DOCSLIB.ORG

Southern Division Little Traverse Bay Bands Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southern Division Little Traverse Bay Bands Of Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 610 filed 04/29/19 PageID.11737 Page 1 of 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN – SOUTHERN DIVISION LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff, v. Court File No.15-cv-850 Hon. Paul L. Maloney Gretchen WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al., Defendants. Tribe’s Response in Opposition to Municipal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment William A. Szotkowski James A. Bransky Jessica Intermill 9393 Lake Leelanau Dr. Andrew Adams III Traverse City, MI 49684 Hogen Adams PLLC Phone: (231) 946-5241 1935 W. County Rd. B2, Ste. 460 E-mail: [email protected] St. Paul, MN 55113 Phone: (651) 842-9100 Donna Budnick E-mail: [email protected] 7500 Odawa Cir. [email protected] Harbor Springs, MI 49740 [email protected] Phone: (231) 242-1424 [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 610 filed 04/29/19 PageID.11738 Page 2 of 66 Table of Contents I. Factual Background .................................................................................................. 1 A. The Land .......................................................................................................................1 B. The Treaties ..................................................................................................................5 1. March 28, 1836: The Treaty of Washington ........................................................... 6 a. Tribal delegates ...............................................................................................6 b. The negotiation ...............................................................................................7 c. Senate amendments .........................................................................................7 2. 1836-1855: Uncertainty .......................................................................................... 8 a. The 1836 reservation on Little Traverse Bay .................................................8 b. Remaining at the 1836 reservation on Little Traverse Bay ..........................10 c. Michigan “citizenship” .................................................................................12 3. The Treaty of Detroit, July 31, 1855 ..................................................................... 13 a. The federal plan ............................................................................................14 A new arrangement ...............................................................................15 The Michigan lands ...............................................................................15 Lands west of the Mississippi ...............................................................18 b. Michigan’s advocacy ....................................................................................18 c. Permanent reservations in Michigan .............................................................19 d. The 1855 Treaty council ...............................................................................20 Claims due .............................................................................................20 Land selections ......................................................................................21 Permanent homes ..................................................................................25 Taxation .................................................................................................26 e. What the Journal doesn’t say ........................................................................27 4. The 1856 Amendments ......................................................................................... 29 C. The “Missing” Years – 1855-1872 .............................................................................30 1. Treaty bands understood the 1855 Treaty created reservations. ........................... 30 2. The United States understood the 1855 Treaty created reservations. .......................................................................................................... 31 a. Treaty council attendees understood the 1855 Treaty created reservations. ......................................................................................31 i Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 610 filed 04/29/19 PageID.11739 Page 3 of 66 b. Federal representatives treated the withdrawn tracts as reservations. ..................................................................................................32 c. Federal representatives proposed an enlargement of the Little Traverse Reservation. ..........................................................................34 3. The non-Indian community recognized the Reservation. ..................................... 35 D. The 1870’s Opening and Settlement of the Reservation ............................................35 E. The Reservation Exists Today – just ask the Defendants ..........................................35 II. Legal Background ................................................................................................... 36 A. Treaty Construction ....................................................................................................36 1. Indian-understanding canon .................................................................................. 37 2. Liberal-construction canon ................................................................................... 39 B. Summary Judgment Standard .....................................................................................39 III. Argument ................................................................................................................. 40 A. The 1855 Treaty created the Little Traverse Reservation. .........................................40 1. The Municipal Defendants’ “plain language” reading ignores controlling treaty-interpretation law and the 1855 Treaty. ................................... 