Nos. 2016-1424, 2016-1435, 2016-1474, 2016-1482 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIRST CIRCUIT

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Nos. 2016-1424, 2016-1435, 2016-1474, 2016-1482 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIRST CIRCUIT Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Nos. 2016-1424, 2016-1435, 2016-1474, 2016-1482 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT PENOBSCOT NATION; UNITED STATES, on its own behalf, and for the benefit of the Penobscot Nation, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. AARON M. FREY, Attorney General for the State of Maine; JUDY A. CAMUSO, Commissioner for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; JOEL T. WILKINSON, Colonel for the Maine Warden Service; STATE OF MAINE; TOWN OF HOWLAND; TRUE TEXTILES, INC.; GUILFORD-SANGERVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT; CITY OF BREWER; TOWN OF MILLINOCKET; KRUGER ENERGY (USA) INC.; VEAZIE SEWER DISTRICT; TOWN OF MATTAWAMKEAG; COVANTA MAINE LLC; LINCOLN SANITARY DISTRICT; TOWN OF EAST MILLINOCKET; TOWN OF LINCOLN; VERSO PAPER CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, EXPERA OLD TOWN; TOWN OF BUCKSPORT; LINCOLN PAPER AND TISSUE LLC; GREAT NORTHERN PAPER COMPANY LLC, Defendants-Appellees. TOWN OF ORONO, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PENOBSCOT NATION Kaighn Smith, Jr. Pratik A. Shah David M. Kallin Lide E. Paterno Drummond Woodsum Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 2001 K Street, NW Portland, ME 04101-2480 Washington, DC 20006-1037 Phone: (207) 772-1941 Phone: (202) 887-4000 Fax: (207) 772-3627 Fax: (202) 887-4288 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Penobscot Nation Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 3 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 13 I. THE INDIAN CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION GOVERN THE SETTLEMENT ACTS ............................................................. 13 A. Indian Law Treaties And Statutes Must Be Read In Context And Any Resulting Ambiguity Resolved In Favor Of Indians ..................................................................... 13 B. The Indian Canons Apply To The Settlement Acts ................ 15 C. The State’s Attempts To Evade The Indian Canons Fail ....... 18 II. THE SETTLEMENT ACTS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THE MAIN STEM WITHIN THE RESERVATION ............................................................................... 22 A. Alaska Pacific Fisheries Controls This Case .......................... 22 B. Traditional Tools of Statutory Construction Favor The Nation’s Interpretation ............................................................ 29 1. The Reservation Must Encompass The Main Stem To Give Effect To The Settlement Acts’ Guarantee Of On-Reservation Sustenance-Fishing Rights. .......... 29 i Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 2. The History Of The Settlement Acts Confirms That The Reservation Includes The Main Stem. .................. 32 3. The Post-Enactment Record Reinforces That The Reservation Encompasses The Main Stem. ................. 39 C. Indian Canons Foreclose An Interpretation That Excludes The Main Stem From The Reservation ................................... 45 III. THE NATION’S CLAIM TO SUSTENANCE-FISHING RIGHTS IN THE MAIN STEM, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IS RIPE FOR AFFIRMANCE ....................... 47 A. The Nation Has Standing To Bring Its Sustenance- Fishing Claim .......................................................................... 48 B. The Nation’s Sustenance-Fishing Claim is Ripe .................... 51 C. The District Court’s Grant Of The Nation’s Sustenance- Fishing Claim Should Be Affirmed ........................................ 54 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 55 ii Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 1997) ......................................................................... 26, 37 Alaska Pacific Fisheries Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 78 (1918) .......................................................................................passim Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) ............................................................................................ 18 Bottomly v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 599 F.2d 1061 (1st Cir. 1979) ............................................................................. 35 Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Public Improvement Comm’n of Boston, 184 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 30 Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970) ................................................................................ 21, 22, 25 City of Boston v. Richardson, 95 Mass. 146 (1866) ........................................................................................... 42 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) ...................................................................................... 43, 44 Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 17, 18 Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) ............................................................................................ 30 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) ................................................................................ 14, 19, 45 Deerfield v. Arms, 34 Mass. 41 (1835) ............................................................................................. 28 Greenwood Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1992) ............................................................................... 