Abstract: This polygon feature class is the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's interpretation of the Indian Treaties of 1855. The specific treaties involved were the Treaty of Point Elliot of 1855, the Yakima Treaty of Camp Stevens of 1855, the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854, the Treaty of Neah Bay of 1855. the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855, the Walla Walla Treaty of Camp Stevens of 1855, and the Quinault Treaty of 1856
Purpose: The purpose of this feature class is to define the boundaries of these treaties to determine which areas special hunting and fishing rights are applicable for each of the signitory tribes of the Treaties of 1855.
Supplemental Information: The process and decisions used to create the ceded lands treaty boundaries A. Initial review of Tribal Treaty Boundaries, July 13, 1999 To clarify enforcement issues surrounding tribal hunting rights, Wildlife Resource Data Systems (WRDS) staff were asked to review treaty language and map their interpretations onto maps and into ARC/INFO data layers. The resultant maps are to be used in discussions with the tribes to negotiate a set of interim 'enforceable' tribal boundaries based on features identifiable on the ground. This request was motivated by the fact that the maps used historically to represent these treaty boundaries were evidently generated by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1964. No one in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is aware of any documentation of who developed this original interpretation and what assumptions they used to draw their lines. This exercise is designed to re-evaluate the treaty language and display where uncertainties in treaty language may result in discrepancies in boundaries drawn in 1964 and those drawn by this project. Review of treaty language reveals why these boundaries are so contentious. The treaties, written in the mid-1850's, are filled with imprecise geographic references, vague terminology, and circular reasoning. Part of this exercise is to document where these problem areas occur and describe the assumptions made by WRDS staff to complete the project. The following discussions of treaty citations are limited to those passages where questionable judgment calls had to be made. The Medicine Creek Treaty- In 1996 Don Saul and Jim Eby of WRDS undertook a similar exercise at the request of Rich Poelker, tribal hunting coordinator at the time. Since other treaty language relies on this treaty's borders, we were forced to review this work as well. Discussions with Jim Eby and review of the treaty revealed several problem areas. One area of potential confusion lies in the interpretation of what constitutes the "divide between the waters of the Puyallup and Dwamish, or White Rivers to the summit of the Cascade Mountains". According to maps of the period, it appears that Mount Rainier was thought to be part of the Cascade Crest. It is unclear what the previous projects may have done to identify this divide. This project used the existing Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA's), a GIS data layer depicting watershed boundaries, wherever a treaty boundary description referred to a divide between river systems or the summit of a mountain range. Another problem area is the next treaty passage: "thence southerly, along the summit of said range, to a point opposite of the source of the Skookum Chuck Creek". Maps of the period show that cartographers of the time had no idea where the source of Skookumchuck Creek was. For his 1996 effort, Jim Eby selected Huckleberry Mountain as the source based on modern geography. Also, the term "opposite" ?is imprecise. It could mean the first line of sight bearing into the drainage from the Cascade Crest or it could mean a bearing of due west from the Cascade Crest to the Skookumchuck Creek drainage. The treaty continues, "thence to and down said creek, to the coal mine; thence northwesterly, to the summit of the Black Hills; thence northerly, to the upper forks of the Satsop River". There is some uncertainty as to which coal mine is referenced (Bucoda vs. Centralia) and what point constitutes the summit of the Black Hills. Ultimately, Jim Eby's 1996 effort selected the Centralia coal mine as the one most likely to be correct. Along this border is a major discrepancy between the 1996 Eby interpretation and the DNR 1964 version. The DNR version follows the Deschutes River and fails to connect with either of the two coal mines known from that time. Both Eby's interpretation and this effort assumed Capitol Peak was the summit of the Black Hills. DNR's version picked a meandering line to some other summit in the Black Hills. Although the upper forks of the Satsop are readily identifiable, both the DNR 1964 and Eby effort selected some point miles to the east as the point of inflection towards Wilke's Portage. The treaty language between the Medicine Creek and the Point No Point treaty is not mutually exclusive as interpreted by this project. The Point No Point treaty uses a line from the main fork of the Satsop extending to the Capitol Peak to define the southeast corner, the Medicine Creek treaty extends northwest from Capitol Peak to the upper forks of the Satsop to define its southwest corner - the geographic areas described overlap. None of the other treaty analysis mapping efforts interpreted this language in this manner. The next treaty passage reads, "thence northeasterly, through the portage known as Wilke's Portage to Point Southworth, on the western side of Admiralty