Lummi Nation Archives - Page 3 of 4

Flathead Reservation in next phase of $1.9B land buy-back program

By Matt Volz, Associated Press

Elouise Cobell, right, looks on as Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes testifies in December 2009 during a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. EVAN VUCCI/Associated Press — Elouise Cobell, right, looks on as Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes testifies in December 2009 during a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing in Washington, D.C.
EVAN VUCCI/Associated Press

HELENA – The Flathead Reservation is among 21 Indian reservations that will be the focus of the next phase of a $1.9 billion program to buy fractionated land parcels owned by multiple individuals and turn them over to tribal governments, Interior Department officials said Thursday.

Besides the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, other Montana participants are the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation; Crow Tribe; and the Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana.

Government officials will work with tribal leaders to plan, map, conduct mineral evaluations, make appraisals and acquire land on the reservations from Washington state to Oklahoma in this phase, which is expected to last through 2015.

Other reservations could be added to the list, but the 21 named Thursday meet the criteria, particularly tribal readiness, said Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn.

“We knew it wouldn’t be successful unless tribal leaders were interested in the program,” Washburn said.

The land buyback program is part of a $3.4 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by Elouise Cobell of Browning, who died in 2011. The lawsuit claimed Interior Department officials mismanaged trust money held by the government for hundreds of thousands of Indian landowners.

The 1887 Dawes Act split tribal lands into individual allotments that were inherited by multiple heirs with each passing generation, resulting in some parcels across the nation being owned by dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual Indians.

Often, that land sits without being developed or leased because approval is required from all the owners.

The land buyback program aims to consolidate as many parcels as possible by spending $1.9 billion by a 2022 deadline to purchase land from willing owners, then turn over that purchased land to the tribes to do as they see fit.

So far, the program has spent $61.2 million and restored 175,000 acres, said Interior Deputy Secretary Mike Connor. To buy even that much land, officials had to locate and contact owners in all 50 states and several countries to find out if they were willing to sell, Connor said.

The work primarily has been focused on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation until now.

Last month, tribal leaders from four reservations criticized the buyback program’s slow pace and complained they were being shut out of decisions over what land to buy. The leaders from tribes in Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington state spoke before a U.S. House panel.

Rep. Steve Daines, R-Montana, who called for the congressional hearing, said he welcomed Thursday’s announcement by the Interior Department.

“However, I am concerned their efforts here may not provide tribes with the necessary tools to ensure the Land Buy-Back program is properly implemented,” Daines said in a statement.

He said the Interior Department should use its authority to give tribes more flexibility, and it should move swiftly to address consolidation problems on other reservations not included in the announcement.

Washburn said Thursday that his agency has entered into or is negotiating cooperative agreements with many tribes in the buyback program, though others say they want the federal government to run the program.

21 reservations next up in consolidation program

These are the American Indian reservations the Department of Interior plans to focus on in the next phase of a $1.9 billion buyback program of fractionated land parcels to turn over to tribal governments. The program is part of a $3.4 billion settlement over mismanaged money held in trust by the U.S. government for individual Indian landowners.

– Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana.

– Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, Wyoming.

– Coeur D’Alene Tribe of the Coeur D’Alene Reservation, Idaho.

– Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana.

– Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.

– Crow Tribe, Montana.

– Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana.

– Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona.

– Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington.

– Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington.

– Navajo Nation, Arizona.

– Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.

– Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota.

– Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Kansas.

– Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.

– Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington.

– Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota.

– Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, North Dakota and South Dakota.

– Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington.

– Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota and South Dakota.

– Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington.

Tulalips, others oppose state’s move to halt release of hatchery steelhead

By Chris Winters, The Herald

TULALIP — A lawsuit filed against the state Department of Fish and Wildlife has led the state to cancel this year’s entire release of hatchery-raised steelhead trout into Western Washington rivers.

That means that there will be virtually no steelhead fishing in 2016 and 2017.

This week the Tulalips and other local American Indian tribes weighed in, blasting the decision by the state to cancel the release, and the lawsuit that forced the move, filed by the Wild Fish Conservancy, a nonprofit based in Duvall.

