-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
The Role of Non-Government Organizations in Supporting Washington’s Tribal and State Governments’ Salmon Recovery Plans
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2016
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Donavan, Deanna M
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
The Role of Non-Government Organizations in Supporting Washington’s Tribal and
State Governments’ Salmon Recovery Plans
by
Deanna M. Donovan
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2016
© 2016 by Deanna M. Donovan. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Deanna M. Donovan
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shangrila Wynn Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
The Role of Non-Government Organizations in Supporting the Salmon Recovery Efforts
of Washington’s Tribal and State Governments
Deanna M. Donovan
Washington Tribal and State government organizations (GOs) have worked together
since the 1980s to create, amend and implement the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan
(PSSRP). The original plan included a unique strategy which promoted the creation of
supporting non-government organizations (NGOs) to help GOs achieve the goals set out
in the plan. By conducting textual analysis of key documents and conducting interviews
with NGO affiliates, and representatives from Washington (WA) State and Tribal
government agencies and organizations this research examined how NGOs facilitate the
salmon recovery efforts laid out in the PSSRP. It also investigated the specific niches that
NGOs fill that regulating agencies are unable to. The study documented the unique
mixing of top-down and bottom-up strategies, as well as the incorporation of indigenous
knowledge, used in Washington State to address Natural Resource Management (NRM).
This study outlines the roles that environmental NGOs have adopted in support of the
PSSRP. This includes the ability to help educate the public and policymakers, provide
alternative funding, assist with researching, implementing and monitoring habitat
restoration projects and function as bridging organizations. By providing education about
habitat preservation and conducting habitat restoration projects NGOs are also helping to
support the treaty fishing right of a healthy salmon habitat. These results may provide
information to governments in other regions that are experiencing comparable situations
and may encourage them to work with NGOs in order to gain additional support in their
NRM efforts. Further, they may also be able to advance progress in local environmental
education, and encourage more citizen involvement in salmon recovery and habitat
restoration efforts.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………...6
Chapter 3: Research Methods……………………………………………………43
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion……………………………………………..51
Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………………………………………………...75
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..80
Appendices………………………………………………………………………83
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my reader, Shangrila Wynn, and Master of Environmental
Studies (MES) program director Kevin Francis for their patience, guidance and
encouragement. Gail Wooten deserves significant accolades for providing me with a
sympathetic ear and giving me valuable advice pertaining to the successful completion of
my thesis. I would also like to thank all of the MES professors for the knowledge they
bestowed on me during the course of this program. I’d like to express gratitude to all of
my interview participants and the environmental professionals who provided me with the
crucial information needed to complete this body of work. Last but not least I need to
thank my husband Daniel Hull, my mother Janice Donovan and my cohorts and friends
for all the love and support they have given me throughout this challenging yet satisfying
educational journey.
v
Chapter 1: Introduction
The many cases brought to trial since the 1854 signing of the Medicine Creek
Treaty (MCT) culminated in the 1974 Boldt Decision. Phase I of this proceeding
mandated that Washington (WA) Fishing Treaty Tribes should no longer be
discriminated against and were entitled to 50% of salmon fishery intake (U.S. v. WA,
1974). Phase II, in 1980, also ruled that the tribes had the right to a healthy salmon
habitat (U.S. v. WA 506 F. Supp 203-205 [1980]). In 1982 a third ruling related to this
case also required that tribal and state government agencies pool their resource and work
as partners to co-manage salmon fisheries in WA State (U.S. v. WA, 694 F. 2nd
1374,1389 [1982]). These were major steps forward in reestablishing Pacific Northwest
(PNW) Tribal Treaty Rights.
Unfortunately discrimination of tribal fishers persisted and salmon populations
continued to decline. In order to ameliorate the problem of low salmon runs and
deteriorating habitat the tribes and the state published The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Plan (PSSRP) in 1987. Among other things this document called for the involvement of
community in salmon recovery efforts. In order to facilitate this, the tribes, the state, and
local citizens created various non-government organizations (NGOs) to provide
environmental education programs, assist in research, restoration and monitoring efforts,
and act as mediators in order to support Washington’s Salmon Recovery Plans and Treaty
Fishing Rights.
In 1999 several salmon species were listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the federal government became more involved in Puget Sound’s
1
salmon recovery efforts. By the year 2000 salmon recovery had become the focus of
many grassroots organizations, as well as local, state, and federal government
organizations (GOs). Due to the ongoing dedication of mixing top-down and bottom up
NRM, WA State has some of the most pristine watersheds in the nation. That said, the
fact remains that salmon habitat is being destroyed faster than it can be restored, salmon
runs are still declining and WA Tribes are still fighting for their treaty fishing rights.
By answering the following research question and sub-questions this study
summarized how NGOs and GOs work together to educate the public and policymakers
about sustainable environmental practices and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
NGOs in supporting Puget Sound’s salmon recovery plans and upholding treaty fishing
rights. The overarching research question is: How have environmental NGOs facilitated
salmon recovery efforts in the Puget Sound Region? Sub-questions include: (1) What role
do Western Washington environmental Non-Government Organizations play in
supporting salmon recovery efforts of Washington State’s Tribal and State governments?
(2) What functions do Non-Government Organizations supply that are not provided by
Government Organizations? (3) How does the work done by environmental NonGovernment Organizations help to uphold treaty fishing rights?
Some of the roles and responsibilities of WA’s environmental NGOs that are
outlined in this research include: providing educational programs for the public and
policymakers, using alternative funding and volunteers to research, monitor and restore
the habitats needed to support the treaty fishing right of maintaining healthy salmon
habitats and to act as mediators between the public and governments, as well as between
tribal, state, and federal governments. It is important to note here that each tribal
2
government speaks for themselves concerning policy issues and once it has been
determined that there is consensus among the tribes the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC) will speak on behalf of all Treaty Fishing Tribes.
By studying historical accounts and key legal documents concerning PNW
salmon fisheries, reviewing state and tribal GOs and NGO websites, mission statements,
key documents and recovery plans I identified themes relating to the roles of NGOs in
supporting salmon recovery efforts. In conducting interviews with, or providing on-line
questionnaires to, stakeholders, NGO affiliates, and representatives from Washington
State and Tribal GOs I investigated and analyzed these themes further. I also identified
gaps that could be filled to enhance salmon recovery efforts. This analysis takes into
consideration the ways NGOs may facilitate the success of the salmon recovery efforts
laid out in management plans produced by regulating agencies
When I first embarked on my research I had intended to examine the comanagement tactics that Washington’s Tribal and State governments use to create and
implement PSSRPs and identify methods that propelled or impeded the process. I had
also intended to examine the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in the comanagement of salmon fisheries. From the outset, beginning with the signing of the MCT
there has been controversy and turmoil surrounding the upholding of TFR, including a
war, many protests, and over one hundred years of litigation. I was compelled to tell this
story because the reestablishment of the rights of Washington’s Treaty Tribes is essential
and the Boldt Decision was the biggest step in local history towards that end. Since issues
surrounding the regulation and recovery of Washington’s salmon fisheries is
3
controversial and the participation of tribal employees requires the permission of their
Tribal Councils I was unable to satisfactorily pursue this topic given the time constraints.
Since treaty rights remain a crucial issue and affect the way Washington’s salmon
fisheries and salmon recovery efforts are managed today it is important to understand the
history of TFR since the signing of the MCT, the intense litigation, and events that led up
to the Boldt Decision and the court cases and actions that followed. This history is
important to include in the thesis as it illustrates the failure of the state to acknowledge
and uphold treaty fishing rights. This culminated in WA State taking a progressive
approach to managing their salmon fisheries and enlisting the assistance of NGOs in their
salmon recovery efforts. NRM in WA has consequently evolved into a unique
combination of top-down and bottom up approach to the implementation of their salmon
recovery plans. The NGO facilitated civil society involvement has become an intrinsic
part of this approach and their effect on the implementation of recovery plans is worthy
of further investigation.
In the following section, I situate my thesis project in the peer reviewed literature
on top-down and bottom-up methods of NRM and a description of the benefits and
challenges surrounding the citizen involvement that is facilitated by environmental
NGOs. The following section also provides a detailed history of the events leading up to
WA’s current method of NRM. This history is important in order to understand the
contemporary context within which the roles NGOs are employed to augment WA’s State
and Tribal Governments salmon recovery efforts. I then discuss how the current case
study contributes to current literature on NGO facilitated community involvement in
4
NRM issues. Following this I present an overview of my research methods and the
sources of my primary data.
The findings and discussion that follows is organized according to key themes
that were identified, namely the roles of NGOs in education of the public and policy
makers, research and monitoring efforts, funding, resource efficiency and conflict
mediation.
Finally, I conclude by arguing the importance of citizen involvement in NRM in
light of current events that are being addressed by WA based NGOs and GOs. I make
suggestions concerning the ways that this research can supplement the current literature
on the mixing of top-down and bottom-up NRM. Lastly, I outline other compelling areas
for further study on the subject.
Detailed descriptions of select NGOs and GOs can be found in the appendices.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies in NRM
In order to work towards solving the growing crisis of deteriorating ecosystems it
has become increasingly common, worldwide, for traditional top-down regulatory
processes in NRM to be combined with bottom-up methods. These include the grassroots
efforts employed by diverse groups of local resource users, community members and
stakeholders as well as the regulation and enforcement of policies by regulating agencies
(Kalikoski & Satterfield, 2004; Klinger, Dale, Sherman, McKinney, Campbell, & Gold,
2007). These partnerships between NGOs and local, state and federal government
agencies promote the participation of civil society and allow their input to be considered
by the regulating agencies that ultimately set and enforce policies. (Kalikoski &
Satterfield, 2004; Leach, Pelkey, & Sabatier, P. A., 2002).
These multilevel tiers of involvement have the goal of attaining common ground
concerning conservation, restoration and policy objectives. In order to obtain these
objectives partners conduct activities such as public outreach, education, trust-building,
grant writing, and research. To ensure GO and NGO missions and objectives are being
met they generally have a board of directors that participate in monthly meetings
occurring in perpetuity. This long term dedication to their mission statements allows GOs
and NGOs to work together to define a problem, adopt a policy, and then implement and
assess restoration projects (Leach, Pelkey, & Sabatier, P. A., 2002).
Cooperation among governments, community members and various stakeholders
is perceived as a necessary prerequisite for durable solutions to problems encountered in
6
environmental management and conservation endeavors (Klinger, Dale, Sherman,
McKinney, Campbell, & Gold, 2007). It has been documented that multi-stakeholder
groups have had success in acting as bridging organizations, linking resource users,
NGOs and GOs (Trimble & Burkes, 2013). This finding validates the importance
bridging institutions such as environmental NGOs. It also illustrates the potential
benefits, from the participation of NGOs in NRM including conflict mediation and
greater resource efficiency (Sawhney, Kobayashi, Takahashi, King & Mori, 2007).The
functional typology of this process includes a number of roles rarely mentioned in NRM
literature; including the trust-building and awareness raising that can be enabled by NGO
involvement (Brewer & Moon, 2015).
One of the more challenging goals of involving research focused NGOs in NRM
is ensuring that they obtain and present data that is scientifically valid, justifiable and
significant, but also easily understood by citizens, stakeholders and GO employees. When
these goals are accomplished it has been shown to bring about an overall better
understanding of the resources of concern (Klinger, P., Dale, V., Sherman, M.,
McKinney, M., Campbell, J.Y., & Gold, B., 2007).When the public and policymakers
have a greater understanding of natural resource issues, and the awareness of these issues
is based on valid and scientifically sound knowledge, there is a better chance of coming
to sustainable agreements concerning the creation and implementation NRM plans
(Sawhney, P., Kobayashi, M., Takahashi, M., King, P.N., Mori, H., 2007).
The success of long-term research, implementation and monitoring efforts entails
a lasting commitment to funding and the contribution of resources from GOs and NGOs.
The ability to find alternative funding and participate in conflict mediation gives NGOs
7
the capacity to improve resource efficiency and help bridge the gap between the public
and government agencies. (Sawhney, Kobayashi, Takahashi, King & Mori,
2007).Whether implemented by an NGO or a GO, dedicated management of all recovery
projects is necessary to promulgate what is successful and terminate, or adjust, projects
that are failing to meet recovery goals (Klinger, Dale, Sherman, McKinney, Campbell, &
Gold, 2007).
The time-lag between implementing recovery plans and observing significant
results can lead some to doubt concerning the outcomes of involving NGOs in
conservation and restoration efforts. The process of involving civil and civic society has
shown to facilitate consensus among diverse stakeholders and policy making agencies. In
contrast, the outcomes of recovery efforts can be tenuous in the short-term and tend to
vary, so complete agreement is not always possible. As more governments are investing
time and money into sustainable NRM more research needs to be done on how to gauge
and interpret the outcomes and effectiveness of the involvement of NGOs in the research,
implementation and monitoring of recovery plans (Koontz, T.M. & Thomas, C.W.,
2006).
One argument opposing the combination of top-down and bottom-up NRM is the
potential for begrudging compromises that do not produce better decisions or encourage
mutual agreements but could exacerbate existing differences (McCloskey, M., 1996).
Clashes have been known to occur between stakeholders with diverse agendas, such as
environmental activist groups and extractive or urban development industries. There is
concern that grassroots environmental activist groups may be excluded from participation
in multi-stakeholder NRM meetings and any remaining sympathetic individuals in
8
attendance will be powerless to go up against well paid professionals from extractive or
development industries (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004; McCloskey, M., 1996).
While the structure of mixing top-down and bottom-up NRM techniques has
seemingly benefited from community involvement there is a possibility for inflated
expectations when it comes to civil society’s contributions to the decision making
process. If citizens are under the impression that their input in the decision making
process will be implemented, and those decisions are disregarded or simply taken under
consideration there is potential for acrimony (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004). It is not
uncommon for a range of stakeholders to resent regulatory government agencies if their
preferences are restricted. In the bottom-up approach to environmental management
regulating government agencies have been known to both encourage and obstruct
community efforts (Koontz, T.M. & Thomas, C.W., 2006).
Despite the degree to which regional grassroots efforts have proven beneficial for
keeping up the momentum of habitat restoration and outreach education, Irvin and
Stansbury (2004) pointed out that there are situations in which bottom-up citizen
involvement may be considered unproductive and even wasteful. To illustrate their point
they created a list of indicating factors that is as follows:
“High-Cost Indicators
* An acquiescent public is reluctant to get involved in what is considered the job
of government employees.
* The region is geographically large or presents other obstacles (such as heavy
traffic) that make regular face-to-face meetings difficult.
* Many competing factions and socioeconomic groups require a very large
participatory group.
* Low-income residents are key stakeholders for the issue at hand and should be
included, yet they cannot because of work and family priorities.
9
* Complex technical knowledge is required before participants can make
decisions.
* The public does not recognize the issue under consideration as a problem, nor
are potential competing policy alternatives familiar to the public.
Low-Benefit Indicators
* The public is generally not hostile toward government entities.
* The agency has had prior success in implementing policy without citizen
participation (that is, the voting process is sufficient to guide policy-making
behavior).
* The population is large, making it difficult for involved stakeholders to
influence a significant portion of the population.
* The decisions of the group are likely to be ignored; no matter how much effort
goes into their formation (the group does not have authority to make policy
decisions).
* The decisions of the group are likely to be the same as the decisions produced
by the government entity.” (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004, p. 62)
When too many of these indicators are present conventional top-down methods may
be a preferred option; but if indicators are few and well scrutinized there is no reason not
to incorporate citizen involvement in decision making processes. In cases where it is
proven to be economically beneficial to go with a more stream-lined governmental
regulatory process government agencies are able to use the residual resources for project
implementation. (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004).
2.2 Incorporating the Involvement of Civil Society
Once salmon were listed as threatened or endangered by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999 a collaborative policy planning model in Puget Sound
was put into action by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries department. This model permitted those who are most affected by the ecologic,
cultural, economic, and political costs of salmon recovery significant say regarding
scientific research and restoration project choices in their watersheds (Weber, E.P.,
10
Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010). Community input in NRM recovery plans has the
ability to make citizens better environmental stewards, give them a sense of ownership of
their local ecosystems and a sense of pride in successful outcomes of restoration efforts
(Sawhney, P., Kobayashi, M., Takahashi, M., King, P.N., Mori, H., 2007; Klinger, Dale,
Sherman, McKinney, Campbell, & Gold, 2007)
Since the EPA requires the participation and guidance of scientists in the planning
process stakeholders are able to formulate their choices based on local ecology.
Integrating the best possible science with societal and political ideals can broaden
support, durability and efficiency of resulting policies (Klinger, Dale, Sherman,
McKinney, Campbell, & Gold, 2007; Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010).
This planning model empowers citizens, improves chances that projects will be more
scientifically sound, and helps to ensure that policies will be truly effective. Policy
determinations, as well as restoration project selection and implementation rely heavily
on supporting scientific data. This illustrates the fact that science directly impacts policy
decisions (Klinger, Dale, Sherman, McKinney, Campbell, & Gold, 2007; Weber, E.P.,
Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010).