33 iii Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ...................................................................................... 31, 32 Handly’s Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 374 (1820) ........................................................................... 42 Hatch v. Dwight, 17 Mass. 289 (1821) ........................................................................................... 42 Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) .................................................................................passim Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) .............................................................................................. 31 Hines v. Robinson, 57 Me. 324 (1869) .............................................................................................. 42 Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1949) .............................................................................................. 25 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) ...................................................................................... 20, 21 Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001) ...................................................................................... 20, 21 In re Opinion of the Justices, 106 A. 865 (Me. 1919) ........................................................................................ 42 K–Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907 (1st Cir. 1989) ............................................................................... 43 Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston R.R. Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733 (1875) .............................................................................................. 33 Lincoln v. Wilder, 29 Me. 169 (1848) .............................................................................................. 42 Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 16, 20, 40 iv Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 48 Massachuetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............................................................................................ 49 Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 17 Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 984 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 17 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) .......................................................................... 14, 22, 35, 39 Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
Recommended publications
  • Penobscot Rivershed with Licensed Dischargers and Critical Salmon
    0# North West Branch St John T11 R15 WELS T11 R17 WELS T11 R16 WELS T11 R14 WELS T11 R13 WELS T11 R12 WELS T11 R11 WELS T11 R10 WELS T11 R9 WELS T11 R8 WELS Aroostook River Oxbow Smith Farm DamXW St John River T11 R7 WELS Garfield Plt T11 R4 WELS Chapman Ashland Machias River Stream Carry Brook Chemquasabamticook Stream Squa Pan Stream XW Daaquam River XW Whitney Bk Dam Mars Hill Squa Pan Dam Burntland Stream DamXW Westfield Prestile Stream Presque Isle Stream FRESH WAY, INC Allagash River South Branch Machias River Big Ten Twp T10 R16 WELS T10 R15 WELS T10 R14 WELS T10 R13 WELS T10 R12 WELS T10 R11 WELS T10 R10 WELS T10 R9 WELS T10 R8 WELS 0# MARS HILL UTILITY DISTRICT T10 R3 WELS Water District Resevoir Dam T10 R7 WELS T10 R6 WELS Masardis Squapan Twp XW Mars Hill DamXW Mule Brook Penobscot RiverYosungs Lakeh DamXWed0# Southwest Branch St John Blackwater River West Branch Presque Isle Strea Allagash River North Branch Blackwater River East Branch Presque Isle Strea Blaine Churchill Lake DamXW Southwest Branch St John E Twp XW Robinson Dam Prestile Stream S Otter Brook L Saint Croix Stream Cox Patent E with Licensed Dischargers and W Snare Brook T9 R8 WELS 8 T9 R17 WELS T9 R16 WELS T9 R15 WELS T9 R14 WELS 1 T9 R12 WELS T9 R11 WELS T9 R10 WELS T9 R9 WELS Mooseleuk Stream Oxbow Plt R T9 R13 WELS Houlton Brook T9 R7 WELS Aroostook River T9 R4 WELS T9 R3 WELS 9 Chandler Stream Bridgewater T T9 R5 WELS TD R2 WELS Baker Branch Critical UmScolcus Stream lmon Habitat Overlay South Branch Russell Brook Aikens Brook West Branch Umcolcus Steam LaPomkeag Stream West Branch Umcolcus Stream Tie Camp Brook Soper Brook Beaver Brook Munsungan Stream S L T8 R18 WELS T8 R17 WELS T8 R16 WELS T8 R15 WELS T8 R14 WELS Eagle Lake Twp T8 R10 WELS East Branch Howe Brook E Soper Mountain Twp T8 R11 WELS T8 R9 WELS T8 R8 WELS Bloody Brook Saint Croix Stream North Branch Meduxnekeag River W 9 Turner Brook Allagash Stream Millinocket Stream T8 R7 WELS T8 R6 WELS T8 R5 WELS Saint Croix Twp T8 R3 WELS 1 Monticello R Desolation Brook 8 St Francis Brook TC R2 WELS MONTICELLO HOUSING CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal
    A Research Paper by Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 <Year> Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/local-studies/dam-removal-case-studies ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Megan Lawson, Ph.D.| [email protected] | 406-570-7475 P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Whittenton Pond Dam, Mill River, Massachusetts. American Rivers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF DAM REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CASE STUDIES WHITTENTON POND DAM, MILL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................ 11 ELWHA AND GLINES CANYON DAMS, ELWHA RIVER, WASHINGTON ........................................................ 14 EDWARDS DAM, KENNEBEC RIVER, MAINE ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Habitat
    Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment Biological assessment of specific areas currently occupied by the species; and determination of whether critical habitat in specific areas outside the currently occupied range is deemed essential to the conservation of the species NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office 1 Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA. 01930 2009 Foreword: Atlantic salmon life history........................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1: Methods and Procedures for Biological Valuation of Atlantic Salmon Habitat in the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (GOM DPS).......................................................................................... 6 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific Areas within the Geographical Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species essential to the conservation of the species .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Identify those “Physical
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot River 2007 Data Report July 2008
    Penobscot River 2007 Data Report July 2008 Prepared by Donald Albert, P. E. Bureau of Land and Water Quality Division of Environmental Assessment DEPLW-0882 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 Technical Design of Study ....................................................................................................1 Hydrologic Data ....................................................................................................................4 Ambient Chemical Data ........................................................................................................4 -DO, Temperature and Salinity .............................................................................................5 -Ultimate BOD ......................................................................................................................8 -Phosphorus Series ................................................................................................................11 -Nitrogen Series.....................................................................................................................13 -Chlorophyll-a .......................................................................................................................15 -Secchi disk transparency......................................................................................................17 Effluent Chemical Data .........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Stillwater Recertification Attachments 2015
    Stillwater Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2712) Project Description Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC’s Stillwater Hydroelectric Project is a run-of-river hydroelectric generating facility located on the Stillwater Branch of the Penobscot River in Old Town, Maine with a gross nameplate generating capacity of 4.18 MW. The Stillwater Project Powerhouse A commenced initial commercial operations in 1913. The Licensee applied for an amendment to increase capacity at the Stillwater Project via the construction of an additional powerhouse (Powerhouse B). The Project consists of an existing 1,720-foot-long dam consisting of 13 sections of various height, creating an impoundment with a normal full pond elevation of 94.65 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The Project has two powerhouses. Powerhouse A consists of four generating units a total installed capacity of 1,950 kW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,700 cfs. Powerhouse B consists of three generating units with a total installed capacity of 2,229 kW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,758 cfs. Powerhouse A has 50 ft long aerial transmission lines installed from the powerhouse’s GSU to the existing substation. Powerhouse B has 300 ft long aerial transmission lines installed from the powerhouse’s generating step-up unit (GSU) to the existing, adjacent 12.5 kV distribution system located adjacent to the existing project boundary and along the south side of Stillwater Avenue. The Stillwater Powerhouse B commenced initial commercial operation September, 2013. The Stillwater Project generates clean, renewable electricity while providing recreational opportunities (portage trail, parking areas for river access and hand-carried boat launch), fish passage measures, consistent water levels that enhance habitats for waterfowl, etc., and substantial support of the local community through stable property tax payments, reliable voltage support of the electrical distribution system, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot River Restoration Great Works & Veazie Dam Removals Sedgeunkedunk Steam Restoration
    Sponsored by Ecological Landscaping Association Society for Ecological Restoration - New England Chapter Penobscot River Restoration Great Works & Veazie Dam Removals Sedgeunkedunk Steam Restoration Thursday, August 8, 2013 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM $35.00 ELA & SER Members - $40 Non-Member The Penobscot River Restoration Project (Penobscot Project) is an unprecedented collaborative effort that will rebalance fisheries restoration with hydropower production in the largest watershed within Maine and result in the ecological restoration on the Penobscot River. Major partners in the project include hydropower companies; federal, state, and tribal governments; the Penobscot River Restoration Trust (Penobscot Trust); and conservation groups. After several years and considerable work, the Penobscot Trust purchased three dams from the PPL Corporation (the hydropower company) in order to remove the two most seaward dams—Great Works and Veazie and to pursue a fish bypass around the Howland