Find out what it takes to run a medical clinic
In Hawaii, Hints of a Giant Alaska Tsunami
By Ned Rozell | Geophysical Institute
Jan 15, 2014 AlaskaNativeNews.com
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 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.
Point Elliott Treaty, 159 years later
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.
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.
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.)
Ch-lok-suts, Lummi sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Executed in the presence of us – –
M. T. Simmons, Indian agent.
C. H. Mason, Secretary of Washington Territory.
Benj. F. Shaw, Interpreter.
Chas. M. Hitchcock.
H. A. Goldsborough.
George Gibbs.
John H. Scranton.
Henry D. Cock.
S. S. Ford, jr.
Orrington Cushman.
Ellis Barnes.
R. S. Bailey.
S. M. Collins.
Lafayetee Balch.
E. S. Fowler.
J. H. Hall.
Rob’t Davis.
S. Doc. 319, 58-2, Vol 2 43
Ratified Mar. 8, 1859. Proclaimed Apr. 11, 1859.
ASUW AISC Winter Powwow
The ASUW American Indian Student Commission is hosting the annual Winter Powwow! The Winter Powwow venue will be on the University of Washington Campus in the newly renovated Husky Union Building (HUB) Ballroom. This year’s AISC Winter Powwow will be on Saturday, January 26, 2013!
Head Staff:
Host Drum- Young Society
MC- Carlos Calica
Arena Director- Jason Stacona
Head Man- Dan Nanamkin
Head Woman- Elese Washines
Northern Cloth Traditional Special (All Ages) Sponsored by Elese Washines & family
This is a zero tolerance event. No drugs, no alcohol, no fighting.
UW Students, Faculty, Staff and the Seattle Community is welcome!
Grand Entry is at 1pm!
If you are interested in being a vendor at the Winter Powoww, you can find a Vendor Contract here: 2013 ASUW Powwow Sales Agreement. Vending spaces are on a first come, first serve basis. Please fill out the agreement and mail to:
ATTN: Winter PowWow, Student Activities Office, HUB, Box 352238 Seattle, WA 98195 with payment by Cashiers Check or Money Order. Please make your cashier’s check or money order payable to the ”University of Washington”.
Payment along with the sales agreement must be received by Friday, January 18, 2013, as space is limited and will be allocated as we receive payment. We have limited 10 ftx10 ft spaces available so a prompt response will help ensure your presence. Your load-in and load-out times will be included in a confirmation packet sent to you once we receive the sales agreement and payment. Publicity for the Powwow will be included with your confirmation packet.
Vendor Contracts must be received by January 18, 2013 by 5:00pm.
Interested in volunteering? Sign up at: https://catalyst.uw.edu/webq/survey/raniw/187513
Oregon’s Treasurer Casts Doubt On I-5 Bridge Tolling Plan (in WA)
By Chris Lehman
Jan 10 2014 nwNewsnetwork.org
Oregon’s state treasurer says he won’t approve bonds for a new I-5 bridge across the Columbia River without a guarantee: that Oregon can collect tolls from Washington drivers.
Columbia River Crossing
Source: nwNewsNetwork.org
The statement Friday is a response to a new analysis that says tolls will be enough to pay off the bonds for the project.
Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler says it’s not that he doubts enough drivers will use the proposed bridge, dubbed the Columbia River Crossing. It’s that he’s not sure enough of those drivers will actually pay the toll.
The new I-5 bridge would rely on electronic tolling. The money is either collected from a vehicle-mounted transponder or by scanning license plates and sending the driver a bill.
Here’s the thing: the majority of bridge commuters live in Washington. So the state of Oregon would need to work out an agreement with its cross-river neighbor to collect tolls from Washington drivers. Talks are under way between the states but no deal has been reached yet.
Wheeler says without such a deal, he’s not sure whether toll money would be enough to pay the debt on building the bridge.
Lawmakers in Olympia are wary of turning over control of tolling to Oregon. But Washington lawmakers have not approved any funding from their state to help build the bridge.
High Levels of Molecular Chlorine Found in Arctic Atmosphere
By Brett Israel | Georgia Tech
January 13, 2014 Alaska Native News
Scientists studying the atmosphere above Barrow, Alaska, have discovered unprecedented levels of molecular chlorine in the air, a new study reports.
Molecular chlorine, from sea salt released by melting sea ice, reacts with sunlight to produce chlorine atoms. These chlorine atoms are highly reactive and can oxidize many constituents of the atmosphere including methane and elemental mercury, as well activate bromine chemistry, which is an even stronger oxidant of elemental mercury. Oxidized mercury is more reactive and can be deposited to the Arctic ecosystem.
