The federal government today released its final plan to protect endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. | credit: Aaron Kunz | rollover image for more
The federal government is standing by its previous plans for managing the Columbia River to prevent the extinction of its salmon and steelhead. That means little would change for dam operations on the West’s biggest river — but only if it wins court approval.
Officials Friday released the finalized plan, known as the biological opinion or BiOp. It guides dam operations to assure they do not lead to the extinction of 13 species of salmon and steelhead that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. The plan has been the subject of more than 20 years of legal conflict between people who want to protect salmon and people who want the dams to produce hydroelectricity and maintain shipping traditions.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the lead agency in developing the biological opinion. It says the current plan is on track to meet Endangered Species Act goals for the federally protected fish. NOAA officials say the plan may better protect some fish than previously thought.
“The actions outlined in the biological opinion, and the operation of the hydro system, is designed to move us in the direction towards recovery and avoid jeopardy, and this program does that,” said NOAA’s Barry Thom. “It actually does improve the status of the populations over time. But it is not designed to achieve ultimate recovery of the population.”
Officials say the 610-page plan will protect and improve habitat, with specific attention paid to tributaries and estuaries of the Columbia and Snake rivers.
“A major focus of the tributary habitat program is to help us buffer against potential effects of climate change in the system, so that the habitat projects … are designed to maintain and protect the cool water inputs into the system,” Thom said during a conference call with reporters.
NOAA released a draft version of this plan in September.
In 2011, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden rejected the plan and asked the Obama administration to consider more ways to recover the endangered fish.
Redden’s suggestions included spilling more water over the dams to help juvenile salmon safely make it downriver to the ocean, changing reservoirs to help fish passage, and removing the Snake River dams altogether.
The case has been transferred to Judge Michael H. Simon. He has yet to set a court date for the plan’s sponsors and opponents to argue it. He’ll then decide if the plan is adequate to protect Columbia River salmon and steelhead.
Now that the previous version of the plan is partway completed, supporters say a trend toward larger salmon runs shows the plan is working. Terry Flores is with Northwest RiverPartners, which represents commerce and industry groups that defend the presence of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia-Snake system.
“This plan is amazing. It’s the most comprehensive plan we can find anywhere in this country by far,” Flores said.
Environmental groups say they are disappointed with this finalized plan. Gilly Lyons, with advocacy group Save Our Wild Salmon, said the group is frustrated.
“The federal agencies in charge here have re-isuued a slightly tweaked, but largely status quo federal salmon plan that repeats a lot of the same mistakes over the past decade or so that kept them in court and bound them in litigation over these dams and the salmon that they impact,” Lyons said.
Lyons said it is too soon to tell if environmental groups will file another lawsuit.
“With all the stuff that we see in the plan, or that’s not there, as the case may be, it sure looks like the federal government would like to go back to court,” Lyons said.
NOAA officials said there will be a few years before they have to start writing a new 10-year plan beyond 2018.
“One main priority is to carry out this existing biological opinion,” Thom said. “There will be a period of time between [the 2018 discussions] and the next couple of years where I would like to focus our efforts on talking about long-term recovery. … As opposed to focusing either on A) the litigation or B) the details of a new biological opinion beyond 2018.”
Gov. Jay Inslee on Friday signed a proclamation that returns almost all civil and criminal authority over tribal members on the reservation back to the Yakama Nation. The next required step, before this can take effect, is federal approval.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — In what tribal leaders call a historic development, Gov. Jay Inslee on Friday signed a proclamation that returns almost all civil and criminal authority over tribal members on the reservation back to the Yakama Nation.
Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin said the signing is not only “historic” but the first of its kind in the country.
Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin
“The biggest benefit is that we have the right to determine our own destiny and our own laws,” Smiskin said earlier this week.
But the deal is not done yet. The proclamation needs federal approval, which Smiskin said will probably take another year or so working with the government on final details, including financial support for both law enforcement and civil authority over social issues like school truancy and child and family services.
The Yakama Nation is a sovereign nation that has the authority to govern itself under the treaty signed in 1855 with the federal government. The Nation already has its own police department and jail and has always had some criminal authority over tribal members.
In 1953, under Public Law 280, Congress gave states the authority to take more civil and criminal control over Indian lands. In 1963, Washington’s state government asserted jurisdiction over school attendance, domestic relations, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, adoption, public assistance, and motor vehicle operation on tribal lands.
In 2012, the Legislature created a process for tribes to apply to get that lost authority returned. The proclamation is the result of the Yakama Nation’s petition. A busload of tribal members travelled to Olympia for the ceremony.
The Yakama petition, which was filed in 2012, asked the state to retain authority over mental illness as it arises in the courts and civil commitment of sexually violent predators, but return the rest of the authority taken in 1963.
The state retains jurisdiction over criminal or civil cases that involve non-Indians, even if a tribal member is also involved.
Yakima County Commissioner Kevin Bouchey said that was the county’s main concern, and he was pleased that to see the state retained that authority.
Smiskin said he encouraged the tribe to pursue the move — known as retrocession — because he’d seen the benefits when he worked with the Colville Tribe on the issue in the 1980s.
Criminal jurisdiction was returned by the Legislature for the Colvilles and several other tribes then, but Smiskin said that he used what he learned from that process to improve the Yakamas’ move to regain authority, including civil jurisdiction.
Now that Inslee has signed the proclamation, it goes to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs for review before it will take full effect.
In preparation, the Yakamas already signed memorandums of understanding with the cities and counties that overlap the reservation.
For example, if a tribal member is pulled over on the reservation for speeding by a sheriff’s deputy, the officer will transfer the driver over to a tribal officer, Bouchey said.
Yakima County Sheriff Ken Irwin called the retrocession a “work in progress” and said that he still doesn’t know the final details about how the BIA and the Yakama Nation are going to handle some issues, including major crimes, but he respects the process.
“They have some steps left,” Irwin said. “In the meantime, it’s business as usual and we are working together very well.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Social and Health Services referred questions about the retrocession process to the governor’s office.
A governor’s office spokeswoman said the state doesn’t intend to start planning for the transition in jurisdiction until after the retrocession secures federal approval.
Jeff Menard, of the Anishinaabe Pine Creek First Nation in Manitoba, Canada, has been making “Got Land? Thank an Indian” sweatshirts and t-shirts since 2012 and before this week had sold about 1,000.
