From Te-Moak Tribe to Tsilhqot in Nation: Sacred Landscape Protection and Resource Development
|
|
- Rosalind Dinah Cobb
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 980 9TH STREET SUITE 1400 SACRAMENTO, CA TEL FAX WWW. HTHJLAW. COM From Te-Moak Tribe to Tsilhqot in Nation: Sacred Landscape Protection and Resource Development Harrison, Temblador, Hungerford & Johnson LLP This paper was written for the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration s Critical Minerals 2014: Rare Earths and Beyond conference, held in Denver, Colorado, August 3-5, Abstract. Native American cultural resources (i.e., burial sites, prehistoric settlements, human remains, ancient trails, grinding rocks and similar) have been protected from development in various respects for decades in both Canada and the United States. But for the most part, these protections have focused on specific resources or sites, such as a distinct burial ground or a distinct grinding rock. The litigants in two recent cases, Te- Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Interior (United States 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals 2010) 608 F.3d 592 (Te-Moak Tribe) and Tsilhqot in Nation v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada 2014) 2014 SCC 44 (Tsilhqot in Nation) both challenged the legal norm and instead sought much broader protections across an entire landscape deemed culturally significant. Te-Moak involved mineral exploration, and Tsilhqot in Nation involved a logging license. Although the laws under which the two cases were litigated are not perfect analogs, the Canadian court and the U.S. court reached different conclusions: Tsilhqot in Nation accepted the notion of a protected landscape, while Te-Moak did not. This paper provides an introduction to the key cultural resources protection laws in the United States and Canada, and discusses those laws application in the Te-Moak Tribe and Tsilhqot in Nation cases, respectively. This paper then discusses the general international trend over time toward granting more expansive protections to cultural resources rather than less, and provides several examples of how this trend proved a barrier to proposed mining projects. This paper concludes with certain recommendations for mine developers and operators on how to avoid cultural resources conflicts for proposed mining projects.
2 1. Introduction Most countries recognize the value of and have taken measures to protect cultural and historical sites, artifacts and resources from the pressures of resource and other development. UNESCO World Heritage sites are representative of this shared global mindset. The recognition of cultural and historical features and the best measures to protect them can be complex, but all the more so in countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and others, in which aboriginal peoples were displaced by foreign settlers. These countries have grappled with the question of how best to acknowledge and protect aboriginal sites, artifacts and history without impeding on property rights that have arisen post-settlement. Looking at the United States and Canada in particular, changing social mores have resulted in greater recognition and protection of aboriginal 1 land rights and culturally significant sites. These values are reflected in particular laws and in the court cases that have interpreted those laws over time. Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Interior (United States 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals 2010) 608 F.3d 592 (Te-Moak Tribe) and Tsilhqot in Nation v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada 2014) 2014 SCC 44 (Tsilhqot in Nation) are important recent cases that illustrate the general trend toward more expansive protection of cultural resources in the face of resource development. In particular, landscape -level protection seems to be the trend s terminus. More expansive protection for aboriginal cultural resources and landscapes, especially at the landscape level, presents weighty policy questions for governments, considering that numerous examples show that such protections come at the cost of mineral resource development and the resulting social and economic benefits. Those questions are not addressed here. Instead, this paper discusses how mine operators and developers can use their knowledge of this trend to avoid intractable cultural resources conflicts for proposed projects. 2. Cultural Resources Laws in the United States and Canada In both the U.S. and Canada, cultural resources laws generally apply when private enterprise seeks to develop non-reservation or tribal lands, and some sort of federal approval is required. The key laws in each country are discussed below. 1 / The terms Native American and Aboriginal are used interchangeably. Native American is the common term in the United States, whereas Aboriginal is commonly used in Canada, Australia, and other countries. Page 2 of 15
3 United States National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. [ NHPA ]). The NHPA governs the activities of federal agencies, including project approvals on federal lands. The NHPA is intended to preserve historic and cultural resources, including Native American resources. (See 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(1)(A); National Indian Youth Council v. Watt, 664 F.2d 220, 226 (10th Cir. 1981).) The NHPA authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places ( National Register ) for districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture. (16 U.S.C. 470(a)(1)(A).) Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on such features to the extent that they are listed in the National Register, or eligible for listing. (16 U.S.C. 470f.) Federal regulations establish a multi-step consultation process for identifying historic properties, determining their eligibility for the National Register, assessing the action s potential effects on eligible properties, and avoiding or mitigating adverse effects. These steps are taken in consultation with a cast of consulting parties that include the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer ( THPO ), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal agency created by the NHPA and charged with providing advice on preservation matters. (36 C.F.R (c).) Where Native American resources exist, tribes are entitled to special consideration in the consulting process. (Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Department of the Interior (2010) 755 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1109; see also 36 C.F.R (c)(2)(ii).) The consulting process is mandatory for federal agencies. (See Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service (9th Cir. 2006) 469 F.3d 768, 787; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F.3d 800, 805.) National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C et seq. [ NEPA ]). NEPA requires environmental review and analysis of major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).) NEPA imposes a review process intended to ensure that a federal agency will have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes its decisions. NEPA requires a federal agency to make this information available to the public for review and comment. (Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Service (9th Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 754, 758.) Early consultation with any potentially affected Native American tribes is a critical step in the NEPA process, and an express requirement of NEPA s implementing regulations (40 C.F.R (a)(1), (d)) which has been recognized and enforced by the courts. (See Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service (9th Cir. 2006) 469 Page 3 of 15