The study is the first time that molecular chlorine has been measured in the Arctic, and the first time that scientists have documented such high levels of molecular chlorine in the atmosphere.
“No one expected there to be this level of chlorine in Barrow or in polar regions,” said Greg Huey, a professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
The study was published January 12 in the journal Nature Geoscience and was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), part of the international multidisciplinary OASIS program.
The researchers directly measured molecular chlorine levels in the Arctic in the spring of 2009 over a six-week period using chemical ionization mass spectrometry. At first the scientists were skeptical of their data, so they spent several years running other experiments to ensure their findings were accurate.
The level of molecular chlorine above Barrow was measured as high as 400 parts per trillion, which is a high concentration considering that chlorine atoms are short –lived in the atmosphere because they are strong oxidants and are highly reactive with other atmospheric chemicals.
Molecular chlorine concentrations peaked in the early morning and late afternoon, and fell to near-zero levels at night. Average daytime molecular chlorine levels were correlated with ozone concentrations, suggesting that sunlight and ozone may be required for molecular chlorine formation.
Previous Arctic studies have documented high levels of oxidized mercury in Barrow and other polar regions. The major source of elemental mercury in the Arctic regions is coal-burning plants around the world. In the spring in Barrow, ozone and elemental mercury are often depleted from the atmosphere when halogens — chlorine and bromine — are released into the air from melting sea ice.
“Molecular chlorine is so reactive that it’s going to have a very strong influence on atmospheric chemistry,” Huey said.
Chlorine atoms are the dominant oxidant in Barrow, the study found. The area is part of a region with otherwise low levels of oxidants in the atmosphere, due to the lack of water vapor and ozone, which are the major precursors to making oxidants in many urban areas.
In Barrow, snow-covered ice pack extends in every direction except inland. The ultimate source of the molecular chlorine is the sodium chloride in sea salt, Huey said, most likely from the snow-covered ice pack. How the sea salt is transformed into molecular chlorine is unknown.
“We don’t really know the mechanism. It’s a mystery to us right now,” Huey said. “But the sea ice is changing dramatically, so we’re in a time where we have absolutely no predictive power over what’s going to happen to this chemistry. We’re really in the dark about the chlorine.”
Scientists do know that sea ice is rapidly changing, Huey said. The sea ice that lasts from one winter to the next winter is decreasing. This has created a larger area of melted ice, and more ice that comes and goes with the seasons. This seasonal variation in ice could release more molecular chlorine into the atmosphere.
“There is definite climate change happening in the Arctic,” Huey said. “That’s changing the nature of the ice, changing the volume of the ice, changing the surface area and changing the chemistry of the ice.”
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation under award number ATM-0807702, ARC-0806437 and ARC-0732556. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NSF.
School and state leaders discuss education in Washington
Former Marysville mayor Dennis Kendall (left) makes a point as state senator John McCoy, state representative Hans Dunshee and Snohomish County Executive John Lovick listen during the Marysville School District’s forum on Jan. 6.
By Christopher Andersson, North County Outlook
The education landscape in Washington, including increasing instructional hour requirements, more stringent accountability and additional initiatives, was discussed on Jan. 6 when Marysville School District leaders met with Washington state representatives.
Increasing Hours
The amount of instructional hours that school districts must provide to high school students may be increasing next fall.
The Washington state legislature increased the current 1000 instructional hour requirement to 1080, or the equivalent of 180 six-hour days.
The Quality Education Council’s survey of 128 Washington districts shows that less than half are currently meeting the requirement.
School districts around Washington have been looking at their options, mainly consisting of adding 10 to 15 minutes to the schedule or cutting out the majority of half-day and late-start days.
“It is not an easy implementation for many districts. It would require some pretty formidable collective bargaining, as they’re changing the conditions of work. The six-hour day takes away many of the options districts have for collaboration time,” said Jerry Jenkins, superintendent of Northwest 189 Educational Service District.
Marysville’s assistant superintendent Ray Houser said it will be a challenge for the district to reach 1080. They currently average close to 1000.
However, organizations like the National Center of Time and Learning support action that increases instructional hours like Washington state’s legislation.
Studies from the center show a positive correlation between expanding the school day or school year and increased student achievement.
The main concern from Marysville administrators and staff is that they will lose the half-days they use to collaborate and improve their teaching.
“To put an extra requirement of 1080 hours and not put in any additional funding for collaboration time or professional development puts districts in a difficult spot because that’s critical in order to have an effective program,” said Arden Watsen, president of the Marysville Education Association.
State Senator John McCoy said he is going to try to delay the 1080 instructional hour requirement and that the decision to pass it was based on incomplete data.