The suit was filed on March 31. In a declaration filed April 16 by Phil Anderson, the director of Fish and Wildlife, he wrote that the department’s plan to protect wild steelhead from genetic hybridization with hatchery fish is under review by the National Marine Fisheries Service, but that he had no expectation it would be approved in time for the release.

That approval is necessary so that the program wouldn’t run afoul of the Endangered Species Act, which lists wild steelhead as threatened. Therefore, Anderson decided there would be no steelhead release this year.

A joint statement issued by the Tulalip Tribes, the Lummi Nation and the Upper Skagit Tribe took issue with the basis for the nonprofit’s lawsuit, which, it said, “erroneously concluded that hatchery production, rather than the loss of habitat, is responsible for the depressed state of the Puget Sound steelhead populations.”

The statement from the tribes urged anglers to contact Gov. Jay Inslee, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, and Anderson and to put pressure on the department.

“Maybe the hatcheries do have some impact, but there are greater impacts out there,” said Ray Fryberg, executive director for natural and cultural resources for the Tulalip Tribes.

Habitat loss, environmental change, perhaps even seals waiting at the mouths of rivers to eat the returning fish probably have a greater impact on wild populations than the hatcheries do, Fryberg said.

The fish at issue is known as Chambers Creek steelhead, a strain raised in six hatcheries in Western Washington, including the Whitehorse Ponds hatchery near Darrington.

The hatchery-raised juveniles are released earlier than when wild steelhead hatch, and the difference in timing allows the hatchery-raised adult steelhead to be fished before the wild runs return to their spawning grounds.

A spokesperson for the Department of Fish and Wildlife declined to comment on the lawsuit or the statement from the tribes.

The conservancy’s suit alleges that the state’s hatchery programs allow Chambers Creek steelhead to interbreed with the wild strains, out-compete the wild fish for food and spawning grounds, and that the hatchery operations themselves have suppressed the wild population.

The wild stocks are so depressed that they are in danger of being listed as endangered, which would drastically affect fishing for all salmonid species in the region, said Kurt Beardslee, the executive director of the Wild Fish Conservancy.

Loss of habitat is a critical issue, Beardslee said, but the only two actions that would have an immediate impact on wild populations would be to curtail fishing or to stop hatchery releases.

He cited a recent study conducted in the Skagit River of the impacts of hatchery-raised steelhead on the wild population, one of whose recommendations was to suspend hatchery releases for seven to 10 years to eliminate competition among the species, reduce cross-breeding among populations and increase the survival rate of wild steelhead.

“We have to look at things that can get results immediately,” Beardslee said.

Fryberg said that the lawsuit was a step backward in the struggle to restore wild runs of steelhead and salmon.

“For years and years as co-managers and cooperative managers we’ve always emphasized that we should be working together,” Fryberg said.

With the environment changing rapidly, there is simply no baseline condition to compare it to, and it’s essential to get all the scientific data on the table before acting, he added.

“We have not fished some native runs of fish out here for 20 to 30 years and they still haven’t rebounded,” Fryberg said. “Let’s not run into this hastily.”

Native 8-man Football Teams Dominate in Washington

Andy Bronson/Bellingham HeraldLummi's Deion Hoskins misses Neah Bay's Josiah Greene in the 1B Washington State Football semifinal game at the Tacoma Dome last month. — Andy Bronson/Bellingham Herald
Lummi’s Deion Hoskins misses Neah Bay’s Josiah Greene in the 1B Washington State Football semifinal game at the Tacoma Dome last month.

Jack McNeel, 12/20/13, ICTMN

Neah Bay High School and Lummi Nation High School are rival Native high schools in Washington State. But they have a few more things in common.

Neah Bay won the Washington State 1A Football Championship this fall for the second time in three years; Lummi Nation won it in 2010, and has made it to State several years in a row.

Lummi High has about 100 students and Neah Bay Jr./Sr. High has about 168 and because of these small enrollment numbers, 8-man football is preferred for these rival schools over the traditional version of that varsity sport.

“There is no difference as far as the rules,” said Lummi Nation Head Coach Jim Sandusky. “There are three less guys on the field, so instead of seven guys on the line, you have to have at least five. That’s pretty much it.”

Lummi Nation is a tribal school located just a few miles from the Canadian line. Neah Bay, a state school, is located on the northwestern tip of Washington. Both football teams came into prominence in recent years and their proximity to each other has created a friendly rivalry.

