DOCSLIB.ORG

Snowmobiles in the Wilderness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Snowmobiles in the Wilderness Snowmobiles in the Wilderness: You can help W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e P a r k s A necessary prohibition Join us in safeguarding winter recreation: Each year, more and more people are riding snowmobiles • When riding in a new area, obtain a map. into designated Wilderness areas, which is a concern for • Familiarize yourself with Wilderness land managers, the public and many snowmobile groups. boundaries, and don’t cross them. This may be happening for a variety of reasons: many • Carry the message to clubs, groups and friends. snowmobilers may not know where the Wilderness boundaries are or may not realize the area is closed. For more information about snowmobiling opportunities or Wilderness areas, please contact: Wilderness…a special place Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (360) 902-8500 Established by Congress through the Wilderness Washington State Snowmobile Association (800) 784-9772 Act of 1964, “Wilderness” is a special land designation North Cascades National Park (360) 854-7245 within national forests and certain other federal lands. Colville National Forest (509) 684-7000 These areas were designated so that an untouched Gifford Pinchot National Forest (360) 891-5000 area of our wild lands could be maintained in a natural Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (425) 783-6000 state. Also, they were set aside as places where people Mt. Rainier National Park (877) 270-7155 could get away from the sights and sounds of modern Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (509) 664-9200 civilization and where elements of our cultural history Olympic National Forest (360) 956-2402 could be preserved. Wilderness, as defined by the Umatilla National Forest (541) 278-3716 Act, “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or This information made available through the U.S.D.A. a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Forest Service, Washington State Parks and Recreation The law prohibits the use of mechanized or motorized Commission and Washington State Snowmobile Association. equipment, including snowmobiles, in Wilderness washington state areas (36CFR261.16a). Local managers have no ON STA GT TE N P I A latitude in this matter, except in emergencies. H R S K A S The law states that possession or use of motorized W snowmobile association W equipment in Wilderness areas is punishable by up to m i a n r t g e o $500 and/or six months in jail (36CFR261.1b). r r R P ecreatio n Yakima Nation Restrictions Off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles are prohibited in all areas of the Yakama Nation Mount Adams Recreation Area. Snowmobiling on the sacred Pahto not only violates Yakama Nation laws, it shows disrespect to religious and cultural beliefs of Tribal members. Those who violate the rules will be subject to prosecution under the Revised Yakama Tribal Code, Commission members: Sections 10.01.181, 10.01.183, and 10.07.109. All Mark O. Brown Rodger Schmitt vehicles are subject to search per Section 50.54.01. Russ Cahill Joe Taller Patricia T. Lantz Lucinda S. Whaley Steve S. Milner Agency director: Don Hoch Follow rules to protect opportunities Respecting Wilderness boundaries helps everyone. When recreationists take responsibility, they help ensure continued support of snowmobile programs and opportunities rather than potential closures and stronger enforcement. P&R 16100-06 (12/12) Designated Wilderness Areas in Washington 31 • Mt. Baker North Lynden Wilderness Cascades Pasayten National Park Wilderness Colville Salmo-Priest Stephen Mather Wilderness B•ellingham National Wilderness Okanogan Forest 20 20 National 5 North Stephen Mather Republic• Forest 97 Colville Friday Harbor Noisy-Diobsud Cascades Wilderness • • Wilderness National S•edro Wooley Park 20 • Colville Mount Vernon Lake Chelan-Sawtooth • 21 National Wilderness Okanogan Forest Glacier •Coupeville Peak 17 25 newport• Wilderness Port Angeles 395 Olympic • ! Boulder River National I0I 5 Wilderness Park 2 Buckhorn • Wenatchee Wilderness Everett Henry M. Jackson National 2 Wilderness Forest BE PREPARED Olympic 2 •Chelan I0I National The Brothers You may want to obtain a Park Wilderness 2 • Waterville •mapDave nfromport the landownerSpokane I0I • Seattle • Mt. Skokomish Alpine Lakes in the area you will be Wilderness 90 Wilderness • Wonder Mt. recreating. If Cyouhene yhave Colonel Bob 5 Wilderness Wenatchee 90 Wilderness • 28 questions, check 19with5 the Ephrata Olympic 97 • landowner on locations of National Forest •Tacoma 21 Shelton Wilderness boundaries. • Ritzville I0I Clearwater Moses Lake Wilderness Norse Peak 90 • 90 • 8 Wilderness Aberdeen • 7 395 • •Montesano Olympia Ellensburg •Hoquiam • Colfax Mt. Rainier 410 17 5 • National William O. Douglas 26 I2 Glacier View Othello Park Wilderness 26 Wilderness 82 • Pullman • Centralia I2 • Tatoosh •South Bend •Chehalis Wilderness Yakima I0I 6 • Pomeroy I2 • Clarkston • CHECK