DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for 2020 Ocean Salmon Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for 2020 Ocean Salmon Management Preface to the Final Environmental Assessment for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management Measures (RIN 0648-BJ48) The development of annual management measures for West Coast salmon fisheries is a well-documented and public process. Alternatives for annual management measures are developed at the March meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). At this meeting, the previous year’s fisheries are reviewed, and alternatives are developed for the current year’s fisheries after considering projected stock abundances, conservation objectives in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and other relevant laws, as well as international agreements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). Public meetings are held in Washington, Oregon, and California in late March to give the public the opportunity to provide comments on the alternatives. The Council meets again in April to consider public and agency input on the alternatives and to develop and adopt a preferred alternative. Environmental impacts of the preferred alternative are within the range of impacts analyzed for the preliminary alternatives, although new fisheries data developed between March and April, especially regarding fisheries north of Cape Falcon, may require modification of the range of impacts. During this process, the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) develop a series of documents that describe the development and analysis of the alternatives. These documents collectively form the basis for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for NMFS’ analysis of the proposed action of adopting the 2020 ocean salmon fisheries management measures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Preface is provided to guide the reader through the three documents that, collectively, form the EA (see Table 1, below). These documents are available to the public on the Council’s website (www.pcouncil.org): Preseason Report I (PRE I): Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations (February 2020). PRE I describes Purpose and Need, Affected Environment, and the no-action alternative. Preseason Report II (PRE II): Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations (March 2020). PRE II describes the analysis of the action alternatives. Preseason Report III (PRE III): Analysis of Council Adopted Management Measures for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (April 2020). PRE III describes the final preferred alternative adopted by the Council. A fourth document, also available on the Council’s website, is referenced in the above and provides some aspects of the affected environment, especially related to salmon stocks: Review of 2019 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (February 2020). Environmental Assessment: Preface 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management Measures (RIN 0648-BJ48) i April 2020 This final EA includes edits and information added after review of the initial documents and in response to public comments. Therefore, this final EA will have differences from the Preseason Report documents on the Council’s website. Table 1. Directory of NEPA elements in the Environmental Assessment for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management Measures (RIN 0648-BJ48). NEPA Element Location Purpose and Need PRE I: Introduction and PRE II: Chapter 1 Affected Environment PRE I and PRE II Description of the Affected Environment PRE I: Chapters I – IV and PRE II: Chapter 8 Alternatives PRE I, PRE II, and PRE III Description of No-action alternative PRE I: Chapter V Description of Action alternatives PRE II: Chapter 7, Tables 1 – 4; PRE III: Chapter 1, Tables 1 - 4 Analysis of Impacts (Environmental Effects) PRE I and PRE II Analysis of the No-action Alternative PRE I: Chapter V Impacts on salmon stocks PRE II: Chapter 8, Tables 5-7 Socioeconomics PRE II: Chapter 8.2, Tables 9-10, Figures 1-2 Non-target Species PRE II: Chapter 8.3 Marine Mammals PRE II: Chapter 8.4 ESA Listed Species (other than salmon) PRE II: Chapter 8.5 PRE III: Chapter 11 Seabirds PRE II: Chapter 8.6 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function PRE II: Chapter 8.7 Ocean and Coastal Habitats PRE II: Chapter 8.8 Public Health and Safety PRE II: Chapter 8.9 Cumulative Impacts PRE II: Chapter 810 Final Preferred Alternative PRE III Description PRE III: Tables 1 – 4 Socioeconomic Impacts PRE III: Chapter 10, Tables 9-10 Environmental Effects PRE III: Chapter 11, Tables 5-7, and 11-12 Compliance with other Applicable Law Addendum Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Addendum Environmental Assessment: Preface 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management Measures (RIN 0648-BJ48) ii April 2020 EA part 1 (Preseason Report I) 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management (0648-BJ48) April 2020 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART 1 FOR 2020 OCEAN SALMON FISHERY REGULATIONS REGULATION IDENTIFIER NUMBER 0648-BJ48 BASED ON PRESEASON REPORT I STOCK ABUNDANCE ANALYSIS Pacific Fishery Management Council 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101 Portland, OR 97220-1384 (503) 820-2280 www.pcouncil.org MARCH 2020 EA part 1 (Preseason Report I) 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management (0648-BJ48) April 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SALMON TECHNICAL TEAM DR. MICHAEL O’FARRELL, CHAIR National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California MR. JON CAREY, VICE CHAIR National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington MS. WENDY BEEGHLEY Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington MR. CRAIG FOSTER Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, Oregon DR. STEVE HAESEKER U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington MS. ASHTON HARP Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Forks, Washington MR. ALEX LETVIN California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Santa Rosa, California MS. MINDY ROWSE National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL STAFF MS. ROBIN EHLKE The Salmon Technical Team and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert assistance provided by Mr. Kyle Van de Graaf, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Mr. Eric Schindler, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Dr. Pete McHugh, Ms. Jennifer Simon, and Ms. Melodie Palmer-Zwahlen, California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and numerous other agency and tribal personnel in completing this report. This document may be cited in the following manner: Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2020. Preseason Report I: Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations. (Document prepared for the Council and its advisory entities.) Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number FNA20NMF4410011. EA part 1 (Preseason Report I) 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Management (0648-BJ48) April 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1 STT Concerns ........................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER I: DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 4 ABUNDANCE FORECASTS .................................................................................................................. 5 ACCEPTABLE BIOLOGICAL CATCH, ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS, AND OVERFISHING LIMITS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acceptable Biological Catch ......................................................................................................................... 5 Annual Catch Limit ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Overfishing Limit.......................................................................................................................................... 6 STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER II: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - CHINOOK SALMON ASSESSMENT ........................ 14 CHINOOK STOCKS SOUTH OF CAPE FALCON ............................................................................. 14 Sacramento River Fall Chinook .................................................................................................................. 14 Predictor Description ...................................................................................................................... 14 Predictor Performance ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-05-21 Makah Cert Petition and Appendix
    No. _______ In the Supreme Court of the United States MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, Petitioner, v. QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE AND QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI GREGORY G. GARRE MARC D. SLONIM BENJAMIN W. SNYDER Counsel of Record LATHAM & WATKINS LLP ZIONTZ CHESTNUT 555 Eleventh Street, NW 2101 Fourth Avenue Suite 1000 Suite 1230 Washington, DC 20004 Seattle, WA 98121 202 637-2207 (206) 448-1230 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED On the same day in 1859, the Senate ratified several treaties between the United States and Indian tribes in western Washington. The Treaty of Neah Bay secured to the Makah Indian Tribe the “right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations.” The Treaty of Olympia secured to the Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation, the southern neighbors of Makah along the Washington coast, the “right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations.” Unlike the Treaty of Neah Bay, the Treaty of Olympia expressed only a “right of taking fish”; it did not reference “whaling or sealing.” In this case, the Ninth Circuit held the “right of taking fish” in the Treaty of Olympia includes a right of whaling and sealing. Then, the Ninth Circuit held Quileute and Quinault’s “usual and accustomed” fishing grounds under the treaty extend beyond the areas in which the Tribes customarily fished to areas in which they hunted “‘marine mammals—including whales and fur seals.’” App.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation for Washington State
    Historic Preservation for Washington State 24 CFR Part 58 General requirements Legislation Regulation Protect sites, buildings, and objects with national, National Historic Preservation 36 CFR Part 800 state or local historic, cultural and/or archeological Act, 16 U.S.C. 470(f), section 24 CFR Part 58.5(a) significance. Identify effects of project on properties 106 1. Does the project include new construction; demolition; the acquisition of undeveloped land; or any activity that requires ground disturbance (defined as one cubic foot of disturbed soil)? No: PROCEED to #2. Yes: PROCEED to #3 2. Does the project include repair, rehabilitation or conversion of existing properties; involve a structure that is MORE than 45 years old, is not in a historic district and has no ground disturbing activities? No: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete. Record your determination that there is no potential to cause effect, including the age of the existing building and information from the National Register to show that the activity is not in a historic district, on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment. Yes: PROCEED to #3 3. Consult with SHPO or THPO and any tribes or groups that may have an interest in the project to determine if the project is eligible for the National Historic Register. • You must define and consider the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE is the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:70-Cv-09213-RSM Document 21063 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 83
    Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 21063 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, No. C70-9213 10 Plaintiffs, Subproceeding No. 09-01 11 v. 12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., AND MEMORANDUM ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This subproceeding is before the Court pursuant to the request of the Makah Indian Tribe (the 17 “Makah”) to determine the usual and accustomed fishing grounds (“U&A”) of the Quileute Indian 18 Tribe (the “Quileute”) and the Quinault Indian Nation (the “Quinault”), to the extent not specifically 19 determined by Judge Hugo Boldt in Final Decision # 1 of this case. The Court is specifically asked to 20 determine the western boundaries of the U&As of the Quileute and Quinault in the Pacific Ocean, as 21 22 well as the northern boundary of the Quileute’s U&A. A 23-day bench trial was held to adjudicate 23 these boundaries, after which the Court received extensive supplemental briefing by the Makah, 24 Quileute, Quinault, and numerous Interested Parties and took the matter under advisement. The Court 25 has considered the vast evidence presented at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, trial, post-trial, 26 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 21063 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 83 1 and supplemental briefs, proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the arguments of 2 counsel at trial and attendant hearings.