But since 13-year-old Tenelle Starr talked her off-reserve school’s officials into allowing her to keep wearing her magenta hoodie bearing those words, Menard’s phone hasn’t stopped ringing, he told CBC News.
“Orders are just coming here left, right and center,” Menard told the Canadian television network. “I’m being flooded with calls.”
He and Tenelle are members of different First Nation bands that are under Treaty 4, which was signed in 1874 by 13 separate Saulteaux and Cree Nations, according to the Pine Creek First Nation website. The treaty currently covers 36 First Nations throughout most of Southern Saskatchewan and parts of southern Alberta and western Manitoba, Pine Creek said.
Tenelle, an eighth-grader from Star Blanket Cree Nation who attends middle school in Balcarres, Saskatchewan, ran into flack from education officials who deemed her new Christmas present racist. They told her to remove it, and when she returned wearing it again a few days later, tried to make her turn it inside out.
Meetings between school officials, her mother and reserve leaders ironed out the problem, and Tenelle was allowed to wear the shirt to school. She has been sporting it proudly ever since, and her story has made waves across Canada.
For his part, Menard told CBC News, he had never intended to make money from shirt sales. In fact all he wants is a thank you—and to see Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one of his hoodies, he told McLean’s.
Menard initially spotted the words on a hoodie in the U.S., he told McLean’s, and started selling them in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. His line also includes bibs and t-shirts.
His main goal, he said, was to get the historically accurate message out there. The shirt has certainly done that.
“The reason why I started this was to bring awareness to the Canadian natives and to unite our people and make them proud of who we are,” he told CBC News. “I’m not in it for the money.”
Don Ryan / Associated Press Mia Prickett sits at a table with a collection of family photos and holds her Confederated Tribe of Grande Ronde enrollment card along with a recent notice of potential potential disenrollment from the tribe in Portland, Ore., on Thursday.
By GOSIA WOZNIACKA Associated Press
Mia Prickett’s ancestor was a leader of the Cascade Indians along the Columbia River and was one of the chiefs who signed an 1855 treaty that helped establish the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in Oregon.
But the Grand Ronde now wants to disenroll Prickett and 79 relatives, and possibly hundreds of other tribal members, because they no longer satisfy new enrollment requirements.
Prickett’s family is fighting the effort, part of what some experts have dubbed the “disenrollment epidemic” — a rising number of dramatic clashes over tribal belonging that are sweeping through more than a dozen states, from California to Michigan.
“In my entire life, I have always known I was an Indian. I have always known my family’s history, and I am so proud of that,” Prickett said. She said her ancestor chief Tumulth was unjustly accused of participating in a revolt and was executed by the U.S. Army — and hence didn’t make it onto the tribe’s roll, which is now a membership requirement.
The prospect of losing her membership is “gut-wrenching,” Prickett said.
“It’s like coming home one day and having the keys taken from you,” she said. “You’re culturally homeless.”
The enrollment battles come at a time when many tribes — long poverty-stricken and oppressed by government policies — are finally coming into their own, gaining wealth and building infrastructure with revenues from Indian casinos.
Critics of disenrollment say the rising tide of tribal expulsions is due to greed over increased gambling profits, along with political in-fighting and old family and personal feuds.
But at the core of the problem, tribes and experts agree, is a debate over identity — over who is “Indian enough” to be a tribal member.
“It ultimately comes down to the question of how we define what it means to be Native today,” said David Wilkins, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota and a member of North Carolina’s Lumbee Tribe. “As tribes who suffered genocidal policies, boarding school laws and now out-marriage try to recover their identity in the 20th century, some are more fractured, and they appear to lack the kind of common elements that lead to true cohesion.”
Wilkins, who has tracked the recent increase in disenrollment across the nation, says tribes have kicked out thousands of people.
Historically, ceremonies and prayers — not disenrollment — were used to resolve conflicts because tribes essentially are family-based, and “you don’t cast out your relatives,” Wilkins said. Banishment was used in rare, egregious situations to cast out tribal members who committed crimes such as murder or incest.
Most tribes have based their membership criteria on blood quantum or on descent from someone named on a tribe’s census rolls or treaty records — old documents that can be flawed.
There are 566 federally recognized tribes and determining membership has long been considered a hallmark of tribal sovereignty. A 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that policy when it said the federal government should stay out of most tribal membership disputes.
Mass disenrollment battles started in the 1990s, just as Indian casinos were establishing a foothold. Since then, Indian gambling revenues have skyrocketed from $5.4 billion in 1995 to a record $27.9 billion in 2012, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Tribes have used the money to build housing, schools and roads, and to fund tribal health care and scholarships. They also have distributed casino profits to individual tribal members.
Of the nearly 240 tribes that run more than 420 gambling establishments across 28 states, half distribute a regular per-capita payout to their members. The payout amounts vary from tribe to tribe. And membership reductions lead to increases in the payments — though tribes deny money is a factor in disenrollment and say they’re simply trying to strengthen the integrity of their membership.
Disputes over money come on top of other issues for tribes. American Indians have one of the highest rates of interracial marriage in the U.S. — leading some tribes in recent years to eliminate or reduce their blood quantum requirements. Also, many Native Americans don’t live on reservations, speak Native languages or “look” Indian, making others question their bloodline claims.
Across the nation, disenrollment has played out in dramatic, emotional ways that left communities reeling and cast-out members stripped of their payouts, health benefits, fishing rights, pensions and scholarships.
In Central California, the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians has disenrolled hundreds. Last year, the dispute over banishments became so heated that sheriff’s deputies were called to break up a violent skirmish between two tribal factions that left several people injured.
In Washington, after the Nooksack Tribal Council voted to disenroll 306 members citing documentation errors, those affected sued in tribal and federal courts. They say the tribe, which has two casinos but gives no member payouts, was racially motivated because the families being cast out are part Filipino. This week, the Nooksack Court of Appeals declined to stop the disenrollments.
And in Michigan, where Saginaw Chippewa membership grew once the tribe started giving out yearly per-capita casino payments that peaked at $100,000, a recent decline in gambling profits led to disenrollment battles targeting hundreds.
The Grand Ronde, which runs Oregon’s most profitable Indian gambling operation, also saw a membership boost after the casino was built in 1995, from about 3,400 members to more than 5,000 today. The tribe has since tightened membership requirements twice, and annual per-capita payments decreased from about $5,000 to just over $3,000.