dam. As part of the arrangement, PPL Corporation received approval to increase generation at six existing dams and will improve fish passage at four additional dams. The largest river in Maine, the Penobscot River and its tributaries flow from near Mount Katahdin in the North Woods through the heart of Maine to Penobscot Bay. As a model for cooperative conservation, the Penobscot Project provides numerous benefits while maintaining hydropower generation. The Penobscot Project: Provides access to habitat for Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeon as well as striped bass. Improves access to nearly 1,000 miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and other species. Restores ecological functions to benefit native plant and animals in the river, estuary, and Gulf of Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot River Corridor & Seboomook Public Land
    www.parksandlands.com Property History When to Visit Bureau of Parks and Lands and Parks of Bureau he rivers, streams, and lakes in the Seboomook/Pe- The best paddling is between May and September, with the fish- nobscot region were highways for native people, who ing usually best in either of those “shoulder season” months. Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry and Conservation Agriculture, Thave been present here for nearly 12,000 years. Canoe Recreational dam releases tend to occur on Saturdays during routes in the region date back at least 1,000 years, linking the July, August and September: call GLHA at 1- 888-323-4341 Maine Department of Department Maine Kennebec, Penobscot, and Allagash rivers, are still enjoyed for more on Canada Falls and Seboomook dam releases. For today by recreational paddlers traveling the historic 740-mile more on timing of McKay Station (Ripogenus Dam) releases, Northern Forest Canoe Trail. call Brookfield Power at 1-888-323-4341. Some of these paddling routes were taken by writer and naturalist Mosquitoes and black flies are thickest in late May through Overview Upper West Branch and Lobster Lake Henry David Thoreau on three extended trips between 1846 and July. Various types of hunting take place in fall, with bear bait 1857. Thoreau’s The Maine Woods describes his journey into a season generally during September, moose hunting from late he upper reaches of the Penobscot River run through a The wildest portion of the corridor, the Upper West Branch wild landscape that attracted both adventurers and lumbermen. September through mid-October, and firearms season for deer mountainous, forested landscape defined by the power- offers scenic canoeing, camping and fishing (with gentle waters in November.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Document Comes to You From
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) ACTS AND RESOLVES AS PASSED BY THE Eigh ty-sixth Legislature OF THE STATE OF MAINE From April 4, 1931, to March 31, 1933 AND MISCELLANEOUS STATE PAPERS Published by the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Revisor of Statutes in accordance with the Resolves of the Legislature approved June 28,1820, March 18,1840, March 16,1842, and an Act approved April 2, 1931. KENNEBEC JOURNAL COMPANY AUGUSTA, MAINE I933 INDEX 865 Index to Acts and R~solves Passed at the Special Session of I932 PUBLIC LAWS FUEL, INTERNAL CO:ilIDUSTION ENGINE relating to gasoline ................................................. XXXII PRBIARY ELECTIONS relating to .......................................................... XXXI PRIVATE AND SPECIAL LAWS EXPENDI'l'URES OF GOVEltN:ilIENT appropriation for necessary expenses of legislature •................... x:x::x:vIn RESOLVES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIYES payroll .............................................................. XXXIX SENATE payroll .............................................................. XXXIX Index to Acts and Resolves Passed at Sessions of the Eighty-Fifth and Eighty-Sixth Legislatures PUBLIC LAWS A 1931 1933 Page Page ADSENT YOTING relating to ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2008
    Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2008 Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Lands October 2003 Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2008 Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Lands October 2003 Steering Committee David Soucy, Chair, Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands John DelVecchio, State Planning Office Ken Hanscom, Maine Recreation and Park Association Paul Jacques, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Bruce Joule, Department of Marine Resources Duane Scott, Department of Transportation Mark Turek, Department of Economic and Community Development, Office of Tourism Terms Expired: Tom Morrison, Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands Fred Hurley, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Planning Team Herb Hartman, Deputy Director, Ret. Cynthia Bastey, Chief Planner Gary Boyle, Planning & Research Associate Dick Kelly, Cartographer, State Planning Office The preparation of this plan was financed in part through a planning grant from the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Contents Page IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION I-1 A. SCORP Planning Requirements I-2 B. Planning Process and Methodology I-3 C. Public Participation I-5 D. Accomplishments since the 1993 SCORP I-6 CHAPTER II. SUPPLY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS AND II-1 FACILITIES A. Land and Water Recreation Resources in Maine II-1 B. Summary of Public Recreation Lands II-1 C. Private Lands Available to the Public II-6 D. Summary of Public and Private Recreation Facilities by Type and Provider II-7 CHAPTER III.