One of the premises behind the ongoing involvement of civil society in Puget
Sound’s salmon recovery planning process grants that stakeholder participation and the
right to exercise their freedom of choice gives the citizens of the region a sense of
ownership and makes them better stewards of, their watersheds (Weber, E.P., Leschine,
T.M. & Brock, J., 2010). Active community participation in the decision making process
enables resulting policies to be directly based on citizen preference and local residents
may feel more accountable for the final decisions. (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004;
11
Sawhney, Kobayashi, Takahashi, King & Mori, 2007.; Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. &
Brock, J., 2010).
The participation of community members that is encouraged by NGOs also has
the potential to guide stakeholders to more empathetically assess the difficult decisions
that are required by regulatory agencies. Their inclusion in the decision making process
can also take away the ability for them to blame policy shortcomings on regulatory
agencies. The citizen involvement and increased awareness fostered by NGOs have the
ability to create more trust between the public and their governments. Although citizen
participation in policy decisions can cause public backlash and dissent, it can also permit
regulating agencies to make compromises that lead to a less divided and opposing
populace to regulate (Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., 2004; Sawhney, Kobayashi, Takahashi,
King & Mori, 2007; Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010).
While the proper education of citizen groups can be an effective tool for helping
to resolve political deadlock there is fear that the same directive could potentially endorse
self-interested decisions introduced by and benefiting the richer, more powerful and
influential members of society as opposed to the greater public. Proponents of the
involvement of civil society in policy making would proclaim that its main objective is to
improve management decisions. Critics claim that stakeholder involvement presents an
opportunity to manipulate policy decisions for personal or financial gain (Irvin, R.A. &
Stansbury, J., 2004; Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., Sabatier, P.A., 2002)
By working closely with grassroots organizations policymakers are able to be
more in-tune with the public’s perceptions of problem issues and probable solutions.
12
NGOs are able to contribute a level of expertise, dedication and the public’s perspective
on policy issues that official bodies could not attain on their own accord. As the main
providers of environmental education NGOs have taken on the role of promoting raised
awareness of crucial policy issues and increasing the environmental knowledge of both
the public as well as policymakers (Sawhney, Kobayashi, Takahashi, King & Mori,
2007).
2.3 Historical Background
2.3.1 The Medicine Creek Treaty: The Beginning of the Salmon Controversy
On December 24, 1854 Tribal Elders and Leaders from the Nisqually, Puyallup,
Steilacoom, and Squaxin Tribes gathered in the Nisqually Valley, at the mouth of
Medicine Creek, to meet with the territory of Washington’s newly appointed Governor
Stevens to discuss and sign the Medicine Creek Treaty (MCT). Although all four tribes
primarily spoke Salish, and Governor Stevens had a Salish interpreter at his disposal, he
insisted the proceedings be conducted using only the roughly 500 words of Chinook
jargon that had been used as a language of trade between early fur-traders and the tribes
in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It remains contested to this day as to how much of
the MCT the tribes actually understood at the time of its signing. It was also speculated
that the signatory X’s of certain tribal leaders had been forged. Due to these issues, as
well as differing ideologies about domicile over land, the tribes immediately protested the
conditions laid out in the Treaty (Kluger, 2011; Reddick and Collins, 2005; Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006).
13
In a 2005 Oregon Historical Quarterly article, Reddick and Collins postulated that
the original Treaty relegated three of the four tribes to Squaxin Island. The tiny island had
no access to freshwater fishing nor any prairie or workable farmlands. The tribes
vehemently refuted this arrangement, causing Governor Stevens to change the terms of
the agreement to the establishment of three, two-square mile reservations at different, yet
equally inhospitable, locations along the river. Article III of the Treaty provided a meager
solace by including a defining proclamation; this statement encompassed cultural
heritage, as well as property and land-use rights. It declared that the signatory tribes
would be permitted to “take fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in
common with all citizens of the territory” The exact meaning of this clause has come up
in many court cases over the years (Anderson, 1987; Blumm and Swift, 1998; Brown,
1994; Clark, 1985; Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Hobbs, 1968; Kluger, 2011; Reddick
and Collins, 2005; Shreve, 2009; Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854, Article III; Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006).
The Nisqually and the Yakama Tribes, led by Chief Leschi, a respected member
of the Nisqually Tribe, stuck to their principles and refused to move out of their lodgings
and away from their sacred fishing, foraging, farming and burial grounds. The Puget
Sound War followed and made it legal to shoot Indians off their reservations. The tribes
fought hard against conditions laid out in the Treaty but were eventually forced from their
native lands and moved onto the reservations assigned to them (Kluger, 2011; Reddick
and Collins, 2005; Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006). This was only the beginning of
the long and contentious battle between Washington State officials and Washington State
Tribes. This battle was finally mollified by the 1974 Boldt Decision. The ruling in this
14
case ended discrimination against the tribes, gave them the right to 50% of the salmon
harvest and eventually mandated that the tribes and the state work together to make
salmon recovery plans and regulate salmon fisheries.
2.3.2 Court Cases and Controversy Leading up to the Boldt Decision
As previously mentioned, the MCT, as well as four other similar Treaties
negotiated in the 1850s, stated that Western WA Indians had “The right of taking fish, at
all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens…” (Brown,
1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr. and Reynvaan, 1981; Kluger, 2011; Reddick and Collins,
2005; Shreve, 2009; Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854, Article III; Heffernan, 2012). In
1854 state officials had assumed that the salmon-rich waters of the PNW would remain
stable throughout the years, but this proved not to be true. The growing demand for
salmon and tensions between Indian and non-Indian fisheries caused treaty fishing rights
to be taken to the United States Supreme Court no less than seven times in seventy years.
“The origin of those court battles was language in the Treaty of Medicine Creek,
brokered on the delta in 1854.” (Heffernan, 2012, p. 18).
In 1905 U.S. v. Winans upheld the right of treaty Indians to fish on what had once
been one of their traditional fishing grounds but had become private property and in 1942
Tulee v. Washington exempted treaty Indians from state licensing regulations but not
conservation regulations (Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009; Wilkinson,
2006; United States v. Winans, vol.198, 1905; Tulee v. Washington, vol.315, 1942). State
courts repeatedly challenged these and other federal court decisions that ruled in favor of
the tribes and the federal court consistently upheld them, yet this failed to deter the state
15
from conducting raids and arresting treaty fishermen throughout the 20th century (Brown,
1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Reddick and Collins, 2005; Shreve,
2009)
One of the first arrests came in 1954 when Puyallup-Yakama Indian Robert
Satiacum intentionally defied the state game laws by gillnetting out of season and with no
license. The case made its way to the WA State Supreme Court and, although it resulted
in a stalemate and the charges were dismissed. (Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve,
2009). In 1961 the state went even further to push their proclaimed salmon conservation
measures by passing a law forbidding the commercial sale of fish by Native peoples and
began stepping up their raids (Shreve 2009).
Native fishermen received another setback with the 1963 ruling from the court
case of State v. McCoy. Joe McCoy. The defendant, a Swinomish Indian, had been
arrested in 1960 for fishing the Skagit River with a 600-foot gillnet and selling his catch
commercially. The court ruling gave full regulatory power to the State of Washington’s
Fish and Game Department and declared their control of off-reservation fishing as
reasonable and necessary for conservation. It also dismissed the fact that McCoy, as a
member of a tribe that had signed the MCT, had the right to fish in ‘usual and
accustomed places’ (Shreve, 2009; State v. McCoy, vol.387 1963). The tribes responded
in force, some driving to Olympia to report their objections directly to the Governor,
while others just ignored the ruling and continued to fish (Shreve, 2009).
Tension between the state and the tribes had reached a crux. In a show of
solidarity a group of Nisqually Tribal members went down to Frank’s Landing, on
16
January 1, 1964, and proceeded to cast their nets despite the heavy presence of game
wardens who possessed an injunction from the Pierce County Superior Court closing the
river to fishing. The wardens arrested the fisherman and filed a restraining order against
them (Heffernan, 2012; Shreve, 2009). Despite the restraining order members of Western
WA Tribes continued to come to Frank’s Landing and cast their nets. Wardens continued
to make arrests and within a month the situation had reached the point of a full on crisis.
In order to address the issues at hand tribal leaders convened in discussions with the
National Indian Youth Council (NIYC) and proceeded to put a new era of intertribal
activism into motion (Shreve, 2009; Wilkinson, 2006).
Raids and arrests on the Nisqually River reached a highpoint by the mid-sixties
with treaty fisherman regularly being tear-gassed, forcibly removed from the fishing
grounds, and taken to jail (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981;
Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Kluger, 2011; Reddick and Collins, 2005; Shreve, 2009;
Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006). By 1964, NIYC members Bruce Wilkie and Hank
Adams devised a plan of action and put word out for WA Tribes to come together to
challenge these arrests by conducting fish-ins; a civil disobedience tactic to draw media
attention to the failure of the state to uphold federal treaty rights. On March 3rd of 1964,
thousands of people from tribes across the nation came together for the largest intertribal
demonstration to date (Shreve, 2009; Wilkinson, 2006). Tribal members and concerned
citizens coming out to show their support were joined by the likes of actor Marlon
Brando, folk singer Buffy Sainte Marie and comedian Dick Gregory whose presence
helped garner additional media coverage of the protests (Shreve, 2009; Heffernan, 2012;
Wilkinson, 2006).
17
Game wardens, tribal fisherman, and a slew of reporters, all convened on the
banks of the Puyallup River on the morning of March 1, 1964. Brando and Reverend
John Yaryan, an Episcopalian priest from San Francisco who had also come up to show
support, cast their nets first, only to be immediately arrested (Shreve, 2009; Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006). The Pierce County Prosecutor dropped the charges against
Brando but it was too late -- news of his arrest at the Northwest Fish-ins had already
made all local and some national papers and television news reports (Shreve, 2009;
Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006).
This high profile news coverage drew thousands of supporters to the area for a
mass protest at Olympia’s capitol building (Shreve, 2009; Wilkinson, 2006). Working
with the NIYC, Hank Adams had produced a list of demands to present to the state at the
protest; these included the appointment of a state Indian Advisory Committee, a joint
state and federal scientific study of Indian, recreational and commercial fishing in
Washington’s rivers; and an immediate halt to arrests of Indians fishing at ‘usual and
accustomed places’ (Shreve, 2009; Heffernan, 2012). During the protest representatives
of the tribes had a four hour meeting with the Governor. Although the Governor agreed
with Adams that an Indian Advisory Committee should be formed and talked about the
protection of treaty rights and the importance of Native sovereignty, the tribes agreed that
it had been an unsatisfactory meeting (Shreve, 2009; Heffernan, 2012).
Governor Rosellini himself addressed the crowd following the meeting. He began
by noting the progress and achievements the tribes had made and, although he said that
he stood ready to cooperate with the tribes, he went on to state that he could not condone
the threat of Native fisheries that were unregulated or uncontrolled (Shreve, 2009;
18
Heffernan, 2012). Although the March fish-ins failed to bring about any immediate
changes, Adams noted that the events had instilled a renewed spirit and bravery in the
intertribal activism. This activism eventually led to the Boldt Decision which created a
major shift in the structure of Washington’s management of salmon fisheries (Shreve,
2009).
The fish-ins had garnered nationwide attention and in response the WA State
legislature petitioned the U.S. Congress to enact official legislation in order to settle the
dispute. Despite his apparent support of treaty fishing rights WA State Senator Warren
Magnuson proceeded to lobby for Joint Senate Resolutions 170 and 171. These
resolutions would piggyback on Public Law 280 that had been passed in 1953. The Law
had transferred the jurisdiction of Indian Affairs from the U.S. Department of Interior to
certain state governments and gave states the power to pass stringent conservation
measures that restricted treaty rights (Shreve, 2009). Resolution 170 confirmed the
state’s right to heavily regulate off-reservation treaty fishing and Resolution 171 was an
attempt to eliminate, by purchase, tribal off reservation fishing rights (Shreve, 2009).
While the Sportsmen’s Council lobbied for the Resolutions, the National
Congress of American Indians, who felt the PNW Tribes had been falsely accused as
solely responsible for declining salmon runs, came out in full opposition of the
resolutions. They proposed that the Senate conduct a wide-ranging study of the fishing
industry in the PNW before they considered passing Magnuson’s bills. The results
prevented their passing as they exhibited that between the years 1958 and 1967 Indian
fisheries took in 6.5 percent, sport fishers 12.2 percent with commercial fisheries taking
the remaining 81.3 percent (Shreve, 2009). Magnuson’s bills did not even make it to the
19
floor of Congress and the Indian fisheries celebrated a key victory (Shreve, 2009).
Despite this victory for Native fisheries they continued to be heavily regulated and
persecuted with violent raids continuing into the early 1970s (Shreve, 2009 Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006).
Hank Adams had obtained a small grant in 1968 from the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to support the proceedings in a court
case wherein Yakima fisherman Richard Sohappy and twelve other Yakima Tribal
members went up against an Oregon Fish Commissioner. Sohappy and his nephew had
been arrested for fishing with gill-nets on the Columbia River and the Indian fishing
rights activists saw this as an opportunity to bring a test case to court (Wilkinson, 2006).
Due to the high numbers of treaty fisherman that had recently been criminally
prosecuted by the state certain federal officials were swayed to testify on behalf of the
Sohappys. This federal involvement resulted in the consolidation of the United States v.
Washington and the Sohappy v. Smith case, which went to trial on July 8, 1969
(Wilkinson, 2006). The tribes saw yet another ray of hope when Judge Robert Belloni
ruled that treaty fishing rights entitled the Yakima Indians the right to “a fair and
equitable share” of fish from the Columbia River and its tributaries (Shreve, 2009;
Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006; Sohappy v. Smith, vol.302 1969). The ruling did not
define what a fair and equitable share consisted of; however, that definition would
become a focal point of the famous 1974 case that came to be known as the Boldt
Decision.
20
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington et al (1968) is another
critical court case of that era worth noting. Based on regulation for conservation
purposes, the case became part of what is known as the Puyallup Trilogy and originated
from the arrest of Billy Frank Jr. and five other fishermen in March of 1964 (Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006; Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash., vol.391 1968).
The 1968 case became known as Puyallup I and Justice William Douglas ruled that the
state had the right to regulate off-reservation fishing if it appeared to threaten
conservation. The tribes saw this ruling as having nothing to do with true conservation
and everything to do with the singling out and persecution of Native fisherman and
allowing non-Indians to catch all the fish (Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009;
Wilkinson, 2006; Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash., vol.391 1968).
The conservation aspect became even more muddied as non-treaty fisheries
became more adept at catching much of the salmon in salt water areas before the fish
reached the traditional Indian fishing ground on the rivers, leaving only what is
considered the required escapement, which is the number of spawning adults to needed to
provide a suitable number of salmon for the following year’s run (Clark, 1985).
Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (1973) known as Puyallup II
focused on the conservation of steelhead but also contained a ruling from Justice Douglas
stating that tribes had a right to take a ‘fair share’ of salmon.
In the case of steelhead, the judge ruled that the Indians did not have treaty fishing
rights and banned net fishing in favor of hook and line fishing. (Shreve, 2009; Wilkinson,
2006; Department of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe, vol.414 1973). In the final case
in the trilogy, Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of WA (1977), Justice Stevens
21
upheld the tribe’s allocation rights stating that Indian fisheries had the right to take fortyfive percent of the steelhead catch (Blumm and Steadman 2009; Galligan Jr and
Reynvaan 1981;Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., vol.433 1977).
The Sohappy victory and Puyallup I both served as crucial precursors to the Boldt
Decision, the case that would reestablish the treaty fishing rights of Western Washington
Tribes, change the course of the management of Northwest Tribal Fisheries, and begin
the era co-management of fisheries between the tribes and the state and the creation of
NGOs to support their salmon recovery plans.
2.3.3 A Summary of the Boldt Decision
After the Sohappy victory, it became clear that the federal government supported
the Tribal Fisheries of the PNW and on behalf of the tribes, the United States filed The
United States v. Washington in 1970. The federal government even provided high profile
lawyers to represent the tribes as well as specialists in history, anthropology and biology
to research and testify on circumstances pertaining to the 1854 Stevens Treaties (Brown,
1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009; Heffernan, 2012;
Wilkinson, 2006; United States v. State of Washington, vol.384 1974).
According to Trova Heffernan’s Where the Salmon Run: The Life and Legacy of
Billy Frank Jr., the experts assigned to building the case for WA Tribes would be basing
their research around two vital points: 1) The interpretation of the language of the
Stevens Treaties as the Indians would have understood them at the time of signing and 2)
The establishment of better management of the fisheries overall, as they felt that the state
22
persistently and continually placed wrongful blame on the tribes for the declining fish
runs (pp.132-133).