Inlet; thence around the foot of Vashon's Island, easterly and southeasterly, to the place of beginning." The DNR and Eby projects interpreted this language to include Vashon Island as part of the Medicine Creek treaty. This project's interpretation is that Vashon Island was not meant to be included with the Medicine Creek ceded area but was instead associated with the Point Elliott treaty. In summary, there are major discrepancies between the DNR 1964, Eby's 1996, and this project's.interpretation of the Medicine Creek treaty. DNR's boundaries deviate substantially along the line from Point Pulley to Mount Rainier (the northeast boundary), the southern boundary along the Skookumchuck, and the southwestern boundary involving the coal mine(s) and the Black Hills. Vashon Island is thought not to be included in this treaty. The Treaty of Point No Point, 1855 The first boundary line was drawn based on the wording: "Commencing at the mouth of the Okeho River, on the Straits of Fuca; thence southeastwardly along the westerly line of territory claimed by the Makah tribe of Indians to the summit of the (sic) Cascade Range". It was assumed the treaty meant to say the Olympic Range, since the Cascade Range is nowhere near the treaty location. The Okeho River is now named the Hoko River. The line, "to the summit of the (sic) Cascade Range", is assumed to refer to the crest dividing the watersheds draining to the Straits of Juan de Fuca and those draining to the southwest out to the Pacific. The next treaty passage states "thence still southeastwardly and southernly along said summit to the head of the west branch of the Satsop River." The wording "along said summit" ?is assumed to refer to the dividing crest of the Olympic Mountains where waters flow either to Puget Sound and the Straits of Fuca, or to the Pacific Ocean. The next clause reads "down that branch to the main fork; thence eastwardly and following the line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the Nisqually and other tribes and bands of Indians, to the summit of the Black Hills." ?Here the most proximate "Summit of the Black Hills" ?was assumed to refer to Capitol Peak and the Medicine Creek treaty line extends from the "Summit of the Black Hills; thence northerly to the upper forks of the Satsop River; thence northeasterly, through the passage known as Wilke's Portage...".? The treaty language between the Medicine Creek and the Point No Point treaty is not mutually exclusive as interpreted by this project. The Point No Point treaty uses a line from the main fork of the Satsop extending to the Capitol Peak to define the southeast corner, the Medicine Creek treaty extends northwest from Capitol Peak to the upper forks of the Satsop to define its southwest corner - the geographic areas described overlap. None of the other treaty analysis mapping efforts interpreted this language in this manner. The boundary line drawn from the Black Hills to the northern tip of Kitsap Peninsula is based on the wording: "thence northeastwardly, and following the line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the Dwamish, Suquamish, and other tribes and bands of Indians (Point Elliott Treaty), to Suquamish Head." Squamish Head is now called Foulweather Bluff. This line deferred to a boundary line established from the Point Elliott treaty boundary description. The ceded area polygon was closed based on the wording: "thence northerly through Admiralty Inlet to the Straits of Fuca; and thence westwardly through said straits to the place of beginning". These lines follow the current county boundary line, which is essentially the middle of Admiralty Inlet leading up to the Straits of Fuca and a straight westwardly line drawn between the mouth of the Hoko River and the extent of the line extending into the Straits. Treaty of Neah Bay, 1855 This ceded area description starts "Commencing at the mouth of the Obe-ho (Hoko) River on the Straits of Fuca." It is unknown how far the north of the coast is meant by "on the Straits of Fuca" so an arbitrary distance north was used. The next indefinite passage in this treaty extends from the Tatoosh Island "southwardly along coast to Osett". Osett is assumed to be a village immediately east of Ozette Island and Flattery Rocks per Origin of Washington Geographic Names by Meany' (1923) description of "Hozett Village at Flattery Rocks." The actual location could easily be 1/2 mile or more north or south of the location used. The treaty then states "thence eastwardly along the line of lands occupied by the Kwe-deh-tut or Kwill-eh-yuk tribe of Indians, to the summit of the coast-range of mountains."? Within the time constraints of this project (or perhaps ever) there is no way of knowing "the line of lands occupied by the Kwe-deh-tut or Kwill-eh-yuk tribe of Indians" ?so a line was drawn due east to the hypothetical watershed boundary between those lands draining southwest towards the Pacific and those watersheds draining to the Straits of Juan de Fuca. This watershed boundary is assumed to represent of "the summit of the coast-range of mountains." The last passage of the treaty states "...And thence northwardly along the line of lands lately ceded to the United States by the S'Klallam tribe to the place of beginnings." The line of lands ceded by the S'Klallam is described in the treaty of Point No Point as "Commencing east of the mouth of the Okeho (Hoko) River, on the Straits of Fuca; thence southwardly along the westerly line of territory claimed by the Makah tribe of Indians to the Summit of the Cascade (sic) Ranges."