DOCSLIB.ORG

51 Swinomish Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
51 Swinomish Brief Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22200 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 26 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., No. C70-9213 Plaintiff, Subproceeding 19-1 vs. SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., COMMUNITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND Defendant. PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Noting Date: July 31, 2020 Oral Argument Requested No. C70-9213, Subp. 19-1 Office of Tribal Attorney SITC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY 11404 Moorage Way LaConner, Washington 98257 TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22200 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 26 1 2 I. MOTION 3 The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Swinomish) moves for summary judgment 4 declaring that the usual and accustomed fishing places (U&A) of the Lummi Nation (Lummi) do 5 not include the secluded waters to the east of Whidbey Island designated by the State as Shellfish 6 7 Region 2 East (Region 2E). This region encompasses five named bodies of water, Saratoga 8 Passage (Shellfish Management Area 24A), Port Susan (24B), Skagit Bay (24C), Holmes Harbor 9 (24D), and Possession Sound (26AE), and is depicted on p. 20 of this Motion. Swinomish also 10 moves for permanent injunctive relief enjoining Lummi from fishing or authorizing its members 11 to fish for any species in Region 2E. 12 The controlling and dispositive issue in this case is whether Judge Boldt intended to include 13 Region 2E in Lummi’s U&A in light of the record before him at the time the decision was made. 14 15 Because there is no dispute regarding that record, summary judgment is appropriate. 16 II. INTRODUCTION 17 Nearly half a century ago, Judge Boldt specifically determined the geographic scope of 18 Lummi’s U&A. In part, his determination describes Lummi’s U&A as “the marine areas of 19 Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to the present environs of Seattle, and 20 particularly Bellingham Bay.” United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 360 (W.D. Wash. 21 22 1974) (Final Decision No. 1). 23 24 25 26 No. C70-9213, Subp. 19-1 Office of Tribal Attorney SITC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY 27 1 11404 Moorage Way LaConner, Washington 98257 TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22200 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 26 1 As this Court is well aware, subsequent history has revealed this language to be ambiguous 2 to an unfortunate degree.1 This subproceeding requires the Court to consider the geographic scope 3 of Lummi’s U&A yet again, this time with respect to Lummi’s claimed right to fish in the secluded 4 waters of Region 2E. Under the familiar two-step test developed in the Muckleshoot trilogy, see 5 infra at p. 5 the question before the Court is whether, despite the ambiguity in Lummi’s U&A 6 7 determination, Judge Boldt nevertheless intended to include Region 2E in Lummi’s U&A. 8 The record in this case indicates that he did not. Judge Boldt carefully reviewed the 9 extensive evidence and other materials presented prior to Final Decision No. 1 and determined 10 that the areas where Lummi customarily fished at treaty time were located in and around 11 Bellingham Bay, the Nooksack River, and other areas to the north and west of Whidbey Island. 12 Accordingly, he did not include the secluded waters of Region 2E in Lummi’s U&A determination. 13 As we demonstrate below, there is simply no evidence in the record before Judge Boldt to support 14 15 a conclusion that Lummi’s U&A includes Region 2E. 16 III. JURISDICTION 17 This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under Paragraph 25(a)(1) 18 of the Permanent Injunction because this case requires the Court to determine whether Lummi’s 19 repeated attempts to open treaty fisheries in Region 2E, which are described in greater detail below, 20 21 22 1 This Court or the Ninth Circuit has considered the geographic scope of Lummi’s U&A numerous times in cases involving Lummi’s claimed right to fish in the waters south of Mukilteo, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, 23 Admiralty Inlet, and the waters west of Whidbey Island, despite the fact that none of these bodies of water are specifically named in Lummi’s U&A determination. Notwithstanding the apparent breadth of the phrase “the marine 24 areas of Northern Puget Sound” in FF 46, the courts have concluded that Lummi’s U&A does not include these waters, with the exception of Admiralty Inlet and other waters west of Whidbey through which Lummi traveled and fished. See generally, District Court and Ninth Circuit rulings in Subproceedings 86-5, 89-2, and 11-2, a number of which 25 are discussed below. 