In Messages from Frank’s Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian
Way Wilkinson declared that the tribal lawyers intended to present strong arguments
against the state’s authority over the regulation of treaty fishing; the tribes felt that they
should have the authority to regulate their own fisheries (p. 51). Hank Adams and Tulalip
leader Janet McCloud acquired the legal services of David Getches, a lawyer and the
executive director of the Native American Rights Fund. After researching dictionaries
from 1828 through 1862 Getches came to determine that in 1854 the term ‘common’, one
of the most debated terms in the Stevens Treaties, meant ‘equal’ so the litigators for the
tribes eventually decided to propose a 50/50 split, although they did present it in limited
context so as not to press the issue (p. 52). After three years of research and preparation,
the trial resulting in the Boldt Decision began in the fall of 1973 (Brown, 1994; Clark,
1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009; Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006;
United States v. State of Washington, vol.384 1974).
On February 12, 1974 Judge Boldt handed down the 203 page ruling. The ruling
upheld treaty fishing rights, abolished discrimination against Indian fisherman, and
reaffirmed the right to an equal share of the fish, agreeing to the 50/50 split proposed by
the tribes (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009;
Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006; United States v. State of Washington, vol.384 1974).
Although this was a monumental legislative outcome after years of court proceedings
concerning treaty fishing rights, the verdict proved more difficult to enforce than almost
any judgment in history. It didn’t help that the state emphatically rejected the ruling,
23
refusing to enforce the judge’s orders, and filing multiple appeals trying to overturn the
decision (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Shreve, 2009;
Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006). Commercial and sport fishermen began to hold fishins of their own, and hung Judge Boldt in effigy on the courthouse lawn on more than one
occasion (Wilkinson, 2006).
Convinced that Judge Boldt’s decision would be overturned; representatives for
the state were disappointed when the Supreme Court upheld U.S. v. Washington in 1979.
To clarify the matter Judge Boldt divided the case into two parts, Phase I and Phase II
(Belsky 1996; Blumm and Steadman 2009; Brown 1994). Phase I upheld the right to offreservation fishing and Phase II, heard by Judge Orrick in 1980, ruled the inclusion of
hatchery fish and habitat protection for treaty fish as treaty fishing rights. In 1982 the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the absolute right to habitat protection and ruled
that the state and the tribes pool their resources, take action to appropriate resources, and
use their means to co-manage salmon fisheries; co-management began in earnest in 1984
(Belsky, 1996; Blumm and Steadman, 2009; Brown, 1994). Although that was not the
end of court proceedings concerning treaty fishing rights these decisions marked the
beginning of a new era of co-management between the tribal and state governments and
further promoted the creation of NGOs to support and augment the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985; Galligan Jr and Reynvaan, 1981; Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006).
24
2.3.4 The Introduction of Supporting NGOs
In 1987 the tribes and the state created the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan
(PSSRP) (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985). Among other things, the plan laid out rules
concerning how to determine harvestable numbers of fish as well as establishing the
required number of escapements required for an efficient number of spawning adults
needed for the following year’s salmon run. It also contained a sub-section dictating that
community members be involved in salmon recovery efforts. Nisqually Tribal Leader and
Chairman of the NWIFC, Billy Frank Jr., took note of this sub-section and was a
proponent for the creation of NGOs to help facilitate the involvement of civil society in
salmon recovery efforts.
The numerous disagreements that continued to go to trial led the courts to
establish a Fisheries Advisory Board (FAB) (Brown, 1994; Clark, 1985). The FAB
contained one voting member from the tribe, one from the state and a court appointed
Scientific Technical Advisor to intercept technical arguments and then report to the court.
Since the courts most frequently sided with the Technical Advisor, their decisions on
matters prevented unnecessary court litigations (Brown 1994; Clark 1985). Out of the 75
disputes brought to the FAB in 1982 the state only triumphed over the tribes three times.
(Brown, 1994).
Eventually it became inevitable to both parties that the disputes got them nowhere
and, due to the steady decline of salmon runs, both parties realized the need to join forces
with NGOs to support salmon recovery plans that included salmon habitat restoration
projects and environmental education programs. While this was a huge step for
25
cooperative salmon recovery the tribes remained skeptical and harbored the feeling that
the state only saw them as co-managers of the salmon harvest and believed that they
should be engaging more in salmon recovery measures. This lead to the creation of
NGOs, supported by local Tribal Councils, in order to assist in providing additional
educational programs, enforce conservation measures and to act as mediators (Brown,
1994).
Primarily due to the efforts of Billy Frank Jr. and Hank Adams the Nisqually
Watershed has now become a model for cooperative efforts in NRM (Brown, 1994;
Clark, 1985; Heffernan, 2012; Wilkinson, 2006). Since the Boldt Decision many
grassroots NGOs have been formed by local citizens, the tribes, and the state. Each NGO
has their own separate niche and, although there is some overlap. These organizations
work in collaboration with one another, the tribes and the state. Among other things, the
majority of NGOs work to educate the public, restore salmon habitat and acquire land for
the purpose of conservation easements; all of which are ultimately aimed at recovering
declining salmon runs and upholding treaty fishing rights (Wilkinson, 2006).
2.3.5 The 2007 Martinez Decision
The 2007 the court case known as the Martinez Decision, a follow-up case to the
Boldt Decision, upheld that treaty fishing rights forbid any habitat-damaging activities
that inhibit WA Tribes from earning a moderate living by engaging in the salmon harvest
in their rivers. (Blumm and Steadman, 2009). The Martinez Decision reviewed the 20th
and 21st century court proceedings and its ruling created a means for the Puget Sound
Tribes with fishing rights under the Stevens’ Treaties to establish more significant and
stringent salmon restoration efforts. This entailed working with not only the state and
26
federal governments but also enlisted NGOs to work with citizens and private land
owners. These measures benefited both Indian and non-Indian fisheries (Blumm and
Steadman, 2009).
Since the Boldt Decision, the tribes have worked hard to negotiate and comanage fisheries rather than taking disputes to court. The tribes have consistently been
willing to accept budget restrictions concerning their treaty fishing rights to habitat
protection but unfortunately, despite an abundance of restoration efforts by both GOs and
NGOs, they have witnessed the relatively pristine habitat that existed at the time the
Stevens Treaties were signed steadily decline (Blumm and Steadman, 2009). In
considering Judge Martinez’s ruling, recently deceased Billy Frank, Jr., Nisqually Tribal
leader and elder, activist and longstanding chairman of the NWIFC, said:
“In order for us all to live together, we are not turning the lights off. But we have
to do a better job at what we are doing. We have to have the leadership and the
guts to make it happen, and we haven’t had the political will for salmon in this
state....We need the political will to bring the salmon back and have a home when
they get here. (Blumm and Steadman, 2009, p. 53).”
2.3.6 Treaty Rights at Risk and the Puget Sound Recovery Caucus
After the 2007 Martinez ruling joint salmon recovery, habitat restoration and
environmental education efforts stepped up a notch. The increase in environmental
education focusing on habitat protection and working with land owners on habitat
restoration projects was not having the desired effect and salmon populations continued
to decline. Despite Martinez’s mandate, the willingness of various stakeholders,
community members, NGOs and the tribal and state governments due to industry and
27
urban development habitat was still being destroyed faster than it could be restored
(Blumm and Steadman, 2009).
This lack of progress prompted the WA Treaty Tribes to publish a paper in 2011
entitled “Treaty Rights at Risk”. This paper was essentially a call-out to federal agencies,
such as NMFS and NOAA, to take more of a leadership role in the salmon recovery
efforts in the PNW, discontinue the issuing of permits for habitat destroying structures
such as bulkheads and docks, enforcing habitat destruction policies, ensure that salmon
recovery and habitat restoration plans were followed through to completion and that
restoration projects would include base-line studies and long term monitoring to assess
their outcomes (Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington, 2011).
In a partial response to TRAR Congressmen Denny Heck and Derek Kilmer
established the Congressional Puget Sound Recovery Caucus (PSRC) in June of 2013.
The PSRC is designed to promote clean-up efforts in the Puget Sound and strengthen the
coordination of federal and executive agencies with state, tribal and local agency
partnerships. Action items include but are not limited to: Formalizing recognition of
Puget Sound under the Clean Water Act, increasing coordination with the Council on
Environmental Quality, strengthening accountability, ensuring early and ongoing
government-to-government engagement with Puget Sound Tribes and learning from
successful collaborations.
The PSRC also identified the following initiatives that they believe could have a
positive impact on the health of the Puget Sound region: formalizing Puget Sound
recovery efforts, highlighting innovative stormwater solutions, advancing ocean
28
acidification research and monitoring, restoring habitats throughout the Puget Sound,
promoting economic development and environmental protection and removing derelict
vessels and creosote pilings (Congressional Puget Sound Recovery Caucus Working
White Paper, 2014). These actions and initiatives are another step forward in upholding
treaty fishing rights and enhancing the amalgamation of the top-down and bottom-up
style of NRM that WA State has cultivated. The federal effort to work towards salmon
recovery combined with the civil society involvement fostered by environmental NGOs
has become known as ‘The Washington Way’ (Weber, E.P., Leschine T.M., & Brock, J.,
(2010).
2.3.7 The Unique Nisqually Watershed
The multitude of natural resourcess available in the Nisqually Watershed had
provided sustenance to the Nisqually Indian Tribe (originally the Squally-absch) for
thousands of years (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Wilkinson, 2006). The Squally-absch,
which translates to ‘people of the grass country’, resided along the abundantly productive
Nisqually Watershed, harvesting vegetables from the prairies and salmon and shellfish
from the river and delta (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Wilkinson, 2006). For more than
a millennium they had been able to utilize the resources the watershed provided in a
sustainable way but when white settlers began to arrive in the early-19th century the
landscape began to change in ways that were detrimental to the fragile ecosystems in and
around the river (Wilkinson, 2006).
The Nisqually Watershed is especially unique due to the fact that the headwaters
of the Nisqually River originate near the top of Mt. Rainier in a national park, and then
29
proceeds to flow 78 miles down through acres of coniferous forests and prairie lands into
the Nisqually Delta which is primarily made up of a National wildlife refuge (Gordon and
Lembersky, 1995). No other river in the United States has its headwaters originating in a
National Park and its mouth spilling out onto a delta protected by a National Wildlife
Refuge (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995). Due to the level of protection this offers and the
hard work of Nisqually Tribal leaders, members and organizations, Washington State
organizations and Nisqually Watershed based NGOs; the Nisqually Watershed is one of
the healthiest watersheds in the Pacific Northwest (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995).
2.3.8 The Detrimental Effects of Agriculture, Industry and Hydropower and Early
Salmon Recovery Efforts
Starting in the late nineteenth century the advancement of the canning,
agriculture, logging industries and hydropower projects along the river began to have
detrimental effects on the runs of the five native species of salmon inhabiting Western
WA’s watersheds (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Stober and Bell, 1986; Heffernan,
2012; Wilkinson, 2006). As early as 1870 the canning industry had begun to diminish the
PNW fish runs. Just after the turn of the 19th century Seattle Attorney Aslon Brown
purchased 1,500 acres on the Nisqually Delta and built four miles of low earthen dikes
along the eastern, western and northern borders in order to wall off the sea and use the
land for grazing and farming (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995). Upriver logging damaged
salmon habitat even further but the dams built to power the growing urban areas caused
the most dramatic changes to the natural flow of the river.
30
The first dam project began in 1910 with the Tacoma Light Department’s fortyfive foot high La Grande Dam and was followed by the Centralia hydroelectric water
diversion project in 1930 (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Stober and Bell, 1986;
Wilkinson, 2006). By the mid-1940s, two additional dams had been built downriver. The
dam operations alternated between peak-hour floods that pushed the fish runs out to the
mouth of the river and diversions that practically dried it up during the hot summer
months when salmon were coming back to the river to spawn. None of the original dam
constructions included fish-ladders or screens to allow for salmon migration (Gordon and
Lembersky, 1995;Wilkinson, 2006).
The growth in the housing industry following World War II caused a steady
increase in logging activity in the Northwest and further destroyed salmon habitat.
Fertilizers and pesticides used by farmers and foresters drained into streams and rivers,
poisoning the fish. Increased levels of silt, due to logging away riparian zones, made the
water murky and obliterated spawning habitat. By the 1960s the commercial Chinook
salmon take was half of what it had been in the 1940s. Non-Indian commercial and
recreational anglers and the state blamed the tribes but it was discovered shortly before
the 1974 ruling of the Boldt Decision that it had not been the Indian fishermen that had
been solely responsible for the declining runs. As mentioned previously, it was
discovered that Native fishermen had been taking only 6.5% of the harvestable catch and
recreational and commercial fisheries had been taking the rest. (Heffernan, 2012;
Wilkinson, 2006).
Efforts to make up for the loss in native fish runs had begun by the late 1940s
with the WA Department of Fisheries releasing juvenile Chinook and Coho Salmon and
31
the WA Department of Game introducing a non-native species of steelhead (Gordon and
Lembersky, 1995). In 1975 The Nisqually Tribe sued the city of Centralia, who managed
the water Alder River diversion dam. This resulted in the requirement that the facility
change in the amount of water that could be diverted by the project during peak salmon
runs. Later that year the Tribe also filed a similar petition against the city of Tacoma who,
as a result, also altered the operations of their dams to better accommodate and benefit
salmon runs. The results of these legal actions were beneficial to the salmon runs but did
not happen overnight. Although the petitions had been filed in 1975, the proceedings
were not finalized until 1993 (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995; Wilkinson, 2006).
In a joint effort to further restore the depleted salmon runs, the cities managing
the dams, along with the Tribe and the Fort Lewis Military Base built hatcheries at
several locations along the Nisqually Watershed. In a prime example of
intergovernmental cooperation, the Clear Creek Hatchery was built on land leased to the
Tribe by Fort Lewis, with construction and start–up paid for by Congressional funds from
Department of Fish and Wildlife and operation and maintenance covered by the City of
Tacoma; the hatchery was put into full operation in 1991. Although there are mixed
opinions concerning the affect that the introduction of hatchery fish have on the Native
salmon runs the design and management of this hatchery has come to exemplify the
unique collaborative restoration efforts in WA State (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995;
Wilkinson, 2006).
2.4 Collaborative Natural Resource Management in Washington State
In the years since the Boldt Decision WA State has become exemplary in their
unique technique of mixing a top-down and bottom-up method when approaching salmon
32
recovery efforts. These collaborative NRM tactics are not entirely new nor are they
unique to the PNW. Yet, due to the hard work and dedication of several key leaders,
proactive community involvement, and regulating agencies working in tandem with
NGOs the grassroots techniques used by Washington State for collaboration between
stakeholders have come to be known as ‘The Washington Way’ (Weber, E.P., Leschine
T.M., & Brock, J., (2010).
Since the Boldt Decision mandated that WA State and the Tribal governments
pool their resources and work together to co-manage salmon urban development,
industry, and hydropower projects have continued to consistently destroy salmon habitat
This resulted in salmon runs declining to such a degree that in 1999 NOAA’s fisheries
division listed the Puget Sound Chinook as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The jeopardized Chinook runs affected 14 watersheds in the WA State and the
massive scale of restoration efforts combined with distrust in the federal government’s
ability to properly fund and support such a large project inspired several prominent
leaders to band together to come up with a workable solution (Weber, E.P., Leschine,
T.M. & Brock, J., 2010).
Several key leaders took action and devised an effective solution to address
salmon recovery issues. From 1999 to 2001 meetings were held that eventually involved
over 200 leaders, educators, stakeholders and scientists from federal, state, tribal, and
local governments, universities and environmental groups, as well as representatives from
both the agricultural and fisheries industries (Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J.,
2010). By 2002 they had compiled the results of these meetings and working as a team
they designed an approach to recovery that relied heavily on the support of NGOs and the
33
community involvement they inspire. Their plan was deemed the Shared Strategy for
Recovery of Salmon in the Puget Sound.
According to their website the Shared Strategy is based on the following five
convictions:
people in Puget Sound have the creativity, knowledge, and motivation to
find lasting solutions to complex ecological, economic, and cultural
challenges;
watershed groups that represent diverse communities are essential to the
success of salmon recovery;
effective stewardship occurs only when all levels of government
coordinate their efforts;
the health and vitality of Puget Sound depends on timely planning for
ecosystem health and strong local and regional economies; and
the health of salmon are an indicator of the health of our region salmon
recovery will benefit both human and natural communities. (Shared
Strategy, 2007)
Prior to the 1999 EPA listing the decline of salmon runs had had drawn the
attention of the U.S. Federal Government. Several NGOs, such as the South Sound
Salmon Enhancement Group, founded in 1991, had already been established in order to
address some of the issues causing the decline; most notably the destruction of habitat.
The EPA listing of Chinook took matters to an entirely new level of action. The
expectation was that the collaborative process laid out in the Shared Strategy would
educate stakeholders in the 14 affected watersheds while also incorporating more science
in the planning of recovery efforts (Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010). One
of intentions laid out in the Shared Strategy was to ensure success by short term planning
and long term implementation (Weber, E.P., Leschine, T.M. & Brock, J., 2010).