YOUR MAPS Gifford Pinchot Goat Rocks 395 National Wilderness Asotin• Mt. St. Helens Toppenish• Dayton Forest Sunnyside • On some maps you may National • Grandview Richland 124 82 Pasco Umatilla National Cathlamet Monument Mt. Adams • • • see the term “wilderness”• • Wenaha-Tucannon Forest Wilderness • Kennewick Kelso Prosser Wilderness used loosely to describe •• 97 Walla Walla I2 Longview • undeveloped, roadless areas 5 where there are no groomed Indian Heaven Wilderness 14 snowmobile routes. This may Trapper Creek Wilderness •Goldendale cause some confusion because 0 10 •Stevenson the term is not being used in Vancouver Miles • 14 the same way as the technical definition of Wilderness as = Wilderness Areas where Snowmobiles are Prohibited described in this brochure..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Olympic National Forest and Three Local Communities
    NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN THE FIRST 10 YEARS (1994–2003) Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Olympic National Forest and Three Local Communities Lita P. Buttolph, William Kay, Susan Charnley, Cassandra Moseley, and Ellen M. Donoghue General Technical Report United States Forest Pacific Northwest PNW-GTR-679 Department of Service Research Station July 2006 Agriculture The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
    [Show full text]
  • Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests Revised Forest Plans Frequently Asked Questions
    Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests Revised Forest Plans Frequently Asked Questions Plans and Planning Rule and Process Q. What is a Forest Plan? A. A forest plan, or land and resource management plan (LRMP), is a tool that provides a framework and broad guidance for making management decisions for a Forest unit, while providing technical boundaries for protecting the environment. They are strategic and programmatic, and identify desired conditions for national forest lands. Similar to county land- use zoning plans, they identify areas where various types of activities may occur, such as harvesting trees or certain types of recreational uses. Q. When were the existing Forest Plans approved? A. The Colville forest plan was completed in 1988, the Okanogan in 1989, and the Wenatchee in 1990. Q. Why revise current land management plans (LMPs)? A. Revision is required by law (NFMA, National Forest Management Act of 1976). The existing Forest Plans have reached their intended 15-year life. Both public comment and new science show some need for change to the existing Plans. Much has changed since the existing set of forest plans were approved in the late 80’s, including changes in public values and expectations from public lands, recreation demands and types of recreation uses, demographics and development patterns, and natural resource policy. Other changes have occurred on the landscape itself; and there have been advances in our knowledge about landscape processes, science and technology. Even though amendments have been made over time to the existing plans to adapt to some of those changes, they still do not fully reflect the current needs of the forest and neighboring communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Owl Mountain Wilderness Evaluation
    May-June 2009 Owl Mountain Wilderness Evaluation WILDERNESS EVALUATION Owl Mountain – 621016 11,083 acres OVERVIEW History The 2006 inventory identified this area as meeting the criteria for a potential wilderness area (PWA) as described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 70. The area had not been identified in any previous inventory. The following chart depicts the current 1988 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan direction for the 2006 inventoried area. Table 1--Management area percentages (rounded) Colville National Forest MA1 MA10 MA5 MA6 MA7 MA8 Old Growth Semi- Scenic Scenic/ Wood/ Winter Dependant primitive, Timber Winter Forage Range Species Motorized range Habitat Recreation 32% 37% 9% 12% 6% 3% Location and Access The Owl Mountain Proposed Wilderness Area (PWA) is contained wholly within Ferry County in T. 40 N., R. 35 E., Sec. 1, 12 13, 23, 24, and 25; and T. 40 N, R. 36 E., Sec. 3 – 10, 15 – 22, 27 – 31, and 34. The area is accessed on the east side through the Little Boulder/Independent Creek road systems, ultimately Forest Road 9576-370, which ends at a road closure on Huckleberry Ridge. There is no access from the north because of the Canadian border. The northeast side of the area is extremely rugged and steep and provides no access. Access from the southeast side is along U.S. Highway 395. However, very few people actually access the area from this side. The terrain on the lower slope is such that few hike up from the highway. Most of the access to this area is derived from driving into the heart of the Kerry Creek watershed on Forest Road 9576-150, which leads to the east end of Forest Trail 102 (Owl Mountain Motorized Trail).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • 1922 Elizabeth T