4 F.3d 768, ) Individual federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ), the U.S. agency that administers and permits uses on public lands, also may provide internal guidance. The BLM s NEPA Handbook, for instance, instructs that Tribal consultation centers on established government-to-government relationships, and it is important that you allow sufficient time and use the appropriate means of contacting tribes when conducting scoping. (BLM NEPA Handbook, ) Generally, consultation under NEPA requires an agency to notify a tribe or tribal community of a proposed project and its possible effects, and secure input from the tribal communities. To avoid the duplicative processes that would occur where both NEPA and the NHPA apply, the NHPA regulations expressly allow a federal agency to use the NEPA process in lieu of the Section 106 process for assessing impacts on historical resources provided that certain standards are met. (36 C.F.R (c).) Canada Historic Sites and Monuments Act (R.S.C, 1985, c. H-4 [ HSMA ]. The HSMA, similar to the United States NHPA, provides for the recognition and preservation of historic places, which may include a site, building or other place of national historic interest or significance. (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-4, s. 2.) The HSMA is administered by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada ( HSMBC ). The HSMBC has, since its creation in 1919, designated more than 2,000 historic places. In recent years, the HSMBC has focused on more closely on Native American cultural sites and history. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 [ CEAA ]). The CEAA generally requires an environmental assessment to be prepared for certain designated projects, either conducted directly by the federal government or that involve federal funding, federal land, or federal approvals. The list of designated projects subject to the review process expressly includes the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new... rare earth element mine or gold mine, other than a placer mine, with an ore production capacity of 600 t/day or more. (Regulations Designating Physical Activities, SOR/ , s. 16(c).) Like the U.S. NEPA, the obligation to consult with Native Americans is a requirement of the CEAA. The CEAA, in fact, defines as an environmental effect that must be assessed any effect with respect to Native Americans that may be caused to the environment on (i) health and socio-economic conditions, (ii) physical and cultural heritage, (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52(5)(c).) Page 4 of 15
5 Section 35 of the Constitution Act, While the Canadian HSMA and CEAA are roughly analogous to the United States NHPA and NEPA, Canadian law differs from U.S. law in that the duty to consult with Native Americans is also articulated directly in the Canadian constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, establishes the common law duty to consult with Native Americans concerning government actions that could adversely impact aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 provides as follows: 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, Aboriginal Peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. The Canadian courts have interpreted Section 35 to mean that the Canadian government s title to land is burdened by the pre-existing legal right of Aboriginal people based on their use and occupation of the land prior to European arrival. (Tsilhqot in Nation, 12.) The aboriginals legal interest in their traditional lands give rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the Canadian government to protect and preserve the land and the underlying rights. With this legal framework in mind, we turn to the Te-Moak Tribe and Tsilhqot in Nation cases directly. 3. Te-Moak Tribe This case involved a proposal to conduct a phased mineral exploration program on federal land in northeastern Nevada, U.S. (the Project ). The Project was proposed in a region that was already heavily disturbed by mining activities and active mining operations. The U.S. BLM, which permits and oversees mining operations on federal lands, conducted environmental review as required by NEPA. As the Court observed, [a]lthough miners have been mining this area for generations, Native Americans have been there much longer. One peak within the Project area, known as Mount Tenabo, figured significantly in Te-Moak tribal history and Page 5 of 15
6 culture. The Project area also contained other tribal cultural features, such as pinyon pine trees and burial grounds, of great significance to the tribe. In the course of its NEPA environmental review, the BLM consulted with the Tribe under NEPA and the NHPA concerning sites of cultural and religious significance within the Project area. The BLM designated two sites in particular as Properties of Cultural and Religious Importance or PCRIs, eligible for inclusion in the U.S. National Register. The BLM inquired with the Tribe regarding additional concerns regarding the Project, but received no response. The BLM proceeded to conclude its NEPA review and approve the Project. Among other arguments relating to the BLM s compliance with NEPA, NHPA and other federal laws, the Tribe alleged that the BLM violated Section 106 of the NHPA by failing to take into account the effect of [an] undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register [of Historic Places]. (Te-Moak Tribe, 608 F.3d at 607; 16 U.S.C. 470f.) As noted above, the NHPA Section 106 process requires an agency to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties; determine whether identified properties are eligible for listing on the National Register...; assess the effects of the undertaking on any eligible historic properties found; determine whether the effect will be adverse; and avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv. (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F.3d 800, 805.) More specifically, the Tribe argued that the eligible PCRIs are of a landscapescale, rather than discrete sites, and that the BLM failed to take measures to protect the entire landscape that the Tribe deemed culturally significant. In other words, the Tribe asserted that mitigations were required, and development should be prohibited in, the entire landscapes that may contain eligible or listed PCRIs. Figure 1 illustrates the Tribe s landscape, outlined in purple, in relation the Project area, which is outlined in black. The purple boundary line represents the Cumulative Effects Study Area ( CESA ), which is determined by the distribution of specific cultural features in the area immediately surrounding the project, which is represented by the black boundary line. Clearly, the CESA dwarfs the project area, and if granted protection as sought by the Tribe, could foreclose future mineral development in the area. Page 6 of 15
