impacts from climate change are not depicted at higher elevations. In
order to avoid this weakness in their sub-basin maps, Hook and the Tulalip team
are creating a more detailed map that will provide restoration and protection
rankings, so when they overlay the two maps they would have a better idea of
future project sites. As these maps are not yet complete, Abby was unable to
release the documents for my research.
Figure 14. Pilchuck River Basin map: Current focus sub-basin for Tulalip Tribes’ water
flow assessment study
90
The Snohomish water assessment team is currently focusing on the
Pilchuck River Subbasin as a potential pilot project. The team anticipates
designating priority water storage sites in forested wetland regions. A variety of
factors led the team to pursue a forested water storage pilot project, including
the fact that forestland preservation incentives are underdeveloped in
Washington, therefore the Legislature is encouraging watershed ecosystem
service transactions that involve private forestlands. The Department of Natural
Resources, in association with the Nisqually Tribe, the Tulalip Tribes, Snohomish
County, and several other related decisionmakers, is in the process of developing
a program where downstream landowners who are benefitting from ecosystem
services such as storm water management pay a fee to the land owners
upstream who are providing or enhancing such services (C. Partridge, personal
communication, 9/15/2011). Beyond this, latest research shows that second- or
third-growth timber stands, which are homogeneous, can be knocked down to
add structure to the forest floor and reestablish habitat for species that were
removed by clear-cutting. Such forestry practices would also replace associated
storage features, including those involving beaver dams (A. Hook, personal
communication, 9/15/2011). Forest soil water storage hydrates the
surrounding ground and creates spring lines in downhill regions. “Once in the
soil, water takes weeks, months, and even years to travel distances that would
only takes days if flowing over the land. Plus, this water is fully protected from
the sun's rays and evaporative forces” (Buckley 2010). Additionally, forest
ecosystems can reduce sedimentation and land degradation, while also serving
as effective water filtration and temporary buffering systems. The Snohomish
91
team has thus already begun approaching landowners in the region to volunteer
a portion of their forested wetlands as test sites for measuring the functionality
of such ecosystem services (ecosystem health) and water storage values. While
individual landowners are beginning to take interest, others such as
Weyerhauser, Hancock Timber, and Westcott Gravel, are proving to be more
difficult to persuade.
This study serves as support for a Snohomish Basin-wide water storage
assessment and implementation project that would be led by the Tulalip Tribes,
and would involve work with partners such as the Surface Water Management
Division at Snohomish County, the Ecological Economics Analysts at Earth
Economics, NOAA, Department of Ecology, and regional interests. The Tulalip
Tribes Natural Resources Division has exceeded in its capacity building to carry
out a preliminary water storage assessment. It has already begun to highlight
the optimal sites for water storage projects farther upstream in higher
elevations. It makes more sense to harvest snowmelt glacial runoff upslope than
further downstream in the Snohomish River Delta, because the slope can enable
filtration into aquifers and water catchments, and because higher elevations
ensure less contaminant from agricultural and urban activities.
92
Chapter 8. Conclusion & Recommendations
Water management partnerships have been increasingly adopted in
Washington State as a way to optimize outcomes for all interests involved.
While all citizens of a watershed should have equal claim to a seat at the table,
there are several reasons why tribes play an especially crucial role in the
collaborative decision-making process. Among the top of the list is the
requirement for quality water for tribes to exercise their spiritual, cultural,
political and economic rights to this resource. Indigenous nations’ rights to
resources in their “usual and accustomed” places have been recognized for over
150 years in Washington State, and have governed the relations between tribes
and the U.S. government, since the 1974 Boldt Decision.
As a result of climate change, these natural resources face worsening
degradation, which poses a major threat to local tribal communities and other
watershed citizens. Most resource managers are aware that collaborative efforts
take much work to implement and thus have not readily resorted to this method
of management. Yet, in response to the mounting conflict of climate change (and
various other pressing factors) resource managers have turned to collaborative
watershed management as a long-term solution to local water resource conflicts.