    co.rYRIG HT, 192' The Moootainetro !scot1oror,d The MOUNTAINEER VOLUME FIFTEEN Number One D EC E M BER 15, 1 9 2 2 ffiount Adams, ffiount St. Helens and the (!oat Rocks I ncoq)Ora,tecl 1913 Organized 190!i EDITORlAL ST AitF 1922 Elizabeth T. Kirk,vood, Eclttor Margaret W. Hazard, Associate Editor· Fairman B. L�e, Publication Manager Arthur L. Loveless Effie L. Chapman Subsc1·iption Price. $2.00 per year. Annual ·(onl�') Se,·ent�·-Five Cents. Published by The Mountaineers lncorJ,orated Seattle, Washington Enlerecl as second-class matter December 15, 19t0. at the Post Office . at . eattle, "\Yash., under the .-\0t of March 3. 1879. .... I MOUNT ADAMS lllobcl Furrs AND REFLEC'rION POOL .. <§rtttings from Aristibes (. Jhoutribes Author of "ll3ith the <6obs on lltount ®l!!mµus" �. • � J� �·,,. ., .. e,..:,L....._d.L.. F_,,,.... cL.. ��-_, _..__ f.. pt",- 1-� r�._ '-';a_ ..ll.-�· t'� 1- tt.. �ti.. ..._.._....L- -.L.--e-- a';. ��c..L. 41- �. C4v(, � � �·,,-- �JL.,�f w/U. J/,--«---fi:( -A- -tr·�� �, : 'JJ! -, Y .,..._, e� .,...,____,� � � t-..__., ,..._ -u..,·,- .,..,_, ;-:.. � --r J /-e,-i L,J i-.,( '"'; 1..........,.- e..r- ,';z__ /-t.-.--,r� ;.,-.,.....__ � � ..-...,.,-<. ,.,.f--· :tL. ��- ''F.....- ,',L � .,.__ � 'f- f-� --"- ��7 � �. � �;')'... f ><- -a.c__ c/ � r v-f'.fl,'7'71.. I /!,,-e..-,K-// ,l...,"4/YL... t:l,._ c.J.� J..,_-...A 'f ',y-r/� �- lL.. ��•-/IC,/ ,V l j I '/ ;· , CONTENTS i Page Greetings .......................................................................tlristicles }!}, Phoiitricles ........ r The Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, and the Goat Rocks Outing .......................................... B1/.ith Page Bennett 9 1 Selected References from Preceding Mount Adams and Mount St.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization And
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: AUG 1 6 2011 13410-2011-F-0141 13410-2010-F-0175 Daniel M. Mathis, Division Adnlinistrator Federal Highway Administration ATIN: Jeff Horton Evergreen Plaza Building 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 501 Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Michelle Walker, Chief, Regulatory Branch Seattle District, Corps of Engineers ATIN: Rebecca McAndrew P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Dear Mr. Mathis and Ms. Walker: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed State Route 20, Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization and Chronic Environmental Deficiency Project in Skagit County, Washington, and its effects on the bull trout (Salve linus conjluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and designated bull trout critical habitat, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). Your requests for initiation of formal consultation were received on February 3, 2011, and January 19,2010. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District (Corps) provided information in support of "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determinations for the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. On April 13 and 14, 2011, the FHWA and Corps gave their consent for addressing potential adverse effects to the bull trout and bull trout critical habitat with a single Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe
    1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFEDERATED TRIBES and BANDS Nos
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS Nos. 19-35807 OF THE YAKAMA NATION, a 19-35821 sovereign federally recognized Native Nation, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant/ 1:17-cv-03192- Cross-Appellee, TOR v. OPINION KLICKITAT COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; KLICKITAT COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, an agency of Klickitat County; BOB SONGER, in his official capacity; KLICKITAT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, an agency of Klickitat County; DAVID QUESNEL, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 20, 2020 Seattle, Washington 2 YAKAMA NATION V. KLICKITAT CNTY. Filed June 11, 2021 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Jill A. Otake,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Friedland SUMMARY** Tribal Reservation Affirming the district court’s judgment entered following a bench trial, the panel held that under an 1855 treaty between the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the United States, the Yakama Reservation includes a tract, known as Tract D, that partially overlaps with Klickitat County, Washington. The parties’ dispute arose when the County attempted to prosecute P.T.S., a minor and enrolled member of the Tribe, for acts that occurred within Tract D. Pursuant to a proclamation issued by the Governor of Washington, the Yakamas and the federal government share exclusive jurisdiction over certain criminal and civil offenses that occur on Reservation lands. The Yakamas sued the County and County officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief barring the County from exercising criminal * The Honorable Jill A.