26 No. C70-9213, Subp. 19-1 Office of Tribal Attorney SITC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY 27 2 11404 Moorage Way LaConner, Washington 98257 TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22200 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 26 1 are in conformity with Final Decision No. 1 and the Permanent Injunction. See, e.g., Muckleshoot 2 Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1360 (9th Cir. 1998) (Muckleshoot I). 3 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4 As this Court recently found, in the nearly half century since Final Decision No. 1, Lummi 5 has never fished in Region 2E and “has largely not pursued any such rights for 45 years.” Order 6 7 Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Subp. 19-1 Dkt No. 37 (Main Case Dkt. No. 22114) at 6 8 (Nov. 13, 2019) (TRO); see also id. at 3, 6-7, 11 (EH003, EH007-009).2 However, beginning in 9 2003 and especially during the last two fishing seasons, Lummi has made concrete threats or taken 10 overt action to establish new treaty fisheries in Region 2E. TRO at 1-2, 4-5 (EH001-002, EH004- 11 005); Declaration of Matthew L. Nelson, Subp. 19-1 Dkt. No. 11 (Main Case Dkt. No. 22079) at 12 ¶ 14 (Nov. 4, 2019) (EH014). Lummi has made these threats and taken these actions although it 13 has not followed the procedures established by this Court to clarify its U&A with respect to these 14 15 waters or to expand its treaty fishing into these waters. See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 459 16 F. Supp. 1020, 1068-69 (W.D. Wash. 1978). Following two rounds of emergency motions practice 17 caused by Lummi’s attempts to expand its treaty fisheries into Region 2E during the 2018 and 18 2019 fishing seasons, Swinomish, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe 19 (collectively, the Region 2E Tribes) were granted leave to file this subproceeding. 20 V. ARGUMENT 21 22 A. Summary Judgment Standards and Analytical Framework 23 The Court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine 24 25 2 “EH __” refers to Bates stamped pages in the Exhibits to the Declaration of Emily Haley filed with this Motion. 26 No. C70-9213, Subp. 19-1 Office of Tribal Attorney SITC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY 27 3 11404 Moorage Way LaConner, Washington 98257 TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22200 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 26 1 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 56(a). Because the dispositive issue in this case is whether Judge Boldt intended to include 3 Region 2E in Lummi’s U&A in light of the record before him and there is no dispute regarding 4 the record, summary judgment is appropriate. 5 In the Muckleshoot trilogy of cases, the Ninth Circuit developed a two-step analytical 6 7 framework for interpreting Judge Boldt’s U&A findings in 25(a)(1) proceedings. First, the Court 8 must consider whether the language of the U&A finding is ambiguous by considering the language 9 of the finding itself and any evidence that indicates the contemporary understanding of its meaning. 10 Second, if it is, the Court must resolve the ambiguity by determining Judge Boldt’s intended 11 meaning. See, e.g., Muckleshoot I, 141 F.3d at 1358-60; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi 12 Indian Nation, 234 F.3d 1099, 1100-1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (Muckleshoot II); United States v. 13 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 2000) (Muckleshoot III). The best evidence 14 15 of Judge Boldt’s intent is the specific evidence he cited. Id. at 434. 