And arguably, the success at each school can be traced back to the two coaches: Tony McCaulley at Neah Bay and Sandusky at Lummi Nation.

Sandusky, a Colville descendent, coached Ferndale youth football. He built a football field on his own property because there was no place for the football players to practice. His son Rocky was on the youth team that he coached, as well as Jake Locker, now quarterback for the Tennessee Titans in the NFL.

In 2003, Sandusky was hired as Lummi’s coach and athletic director. That year, they went 4-5 and missed the playoffs in the last game of the season. “Ever since [2004], we’ve made it,” said Sandusky, explaining that the team has made it to the playoffs every year since then.

McCaulley’s coaching career was somewhat similar to Sandusky’s. His son Ty started youth football and McCaulley coached him. He coached and played at Clallam Bay, a rival school just down the road from Neah Bay. He’s been coaching Red Devils for six years.

“We’ve been to the state semi-finals five of the six years. The worst year I had [was when] we lost in the state quarter-finals,” McCaulley said. But, Neah Bay was dominant this year. “We were undefeated and blew a lot of teams out,” McCaulley said.

Many of the Red Devils players have played together since eighth grade and all but one of the 39 players are Makah tribal members. Two players in particular are looking to play college football next year. One is the coach’s son, Ty, who plays fullback and the other is Josiah Greene, the quarterback.

At Lummi, only a few players have been on that team since 8th grade. “Dean Hoskins started for me ever since he was an 8th grader,” Sandusky said. “He just got All-State selection along with two other of our kids.”

Note the similarities: Each community had youth football programs with fathers coaching the kids. Sandusky and McCaulley were then hired by the schools to coach high school football. Since those two coaches have taken over, each program has had rather remarkable success: high ratios of wins to losses, and state championship wins with teams made up almost entirely of Native American players.

If Jake Locker can make it to the pros, then why not Ty or Josiah or Dean or Rocky or one of the other outstanding 8-man Native American high school football players.

Lummi Nation seeks federal relief following fishery closure

Lummi tribal fishermen prepare a purse seine during the 2011 Fraser sockeye fishery. The tribe has declared 2013 a fisheries economic disaster after poor returns canceled this year’s fishery worth $1.3 million.

Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

The Lummi Nation is seeking federal disaster relief for its fishing fleet following another year of poor returns of Fraser River sockeye salmon.

In September, the tribe passed a declaration of natural disaster under the federal Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and a fisheries economic disaster under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Despite a bountiful run in 2010, Fraser River sockeye returns have been declining for 30 years. The U.S. Department of Commerce declared it a fisheries economic disaster in 2002, 2007 and 2008.

There was no commercial Fraser sockeye in 2013. “Our traditional ties to the sockeye are irreplaceable,” said Elden Hillaire, chairman of the Lummi Fisheries Commission. “The lack of harvest interferes with our schelangen (way of life).”

Without a fishery, Lummi tribal fishermen missed out on a potential catch worth $1.3 million. In part, a declaration of a fisheries disaster would provide services and financial assistance to tribal fishermen who are trying to adapt to a changing industry.

After the 2008 declaration, the tribe received a U.S. Department of Labor grant to create a program called Lummi Fishers, which helps fishermen find training and other careers so they can make ends meet when they can’t fish.

Poor ocean conditions, shifting currents and climate change are blamed as potential causes for the Fraser run’s decline. Temperatures in the Fraser River in 2013 were the highest ever recorded; high enough to be lethal to the salmon.

The Fraser River runs through British Columbia. Nine treaty tribes in western Washington have treaty-reserved rights to catch Fraser River sockeye in U.S. waters before they migrate upstream. In addition to Lummi, they are the Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Nooksack, Makah, Port Gamble S’Klallam, Suquamish, Swinomish and Tulalip tribes.

‘We Draw The Line’: Coal-impacted Lummi Nation And Northern Cheyenne Unite In Solidarity

By Hannibal Rhoades, Intercontinental Cry

Offering solidarity to Indigenous Nations, last month five Carvers from the Lummi Nation House of Tears set out on a journey up the Pacific North West Coast hoping to send a message of Kwel’Hoy, or ‘We Draw The Line’ to the resource extraction industry. With them, lain carefully on the flat bed of a truck, the Lummi carried a beautifully-carved 22-foot cedar totem pole for Indigenous communities to bless along the way. Their journey gained international attention as a pilgrimage of hope, healing and determination for the embattled Indigenous Nations they visited.