Some members recently were cast out for being enrolled in two tribes, officials said, which is prohibited. But for Prickett’s relatives, who were tribal members before the casino was built, the reasons were unclear.
Prickett and most of her relatives do not live on the reservation. In fact, only about 10 percent of Grand Ronde members do. Rather, they live on ancestral lands. The tribe has even used the family’s ties to the river to fight another tribe’s casino there.
Grand Ronde spokeswoman Siobhan Taylor said the tribe’s membership pushed for an enrollment audit, with the goal of strengthening its “family tree.” She declined to say how many people were tabbed for disenrollment.
But Prickett’s family says it has been told that up to 1,000 could be cast out, and has filed an ethics complaint before the tribal court. They say the process has been devastating for a family active in tribal arts and events, and in teaching the language Chinuk Wawa.
“I have made a commitment to both our language and our tribe,” said Eric Bernardo, one of only seven Chinuk Wawa teachers who also faces disenrollment. “And no matter what some people in the tribe decide, I will continue to honor that commitment.”
Pete Knutson and his son, Dylan, sell their wild-caught salmon at farmer’s markets around Seattle. “We had people passing on our fish this year. It was directly because they were worried about Fukushima.” | credit: Ashley Ahearn
SEATTLE — Japan’s nuclear disaster released hundreds of millions of gallons of radioactive water in 2011, sparking rampant speculation that a contaminated plume would reach the waters of North America’s West Coast.
Three years later, such speculation is alive and well on the Internet. Consider this video shot at a beach in Northern California and posted last month to YouTube:
“This is one of the problems,” says Kim Martini, a physical oceanographer at the University of Washington who has been following the issue closely. A Geiger counter can tell you if there’s radiation present, she said, “but it can’t differentiate between different kinds of radiation.”
California state officials went back and tested the beach and found the radiation to be naturally occurring in the rock formations there.
Martini and other scientists have received hate mail for trying to dispel some of the online fears about radioactive pollution resulting from the meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station. It was triggered by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, which struck Japan in March, 2011.
“There’s definitely people that you’re never going to convince… I don’t know what to tell you. The science says it’s OK,” Martini said.
Scientists in California and Oregon have collected samples of tuna, a fish known to migrate back and forth across the Pacific, and analyzed them for radioactive isotopes, Cesium-134 in particular, from Fukushima.
Delvan Neville, a PhD candidate in Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State University, has tested dozens of samples of albacore tuna for radioactivity. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s intervention levels for cesium 134 and cesium 137 is 1200 becquerels per kilogram. The highest levels he’s seen in his albacore, of both cesium 134 and cesium 137 combined, is 1 becquerel per kilogram – a level so low that his device couldn’t pick it up until he concentrated the samples.
“That’s more than 1,000 times lower than the point where the FDA would even think about whether they need to let people eat that food still,” he said.
Neville joked that he was eating the tuna he caught right alongside the samples he collected for science, “which was actually kind of fun because then I was telling people as we were eating at the table what their approximate dose was due to Fukushima from the food they were eating and it’s this ridiculously small number.”
There is radioactive material from Fukushima making its way across the Pacific Ocean and it has already reached the West Coast in small amounts. The largest concentration of radioactive water released during the nuclear meltdown is moving in a plume across the middle of the Pacific, but models project that the majority of the radioactive water will sink or be pushed west again before it hits the U.S. Scientists are still debating how high those radioactivity levels could be. Here’s an interesting video on ocean currents and Fukushima radioactivity:
Kim Martini says here on the West Coast, scientists have found very low levels of cesium from Fukushima:
“It’s about 20,000 times less than drinking water standards. And so what we like to say is it’s detectable but harmless.”
But despite all the evidence, some fish consumers on the West Coast have been wary.
Pete Knutson has been fishing for salmon in Alaska for more than 40 years. He owns and operates Loki Fish Company with his two sons. On the weekends you’ll find him selling his fish at farmer’s markets around Seattle, with white hair flowing out from under a knit cap and an easy laugh that draws passersby up to his stall.
“We have all different kinds of salmon products, pickled salmon, ikura, smoked salmon, canned salmon, whole pink salmon over there,” he gestures to rows of neatly packaged pink salmon meat.
Knutson’s in the business of catching fish, not testing them. But after the Fukushima meltdown his customers wanted answers about the safety of his product.
So he sent seven salmon samples off to an internationally certified lab to test for radioactive isotopes. Five of the seven samples came back without any detectable levels of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima, Knutson said, and two showed levels several hundred times below approved levels.
The tests cost Knutson $1,200 but he says it was a necessary investment.
“People do not trust governmental authorities. They don’t trust corporations. They don’t trust explanations and they don’t have a good science background,” Knutson said. “So it makes for a good combination where rumors can start spreading like wildfire, rumors like the whole pacific is poisoned, rumors like starfish, salmon seals, they’re all poisoned from the radiation and it’s not true. This is not definitive proof that there’s not a problem but it’s an indicator.”
Fisheries in Japan remain closed because of high levels of radioactivity and the ongoing release of contaminated groundwater from the nuclear site, but the FDA, Washington Department of Health, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and others have stressed that levels of radioactivity in fish that have made their way across the Pacific are not at levels of concern.
Google contact lens could be option for diabetics This undated photo released by Google shows a contact lens Google is testing to explore tear glucose. After years of scalding soldering hair-thin wires to miniaturize electronics, Brian Otis, Google X project lead, has burned his fingertips so often that he can no longer feel the tiny chips he made from scratch in Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters, a small price to pay for what he says is the smallest wireless glucose sensor that has ever been made. (AP Photo/Google)
January 16, 2014 Martha Mendoza AP
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) – Brian Otis gingerly holds what looks like a typical contact lens on his index finger. Look closer. Sandwiched in this lens are two twinkling glitter-specks loaded with tens of thousands of miniaturized transistors. It’s ringed with a hair-thin antenna. Together these remarkable miniature electronics can monitor glucose levels in tears of diabetics and then wirelessly transmit them to a handheld device.
“It doesn’t look like much, but it was a crazy amount of work to get everything so very small,” he said before the project was unveiled Thursday.