16 In a 25(a)(1) proceeding, it is the moving party’s burden to demonstrate that Judge Boldt’s 17 U&A finding is ambiguous or that Judge Boldt intended something other than its apparent 18 meaning. If it is, the moving party must show that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt to 19 support a conclusion that he intended to include the disputed waters. See Upper Skagit Indian Tribe 20 v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). While the Court on summary judgment 21 22 motions should normally draw all inferences supported by the evidence in favor of the non-moving 23 party, in a 25(a)(1) proceeding the Court “may resolve conflicting inferences and evaluate the 24 evidence to determine Judge Boldt’s intent.” Id.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North: Lummi, Nooksack, Samish, Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish
    Policy 7.01 Implementation Plan Region 2 North (R2N) Community Services Division (CSD) Serving the following Tribes: Lummi Nation, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Swinomish Tribal Community, Tulalip Tribes, & Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Biennium Timeframe: July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 Revised 04/2021 Annual Key Due Dates: April 1st - CSD Regional Administrators submit 7.01 Plan and Progress Reports (PPRs) to CSD HQ Coordinator. April 13th – CSD HQ Coordinator will submit Executive Summary & 7.01 PPRs to the ESA Office of Assistant Secretary for final review. April 23rd - ESA Office of the Assistant Secretary will send all 7.01 PPRs to Office of Indian Policy (OIP). 7.01 Meetings: January 17th- Cancelled due to inclement weather Next scheduled meeting April 17th, hosted by the Nooksack Indian Tribe. 07/07/20 Virtual 7.01 meeting. 10/16/20 7.01 Virtual meeting 01/15/21 7.01 Virtual 04/16/21 7.01 Virtual 07/16/21 7.01 Virtual Implementation Plan Progress Report Status Update for the Fiscal Year Goals/Objectives Activities Expected Outcome Lead Staff and Target Date Starting Last July 1 Revised 04/2021 Page 1 of 27 1. Work with tribes Lead Staff: to develop Denise Kelly 08/16/2019 North 7.01 Meeting hosted by services, local [email protected] , Tulalip Tribes agreements, and DSHS/CSD Tribal Liaison Memorandums of 10/18/2019 North 7.01 Meeting hosted by Understanding Dan Story, DSHS- Everett (MOUs) that best [email protected] meet the needs of Community Relations 01/17/2020 North 7.01 Meeting Region 2’s Administrator/CSD/ESA scheduled to be hosted by Upper Skagit American Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Section II Community Profile
    Section II: Community Profile Section II Community Profile Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 Update 9 [this page intentionally left blank] 10 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 Update Section II: Community Profile Community Profile Disclaimer: The Tulalip Tribes Tribal/State Hazard Mitigation Plan covers all the people, property, infrastructure and natural environment within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty of January 22, 1855 and by Executive Order of December 23, 1873, as well as any property owned by the Tulalip Tribes outside of this area. Furthermore the Plan covers the Tulalip Tribes Usual and Accustom Fishing areas (U&A) as determined by Judge Walter E. Craig in United States of America et. al., plaintiffs v. State of Washington et. al., defendant, Civil 9213 Phase I, Sub Proceeding 80-1, “In Re: Tulalip Tribes’ Request for Determination of Usual and Accustom Fishing Places.” This planning scope does not limit in any way the Tulalip Tribes’ hazard mitigation and emergency management planning concerns or influence. This section will provide detailed information on the history, geography, climate, land use, population and economy of the Tulalip Tribes and its Reservation. Tulalip Reservation History Archaeologists and historians estimate that Native Americans arrived from Siberia via the Bering Sea land bridge beginning 17,000 to 11,000 years ago in a series of migratory waves during the end of the last Ice Age. Indians in the region share a similar cultural heritage based on a life focused on the bays and rivers of Puget Sound. Throughout the Puget Sound region, While seafood was a mainstay of the native diet, cedar trees were the most important building material.there were Cedar numerous was used small to tribesbuild both that subsistedlonghouses on and salmon, large halibut,canoes.