The rich prairies and clear streams of Otter Creek, Montana, land of the Northern Cheyenne, were the first stop on the Totem Pole’s profound journey. Both the Lummi carvers who made the 1,200 mile trip inland and the Northern Cheyenne who received them, currently face major, interconnected threats from proposed coal mining developments. Bound by this common struggle the meeting of these Peoples resonated with a deep significance that replicated along the rest of the Lummi’s spiritual trail.

For several years now the Northern Cheyenne have been resisting Arch Coal Inc., the second largest coal producer in the U.S. In 2012, the company applied for permission to begin surface mining operations at Otter Creek spanning a vast 7,639-acre area. If the Montana State government approves of the company’s application, the impacts on public health, land, water and air quality would be significant, just as they have been elsewhere in Powder River country.

Other Indigenous Nations–including the Oglala Sioux whose traditional homelands and hunting grounds are located in southeastern Montana–have joined the Northern Cheyenne in their opposition to the proposed mine at Otter Creek. The impact of the proposed Arch Coal mine is also a concern to local ranchers, who are standing with their Northern Cheyenne neighbours. All parties are equally concerned about the likely impacts of the Tongue River Railroad Co’s proposed Tongue River railway that would serve Arch Coal’s Otter Creek mine.

Photo by Paul Anderson

In both the case of the mine and the railroad, Indigenous and other local communities have complained of a lack of fair process. They feel foresaken by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Surface Transportation Board, the bodies charged with ensuring a fair and transparent process. Both government agencies appear to be ignoring the cultural and environmental importance of the area and the desires of its residents in order to push both projects forward.

1,200 miles away, the Lummi Nation have been fighting a battle of their own. Pacific International Terminals plans to build the largest coal port in North America known as the Gateway Pacific Terminal, at Xwe’chi’eXen, or Cherry point, a Lummi ancestral village and burial ground. The new port, jointly owned by SSA Marine and Goldman Sachs, would become a hub for exporting coal from the interior. Coal from the Powder River Basin by Peabody Energy would be hauled by trains along BNSF rail lines from Montana and Wyoming through Sandpoint, Idaho, to Spokane, down through the Columbia River Gorge, then up along the Puget Sound coast to Cherry Point.

Linking the struggles of the Lummi and Northern Cheyenne Peoples, the railroads are raising concerns about impacts to human and environmental health as well local economies. The coal port itself poses a serious threat to the local and surrounding marine ecosystems and livelihoods, not to mention and the cultural and spiritual integrity of Cherry Point itself.

Speaking at the blessing of the Totem Pole at Otter Creek, Romona Charles, a Lummi carver, summed up the incredulity and resistance of the Lummi peoples to the proposed development saying: “It (Cherry Point) was an old village and it’s a known grave site. My people are from there…There has not been one time I thought, ‘Let’s go put a coal port at Arlington Cemetery.’”

Folks on the Northern Cheyenne admire the Kwell Hoy’ totem pole. (Photo by Paul Anderson)

The reason Lummi, Northern Cheyenne and local communities in Puget Sound and Otter Creek are facing this unprecedented threat comes down to the fact that the US has begun to favour ‘new’ fossil fuels such as natural gas extracted via fracking. Gas-fired power stations are cheaper to construct and permissions are easier to obtain as, according to the authorities, natural gas has fewer environmental impacts. This domestic change of tide has left coal ‘unfashionable’ and shifted the focus of coal mining companies to exporting the mineral to Asian markets. To do this, the extractive industries require new links (the railroads) between the interior and the coast, and new export hubs (the ports) to send the coal off to the next leg of its trip across the Pacific Ocean.

The environmental cost of this change in tactics and the new infrastructure it requires is vast. At a time when anthropogenic climate change has been unequivocally proven, the exploitation of one of the dirtiest fossil fuels around–in order to generate power half way around the globe– spells even more trouble for people and planet.