40 a. This Court must evaluate the 1855 Treaty terms within historical context as the Little Traverse Odawa would have understood them. ..................................................................................40 b. The Municipal Defendant’s “plain-language” reading ignores the 1855 Treaty text. ........................................................................44 “Reservations” and “tract reserved” ......................................................45 “For the band(s)” ...................................................................................46 “May” ....................................................................................................46 c. Language of other tribes’ treaties is not material to the Tribe’s claim. ................................................................................................46 d. The parties genuinely dispute whether the text of the 1855 Treaty created the Reservation. ....................................................................47 2. The 1855 Treaty negotiators intended to create the Reservation. .......................................................................................................... 48 a. Record facts demonstrate the Little Traverse Odawa’s intent to create the Reservation. ....................................................................50 b. Record facts demonstrate federal intent to create the Reservation. ..................................................................................................51 B. The 1870s Acts did not diminish the Reservation. .....................................................53 ii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 610 filed 04/29/19 PageID.11740 Page 4 of 66 IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 57 Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Scenic Shore Drive Map, TA.2, PageID.10583 .............................................................3 Figure 2: Schoolcraft's 1837 Map of the Acting Superintendency of Michigan, JA.12, PageID.7177 ......................................................................................9 Figure 3: Executive Order, JA.111, PageID.8328 .......................................................................17 Figure 4: Gilbert's 1856 Map, JA16, PageID.7202 .....................................................................23 Figure 5: Tract Index, Township 33 North, Range 8 West (excerpt), TA.50, PageID.10787. ..............................................................................................................24 Figure 6: Tract Index, Township 35 North, Range 4 West (excerpt), PageID.10788. ..............................................................................................................25 Figure 7: Seals of the Defendant cities of Petoskey and Harbor Springs. Available at https://www.cityofharborsprings.com/ and https://www.petoskey.us/, last visited April 26, 2019 .................................................54 Figure 8: Emmet County 2015 Master Plan, TA.128, PageID.11091. ........................................56 Table 1: Record facts contrary to Municipal Defendants’ claims that “The clear and unambiguous language of the 1855 Treaty did not create of [sic] permanent reservations.” Br., PageID.9225. ...................................................48 Table 2: Record facts contrary to Municipal Defendants’ claims that the 1855 Treaty
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legacy of Solem V. Bartlett: How Courts Have Used Demographics to Bypass Congress and Erode the Basic Principles of Indian Law
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington) Washington Law Review Volume 84 Number 4 11-1-2009 The Legacy of Solem v. Bartlett: How Courts Have Used Demographics to Bypass Congress and Erode the Basic Principles of Indian Law Charlene Koski Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Charlene Koski, Comment, The Legacy of Solem v. Bartlett: How Courts Have Used Demographics to Bypass Congress and Erode the Basic Principles of Indian Law, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 723 (2009). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol84/iss4/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Koski_DTPed[1].docx (Do Not Delete) 11/23/2009 12:52 PM Copyright © 2009 by Washington Law Review Association THE LEGACY OF SOLEM V. BARTLETT: HOW COURTS HAVE USED DEMOGRAPHICS TO BYPASS CONGRESS AND ERODE THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INDIAN LAW Charlene Koski Abstract: Only Congress has authority to change a reservation’s boundaries, so when disputes arise over whether land is part of a reservation, courts turn to congressional intent. The challenge is that in many cases, Congress expressed its intent to diminish or disestablish a reservation as long as one hundred years ago through a series of “surplus land acts.”1 To help courts with their task, the Supreme Court in Solem v.
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION Ror,RECOGNITION of the FLORIDA TRIBE Or EASTERN CREEK INDIANS
    'l PETITION rOR,RECOGNITION OF THE FLORIDA TRIBE or EASTERN CREEK INDIANS TH;: FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS and the Administra­ tive Council, THE NORTHWEST FLORIDA CREEK INDIAN COUNCIL brings this, thew petition to the DEPARTMENT Or THE INTERIOR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN- MENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and prays this honorable nation will honor their petition, which is a petition for recognition by this great nation that THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS is an Indian Tribe. In support of this plea for recognition THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS herewith avers: (1) THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS nor any of its members, is the subject of Congressional legislation which has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship sought. (2) The membership of THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS is composed principally of persons who are not members of any other North American Indian tribe. (3) A list of all known current members of THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEK INDIANS, based on the tribes acceptance of these members and the tribes own defined membership criteria is attached to this petition and made a part of it. SEE APPENDIX----- A The membership consists of individuals who are descendants of the CREEK NATION which existed in aboriginal times, using and occuping this present georgraphical location alone, and in conjunction with other people since that time. - l - MNF-PFD-V001-D0002 Page 1of4 (4) Attached herewith and made a part of this petition is the present governing Constitution of THE FLORIDA TRIBE OF EASTERN CREEKS INDIANS.