During years of soldering hair-thin wires to miniaturize electronics, Otis burned his fingertips so often that he can no longer feel the tiny chips he made from scratch in Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters, a small price to pay for what he says is the smallest wireless glucose sensor ever made.
Just 35 miles away in the beach town of Santa Cruz, high school soccer coach and university senior Michael Vahradian, 21, has his own set of fingertip callouses, his from pricking himself up to 10 times a day for the past 17 years to draw blood for his glucose meter. A cellphone-sized pump on his hip that attaches to a flexible tube implanted in his stomach shoots rapid-acting insulin into his body around the clock.
“I remember at first it was really hard to make the needle sticks a habit because it hurt so much,” he said. “And there are still times I don’t want to do it _ it hurts and it’s inconvenient. When I’m hanging out with friends, heading down to the beach to body-surf or going to lunch, I have to hold everyone up to take my blood sugar.”
The idea that all of that monitoring could be going on passively, through a contact lens, is especially promising for the world’s 382 million diabetics who need insulin and keep a close watch on their blood sugar.
The prototype, which Google says will take at least five years to reach consumers, is one of several medical devices being designed by companies to make glucose monitoring for diabetic patients more convenient and less invasive than traditional finger pricks.
The contact lenses were developed during the past 18 months in the clandestine Google X lab that also came up with a driverless car, Google’s Web-surfing eyeglasses and Project Loon, a network of large balloons designed to beam the Internet to unwired places.
But research on the contact lenses began several years earlier at the University of Washington, where scientists worked under National Science Foundation funding. Until Thursday, when Google shared information about the project with The Associated Press, the work had been kept under wraps.
“You can take it to a certain level in an academic setting, but at Google we were given the latitude to invest in this project,” Otis said. “The beautiful thing is we’re leveraging all of the innovation in the semiconductor industry that was aimed at making cellphones smaller and more powerful.”
American Diabetes Association board chair Dwight Holing said he’s gratified that creative scientists are searching for solutions for people with diabetes but warned that the device must provide accurate and timely information.
“People with diabetes base very important health care decisions on the data we get from our monitors,” he said.
Other non-needle glucose monitoring systems are also in the works, including a similar contact lens by Netherlands-based NovioSense, a minuscule, flexible spring that is tucked under an eyelid. Israel-based OrSense has already tested a thumb cuff, and there have been early designs for tattoos and saliva sensors.
A wristwatch monitor was approved by the FDA in 2001, but patients said the low level electric currents pulling fluid from their skin was painful, and it was buggy.
“There are a lot of people who have big promises,” said Dr. Christopher Wilson, CEO of NovioSense. “It’s just a question of who gets to market with something that really works first.”
Palo Alto Medical Foundation endocrinologist Dr. Larry Levin said it was remarkable and important that a tech firm like Google is getting into the medical field and that he’d like to be able to offer his patients a pain-free alternative from either pricking their fingers or living with a thick needle embedded in their stomach for constant monitoring.
“Google, they’re innovative, they are up on new technologies, and also we have to be honest here, the driving force is money,” he said.
Worldwide, the glucose-monitoring devices market is expected to be more than $16 billion by the end of this year, according to analysts at Renub Research.
The Google team built the wireless chips in clean rooms and used advanced engineering to get integrated circuits and a glucose sensor into such a small space.
Researchers also had to build in a system to pull energy from incoming radio frequency waves to power the device enough to collect and transmit one glucose reading per second. The embedded electronics in the lens don’t obscure vision because they lie outside the eye’s pupil and iris.
Google is now looking for partners with experience bringing similar products to market. Google officials declined to say how many people worked on the project or how much the firm has invested in it.
Dr. David Klonoff, medical director of the diabetes research institute at Mills-Peninsula Health Services in San Mateo, worked with Google to see whether glucose is present in tears and whether the amount of glucose is proportional to the amount of glucose in blood. He’s still analyzing but optimistic about his findings and warns there are many potential pitfalls.
“Already this has some breakthrough technologies, but this is a moonshot, there are so many challenges,” he said.
One is figuring out how to correlate glucose levels in tears as compared with blood. And what happens on windy days, while chopping onions or during very sad movies? As with any medical device, it would need to be tested and proved accurate, safe, and at least as good as other types of glucose sensors available now to win FDA approval.
Karen Rose Tank, who left her career as an economist to be a health and wellness coach after her Type 1 diabetes diagnosis 18 years ago, also is encouraged that new glucose monitoring methods may be on the horizon.
“It’s really exciting that some of the big tech companies are getting into this market,” she said. “They bring so much ingenuity; they’re able to look outside the box.”
An environmental group is calling for a major expansion in habitat protection for Puget Sound’s killer whales.
Research shows the endangered orcas that live in Puget Sound in the summer are venturing up and down the West Coast in the winter to forage for food. Scientists tracking these southern resident orcas have followed the whales as far north as Alaska and as far south as Monterey, Calif.
Given these findings, the Center for Biological Diversity says the whales need a lot more habitat protection than they have now. The group filed a petition Thursday with the National Marine Fisheries Service to expand protected habitat for the whales from Puget Sound to a large swath of ocean area off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
“They need to protect all of their habitat — not just where the whales hang out in the summer,” says Sarah Uhlemann of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Existing vs. proposed critical habitat.
Protected habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, known as “critical habitat,” comes with restrictions on actions taken by the federal government that might threaten the species’ survival.
Uhlemann says those restrictions would apply to federal decisions on salmon fishing, port expansions and other coastal developments. That would mean any time the federal government decides to do anything -– say the Navy decides to practice some sonar or an agency is deciding whether to permit a port expansion — the government would have to fully consider environmental impacts.
“Not only on the whale but also on its habitat –- and if the impacts are too large they have to stop and mitigate, or lessen what those impacts are,” Uhlemann said.
Lynne Barre is a marine biologist and manager in Seattle with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She said the federal government was already considering an expansion in habitat protections for southern resident orcas as its tagging research program has revealed more about where the whales are feeding.
“Our knowledge of their habitat in the ocean is increasing,” Barre said. “Gathering additional information about their coastal habitat was one of the priorities we identified when we listed the orcas for protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2005.”
The orcas face threats from a lack of available food because they primarily survive on salmon, Barre said. They also accumulate high levels of contaminants such as flame retardants, legacy pesticides and industrial pollutants that can impact their immune systems. Orcas are acoustic animals that use sound to communicate with each other and find prey, she said, so underwater noises from vessels and other activities pose another threat to the whales.