? The treaty descriptions are circular as to the border between Makah and Point No Point tribes. For this project, it was assumed that the Hoko River approximated the boundary in question. Without more time to research scholarly interpretations of treaty language, we are forced to use the assumptions made. Therefore, the southern and eastern borders of the Makah ceded land can only be characterized as arbitrary. The 1964 DNR effort does not start at the mouth of the Hoko River, which is fairly clearly stated as the point of origin for the treaty. The DNR version also differs from this project's south boundary but DNR may have used cultural history information not available to this project to establish "the line of lands occupied by the Kwe-deh-tut or Kwill-eh-yuk tribe of Indians." Point Elliott Treaty This treaty starts "Commencing at a point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet (Puget Sound), known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliot Bays; thence eastwardly running along the north line of lands ceded to the United States by the Nisqually, Puyallup, and other Indians (Medicine Creek Treaty), to the summit of the Cascades Mountains." The Northern border described in the Medicine Creek treaty reads as follows "Commencing at a point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet (Puget Sound), known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliot Bays; thence running in a southeasterly direction, following the divide between the waters of the Puyallup and Dwamish, or White Rivers, to the summit of the Cascade Mountains." Areas in this passage open to interpretation are determining the divide between the Puyallup and White Rivers and deciding how to terminate this divide "to the summit of the Cascade Mountains". In this project we used existing WRIA boundaries to delineate the watershed divide and the Cascade crest terminus. The next potentially problematic passage in the treaty reads "Thence Southwesterly, through the peninsula, following the divide between Hood's Canal and Admiralty Inlet to the portage known as Wilkes Portage." WRIA boundaries were used to determine the divide of the Kitsap Peninsula. Wilkes Portage is where Hood Canal and Case Inlet come closest. The treaty then states "Thence, northeastwardly, and following the line of lands heretofore ceded as aforesaid to Point Southworth."? This clause refers to the Medicine Creek Treaty which states ".. through the portage known as Wilkes Portage, to Point Southworth, on the western side of Admiralty Inlet (Puget Sound)"?which was interpreted as a straight line between these two points. The treaty closes the ceded area description with " an thence around the foot of Vashon's Island eastwardly and southeastwardly to the place of the beginning." This project interpreted this to mean the ceded area does not include Vashon Island. This is different from the DNR 1964 and the Eby 1996 interpretations. The Quinault Treaty, 1856 This treaty starts immediately with problematic language:"Commencing at a point on the Pacific coast, which is the southwest corner of the lands lately ceded by the Makah tribe of Indians to the United States, and running easterly with and along the southern boundary of the said Makah tribe to the middle of the coast range of mountains."? Circular definitions once again complicate matters. The south border of the Makah lands was defined in the Neah Bay Treaty as the line from "Osett , or the lower Cape Flattery; thence eastwardly along the line of lands occupied by the Kwe-deh-tut or Kwill-eh-yute tribe of Indians, to the summit of the coast-range of mountains."? The line is assumed to extend from current day Cape Alava due east to a divide defined by a WRIA watershed boundary separating watersheds flowing north to the Straits of Juan de Fuca and watersheds flowing south and west to the Pacific. We assume the phrases "to the middle of the coast range of mountains" ?and "to the summit of the coast-range of mountains" ?mean the dividing crest of the Olympic Mountains separating drainages flowing from the Pacific from those draining to the Straits or to Hood Canal. The next clause is also vaguely worded: "thence southerly with said range of mountains to their intersection with the dividing ridge between the Chehalis and Quiniatl Rivers; thence westerly with said ridge to the Pacific coast."? This project assumed the "southerly" ?extension was to adhere to the "summit of the coast range" ?concept and therefore used WRIA watershed boundaries to project this border. These boundaries are clearly the product of much conjecture and assumption. Yakama Treaty This treaty starts with incorrect geographic assumption: "Commencing at Mount Rainier, thence northerly along the ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the point where the northern tributaries of Lake Chelan and southern tributaries of the Methow River have their rise."