    [Show full text]
  • Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Oneida Nation
    Case: 19-1981 Document: 45 Filed: 12/09/2019 Pages: 54 No. 19-1981 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ONEIDA NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF HOBART, WISCONSIN, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 1:16-cv-01217-WCG. The Honorable William C. Griesbach, Judge Presiding. REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ONEIDA NATION ARLINDA F. LOCKLEAR (Counsel of Record) PAUL R. JACQUART 4113 Jenifer Street, NW JESSICA C. MEDERSON Washington, DC 20015 HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC (202) 237-0933 301 North Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 JAMES R. BITTORF (414) 455-7676 KELLY M. MCANDREWS ONEIDA LAW OFFICE VANYA S. HOGEN N7210 Seminary Road WILLIAM A. SZOTKOWSKI P.O. Box 109 HOGEN ADAMS PLLC Oneida, WI 54155 1935 West County Rd. B2, Suite 460 (920) 869-4327 St. Paul, MN 55113 (651) 842-9100 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant COUNSEL PRESS ∙ (866) 703-9373 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case: 19-1981 Document: 45 Filed: 12/09/2019 Pages: 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................1 I. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the Village’s diminishment theory ......1 A. The Supreme Court has repeatedly construed the Dawes Act, and allotment of reservations thereunder, as leaving reservations intact............3 B. The Supreme Court has construed the Indian country statute to reject the Village’s distinction between non-Indian fee patents acquired from allottees and those acquired under a surplus lands act ............................................................................................................................9 C. The Supreme Court’s most recent case on reservation diminishment rejected the Village’s “extreme allotment” diminishment theory ...............12 II.
    [Show full text]
  • October News Letter.Indd
    MEGWA EZHIWEBAAK October 2004 Vol. 1 Issue 8 Second Annual “Restoring Peace in Indian Country” Conference The Second Annual “Restoring the Peace” Conference was held at the Little River Casino Resort Conference Center on September 29th and 30th. Family Services coordinated this event last year to bring awareness to our tribal members and the community at large as to what Domestic Violence really is. “We hold this conference, to let individuals know that there is help, and hopefully bring The Tribal Community back to the values that women and children are Sacred – not property, which was learned from the Europeans.” Says Julie Ramsey. Member’s attendance was much greater this year than the last and Family Services predicts that it will increase from year to year. People will come to recognize it’s importance and pass the word around. The format changed somewhat this year from last, ABOVE LEFT - Shawn’s (Stalzer) drumming and singing was although last year’s conference went extremely well, it being the wonderful... first of this kind. - By Emily Drouin ABOVE RIGHT - Annie Humphrey, (...) sharing stories and songs with us... CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 GOOD THUNDER MOTORCYCLE CO. Don Stone, Matt Stone and Rob Bloch have a great deal to be proud of. Good Thunder Motorcycle Co. (GTM) is a unique company that builds custom motorcycles that… are worth more than a second glance. Thanks in part to the LRBOI Higher Education Scholarships, these men made their dreams come true, and created a one of a kind product. Don and Matt were among the first Tribal Members to receive education funding from the Little River Band.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power
    Volume 39 Issue 3 Article 1 1994 Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power Katharine F. Nelson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Katharine F. Nelson, Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 525 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol39/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Nelson: Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 39 1994 NUMBER 3 RESOLVING NATIVE AMERICAN LAND CLAIMS AND THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT: CHANGING THE BALANCE OF POWER KATHARINE F. NELSON* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 526 II. INDIAN TITLE AND THE NONINTERCOURSE ACT ........... 530 III. THE HISTORY OF TRIBAL ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS ................................................... 533 A. Before Oneida I and II. ....................... 533 B. O neida I .......................................... 542 C. O neida II ......................................... 543 IV. NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS ............................... 546 A. Land Claims ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2021- 2025 Recreation Plan Resort Township Emmet County