7 Figure 1. Te-Moak Tribe Cumulative Effects Study Area Illustration 2 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Tribe s argument. The Court acknowledged that the PCRIs designated by the BLM as eligible for the National Register encompass large areas of land. (Te-Moak Tribe, 608 F.3d at 611.) The Court held, however, that the NHPA does not require that all parts of an eligible PCRI be protected. (Ibid.) Instead, the NHPA requires protection against adverse effects on the specific features within the broader cultural landscape. For the Tribe, this meant pinyon pine nut harvesting areas, burial sites, and specific spiritual and religious use areas that the BLM had already recognized and protected. In summary, the Court held that protection of landscapes is beyond the scope of the NHPA and NEPA, notwithstanding the fact that the landscapes may have cultural signfiicance. 2 / Cortez Hills Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Bureau of Land Management, September 2008 (NVN , NV063-EIS06-011), p Page 7 of 15
8 4. Tsilhqot in Nation This case, which was decided on June 26, 2014, is rooted in a dispute that had been simmering since approximately In that year, the Province of British Columbia granted a forest license to log within a region subject ot an unresolved land claim by the Tsilhqot in Nation. The region was public land, similar to the land at issue in the Te-Moak case. As the Canadian Supreme Court notes, [t]hroughout most of Canada, the Crown entered into treaties whereby the indigenous people gave up their claim to land in exchange for reservations and other promises, but, with minor exceptions, this did not happen in British Columbia. (Tsilhqot in Nation, 4.) The Tsilhqot in Nation s claim, which was approximatey five percent of their traditional territory, still amounted to nearly 1,200 square miles, occupied by approximatley 200 individuals. The Nation presented evidence, in the form of physical evidence and evidence presented by Nation elders and historians, concerning their continuous and exclusive occupation of the claimed land. The lower trial court, after a five year procedure, recognized the Nation s claim across more than 600 square miles, but declined to grant the Nation title due to a procedural defect. The Tsilhqot in Nation appealed the trial court s decision. On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the Nation s land claim outright, but left open the possibility that in the future, the Tsilhqot in might be able to prove title to specific sites within the area claimed. (2012 BCCA 285 [2012], 33 B.C.L.R. (5th) 260.) Whereas U.S. laws mandates measures to protect certain cultural resources, the U.S. does not have a legal analog to Canada s section 35 of the Constitution Act, That provision, as it has been fleshed out in subsequent court decisions, recognizes the pre-existing legal right of Aboriginal people based on their use and occupation of the land prior to European arrival. Unlike other countries, such as Australia, Canada never recognized the legal doctrine of terra nullius, which holds that no person owned land prior to the establishment of European sovereign rule. Thus, under Canadian law, Canadian public lands are subject to Aboriginal claims to prior title. On appeal yet again, the Canadian Supreme Court examined a number of criteria in evaluating the Nation s land claim, and among these, the Court analyzed the Nation s occupation of the land. The Court of Appeal below rejected the notion that title to a larger territory could be established not only by specific village sites or other distinct features, but by regular use for hunting, fishing and other activities, and instead required a showing of site-specific occupation. The Supreme Court in turn rejected this approach, and held that fishing, trapping, and foraging could be sufficient to establish occupation of claimed land, and in fact was sufficient in the Nation s case. Ultimately, the Court accepted the Nation s claim across a region whose boundaries were supported by a large Page 8 of 15
9 number of individual sites, combined with evidence of hunting, fishing and other activities across a broader area. Figure 2. Tsilhqot in Nation Proven Title Area Page 9 of 15
10 5. Discussion Te-Moak Tribe and Tsilhqot in Nation both involve tribal claims concerning the cultural signfiicance of a broad swath of public land. The U.S. Court, interpreting the particular laws under which the lawsuit was filed, the NHPA and NEPA, reached the conclusion that the U.S. federal government was not required to protect a culturallysignificant landscape, but only distinct features within the landscape. The Canadian Court, interpreting its own particular laws, reached the opposite conclusion, and determined that the Tsilhqot in Nation was entitled to the more than 600-square mile tract it claimed as its title lands. The Tsilhqot in Nation decision was immediately hailed as a landmark decision, one that radically changes the relationship between the Canadian government and First Nations. The practical impacts of the decision have become evident almost as quickly. On July 30, 2014, just over a month after the Canadian Supreme Court decided in its favor, the Tsilhqot in Nation released a draft Mining Policy for mining, reclamation and exploration projects within its newly-recognized title land. The document outlines the Nation s policy for reviewing and approving future mining projects, and, of course, for participating in the resulting revenue. The Nation also released a Territory Map (as part of its Stewardship Agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the Tsilhqot in Nation) identifying Engagement Zones requiring specified levels of engagement, review and approval by the Nation for resource development projects. Te-Moak Tribe, on the other hand, has not produced such distinct ripples in the legal landscape. The project at issue in Te-Moak Tribe proceeded, as have subsequent projects within the same or similar area in northeastern Nevada. No U.S. federal court has subsequently addressed the sacred landscape question. But the case has, perhaps, thrust the concept of landscape-level protection into the project review and approval conversation, both at the U.S. federal and state level. Page 10 of 15
11 Figure 3. Tsilhqot in Territory Map Accompanying Draft Mining Policy For example, in February 2014, the New Mexico State Supreme Court validated action by the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee to designate as a Traditional Cultural Property approximately 400,000 acres around Mount Taylor, a portion of which was subject to proposed uranium mining projects. (See Rayellen Resources, Inc. et al, v. New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee (2014) 319 P.3d 639.) The California State Legislature, further, is currently considering legislation (Assembly Bill 52) that would grant Native American tribes broad consultation rights for all projects that require environmental review and that fall within a geographic area with which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated. Assembly Bill 52 would also automatically require a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the signficiance of a tribal cultural resource, whether officially listed or not, to undergo a full Page 11 of 15