The Boldt Decision represented a major step towards the selfdetermination Indigenous nations in Washington. It allowed Indigenous peoples
to reclaim their treaty rights to the land and its resources, reassert their
governing authority, and reconnect with traditions and place-based practices
that date back many centuries. Indigenous forms of ecological knowledge have
contributions to make to the mounting challenge of sustainable water use.
93
Indigenous leadership, or a high degree of Native participation in collaborative
water management institutions, will bring benefits to the entire watershed via
cross-cultural problem solving. A unique result of collaborative efforts that
might not be found in other types of management regimes is the development of
social capital, and the breaking down of barriers between tribes and
surrounding communities that have historically been at odds.
This research identified the factors that encourage or discourage tribal
participation in collaborative watershed management. I also addressed the role
of Western and Native science (and associated power sharing dynamics)
between the State and the tribes of Washington in collaborative watershed
management. The general research objective was to highlight the dynamics of
tribal involvement in collaborative management, and to provide support for
enhancing watershed management practices. While the goals of this research are
broad and require long-term commitment and continuing research, the
discussions in which I was able to participate revealed that this research is
significant. The topic is an agenda item for the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, several tribes, Department of Ecology, city and county
governments, and scientific researchers. And while participatory watershed
partnership success is still not unanimously viewed as the answer to water
resource degradation in an era of climate change, one variable that contributes
to the success rate of such institutions is the leadership of Indigenous nations,
particularly those with treaty rights. Indigenous peoples’ interest in protecting
water resources is key to their cultural survival and future ability to remain in
their homelands, and thus, collaborative watershed protection is most successful
94
when led by Native American nations based in the watershed.
Emerging from this research is a series of recommendations for tribes,
local communities, and agencies seeking to work collaboratively. The Nisqually
watershed serves as a prime example of a successful tribally led collaborative
habitat restoration project that is now referenced throughout the U.S. The
Nisqually Delta restoration serves as a model of how varying spatial and
temporal scales of knowledge are important to understand when developing
adaptive resource management strategies. Observations made throughout the
generations serve as the bases of traditional ecological knowledge, as a scientific
understanding of local natural history, which has only recently been recognized
by Western scientists as a valuable source of information for natural resource
decision-making.
A one-sided approach to resource and ecosystem management exhibits the
type of behavior that led to unequal power relationships on the land. Although
partnerships are strengthening relationships among watershed residents,
competing priorities remain to be a major challenge to Native/non-Native
watershed collaborations. Until recently, the Skagit watershed collaboration
management initiative has not seen as much success in its restoration efforts,
which is a direct result of a historical lack of Swinomish tribal input. Tribal
leadership of such collaborations alone might not ensure the type of success
attained by the Nisqually Tribe.
As revealed in the case of the Tulalip Tribes and the Qualco Energy project,
a common interest must be present, and it is helpful if the local tribe steps
forward to initiate discussions to develop an optimal compromise and solution
95
to the issue. Through the Qualco Energy project, the Tulalip Tribes have
developed partnerships that build social capital with communities in the
Snohomish Basin. The success of the Qualco Energy project has led to the
gradual establishment of regional confidence in Tulalip leadership for future
collaborative resource management projects.
The Tulalip Natural Resources department employs a mix of Native and
Western science practices. It has incorporated gravel corporations, dairy farms,
and has even reintroduced beavers as helpers in hydrologic system restoration,
in efforts to utilize commonly overlooked contributions to collaborative
resource management. The Tulalip have been successful in these creative efforts
and seek to expand to the broader region. Bridging scales and knowledge types
will maximize the benefits of collaborative watershed projects. If designed with
tribal input, overall knowledge will be greatly enhanced and understandings will
advance more quickly than with tribes or scientists alone, acting separately in
isolation from each other.