Stakeholder partnerships working to collaborate on policy planning are made up
of members of private interest groups, ecologists, and local, state and, federal government
34
representatives; in general they can be described as parties who research, utilize, and
regulate fisheries. All partnership affiliates assemble on a regular basis in order to confer
and negotiate a wide array of complex policy issues. Although there is evidence that
collaborative policy making efforts have garnered the public’s support and they openly
acknowledge its benefits, research is necessary to further explore the types of policy
questions that need to be addressed, as well as to evaluate partnership accomplishments.
The success of NRM partnerships is, in part, evaluated by improvement in habitat
conditions.. Unfortunately, whether due to lack of funding, poor design, or time
constraints, many restoration projects did not include sufficient base-line studies or the
long-term monitoring efforts that would provide analytical proof of ecosystem
improvement (Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., Sabatier, P.A., 2002).
The main goal of collaborative partnerships between the public and policymakers
is for community members to have a say in regulatory decisions and to help in choosing
the most effective and feasible restoration projects (Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., Sabatier,
P.A., 2002). Extensive inclusiveness of a diverse pool of participants permits civil society
involvement and regulating agencies to speak to all stages of policy making. This
includes defining the problem, adopting the appropriate policy, implementing the
resulting projects and assessing the results through continuous monitoring efforts. In
order to accomplish this with the utmost effectiveness collaborative efforts must take
steps to include NGOs and local, state, tribal and federal organizations that could have
pertinent and scientifically sound information needed in order to to accomplish the goals
outlined in WA’s Salmon Recovery Plans (Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., Sabatier, P.A.,
2002).
35
2.5 The Role of WA State Tribes in Collaborating with the State and NonGovernment Organizations
When non-native settlers began colonizing the PNW en mass, and with the
signing of the MCT local Indigenous communities were banished from their native lands
and their access to the regional natural resources that were at the heart of their cultural
sustenance, spirituality and economic wellbeing was restricted. As a result of the court
mandated co-management of salmon fisheries and the incorporation of NGOs created by
Tribal Councils many WA State Tribes have been successful in regaining some power
over the resources that characterize their culture and have the ability to provide them with
some semblance of economic security. In addition, effectual implementation of their
treaty fishing rights has contributed to PNW Tribes regaining their sovereignty and
contributed to their ability to take their rightful position as a regulating government
agency (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
There is unanimous agreement among vested parties that there is a fundamental
importance to uphold tribal sovereignty and that tribal participation in collaborative NRM
should occur on a government to government basis. Due to their sovereign status it is
imperative that WA State Treaty Tribes not be categorized as mere “stakeholders” such
as landowners, private businesses and citizen groups. The role of PNW Tribes as a
sovereign government agency has made them an authoritative institutional influence in
regulation and restoration planning efforts and with the help of supporting NGOs they
have gone above and beyond in proving their status as a well informed and competent
government agency. Since both water and fishing rights are directly connected to tribal
sovereignty their regulatory perspective on those issues have equal potential to either
36
facilitate or hamper collaborative planning efforts concerning water-for salmon issues
(Safford, T.G. & Norman, K.C., 2011)
Each tribe is unique, but one cohesive factor is the inherent traditional and
cultural connection they have to their historical fishing grounds that continues to saturate
their current lifestyle. Challenges in PNW Tribe’s ability to reclaim control of their
customary lands and the difficulty tribes face in reestablishing their cultural assets
emphasizes the fact that developing tribal resources for management purposes is essential
for creating a truly productive collaboration with NGOs and the state and federal
governments. Given that it has been cultivated and employed by Native American
populations over generations, indigenous local knowledge can be a particularly useful
tool in collaborative NRM. If consciously applied, it has the capability to help to
minimize environmental damage and slow habitat degradation (Cronin, A. & Ostergren,
D.M., 2007).
Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is defined as “a collective storehouse of
knowledge about the natural world, acquired over hundreds of years through direct
contact with the environment” (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007, p. 89). Some
regional progress in salmon recovery has been attributed to the PNW Tribes’ ability to
exhibit proficiency in managing resources by drawing upon their strong ties to salmon
culture and applying indigenous knowledge as well as western science derived from
working together with local partners. Based on their success in managing resources by
the utilization of TEK in their decision making process has caused TEK to become more
widely accepted as a legitimate and essential factor in collaborative NRM planning
efforts. Although there are still critics of TEK, National Park Service Representative
37
Dennis Martinez had this to say in regard to the importance of incorporating indigenous
knowledge into restoration planning endeavors:
“All this is occurring at the very time when the earth and its inhabitants are most
in need of healing. Native cultures, although badly fragmented by the impacts of
industrial societies, still hold onto significant ecological wisdom based on long
ecological experience in particular places. To ignore the millennial long local
experience and knowledge is to risk doing poor science.” Dennis Martinez of the
National Park Service (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007, p. 89).
In working closely with WA Tribes NGOs and regional GOs have been positively
influenced by the cultural aspects of tribal decision making and have embraced the
ceremonial value of watershed restoration. Each of WA’s Tribal Councils consist of a
board of directors and a large staff consisting of biologists, ecologists and fisheries
professionals whose goals are to restore habitat, manage harvest and fulfill treaty fishing
rights. All members in the collaborative partnership have come to depend on and value
the technical and scientific capacity of tribal staff. Intentional application of cultural
values instead of strictly limiting action to scientific treatments has been lauded as the
reason for certain regional successes. Explicit dialogue about cultural mores is not
common, but there is an understanding between the tribes, NRM staff members, GOs and
NGOs that the decisions and actions made by the tribes are inherently connected to
cultural traditions (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
Tribal collaborators are reliant on scientists but simultaneously apply tribal values
to structure how science is understood and applied. It has been exhibited that there are
community and political aspects that conspire to sustain and encourage the growth of
tribal NRM proficiency. Their burgeoning politic clout, favorable litigation outcomes,
38
strong links between culture and natural resources, as well as some financial backing,
have all been critical in the advancement of the scientific expertise and the NRM
capabilities of PNW Tribes. All of these components are just a mere pitance of the factors
that have worked towards facilitating and motivating collaboration between GOs and
NGOs in the habitat restoration and implementation efforts of the PNW Tribal and WA
State governments salmon recovery plans (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
The Boldt Decision served to clarify WA State’s relationship with PNW Treaty
Tribes, but also incited considerable negative public criticism of the tribe’s newly
established rights to 50% of salmon fishery intake. This public backlash did not deter
WA Tribes from embracing their new role as a co-manager of salmon fisheries and, due
to the tenacity and determination of several key leaders, they made swift work in creating
and maintaining partnerships with other GOs as well as NGOs. Since that time PNW
Tribes have been endorsed as a prime example of the ability of tribes to recover the right
to manage culturally significant natural resources. The level of expertise that PNW Tribes
have demonstrated in the co-management of their shared resources with the WA State has
made them a model for successful collaborative efforts in salmon recovery. (Cronin, A. &
Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
The Boldt Decision elevated the legal standing of WA State Treaty Tribes and
increased funding to support salmon conservation and watershed restoration projects. By
mandating that WA State Tribal governments and the WA State government engage in
the co-management of salmon fisheries, the Boldt Decision began a new era of
collaborative management. Tribes throughout the state were quick to form Treaty
Councils made up of a board of directors and employing a large team of scientists and
39
fisheries professionals. The mission of the councils was to achieve goals necessary for
managing a sustainable harvest, restoring salmon habitat as well as to fulfill treaty fishing
rights (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
The Natural Resource Department (NRD) was tasked with the duty of managing a
staff whose main objective was to ensure the treaty fishing rights of WA Tribes and to
permit them access to environmental resources that had provided them sustenance for
generations. They were also tasked with the responsibility to make certain that current
and future tribal members would continue to maintain their treaty fishing rights. The
guarantee of a sustainable harvest is essential for preserving tribal traditions and culture.
The empowerment of their role as co-managers of WA’s fisheries endowed the tribes
with a greater ability to contribute to the cultural and social goals of salmon recovery
(Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007).
The promise of protecting and restoring ecological and cultural resources of WA
watersheds was the mission of both GO and NGO watershed councils, but this mission
was not merely about increasing the flows in stream beds and preserving the ecosystem
services on which all local communities depend on, it also serves to work towards
building greater respect and trust between tribal and non-tribal communities. The
restoration of watersheds depended on the role of NGOs in helping to form strong
partnerships on local, regional and national levels. The WA State and Tribal governments
credit successes in salmon recovery and habitat restoration to the cooperative efforts of
multiple partners including NGOs, private landowners, local governments, WDFW,
WDNR, WDOE, and US EPA. Given that watersheds span multiple jurisdictions
achieving management goals relies on the successful collaboration facilitated by NGOs to
40
create compromises between landowners and regulating agencies (Cronin, A. &
Ostergren, D.M., 2007).Anton Minthorn, the Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Reservation, had this to say about the success of collaboration:
“Our tribal philosophy has been to negotiate rather than litigate. If we have to, we
will litigate to protect our treaty-reserved rights, but, we have seen that we can
create solutions which meet everyone’s needs by sitting down with our neighbors,
listening to each other, and developing our own solutions. We want to apply what
we’ve learned locally to help revive threatened salmon populations in the region.
We believe the cooperative process between neighbors can be used as a model for
success in the region and beyond.” (Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., 2007, p.105)
2.6 Conclusion
As the literature reveals, combining the top-down and bottom-up strategies is
becoming a more popular method in dealing with NRM issues. Incorporating NGOs to
assist in education, restoration, and conflict mediation has been shown to be an effective
tool in facilitating community involvement in NRM. By augmenting educational
programs NGOs are able to make both laypersons and government employees more
aware of environmental problems and what they can do to ameliorate them. By collecting
and presenting rigorous scientific analyses, and working in tandem with GOs, NGOs are
able to help define problem issues, adopt policies and implement and monitor restoration
projects.
The published literature on citizen involvement in NRM indicated that there are
certain situations in which bottom-up citizen involvement could be unproductive or
wasteful. Instances that may compromise the effectiveness of community participation
include but are not limited to the following situations: the general populace cannot be
41
reached due to the fact that the environmental issues at stake cover too large of a
geographic area; certain factions of the public are unable to participate do to financial
restrictions; The public’s position on environmental policy issues can also be negatively
affected if the public dedicates time and resources into developing of policy and their
efforts and opinions on said policy are ignored.
The history leading up to the current method of NRM employed by WA State
illustrates the long struggle WA Tribes have endured in an effort to have their treaty
rights clarified and upheld. The current methods of using NGOs to foster citizen
involvement, as well as the incorporation of TEK in salmon recovery efforts are
somewhat unique to the PNW. The dedication of WA’s State and Tribal Governments
and NGOs to employ the top-down/bottom up strategy has even been recognized in
published literature as “The Washington Way”.
My thesis makes a contribution to this body of literature by presenting a
qualitative analysis of the role civil society has played in the planning and
implementation of NRM policies and recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest,
pertaining particularly to salmon. In doing so the study also outlines the struggles
surrounding NRM that are unique to the state of Washington. Further, this research
illustrates Washington’s NRM strategy has evolved from a strict focus on state and
federal regulations to the incorporation of NGOs to help facilitate citizen involvement in
comprehending and implementing policies and plans concerning the state of salmon in
Washington State.
42
Chapter 3: Research Methods
3.1 Research Design
This study uses qualitative oral and textual methods to answer the following
research question: How have environmental NGOs facilitated salmon recovery efforts in
the Puget Sound Region? Other sub-questions that are addressed include: (1) What role
do Western Washington environmental Non-Government Organizations play in
supporting salmon recovery efforts of Washington State’s Tribal and State governments?
(2) What functions do Non-Government Organizations supply that are not provided by
Government Organizations? (3) How does the work done by environmental NonGovernment Organizations help to uphold treaty fishing rights? These questions provide
the foundation and structure for a case-specific, place-based analysis of civil society
involvement in Natural Resource Management.
I began my research by reviewing case law accounts and literature about the
history of salmon fisheries in Western WA. The extent of controversy surrounding the
treaty fishing rights pertaining to salmon fisheries and my knowledge of current issues
concerning salmon conservation and habitat restoration as an active member of the
scientific community in the Nisqually watershed led me to the original objective of my
research: to outline the triumphs and struggles involved with the court mandated comanagement of salmon fisheries between Washington State’s Tribal and State
governments. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, time constraints, the fact that tribal
employees were required to have approval from their tribal councils before granting an
interview, and realizing that the research questions were somewhat broad, I revised my
43
topic to focus on the roles of NGOs in supporting the salmon recovery plans produced by
regulating agencies.
Two methods of data collection were used to complete this study; archival
research and qualitative interviews. I reviewed primary and secondary sources on the
history of Washington’s salmon fisheries and NGO roles in NRM, key documents
describing Washington’s Salmon Recovery Plans, legal documents and the websites of
the state, tribal and federal organizations as well as NGOs involved in the implementation
of Salmon Recovery Plans. The primary and secondary resources that I reviewed
included historical accounts, reports of legal proceedings, agency brochures and websites
and peer reviewed articles relating to the events leading up to and following the Boldt
Decison. I also conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Some of the
information detailed in my Findings section was derived from my sixteen year affiliation
as a caretaker and board member of The Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC). Data
from these methods were then combined in order to answer my research question and
sub-questions.
3.2 Archival Research and Interview Participants
The data supplied in interviews came from independent NGOs, tribal and state
government supported NGOs and WA Tribal and State GOs. The sheer number of Puget
Sound based organizations dedicated, wholly or in part, to salmon recovery is astounding
and somewhat unique to Washington State. While representatives from a variety of GOs
and NGOs were involved in the interview process none of them were involved in
lobbying or litigating for causes relating to salmon recovery. Full descriptions of the
44
organizations represented in the interviews can be found in a later section and the
appendices.
Historical accounts were reviewed in order to provide an historical framework of
legal proceedings and events that led to Washington State’s current method of the NRM
of fisheries and to investigate the roles that certain environmental NGOs were created to
promulgate citizen involvement in this process and how they support salmon recovery.
Key documents included legal documents, legislative acts, and NRM plans produced by
regulating agencies. The websites of GOs and NGOs were reviewed and descriptions of
pertinent organizations were included in this document in order to provide background
information as to the duties and missions of those organizations as they relate to my
study.
In order to obtain interviewees I used the snowball sampling method. I emailed
my research proposal to contacts I have garnered in my sixteen year involvement with the
Nisqually Reach Nature Center. These included but were not limited to NGO, tribal and
state agencies; salmon biologists, educators, researchers, stakeholders, law professionals,
and restoration specialists. I asked for their participation and interviewee referrals. I also
used the connections available to me as a Master of Environmental Studies (MES)
candidate and made the same participation and referral requests for potential study
participants from Evergreen professors, employees and the MES cohorts I was affiliated
with.
Prior to the interview process I submitted an application for Human Subjects
Review to Evergreen’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Review by the IRB was
deemed unnecessary for my research purposes. All interviewees signed an informed
45
consent document prior to being interviewed. I interviewed participants that are or have
been involved in environmental education, scientific research, salmon conservation,
habitat restoration, and salmon allocation determination policy and enforcement in
Washington State. I emailed or called the potential participants and relayed a summary of
my thesis proposal as well as a short personal biography and a request for their
participation. I continued consulting peers and mentors and scheduling interviews until
ten interviewees had been recruited and there was representation from tribal and state
organizations, board members, coordinators and executive directors of environmental
NGOs and an employee from a private consulting firm involved with salmon habitat
restoration.
Due to the breadth and extensive historical nature of my original topic many of
my original contacts responded claiming that they didn’t have enough knowledge
concerning the background of my thesis topic and referred me to their superiors, few of
whom responded. While researching my original topic I held three meetings to discuss
my research strategy; one with a Nisqually Tribal Council (NTC) member, another with
the science director for the Governors Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) and with several
employees of the Nisqually River Council. I also conducted three interviews using my
original line of questioning; one with the Tribal and Environmental Affairs Advisor for
WA department of Ecology (WDOE), another with the Executive Director of the habitat
restoration focused South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) and the
Director of Administration for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC).
Due to the accidental destruction of a recording device the interview with the
WDOE employee was lost. The above circumstances, meetings and interviews led me to
46
the decision to revise my research topic. Much of the information garnered in the
meetings and interviews remained relevant to my revised topic and were used in the final
analysis of this research.
Interviews and one focus group for my revised topic were held with: the
Executive Director of the habitat restoration focused South Puget Sound Salmon
Enhancement Group (SPSSEG), the Director of Administration for the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), three employees of the Nisqually River Foundation
(NRF) (focus group), the former President of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC)
and employee of the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), the Managing Director of the
Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group Coalition (RFEG), the Program Manager for
Lead Entities at the Governors Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO), the Science
Coordinator for the Governors Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO), the Associate Director
of the Nisqually Land Trust (NLT), and an employee of Skillings Connolly Inc.,
Engineering and Environmental Services (SCEES).
All research strategy meetings with project mentors were open ended unstructured
interviews and, although they were not digitally recorded, extensive notes were taken. All
interviews and one focus group were recorded, open-ended, and semi-structured.