    [Show full text]
  • This Document Contains Materials
    Appendix: Investigation Team The Investigation Team Within hours of the incident an interagency team was being formed and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was notified due to the fatalities of the federal workers. Jim Furnish, Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems, was designated investigation team leader. The investigation team first met in Twisp, WA on the evening of Wednesday, July 11. The team investigated the fire and fatality site, and conducted interviews with people associated with the event. The team met daily in the morning and evening to discuss progress, review assignments, coordinate activities, review their findings, and document their work. The team adjourned July 23 with the bulk of the investigation and analysis done. Compilation and further refinement of the draft investigation report continued for the next few weeks, and the completed draft report was issued to the Management Review Board on August 23, 2001. 45 Appendix: Investigation Team Thirtymile Fire Investigation Team Members Team Leader Jim Furnish USFS National Headquarters Washington, DC Chief Investigator Alan Chockie Link Technologies Seattle, WA Equipment Specialist Leslie Anderson USFS Missoula Technology & Development Center Missoula, MT Line Officer Kent Connaughton Representative USFS Pacific Southwest Region Vallejo, CA Fire Operations Dave Dash BLM-Alaska Fire Service Fort Wainwright, AK Union Joe Duran Representative USFS Los Padres National Forest Santa Maria, CA Weather Specialist Brenda Graham USFS Northern California Service
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 2 Colville National Forest
    Colville National Forest - Salmo-Priest Wilderness Page 1 of 2 United States Department of Agriculture Colville National Forest Forest Service Forest Service Home About the Agency Contact the National Office Search Go Salmo-Priest Wilderness Site Map Area Status: Open Colville National Forest Home Tucked among the Selkirk Mountains in the extreme northeastern corner of Washington, the U-shaped 43,348 Special Places Low Fire Danger acre Salmo-Priest Wilderness extends its borders along those of Idaho and British Columbia. Its most prominent Recreation Quick Links features are two very long ridges, generally running Bicycling southwest to northeast, connected near their northern Salmo-Priest Wilderness Camping & Cabins ends by a ridge crowned by 6,828-foot Salmo Mountain. Winter Recreation in Washington State Climbing The eastern ridge stands lower, more wooded, more rounded off and more Upper Columbia Children's Forest Fishing accessible than the steep-sided, rocky-crested western ridge. Streams have cut Hiking deep drainages into both ridges. Water from the eastern side of the eastern ridge ends up in Idaho's Priest River. The remaining wilderness drains generally westerly Areas & Activities Horse Riding & Camping via Sullivan Creek and the Salmo River into the Pend Oreille River. Find An Area Hunting Below the ridge tops of this well-watered Wilderness (at 50+ inches of precipitation Highlights Nature Viewing annually) you'll find the largest growth of virgin forest left in eastern Washington: western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, grand fir, larch. The forest houses Recreation Passes OHV Riding & Camping mule deer and white-tailed deer, elk, black bears, cougars, bobcats, badgers, pine Recreation Passes martens, lynx, bighorn sheep, and moose.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpt from the Yakima Nation/Cleanup of Hanford
    DOE Indian Policy and Treaty Obligations Excerpt from The Yakama Nation and the Cleanup of Hanford: Contested Meanings of Environmental Remediation written by Daniel A. Bush (2014) http://nativecases.evergreen.edu/collection/cases/the-yakama-nation-and-the-cleanup- of-hanford-contested-meanings-of-environmental-remediation Map: Yakama Reservation and lands ceded by the Yakama in the 1855 treaty (Klickitat Library Images, 2014) According to the DOE’s Tribal Program, “the involvement [of] Native American Tribes at Hanford is guided by DOE's American Indian Policy [which] states that it is the trust responsibility of the United States to protect tribal sovereignty and self-determination, tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty and other federal recognized and reserved rights” (Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Program, 2014). Therefore, where Native Americans are concerned it would seem that the DOE has a legal obligation to restore the Hanford site to its pre-nuclear state. It could also be argued that Native tribes have their own trust responsibility for preservation of natural resources on both tribal lands and those areas of traditional use. Moreover, the web of responsibilities associated with the Hanford cleanup are complicated by potential liabilities, as Native peoples have a right to “damages for injuries which occur to natural resources as a result of hazardous waste release” (Bauer, 1994). Thus, Native Americans who traditionally used the affected area have also been involved in the cleanup of Hanford. CERCLA itself named Native tribes as having a vested interest in Superfund sites such as Hanford. The DOE agrees that the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, and Wanapum native peoples be regularly consulted throughout the cleanup process and that all have rights to resources in the 1 Hanford region.
    [Show full text]