12 environmental review process even if the project does not pose other significant threats to the environment. 3 Between historical treatment of aboriginal peoples, Te-Moak Tribe, Tsilhqot in Nation, and intervening events, the international trend has been toward greater recognition and protection of aboriginal cultural sites, even if protection of sacred landscapes has not yet become the norm. A number of key developments in this regard has been in response to proposed mining projects. For example, First Majestic Silver s La Luz Silver Project, located in San Luis Potosí state, Mexico, has been on hold for more than five years in the face of opposition based on the project s impacts to a region known as Wirikuta, a sacred site for the Huichol people. Despite efforts by First Majestic, a Canadian company, to address the Huichol people s concerns, the Mexican government has prohibited issuance of the permits needed to proceed. The Indian government, as another example, rejected a proposed bauxite mine in the Niyamgiri hills, an area considered sacred to the Dongria Kondh tribe. In many cases, such as in the Mount Taylor example from the state of New Mexico, landscape-level protection has been afforded at the cost of prohibiting mineral development outright. The concept of landscape-level protection raises the obvious question of limits and consistency with national mineral development objectives and economic goals. For example, the Te-Moak Tribe is part of the Western Shoshone, whose aboriginal territory is shown in Figure 4 below. This territory encompasses much of Nevada and parts of California, Utah and Idaho, and includes both federal and state public lands and private property. Within that territory lies significant reserves of numerous minerals, ranging from gold and silver to copper to barite, molybdenite and lithium compounds. Mineral development within this territory is already a multi-billion dollar economic engine and the source of thousands of jobs, with the potential for much more. 3 / Another notable example from California involves a proposed open-pit, cyanide heap-leach gold project proposed by Glamis Gold, Ltd. The project was proposed on approximately 1,500 acres in California s Imperial Valley desert. The project site contained more than 50 sites of cultural significance to the Quechan Indians, and was determined to be within a 130-mile long spiritual pathway. The project was stopped by a concerted action involving the California Governor and State Mining and Geology Board through emergency legislation and regulations that rendered the project economically infeasible. Page 12 of 15
13 Figure 4. Western Shoshone Aboriginal Territory 4 The Te-Moak Tribe and Tsilhqot in Nation cases both implicated public lands, but private lands may also be subject to the same pressures. The state of California s environmental review law, known as the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) already applies to projects proposed on private lands, and requires consultation with Native American tribes whose cultural sites may be affected by the project. Assembly Bill 52, as discussed above, is currently pending in the California Legislature and could vastly expand tribal consultation rights for projects proposed on 4 / Cortez Hills Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Bureau of Land Management, September 2008 (NVN , NV063-EIS06-011), p Page 13 of 15
14 private lands. California is, of course, home to the one of the largest and most important rare earth mines at Mountain Pass. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations The discussion above shows that, internationally, governments are trending toward more expansive protections for cultural resources, in place of distinct, sitespecific protections. Secondarily, cultural resources conflicts are being resolved in favor of the cultural resources at the cost of resource development projects. These are facts that mine operators and developers must take into account when exploring the feasibility of a new project. A proposed mining project involves many considerations, including the size and character of the reserve, financing, transport, permitting requirements and so forth. Cultural resources within a proposed project area demand the same level of investigation. Mine operators and developers should engage professionals to research and document the Native American/aboriginal characteristics of a proposed project site and the surrounding region. This should be done in the project planning stage, outside of the public process. Mine operators and developers should simultaneously research and understand the laws governing cultural resource protections and the permitting government s discretion to deny a project on the basis of impacts to cultural resources. This data should be used to inform and reach a decision regarding the likelihood for a cultural resources conflict to arise during a project s public review process. Where a potential cultural resources conflict exists, mine developers and operators are faced with three courses: abandon the project, negotiate with the impacted aboriginal group, or use available legal and governmental mechanisms to override the conflict. Discussing the last of these first, operators and developers should be wary of choosing to force a project to approval over cultural resources-based objections. While the feasibility of this course is context-dependent, even countries that have historically been less sensitive to cultural resources issues can be spurred to action under sufficient public pressure. As many mine operators and developers have experienced first-hand, social media platforms in particular enable project opponents to garner public attention rapidly. As discussed above, the track record for projects confronted with a significant cultural resources conflict is not good. Finally, while operators and developers may chafe at the notion of negotiating with an impacted aboriginal group, successful negotiation and agreement can be the most expedient and cost-effective resolution of a cultural resources conflict. Negotations should be undertaken prior to any public process and be given time and opportunity to Page 14 of 15
15 build trust and define goals. Shared operator/developer-tribal interest in a project and clearly-defined plans for protection, preservation, or mitigation of impacts to cultural resources within a project area can be a powerful force in overcoming even unrelated permitting challenges. Acknowledgments Special thanks to Kyle A. Martin, third-year law student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California. About Harrison, Temblador, Hungerford & Johnson LLP Harrison, Temblador, Hungerford & Johnson LLP specializes in mining, land use, and natural resources law. For mining clients, the firm provides strategic project permitting counsel, compliance counsel, and legal representation in both administrative and judicial settings. Firm attorneys have particular expertise in constitutional vested mining rights issues, Section 404 and 401 permitting, cultural resources issues, and environmental review and litigation. Harrison, Temblador, Hungerford & Johnson LLP is based in Sacramento, California, and counsels clients on projects in California and in states west of the Rockies, on both private and federal lands. Page 15 of 15
SHPO Guidelines for Tribal Government Consultations in National Historic Preservation Act Decision Making Processes
SHPO Guidelines for Tribal Government Consultations in National Historic Preservation Act Decision Making Processes May, 08, 2008 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic
More informationAmerican Indian & Alaska Native. Tribal Government Policy
American Indian & Alaska Native Tribal Government Policy U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AMERICAN INDIAN & ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT POLICY PURPOSE This Policy sets forth the principles to be followed
More informationVia DATE: February 3, 2014
