DOCSLIB.ORG

Tulalip Opening Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tulalip Opening Brief Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 1 of 110 13-35773 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit TULALIP TRIBES Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE Defendant-Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON CIVIL NO. 70-9213-RSM Subproceeding No. 05-4 TULALIP TRIBES’ OPENING BRIEF MORISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE Mason D. Morisset, WSBA #00273 Rebecca JCH Jackson, WSBA #44113 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 801 Second Avenue, Suite 1115 Seattle, Washington 98104-1509 Tel: 206-386-5200 Fax: 206-386-7388 Attorneys for Tulalip Tribes Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 2 of 110 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellant Tulalip Tribes is a federally recognized Indian Tribe. Accordingly, a corporate disclosure statement is not required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1. i Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 3 of 110 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 1 III. ADDENDUM OF PERTINENT LAWS ......................................................... 2 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 2 V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 14 VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................... 20 VII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 20 A. This Court Has Established the Law Governing the Interpretation of U&A Findings. ................................................................................ 20 B. The Record Clarifies Judge Boldt’s Intent. ......................................... 23 1. Judge Boldt’s U&A Finding Specifically Related to Waters Described by Herring Areas 1 and 2 and Limited the Suquamish U&A to Western Waters. ....................................... 23 2. The Suquamish U&A Lacks Geographic Descriptors Indicating Inclusion of the Contested Waters. .......................... 25 3. Dr. Lane’s Reports Support Exclusion of the Contested Waters from the Suquamish U&A. ........................................... 28 4. The Contested Waters Are Adjacent to the Home of the Tulalip Tribes and Cannot Constitute Suquamish U&A. ......... 31 C. The Suquamish Tribe Continues to Impermissibly Attempt to Expand Its Fishery. .............................................................................. 33 D. Suquamish Historic Fishing Regulations Further Indicate That Its U&A Does Not Include the Contested Waters. .................................. 35 VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 36 IX. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 38 ii Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 4 of 110 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................ 20 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................ 20 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 234 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................... 6, 14, 15, 22 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................... passim Scheuring v. Traylor Bros., Inc., 476 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 20 U. S. v. Washington, CV70-9213RSM, 2012 WL 4846239 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2012) .................. 29 U.S. v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... passim U.S. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................... 15, 16, 21, 22 U.S. v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 14, 19, 33 U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) aff'd and remanded, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................... passim U.S. v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978) ...................................................... passim U.S. v. Washington, 626 F. Supp. 1405 (W.D. Wash. 1985), aff’d, 841 F.2d. 317 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................. passim U.S. v. Washington, CV 05-3, 2007 WL 30869, (W.D. Wash. Jan. 4, 2007) ............................ passim U.S. v. Washington, 252 F. App'x 183 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 3 iii Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 5 of 110 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1010 (2010) ....................................................................... 28, 31, 34, 35 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1345 ........................................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1362 ........................................................................................................ 1 Other Authorities Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927 (1855) ........................................................ 5, 21 Rules Circuit Rule 28-2.7 ..................................................................................................... 2 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) .................................................................................................... 20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 ................................................................. i Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) ......................................................... 38 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6) ......................................................... 38 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) ................................................... 38 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) ............................................. 38 iv Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 6 of 110 I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The District Court for the Western District of Washington has subject matter jurisdiction of the underlying proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1331, and 1362. The District Court retained continuing jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Paragraph 25(a)(1), 25(a)(4), (a)(6), and/or (a)(7) of the Court’s injunction of March 22, 1974, U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 419 (W.D. Wash. 1974) aff'd and remanded, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), as modified by the Court (U.S. v. Washington, C70-9213, Dkt. #13599 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1993)). This case involves a dispute over usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations between federally recognized Indian tribes. The District Court entered final judgment on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on July 29, 2013. Dkt. #242, 243; ER 1, 2. The Tulalip Tribe filed its Notice of Appeal as to the Court’s partial denial of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to this Court on August 22, 2013. ER 30. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the finding concerning the Suquamish Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing places (U&A) made by Judge Boldt in 1975 includes the mouth of the Snohomish River, Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, and the bays on the west side of Whidbey Island (Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay) (contested waters). See U.S. v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1049 1 Case: 13-35773 02/28/2014 ID: 8998263 DktEntry: 16-1 Page: 7 of 110 (W.D. Wash. 1978); see also ER 45. The Tulalip Tribes raised this issue in their request for determination filed on August 8, 2005. Dkt. #1; see also ER 211. The determination of this issue involves the following sub-issue: Whether, based upon the record and proceedings at the time of the U&A determination, Judge Boldt intended to include the contested waters in the Suquamish U&A. The District Court ruled that he did intend to include them. Dkt. #242, 243; ER 1, 2.1 III. ADDENDUM OF PERTINENT LAWS Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.7, pertinent statutes and regulations are included within the addendum to this brief. IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Procedural Background. On February 12, 1974, senior District Court Judge George H. Boldt issued his seminal opinion on the northwest treaty fishing rights case, which came to be known as the “Boldt Decision.” Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312. That decision has had far-reaching consequences, and this case concerns the continuation of one aspect of that case. Importantly, Judge Boldt determined fishing areas for the northwest treaty tribes that were parties to the case. In construing the treaties, it was necessary for Judge Boldt to determine the “usual and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Semiahmoo First Nation to the Review Panel Re: Oral Presentation
    Date: May 16, 2019 s EMIAHMOO FIRST NATION Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Roberts Bank Terminal2 Project Public Hearing Phase Overview of Oral Hearing Submission by Semiahmoo First Nation To: Cindy Parker Review Panel Manager Roberts Bank Termina12 Project c/o Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, ON K1A OH3 16049 Beach Road, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada V3Z 9R6 Tel: 604.536.3101 Fax: 604.536.6116 E-mail: [email protected] The Semiahmoo First Nation ("Semiahmoo") holds Aboriginal rights and title and exercises our rights, practices and culture throughout our Traditional Territory. Additionally, Semiahmoo exercises our rights, practices and culture throughout the broader resources area, which includes the lower Fraser River, Roberts Bank, Semiahmoo Bay, Boundary Bay, Fraser River, Nicomekl River, Serpentine River, Little Campbell River the Gulf Islands including San Juan Island, Vancouver Island, Washington State and the Salish Sea. Semiahmoo has communicated the adverse effects of the Roberts Band Terminal2 Project ("RBT2") on our Aboriginal rights and title to the project proponent and the Crown. Semiahmoo has previously demanded studies regarding cumulative effects of marine shipping in regard to the regarding the Marine Shipping Addendum and RBT2 including: • a traditional marine use study to examine the impacts on our Aboriginal rights and title; • a study of the effects of sedimentation on the foreshore of the Semiahmoo Indian Reserve lands from the tide, current and
    [Show full text]
  • Section 12.0: Aborigin Al Consultation
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project ABORIGINAL ABORIGINAL : 0 . 12 CONSULTATION SECTION SECTION WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Part C – Aboriginal Consultation Section 12.0: Aboriginal Consultation 12.0 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION Aboriginal Interests are defined in the Section 11 Order (BCEAO, 2015b) as asserted or determined Aboriginal rights, including title, and treaty rights. An overview of planned consultation activities for the Project, activities completed to date, and a description of Aboriginal Interests is provided in Section 12.1 Aboriginal Interests. The assessment of Project-related effects on those Aboriginal Interests is presented in Section 12.1.4 Potential Effects of the Project on Aboriginal Interests. Issues raised by Aboriginal groups that do not directly relate to Aboriginal Interests, such as those pertaining to potential adverse social, economic, heritage, or health effects, and proposed measures to address those effects, are described in Section 12.2 Other Matters of Concern to Aboriginal groups. The assessment of effects on Other Matters of Concern to Aboriginal groups is also found in Section 12.2 Other Matters of Concern to Aboriginal groups. Section 12.3 provides the Issue Summary Table that summarizes Aboriginal Interests or other matters of concern to Aboriginal groups that may be affected by the Project, and the measures to avoid, mitigate or otherwise manage those effects. Information presented in this Application
    [Show full text]
  • STEATITE PLAQUE and a CARVED TOOTH from SEMIAHMOO SPIT by Don Welsh