    [Show full text]
  • Klah-Che-Minklah-Che-Min a P U B L I C a T Ion of the Squaxin Is L a N D T R I B E
    KLAH-CHE-MINKLAH-CHE-MIN A P U B L I C A T ION OF THE SQUAXIN IS L A N D T R I B E FEBRUARY 2 0 0 6 ?acaciAtalbix GeA te HelV yex ti stuLtuleI ?acaciAtalbix GeA te HelV yex ti stuLtuleI COMPLIMENTARY Tribal Members Gather at Semi-Annual Meeting to Discuss Concerns, Enjoy Friendship Vicki Kruger thanked Russel Harper for the work he has done on the program to get tribal members employed in management positions at the casino. There was discussion about possible locations for hosting a canoe journey in conjunction with the other Medicine Creek Treaty Tribes. The canoe jour- neys are growing rapidly and there would have to be adequate lodging for thousands of people. Sis Brownfi eld publicly congratulated Chris Peters on his "professional and decent behavior" in his role as a law enforcement offi cer. The Learning Center (TLC) Director Kim Coo- per talked about discussions with Boys & Girls Clubs to see whether the Tribe might want to coordinate programs with them or use them as models for more tribally-oriented programs. Harry Fletcher asked about meals being brought to Elders' homes and transportation to appointments. He was told a person has been hired to do this work and should begin very soon. Tribal members gathered on Saturday, January 7th, for their semi-annual General Body meeting to talk about their concerns, discuss possible solutions and join in friendship over a potluck dinner and chili cook-off. Things discussed included the need for a Safe House, a Halfway House, a Community Recreation Center with a swimming pool and fi tness center, a plan for artists to market their products, more housing (stop turning purchased homes into offi ces), more options for relaying of clams, better animal control, a home for foster care, a plan for hosting a canoe journey in this area, more participation in Shelton School District activities, funding to provide more health services and increased police presence on the reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 H.R. 2961 Response of Brian Cladoosby, Chairman of the Senate
    H.R. 2961 Response of Brian Cladoosby, Chairman of the Senate, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, to Additional Questions Questions from Representative Paul Cook 1. At the hearing, you indicated that as the Chairman of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (SITC) you do not support H.R. 375. Could you explain why the SITC does not support H.R. 375? The premise of this question is factually inaccurate. I testified that the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community neither supports nor opposes H.R. 375 because SITC does not have a Carcieri problem. This exchange can be viewed at the 54 minute, 56 second mark of the hearing webcast as maintained on the Committee’s webpage. As retrieved on June 17, 2019, the URL for this exchange is https://youtu.be/I9COgMJj86U?t=3236. 2. Do you agree that Samish is a federally recognized Indian tribe? If not, please explain the basis for your response. I agree that the Samish Indian Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe by virtue of the Final Determination to Acknowledge the Samish Tribal Organization as a Tribe made by Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Ada Deer on November 8, 1995.1 However, it is important to note that the Samish Indian Nation was not recognized as a successor to the historic Samish Tribe. To the contrary, its claim to be a successor to the historic Samish Tribe was specifically rejected in the recognition proceedings. See: - Greene v. Lujan, Order Granting Federal Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 10 (No. C89-645Z, W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 1990) (Samish Indian Nation, then known as the Samish Indian Tribe of Washington, is precluded by 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]
  • Tribal Ceded Areas in Washington State
    Blaine Lynden Sumas Fern- Nooksack Oroville Metaline dale Northport Everson Falls Lummi Nation Metaline Ione Tribal Ceded Areas Bellingham Nooksack Tribe Tonasket by Treaty or Executive Order Marcus Samish Upper Kettle Republic Falls Indian Skagit Sedro- Friday Woolley Hamilton Conconully Harbor Nation Tribe Lyman Concrete Makah Colville Anacortes Riverside Burlington Tribe Winthrop Kalispel Mount Vernon Cusick Tribe La Omak Swinomish Conner Twisp Tribe Okanogan Colville Chewelah Oak Stan- Harbor wood Confederated Lower Elwha Coupeville Darrington Sauk-Suiattle Newport Arlington Tribes Klallam Port Angeles The Tulalip Tribe Stillaguamish Nespelem Tribe Tribes Port Tribe Brewster Townsend Granite Marysville Falls Springdale Quileute Sequim Jamestown Langley Forks Pateros Tribe S'Klallam Lake Stevens Spokane Bridgeport Elmer City Deer Everett Tribe Tribe Park Mukilteo Snohomish Grand Hoh Monroe Sultan Coulee Port Mill Chelan Creek Tribe Edmonds Gold Bothell + This map does not depict + Gamble Bar tribally asserted Index Mansfield Wilbur Creston S'Klallam Tribe Woodinville traditional hunting areas. Poulsbo Suquamish Millwood Duvall Skykomish Kirk- Hartline Almira Reardan Airway Tribe land Redmond Carnation Entiat Heights Spokane Medical Bainbridge Davenport Tribal Related Boundaries Lake Island Seattle Sammamish Waterville Leavenworth Coulee City Snoqualmie Duwamish Waterway Bellevue Bremerton Port Orchard Issaquah North Cheney Harrington Quinault Renton Bend Cashmere Rockford Burien Wilson Nation