Via Email: sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca DATE: February 3, 2014 To: Joint Review Panel Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22 nd Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 British Columbia Environmental
More informationAGREEMENT To Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Between
AGREEMENT To Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Between The Minister of the Environment, Canada - and - The Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta PREAMBLE WHEREAS the Alberta
More informationMEMORANDUM 0F AGREEMENT THE KLAMATH TRIBES AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE
MEMORANDUM 0F AGREEMENT THE KLAMATH TRIBES AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE February 19, 1999 As amended February 17, 2005 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KLAMATH TRIBES AND THE FOREST SERVICE TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 125 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 0 BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND of the TE- MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES
More informationNative American Graves Protection and. Repatriation Act
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act PUBLIC LAW 101-601--NOV. 16, 1990 NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT Home Frequently Asked Questions Law and Regulations Online
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 52. December 21, 2012
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 26, 2013 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 30, 2013 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 19, 2013 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 8, 2013 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 19, 2013 california legislature 2013 14
More informationHISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 1 SECTION 1.01. Citation... 1 SECTION 1.02.
More informationNative American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
AS AMENDED This Act became law on November 16, 1990 (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) and has been amended twice. This description of the Act, as amended, tracks the language of the United States
More informationWritten Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation. Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review
Stswecem c Xgat tem Written Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review March 29, 2017 Introduction Stswecem c
More informationSummary Designed to preserve historic properties, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has been faulted by some for delaying implementation o
A Section 106 Review Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): How It Works Kristina Alexander Legislative Attorney May 16, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of
More informationBEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF THE SANTA CLARA PUEBLO, ACOMA PUEBLO, HUALAPAI INDIAN TRIBE AND THE UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION FUND BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationBEFORE THE REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION, MISSOULA, MONTANA
BEFORE THE REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION, MISSOULA, MONTANA Via e-mail: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us In Re: Objection to the Draft Decision ) Notice & Finding of
More informationProject & Environmental Review Aboriginal Consultation Information for Applicants. July 2015
Project & Environmental Review Aboriginal Consultation Information for Applicants July 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction... 2 2. Overview... 2 3. Principles/Objectives... 2 4. Applicability... 3 5.
More informationWHEREAS, NDOT administers Federal-aid projects throughout the State of Nevada as authorized by Title 23 U.S.C. 302; and
PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE NEVADA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-5020 WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL and TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE, and Plaintiffs-Appellants, SOUTH FORK BAND, WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY, DANN
More informationPublic Law Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
Public Law 93-620 AN A C T To further protect the outstanding scenic, natural, and scientific values of the Grand Canyon by enlarging the Grand Canyon National Park in the State of Arizona, and for other
More informationTHE GENESIS OF THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND THE SUPERME COURT
THE GENESIS OF THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND THE SUPERME COURT The judicial genesis of the legal duty of consultation began with a series of Aboriginal right and title decisions providing the foundational principles
More informationMarch 13, 2017 ORDER. Background
United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax) March 13, 2017 2017-75
More informationINDIAN COUNTRY: COURTS SPLIT ON TEST AND OUTCOME. The community of reference analysis creates complication and uncertainty
INDIAN COUNTRY: COURTS SPLIT ON TEST AND OUTCOME The community of reference analysis creates complication and uncertainty Brian Nichols Overview In two recent decisions, state and federal courts in New
More informationTHE GENESIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT
THE GENESIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT UBC Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability Date: September 16 th, 2014 Presented by: Rosanne M. Kyle 604.687.0549, ext. 101 rkyle@jfklaw.ca
More informationTHE REPATRIATION OF ANCESTRAL HUMAN REMAINS AND FUNERARY OBJECTS
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL FOR THE REPATRIATION OF ANCESTRAL HUMAN REMAINS AND FUNERARY OBJECTS May 19, 1993 (revised July 6, 1994) (revised
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON
COURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON Citation: Between: And Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon, 2012 YKCA 14 Ross River Dena Council Government of Yukon Date: 20121227 Docket: 11-YU689 Appellant (Plaintiff)
More informationDRAFT GUIDELINES FOR MINISTRIES ON CONSULTATION WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES RELATED TO ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TREATY RIGHTS
For Discussion Purposes Only DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR MINISTRIES ON CONSULTATION WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES RELATED TO ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TREATY RIGHTS This information is for general guidance only and is
More informationTestimony of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition
Testimony of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jáa
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Not Present Attorneys Present for
More informationSmall Miner Amendments to S. 145
Small Miner Amendments to S. 145 RECOGNITION OF THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-INITIATION UNDER THE 1872 MINING ACT AND THE PERMISSIVE (PERMIT) SYSTEM FOR PURPOSES OF REGULATORY CERTAINTY (submitted by
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-pgr Document Filed 0// Page of WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 0 The Navajo Nation, vs. Plaintiff, The United States Department of the Interior, et al.,
More informationPUBLIC LAW OCT. 3, STAT. 3765