The existing critical habitat protections in Puget Sound require evaluations of the impacts to whales from pollution discharges, ship passage and construction activities such as pile-driving, Barre said. Federal regulators will have 90 days to decide whether to review the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to expand the area where those kinds of protections apply.
(PORTLAND, OR) – Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul & Mary fame, will perform a concert for Wisdom of the Elders, a Native American nonprofit in Portland, at 7:30 p.m., Feb. 14, at Augustana Lutheran Church, 2710 NE 14th Ave., Portland. For tickets, visit www.wisdomoftheelders.org/wisdombenefit.
Peter Yarrow, of the famed 1960s folk group Peter, Paul & Mary, will perform “An Evening of Love and Laughter” to benefit Portland-based Wisdom of the Elders, a Native American nonprofit, 7:30 p.m. Friday, Feb. 14, at Augustana Lutheran Church, which donated use of its facility at 2710 NE 14th Ave.
Peter Yarrow, of the famed 1960s folk group Peter, Paul & Mary
Yarrow, who wrote some of the trio’s hits, including “Puff, the Magic Dragon” and “Day is Done,” has merged music and social activism in recent decades.
Since 1993, Wisdom has served the Native American Community through cultural programs, including a Northwest Indian Storytelling Festival and a collection of video oral histories of Native elders.
Recently, the organization has begun to focus on the effects of climate change on Native communities; its Wisdom Radio for this season focuses on the issue. Joining Yarrow will be his son Christopher, who will sing and play the washtub base. The younger Yarrow, a Portland resident, plays with local bands Baby Gramps, KingniK and Tevis Hodge Jr.
Tickets, which range from $5 to $60, can be purchased through www.wisdomoftheelders/wisdombenefit. The $60 sponsor ticket includes a meet-and-greet with Yarrow and book signing.
What: Peter Yarrow ‘s “An Evening of Love and Laughter,” a concert benefiting Portland-based Wisdom of the Elders
When: 7:30 p.m. Friday, Feb. 14
Where: Augustana Lutheran Church, 2710 NE 14th Ave., Portland
Tickets: $20 general admission; $15 seniors and students, $60 sponsor tickets, $5 children 14 and
Clues from a crater-like sinkhole on the island of Kauai point back to a giant wave that came from Alaska at about the time European explorers were pushing west, seeing the Mississippi River for the first time.
The Makauwahi Sinkhole on Kauai, which contains ocean deposits carried there by a tsunami, probably generated from an earthquake off the Aleutians about 500 years ago.
The Makauwahi Sinkhole on the southeast shore of Kauai holds the mysterious equivalent of about nine shipping containers full of rocks, corals and shells from the Pacific Ocean. For the material to breach the amphitheater-like limestone walls of the feature required a wave about 25 feet high, said Rhett Butler of the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology in Honolulu. Butler gave a presentation on the subject at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union held in San Francisco in December 2013.
That wave probably came from a great Aleutian earthquake, Butler said. The tsunami probably struck between the years of 1540 and 1660, according to dating of the organic materials within the sinkhole.
The great tsunami story starts with David Burney’s explorations of caves within the limestone complex. While Burney, an archaeologist, ecologist and director of conservation with the National Tropical Botanical Garden of Kauai, was trowling for and finding evidence of ancient people, he also discovered the layer of ocean materials about six feet below the surface.
Butler noticed Burney’s work and wondered how large a tsunami needed to be to breach the most vulnerable eastern wall of the sinkhole. He dialed up tsunami-generating earthquakes on a computer model until he found one that was plausible.
“A magnitude 9.25 in the eastern Aleutians gives us an 8-meter (about 25-foot) wave,” Butler said. “It gets (the sinkhole) wet. Smaller events do not get it wet.”
The tsunami Butler modeled had some collaborating evidence revealed at the same conference in San Francisco. The subject of last week’s column was a revealing hole on Alaska’s Sedanka Island first dug by Gary Carver of Kodiak. That research pit, inspired by a tsunami-carried driftwood log high above tideline, shows the sandy evidence of six big tsunamis, each spaced about 300 years apart. One of those sand deposits dates to the late 1500s. The wave that carried that sand might be the same tsunami that surged more than 2,000 miles and topped the wall of the Kauai sinkhole.
Butler, who lives in Honolulu, sees the evidence for a past great tsunami as a warning sign.
“Could an event like that happen here?” he said. “What are the ramifications for Hawaii?”
Current Hawaii tsunami inundation maps underestimate the water that would come from an earthquake similar to the one that soaked the sinkhole, Butler said.
“The beach (on Oahu) where President Obama spends Christmas gets entirely flooded,” he said. “(Oahu’s main) power plant is at 7.3 meters above sea level, and we could get run ups to 15 meters.”
His modeled epicenter for the earthquake that would have sent the tsunami to Kauai was in the Aleutian trench somewhere between Adak and Unimak islands.
“It was (located) between the 1946 and 1957 events, in an area focused right at us,” he said. “It looks like this one has happened before. There’s potential there and we have to confront that. This doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, but no one likes a surprise. A lot of people were surprised by Tohoku (Japan’s 2011 earthquake and tsunami).”
Since the late 1970s, the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute has provided this column free in cooperation with the UAF research community. Ned Rozell is a science writer for the Geophysical Institute. A version of this column first appeared in 2006.
As we approach the 159th birthday of the Point Elliott Treay, we also celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Boldt decision, both of which have had tremendous impacts on Tulalip and all of Indian Country. We are re-printing the following article from 2005 in honor of these events.
This photo was taken in Mukilteo during the 1955 celebration of the 100th anniversay of the signing of the Point Elliott Treaty by Tulalip Church of God Pastor B. Adam Williams.
Point Elliott Treaty’s 150th birthday: A cause for celebration
By Sherry Guydelkon, Tulalip See-Yaht-Sub, January 19, 2005
According to the historical record, 4,992 native people took part in the negotiation of the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855. The treaty was signed on January 22nd, one hundred fifty years ago this month.
