Transcript The Boldt Decision - EvergreenStateCollege-Home

Perspectives in Washington
Environmental Policy
Erin Hanlon
Zach Maskin
Matt Ritter
Lucy Gelderloos
Jason Cornell
Tim Benedict
The Boldt Decision
Perceptions through the Decades
Erin Hanlon
1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek
Treaty of Medicine Creek, Article 3
“The right of taking fish, at all 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, gathering roots and berries,
and pasturing their horses on open
and unclaimed lands: Provided,
however, That they shall not take
shellfish from any beds staked or
cultivated by citizens, and that they
shall alter all stallions not intended
for breeding-horses, and shall keep up
and confine the latter.”
Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and
Superintendent of Indian Affairs in
the Territory of Washington, on
behalf of the US Government
Chiefs and delegates from the
Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom,
Squawskin, S'Homamish, Stehchass,
T'Peeksin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-hehwamish tribes
1950s
• Washington State Department of Fish and Game raises
concerns around salmon conservation (Brown, 1994)
1960s
• State regulations restrict fishing on rivers (Goble, 1999)
• State Fish and Game officers confiscate Indian fishing
gear, assault and jail tribal members for river fishing
(Brown, 1994)
1970s
• 1970 - US Government and several tribes sue the State
of Washington for violation of treaty fishing rights
• 1974 – Judge George Hugo Boldt rules in favor of the
tribes in US v Washington, “The Boldt Decision”
“Indian Tribes Win Fishing Rights Case”
Seattle Times headline February 12, 1974
• Boldt ruled treaty fishing of
Northwest tribes a right,
not a privilege
• Using dictionaries from the
1800s, interpreted “in
common with” to mean
the tribes were eligible to
50% of the harvestable run,
after ceremonial and
subsistence needs were
met
• Tribes were made comanagers of the fishery
Current Perceptions
• The Boldt decision made the salmon
economically viable for us as well,
and is the foundation on which my
mom’s generation was able to
provide better opportunities for us
kids, and ultimately led to a higher
education level on the reservation.
This in turn has helped to fuel the
economic renaissance or the tribes.
-Squaxin tribal member
• The Seattle Times reports that
Tom Nelson, 61, a leader in the
sport-fishing community,
attempting to push an initiative to
“Ban all Nets” on the November
1999 ballot tells reporters, “Boldt
made a bad decision”. Nelson
adds, "Most people in the state and I go around speaking to a lot
of groups - think Boldt made a bad
decision.”
• If the case (Boldt decision) wouldn’t
have been won there would not be
any fish now.” – Gary Peterson,
Evergreen Faculty & Skokomish tribal
member
• At the end of the day I think Judge
Boldt got it mostly right. I realize
I’m in the minority in the sport
fishing community on this issue
and the majority still resent Boldt
and the tribes. –Craig C. on
Hooked Up PNW, August 2010
Creating a Comprehensive
Policy: The Washington State
Environmental Policy Act
Lucy Gelderloos
gCORE Final Presentation
December 7, 2010
SEPA
• Passed in 1971 in response to growing environmental
awareness
• Requires local, state, and federal agencies to take
environmental impacts into account when planning projects
• How does it work?
• How has it evolved?
• Concerns around broad language
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Luce, C. (1993). An Evaluation of Washington State Environmental Policy Act Implementation (SEPA).
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(5), 311-318.
Petersen, K. C. (1995). River of Life, Channel of Death: Fish and Dams on the Lower Snake. Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press.
Settle, R. L. (1986). Environmental Assessment: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act. The Northwest
Environmental Journal, 2(2), 35-62.
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2002, May). Washington State Environmental Policy Act Focus Sheet.
Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0206013.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2003). State Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Retrieved December
5, 2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/98114.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2010a, August). New SEPA Checklist Guidance for Impacts to
Agricultural Lands. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA):
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/enviro_checklist_guidance.html
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2010b, October 19). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA: Working
Paper. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/sepa/10192010_sepaghg_workingpaper.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d. a). Q & A: SEPA and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved
December 5, 2010, from Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/sepa/faq.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d. b). Frequently Asked Questions About SEPA. Retrieved December 5,
2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm
Wetland Policy in Washington State
Climate Change
Policy Affecting
Endangered Species
Washington Wolves as a Case Study
Matt Ritter
December 7, 2010
Wolf History
• 1974 listed
• Hunted to near
extinction for 60
years
Climate Change
• Temperature
continues to rise
• All parts of the wolf’s
range vanishing
rapidly
Maintaining Protection
Through the ESA
Section 7 of the ESA
• Human-caused alterations to habitat
Section 9 of the ESA
• Green house gas contributions
Conclusion
• WA wolf populations can survive warming temperatures
• If delisted the wolf may obtain protection through the ESA due
to climate change
• Proving human contributions remains challenging
• The future of the wolf depends on humans
Impacts of Northern Spotted Owl
Related Policies on WA Forestry
Whooo Me?
-Zach Maskin
Thesis
• The Northern Spotted Owl has been the
most influential driver in Washington
State’s movement towards sustainable
forestry.
• The policies enacted to protect Spotted
Owl habitat has had profound impact on
Washington socially, economically and
environmentally.
Forestry Before 1990
• Sustained Yield
Model: Harvesting of
a constant flow of
forest products.
• Little attention paid to
forest ecosystem
augmentation: clear
cuts, little or no
riparian buffers,
snags or down woody
debris.
1990 Protection Under
Endanger Species Act
• Report from the Interagency Scientific
Committee (ISC) found:
– Decline in Northern Spotted Owl population
> 1% annually
– Spotted Owls specifically select forest with old
growth characteristics as nesting sites
– Suitable habitat continues to decline due to
timbering practices.