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Salish Culture – 70 Min
    Lesson 2: The Big Picture: Coast Salish Culture – 70 min. Short Description: By analyzing and comparing maps and photographs from the Renton History Museum’s collection and other sources, students will gain a better understanding of Coast Salish daily life through mini lessons. These activities will include information on both life during the time of first contact with White explorers and settlers and current cultural traditions. Supported Standards: ● 3rd Grade Social Studies ○ 3.1.1 Understands and applies how maps and globes are used to display the regions of North America in the past and present. ○ 3.2.2 Understands the cultural universals of place, time, family life, economics, communication, arts, recreation, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, government, and education. ○ 4.2.2 Understands how contributions made by various cultural groups have shaped the history of the community and the world. Learning Objectives -- Students will be able to: ● Inspect maps to understand where Native Americans lived at the time of contact in Washington State. ● Describe elements of traditional daily life of Coast Salish peoples; including food, shelter, and transportation. ● Categorize similarities and differences between Coast Salish pre-contact culture and modern Coast Salish culture. Time: 70 min. Materials: ● Laminated and bound set of Photo Set 2 Warm-Up 15 min.: Ask students to get out a piece of paper and fold it into thirds. 5 min.: In the top third, ask them to write: What do you already know about Native Americans (from the artifacts you looked at in the last lesson)? Give them 5 min to brainstorm. 5 min.: In the middle, ask them to write: What do you still want to know? Give them 5min to brainstorm answers to this.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 99/Tuesday, May 26
    24876 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR indicated they would not claim the should contact Dr. Jay Reifel, Assistant human remains because they consider Superintendent, Paul H. Karshner National Park Service Decatur Island to be outside of their Memorial Museum, telephone (253) usual and accustomed places. Both the 840–8971, or Ms. Beth Bestrom, Notice of Inventory Completion: Paul Samish Indian Nation and Swinomish Museum Curator, Paul H. Karshner H. Karshner Memorial Museum, Indian Tribal Community have Memorial Museum, telephone (253) Puyallup, WA submitted claims to the Paul H. 841–8748, 309 4th St. NE, Puyallup, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Karshner Memorial Museum for human 98372, before June 25, 2009. remains from Decatur Island, and each Repatriation of the human remains to ACTION: Notice. tribe provided evidence regarding the Samish Indian Nation, Washington Notice is here given in accordance aboriginal use of Decatur Island. During may proceed after that date if no with the Native American Graves the consultation process, representatives additional claimants come forward. Protection and Repatriation Act of the Swinomish Indian Tribal The Paul H. Karshner Memorial (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the Community stated that they consider Museum is responsible for notifying the completion of an inventory of human Decatur Island to have been used Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, remains in the possession of Paul H. primarily by the aboriginal Samish, to Washington; Samish Indian Nation, Karshner Memorial Museum, Puyallup, which the Swinomish Indian Tribal Washington; Swinomish Indian Tribal WA. The human remains were removed Community is an adjudicated legal Community of the Swinomish from Decatur Island, San Juan County, successor in interest (United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott
    Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855 Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Muckl-te-oh, or Point Elliott, in the territory of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the saidTerritory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men and delegates of the Dwamish, Suquamish, Sk-kahl-mish, Sam-ahmish, Smalh-kamish, Skope-ahmish, St-kah-mish, Snoqualmoo, Skai-wha-mish, N'Quentl-ma-mish, Sk-tah-le-jum, Stoluck-wha-mish, Sno-ho-mish, Skagit, Kik-i-allus, Swin-a-mish, Squin-ah-mish, Sah-ku- mehu, Noo-wha-ha, Nook-wa-chah-mish, Mee-see-qua-guilch, Cho-bah-ah-bish, and othe allied and subordinate tribes and bands of Indians occupying certain lands situated in said Territory of Washington, on behalf of said tribes, and duly authorized by them. ARTICLE 1. The said tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied by them, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet, known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliott Bays; thence eastwardly, running along the north line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the Nisqually, Puyallup, and other Indians, to the summit of the Cascade range of mountains; thence northwardly, following the summit of said range to the 49th parallel of north latitude; thence west, along said