    STEATITE PLAQUE AND A CARVED TOOTH FROM SEMIAHMOO SPIT By Don Welsh This steatite plaque (Figure 1) and carved bear tooth (Figure 2) were excavated in site 45WH 17 Semiahmoo Spit. The following article attempts, in retrospect, to provide ethnographic and archaeological context to these most interesting artifacts. The steatite plaque was uncovered in pit 16-F-73 cut one, quad B during the Sehome High School field school, directed by the late Milton Clothier," from 1970 to 1973. I would like to thank his widow for providing the manuscript of the excavation report. Although requested, no one seems to know what happened to the artifacts, the site map, or excavation plans. So there is a repository number for artifacts but no one knows where they repose, the definite location of the pit in which they were recovered or in fact where the pits were located within the site. The Semiahmoo Spit Site Semiahmoo Spit, ( 45-WH-17), is a large complex shell midden site situated at the base of Semiahmoo Spit where it c ontacts the Birch Point uplands (Figure 3). Semiahmoo Spit, just south of the Canada/U.S. border, is a sand spit trending northeast and separating Drayton Harbor (on the east) from Semiahmoo Bay (on the west). Wayne Suttles recorded this location, from interviews with Julius Charles and Lucy Celestine, as the Semiahmoo winter Figure 1. Steatite Plaque From Clothier 1973 (accession# 245-73-1) . village S' eel uch on the west side of the spit and Nuwnuwulich on the east side. S'eeluch was allegedly a high class village while Nuwnuwulich was second class.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pacific Northwest Fish Wars
    The Pacific Northwest Fish Wars What Kinds of Actions Can Lead to Justice? Additional Resources This list provides supplementary materials for further study about the histories, cultures, and contemporary lives of Pacific Northwest Native Nations. Websites Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI). Accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.atnitribes.org “Boldt at 40: A Day of Perspectives on the Boldt Decision.” Video Recordings. Salmon Defense. http://www.salmondefense.org Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Department of the Interior. Last modified February 6, 2017. https://www.bia.gov Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Last modified February 7, 2016. https://www.bie.edu Center for Columbia River History Oral History Collection. Last modified 2003. The Oregon Historical Society has a collection of analog audiotapes to listen to onsite; some transcripts are available. Here is a list of the tapes that address issues at Celilo and Celilo Village, both past and present: http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv99870/op=fstyle.aspx?t=k&q=celilo#8. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). Accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.critfc.org/. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for Kids. Accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.critfc.org/for-kids-home/for-kids/. Cooper, Vanessa. Lummi Traditional Food Project. Northwest Indian College. Accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.nwic.edu/lummi-traditional-food-project/ Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs (GOIA, State of Washington). Accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.goia.wa.gov Makah Nation: A Whaling People. NWIFC Access. Accessed February 7, 2017. http://access.nwifc.org/newsinfo/streaming.asp National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
    [Show full text]
  • Late Prehistoric Subsistence in the Strait of Georgia Region Of
    LATE PREHISTORIC SUBSISTENCE IN THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA REGION OF THE NORTHWEST COAST Diane Kay Hanson A.A. Anchorage Community College 1975 B.A. Western Washington State College 1977 M.A. University of Alaska, Fairbanks 1981 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Department 0 f Archaeology @Diane K. Hanson SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY April 1991 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Abstract Zooarchaeological data reported from twenty-two Developed Coast Salish horizon (1500 years before present to European contact) sites in the southern Strait of Georgia region were compared with subsistence information from regional ethnographies in an attempt to discover whether the ethnographic record is an accurate portrayal of 1ate prehistoric subsistence. Additional data coll ected during the 1984 and 1985 excavations from DeRt 1 on Pender Island, British Columbia were included in the comparisons. Cluster analyses of the zooarchaeological data showed that sites excavated in a similar manner tended to fall in the same cluster, indicating that archaeological methods were strongly i nfl uenci ng perceptions of regional subsistence patterns. Mammal assembl ages were dominated by ungulates and canids. The dominance of wapiti on main1 and sites contradicts the ethnographic record, which stated that wapiti were a staple only on Vancouver Island. Sea mammals were a minor component of the mammal assemblages. Not surprisingly, waterfowl were the most commonly identified birds recovered from the sites. As predicted from the ethnographic record, salmonids figured prominently, and were identified in all Strait of Georgia sites.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Look at Northwest Coast Stone Bowls
    CHAPTER 12 A New Look at Northwest Coast Stone Bowls GRANT KEDDIE Introduction One morning in the spring of 1969, I went with Over the years I have observed the evidence my field-school professor, Phil Hobler, to re­ on stone figures, bowls, and combinations of discover the Bella Coola village of Anutcix these. Although many individuals such as Wingert (FaSu 10) near the mouth of the Kwatna River. (1952), Duff (1956; 1975), Carlson (1983c, When we located the site and its distinct shell 1993, 1999) and Hanna (1996) have presented mound features, Phil commented on how each information on this subject, there are numerous site is different and can tell us different things. specimens in private and museum collections that His teaching style was to have us ask questions have yet to be included in any study. I intend rather than just listen to answers. When I found here to add a few observations and a few new the first donut stone, Phil asked me to look at pieces to this varied and complex subject. the evidence and tell him what it was. Today when I look at an archaeological site I ask why Seated Figure and Similar Bowls is this site at this particular location? When I look at an artifact I consider the evidence it I would agree with previous authors that the presents first, and then at the classification in the seated human figure bowls are primarily associ­ text book. ated with shamanistic rituals. They are containers of power related to the interaction between Figure 12:1.