United in this knowledge as well as the struggle for their lands, their sacred sites and their right to decide, about one hundred people including the Lummi and Northern Cheyenne, conservationists, ranchers and local community members met at Otter Creek for the blessing of the Totem. Sundance Priest Kenneth Medicine Bull, who conducted the ceremony, revealed the ritual’s significance as a way to find a solidarity that transcends the generations. Speaking after the ceremony, he stated, “We need to protect our way of life…I addressed the grandfathers, those who have gone before us, and I told them the reason we were here, and I asked them to hear our prayer and stand beside us.”

For those gathered, the symbolic giving of the Totem marked not only the visible unity of concerned individuals, groups and Nations, but a renewed commitment to say No to mining and destruction and Yes to the protection of life and the cultures that nurture it. This collective commitment is at the heart of the Totem’s message of Kwel’Hoy and the purpose of its journey, as Lummi master carver Jewell Praying Wolf James explained to those gathered:

“We kill the Earth as if we [have] a license to do it. We destroy life on it as if we were superior. And yet, deep inside, we know we can’t live without it. We’re all a part of creation and we have to find our spot in the circle of life…We’re concerned about protecting the environment as well as people’s health all the way from the Powder River to the West Coast… We’re traveling across the country to help unify people’s voices; it doesn’t matter who you are, where you are at or what race you are–red, black, white or yellow–we’re all in this together.”

Leaving Otter Creek and the Powder River Country and, in the following days, ritually winding their way up the Pacific North West Coast from community to community, the Lummi carvers continued to spread the key messages of one-ness and unity throughout the rest of the Totem’s journey.

On September 30, the Totem finally arrived on the lands of the Tsleil-Waututh community in North Vancouver, BC. There, in the company of those standing courageously at the forefront of the struggle against the pipelines of the Alberta Tar Sands, the people planted the Totem pole. A permanent symbol of solidarity and opposition to destruction, the Totem pole stands tall as a reminder of our sacred obligation to the Earth and each another.

Kwel Hoy’.

Photos by Paul Anderson

South Fork Nooksack Chinook Captive Broodstock Reach Spawning Age

Staff at NOAA’s Manchester Research Station ultrasound a chinook salmon to determine its sex and whether it is ready to be spawned.

Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

More than 500 mature chinook salmon raised in captivity could produce about 1 million eggs at the Lummi Nation’s Skookum Creek Hatchery this year.

Of those, more than 600,000 juveniles are expected to be released into the river next spring.

The fish are part of a captive broodstock program to preserve threatened South Fork Nooksack River chinook. The multi-agency effort involves Lummi, the Nooksack Tribe, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its goal is to help the recovery of the South Fork Nooksack chinook, a significant population that must be on a path to recovery before Endangered Species Act restrictions can be lifted.

In 2007, the partners began collecting juvenile chinook in the South Fork Nooksack River to raise to spawning age. The juveniles were genetically tested to sort out stray fish from hatchery programs and the South Fork Nooksack chinook were transferred to the WDFW Kendall Creek Hatchery for initial rearing. Later, half of the fish were retained to rear in fresh water at Kendall, while the other half were transferred to the NOAA Manchester Research Station for rearing in salt water.

The first offspring spawned from the captive broodstock were released in 2011. Project managers expect the program to peak in 2016 with the release of 1 million juveniles. Based on a conservative survival rate, more than 4,000 adult chinook could return to the South Fork Nooksack in 2019.

Historically, about 13,000 natural origin South Fork spring chinook spawned in the Nooksack River, but since 1999, surveys estimated that fewer than 100 native spring chinook returned as adults. Degraded and lost habitat are the main reasons for the population’s decline, as there are no directed harvest on the stock. Incidental catches, mostly in Canadian fisheries, are relatively insignificant.

“We needed to protect this population while we conduct extensive habitat work,” said Merle Jefferson, natural resources director for the Lummi Nation. “Our hope is that these fish, when they return, will jumpstart the population in restored habitat.”

Both the Nooksack Tribe and the Lummi Nation have done restoration work in the South Fork to re-establish suitable habitat for salmon to rear, feed and spawn.

Failed Treaty of Point Elliott Promises Spotlighted in Play

Richard Walker, Indian Country Today Media Network

This was James “Smitty” Hillaire’s debut as a stage actor, and yet he emoted anger, frustration and pain like a pro.