? Mount Rainier is not part of the Cascade Divide as we now understand the hydrology of the area. We used the divide between the Puyallup and Cowlitz watersheds to connect Mount Rainier to the Cascade Divide. The next problematic passages reads "thence down the Palouse River to its junction with the Moh-hah-ne-she or southern tributary of the same." ? Moh-hah-ne-she refers to the Palouse River according to Meany (1923) so the passage seems to read down the Palouse to its junction with the Palouse or southern tributary of the Palouse. This project interpreted this to mean follow the Palouse downstream to its junction with Union Flat Creek, arguably the most southerly tributary. The next clause, "thence, in a southwesterly direction, to the Snake River at the mouth of the Tucannon River." ?This was interpreted as a straight line between the confluence of the Palouse and Union Flat Creek to the confluence of the Snake and Tucannon Rivers. The clause "thence, up the Columbia River to the "White Banks" below the Priest's? Rapids" was interpreted as the White Bluffs, which extend along the eastern side of the Hanford Reach. The northernmost extent of White Bluffs was used as the point of inflection. The most problematic clause of this treaty extends from White Banks "thence westerly to a lake called 'La Lac'", ??thence southerly to a point on the Yakima River called Toh-ma-luke." ?Toh-mah-luke is the confluence of the Yakima River and Coldwater (or Rattlesnake) Creek. The problem is identifying the location of LakeLa Lac. In the Saddle Mountains west of the Hanford Reach there is an intermittent lake now known as Saddle Mountain Lake. This project could not find any historical reference for La Lac. A reference was found declaring the Saddle Mountains as the northen most territory of the Yakima tribe. Given this reference and the treaty locations before and after the reference to La Lac, this project arbitrarily assumed Saddle Mountain Lake to represent La Lac. The next clause is "thence, [from Toh-mah-luke] in a southwesterly direction, to the Columbia River, at the western extremity of the 'Big Island' ?between the mouths of the Umatilla River and Butler Creek." This project interpreted this as a straight line between the confluence of the Yakima River and Coldwater (or Rattlesnake) Creek and Blalock Island. Umatilla-Walla Walla Treaty Walla Walla Treaty of Camp Stevens, 1855 This treaty is fairly straight forward except for its reference to "Le Lac".? Le Lac is assumed to be the same as La Lac mentioned in the Yakima Treaty. This project limited its interpretation of this treaty to Washington State borders. The problematic clause reads: "thence northerly to a point on the Yakima River called Toh-ma-luke, thence to 'Le Lac'? thence to the White Banks on the Columbia below the Priest's Rapids." The problem is identifying the location of Le Lac. In the Saddle Mountains west of the Hanford Reach there is an intermittent lake now known as Saddle Mountain Lake. This project could not find any historical reference for Le Lac. A reference was found declaring the Saddle Mountains as the northern most territory of the Yakima tribe. Given this reference and the treaty locations before and after the reference to Le Lac, this project arbitrarily assumed Saddle Mountain Lake to represent Le Lac. Nez Perce Treaty The Third Nez Perce Treaty, 1868 This treaty is the simplest of all to interpret other than the ambiguity in the passage: "thence down the Palouse River to its junction with the Moh-hah-ne-she or southern tributary of the same." ? Moh-hah-ne-she refers to the Palouse River according to Meany (1923) so the passage seems to read 'down the Palouse to its junction with the Palouse or southern tributary of the Palouse. This project interpreted this to mean follow the Palouse downstream to its junction with Union Flat Creek, arguably the most southerly tributary. The remaining treaty language was interpreted as following river drainages or watershed divides. This project limited its interpretation of this treaty to Washington State borders. Summary This project was completed in only seven days. With more time it may have been possible to reference secondary interpretative sources to help delineate tribal borders in a more scholarly fashion. The Attorney General's Office was contacted at the onset of this project to see if this office had information that could assist us. Consultation with Jay Geck revealed no more scholarly mapping efforts done by or known to the AG's office. If more sophisticated revision is desired, the project will need to consult ethnological or anthropological sources and consultants to more accurately refine boundaries referring to past tribal occupancy patterns. Although historical maps and place name references were used extensively in this project, additional maps or place name references may be available to help resolve remaining place location issues. Since this project was initiated ostensibly to identify which Game Management Unit polygons are involved in ceded areas, further time intensive refinement may not be warranted. B. Adenda - Historical information about a course change in the White River provided to WDFW by the Suquamish tribe resulted in a realignment of the Medicine Creek and Point Elliot treaty areas along the White River. C. Negotiations with the Medicine Creek Treaty Tribes resulted in a revison to the southern boundary of the Medicine Creek Treaty area. This revision was added in 2001

Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: None planned

Theme Keywords: None, Indian Treaties, Native American fishing rights, Native American hunting rights, Treaty of Neah Bay, Treaty of Point No Point, Treaty of Point Elliot, Third Nez Perce Treaty, Treaty of Medicine Creek, Quinault Treaty, Walla Walla Treaty of Camp Stevens, Yakima Treaty of Camp Stevens
Place Keywords: Washington State

Access Constraints: None
Usage Constraints: This data was created at a scale of 1:100,000. Using the data at scales below that level can result in inaccurate interpretations of the data. The exception to this is the southern Medicine Creek treaty boundary which was mapped at a 1:24,000 scale due to recent negotiations with the Medicine Creek Treaty signatory tribes over the Treaty's interpretation.