Interviews for my original topic occurred between April 1st and April 12th of 2015 and
were for the purpose of gaining a deeper perspective on the co-management issues that
regulating agencies, NGOs and stakeholders felt fostered or inhibited the policy making
and enforcing processes. Eight interviewees were conducted in person, one via phone
conversation, two through on-line questionnaires and one focus group was held,
consisting of myself and three participants. These interviews occurred between October
47
10th of 2015 and January 20th of 2016. The interviews, on-line questionnaires and the
focus group were conducted for the purpose of exploring the roles and niches of NGOs in
facilitating and supporting the tribes and the state with salmon recovery plans and
upholding treaty fishing rights.
In following cross-cultural research ethics and in an effort to share power with
interview subjects I worked with several key mentors and interviewees in an ongoing
effort to draft a more detailed set of questions. At the beginning of each interview
participants were made aware of my research goals and objectives and were asked to give
an overview of their organization and how it relates to salmon recovery efforts. In person
and telephone interviews contained some conversation concerning topics and questions
that were not included in the official research questionnaire but proved relevant to this
study. Responses to emailed questionnaires consisted of more direct replies to the
interview questions. The in person and telephone interviews ranged from forty-five
minutes to one hour and fifteen minutes.
3.3 Data Analysis
All recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim into Word documents.
Recordings and transcriptions were saved on my personal computer and on Google
Drive. Upon completion of this study the audio and transcription files were deleted from
my device and Google Drive. Transcriptions and responses to email questionnaires were
reviewed in order to decipher common themes that arose in participants answers to my
research questions. Once the initial analysis was completed and themes had been
identified the data was coded by performing a qualitative content analysis of the Word
48
documents. Quotes containing pertinent thematic information were coded and then cut
and pasted into a Word document for each theme. Each thematic document was then
analyzed to discern commonalities amongst themes. It was found that many themes had
close connections and overlaps. Common and overlapping themes were then combined
into a third set of Word documents. My findings and discussion were written using the
third set of coded Word documents. Some of the information in my findings was derived
from my sixteen year association with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC).
3.4 Author’s Positionality Statement
In order to ensure the validity of this qualitative study it is appropriate that
I, the researcher, disclose my personal and professional interest in this topic. Through my
sixteen year involvement with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center I have become a
proponent of NGOs promotion of community involvement in research and monitoring
efforts. In those years I also became passionate about using environmental education as a
tool in creating better stewards of the environment in order to benefit the maintenance
and restoration of healthy salmon habitats. The goal of my research was to identify the
roles of NGOs in supporting salmon recovery efforts put in place by Washington’s Tribal
and State governments. I also identified the niches they fulfill and the treaty fishing rights
they uphold that the state and the tribes seem to be unable to accomplish. In doing so I
have taken measures to avoid researcher’s bias and let published materials and the
opinions of interview participants speak for themselves. Although I do believe that NGOs
have had a positive influence on the salmon recovery efforts and other NRM goals of
GOs in this regard I have made efforts to avoid making suppositions concerning the
involvement of NGOs to support and enhance sustainable NRM in WA State.
49
50
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
Salmon are iconic in Washington State and have been for many years. As one
interviewee pointed out, salmon have now moved beyond just being a mascot species and
are beginning to be considered co-habitants in our watersheds. Salmon have a different
value for all groups who are working towards restoring healthy salmon runs. There are
recreational fishers who want to continue to experience the sheer enjoyment that catching
salmon gives them, there are commercial fishers who want to maintain their source of
income, and then there are Washington State Tribes for whom salmon are essential to
their culture, sustenance and spiritual ceremonies.
When asked to describe the goals of their organizations representatives from both
GOs and NGOs made statements confirming that one of their main objectives is to work
in collaborative partnerships to educate citizens, stakeholders and policymakers in an
effort to push forward the agenda surrounding the maintenance and restoration included
in Salmon Recovery Plans. According to participants from both GOs and NGOs these
collaborative efforts appear to be effectively restoring salmon habitat and bolstering the
enthusiasm of environmentally conscious citizen stewards. It was also widely agreed by
the NGO affiliates interviewed that NGOs assist in the creation of more well informed
policymakers. It was agreed that by NGOs helping to raise policymakers’ awareness
concerning the state of salmon and salmon habitat in Washington’s Watersheds and by
outlining successes and failures of Puget Sound’s habitat restoration efforts, and
51
supplying them with data to support these explanations, they are able to make more
enlightened policy decisions based scientific facts as opposed to conjecture.
When asked what stood out as the most prevalent factor behind the poor state of
salmon runs in Washington’s Watersheds representatives from both tribal and state GOs
and NGOs claimed that once they realized that salmon runs were declining, and several
salmon species had made the ESA listing, research was conducted and the conclusion
was made that the dominant factor causing the declining salmon runs had little to do with
harvest and hatchery issues but was the result of the ongoing destruction of habitat.
All participants agreed that monitoring efforts have proven that although many
species of salmon have begun to meet their escapement goals there remains no noticeable
improvement in WA’s salmon runs. To address this problem GO and NGO based
scientists have turned their focus to the restoration of freshwater and estuarine habitats.
Unfortunately it has yet to be proven that this is having a significant effect on improving
regional salmon runs. Most interviewees asserted that this could be due to: the
complexity of salmon life cycles and the habitats they require, a lack of funding for
research and monitoring, continued destruction of habitat due to industrial and urban
development or just the fact that not enough time has passed to see significant evidence
of the outcomes of the habitat conservation and restoration efforts facilitated by
environmental NGOs..
The following sections go into more detailed descriptions about the methods and
collaborative efforts that Puget Sound based State and Tribal GOs and NGOs use to
support local Salmon Recovery Plans. Review of primary key documents and interviews
52
with state, tribal and NGO representatives, established that many NGOs concentrate on
putting the habitat restoration plans laid-out by Washington’s Tribal and State
governments into motion, while many other’s missions focus on educating both public
and policymakers. There are also NGOs whose main objectives are lobbying and
litigating to advance or deter from agendas related to Salmon Recovery Plans and treaty
fishing rights. While NGOs do enhance salmon recovery efforts they do not directly
participate in regulatory decisions or actions.
4.2 Education and Engagement of the Public
The majority of interviewees agreed that the education, outreach events, and the
opportunities for public participation in restoration and monitoring efforts made available
by NGOs encourages citizens to be better stewards of the environment. All interviewees
supported the claim that increased awareness of the state of salmon and the state of their
watersheds has the ability to change how people interact with the environment and
encourages them to do things that will benefit salmon, and inspire them to do less harm to
their local ecosystems.
An education director from one NGO felt that students who have hands on
educational experiences take the messages they learn back to their parents and as they
grow up they take a more positive attitude towards salmon recovery projects. They also
noted that a student’s positive response to their educational experience will affect how
they live their lives, how they vote, and will give them a better sense of what stewardship
means. She concluded by stating that part of the reason that salmon are iconic in
Washington State is that students are learning about the importance of maintaining
53
healthy salmon habitats at a young age and this lesson sticks with them for the rest of
their lives, making them better ecological advocates and stewards of the environment..
All parties interviewed felt that the educational programming provided by
environmental GO’s and NGO’s primarily focus on habitat protection. A tribal
organization interviewee felt that this is an area where you get the most citizen
participation, explaining that “people want to protect something they can easily recognize
and comprehend, such as the fact that the building of big docks and bulkheads on the
shorelines are not good for fish”. Over half of all participants, most of whom were NGO
affiliates, agreed that the goals of habitat protection are driven by these environmental
education programs and that they create a better understanding of what it takes to
maintain healthy salmon habitats in local watersheds.
The state and tribal government employees interviewed held the opinion that the
percentage of citizens actually reached by the environmental education programs
provided by GOs and NGOs focusing on salmon recovery issues is low. They suggested
that these programs tend to be ineffective as they have not yet been seen to significantly
contribute to the outcomes needed to support salmon recovery. A state agency employee
even made the point that the concepts surrounding salmon recovery issues was difficult to
explain to people with no scientific background. NGO employees were more optimistic
and felt that their educational programming, especially outreach events such as festivals,
were effective at reaching a significant portion of the community. Most of the educators
interviewed believed that by adjusting their programs to targeted audiences they are able
to relate concepts concerning salmon conservation in such a way as they can be easily
54
understood by laypersons. All participants agreed that the effect that environmental
education and outreach efforts have on improving salmon runs may not be seen for many
years.
All interviewees agreed that the education of local youth is a key factor in
fostering the next generation of environmental stewards and creating more effective and
well informed future policymakers. Published literature and more than half of those
interviewed supported the fact that, primarily due to the dedication and efforts of Billy
Frank Jr. and his key associates, the Nisqually region was exemplary in the ability to
bring people together and has been the most effective at taking a disparate populace and
finding common goals about how to protect and restore salmon habitat. They also pointed
out that state supported organizations, such as the Puget Sound Partnership, provide
resources that enable state and federal agencies to come together and work with local
community based groups to come up with common goals. It was also made very clear by
a tribal agency representative that the only organizations involved in the actual comanagement processes are Washington’s Tribal and State governments; when a salmon
species is listed under the ESA the federal government becomes involved in regulatory
activities as well.
There are 14 fisheries enhancement NGOs in the Puget Sound region whose focus
is mainly habitat restoration. Although they are not GOs they were created by the
Washington State legislature and are supported by government funding. Participants from
state and tribal agencies, as well as GOs and NGOs noted that restoration projects are
voluntary for landowners and agreed that observing successful projects has the ability to
55
incite neighboring landowners to engage in habitat restoration projects on their land. A
representative from a restoration focused NGO made the point that you can “look at
stewardship through the lens of these restoration projects and by involving citizens in
habitat restoration projects you are actually educating them about the effects of their
behavior on that habitat”. It was generally agreed by the majority of participants that
citizen involvement in restoration projects gives the contributors a sense of ownership
and pride in their work for many years. The two restoration focused NGO representatives
interviewed also indicated that it was not only the direct efforts of restoration but their
educational outreach programs that teach people how to look for answers as well as how
to work with their local and state elected officials.
NGOs must drive focused agendas based on their mission statements. These
agendas allow citizen science groups to be formed and information to be disseminated to
targeted groups. The spokesperson from the tribal government organization made the
point that “Salmon recovery is a social exercise”. All participants agreed that the most
successful projects involved cooperation between the state, tribes and NGOs. The
engagement of citizen volunteers in the stewardship of conservation exposes them to
information about plans formed by policy-making agencies as well as providing
opportunities for government agency staff to interact with the volunteers. This, as well as
programs mentioned in the next section, can help to fill the gap in what one participant
called “a lack of legislative wisdom”.
56
4.3 Education and Engagement of Policy-Makers
A representative from a state GO said that the processes involved in Salmon
Recovery Plans was not a streamlined process but instead, was “confusing and messy to
explain to policy-makers, especially new policymakers”. The tribal and state agencies
and several NGOs identified sectors of their organizations as directly addressing the
education of policymakers. One of the NGOs created by the state legislature not only has
an annual outreach education day at the Washington State legislature, makes occasional
trips to Washington D.C. to talk about their projects and accomplishments, and
encourages site visits by policymakers. The NGOs that are 501-3C non-profits are not
able to lobby for a particular cause but they do educate local and federal policymakers
which impacts legislative awareness and affects how they vote on policies related to
salmon recovery.
One participating NGO, which is closely tied to the Nisqually Tribe, made the
point that their organization, as well as other local and national organizations, bring
people together from the state, the county, the tribal and the federal governments and
provide them with information that raises their awareness of salmon recovery issues.
When representatives from all of these government agencies are gathered together and
see their peers aligning with issues in a sustainable way, or taking a stand on a certain
issue, it creates positive momentum and can embolden them to take these ideas back to
their particular regulating agencies. The ways in which NGOs raise legislative awareness
about environmental issues and solutions will depend on their goals and mission
statement but is often done through targeted discussions with policymakers. Other NGOs
57
are fortunate enough to count regional and state policymakers as board members who
regularly attend board meetings as well as outreach and fundraising events.
As it was earlier pointed out there are many policymakers in the system that don’t
have the scientific background required to effectively tackle policies regarding the
processes necessary to successfully protect and restore salmon habitat. A representative
that had been involved with both a state supported organization and a community based
NGO pointed out that NGOs have the advantage of “bringing along constituencies of
elected representatives but that there are difficulties in applying this power stem due to
the fact that electoral districts do not in any way reflect watershed boundaries.” He went
on to say that due to educational programming, volunteer opportunities, and celebrations
provided and organized by local NGOs many people living in the Puget Sound region
now identify with their watershed. They also pointed out that the watershed identity
concept it is not always an effective method for educating elected officials. Smart but
small NGOs have done their homework and target their membership to voters in the
districts of the elected officials. The larger sound-wide and statewide NGOs have more
experience working in these political realms than watershed-based salmon recovery
NGOs and usually have paid lobbyists that they rely on to provide education to
policymakers.
4.4 Filling the Gaps in Public and Legislative Knowledge
Participants agreed that, despite their efforts, the public and policymakers still
lack significant knowledge concerning how bad the fish runs actually are and there is a
need for more media coverage and general exposure about poor runs, habitat
58
deterioration and pollution. The education, volunteer opportunities, outreach and festivals
provided by NGOs help to fill gaps in public knowledge. Collaborative efforts between
NGOs, and state and tribal GOs that engage the public and policymakers have the ability
to raise awareness about these issues to both parties and can help to achieve a balance of
needs.
It was pointed out by one participant that many early salmon enhancement NGOs
were constructed to do hatchery work. These groups reared and planted fish on order to
get more fish into the rivers and streams. When this proved to be ineffective at improving
salmon runs they evolved to where these groups are now doing more in the realm of
habitat restoration projects. This evolution can provide the means for productive
partnerships between the tribes, the state, and NGOs to identify key projects. By having
the ability to be creative with the use of volunteer citizen scientists and in kind donations
as well as utilizing both government and non-government resources NGOs have been
seen to take the pressure off of GOs in project implementation get them completed more
expediently and with a lower overhead..
An interviewee from a state GO made the point that if a proposed project “has
good outreach, communication and buy in it will receive the best input concerning what
projects can be done [to benefit salmon and their habitats]”. Even if these projects don’t
go forward the fact that there is input from a variety of private and municipal entities
allows for a better chance of changing the perspectives of both community members and
policymakers. A majority of those interviewed discussed the fact that there are a variety
of outreach methods used by NGOs to raise awareness, including newsletters, work
59
parties, first salmon ceremonies, and watershed festivals. They asserted that sharing
information and emphasizing the fact that these issues begin in our own backyards
encourages people to make the connection that everyone in downstream of something
else and helps people understand these links in a logical framework. By raising awareness
and answering questions about the condition of local watersheds people learn about what
they are doing that impacts local ecosystems and what they can do to change their
behavior for the benefit of their local ecosystems. The wide-spread communication about
what these projects are trying to achieve benefits people, salmon, the community and the
ecosystem as a whole.
All agreed that NGOs have specific missions and niches. Some NGOs provide a
wide variety of opportunities for local residents to experience the habitats and wildlife in
their watersheds by organizing activities such as nature walks and float trips. Other
NGOs provide expertise in coordinating and managing in-the-field environmental
education, citizen science data collection and citizen stewardship opportunities. Yet
others are involved in major habitat restoration construction projects. Thus,
collaborations between NGOs with both individual and overlapping missions have the
propensity to cover all areas where there is a lack of knowledge and awareness.
When the public gets involved and recognizes what is necessary for habitat
protection and what they can do to support salmon recovery plans they become more
concerned about the state of their watersheds which inspires them to go to their
legislators in an effort to make changes that restrict the ability to do damage to the natural
environment. Washington’s Regional Fish Enhancement Group has a program called
60
Citizen Action Training that is specifically designed to educate the public on not just how
to work with and what to say to their local, state and federal elected officials but also how
to look for answers on their own. The salmon enhancement NGOs were created by the
legislature in order to have a level of accountability as to how Washington State
approaches Salmon Recovery Plans. Several interviewees discussed the methods in play
in this approach of the unique mix of top-down and bottom-up management and noted
that it has come to be recognized as ‘The Washington Way’.
4.5 Research, Monitoring, and Outcomes
There are several ways in which NGOs supplement the research and monitoring
efforts that are required by state, tribal and federal organizations to determine habitat
restoration outcomes. These include extensive base-line studies and long-term monitoring
efforts. The majority of those interviewed agreed that by driving the focused agendas
specified in their mission statements NGOs are able to augment the valid scientific data
necessary to complete the base-line studies of proposed restoration projects. It was also
widely agreed that NGOs successfully foster ample numbers of environmental stewards
that bolster the long-term monitoring efforts needed to determine outcomes. The
restoration consultant interviewed stated that NGOs serve as “scientific facilitators and
specialists that are respected among all stakeholders and are able to shed light where the
[government] agencies fall short”. One NGO representative indicated that they have over
40 site steward volunteers who have adopted specific sites that they monitor in
perpetuity. Both GO and NGO representatives agreed that salmon habitats are so
complex that the successful outcomes of habitat restoration can be difficult to interpret.