    [Show full text]
  • Historylink.Org Supplement for Washington: a State of Contrasts
    Photo of Gatewood School students on last day of school, Seattle, June 17, 1949. Courtesy Museum of History & Industry. HistoryLink.org Supplement for Washington: A State of Contrasts 1 Washington: A State of Contrasts has been identified as the most commonly used Washington state History textbook for 7th and 8th grades for the 2011-12 school year. Using this textbook as a base for identifying the specific themes and topics that are being covered in required Pacific Northwest History middle school classes, the Education Team at HistoryLink.org has created this supplement for teacher and students. This supplement was developed as a tool to assist in identifying HistoryLink.org essays that can be used to study and research the state history themes and topic in more depth. The name of each relevant essay is listed as well as the abstract, number, and link to the full essay. This supplement also aids HistoryLink.org in identifying general or specific topics for which more essays are needed or would be helpful in the Washington state History classroom. In addition, as a part of this exercise, HistoryLink.org staff assigned appropriate key words to selected essays to match those used in this textbook. A set of HistoryLink Elementary essays was added to the HistoryLink encyclopedia in 2014. (http://www.historylink.org/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=education/elementary- educators.cfm.) These essays were written for beginning readers who are studying Washington state history or anyone who wants to learn more about Washington. They may be helpful for some of your students. All HistoryLink Elementary essays are based on existing HistoryLink essays.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Report Cover Sheet
    CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Laura Syvertson and Robert H. Gargett Title of Report: Archaeological Investigation Report: Fire District 5 Public Safety Center, 33019-33021 Cascade View Drive, Sultan, SnohoMish County, Washington Date of Report: June 19, 2018 County: SnohoMish Township: 28N Range: 08E Section: 33 Quad: Sultan Acres: ~6 acres PDF of report subMitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory ForMs to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or AMended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation PerMit requireMent? Yes # No Were HuMan ReMains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT: FIRE DISTRICT 5 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 33019–33021 CASCADE VIEW DRIVE, SULTAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for: Snohomish County Fire District 5 June 19, 2018 Prepared by: 1229 Cleveland Avenue, Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 • Tel 360-826-4930 • Fax 360-826-4830 • www.equinoxerci.com CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PROJECT COORDINATOR................................................................................. Kelly R. Bush, MA REPORT AUTHORS ............................................. Laura Syvertson MS and Robert H. Gargett, Ph.D. GRAPHICS................................................................................................................. Karen Toor, BS FIELD RESEARCHERS .......................... Lindsey Holdener, BA, Jori Hurst, BA, Laura M. Syvertson ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Quinault River Salmon Restoration NEPA Compliance; Environmental Assessment – FINAL
    7/19/2011 Upper Quinault River Salmon Habitat Restoration NEPA Compliance FINAL This National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance document, in the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the restoration of salmon habitat of the Upper Quinault River located within the geologic floodplain of the Quinault River (coastal Washington State, in the west slope of the Olympic Mountains). This EA considers the preferred alternative of installing Engineered Logjams and restorative planting of conifer and hardwood trees to meet the goals of improving river processes and salmon habitat,habitat, especially for BluebackBlueback salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). This NEPA Compliance document has been prepared by the Quinault Indian Nation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs servingserving as the Lead Federal Agency Quinault Indian Nation | FINAL William E. Schlosser, William E. Armstrong, Birgit R. Schlosser Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation 7/19/2011 2 Upper Quinault River Salmon Habitat Restoration NEPA Compliance Quinault Indian Nation | FINAL This Quinault Indian Nation Environmental Assessment is completed in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the fulfilment of National Environmental Policy Act requirements to implement salmon habitat restoration in the Upper Quinault River in Coastal Washington State of the Olympic Mountains. Quinault Indian Nation William E. (Bill) Armstrong, B.S. Salmon Resources Scientist, Department of Fisheries, Division of Natural Resources P.O. Box 189 1214 Aalis St. Building C Taholah, WA 98587 Planning services and document lead authorship provided by William E. (Dr. Bill) Schlosser, Ph.D. Kamiak Ridge, LLC 1515 NW Kenny Dr. Pullman, WA 99163 www.Resource-Analysis.com This planning effort has been completed with the consultation of a Planning Committee comprised of representatives of administrative Divisions from the Quinault Indian Nation, representatives from adjacent government agencies including the offices of Congressman Norm Dicks, Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park: Their Former Indigenous Uses and Management