The Governor of Washington Territory, Isaac Stevens, had sent word to the Indians of northern Puget Sound that he would meet with them towards the end of January to discuss a treaty of friendship. By mid-January, Snohomish and Snoqualmie people began gathering at Point Elliott. As others arrived – Swinomish, Lummi, Duwamish, and so on – the Snohomish and Snoqualmie people lined up on the beach to greet them.
By this time Puget Sound Indian tribes, weakened by new diseases and aware of the fates of tribes in the east who had tried to fight off white invasions, knew it was useless to refuse to deal with the U.S. government. White settlers were already moving onto their land, and the most they could hope for was payment for land taken and the opportunity to be left alone on the land that was left.
Years later Tulalip tribal elder William Shelton would recall that the people who traveled to Point Elliott in 1855 went with hearts open to the whites and with full confidence that they would be allowed to get food and would not starve. “My father was present at the treaty signing,” said Shelton. “He often has told me about the pow-wow – the negotiations, which had to be done through two interpreters. One translated the white man’s language into Chinook jargon and another interpreter translated the jargon into the various tribal languages.” Since Chinook jargon, a sort of code language used originally by fur traders, consisted of only about 50 words, the process was guaranteed to be hopelessly unsatisfactory, but that did not concern Governor Stevens. He had no interest in understanding the wishes of the Indian people anyway.
Stevens, who had received orders from Washington, D.C., to make treaties with all of the Indians in what is now Washington State, arrived with a draft treaty in hand, determined to gain as much Indian land for the United States as possible by concentrating tribes in as small an area as he could get away with.
Stevens believed that Indians must be removed from the path of American progress, and that their removal could be done in a benevolent way. He knew what was best for the tribes of Washington, he said, and that was to put them on small reservations where they could learn to farm (which he believed was more civilized than hunting and fishing) and where they could receive the education necessary to become integrated into white society. Stevens, who saw himself as a stern but just father to the Indians, allowed the headmen to speak, but in the end he did what he had planned to do all along.
Why the treaties were important to the U.S.
In the 1840’s, the U.S. government did not believe that it had a secure hold on the territory that is now Washington State. With British and Russian settlements cropping up on the Canadian and Alaskan coastline, the U.S. felt an urgent need to keep them from encroaching on U.S.-claimed soil, by encouraging American citizens to settle there.
Consequently, in 1850, Congress passed the Oregon Donation Land Act, which offered free land to settlers who would move to the northwest (Oregon Territory included what is now Washington State). At that point, the U.S. government was in the awkward position of offering free land to settlers without first buying it from the Indians. The treaties were intended to buy land already taken by white settlers and to make more land available for settlement. As had been the case from colonial times, the U.S. government was more interested in settling the west than it was in protecting Indian land rights.
The Negotiations
When the Council began at Point Elliott on January 22, 1855, the four chiefs that the whites considered to be the most important were seated in the front row: Chief Sealth (Seattle) who represented the Duwamish, Chief Patkanim who represented the Snohomish and Snoqualmies, Chief Goliah who represented the Skagits, and Chief Chow-its-hoot who represented the Lummis. The sub-chiefs were seated next, and then the rest of the people.
“You understand well my purpose,” said Governor Stevens, “and you want now to know the special things we propose to do for you. We want to place you in homes where you can cultivate the soil, raising potatoes and other articles of food and where you may be able to pass in canoes over the waters of the sound and catch fish, and back to the mountains to get roots and berries.
“The lands are yours and we swear to pay you for them. We thank you that you have been so kind to all the white children of the great Father (President) who have come here from the east. Those white children have always told you that you would be paid for your lands, and we are now here to buy them.
“My children, I believe that I have got your hearts, you have my heart. We will put our hearts down on paper, and then we will sign our names. I will send that paper to the Great Father, and if he says it is good it will stand forever.”
Many lofty speeches were made by both sides, but in the minds of the U.S. representatives there was little room for true negotiation. They knew what they wanted, and their purpose was to convince the Indians to sign the treaty document that they had already drafted.
In the end, the upper Puget Sound tribes, who had for centuries lived comfortably through the efficient use of the abundant fish, game and plants that were native to their homelands, were forced to sign away most of their land and control over their lives.
What the Tribes lost
Tulalip Agency Superintendent Charles M. Buchanan wrote in 1915, “This treaty established the Tulalip Agency and its reservations – Tulalip, Lummi, Swinomish and Port Madison. And by this treaty the Indians of Tulalip Agency ceded to the white man all of the land lying between the summit of the Cascades, the western shore of Puget Sound, Point Pully or Three-Tree Point, and the international boundary line. This area includes all the land lying in the counties of Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island, San Juan, most of King and a part of Kitsap – the very choicest and most valuable portion of the State of Washington.
Other things given up included: independence from the U.S. government, the ability to declare war on whites or on other tribes, the right to purchase or consume alcohol on the reservation, the taking and keeping of slaves, and the right to trade with the Indian nations on Vancouver Island.
What the Tribes kept or gained
The treaty established four reservations – Tulalip, Lummi, Swinomish and Port Madison. Later the Muckleshoot reservation was added. These amounted to the following number of acres. Tulalip – 22,459 acres, Lummi – 12,543 acres, Suquamish – 7,168 acres, Port Madison – 7,284 acres, and Muckleshoot – 3,714 acres.
In exchange for the land, the tribes received a settlement of $150,000 to be paid over 20 years. Because it was Stevens’ intent to pay for the land taken as much as possible with goods and services and not cash, tribes were also promised that they would be furnished with an agricultural and industrial school, a doctor, farmers, blacksmiths and carpenters.
The treaty also provided for the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations in common with all citizens of the Territory; of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; and of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.
The treaty minutes show that many Puget Sound native people were most fearful of losing their fisheries, but Governor Stevens repeatedly assured them that they would have the right to go to the place they had always used. At that time, the federal government did not foresee any conflicts between the guarantee of continuing fishing rights for the Indians and the growing population of Washington Territory. The settlers were coming to farm, not fish, and were content to let the Indians provide fish for local consumption. Non-Indians did not become fishing competitors until the late 1870’s.
Education provisions were often included in Indian treaties because both sides wanted them included, but for conflicting reasons. The federal government planned to use schools to change little Indian children into carbon copies of little white children, thus eliminating the “Indian problem”. Indians, on the other hand, viewed education as a means by which Indian children could learn how to understand and deal with the non-Indian world around them.