61
Currently, due to state budget cuts, there are gaps in the funding needed for the
sufficient amount of research and monitoring. When the government issued salmon
recovery plans began to be established in the 1980s there was more money in the budget
to hire scientists and scientific technicians to accomplish these tasks. Unfortunately, since
salmon recovery efforts were in their infancy and immediate positive or negative
outcomes from those efforts were not seen there have been many cuts in funding for
salmon recovery plan implementation. NGOs have the ability to contribute valuable
resources to supplement government funding for programs dedicated to research and
monitoring.
An interviewee from an NGO created by the legislature mentioned that even
today “there can’t be any pre-determined outcomes in any of these [habitat restoration]
projects, it has to be a good faith approach of negotiations, compromise and
understanding”. They went on to say that they believe their organization has an indirect
impact and that, although there are monitoring efforts in play, due to salmon’s complex
life cycles and habitats it is hard to judge how many fish might be utilizing the restored
habitats. Another participant from a related NGO agreed with these statements and
pointed out that in discussions with salmon recovery partners it has come to light that
there is an unmet need in the areas of research and monitoring, saying that “there needs to
be funding and coordination of these efforts in order to give a scientific answers as to
how these projects have improved salmon habitat, there is a big gap in this area of need”.
While the majority of representatives from NGOs seemed confident that their
efforts were making a difference a participant representing a tribal agency made the claim
62
that “there are no NGOs doing large enough projects to change the number of fish in a
way that you could measure and no one group is doing something you can recognize. It is
like a puzzle and we need to figure out how all the pieces fit together so we can
determine which ones are beneficial”. The prevalent opinion among interviewees was
that with the proper funding and coordination NGOs could accomplish the necessary
research and monitoring needed to supply landowners with scientific data that supports
the success and importance of habitat restoration projects. This enables them to negotiate
the compromises needed in order to continue conducting projects for the sake of
improving the salmon runs in Puget Sound’s watersheds.
Every species of salmon found in the Puget Sound region has a different life cycle
that involves the use of varied habitats. In order to decipher the problems that salmon
might have with a particular habitat you have to consider the life cycle of the targeted
species. Some are more sensitive to disturbances to freshwater habitats while others are
more reliant on healthy saltwater habitats. These differences create their own unique
challenges. Restoration focused NGOs are required to adapt and tailor each restoration
project to fit site particulars. One NGO participant explained that “the design of each
restoration project must be unique so it is difficult to design the perfect project, but each
project is also a learning experience” and that “by looking at the best available science
we can develop projects that maximize opportunities”. It was also pointed out that things
tend to change throughout the duration of most projects and in hindsight there are always
things that could have been done differently. In order to accomplish the feasible habitat
restoration goals necessary to overcome problems with the variety of proposed sites
63
NGOs do their best to adjust to the range of features presented by the complexity of
salmon life cycles and habitats.
The majority of interviewees agreed that NGOs keep up to date on all of the
current scientific literature relating to restoration ecology and that the scientists employed
by NGOs have the ability to look at the best available science and apply that information
to research and monitoring efforts. It was generally agreed that, due to decades of NGOs
performing scientifically sound work, they have gained the trust and respect among all
stakeholders and are able to boost areas where government agencies fall short. A
participant from a restoration focused NGO claimed that having a long history of doing
successful habitat restoration projects had proven to be beneficial because it has created
a broad institutional knowledge regarding these efforts. The interviewee who is employed
by a for-profit consulting firm involved in habitat restoration and is on the board of a
volunteer based NGO stated that “[NGOs now] have an authoritative voice on specific
topics that brings validity to the issues that surround salmon recovery”. They also made
the point that in closely following their mission statements NGOs are able to successfully
disseminate information to targeted and well established citizen science groups that then
put this information to work enhancing the salmon recovery plans set forth by GOs.
It was unanimously agreed that as development in the Puget Sound area continues
to increase both habitat availability and salmon numbers are steadily decreasing and that
there is a definite and obvious link between the two. A participant from a tribal agency
brought up the fact that habitat destruction can be measured in terms of how many more
bulkheads and hardened surfaces are being built than are being taken out. They stated that
64
“For every 5 miles of restored stream there are 7 miles still being damaged. Although this
is an improvement from the 10 miles that used to be damaged per every 5 restored, the
fact remains that state and federal agencies are still doling out permits authorizing more
development in the future”. Another participant acknowledged that “the scale of
watershed destruction is something that people are just starting to address”. The link
between habitat destruction and decreasing salmon runs is complex on many levels and
by providing a variety of education programs focused on habitat preservation NGOs have
the capacity to break down the multiplicity of these factors into segments that are more
digestible to the general public.
NGOs work to provide the burgeoning community with a service that guides them
in making connections about the complexities behind restoration efforts, such as that the
act of someone replacing their driveway culvert with a bridge will benefit habitats further
downstream or that in designing a restoration project you can’t just consider conditions
on that site but also on the flood plain above it. Two participants from state agencies
mentioned that NGOs provide a logical framework for information sharing and help
people understand the link between development and habitat by emphasizing what is in
their own backyards and explaining that we are all up or downstream from something
else. One of those interviewees also made the point that people are generally not fond of
surprises and if you are planning to do something that will affect their backyards you will
have a better outcome if citizens are well informed and feel they are an active participant
in those plans.
65
Most participants felt that NGOs have a variety of roles in helping community
members to make environmentally based connections. A representative from a restoration
focused NGO claimed that they do this by directly working with landowners on
restoration projects while others organize citizen stewardship groups and hold regular
meetings. The educators who were interviewed made the point that many NGOs use
outreach education to connect people to their local ecosystems. Representatives from
restoration based organizations claimed that they foster collaborations in order to drive
research projects that are too broad for small individual groups to get started on their
own. These particular connectivity goals accomplished by NGOs can’t halt development
but can enlighten landowners and contractors in ways that enable development to
continue in a sustainable manner and teach them how to utilize methods that do less harm
to the environment.
There was a general consensus among interviewees that one of the most difficult
things about monitoring outcomes of restoration efforts are the timelines. One participant
primarily involved in habitat restoration projects pointed out that “It is rare to do some of
these projects within a year; projects are sometimes three or four years out, sometimes
even over a decade” and that “this can be a source of frustration for the organization and
the funders”. When interviewing partners participating in salmon recovery efforts about
the gap in monitoring efforts it was concluded that although restoration efforts have been
going on for several decades there remains a need for more coordination and funding
when it comes to finding scientific answers to how these projects have improved salmon
habitats.
66
The state and tribal agency participants explained that salmon recovery efforts are
primarily dictated by the ESA listings made by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and NOAA. They pointed out that these agencies do their best to
provide guidance in both the planning process of project implementation and large scale
post-project monitoring efforts. This enables them to track the overall recovery of the
species from an ESA and fisheries management perspective. One of those participants
stated that “in order to accommodate the effort of salmon recovery local jurisdiction and
zoning laws must be revamped; industrial zones and stormwater protocols need to be
reviewed and enforced”. This means that there is an obvious link in tracking recovery
efforts from local governments to WA’s Tribal and State governments and eventually to
the U.S. Federal government. It is a dynamic and political process. They made the point
that by encouraging volunteer participation NGOs can directly expose the public to these
links and create community enthusiasm for implementation and monitoring projects.
Going on to say that this public enthusiasm can incite politicians at all levels to take
action in support of recovery efforts for fear of not being reelected. A representative from
a tribal organization felt that in terms of implementing and monitoring restoration
projects and collecting environmental data NGOs are helping the tribes, the state, and the
federal government move forward the recovery efforts necessary to get WA’s endangered
salmon species removed from the ESA listing.
The complexity of salmon habitats and salmon life cycles, as well as the
complications surrounding the politics of salmon recovery, contribute to the fact that
outcomes are hard to successfully determine. It was pointed out by several participants
from both GOs and NGOs that there was consistent destruction of habitat for nearly 150
67
years before it occurred to anyone that we should be conducting restoration efforts. A
participant from a restoration focused NGO said that “To have the expectation that we
have the ability to fix that damage within a five or ten year time-span is unrealistic.
Without more extensive monitoring of restored habitat it will be difficult to ascertain
whether the efforts put forth by NGOs [in support of salmon recovery plans] have had a
positive or negative effect on recovery efforts”. It was unanimously agreed that even if
the gaps in monitoring efforts are filled it is possible that the outcomes of recovery efforts
may not be seen for years to come. The uncertainty surrounding the successful
determination of outcomes is compounded by the fact that habitat destruction is still
outpacing restoration efforts and causing political conflicts over this matter to become
more ubiquitous and heated.
4.6 Alternate Funding Sources and Resource Efficiency
Most of those interviewed agreed that NGOs can be more creative in the way they
approach the implementation of a project and the collection of environmental data. A
participant from a restoration focused organization confirmed that by using these
alternative approaches NGOs are able to help both the tribes and the state move the
whole salmon recovery process forward. They pointed out that their access to alternative
funding streams and the ability to utilize volunteers and citizen scientists also allows
NGOs to complete projects with a lower overhead.
These creative approaches started fairly early in the salmon recovery process. One
interviewee related a story concerning the early recovery work by hatcheries explaining
that most of those NGOs have since evolved to focus more on habitat restoration. As
68
pointed out earlier in this document most hatcheries are managed by the tribes and funded
by the state. The executive director of a tribally supported NGO indicated that their
organization would step in to identify where there was a lack of funds curtailing the
ability to release as many fish as they would have liked. At this point the participating
NGO would step in and provide volunteers to help run the eggs boxes to spawning
streams thereby fulfilling the objective of getting more fish in the water. They explained
how NGOs would identify issues that were important and utilize volunteers as well as
other government and non-government funding sources to complete the work the tribes
couldn’t due to a lack of state and federal funding.
They went on to say that by becoming involved with the state and the tribes in
both hatchery and habitat restoration work NGOs have cultivated effective partnerships
with other NGOs, the tribes and the state in terms of identifying and helping to carry out
key projects. A majority of the participants supported the idea that NGOs have the ability
to complete some projects without having to rely on government funding. Once these key
projects have been identified several participants, from both NGOs and GOs, pointed out
that instead of NGOs competing for funds for those projects NGOs with both similar and
diverse missions have the ability to create partnerships with one another, the state and the
tribes to work together to implement projects geared towards restoration efforts. One
participant stated “This [funding] reality encourages better partnerships and bigger
projects; for example, the acquisition of a conservation easement, feasibility, design and
construction of a project and monitoring and maintenance activities could fall to three
different NGOs”. One interviewee from a state organization pointed out that there is a lot
to be gained in employing this funding tactic due to NGOs all having their particular
69
specialties. Yet, they did infer that problems could arise due to competition for active
volunteers, major donors and corporate attention.
Another participant from a private organization pointed out that there are times
when NGOs are tasked with the administration and management of larger projects and
they may not have inadequate staffing to handle the pressures involved with
implementing them. While this could be partially true, effective partnerships have been
seen to have the ability to alleviate this problem. One NGO participant stating that they
believe there is strength in numbers when NGOs combine their missions and collaborate.
Other than getting government and non-government funding in the form of grants,
memberships, donations and fundraisers there are other creative ways that NGOs are able
to get small amounts of seed money. Several interviewees mentioned the fact that there
are businesses, both large and small that have programs where part of the money from
your purchase is donated to the NGO. They also pointed out that on some occasions
donations are made in the form of lab equipment or field supplies. In Oregon salmon
recovery efforts receive funding from the lottery. A state organization employee
interviewed had hope that perhaps we could eventually have a similar program here in
Washington and stated that “NGOs play a role in looking under of other rocks to find
non-government funding.”
Two interviewees mentioned that in generating revenue for their mission in the
form of small non-government grants they can begin to garner more attention which can
then leverage other funds. Contrarily another participant from a private organization
pointed out that “Sometimes NGOs are leveraged so much that the allocation of funds
70
does not necessarily fulfill the final outcomes due to NGO’s needing to cover expenses
and overheads costs within the organization”. All others interviewed were more of the
opinion that by utilizing partnerships, combining varied funding sources, using creative
resource efficiency methods and side stepping government agency bureaucracy
challenges NGOs not only have a lower overhead for implementing restoration projects
but are also able to conduct them more expedient and efficiently.
An interviewee from a state organization pointed out that, since NGOs didn’t
have to wait for decisions to go through the government process NGOs are able to act on
projects more quickly than the state or tribes. The fact that NGOs have shorter timelines
for project implementation than the state or the tribes contributes to cost effectiveness. A
representative from a tribal agency noted that NGOs are also able to complete more
projects than the tribes because of their use of volunteers and alternative funding sources.
The salmon recovery process has come to be driven by the EPA listings of several
salmon species found in Washington’s watersheds. This means that many recovery
efforts are supported by federal funding mechanisms. Acquisition of federal dollars
comes with its own set of political issues. An NGOs representative directly involved in
habitat restoration even pointing out that the entire yearly budget for all salmon recovery
efforts is twenty million dollars and that could easily be the cost of only one major
restoration project. Also going on to say that any project costing over one million dollars
is hard to get funded and many restoration projects take years to complete. They said that
“although it shouldn’t take 15 years and 15 funders to complete a project there are times
when that is what it takes for project success and completion”. It was widely agreed that
71
it takes stable and meaningful funding to implement, complete and effectively monitor
salmon recovery projects and that stable funding is the biggest challenge when it comes
to salmon recovery efforts.
A representative from a state agency made the point that in looking at the amount
of money that is dedicated to salmon recovery efforts the amount provided by the federal
government dwarfs that of even the most well-endowed NGO supporting foundations to
the tune of millions to trillions of dollars. They went on to say that they even though they
thought that “volunteer efforts and community enthusiasm is irreplaceable so is
government money”.
4.7 NGOs as Bridging Organizations
Several interviewees from NGOs and GOs pointed out that as a non-government,
non-regulating and non-partisan party NGOs are able to fill a particularly unique niche
when it comes to tackling habitat issues. By NGOs serving as non-biased entities citizens
are able to approach restoration and recovery efforts in a non-threatening environment.
This can help to build the public’s trust in government agencies. The Executive Director
of a tribally supported NGO that mediates for the Nisqually Tribal government made the
point that NGOs can serve as an impartial party and help with negotiations between the
WA State government agencies and WA State Tribes, as well as between tribes that are
having a difference of opinion.
Since they are not involved in setting or enforcing NRM policies restoration
focused NGOs are able to work with landowners and act as a non-threatening go-between
72
in dealing with regulating government agencies to fix habitat problems. They look for
win-win situations that help people help fish and avoid feeling intimidated by
government officials. Prior to The Boldt Decision there were more conflicts and
contentions between sport and tribal fisherman than there are today. The regulations put
in place since then have helped to alleviate some of those issues but there are still three
distinct user groups: tribal, recreational and commercial. All of these groups have a
common desire but with different needs. Within these groups there are always differences
of opinion. One role that NGOs have is the ability to offer an impartial compromise and
facilitate a negotiation approach to working with landowners on restoration projects. A
representative from a restoration focused NGO said that “At this point there are just not
enough fish and no one is ever totally happy with the situation and the proposed
improvements aimed at alleviating habitat problems.” This point was reiterated by a tribal
agency participant. Certain NGOs have realized that to have successful negotiations with
landowners you cannot have predetermined outcomes; you have to have empathy and an
understanding of opposing views and be able to facilitate discussions in order to come to
compromises that are acceptable to the involved parties.
An affiliate of an NGO that promotes citizen science made the observation the
there are NGOs that focus on organizing work parties and other volunteer opportunities
as a way to get the word out concerning: the state of salmon, connecting people with their
watersheds, informing people about activities that have detrimental impacts on salmon
and their habitats and what they can do to change it. In taking on that role they are able to
create mutual benefits because it enables people to get to know their neighbors and see
firsthand what is being done in the realm of habitat restoration efforts. This may
73
influence a landowner’s opinion about whether or not to conduct habitat restoration
efforts on their properties. It was even mentioned by one participant that having all facets
of the community taking part in salmon recovery discussions could help change the
perspective of others. They also mentioned that by NGOs relating information concerning
how and what they do to support Salmon Recovery Plans has the potential to benefit not
only salmon but also the community as a whole.
74
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (PSSRP) that was created shortly after
Washington’s State and Tribal governments pooled their resources and began working
together to co-manage salmon fisheries dictated that community involvement should be
incorporated to bolster salmon recovery efforts. This mixing of a top-down and bottomup approach to salmon recovery has seen many successes and has become an example in
innovative NRM and as previously mentioned has even been labeled by NRM experts as
“The Washington Way”. Although there is some overlap Western Washington’s
environmental NGOs all have particular niches and missions.