PUBLIC LAW 110 343 OCT. 3, 2008 122 STAT. 3765 Public Law 110 343 110th Congress An Act To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes
More informationODOT-CRP Tribal Consultation
ODOT-CRP Tribal Consultation Section 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A) The agency official shall ensure that consultation in the Section 106 process provides the Indian Tribe a reasonable opportunity to identify
More informationMackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Assented to June 18, 1998
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act Assented to June 18, 1998 RECOMMENDATION His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances,
More informationSTATEMENT BEFORE THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, FEBRUARY 25, Petuuche Gilbert
STATEMENT BEFORE THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, FEBRUARY 2, 2017 Petuuche Gilbert Acoma and Other Indigenous Peoples This statement is being presented by Indigenous World Association
More informationLil wat Nation Land Use Referral Consultation Policy
Lil wat Nation Land Use Referral Consultation Policy Ratified by Chief and Council February 21, 2012 The Líl, wat Nation P.O. BOX 602, MOUNT CURRIE, BRITISH COLUMBIA V0N 2K0 PHONE 1.604.894.6115 FAX 1.604.894.6841
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed // Page of 0 Laura K. Granier, Esq. (NSB ) laura.granier@dgslaw.com 0 W. Liberty Street, Suite 0 Reno, Nevada 0 () -/ () 0- (Tel./Fax) Attorneys for Carlin Resources,
More informationLEGAL REVIEW OF FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS TO CARBON CREDITS
REPORT 6: LEGAL REVIEW OF FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS TO CARBON CREDITS Prepared For: The Assembly of First Nations Prepared By: March 2006 The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily
More informationPit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2010-2011 Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service Matt Newman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr Recommended
More informationCultural Resources Management: Tribal Rights, Roles, Consultation, and Other Interests (A Developer s Perspective) 1
I. Introduction Cultural Resources Management: Tribal Rights, Roles, Consultation, and Other Interests (A Developer s Perspective) 1 Walter E. Stern Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris, & Sisk, P.A. Albuquerque,
More informationAB 52: A CEQA Guidelines Update for Tribal Cultural Resources
AB 52: A CEQA Guidelines Update for Tribal Cultural Resources Holly Roberson Land Use Counsel Governor s Office of Planning and Research July 7, 2016 AB 52 Presentation Overview Context Brief Summary Definition
More informationNATIVE AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER
NATIVE AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT Nancy Werdel Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. Department of Energy Introduction The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
More informationRESERVATION OF RIGHTS A look at Indian land claims in Ohio for gaming purposes. By Keith H. Raker
INTRODUCTION RESERVATION OF RIGHTS A look at Indian land claims in Ohio for gaming purposes By Keith H. Raker This article examines the basis of Indian 1 land claims generally, their applicability to Ohio
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-15754, 04/20/2018, ID: 10845100, DktEntry: 87, Page 1 of 23 Nos. 15-15754, 15-15857 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAVASUPAI TRIBE, GRAND CANYON TRUST, CENTER FOR
More information1 of 63 DOCUMENTS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. 279 Fed. Appx. 980; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10885
Page 1 1 of 63 DOCUMENTS WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL and TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and SOUTH FORK BAND, WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY, DANN BAND, BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND, ELKO BAND
More informationAPPENDIX A Summaries of Law and Regulations
APPENDIX A Summaries of Law and Regulations I. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted into law on November
More informationTITLE 40 LUMMI NATION CODE OF LAWS CULTURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION CODE
TITLE 40 LUMMI NATION CODE OF LAWS CULTURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION CODE Enacted: Resolution 2001-104, Emergency Adoption (9-25-01) Resolution 2001-115 (10-23-01) TITLE 40 LUMMI CODE OF LAWS CULTURAL RESOURCES
More informationCounty of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Final EIR
County of Riverside Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project Final EIR Response to Comments Public Agencies and Governments Federal Emergency Management Agency (June 16, 2008) Response to Comment
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Plaintiffs. vs.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Marc D. Fink, pro hac vice application pending Center for Biological Diversity 1 Robinson Street Duluth, Minnesota 0 Tel: 1--; Fax: 1-- mfink@biologicaldiversity.org Neil Levine, pro hac
More informationLEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DUTY TO CONSULT November, Meaghan Conroy Associate, Ackroyd LLP
ACKROYD LLP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DUTY TO CONSULT November, 2009 Meaghan Conroy Associate, Ackroyd LLP Since the release of The Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Haida 1, Taku 2 and Mikisew 3, Canadian
More informationRobert T. Anderson, Professor, University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA. April 2018
Robert T. Anderson, Professor, University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA April 2018 Overview Indian property rights rooted in federal law, including aboriginal title as recognized in U.S. Deep
More informationCOLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
FAX (928) 669-1216 TELEPHONE (928) 669-9211 26600 MOHAVE RD. PARKER, ARIZONA 85344 in advance of the CEC finalizing the proposed CRMMP. understand why the CEC elects to incorporate certain requested modifications
More information2018/ /21 SERVICE PLAN
Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation 2018/19 2020/21 SERVICE PLAN February 2018 For more information on the British Columbia Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation contact:
More informationCAL/EPA POLICY MEMORANDUM NUMBER:
State of California California Environmental Protection Agency Cal/EPA-019 (New 05/18/05) CAL/EPA POLICY MEMORANDUM NUMBER: CIT 09-01 SUBJECT: DATE ISSUED: CAL/EPA POLICY FOR WORKING WITH CALIFORNIA INDIAN
More informationCascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Hannah R. Seifert Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana,
More informationPRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT Work in Progress
LETTER NO. 14 CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 September 17, 2003 Comment 14-1 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) continues to
More informationDISCUSSION PAPER INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION
DISCUSSION PAPER INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION TOPIC: Indigenous engagement and consultation. 1 CONTEXT: The National Energy Board (NEB) Modernization Panel (the Panel) has been asked to focus
More informationCase: , 02/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of cv. United States Court of Appeals. for the.