New Standards and Accountability
Washington state will fully adopt the Common Core State Standards next year and has also implemented the Teacher Principal Evaluation Project; however, the large number of new systems is creating ‘initiative fatigue,’ say Marysville education leaders.
The Common Core State Standards are a nationwide set of standards designed to replace statewide models.
“I’ve been an educator and I didn’t understand or underestimated the impact of them. I thought we were just setting the bar higher, but it’s not just that, we’re also changing the running path to get to the bar,” said Jenkins.
The Teacher Principal Evaluation Project provides a new system to evaluate teachers and principals.
While the Marysville leaders thought the two initiatives were good, they also emphasized the need for focus and stability.
“Continuous change and throwing ‘just one more thing’ in kills the momentum,” said Marysville school board president Tom Albright. “I see good things happening so I hope [state representatives] will find ways of fending off all these initiatives that try to throw one more thing on top.”
State representative Hans Dunshee said that all the laws do tend to take away time from teachers.
“All these legislators love to pass education bills and say they’re helping schools. They’re good intentioned but they really are sucking a lot of time. I think the best accountability was the school board member you could fire, but we are moving further and further away from that,” he said.
Students have faced some of the consequences of accountability as well. The amount of standardized testing is taking away from structured class time, said McCoy.
“I will continue my assault on standardized testing. I don’t think they’re productive and a lot of kids are absolutely afraid of them. There are some that are just poor test takers,” he said. “The teachers know where the students are at. They know what their students need. We legislators don’t need to be down in the nitty gritty.”
Tribal History
The need to include all aspects of local history in the curriculum, especially information about the local Native American tribes, is vital, according to Tulalip leaders.
“We are not just trying to get native students through school, but through school with some pride and balance,” said Tulalip Tribes vice-chair Deborah Parker. “We try and instill our cultural values and they go to school and it changes them, so how do we teach our students and feel like they’re still native?”
Curriculum that is inclusive to Native American history and culture will help to make Native American students feel included as well, and the current levels in most schools are not adequate, she said.
Senator McCoy spoke on HB 1495, a bill he introduced and passed in 2005 which mandated that Washington tribal history must be taught in public schools. Even though nine years have passed since that time “only 20 to 25 percent of schools have implemented it,” he said.
Senate Panel Questions Ecology On Review Of Coal Terminal
Ashley Ahearn, OPB
Washington’s top environmental regulator found herself in the hot seat Thursday during a state Senate hearing called by Republican lawmakers who disapprove her agency’s scrutiny of a coal export terminal proposed for the northern shore of Puget Sound.
At issue: greenhouse gas emissions.
The Department of Ecology caused a stir last year when it announced that it would consider the greenhouse gas emissions produced when 48 million tons of exported coal is burned in Asia – that’s how much coal would move through the Gateway Pacific Terminal every year.
Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, convened a work session to question Ecology officials, including director Maia Bellon, about its move.
Ericksen emphasized fears among business and trade leaders that Ecology’s move sets a precedent.
Some worry that in the future the state could consider the greenhouse gas emissions of say, exporting Boeing airplanes or apples, and that could prevent projects from going forward.
Here’s an exchange between Bellon and Ericksen:
Maia Bellon
Bellon: Because there is no question about the end use of the commodity for the coal transportation projects, it makes that different in terms of the pollution that’s created.
Ericksen: I know we’re over time but I essentially heard you say that the Department of Ecology can pick and choose and no business can have a guarantee of what will be studied and what will not be studied.
Bellon said that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and therefore should be considered in the environmental review of projects.
But she stressed that her agency considers projects on a case-by-case basis and the environmental review is meant to present information. It’s not a final decision on whether a project is built or not.
The committee did not take any action during Thursday’s hearing.
Peter Callaghan: Bill could help 80 from Fish Wars
Criminal records of tribal fishermen could be cleared
Peter Callaghan, The Olympian
The legislation itself might not help very many people.
A search of records by the Washington State Patrol shows that perhaps as few as 80 people still alive were arrested and convicted of state crimes related to what is now remembered as the Fish Wars.
One was Nisqually Tribe elder Billy Frank Jr.
“I was 14 years old when I first got arrested,” he told the House Community Development, Housing and Tribal Affairs Committee in Olympia on Tuesday. Frank was 14 in 1945.
The value of House Bill 2080, even for Frank, may be more symbolic than practical. By making it easier for tribal fishermen to have their records cleared, the state of Washington would be acknowledging not only that it was wrong but that it caused real harm to real people.
“This is small. This doesn’t do the times justice,” Rep. David Sawyer said of his bill. It does, however, give the state another opportunity to “own up to our own mistakes.”