By doing in-house and outreach events environmental education related NGOs
have the ability facilitate salmon recovery plans by educating the public and
policymakers, creating a larger populace of environmental stewards and well informed
legislators. The education provided by NGOs affects how people interact with their
environment and how they vote on policy issues. Some NGOs educate the public on how
to effectively work with elected officials on policy issues. Many NGOs have the ability to
bring people together from community member to local, state, tribal and federal
governments to raise their awareness of impending policy issues.
Restoration focused NGOs are able to implement restoration projects more
expediently and with a lower overhead than government agencies. This can be
accomplished by side-stepping political bureaucracy and encouraging community
involvement by providing volunteer opportunities and receiving donations of materials
and equipment. Due to the complex nature of salmon habitat it can be difficult to see the
outcomes of restoration efforts. Baseline studies and long term monitoring are essential in
75
interpreting these outcomes but come at a cost. NGOs employ citizen scientists to
supplement the valid scientific data needed to complete pre-restoration base-line studies
and use citizen stewards to monitor restored sites in perpetuity. This role is imperative in
supporting Washington’s salmon recovery plans. By restoring damaged salmon habitat
and educating the public and policymakers about habitat preservation NGOs uphold the
treaty fishing right of maintaining healthy salmon habitats.
NGOs can act as bridging institutions when working with land owners whose
properties are adjacent to compromised salmon habitat as they are non-threatening, nonbiased party. They are able to bring together concerned stakeholders and elected officials
in an effort to reach a common goal. They can also step in and mediate issues between
the tribes, the state and federal agencies as well as working with tribes who may be
experiencing conflicts of interest. This is a niche that neither tribal nor state government
organizations have the ability to fulfill.
By analyzing the ways NGOs inform community members and policymakers of
the details behind the implementation of WA’s salmon recovery plans additional support
may be acquired that may help advance progress in environmental education, habitat
restoration, and cooperative NRM efforts both locally and abroad. By highlighting and
summarizing the tactics environmental NGOs have employed to support the PSSRP and
pointing out the benefits and deficiencies of combining the top-down and bottom-up
strategies used in WA State to address salmon conservation other regions experiencing
comparable situations may be able to apply the more successful tactics and alter their
approach to NRM efforts in new and innovative ways.
76
This study has shown that the overall opinion of all participants and published
literature support the idea that NGOs do have a positive and noticeable impact on the
salmon recovery efforts put forth by Washington’s Tribal and State governments. NGOs
were shown to do this by taking on the roles of environmental educators and scientists
that serve to augment governments programs and projects. They are able to work as
mediators in several arenas in a non-biased and non-threatening manner that could not be
accomplished by government agencies. In working to conserve, protect and restore
salmon habitat they are helping to uphold the treaty fishing right to a healthy salmon
habitat.
Other questions that can be explored in further research include: Can strategies
such as the Aquatic Reserve Program or No Take Marine Protected Areas play a more
holistic and significant part that goes beyond the current perspective addressing salmon
recovery issues and habitat restoration projects? Do NGOs have the authority and ability
to confront sensitive theoretical questions like the continuation of harvest and hatchery
programs, should they? Should the treaty right to fish be given higher deference than
non-tribal fishing?
Given more time I would have liked to include a more diverse selection of
interviewees including: NGOs that focus on lobbying and litigation; a more diverse group
of stakeholders including industry and development professionals; more representatives
from tribal, state and federal regulating agencies, and Tribal Elders. I would have also
liked to have conducted more research on the application of citizen science in salmon
recovery. Further research could also be completed exploring the role of NGOs in
shoreline protection, storm-water remediation, emerging toxic chemicals of concern and
77
the many other stresses to which sensitive species living in urbanizing estuaries are
exposed. Due to time constraints the issues mentioned above were not explored in this
research.
Salmon conservation and recovery is still as much about treaty fishing rights as
they were at the time of the signing of the MCT. There is a court case in appeal wherein
Washington’s Treaty Fishing Tribes are suing the state concerning the removal of
culverts that impede the migration of salmon runs. The tribes are also in negotiations to
call for a no-harvest order on the ESA listed Chinook salmon species and are up against
protests by recreational and commercial fishers. The good news is that tribes are currently
celebrating a huge victory in the upholding of the treaty fishing right to a healthy salmon
habitat due to the recent decision by the Army Corps of Engineers not to install a major
coal and oil transport facility in the treaty protected waters of the Lummi Nation.
Sometimes big ideas need to come from outside of government structures and be
permitted to marinate before any action is taken. NGOs provide the opportunity to foster
these ideas and assist in the actions necessary to implement them. As the tribal agency
employee interviewed pointed out, “salmon recovery is a social exercise.” Their health
affects the entire Puget Sound community. It affects our society, economy, and our
health; if salmon don’t have a healthy habitat then neither do we.
The progressive approach to salmon recovery in Washington State would not be
where it is today without the tenacity and dedication of the recently passed Nisqually
Tribal Leader and Treaty Rights advocate Billy Frank Jr. and his constituents. He had a
genuine knack for being a frank negotiator in all political arenas and bringing people
78
together from all walks of life. If we continue to follow in his footsteps we can fulfill the
salmon recovery mission that he fought for his entire life. In his words, “We are
confident that by working together – all of us – we can achieve our goal of returning wild
salmon stocks to abundance.” Billy Frank Jr. (March 9, 1931 – May 5, 2014).
79
Bibliography
Anderson, M. R., (1987) Law and the Protection of Cultural Communities: The Case of
Native American Fishing Rights. Law & Policy Vol. 9 (No. 2): 125–142.
Belsky, M. H., (1996) Indian Fishing Rights: A Lost Opportunity for Ecosystem
Management. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law. Vol. 12 (1) pp. 45 - 62
Blumm, M. C., & Steadman J. G., (2009) Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and Habitat
Protection: The Martinez Decision Supplies a Resounding Judicial Reaffirmation.
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 653-706.
Blumm, M.C., & Swift, B. M., (1998) Indian Treaty Piscary Profit and Habitat Protection
in the Pacific Northwest: A Property Rights Approach. University of Colorado Law
Review Vol. 69, pp.407- 467
Brewer, T.D., & Moon, K., (2015) Towards a functional typology of small scale fisheries
co-management informed by stakeholder perceptions: A coral reef study. Marine
Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 48-56
Brown, J. J., (1994) Treaty Rights: Twenty Years after the Boldt Decision. Wicazo Sa
Review, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 1–16.
Cronin, A. & Ostergren, D.M., (2007) Democracy, Participation, and Native American
Tribes in Collaborative Watershed Management. Society & Natural Resources:
An International Journal, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 80-109
Clark, W. G., (1985) Fishing in a Sea of Court Orders: Puget Sound Salmon Management
10 Years after the Boldt Decision. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management Vol.
5(No. 3B): 417–434.
Department of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe, vol.414 1973 US.
Galligan Jr, T. C., & Reynvaan, M. T., (1981) Pacific Northwest Indian Treaty Fishing
Rights. University of Puget Sound Law Review. 5: 99.
Gordon, David George, and Lembersky, Mark R. (1995) Nisqually Watershed: Glacier to
Delta: A River’s Legacy. Mountaineers Books.
Hobbs, Charles A., (1968) Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights II. George WA Law
Review 37: 1251.
Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J., (2004) Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth
the Effort? Public Administration Review, Vol. 64 (No. 1), pp. 55-65
80
Kalikoski, D.C., & Satterfield, T., (2004) On crafting a fisheries co-management
arrangement in the estuary of Patos lagoon (Brazil): opportunities and challenges
faced through implementation, Marine Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 503-522
Klinger, P., Dale, V., Sherman, M., McKinney, M., Campbell, J.Y., & Gold, B., (2007).
Promise and Challenge of Cooperative Conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, Vol. 5 (No. 2), pp. 97-103
Kluger, Richard, (2011) The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek: A Tragic Clash Between
White and Native America. Random House LLC.
Koontz, T.M. & Thomas, C. W., (2006) What Do We Know and Need to Know about the
Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? Public Administration
Review, Vol. 66, Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management, pp. 111-121
Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., Sabatier, P. A., (2002). Stakeholder Partnerships as
Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to Watershed
Management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Vol. 21 (No. 4), pp. 645-670
Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., vol.433 (1977) US.
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash., vol.391 (1968) US.
Reddick, S. M., & Collins, C. C., (2005) Medicine Creek to Fox Island: Cadastral Scams
and Contested Domains. Oregon Historical Quarterly: 374–397.
Ruckelshaus, M. H., Levin, J. P. J. B., & Kareiva P.M., (2002)
The Pacific Salmon Wars: What Science Brings to the Challenge of Recovering
Species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 665–706.
Safford, T.G. & Norman, K.C., (2011) Water water everywhere, but not enough for
salmon? Organizing integrated water and fisheries management in Puget Sound.
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 92, pp. 838-847
Sawhney, P., Kobayashi, M., Takahashi, M., King, P.N., Mori, H., (2007). Participation
of Civil Society in Management of Natural Resources. International Review for
Environmental Strategies, Vol. 7 (No. 1), pp. 117-132
Shared Strategy Development Committee (Shared Strategy). (2007) Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan (Vol. 1). Seattle, WA: Northwest Regional Office, NOAA’s
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Shreve, B. G., (2009) “From Time Immemorial”: The Fish-in Movement and the Rise of
Intertribal Activism. Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 78 (3), pp.403-434
Sohappy v. Smith, vol.302 (1969) F. Supp.
State v. McCoy, vol.387 (1963) P. 2d.
81
Stober, Q. J., & Bell M. C., (1986) The Feasibility of Anadromous Fish Production above
the Alder/LaGrande Hydroelectric Projects on the Nisqually River.
Heffernan (2012) Where the Salmon Run : The Life and Legacy of Billy Frank Jr.
Olympia, Wash: WAState Heritage Center Legacy Project ; Seattle.
Tulee v. Washington, vol.315 (1942) US.
United States v. State of Oregon, vol.657 (1981)
United States v. Winans, vol.198 (1905) US.
United States v. Washington (Boldt Decision), vol. 384 (1974) US.
United States v. State of Washington, vol.157 (1998) F. 3d.
United States. v. State of Washington (Martinez Decision) WL 2437166 (2007) US.
Weber, E.P., Leschine T.M., & Brock, J., (2010) Civic Science and Salmon Recovery
Planning in Puget Sound. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 38 (No. 2), pp. 235-256
Wilkinson, C., (2006) Messages from Frank’s Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and
the Indian Way. University of WAPress.
82
Appendices
Descriptions of Select Non-Government and Government Organizations
Involved in Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Efforts
Nisqually River Foundation (NRF)
The Nisqually River Foundation (NRF) is a 501 (c) 3 Non-Profit Organization (NPO)
who’s origin goals were to provide funding and staffing to support the work of the
Nisqually River Council (NRC) in implementing the Watershed Stewardship Plan. The
NRF is not limited to coordinating NRC meetings; they also organize Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) meetings as well as all subcommittee assemblages. The objective of
the NRC and CAC meetings is to enable Council members to identify potential salmon
recovery projects.
The most current project involves partnerships with the Nisqually Indian Tribe (NIT),
the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR) and United States Geologic Service
(USGS) to develop and implement a review and monitoring plan to gauge the results of
the monumental 2009 Nisqually Delta Restoration project. The NRF is responsible for
informing the public, and other land managers, concerning what will be a long-term and
large-scale monitoring project. The NRF is also currently spearheading a Nisqually River
Water Trail planning effort intended to promote conscientious recreation alongside the
main stem of the Nisqually River. The planning process will identify recreational
activities that have the least impact on salmon and respects salmon recovery efforts. NRF
works to encourage and support sustainability in the Nisqually Watershed in order to
create better stewardship for our resources and strives for perpetuity of a more
83
harmonious common culture in regards to maintaining an environmental, social, and
economic balance concerning salmon recovery efforts.
An important faction of the NRF is the Nisqually River Education Project (NREP).
For 25 years this program has been devoted to exposing students to nature and giving
them hands-on science experience. Supplying students with these opportunities serves to
make them better stewards of the environment, encouraging them to take actions to
improve the health of the Nisqually Watershed.
The NRF also manages The Nisqually Sustainable Program. The purpose of this
program is to emphasize environmentally conscious local business practices. The
program is open to all locally owned businesses. An NRF staff member meets with all the
enrolled businesses and analyzes their energy consumption, water use as well as other
potentially environmentally harmful practices. In exchange for efforts on the part of
businesses to adjust their operations to be more environmentally sound, NRF provides
free training workshops and other tools to help business owners improve their practices.
The NRF also helps to facilitate a The Nisqually Stream Stewards (NSS) program.
This joint program is primarily administered by the NRC and the Nisqually Indian Tribe.
This yearly course trains community members in the science involved in restoration
projects and provides them with the skills necessary to become proficient and successful
citizen scientists. The class enables participants to meet other community members,
acquaint themselves with local professionals and participate in volunteer opportunities
that actively make attempts to improve environmental conditions in the Nisqually
Watershed. The program has been in existence for 10 years, and many former students in
84
the course have gone on to become board members and active members of local
environmentally centric community groups. (http://nisquallyriver.org/who-weare/nisqually-river-foundation/).
Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC)
The Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC) is a private 501 (c) (3) NPO. The
mission of the NRNC is to a operate a “a volunteer-run, membership supported
organization, which promotes the understanding, appreciation, and preservation of the
Nisqually estuarine ecosystem and its integral role in the local environment, history, and
culture through interpretation, and research” (http://www.nisquallyestuary.org/).
Since 1982 the NRNC has been offering estuarine environmental education at its
Luhr Beach facility, which is owned and partially maintained by the WDFW. Since that
time their emphasis has shifted from public outreach education for the general public to
concentrating on providing supplemental curriculum focus on field and laboratory
protocol for Thurston and Pierce County school districts, as well several home school
groups, community colleges, state colleges and government employees.
The advent of the 15,000 acre Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve in 2011 has provided
the opportunity for the center to be eligible for grant funds from the EPA. Working
closely with the WDFW and the Washington Environmental Council (WEC), and with
the help of the Puget Sound Corps, the Center has been able to participate in several
Aquatic Reserve related research programs. These include forage fish surveys; Pigeon
85
Guillemot burrow monitoring and mussel tissue toxicity surveys
(http://www.nisquallyestuary.org/).
Nisqually Land Trust (NLT)
The Nisqually Land Trust (NLT) acquires critical lands essential to permanently
protecting the Nisqually River watershed, its scenic vistas, water flow, wildlife and
natural areas. It is an independent, private, NGO incorporated in 1989 and federally
recognized as a 501 (c) (3) NPO in 1990. The mission of the NLT is to acquire and
manage critical lands to permanently benefit the water, wildlife and people of the
Nisqually River watershed. The actions of the NLT are primarily based on the Nisqually
Watershed Stewardship Plan which, in response to a 1985 legislative directive, is
coordinated and managed by the Nisqually River Council. It is also operating under the
directive of the Nisqually Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan and the Nisqually Steelhead
Recovery Plan, which are organized and coordinated by the Nisqually Indian Tribe
(http://nisquallylandtrust.org/about_us/).
South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG)
The South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) is a local voice
for regional salmon recovery. SPSSEG engages willing landowners to restore salmon
habitat throughout all of the watersheds in the South Sound region. They search for and
find appropriate partnerships with other organizations in order to make restoration plans,
procure funding to carry out and monitor technical habitat restoration and fishery
enhancement projects. SPSSEG considers collaborations with local communities, in the
86
South Sound to have the potential to boost salmon populations in our rivers and their
tributaries in their watersheds (http://spsseg.org/about/).
Their non-biased, non-governmental status helps them obtain substantial results in
the arena of habitat restoration in an expedient and cost efficient manner. SPSSEG has a
vision that that the collaborative efforts they participate in have the potential to create;
persistent and vigorous salmon runs in South Puget Sound region ecosystems; a more
effective leadership stance concerning South Puget Sound freshwater, estuarine and
marine salmon recovery and habitat restoration efforts; wide community support and
active engagement in accomplishing their mission to “protect and restore salmon
populations and aquatic habitat with an emphasis on ecosystem function through
scientifically informed projects, community education, and volunteer involvement”.
(http://spsseg.org/about/).
The Norwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) indicates that serving the
Treaty Tribe’s of Western Washington is their main objective. Their website goes on to
claim that PNW Tribes and Treaty rights are what they are “all about”. The NWIFC has
been in existence for roughly forty years for the express service of up-holding the Treaty
rights of PNW Tribes. Part of the recovery process is in relating the story of how the PNW
Tribes have fought, litigated and compromised in their efforts to protect and restore the
natural resources that define their cultural heritage and provide them sustenance and
income. The NWIFC provides support and services for 20 PNW Treaty Tribes. Their main
87
Headquarters are located in Olympia, with satellite office in Forks and Burlington; they
employ around 70 people who have a wide variety of expertise and skills.
Following the Boldt Decision that re-affirmed the tribes’ treaty-reserved fishing
rights the NWIFC was created in order to effectively establish them as co-managers of
salmon fisheries with the State of Washington. The NWIFC includes spokespersons from
each member tribe who operate in order to elect a chair, vice chair and treasurer for the
commission. These commissioners proceed to recommend and supply courses of action to
the NWIFC executive director, who has the capacity to then implement recommended
direction.