    [Show full text]
  • 210-Order on SJ
    Case 2:11-sp-00002-RSM Document 210 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 25 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 9 No. C70-9213RSM Plaintiffs, 10 Subproceeding No. 11-2 11 v. ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., JUDGMENT 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court after remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of 17 Appeals and upon the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s and 18 Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe’s (collectively “the S’Klallam”), and Lummi Nation’s (“the 19 1 20 Lummi”) motions for summary judgment. Dkts. #164, #167 and #168. The S’Klallam request 21 that the Court grant summary judgment on the issues presented in their Request for 22 Determination (“RFD”) filed November 8, 2011. See Dkt. # 1. The RFD asks the Court to find 23 that the actions of the Lummi in fishing in the “case area” is not in conformity with Final 24 25 Decision I. The case area was originally defined in the RFD as the eastern end of the Strait of 26 Juan de Fuca, specifically “the marine waters northeasterly of a line running from Trial Island 27 1 28 Dkts. #20,972, #20,976 and #20,977 in lead proceeding USA v. State of Washington, Case No. C70-9213RSM. ORDER PAGE - 1 Case 2:11-sp-00002-RSM Document 210 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 25 near Victoria, British Columbia, to Point Wilson on the westerly opening of Admiralty Inlet, 1 2 bounded on the east by Admiralty Inlet and Whidbey Island, and bounded on the north by 3 Rosario Strait, the San Juan Islands, and Haro Strait.” Dkt.
    [Show full text]
  • STRAITS SALISH PREHISTORY by Gary J
    1 STRAITS SALISH PREHISTORY (c) 1981,1991,2006,2010 By Gary J. Morris ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN 1981, FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1991, last revision 2020 BY AUTHOR GARY J. MORRIS EMAIL (2020): [[email protected]] < http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~lopezislandhistory/history/other/Straits%20Salish%20Prehistory.pdf > NOTE: All dates in this book are Solar/ Calendar years. LUMMI LANGUAGE "a" is pronounced like the "a" in cat "e" is pronounced like the "u" in tub "i" is pronounced like the "ea" in eat "o" is pronounced like the "a" in father "u" is pronounced like the "u" in. tube. "q" is pronounced like the "q" in quarter "y" is pronounced like the "i" in kite ( From the SQUOL QUOL, a Lummi Publication ) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL: STRAITS SALISH PREHISTORY...........................................4 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................24 APPENDIX I: SOIL DEPOSITION PROCESS................................26 APPENDIX II: ARTIFACT INVENTORY....................................33 APPENDIX III: ANCESTRAL AFFINITIES OF PACIFIC NW NATIVE AMERICANS..66 APPENDIX IIIB: ANCESTRAL AFFINITIES OF NATIVE AMERICANS............72 STRAITS SALISH PREHISTORY: STRAITS SALISH PREHISTORY...........................................4 EARLY STRAITS.......................................................5 PALEO SALISH........................................................7 SALISH TRIBAL HISTORIES.............................................9 GENERALIZED TRIBAL LINEAGES FOR LOCAL SALISH GROUPS:...............13 SALISH TRIBAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TIME
    [Show full text]
  • Historylink.Org Supplement for Washington: a State of Contrasts
    Photo of Gatewood School students on last day of school, Seattle, June 17, 1949. Courtesy Museum of History & Industry. HistoryLink.org Supplement for Washington: A State of Contrasts 1 Washington: A State of Contrasts has been identified as the most commonly used Washington state History textbook for 7th and 8th grades for the 2011-12 school year. Using this textbook as a base for identifying the specific themes and topics that are being covered in required Pacific Northwest History middle school classes, the Education Team at HistoryLink.org has created this supplement for teacher and students. This supplement was developed as a tool to assist in identifying HistoryLink.org essays that can be used to study and research the state history themes and topic in more depth. The name of each relevant essay is listed as well as the abstract, number, and link to the full essay. This supplement also aids HistoryLink.org in identifying general or specific topics for which more essays are needed or would be helpful in the Washington state History classroom. In addition, as a part of this exercise, HistoryLink.org staff assigned appropriate key words to selected essays to match those used in this textbook. A set of HistoryLink Elementary essays was added to the HistoryLink encyclopedia in 2014. (http://www.historylink.org/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=education/elementary- educators.cfm.) These essays were written for beginning readers who are studying Washington state history or anyone who wants to learn more about Washington. They may be helpful for some of your students. All HistoryLink Elementary essays are based on existing HistoryLink essays.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared For
    Volume 5D, ESA – Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Socio-Economic Technical Reports Trans Mountain Expansion Project Traditional Land and Resource Use Technical Report Gathering Places Aseniwuche Winewak Nation community members did not identify any gathering places during the TLU for the Project. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Aseniwuche Winewak Nation. Sacred Sites Aseniwuche Winewak Nation community members did not identify specific sacred sites during the TLU for the Project. Community members explained that the Hinton area is culturally important and presently used by Aseniwuche Winewak Nation community members, whereas the Valemount area is also culturally important, but not currently used. Community members did not expect to find sacred sites during ground reconnaissance due to extensive industrial development in Hinton and surrounding areas (Aseniwuche Environmental Corporation 2013). Aseniwuche Winewak Nation requested notification if culturally relevant sites are found during Project construction and that the sites are protected by a 100 m buffer. 5.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment The results of TLU studies conducted to date have identified TLU sites potentially affected by the Hargreaves to Darfield segment and associated Project components requiring mitigation. 5.2.1 Lheidli T’enneh Lheidli T’enneh elected to conduct a third-party TLU study for the Project. A third-party consultant, Chignecto Consulting Group conducted a map review, community interviews and ground reconnaissance that focused on Crown lands within the asserted traditional territory of Lheidli T’enneh. The findings of the TLU study have not been reviewed or approved by Lheidli T’enneh Chief and Council or community. The interim report is considered draft and any changes resulting from review with the Lheidli T’enneh community will be incorporated into the final report.