Perhaps the most important thing that Indian treaties have done is to recognize the tribes’ inherent sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power of a group of people to govern themselves. Indians were not given sovereignty by treaties – they already had the power to govern themselves. However, since the U.S. government defined treaties as binding, legal agreements between sovereign nations, when they made treaties with Indian nations, they legally recognized those nations as sovereign.
There is much legal confusion about the amount of sovereignty an Indian nation can have when its members are also citizens of the United States. But tribal governments, tribal courts, tribal police, tribal taxation, tribal zoning, tribal casinos, tax-free trust land are all indications that federal courts recognize the tribes’ right to at least a certain amount of self government.
How has the Point Elliot Treaty held up in court?
The courts have played the most significant role in the interpretation of Indian treaties. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties made by the United States are the supreme law of the land. The federal courts have generally held that Indian treaties are treaties in the constitutional sense and thus are the supreme law of the land. That means that if a state law does not agree with what is said in an Indian treaty, the treaty trumps state law.
And regardless of the fact that the Point Elliott Treaty is 150 years old, it is as legally binding today as it was when it was ratified by Congress in 1859.
The Boldt Decision is perhaps the most well-known example of a Point Elliott Treaty right being upheld in federal court. The courts agreed with Puget Sound tribes that the treaty promised Indians the right to half of the salmon in their usual and accustomed areas, regardless of Washington State laws and regulations which limited Indian catches.
Treaties are monumentally important documents to Indian peoples because they provide a legal basis around which Indian nations can protect their reservation lands; their rights to minerals, water, hunting, fishing and gathering areas; and their rights to self-government.
Many non-Indians believe that treaties should be abolished and that Indians should just be mainstream Americans with no more or less rights than any other Americans. But treaty Indians know how much they gave up for their special rights, and they know that it is their treaty rights that allow them to remain Indians, following in the footsteps of their ancestors, looking out for one another from birth to death.
Gathering at the beach in Mukilteo. Photo by Tulalip Church of God Pastor B. Adam Williams.
If you did not already have a copy of the Point Elliott Treaty, you have one now (see below). Read it. Keep it. Cherish it. It is a gift from your ancestors to you.
Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855
Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Muckl-te-oh, or Point Elliott, in the territory of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the saidTerritory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men and delegates of the Dwamish, Suquamish, Sk-kahl-mish, Sam-ahmish, Smalh-kamish, Skope-ahmish, St-kah-mish, Snoqualmoo, Skai-wha-mish, N’Quentl-ma-mish, Sk-tah-le-jum, Stoluck-wha-mish, Sno-ho-mish, Skagit, Kik-i-allus, Swin-a-mish, Squin-ah-mish, Sah-ku-mehu, Noo-wha-ha, Nook-wa-chah-mish, Mee-see-qua-guilch, Cho-bah-ah-bish, and othe allied and subordinate tribes and bands of Indians occupying certain lands situated in said Territory of Washington, on behalf of said tribes, and duly authorized by them.
ARTICLE 1.
The said tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied by them, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet, known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliott Bays; thence eastwardly, running along the north line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the Nisqually, Puyallup, and other Indians, to the summit of the Cascade range of mountains; thence northwardly, following the summit of said range to the 49th parallel of north latitude; thence west, along said parallel to the middle of the Gulf of Georgia; thence through the middle of said gulf and the main channel through the Canal de Arro to the Straits of Fuca, and crossing the same through the middle of Admiralty Inlet to Suquamish Head; thence southwesterly, through the peninsula, and following the divide between Hood’s Canal and Admiralty Inlet to the portage known as Wilkes’ Portage; thence northeastwardly, and following the line of lands heretofore ceded as aforesaid to Point Southworth, on the western side of Admiralty Inlet, and thence around the foot of Vashon’s Island eastwardly and southeastwardly to the place of beginning, including all the islands comprised within said boundaries, and all the right, title, and interest of the said tribes and bands to any lands within the territory of the United States.
ARTICLE 2.
There is, however, reserved for the present use and occupation of the said tribes and bands the following tracts of land, viz:the amount of two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, surrounding the small bight at the head of Port Madison, called by the Indians Noo-sohk-um; the amount of two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, on the north side Hwhomish Bay and the creek emptying into the same called Kwilt-seh-da, the peninsula at the southeastern end of Perry’s Island, called Shais-quihl, and the island called Chah-choo-sen, situated in the Lummi River at the point of separation of the mouths emptying respectively into Bellingham Bay and the Gulf of Georgia. All which tracts shall be set apart, and so far as necessary surveyed and marked out for their exclusive use; nor shall any white man be permitted to reside upon the same without permission of the said tribes or bands, and of the superintendent or agent, but, if necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through the said reserves, the Indians being compensated for any damage thereby done them.
ARTICLE 3.
There is also reserved from out the lands hereby ceded the amount of thirty-six sections, or one township of land, on the northeastern shore of Port Gardner, and north of the mouth of Snohomish River, including Tulalip Bay and the before-mentioned Kwilt-seh-da Creek, for the purpose of establishing thereon an agricultural and industrial school, as hereinafter mentioned and agreed, and with a view of ultimately drawing thereto and settling thereon all the Indians living west of the Cascade Mountains in said Territory. Provided, however, That the President may establish the central agency and general reservation at such other point as he may deem for the benefit of the Indians.
ARTICLE 4.
The said tribes and bands agree to remove to and settle upon the said first above-mentioned reservations within one year after the ratification of this treaty, or sooner, if the means are furnished them. In the mean time it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any land not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the United States, and upon any land claimed or occupied, if with the pe-mission of the owner.
ARTICLE 5.
The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, That they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.
ARTICLE 6.
In consideration of the above cession, the United States agree to pay to the said tribes and bands the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in the following manner – – that is to say: For the first year after the ratification hereof, fifteen thousand dollars; for the next two year, twelve thousand dollars each year; for the next three years, ten thousand dollars each year; for the next four years, seven thousand five hundred dollars each years; for the next five years, six thousand dollars each year; and for the last five years, four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars each year. All which said sums of money shall be applied to the use and benefit of the said Indians, under the direction of the President of the United States, who may, from time to time, determine at his discretion upon what beneficial objects to expend the same; and the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other proper officer, shall each year inform the President of the wishes of said Indians in respect thereto.
ARTICLE 7.