Another role taken on by the NWIFC is to support Treaty Tribes in their function
as natural resources co-managers. The commission offers services in subjects such as
biometrics, fish health and salmon management enabling more resourceful use of limited
federal funding. The NWIFC has established an avenue for tribes to tackle shared NRM
concerns and permits the tribes to address these concerns to Washington State and Federal
regulatory agencies with a unified voice.
Following Judge Boldt’s ruling, the NWIFC was instituted to aid tribal
governments in conducting methodical and biologically sound fisheries. Further litigation
decisions upholding treaty harvest rights of culturally significant natural resources have
expanded the tasks required of PNW Treaty Tribes as natural resource managers. It is
obvious today that tribal input is imperative in all aspects of regional NRM.
The Treaty Tribe’s pledge to maintain astute NRM is clearly laid out in the
introduction to the NWIFC Constitution:
88
“We, the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, recognize that our fisheries are
a basic and important natural resource and of vital concern to the Indians
of this state, and that the conservation of this natural resource is dependent
upon effective and progressive management. We further believe that by
unity of action, we can best accomplish these things, not only for the
benefit of our own people but for all of the people of the Pacific
Northwest.” (http://nwifc.org/about-us/)
Presided over by Treaty Tribal members, the NWIFC appoints commissioners for the
policy development and general organization guidance. The executive director of the
commission oversees the NWIFC implementation of policies and all NRM actions that
have been certified by the commissioners.
The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)
The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) is a state agency that leads the all of Puget
Sound region’s collective efforts to restore and protect crucial environmental habitat. PSP
works to engage multiple government agencies and NGOs to participate in partnerships
in order to move towards a common conservation and restoration agenda. PSP’s vision is
to create vibrant, endurable natural systems and commitments to collaborative ecological
recovery efforts; its mission is to “accelerate collective effort to recover and sustain the
Puget Sound” (http://www.psp.wa.gov/puget-sound-partnership.php).
Through their philosophy of having a shared, science-based system of assessment
and monitoring PSP considers that one of their more significant duties is to ensure that
smart economical investments are made in order to promote successful conservation and
restoration efforts. Successful economic decisions aid to inform future considerations
concerning the most effectual allocation of future funding sources. PSPs actions to
89
support policy implementation as well as organizing and allocating the funding needed
for watershed partnerships to succeed in achieving salmon recovery goals within the
PSPs attempts to alleviate monetary and regulatory obstacles for their partners in
conservation and restoration within the Sound. PSP acts as a catalyst within the recovery
effort system to ensure project completion by acting as mediators in order to improve the
regulatory and policy atmosphere by funneling outside resources toward actions of
precedence (http://www.psp.wa.gov/puget-sound-partnership.php).
According to their website the Washington State Legislature identified six
ecosystem recovery goals for creating a resilient Puget Sound:
Healthy Human Population—A healthy population supported by a healthy
Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem.
Vibrant Quality of Life—A quality of human life that is sustained by a
functioning Puget Sound ecosystem.
Thriving Species and Food Web—Healthy and sustaining populations of
native species in Puget Sound, including a robust food web.
Protect and Restored Habitat—A healthy Puget Sound where freshwater,
estuary, nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are protected, restored, and
sustained.
Abundant Water Quantity—An ecosystem that is supported by good
groundwater levels as well as river and stream flows sufficient to sustain
people, fish, wildlife, and the natural functions of the environment.
Healthy Water Quality—Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a
sufficient quality to support water that is safe for drinking, swimming, and
other human uses and enjoyment, and which are not harmful to the native
marine mammals, fish, birds, and shellfish in the region.
(http://www.psp.wa.gov/puget-sound-partnership.php)
The bulk of PSPs funding comes from federal sources such as the federal Puget
Sound National Estuary Program. PSPs budget for the last two years was $18.8 million.
These funds included $9.9 million from the U.S. EPA, $7.5 million Washington state
dollars, and $1.4 million from NOAA. The extensive ecosystem recovery effort in the
entirety of the Puget Sound garners funds from various entities; this includes funds from
90
local, state, tribal and federal government. NPOs, NGOs, and foundations also make
important resource contributions, whether monetary or in the form of citizen science
volunteerism (http://www.psp.wa.gov/puget-sound-partnership.php).
The role of PSPs Administrative Services Division ensures that key policy
making members of regulatory agencies have the sufficient information needed to
approve funding for the most important and effective recovery projects. Their
administrative division engages in government relations, communicates with media
outlets, and provides tactical support to the Ecosystem Coordination Board, Puget Sound
Leadership and Salmon Recovery Councils and the Science Panel. They also provide
core support for other agencies which include, in part, the human resources and IT
departments.
PSPs Local Ecosystem Recovery Program works to line-out recovery measures,
eliminate obstructions, and direct resources towards the advancement of the most
important recovery actions. The duties of the Ecosystem Recovery Coordinators from
PNW regional watersheds include: ensuring decision-makers are well-informed about the
issue of concern and providing capital, technical expertise, diplomatically overcoming
local barriers to recovery efforts. This is accomplished by working alongside local
amalgamate organizations and salmon and watershed recovery groups to obtain workable
regional solutions.
PSP also collaborates with partners to formulate recovery actions with the most
precedence; The Policy & Planning Program developed and implements a shared
roadmap, the Action Agenda, in order to work towards reaching desired ecosystem
recovery goals. This shared roadmap highlights partnerships and their role in choosing
91
actions that consist of the foremost and most exceptional investments necessary for
successful recovery. The Policy & Planning Program endorses policy efforts designed to
remove barriers inhibiting salmon recovery and develops actions that will provide the
opportunity for working partners to successfully relate more positively to the public.
Another critical sector of PSP is their Science & Evaluation Program. This sector
is tasked with coordinating and implementing science-based protocols standardizing the
measuring and monitoring that enables complete and thorough analysis of collective
restoration projects. By tracking the status of Near Term Actions the results of any
ecosystem recovery indicators are reported to the Puget Sound Action Agenda.
The ecosystem recovery progress results of PSP’s Science & Evaluation program are
reported and available via the Puget Sound Report Card and Vital Signs websites. They
are also published in a biennial State of the Sound report. The Science & Evaluation
Program also supports the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program and generates a
Biennial Science Work Plan.
PSP, along with The Recreation and Conservation Office, works closely with Lead
Entities (LEs). LEs are regional, watershed-based organizations comprised of diverse
groups of community members, policy-makers, stakeholders as well as industry and
scientific professionals that engage in meetings to choose strategic plans for local salmon
habitat recovery strategies. They also assist in procuring funding and managing projects
which implement their strategies.
92
Lead Entities (LE)
Lead Entities (LEs) are crucial to the development of the most effective and
economical strategies to restore salmon habitat. They also specialize in recruiting the
most appropriate organizations to bring their strategic plans to fruition. LEs consist of:
A lead entity coordinator (usually a county, conservation district, or
tribe)
A committee of local, technical experts
A committee of local citizens
A lead entity grant administrator (usually county, conservation district,
tribe, or regional organization)
(http://wwwtest2.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/lead_entities.shtml)
The strategies developed by LEs funnel state and federal money to where is will
be spent the most efficiently. They are responsible for coordinating projects are beneficial
to local and rural economies by providing and preserving local jobs. The main objective
of LEs is to be the frontrunners in salmon recovery and sustaining the PNW salmon
populations required for viable, tribal, recreational and commercial fisheries throughout
Washington State. LEs employ habitat strategies, in part developed by scientific experts,
and all members consult to prioritize their recovery plans and to guide the order of their
project lists. Their unique approach makes certain that recovery efforts will be completed
in the best order to ensure that the habitat restoration projects they help to implement are
able to sustain healthy salmon populations for years to come.
One of the unique methods of LEs is its combination of both regional science and
local social values in order to recognize the most beneficial salmon recovery projects.
The inclusion of local technical experts and concerned citizen committees guarantees that
93
the most prevalent science and community interests come together and the projects with
the highest intrinsic priorities of particular watersheds are the first to be chosen and
implemented. LEs are a prime example of citizen supported and scientifically based
salmon habitat recovery efforts. Their actions provide a harmonized, resourceful, and
valuable reaction to recovering the salmon species listed on the Endangered Species Act.
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and the Recreation and Conservation Office
(GSRO)
The Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) was instituted by the
Legislature; the agency was created as a result of the Salmon Recovery Planning Act that
was passed to address the listing of certain salmon species being put on the EPA
endangered species list. The agency is responsible for the coordination the salmon
recovery strategy for the entire state of WA
(http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/gsro.shtml).
“Other tasks include:
Helping develop and implement regional recovery plans.
Securing funding for local, regional, and state recovery efforts.
Preparing the Web site and biennial State of the Salmon in
Watersheds report to the Legislature.
Advising the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.”
(http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/gsro.shtml)
The WA State Recreation and Conservation Office work to support the
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
(http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/gsro.shtml).
94
The Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
The RCO is a state agency specializing in the management of grants allocated for
the augmentation of outdoor recreational prospects; they also work towards the
preservation of prime Washington State wildlife habitats and farmlands. Their efforts
have been credited for helping to bring salmon back from practical extinction. RCO has
proven itself to be an example of a consummate grant management agency and providing
effective leadership on complex NRM and outdoor recreation issues. The RCO is an
excellent steward of public resources; they utilize a rational and objective grant process
in order to make deliberate investments that select the most paramount and imperative
restoration projects. Collaborating to care for, safeguard, and repair crucial lands for
salmon habitat, the RCO empowers society to partake in and take accountability for
watershed restoration (http://wwwtest2.rco.wa.gov/about/index.shtml).
The RCO is well aware that collaborative partnerships with scientific and industry
professionals, grant recipients, active volunteers, and the general public, are what enables
them to be so successful. They are respectful of the community’s interests and main
concerns and take them into consideration when conducting their grant allocation
process. They encourage and oversee a respectful, healthy workplace where employees
become skilled at finding inventive ways to accomplish their prime objectives. These
objectives are to incorporate effectual and competent methods to manage the natural
resources to which they are entrusted, as well as ensuring that local ecosystems sustain
dynamic biodiversity of wildlife and humans. The RCO strives to constructively modify
outdoor recreation opportunities that will lead to the improved health and well-being of
95
PNW residents. None of these efforts come free of cost though; since RCO was
established in 1964, it has allocated grant funds exceeding $1.7 billion dollars to
practically 7,500 projects. The agency is currently awarding approximately 230 grants at
the amount of $60 million dollars for every fiscal year. The RCO doesn’t accomplish
such successful funding efforts on their own; since their agency was instituted their grant
recipients have matched more than $950 million dollars towards restoration resources.
The RCO endorses the following organizations:
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB)
Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)
Invasive Species Council
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
Habitat and Recreation Lands Coordinating Group
(http://wwwtest2.rco.wa.gov/about/index.shtml)
Collaborating with this collection of boards and organizations enhances their ability
to provide effective leadership, substantial funding, and scientifically based support
(http://wwwtest2.rco.wa.gov/about/index.shtml).
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR)
NNWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the
Department of Interior. While Nisqually River’s estuary has been set aside for wildlife,
almost all other major estuaries in WA State have been filled, dredged or developed.
NNWR was established in 1974 in order to ensure the protection of the delta, and to
preserve and restore sustainably diverse fish and wildlife habitats. The refuge has a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in place that serves to lay out goals and tactics
for the improvement of wildlife habitat conditions within the Refuge. The plan also
96
provides the means to create the partnerships necessary to achieve these goals. The refuge
website has this to say about their current partnerships and the ones they will continue to
form to accomplish conservation and preservation of cultural and environmental
resources:
“The National Wildlife Refuge System is committed to building
partnerships which encourage conservation and preservation of our natural
and cultural resources. Partnership with the Refuge System brings
innovative approaches to solving land management and water disputes in
the most environmentally protective manner. Scientifically-informed and
technologically-based stewardship of our public lands, waters, wildlife and
special places must be collaborative efforts between the Refuge System,
other government agencies, and private organizations if conservation
efforts are to succeed.” (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Nisqually/about.html)
This statement encompasses the core goal of the collaborative NRM efforts of NGOs and
government agencies; creating stewards of the watershed that are well informed in both
the science and the technology needed to maintain and restore healthy environments for
local wildlife.
NNWR Key Partners
The Nisqually Indian Tribe (NIT) is a key partner in the restoration planning
and policy making process within the Nisqually Watershed; providing technical and
cultural design assistance in not only restoration plans, but also in post-project
monitoring efforts. NIT is an active participant in estuary restoration projects on all tribal
lands as well as partnering in projects that occur on within the NNWR boundaries. The
NIT employs a Tribal Administration in order to guarantee that the Nisqually Tribe’s
needs are successfully met and to provide direction in day to day Tribal administrative
obligations.
97
Daily administrative duties are supervised by a Chief Executive Officer working
for and receiving policy direction from the Tribal Council. The organizational
management structure is designed to ensure strict separation of management functions
and policy making. The Tribal Administration also provides a strict chain of command
within the organization.
The NIT created operates the Nisqually Department of Natural Resources (NDNR).
The NIT has customarily sustained their society by protecting and respecting the natural
resources they have relied on for generations. The NDNR works to maintain healthy
ecosystems in the NIT’s native lands and waterways. They do this in order to ensure
biodiversity in the Nisqually Watershed as well as preserving their cultural heritage.
(http://www.nisqually-nsn.gov/)
The Nisqually River Council (NRC) works to inform key partners about, advocate
for, and coordinate the implementation of the Nisqually River Management Plan. They
also work to foster key partnerships with other government and non-government entities
working to protect and restore the Nisqually Watershed. Their Mission is to create
sustainability in the Nisqually Watershed for current and future generations by
developing a common culture of environmental, social and economic balance
(http://www.nisqually-nsn.gov/index.php/council/).
The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) was created in 1999 by the
Washington State Legislature; the board’s main responsibility is to procure funding for
programs aimed to protect or restore salmon habitat. The creation of the agency was
directly in-line with salmon recovery strategies laid out in the Salmon Recovery
98
Planning Act. In the 1990s, as an increased number of salmon species became listed as
endangered and the affected watersheds increased, Washington’s Tribal, State as well as
Federal government leaders recognized that they had to make a collaborative effort to
recover salmon populations. The Governor appoints five citizens and five state agency
directors to be on the SRFB. The diversity of the board enables the understanding and
perspectives of the local public as well as the experience and technical knowledge of
major state natural resource agencies to be presented and discussed before a project
receives funding (http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
Working in tandem with the GSRO, RCO, and LEs, The Salmon Recovery
Funding Board is responsible for addressing the statewide salmon recovery project
funding priorities. The distinctive approach established in the requirements of the Salmon
Recovery Planning act have become a prime model in the nation for collaborative NRM
focusing on salmon recovery; to the point where it is now fairly well known as ‘The
Washington Way’(Weber, E.P., Leschine T.M., & Brock, J., (2010).. Part of the unique
approach to WA State salmon recovery efforts is the required participation of local
communities to work with government agencies to assist in the process of writing
recovery plans (http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
Once a plan has been formulated it is approved by the federal government and
implementation of the project can proceed. Plans are developed by local public
committees and then submitted to SRFB for further review concerning the technical
proficiency and practicality of the project. By employing this “bottom up” strategy for
salmon recovery programs, local communities feel a greater sense of ownership for their
99
watersheds and more accountability for the outcomes of local restoration efforts
(http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
By ensuring the project selection process is overseen and vetted by the state, only
the projects promising to be the most scientifically sound, practical, and effective are
funded. Once a project is approved for implementation, SRFB plays a critical role in
supporting the organizations carrying out the recovery plans that have been approved for
funding by the federal government. Staff in the RCO assists in the management of state
funding; proper management of funds is vital for securing additional federal grants for
future restoration projects. The physical in-situ work of restoring salmon habitat on
properties acquired for salmon recovery is completed by the chosen recipients of SRFB
acquired grants (http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
“SRFB awards two type of grants:
General salmon recovery grants
Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration grants”
(http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.p
df)
The main objectives of the projects funded by SRFB grants are to restore
degraded salmon habitat, remove barriers that prevent salmon migration, and to preserve
any remaining pristine salmon habitat. It is required that the organizations that apply for
these grants be willing and able to supply at least 15% of the cost of the chosen project
via alternative sources of funding. By choosing an amalgamation of community endorsed
projects that are approved by scientific professionals there is assurance that the projects
100
given the most priority and that receive funding have local and scientific support
http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
By not only funding restoration projects but also funding the monitoring of
completed projects SRFB is making the necessary efforts to ensure that salmon recovery
projects are successfully improving salmon recovery. SRFB is currently conducting
monitoring of previously selected and completed projects throughout WA State in order
to assess what types of restoration efforts are the most valuable
http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/fact_sheets/SRFB_fact_sheet.pdf).
101