“We don’t like to call it acting,” Hillaire said. “We’re trying to tell a story, a story that hasn’t been told … A lot of people didn’t realize why we’re still fighting for our rights today. It’s still going on.”

Hillaire portrays Chowitshoot, a leader of the Lummi people and a reluctant signer of the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott in “What About Those Promises?”, a stage production about treaty promises that have not been fulfilled by the United States.

To develop the script, Shelly Muzzy pored through transcripts of proceedings stored at the University of Washington. The audience is confronted with a true version of history not like those found in many textbooks.

“What About Those Promises?” brings to life the realities of—and the emotional trauma stemming from—the unfulfilled promises of the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. (Lummi Nation)

Here, Chowitshoot and other Lummi representatives raise concerns about how the treaty will affect their rights to fish, hunt, harvest, and continue their way of life. Chief Si’ahl, or Seattle, leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish peoples, urges his peers to not sign the treaty.

The treaty was signed under duress, Hillaire said. “Sign or walk knee deep in blood—those were the words. We had no choice. We were forced to sign.”

The play brings to life the ongoing struggles of the Lummi people to see the promises of the treaty fulfilled, and gives voice to the people involved in those struggles.

The scenes take place when the United States was in the “fever of the termination era” and terminating its treaty responsibilities owed to tribes, Jewell James wrote in Whatcom Watch; he is director of the Lummi Nation’s Sovereignty and Treaty Protection Office. The region’s First People were jailed for trying to fish and harvest in their traditional grounds, as promised in Article 5 of the treaty; their rights to fish and harvest were upheld in 1974 in the U.S. District Court case, U.S. v. Washington, also known as the Boldt decision.

“What About Those Promises?” also reveals to the audience the emotional toll the post-treaty years have had—the residential schools, the termination era, and the continuing fight to protect rights, the environment and sacred places.

“We’ve been treated like animals, actually,” Hillaire said. “I believe we are one of the most regulated people in the whole country. We’re treated like prisoners of war; we’ve never gone to war [against the U.S.], we never surrendered either, but they treat us like a conquered people.”

“What About Those Promises?” brings to life the realities of—and the emotional trauma stemming from—the unfulfilled promises of the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. (Lummi Nation)

Hillaire and his wife, Lutie, who also has a role in the play, have been participating in workshops to help them deal with the emotional impacts of historical trauma.

“I have a difficult time right off trying to deal with the anger,” he said. “I have kind of mixed emotions—some of it anger, some of it sadness.”

What producer Darrell Hillaire hopes people take away from his play: “That their word is good. Anybody. All people. All cultures. To keep our word to one another. We have such diverse peoples living in this country, in our communities. How do we best learn to live together? Well, you keep your promises first. From there, you learn to live together.”

State Rep. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, one of two Native Americans in the state House of Representatives, authored laws that require the history and culture of Washington’s First Peoples is taught in the state’s public schools, and allow tribes to open their own schools and create their own curriculum.

“This would be a great production to be out there [in schools],” he said. “You bring in your youngsters and your current leadership and your elders, and then do this production. If every tribe would do that, we’d really educate the state of Washington.”

He added, “Youngsters, you have to listen—listen to the stories of the elders, so we know where we’ve been, so you know where to go.”

The next staging of the production will be October 18 at Seattle University’s Pigott Hall at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are available at BrownPaperTickets.com.

Lummi Nation Opposes Development of Cherry Point Export Terminal with Letter to Corps of Engineers

Position calls into question future of massive Gateway Pacific shipping facility

Source: Pyramid Communications

LUMMI INDIAN RESERVATION, BELLINGHAM, Wash.—Building the proposed Gateway Pacific export terminal and rail spur at Cherry Point would “have a substantial impairment on the Lummi treaty fishing right,” the Lummi Nation said in a formal opposition letter sent this week to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Opposition by the tribe could imperil the terminal and rail spur.

“It will make us reassess the direction we are going,” Muffy Walker, the Corps’ district regulatory branch chief was quoted as saying by The Bellingham Herald. The Corps of Engineers has authority to grant permits necessary to build the terminal. “We have denied permits in the past, based on tribal concerns,” Walker was quoted as saying.