    [Show full text]
  • The Lummi Nation -- WRIA 1 (Mountains to the Sea)
    The Lummi Nation -- WRIA 1 (Mountains to the Sea) WRIA 1 is 1410 square miles in area: 832 square miles of WRIA 1 is in the Nooksack River watershed, the largest single watershed in the WRIA. Forty-nine square miles of the Nooksack watershed is in Canada. It has three main forks: the North, Middle, and South that Bellingham originate in the steep high-elevation headwaters of the North Cascades and flow westerly descending into flats of the Puget lowlands.The North and Middle Forks are glacial rivers and originate from Mount Baker. The South Fork is a snow/rain fed river and Watersheds of originates from the non-glaciated slope of theTwin Sisters peaks. The WRIA 01 Middle Fork flows into the North Fork upstream of where the North Fork confluences with the South Fork to form the mainstem Nooksack River. The mainstem then flows as a low-gradient, low-elevation river until discharging through the Lummi Nation and into Bellingham Bay. Historically, the Nooksack River alternated between discharging into Bellingham Bay, and flowing through the Lummi River and discharging into Lummi Bay (Collins and Sheikh 2002). The Nooksack River has five anadromous salmon species: pink, chum , Chinook , coho, sockeye; and three anadromous trout: steelhead, cutthroat and bull trout (Williams et al. 1975; Cutler et al. 2003). Drayton Blaine Harbor Whatcom County Lynden Land Zoning Everson Birch Bay Nooksack R. Urban Growth Area 4% of total land use NF Nooksack R. Agriculture Ferndale 8% of total land use Rural Residential Bellingham Deming 12% of total land use Lummi Lummi R.
    [Show full text]
  • Klah-Che-Min
    KLAH-CHE-MIN A PUBLI CATI ON OF THE SQU AXI N ISLAND TRI BE MAY 2009 dibeA ti ?acaciAtalbix GeA ti HelV yex ti stuLtuleI yex ti CaLCaleA. C OMPLI MENTARY Parks and Recreation for Squaxin Community Penni Giles - Recreation is an essential service the Tribe provides to establish and main- tain a healthy, livable community. Opportunities and facilities that promote physical and mental well-being bring citizens together in positive, supportive, and fun atmospheres, and create memorable experiences for families. The Squaxin Island Park and Recreation Plan was approved by Council on April 9, 2009 and will be the framework around which recreation facilities will be planned, de- signed, implemented and managed. The Squaxin Island Tribe values public involvement in decision making. Public meetings and surveys are ways tribal members can be involved in community decisions. The following sur- veys and public meetings were used in determining the future needs for park and recreational facilities: • The Squaxin Youth Council proposed that a survey be completed to determine the level of community interest in a Skate Park. Data was compiled through written survey questions distributed and collected by summer youth workers. • During the May 2007 General Body meeting and public meeting held in May 2007, the community was asked for their ideas in order to develop a long-term plan. • Public input by means of a “Dot Survey” was completed in 2003 to see if the Tribe should offer more educational and recreational activities, including cultural events, or whether things were fine the way they were. • A written survey was distributed at the 2004 General Body Meeting to determine the level of interest in a pool.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 17-35760 UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for THE
    Case: 17-35760, 02/12/2018, ID: 10760694, DktEntry: 10, Page 1 of 75 No. 17-35760 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE; SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE, Respondents – Appellees, and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, TULALIP TRIBES; QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE; HOH TRIBE; LUMMI TRIBE; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE; SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE; PUYALLUP TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE; SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY, Real-party-in-interest. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington No. C70-9213 The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez United States District Court Judge OPENING BRIEF OF PETITIONER – APPELLANT SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE EARLE LEES, WSBA No. 30017, Attorney for the Skokomish Indian Tribe N. 80 Tribal Center Road, Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 [email protected] (Email) – 360.877.2100 (Tel) – 360.877.2104 (Fax) Case: 17-35760, 02/12/2018, ID: 10760694, DktEntry: 10, Page 2 of 75 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe, (“Skokomish”), is an Indian tribe with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior. 83 Fed. Reg. 4235, 4239 (January 30, 2018). Accordingly, a corporate disclosure statement is not required by Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. i Case: 17-35760, 02/12/2018, ID: 10760694, DktEntry: 10, Page 3 of 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................. 1 II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................
    [Show full text]