Case: 15-15754, 02/08/2018, ID: 10756751, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of 20 15-15754-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit HAVASUPAI TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, GRAND CANYON TRUST; CENTER
More informationYour benefits are available online! Native American Resources Committee Newsletter
Native American Resources Committee Newsletter Vol. 12, No. 1 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR Ronnie P. Hawks The Native American Resources Committee is excited to bring you this newsletter with some great articles
More informationEnergy Projects & First Nations in Canada:
Energy Projects & First Nations in Canada: Rights, duties, engagement and accommodation For Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of Economic Geology University of Texas Bob Skinner, President KIMACAL Energy
More informationU.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector Genera AUDIT REPORT WITHDRAWN LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
I U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector Genera AUDIT REPORT WITHDRAWN LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REPORT NO. 96-I-1268 SEPTEMBER 1996 . United States Department of the Interior OFFICE
More information(2) MAP. The term Map means the map entitled Proposed Pine Forest Wilderness Area and dated October 28, 2013.
2015 National Defense Authorization Act TITLE XXX NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 3064. PINE FOREST RANGE WILDERNESS. (a) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (1) COUNTY. The term County means
More informationNational Regulatory Conference: NHPA Scope of Analysis
National Regulatory Conference: NHPA Scope of Analysis Skipper Scott Regulatory Branch Fort Worth District August 7, 2012 US Army Corps of Engineers The Spectrum of Historic Properties The Spectrum of
More informationTribal Lands and Environment: A National Forum on Solid Waste, Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
Tribal Lands and Environment: A National Forum on Solid Waste, Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites and Underground Storage Tanks August 20-23, 2012 Mill Casino and Hotel Coquille Indian Tribe 1 Where
More informationA BILL. To enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
A BILL To enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, to assure protection of public health and safety, to ensure the territorial integrity and security
More informationCase 1:19-cv WES-PAS Document 1-1 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 11
Case 1:19-cv-00158-WES-PAS Document 1-1 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 11 Case 1:19-cv-00158-WES-PAS Document 1 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, ACTING BY AND THROUGH
More informationCase 4:15-cv JSW Document 76 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 12
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice DAVID B. GLAZER (D.C. 00) Natural Resources
More informationNational Congress of American Indians 2008 Political Platform
National Congress of American Indians 2008 Political Platform EMPOWERING AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR CITIZENS BY SUPPORTING SOVEREIGNTY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, EDUCATION, CULTURAL
More informationThe Dann Case Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: A Summary of the Commission s Report and its Significance for Indian Land Rights
Western Shoshone horses on traditional Western Shoshone land in Nevada. The Dann Case Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: A Summary of the Commission s Report and its Significance for
More informationMackenzie Valley Resource Management Act
1 of 61 3/16/2011 5:00 PM Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (1998, c. 25) Act current to February 26th, 2011 Attention: See coming into force provision and notes, where applicable. Table of Contents
More informationDRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THE RED-PURPLE BYPASS PROJECT, CITY OF CHICAGO, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THE RED-PURPLE BYPASS PROJECT, CITY OF CHICAGO, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS The following provides the prepared as part of the consultation process under Section 106 of the National
More information(Pub. L , title I, 104, Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat )
Aornc=«A«~ U.S.COVERNMENT INFORMATION CPO 2903 TITLE 25----INDIANS Page 774 grams competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114-95, set out as a note under section 6301 of Title 20, Education. EFFECTIVE
More informationCase 4:15-cv JSW Document Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 25
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document - Filed 0// Page of 0 0 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (; jcotchett@cpmlegal.com) PHILIP L. GREGORY (; pgregory@cpmlegal.com) PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY (; pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com) & McCARTHY, LLP
More informationArchaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470) 1
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470) 1 AN Act To protect archaeological resources on public lands and Indian lands, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House
More informationRECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992 TITLE XVIII -- GRAND CANYON PROTECTION SECTION SHORT TITLE.
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992 TITLE XVIII -- GRAND CANYON PROTECTION SECTION 1801. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992". SEC.