The Tulalip Tribes look at salmon as an indicator that also holds tribal
cultural significance. All natural resources have cultural terms and values,
which the Tulalip Tribes have strived to incorporate into their environmental
efforts. After the Tulalip completed their climate impacts study, they were able
to realize that changes in forest habitat (loss of trees, animals, soil, etc.) have
been a major causal factor for negative effects on local vegetation, hydrology,
wetlands, aquifers and the ecosystem’s overall systematic hydrology. The Tribes
have seen trends in river flows coming 2-3 months earlier than usual, causing
the river flow to be out of sync with fish reproduction cycles. Damage from
96
springtime floods and summertime low flows counteract the Tribes’ salmon
recovery goals. They thus have been looking at their watershed’s hydrology and
designing scientifically, politically, and economically sound projects that will
regulate the flow of the river over time. By storing water, watershed
collaborators can prevent harmful spring flooding and release water for salmon
to survive dry summers. Projects that rehydrate the landscape mimic the
essential role that beaver performed for several centuries.
Although current landowners have begun to join the Tribes in their efforts,
they have tended to deal with only small pieces of the problem at a time. In
order to be truly effective, restoration efforts need to be implemented on a
larger scale, which requires larger grants, more corporate partners with larger
land holdings, and legal allowance to exercise the Tribes’ treaty-based authority
and extend projects into upland zones, regardless of county boundaries. This
research reveals that the Tulalips’ past successes, knowledge of the local
ecosystems, vested interest in the health of the watershed, understanding of the
urgency related to climate change, legal power through treaties, and inspiring
leadership in a myriad of natural resource issues, make them ideally positioned
to fill the role of recognized leaders of successful water management in the
Snohomish River Basin.
97
Works Cited
Adams, Bill, Dan Brockington, Jane Dyson, and Bhaskar Vira. (2002). Common
Pool Resource Policy Paper. Department of Geography. Cambridge, U.K.:
University of Cambridge.
Aerts, Jeroen. C. J. H., and Peter Droogers. (2004). Climate Change in Contrasting
River Basins: Adaptation Strategies for Water, Food, and Environment.
Cambridge, Mass.: CABI Publishing.
Armitage, Derek R., Fikret Berkes, and Nancy Doubleday. (2007). Adaptive Comanagement: Collaboration, Learning and Multi-level Governance.
Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press.
Azelzadeh, Mary, Todd Bryan, and Steven Yaffee. (2003). Tribal Issues and
Considerations Related to Collaborative Natural Resource Management.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ecosystem Management Initiative, School of Natural
Resources and Environment.
Barlow, Maude. (2009). Our Water Commons: Toward a New Freshwater
Narrative. The Council of Canadians. Retrieved on 9 Feb 2011, from
<http://www.canadians.org/water/publications/water%20commons/.
Batker, David, et al. (2009). The Natural Economy of the Nisqually Watershed.
Tacoma, Wash.: Earth Economics.
Batker, David. (2010). Snohomish Carbonfinity Workshop. Unpublished scope,
Earth Economics, Tulalip Tribes, Wash.
Batker, David. et al. (2010). The Whole Economy of the Snohomish Basin: The
Essential Economics of Ecosystem Services. Earth Economics, Snohomish
County, Everett, Wash.
Berkes, Fikret. (2008). Sacred Ecology. 2nd. New York: Routledge.
Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications.
10 (5): 1251-1262.
Biomimicry Institute. (2011). “About Us.” Retrieved on 14 August 2011, from
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/
Brick, Phillip, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van De Wetering. (2001). Across the Great
Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Broderick, Kathleen. (2005). Communities in Catchments: Implications for
Natural Resource Management. Geographical Research, 43 (3), 286-296.
Brodie, Nelsa, and Seth Preston. (2006). Impacts of Climate Change on
Washington’s Economy. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Wash.: Department of Ecology.
Brower, Andrea. (2006). Keep it Local Ahupua'a Management: Lessons for
Today. The Garden Island. Retrieved on 22 Feb 2009, from
http://thegardenisland.com/business/local/article_4abba0d6-1b585ccf-8fce-656873493cc1.html
Buckley, Adrian. (2010, April 30). “Water Harvesting and Storage.” Retrieved on
27 July 2011, from http://www.bigskypermaculture.ca/node/64.
Bushnell, Jill. (2006). Local Indigenous Responses. In Climate Change and Pacific
Rim Indigenous Nations (pp. 63-70). Olympia, Wash.: Northwest Indian
Applied Research Institute (NIARI).