    The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park: Their Former Indigenous Uses and Management Final Report to Olympic National Park Port Angeles, Washington Winter 2009 M. Kat Anderson, Ph.D. National Plant Data Center, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Plant Sciences 1035 Wickson Hall One Shields Ave. University of California Davis, California 95616 [email protected] Title Page Photo Caption Bog Cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) Berries for food Makah women picking bog cranberries, circa 1936 (location unknown) Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration, Sandpoint. Seattle, Washington photographer unknown Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................... v Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................4 Ecological Features
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Interpreting Potential Futures
    Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series (ONMS-13-01) Climate Change and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Interpreting Potential Futures U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Office of National Marine Sanctuaries March 2013 About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) administers the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Its mission is to identify, designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks. Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuary system. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Respondent Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife in Support
    No. 17-1592 In the Supreme Court of the United States MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, PETITIONER, v. QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE AND QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General JAY D. GECK Deputy Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH V. PANESKO Senior Assistant Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504-0100 360-753-6200 [email protected] i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the treaty right of “taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations,” which has been long interpreted by this Court and others as reserving fishing rights on grounds traditionally and customarily used for taking fish, has a different meaning for the Quileute and Quinault Indian Tribes, and reserves fishing rights in a vast area of the Pacific Ocean where those tribes did not customarily fish but traversed while hunting seals or whales. ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Petitioner, the Makah Indian Tribe, initiated this proceeding pursuant to an injunction entered in United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) that allows additional cases to be filed as “subproceedings.” Makah was the plaintiff in the district court and appellant in the Ninth Circuit. Respondents are: (1) the Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation. These tribes were defendants in the district court and appellees in the Ninth Circuit. (2) the State of Washington and its Department of Fish and Wildlife and agency directors.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, No. C70-9213 10 Plaintiffs, Subproceeding No. 09-01 11 v. 12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., AND MEMORANDUM ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This subproceeding is before the Court pursuant to the request of the Makah Indian Tribe (the 17 “Makah”) to determine the usual and accustomed fishing grounds (“U&A”) of the Quileute Indian 18 Tribe (the “Quileute”) and the Quinault Indian Nation (the “Quinault”), to the extent not specifically 19 determined by Judge Hugo Boldt in Final Decision # 1 of this case. The Court is specifically asked to 20 determine the western boundaries of the U&As of the Quileute and Quinault in the Pacific Ocean, as 21 22 well as the northern boundary of the Quileute’s U&A. A 23-day bench trial was held to adjudicate 23 these boundaries, after which the Court received extensive supplemental briefing by the Makah, 24 Quileute, Quinault, and numerous Interested Parties and took the matter under adv isement. The Court 25 has considered the vast evidence presented at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, trial, post-trial, 26 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1 1 and supplemental briefs, proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the arguments of 2 counsel at trial and attendant hearings. The Court, being fully advised, now makes the following 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Whaling, Judicial Fiats, Treaties and Indians: the Makah Saga Continues
    American Indian Law Journal Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 4 May 2017 Of Whaling, Judicial Fiats, Treaties and Indians: The Makah Saga Continues Jeremy Stevens Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Stevens, Jeremy (2017) "Of Whaling, Judicial Fiats, Treaties and Indians: The Makah Saga Continues," American Indian Law Journal: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol1/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian Law Journal by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN INDIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume I, Issue I – Fall 2012 OF WHALING, JUDICIAL FIATS, TREATIES AND INDIANS: THE MAKAH SAGA CONTINUES Jeremy Stevens* “Fiat lux et facta est lux.”1 “So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships: there is that Leviathan whom thou hast made to play therein.”2 “[O]ur treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith. Here, as in other parts of the world, the undermining of that faith begins with the glorification of ‘expert administrators’ whose power-drives are always accompanied by soft music about ‘the withering away of the state’ or the ultimate ‘liquidation’ of this or that bureau.”3 At the northwestern-most corner of the continental United States, on a 27,000 square acre reservation, reside the Makah.4 Currently the only group of the Nuu-chah- nulth people within the realm of the United States of America,5 the Makah once exerted dominion over a territory that consisted of all “that portion of the extreme northwest part of Washington Territory .
    [Show full text]