More informationAs Represented by Chief and Council (the "Takla Lake First Nation") (Collectively the "Parties")
Takla lake First Nation Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement") Between: The Takla lake First Nation As Represented by Chief and Council (the "Takla Lake First Nation") And
More informationCOMMITTEE REPORTS. 106th Congress, 2d Session. Senate Report S. Rpt. 479 GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000
COMMITTEE REPORTS 106th Congress, 2d Session Senate Report 106-479 106 S. Rpt. 479 GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000 DATE: October 3, 2000. Ordered to be printed NOTICE: [A> UPPERCASE TEXT WITHIN
More informationWater Rights: Is the Quechan Tribe Barred from Seeking a Determination of Reservation Boundaries in Indian Country
University of Tulsa College of Law TU Law Digital Commons Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works 1996 Water Rights: Is the Quechan Tribe Barred from Seeking a Determination
More informationWestern Regional Partnership (WRP) Charter
Western Regional Partnership (WRP) Charter (AS AFFIRMED AT 2018 WRP PRINCIPALS MEETING) PURPOSE: This Charter delineates the mission, goals, and responsibilities of the collaborative process convened by
More informationINDIGENOUS WATER JUSTICE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
INDIGENOUS WATER JUSTICE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN Barbara Cosens Professor and Associate Dean of Faculty University of Idaho College of Law Waters of the West Interdisciplinary Program Photo from UCUT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central
More informationNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966
AS AMENDED This Act became law on October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-665, October 15, 1966; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Since enactment, there have been 22 amendments. This description of the Act, as amended,
More informationGwaii Haanas: Working Together to Achieve Common Goals
Gwaii Haanas: Working Together to Achieve Common Goals Ernie Gladstone, Field Unit Superintendent, Gwaii Haanas National Park, Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, 60 Second Beach Road, Skidegate (Haida Heritage
More informationIndigenous Relations. Business Plan Accountability Statement. Ministry Overview. Strategic Context
Business Plan 2018 21 Indigenous Relations Accountability Statement This business plan was prepared under my direction, taking into consideration our government s policy decisions as of March 7, 2018.
More informationApplying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Mexico)
Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Mexico) Fact Sheet BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS January 21, 2009 Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Presidential Permits for
More informationThe Administrative Process by Which Groups May Be Acknowledged as Indian Tribes by the Department of the Interior
The Administrative Process by Which Groups May Be Acknowledged as Indian Tribes by the Department of the Interior Jane M. Smith Legislative Attorney April 26, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for
More informationA Public Awareness Campaign to Eliminate the Looting and Vandalism of Archaeological, Paleontological, and Natural Resources in Utah
BLM A Public Awareness Campaign to Eliminate the Looting and Vandalism of Archaeological, Paleontological and Natural Resources in Utah Communications Plan May 2016 Utah A Public Awareness Campaign to
More informationConsulting with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process (from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation website)
1-9 219 Consulting with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process (from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation website) Introduction The Section 106 Review Process Consultation with Indian Tribes
More informationKEISER PARK MASTER PLAN
KEISER PARK MASTER PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for May 2008 Town of Windsor KEISER PARK MASTER PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for May 2008 Town of Windsor 225 Bush
More informationWHITECAP DAKOTA FIRST NATION GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE
WHITECAP DAKOTA FIRST NATION GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE WHITECAP DAKOTA FIRST NATION GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE... 5 PART I WHITECAP DAKOTA GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 1:
More informationNational Monuments and the Antiquities Act
Carol Hardy Vincent Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Kristina Alexander Legislative Attorney October 12, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationCase 4:15-cv JSW Document 133 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 28
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (; jcotchett@cpmlegal.com) PHILIP L. GREGORY (; pgregory@cpmlegal.com) PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY (; pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com) & McCARTHY, LLP 0
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 119 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Rollie Wilson (Pro Hac Vice) Jeffrey S. Rasmussen (Pro Hac Vice) 00 Plaza Drive Louisville, CO 00 Phone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) - Email: rwilson@ndnlaw.com
More informationTITLE II--DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY ON PUBLIC LAND
S 1775 IS 112th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1775 To promote the development of renewable energy on public lands, and for other purposes. November 1, 2011 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. TESTER (for
More informationUpdate on Tribal Supreme Court Project and Fee-To- Trust Regulations January 23, 2018
Update on Tribal Supreme Court Project and Fee-To- Trust Regulations January 23, 2018 1 OCTOBER 2017 TERM First full term of Justice Neil Gorsuch Court already has many significant cases on its docket
More informationCHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE
CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE 13.1.0 Objectives 13.1.1 The objectives of this chapter are as follows: 13.1.1.1 to promote public awareness, appreciation and understanding of all aspects of culture and heritage
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00030-SLG
More informationP.O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan USA fax
This PDF file is a digital version of a chapter in the 2005 GWS Conference Proceedings. Please cite as follows: Harmon, David, ed. 2006. People, Places, and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright
More informationFOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA ORDINANCE #03/14 PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA ORDINANCE #03/14 PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES Adopted by Resolution #03/14 of the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee on May 6, 2014. TABLES OF CONTENTS
More informationRecognizing Indigenous Peoples Rights in Canada
Recognizing Indigenous Peoples Rights in Canada Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith, RPF Faculty of Natural Resources Management Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Presented to MEGAflorestais, Whistler,
More informationAboriginal Law Update
November 24, 2005 Aboriginal Law Update The Mikisew Cree Decision: Balancing Government s Power to Manage Lands and Resources with Consultation Obligations under Historic Treaties On November 24, 2005,
More information