98
Bylin, Ann. (2011). The Groundwater Management Program. Retrieved on 19
July 2011, from
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Division
s/SWM/Work_Areas/Water_Quality/Groundwater/.
Careless, James. (2009, September). Finding Common Ground. Manure Manager.
Retrieved on 10 May 2011, from
http://www.manuremanager.com/content/view/2558/38/.
Climate Impacts Group. (2008, March). Retrieved on 24 June 2011, from
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/cc.shtml.
Climate Impacts Group. (2011). Modeling Climate Change and Land Use
Impacts on Salmon Recovery in the Snohomish River Basin. Retrieved on 3
August 2011, from
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/res/ae/snohomish.shtml.
"Constitution of the United States," Article 6, Section 2.
Cronin, Amanda E. (2005). Tribal Participation in Collaborative Watershed
Management: A Comparison Between the Desert Southwest and the Pacific
Northwest. MS Thesis. Flagstaff, Ariz.: Northern Arizona University.
Day, Richard J. F. (2005). Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social
Movements. Toronto: Pluto Press.
Donoghue, Ellen M., and Sara Thompson. (2003). Characterizing Tribal - Federal
Collaborative Resource Management. Community-Based Collaborative
Research Consortium. Charlottesville, Va.
Earth Economics. (2009). Tribal Rights and the Natural Economy of the Nisqually
Watershed. Retrieved on 12 September 2011, from
http://www.eartheconomics.org/Page123.aspx
Fischer, Frank. (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: the Politics of
Local Knowledge. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Foster, Sheila. (2002). Environmental Justice in an Era of Devolved
Collaboration. Harvard Environmental Law Review. (26).
Gagnon, Alain-Gustave. (2009). Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations,
Traditions, Institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Grossman, Zoltan. (2005). Unlikely Alliances: Treaty Conflicts and
Environmental Cooperation Between Native American and Rural White
Communities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 29 (4): 2143.
Hardin, Garrett. (1968, Dec 13). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science
Magazine, 162 (3859): 1243-1248.
Hunn, Eugene S. et al. (2005). Huna Tlingit Gull Egg Harvests in Glacier Bay
National Park. In J. Sepez and H. Lazrus (Eds.), Traditional Environmental
Knowledge in Federal Resource Management Agencies. Oklahoma City,
Okla.: Practicing Anthropology: pp. 6-10.
Inglis, Julian T. (1993). Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases.
Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Retrieved on 16 May 2011,
from
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
99
Jansen, Eystein, Jonathan Overpeck, Keith R. Briffa, Jean-Claude Duplessy,
Fortunat Joos, et al. (2007). Palaeoclimate. In, Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.
Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.
K. and New York.
Johnson, Jay T. (2011, April 14). Being-in-Place Together: Is there Room for the
Settler in Anarcho-Indigenism? Affinity and Geography Conference
Presentation. Association of American Geographers Meeting. Seattle,
Wash.
Kincade, Marvin D. (1990). The Swinomish Tribe. Retrieved on 22 May 2011,
from http://www.fourdir.com/swinomish.htm
Klosterman, Renee, and Laural Ballew. (2006). Potential Paths for Native
Nations. In, Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations (pp. 6370). Olympia, Wash.: Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute
(NIARI).
Kunzler, Larry. (2005). History of Skagit River. Retrieved on 2 September 2011,
from http://www.skagitriverhistory.com/
Luce, Charles H., and Zachary A. Holden. (2009). Declining Annual Streamflow
Distributions in the Pacific Northwest United States, 1948–2006.
Geophysical Research Letters, 36 (10).
Marr, Andrew E. (2010). Snowmelt Hydrology of Mt. Rainier Rivers: Implications
for Future Water Resources Management. MES Thesis. The Evergreen
State College. Olympia, Wash.
McCarthy, James J. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York.
McCartney, Matthew, and Vladimir Smakhtin. (2010). International Water
Management Institute. Water Storage in an Era of Climate Change:
Addressing the Challenge of Increasing Rainfall Variability. Battaramulla,
Sri Lanka: IWMI.