The President may hereafter, when in his opinion the interests of the Territory shall require and the welfare of the said Indians be promoted, remove them from either or all of the special reservations hereinbefore make to the said general reservation, or such other suitable place within said Territory as he may deem fit, on remunerating them for their improvements and the expenses of such removal, or may consolidate them with other friendly tribes or bands; and he may further at his discretion cause the whole or any portion of the lands hereby reserved, or of such other land as may be selected in lieu thereof, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the same to suc individuals or families as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable. Any substantial improvements heretofore made by any Indian, and which he shall be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direction of the President and payment made accordingly therefor.
ARTICLE 8.
The annuities of the aforesaid tribes and bands shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals.
ARTICLE 9.
The said tribes and bands acknowledge their dependence on the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and they pledge themselves to commit no depredations on the property of such citizens. Should any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proven before the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in default thereof, of if injured or destroyed, compensation may be made by the Government out of their annuities. Nor will they make war on any other tribe except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of difference between them and the other Indians to the Government of the United States or its agent for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit depredations on other Indians within the Territory the same rule shall prevail as that prescribed in this article in cases of depredations against citizens. And the said tribes agree not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial.
ARTICLE 10.
The above tribes and bands are desirous to exclude from their reservations the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and therefore it is provided that any Indian belonging to said tribe who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservations, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her proportion of the annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.
ARTICLE 11.
The said tribes and bands agree to free all slaves now held by them and not to purchase or acquire others hereafter.
ARTICLE 12.
The said tribes and bands further agree not to trade at Vancouver’s Island or elsewhere out of the dominions of the United States, nor shall foreign Indians be permitted to reside in their reservations without consent of the superintendent or agent.
ARTICLE 13.
To enable the said Indians to remove to and settle upon their aforesaid reservations, and to clear, fence, and break up a sufficient quantity of land for cultivation, the United States further agree to pay the sum of fifteen thousand dollars to be laid out and expended under the direction of the President and in such manner as he shall approve.
ARTICLE 14.
The United States further agree to establish at the general agency for the district of Puget’s Sound, within one year from the ratification hereof, and to support for a period of twenty years, an agricultural and industrial school, to be free to children of the said tribes and bands in common with those of the other tribes of said district, and to provide the said school with a suitable instructor or instructors, and also to provide a smithy and carpenter’s shop, and furnish them with the necessary tools, and employ a blacksmith, carpenter, and farmer for the like term of twenty years to instruct the Indians in their respective occupations. And the United States finally agree to employ a physician to reside at the said central agency, who shall furnish medicine and advice to their sick, and shall vaccinate them; the expenses of said school, shops, persons employed, and medical attendance to be defrayed by the United States, and not deducted from the annuities.
ARTICLE 15.
This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States.
In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs, and the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the aforesaid tribes and bands of Indians, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place and on the day and year hereinbefore written.
Issac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent. (L.S.)
Seattle, Chief of the Dwamish and Suquamish tribes, his x mark. (L. S.)
Pat-ka-nam, Chief of the Snoqualmoo, Snohomish and other tribes, his x mark. (L.S.) Chow-its-hoot, Chief of the Lummi and other tribes, his x mark. (L. S.)
Goliah, Chief of the Skagits and other allied tribes, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwallattum, or General Pierce, Sub-chief of the Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hootst-hoot, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Snah-talc, or Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Squush-um, or The Smoke, Sub-chief of the Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
See-alla-pa-han, or The Priest, Sub-chief of Sk-tah-le-jum, his x mark. (L.S.)
He-uch-ka-nam, or George Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Tse-nah-talc, or Joseph Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ns’ski-oos, or Jackson, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Wats-ka-lah-tchie, or John Hobtsthoot, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Smeh-mai-hu, Sub-chief of Skai-wha-mish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Slat-eah-ka-nam, Sub-chief of Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
St’hau-ai, Sub-chief of Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Lugs-ken, Sub-chief of Skai-wha-mish, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’heht-soolt, or Peter, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Do-queh-oo-satl, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
John Kanam, Snoqualmoo sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Klemsh-ka-nam, Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ts’huahntl, Dwa-mish sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwuss-ka-nam, or George Snatelum, Sen., Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hel-mits, or George Snatelum, Skagit sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’kwai-kwi, Skagit tribe, sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Seh-lek-qu, Sub-chief Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’h’-cheh-oos, or General Washington, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Whai-lan-hu, or Davy Crockett, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
She-ah-delt-hu, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwult-seh, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwull-et-hu, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kleh-kent-soot, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sohn-heh-ovs, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’deh-ap-kan, or General Warren, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Chul-whil-tan, Sub-chief of Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ske-eh-tum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Patchkanam, or Dome, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sats-Kanam, Squin-ah-nush tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sd-zo-mahtl, Kik-ial-lus band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Dahtl-de-min, Sub-chief of Sah-ku-meh-hu, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sd’zek-du-num, Me-sek-wi-guilse sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Now-a-chais, Sub-chief of Dwamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Mis-lo-tche, or Wah-hehl-tchoo, Sub-chief of Suquamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sloo-noksh-tan, or Jim, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Moo-whah-lad-hu, or Jack, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Too-leh-plan, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ha-seh-doo-an, or Keo-kuck, Dwamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hoovilt-meh-tum, Sub-chief of Suquamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
We-ai-pah, Skaiwhamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’ah-an-hu, or Hallam, Snohomish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
She-hope, or General Pierce, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hwn-lah-lakq, or Thomas Jefferson, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Cht-simpt, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Tse-sum-ten, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Klt-hahl-ten, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kut-ta-kanam, or John, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ch-lah-ben, Noo-qua-cha-mish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Noo-heh-oos, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hweh-uk, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Peh-nus, Skai-whamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Yim-ka-dam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Twooi-as-kut, Skaiwhamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Luch-al-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hoot-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sme-a-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sad-zis-keh, Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Heh-mahl, Skaiwhamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Charley, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sampson, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
John Taylor, Snohomish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hatch-kwentum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Yo-i-kum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
T’kwa-ma-han, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sto-dum-kan, Swinamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Be-lole, Swinamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
D’zo-lole-gwam-hu, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Steh-shail, William, Skaiwhamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kel-kahl-tsoot, Swinamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Pat-sen, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Pat-teh-us, Noo-wha-ah sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hoolk-ka-nam, Lummi sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