    2021- 2025 Recreation Plan Resort Township Emmet County Adopted: December 8, 2020 Prepared by: Resort Township Recreation Committee With the assistance of: Richard L. Deuell, Planning Consultant RESORT TOWNSHIP RECREATION PLAN 2021-2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page ............................................................................................................... i Table of Contents .................................................................................................. ii Section 1. Introduction and History ................................................................................... 1-1 2. Community Description ..................................................................................... 2-1 3. Administrative Structure .................................................................................... 3-1 4. Recreation and Resource Inventories ............................................................... 4-1 5. Description of the Planning and Public Input Process ....................................... 5-1 6. Goal and Objectives .......................................................................................... 6-1 7. Action Program ................................................................................................. 7-1 8. Plan Adoption .................................................................................................... 8-1 Appendix A: Survey Findings ...................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Supporting
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Interminable Gap in Indian Country Water Quality Protection
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\45-1\HLE102.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-FEB-21 17:54 ENDING THE INTERMINABLE GAP IN INDIAN COUNTRY WATER QUALITY PROTECTION James M. Grijalva* Tribal self-determination in modern environmental law holds the tantalizing prospect of translating indigenous environmental value judgments into legally enforceable requirements of federal regulatory programs. Congress authorized this approach three decades ago, but few tribes have sought primacy even for foundational programs like Clean Water Act water qual- ity standards, contributing to potentially serious environmental injustices. This Article ana- lyzes in detail EPA’s recent attempt at reducing tribal barriers—reinterpreting the Act as a congressional delegation of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians—and the early indications its results are insignificant. The Article then proposes an unconventional solution ostensibly at odds with tribal self-determination: promulgation of national, federal water quality standards for Indian country. EPA’s Indian Program actually began this way, as an interim step await- ing tribes’ assumption of federal regulatory programs. Thirty years later, the seemingly inter- minable regulatory gap in Indian country water quality protection remains, and EPA has a legal and moral responsibility to close it. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................... 2 R I. Background on the Significance of Water Quality Standards ........ 4 R II. Tribal Water Quality Standards ................................ 7 R A. Background on EPA’s Indian Program....................... 7 R B. EPA’s First Interpretation of the CWA TAS Provision ........ 11 R C. A Legal Challenge to EPA’s Operating Rule ................. 16 R D. Why Aren’t There More Tribal Water Quality Standards? ..... 20 R III.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the State of Indigenous Human Rights in the United States
    Observations on the State of Indigenous Human Rights in the United States Prepared for: The 36th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review Submission Date: October 3, 2019 Cultural Survival is an international Indigenous rights organization with a global Indigenous leadership and consultative status with ECOSOC. Cultural Survival is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States. Cultural Survival monitors the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights in countries throughout the world and publishes its findings in its magazine, the Cultural Survival Quarterly; and on its website: www.cs.org Cultural Survival 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Tel: 1 (617) 441 5400 [email protected] www.culturalsurvival.org I. Executive Summary There are currently 573 federally recognized Native American Tribes in the United States and over 500 non federally recognized Tribes. Over 4.5 million Native Americans and Alaska Natives make up about 1.5 percent of the U.S. population. From 1778 to 1871, U.S. signed over 500 treaties with Native American Tribes, all of which have been violated. No reconciliation can happen without addressing the wrongs of the past and examining the impact of hundreds of years of genocidal and racist policies aimed at disenfranchising Native Peoples, taking over their lands and resources, while decimating Indigenous communities, languages, and cultures. This report is not comprehensive and only briefly touches upon some issues Indigenous Peoples face that are emblematic of deep-rooted systemic discrimination and injustice. II. Previous UPR Recommendations Eleven recommendations were made regarding Indigenous Peoples specifically during the first cycle and then ten in the second cycle, however these have not been implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • CORA Code – Great Lakes Fishing Regulations
    CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN Adopted August 31, 2000 Effective September 7, 2000 Revised March 4, 2019 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN CONTENTS PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS PART FIVE: NON-COMMERCIAL FISHING I. Purpose……………………………………1 XVII. Recreational Fishing……………………….…28 II. Scope and Application……………………1 XVIII. Tribal Charter Boat Operations………………28 III. Definitions……………………………...1-4 XIX. Subsistence Fishing……………………….28-30 PART TWO: ZONES PART SIX: LICENSES AND INFORMATION IV. Commercial Fishing Zones………………4 XX. License and Registration Definitions and Regulations…………………………………...30 V. Tribal Zones………………………........4-8 XXI. License Regulations……………………....31-32 VI. Intertribal Zones………………………8-10 XXII. Harvest Reporting and Sampling………....32-34 VII. Trap Net Zones…………………........10-12 XXIII. Assessment Fishing……………………… 34-35 VIII. Closed or Limited Fishing Zones……12-14 PART THREE: GEAR PART SEVEN: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT IX. Gear Restrictions……….…………......14-17 XXIV. Tribal Regulations……………………………35 X. State-Funded Trap Net Conversion Operations……………………………17-18 XXV. Orders of the Director…………………..........35 XXVI. Jurisdiction and Enforcement…………….35-37 PART FOUR: SPECIES XXVII. Criminal Provisions………………………….37 XI. Lake Trout…………………………...18-19 XII. Salmon……………………………….19-21 PART EIGHT: ACCESS XIII. Walleye…………………………….…21-23 XXVIII. Use of Access Sites……………………..37-38 XIV. Yellow Perch………………………...23-26 XV. Other Species………………………...26-27 XVI. Prohibited Species……………………… 27 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS SECTION I.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Inland Waterway and Straits Area Water Trails Plan
    Water Trail Plan Inland Waterway and Straits Area Cheboygan and Emmet Counties Funded by: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce and the Michigan Coastal Management Program, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality with support from the Emmet County, Cheboygan County, Mackinaw City, and volunteers. June 2014 1 Inland Waterway and Straits Area Water Trail Plan Introduction The Inland Waterway is a 40 mile long historic water route that connects Lake Huron by way of Cheboygan, Indian River, Alanson, and Conway and with series of long portages at the headwaters to Petoskey State Park and Lake Michigan. A coastal route, part of the Huron Shores Blueways, connects the City of Cheboygan to Mackinaw City and the Straits of Mackinac. Like the interior water trails, the coastal waters have been used for transportation for thousands of years. The Inland Waterway has long been marketed as the motor boating paradise. Sitting along the banks of the Indian River on a summer afternoon and watching a steady stream of motored craft pass by, attests to the marketing success. There has never been a multi-community effort to organize and promote a paddle trail. Human-powered quiet water sports are among the fastest growing outdoor recreation activities. Combined with other active sports facilities such as the North Central State Trail, North Western State Trail and the North Country Trail, the water trail will bring visitors to the area, add to the quality of life for residents and enhance the rural-recreation sense of place. Furthermore, development of the water trail represents a regional, multi organization effort and will support economic development in the region of the state dependent upon recreational visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • Oglala Sioux Tribe
    Oglala Sioux Tribe PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION P.O. Box #2070 Pine Ridge, South Dakota 57770 1(605) 867-5821 Ext. 8420 (O) / 1(605) 867-6076 (F) President Troy “Scott” Weston July 15, 2017 Secretary Ryan Zinke Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs Michael Black Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 via email: [email protected] Dear Secretary Zinke and Assistant Secretary Black: Re: Comments from the Oglala Sioux Tribe on Executive Order 13871 – Reorganization of the Executive Branch The Oglala Sioux Tribe submits these comments in response to the Department’s solicitation for input on President Trump’s Executive Order 13871 to reorganize the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government issued on May 16, 2017. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments prior to implementation of the Executive Order. True government-to- government consultation, however, is needed before the Department takes any action that will affect our Tribe, our members and our rights. Reorganization can be healthy if it empowers Tribes for self-determination The current structures of the Department of the Interior (the “Department”) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) were formed over one hundred years ago. These structures were put into place during a different time – a time when there were very different issues confronting Indian Country. Thus, a review of these structures to ensure the Department and the BIA are addressing issues facing Indian Country today can be a worthy endeavor. However, reorganization can be healthy only if it is done right and if it empowers tribes for self- determination and improves the United States’ provision of services to tribes and Indian people.
    [Show full text]