McCloud, Sheila. (2011, Spring). Tulalip Looks Closer at Climate Change.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, NWIFC News. Olympia, Wash.
Menzies, Charles R. (2006). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural
Resource Management. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Mihelcic, James R., Julie B. Zimmerman, and Anu Ramaswani. (2007).
Integrating Developed and Developing World Knowledge into Global
Discussions and Strategies for Sustainability. Environmental Science and
Technology. 41(10): 3415-3421.
Mote, Phillip W., Alan F. Hamlet, and Eric Salathe. (2008). Has Spring Snowpack
Declined in the Washington Cascades? Hydrologic and Earth Systems
Science. 12: 193-206.
Muller-Schwarze, Dietland and Lixing Sun. (2003). The Beaver: Natural History of
a Wetlands Engineer. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock Publishing Associates.
100
Nisqually Delta Restoration. (2011). “About the Project.” Retrieved on 8 January
2011, from http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/.
Nisqually River Council. (2011). Nisqually Watershed Stewardship Plan.
Retrieved on 10 January 2011, from http://nisquallyriver.org/who-weare/the-nisqually-river-management-plan/
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2011). Dams: Impacts on Salmon
and Steelhead. Retrieved on 18 September 2011, from
http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/DamsImpacts.asp
O'Haracohara, Charles. (2000). Swinomish Cooperative Land Use Program. The
Harvard Project of American Indian Economic Development,
Cambridge, Mass.
Ostrom, Elinor. (2001). Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource
Management in the Americas. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Papiez, Chelsie. (2009). Climate Change Implications for the Quileute and Hoh
Tribes of Washington: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing Climatic
Disruptions to Coastal Indigenous Communities. MES Thesis. The
Evergreen State College, Olympia, Wash.
Parker, Alan et al. (2006). Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations
Olympia, Wash.: Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute (NIARI).
Parry, Martin et al. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York.
Partridge, Craig. (May 15, 2011). "Criteria for assessing collaborative potential in
wicked policy problems." Environmental Policy Class Lecture. The
Evergreen State College, Olympia, Wash. In Person.
Paulson, Melissa N. (2007). Collaborative Watershed Management: Stakeholder
Participation and Watershed Partnership Success. MES Thesis. The
Evergreen State College. Olympia, Wash.
Pollock, Michael M., George Press, Timothy J. Beechie, and David R. Montgomery.
(2004). The Importance of Beaver Ponds to Coho Salmon Production in
the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management, 24:749-760.
Qualco Energy Corporation. (2010). Qualco Energy. Retrieved on 5 April 2011,
from http://www.qualcoenergy.com/qualcoenergy.htm.
Riedlinger, Dyanna. (2000). Inuvialuit Knowledge of Climate Change. In, Pushing
the Margins: Native and Northern Studies, J. Oakes, et al., eds. 346-355.
Winnipeg: Native Studies Press, University of Manitoba.
Rollins, Dora M. and William A. Warren. (2004). Indians, Non-Indians, and
Collaboration: An Issue of Fairness and Status. Posted on The Center for
Community-Based Collaborative Research Consortium. Accessed by
Cronin on May 03, 2004, at
http://www.cbcrc.org/phpbin/news/showArticle.php.
Rowe, Jonathan. (2011, June 30). The Hidden Commons. Yes! Retrieved from 30
September 2011, from
<http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/reclaiming- the-commons/thehidden-commons>.
101
Sabatier, Paul A., Will Focht, Mark Lubell, Zev Trachtenberb, Arnold Vedlitz and
Marty Matlock, eds. (2005). Swimming Upstream: Collaborative
Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Samenow, Jason. (2011, April 22). Climate Change Indicators in the United States.
Retrieved on 16 August 2011, from
http://epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html.
Shared Salmon Strategy. (2011). Watershed Profile: Salmon and the Skagit
Watershed. Retrieved on 27 August 2011, from
http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/watersheds/watershedskagit.htm.
Skagit Watershed Council. (2006). Skagit Basin Three-Year Workplan. Mount
Vernon, Wash.