“Very few things are more dear to the culture of a tribe as fishing. It is a huge part of their culture, and it’s something we stole from them,” Sawyer said.
That Sawyer, a liberal Democrat from Tacoma, would sponsor HB 2080 isn’t surprising. Some of the co-sponsors, however, might seem unexpected to those who recall the politics of the Fish Wars. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, Western Washingtonians and Eastern Washingtonians are among the 15 sponsors of the bill.
History shows that tribal members bristled under state restrictions on their fishing rights almost from the beginning of statehood. But the issue heated up after World War II when younger tribal members became more assertive.
At the same time, fish supplies were strained by environmental degradation and overfishing, and the state became more aggressive in managing the fishery. Off reservation, tribal fishermen had to follow the same regulations as nontribal fishermen, the state asserted, including limited seasons and restrictions on equipment such as gill nets.
Building slowly, the issue exploded in the 1960s when tribal members adopted tactics practiced by the black civil rights movement. Whereas blacks in the South held sit-ins to protest segregated facilities, the tribes began to hold fish-ins. Authorities often responded with arrests and harassment.
And as in the South, mainstream media paid more attention when celebrities got involved. One in particular is still revered by Puget Sound tribes.
“The greater force against you was indifference rather than the people who were hitting you all the time,” actor Marlon Brando later wrote that he told the National Indian Youth Council in 1961. “Then if you could break that indifference you could get the mass of non-Indian people on your side.”
According to “Where The Salmon Run,” by Trova Heffernan, in attendance at that Utah conference was Hank Adams, who would soon be a leader in the tribal rights movement in the Puget Sound area. When Adams heard that Brando wanted to join a fishing protest in Washington, he saw it as a way to break through white indifference. At 2 a.m. on March 2, 1964, Adams roused reporters to tell them to be on the Puyallup River near Tacoma that very morning.
Brando and Puyallup activist Bob Satiacum got into a canoe and, at least according to a game agent, took salmon from the river illegally.
Here’s how Brando described it in his autobiography: “I got in a boat with a Native American and a … priest. Someone gave us a big salmon we were supposed to have taken out of the river illegally, and, sure enough, a game warden soon arrived and arrested us.”
According to Heffernan, the fish had been purchased earlier at Johnny’s Seafood. The spot on the river is still known as Brando’s Landing.
Comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory played a similar role at Frank’s Landing on the Nisqually. Unlike Brando, who was never charged, Gregory served six months in the Thurston County jail, Adams told the House committee Tuesday.
The most violent confrontation might have been along the Puyallup in September 1970. A large protest camp had been set up beneath a railroad bridge since Aug. 1. From there, tribal members continued to take fish despite state objections. After two raids mid month, the tribal leaders announced that they would arm themselves.
On the morning of Sept. 9, well-armed Tacoma police officers, along with state game and fisheries agents, broke up the camp, arresting 62 adults and 10 juveniles. Some shots were fired and tear gas was released, but there were no injuries.
The beginning of the end came in 1974 when U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt ruled that the treaties promising that the tribes could take salmon “in common” with white fisherman meant 50 percent of the catch. He also ended state restrictions on tribal fishermen. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979.
Frank said he lost track of how many times he was arrested, sometimes guessing at least 50 times between 1945 and Boldt’s ruling.
“That’s a long time of your life to be going to jail for something you believe in,” Frank said.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2014/01/16/2933590/peter-callaghan-bill-could-help.html#storylink=cpy
Learn About EvCC’s Ocean Research College Academy (ORCA) Jan. 30
EVERETT, Wash. – Everett Community College’s Ocean Research College Academy (ORCA) will host an open house at 6 p.m. Jan. 30 at its waterfront location, 1205 Craftsman Way, Suite 203, in Everett.
Visitors and prospective students can see student work, meet faculty members, learn about the program and see the facility, including the oceanography research lab and 120-gallon seawater tank.
ORCA students conduct research in the Snohomish River estuary and students have the opportunity to present their work at regional and national conferences. Student work on display at the open house will include heavy metal legacy in Possession Sound and river otter abundance and distribution.
ORCA is an early college academy for high school students, who can earn up to two years of college credit while completing their high school education. Most students graduate with an associate’s degree in addition to a high school diploma.
The program is the only early college academy of its kind in the country. ORCA uses the local marine environment as the unifying theme for all academic disciplines.
ORCA is sponsored by EvCC and was initially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The academy was recently awarded two National Science Foundation grants, including one for the construction of a 34-foot research vessel.
For more information, contact ORCA Executive Director Ardi Kveven at 425-267-0156 or visit www.everettcc.edu/orca.