    [Show full text]
  • BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT GOALS and OBJECTIVES 2004 - 2019 Adopted by MDIFW Commissioner and Advisory Council September 23, 2004
    BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2004 - 2019 Adopted by MDIFW Commissioner and Advisory Council September 23, 2004 Population Goal Increase the population and expand the range of breeding bald eagles in Maine. Population Objective: By 2019, increase the bald eagle population to at least 600 nesting pairs, and allow the population to naturally expand statewide. Productivity Objective: Maintain a statewide minimum productivity of 9 fledged eaglets per 10 occupied breeding areas through 2019. Habitat Goal Identify, maintain, and enhance bald eagle breeding, foraging, and wintering habitat to allow for future expansion of the bald eagle population in Maine. Habitat Objective 1: By 2019, ensure long-term protection of viable bald eagle nesting habitat through fee ownership, easements, and landowner agreements for a minimum of 300 nest sites, proportionately distributed throughout occupied range. Habitat Objective 2: By 2019, promote private stewardship of 300 additional viable bald eagle nest sites through landowner agreements, outreach, tax credits, or other means. Habitat Objective 3: By 2008, determine the amount and distribution of shoreline habitat that is currently protected for feeding, wintering, and future nesting sites for bald eagles, and determine the amount of additional shoreline that needs to be protected to ensure the viability of 600 nesting pairs of eagles in Maine. Recovery Safeguard Goal Safeguard recovery of Maine’s bald eagle population through outreach and education and through establishing de-listing and re-listing strategies. Outreach Objective: By 2006, develop, and begin implementing, an outreach program that increases the understanding and appreciation of bald eagles and their habitat requirements in Maine, and increases awareness of human- related activities that result in bald eagle deaths, injuries, reproductive failures, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Maine Penobscot
    Case 1:12-cv-00254-GZS Document 161 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PENOBSCOT NATION et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Docket no. 1:12-cv-254-GZS ) JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General for ) the State of Maine, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court are three motions for summary judgment: (1) the State Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Dismissal for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties (ECF No. 117), (2) the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 120) and (3) the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Penobscot Nation (ECF No. 121/128-1). As explained herein,1 the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART each Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Generally, a party is entitled to summary judgment if, on the record before the Court, it appears “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for 1 The Court notes that it is has additionally received and reviewed the Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 131-1) submitted by five members of the Congressional Native American Caucus acting as Amici Curiae. Case 1:12-cv-00254-GZS Document 161 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: <pageID> summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Law Magazine Law School Publications
    University of Maine School of Law University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons Maine Law Magazine Law School Publications Fall 2012 Maine Law Magazine - Issue No. 88 University of Maine School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/maine-law-magazine Part of the Law Commons This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Magazine by an authorized administrator of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maine Law Magazine Spotlight on INFORMATION PRIVACY Trevor Hughes, Maine Law ’95 Inside Justice for Women Lecture New LL.M. program Human Rights Clinic THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SCHOOL OF LAW FALL 2012 OPENING ARGUMENTS The Honorable Daniel E. Wathen (Maine Law ’65) served as Chief The Honorable Daniel E. Wathen Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court from 1992 to 2001. He now is of counsel at the law firm Pierce Atwood, where he has developed an extensive media- tion and arbitration practice in Maine, Puerto Rico, and throughout the United States. Among his many activities as a civic leader, Justice Wathen is Board Chair for the Maine Turnpike Authority, former Board Chair for the Maine Community College System, former Chair of the National Judicial College, and a member of the Board of Visitors of the University of Maine School of Detail from a painting by Christopher Cart Law. He is originally from Aroostook Q: What is the best job you ever had? County and earned his law degree A: With the exception of picking potatoes and shoveling manure, I’ve enjoyed all of them.
    [Show full text]