Sky Valley 101. (2008, October). Flood Information You Need to Know. Sky
Valley Chronicle, Retrieved on 4 September 2011, from
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/SKY- VALLEY-101/FLOODINFORMATION-YOU-NEED-TO-KNOW-488
Smith, Claire, and Hans M. Wobst. (2005). Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing
Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Snohomish County. (2011). Surface Water Management Division Snohomish River
Salmon Recovery. Retrieved on 11 September 2011, from
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Division
\s/SWM/Work_Areas/Habitat/Salmon/Snohomish/default.htm.
Snohomish County Surface Water Management. (2011). Surface Water
Management Division. The Four Flood Phases. Retrieved on 10 September
2011, from
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Division
s/SWM/Services/River_Flooding/The_Four_Flood_Phases.htm
Snohomish Times. Record flooding is being predicted! (2009, January 6).
Snohomish Times. Retrieved on 8 July 2011, from
http://www.snohomishtimes.com/snohomishnews.cfm?inc=story&news
Snow, Lester A. (2008). California Resources Agency, Department of Water
Resources. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation
Strategies for California’s Water. Sacramento, Calif.: California
Department of Water Resources.
Stewart, Iris T., Daniel R. Cayan, and Michael D. Dettinger. (2005). Changes
Toward Earlier Streamflow Timing Across Western North America. J.
Climate, 18, 1136–1155.
Swinomish Climate Change Initiative. (2009). Impact Assessment Technical
Report. Retrieved on 6 August 2011, from
http://www.swinomish.nsn.gov/climate_change/project/project.html
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (SITC). (1987). Memorandum of
Understanding for Establishing a Coordinated Tribal/County Regional
Planning Program. Retrieved on 17 August 2011, from
http://modelpolicies.thepraxisproject.org/node/77.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (SITC). (2010). Swinomish Climate Change
Initiative Climate Adaptation Action Plan. La Conner, Wash.: Swinomish
Office of Planning and Community Development.
102
Tulalip Tribes. (2011). “Tulalip Tribes.” Retrieved on 10 January 2011, from
http://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/
US Geological Survey. (2009, January 13). Latest Summary of Flooding in Western
Washington. Retrieved on 3 August 2011, from
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/news/flood/summary/
Waage, Sissel A. (2001). (Re)Claiming Space and Place Through Collaborative
Planning in Rural Oregon. Political Geography (20).
Warner, Jeroen. (2007). Multi-stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water
Management, Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Co.
Warren, Henry C. (1982). Olympic: The Story Behind the Scenery. Wickenberg,
Ariz.: KC Publications Inc.
Washington State Department of Ecology. (1998). Watershed Planning: Indian
Tribes. Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514). Olympia, Wash.:
Washington Department of Ecology. Retrieved on 19 April 2011, from
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/misc/indian_tribes.htm.
Wheeler, Polly and Amy Craver. (2005). Office of Subsistence Management and
Issues and Challenges of Integrating TEK into Subsistence Fisheries
Management. In J. Sepez and H. Lazrus (Eds.), Traditional Environmental
Knowledge in Federal Resource Management Agencies. Oklahoma City,
Okla. Practicing Anthropology. (15-20).
Williams, Daryl. (2011, April 26). Qualco Energy Corporation. Bio-Gas
Cooperative Information. Qualco Energy. Retrieved on 26 April 2011,
from <http://www.qualcoenergy.com/>.
Williams, Terry, and Preston Hardison. (2006). Impacts on Indigenous Peoples.
In, Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations (p. 19-28).
Olympia, Wash.: Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute (NIARI).
Wilkinson, Charles F. (1992). Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the
Future of the West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Wilkinson, Charles F. (2000). Messages from Frank's Landing. Seattle, Wash.:
University of Washington Press.
Wright, Robert J., Randall Coots, and Robert F. Cusimano. (2001). Snohomish
River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Wash.
Yandle, Tracey. (2006). Sharing Natural Resource Management Responsibility:
Examining the New Zealand Rock Lobster Co-management Experience.
Political Science. 39:249-278.
103