    [Show full text]
  • City of White Rock a G E N
    *Live Streaming/Telecast: Please note that Standing Committees, Council Meetings, and Public Hearings held in the Council Chamber are being recorded and broadcasted as well included on the City’s website at: www.whiterockcity.ca Corporate Administration Office (604) 541-2212 E-mail [email protected] THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK 15322 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, WHITE ROCK, B.C. V4B 1Y6 June 7, 2018 A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND FIRST NATION AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING will be held in the CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS located at 15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, BC, on MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2018 to begin at 4:00 p.m. for the transaction of business as listed below. T. Arthur Director of Corporate Administration A G E N D A Mayor Baldwin, Chairperson 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RECOMMENDATION THAT the Intergovernmental and First Nation Affairs Committee (Committee) adopt the agenda for the June 11, 2018 meeting as circulated. Note: As this is the first meeting for this committee the recommended Terms of Reference have been attached for reference purposes Page 4 3. UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (UBCM) CONSIDERATIONS Discussion regarding potential meetings that may be scheduled with various Ministries during UBCM Convention: Protocol/Relationship with First Nation Infrastructure Funding 4. SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEMIAHMOO FIRST NATION (MARCH 2016) Page 6 Memorandum dated June 11, 2018 from the Director of Corporate Administration that outlines events and correspondence between the City of White Rock and Semiahmoo First Nation. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND FIRST NATION AFFAIRS PAGE 1 Intergovernmental and First Nation Affairs Committee Agenda – June 11, 2018 Page No.
    [Show full text]
  • Border and the Divided Salish Community
    THE "REALLY REAL" BORDER AND THE DIVIDED SALISH COMMUNITY BRUCE MILLER HE CURRENT ACADEMIC CLIMATE is predisposed to the crossing of intellectual, disciplinary, political, and cultural boundaries.1 TEfforts to connect the global and the local and to transcend boundaries, however, run the risk of becoming institutionalized into newer, non-critical, docile forms of knowledge production that overlook the local concerns of Aboriginal peoples. Scheper-Hughes points ascerbically to this problem: In the brave new world of reflexive postmodernists . everything local is said to dissolve into merged media images, transgressed boundaries, [and] promiscuously mobile multinational industries and workers . The flight from the local in hot pursuit of a transnational, borderless anthropology implies a parallel flight from local engagements, local commitments. Once the circuits of power are seen as capillary, diffuse, global, and difficult to trace to their sources, the idea of resistance becomes meaningless. The idea of an anthropology without borders . ignores the reality of the very real borders that confront and oppress "our" anthropological subjects. These borders are as real as the passports and passbooks, the sandbagged bunkers, the armed roadblocks . The anthropology that most Cape Town Xhosa, Venda . and Moslem students want is not the anthropology of deconstruction and the social imaginary, but the anthropology of the really real, in which the stakes are high. (Scheper-Hughes 1995, 417) This article attempts to address the "really real" of the international boundary dividing Canada from the United States, British Columbia 1 In recent years "cultural borders" has been the theme of academic meetings in many disciplines. The recent interest within anthropology builds on an older tradition of the study of "borderlands" (Alvarez 1995, 449)- Borderlands are thought to be sites of conflict and contradiction, to generate their own cultures, to be the meeting ground of the First and Third Worlds.
    [Show full text]