Studies Supporting
Northern Spotted Owl Protection
• 1990 ISC “Thomas Committee”
• 1991Alternatives for Late-Successional
Forests of the Pacific Northwest
• 1993 Viability Assessments and
Management Considerations for the
Species Associated with LS/OG Forests in
the PNW:
Dwyer Decision
• May 29, 1991: Halted
logging in seventeen
National Forests, (24
million acres) of critical owl
habitat
• Logging practices were “a
remarkable series of
violations of environmental
laws” –Judge Dwyer
• 1994 Logging ban lifted,
but only allows 1/5 annual
timbering of the 1980s
Judge William Dwyer
Northwest Forest Plan
State and Private Land
• 1996 WA State DNR Habitat Conservation
Plan:
– Modeled after the NWFP, enacted by WA
Forest Practices Board
– Spotted Owl habitat protection for state and
private land must follow 1996 Permanent
Rules for the Northern Spotted Owl.
Policy Impacts
• Environmental:
– Shift towards sustainable forestry
– Ecosystem management over single species
protection
– Preservation of old-growth forests
– Nearly 90% reduction in timbering on federal
lands
– Slowing of owl decline
Impacts Continued
• Social
– Reduction in school construction funding
– Owls versus jobs debate
– Job loss 6,200 – 9,300 WA and OR combined
• Economic
– Weakening of Timber Industry
– Damage to communities reliant on timbering federal
lands
– Logging has fallen nearly 50% on private, state and
federal lands since 1991
– Economic damage not as bad as originally projected
Conclusion
• “No species in the United States has had a
greater impact on land use planning at the
landscape level”-Barry Noon: Conservation of NS Owl and the NWFP, (2006)
• Northern Spotted Owl related policies saved old
growth forests
• Protective measures shifted forest practices
towards sustainable forestry
• Ecosystem management over single species
protection
References:
“Judge William Dwyer ‘52” Extras: William J Dwyer (Columns: The
University of Washington Alumni Magazine) June, 2002
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june02/extras_dwyer.html
Noon, Barry R. & Jennifer A Balesley. Conservation of the Northern
Spotted Owl under the Northwest Forest Plan.
(Conservation Biology: Vol 20, No,2. 2006)
“NWFP Land Allocation Maps”
http://www.reo.gov/gis/data/gisdata/index.htm
“WA DNR Logo” http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/gtag/state.html
*All other images found on google clip art
Protecting Biodiversity through
Landowner Conservation Efforts
Tim Benedict – 2010 MES gCORE Final Project
Tim Benedict – Fall 2010 gCORE Final Presentation
Simulated Reserve & Corridor System
Land Ownership in the United States
US Land Development by Aerial Lights
National Land Trusts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Access Fund
American Farmland Trust
American Land Conservancy
The Conservation Fund
The Great Outdoors Conservancy
The Humane Society of the United States
Wildlife Land Trust
National Park Trust
The Nature Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
Wilderness Land Trust - An Accredited Land
Trust
Land Trusts Operating in Washington
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Methow Conservancy Winthrop, WA
Palouse Land Trust Moscow, ID
Chehalis River Basin Land Trust Centralia, WA
Tapteal Greenway Richland, WA
Lummi Island Heritage Trust Lummi Island, WA
Chelan-Douglas Land Trust Wenatchee, WA
Sportsmen's National Land Trust, Inc. Agawam,
Blue Mountain Land Trust Walla Walla, WA
PCC Farmland Trust Seattle, WA
Save Habitat and Diversity of Wetlands
Organization
Okanogan Valley Land Council Tonasket, WA
Dishman Hills Natural Area
Association Spokane, WA
Columbia Land Trust Vancouver, WA
Inland Northwest Land Trust Spokane, WA
Yakima Greenway Foundation Yakima, WA
North Olympic Land Trust Port Angeles, WA
Kittitas Conservation Trust Roslyn, WA
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy Yakima, WA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Whatcom Land Trust Bellingham, WA
American Friends of Canadian Land
Trusts Seattle, WA
Capitol Land Trust Olympia, WA
Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust Vashon, WA
Jefferson Land Trust Port Townsend, WA
Nisqually Land Trust Lacey, WA
Great Peninsula Conservancy Bremerton, WA
Bainbridge Island Land Trust Bainbridge Island,
WA
San Juan Preservation Trust Lopez Island, WA
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Missoula, MT
Center for Natural Lands Management - An
Accredited Land Trust Fallbrook, CA
Whidbey Camano Land Trust Greenbank, WA
Skagit Land Trust Mount Vernon, WA
Cascade Land Conservancy Seattle, WA
Landowner Conservation & Policy
•
•
•
•
•
2010 public policy priorities:
Making the enhanced easement incentive
permanent
Creating estate tax incentives for
conservation
Improving IRS administration of conservation
donation rules
Protecting conserved lands from energy
transmission facilities
Promoting land trust ideas in the America’s
Great Outdoors Initiative
Emerging Policy Issues:
Energy Development Threats to Conservation
In an alarming trend over the last few years, large swaths of
farms, forests and wildlands permanently protected for the
benefit of the public have been targeted for the siting of
energy infrastructure projects. As climate and energy bills
move through Congress, the push for rapid development of
low carbon energy and new transmission lines should not, as
an unintended consequence, undo years of work and public
and private investment in conservation.
Responding to Climate Change
Global climate change is both a challenge and an opportunity
for the land conservation community. Since natural
landscapes sequester carbon dioxide, land trusts can be part
of the solution. Meanwhile, new funding sources generated by
climate legislation may help land trusts adapt to the challenge
of a changing landscape.