In the letter, Lummi Indian Business Council Chair Tim Ballew writes, “Any impact on the Lummi treaty fishing right is inherently an impact on the Lummi way of life…. We believe that the Corps should see that these projects would without question result in significant and unavoidable impacts and damage to our treaty rights.

Lummi Indians maintain the largest Native fishing fleet in the United States, and Lummi fishers have worked in the XweChiexen (Cherry Point) fishery for thousands of years.

If constructed, the Gateway Pacfic export terminal would be the largest coal terminal on the West Coast of North America. It would significantly degrade an already fragile and vulnerable crab, herring and salmon fishery, dealing a devastating blow to the economy of the fisher community.

“It is imperative that the Corps carry out its trust responsibilities as they relate to the Lummi Nation and the treaty rights to fish, gather and hunt in the usual and accustomed places,” Ballew wrote.

The complete text of the letter follows.

July 30, 2013

Colonel Bruce A. Estok, District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers – Seattle District
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124

Lummi Opposition: Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal Bulk Dry Goods Shipping Facility (Ref. No. NWS-2008-260) and the Custer Spur Rail Expansion (Ref. No. NWS-2011-325) Projects

Dear Colonel Estok,

The Lummi Nation has unconditional and unequivocal opposition to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (Ref. No. NWS-2008-260) and the inter-related Custer Spur Rail Expansion project (Ref. No. NWS-2011-325) projects at Cherry Point. As described in our resolution 2012-060 and in our previous letters dated October 17, 2011 and January 21, 2013 (attached), the Lummi Nation has a number of significant objections to the proposed projects.

In developing the Lummi Nation’s position on the projects, the Nation heeded the following principles:

“Everything is connected.” As our elders conveyed through our Xwlemi’chosen (Lummi language) that cultural and spiritual significances expressed by our ancestors for the land, water and the environment are all connected.
“We must manage our resources for the seventh generation of our people.” Our unique heritage requires us to honor our past, present and future generations. Since time immemorial we have managed resources that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren.
As a tribal government, we have adopted the critical goal that we must preserve, promote, and protect our Schelangen (“way of life”).

Review of the known facts, data, site plans, and the development and operational goals of the projects have resulted in a clear and convincing conclusion that the proposed projects, if built and operated, would have a substantial impairment on the Lummi treaty fishing right harvest at XweChiexen (Cherry Point) and throughout the Lummi “usual and accustomed” fishing areas. Any impact on the Lummi treaty fishing right is inherently an impact on the Lummi way of life. The Lummi Nation cannot see how the proposed projects could be developed in a manner that does not amount to significant impairment on the treaty fishing right and a negative effect on the Lummi way of life. Please recognize this letter as a clear statement of opposition to these projects from the Lummi Nation.

The Lummi Nation expects that the Corps of Engineers (Corps), on behalf of the United States of America, to honor the trust obligations to the Lummi Nation related to these proposed projects. We believe that the Corps should see that these projects would without question result in significant and unavoidable impacts and damage to our treaty rights. If the projects at Cherry Point are constructed and operated there will be impacts on the Lummi treaty rights forever. It is imperative that the Corps carry out its trust responsibilities as they relate to the Lummi Nation and the treaty rights to fish, gather and hunt in the usual and accustomed places.

These comments in no way waive any future opportunity to participate in government-to-government consultation regarding the proposed projects and the associated state or federal government issued permits. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the attached comments or to schedule a government-to-government meeting regarding these projects.

Respectfully,

Tim Ballew II, Chair
Lummi Indian Business Council

Tribes Try Alternative Fishing Gear

Nisqually Tribe uses tangle nets, beach seines to reduce impact on chinook

E. O’ConnellBenji Kautz, Nisqually Tribe, unloads chinook during the tribe’s fishery last fall. — E. O’Connell
Benji Kautz, Nisqually Tribe, unloads chinook during the tribe’s fishery last fall.

E. O’Connell, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Treaty Indian tribes in western Washington are experimenting with fishing methods that help conserve depressed salmon

and steelhead stocks. The Nisqually Tribe began using alternative gear a few years ago, and this spring, the Lummi Nation and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe both held tangle net fisheries. Tangle nets are similar to gillnets, but have a smaller mesh size.

The Nisqually Indian Tribe will continue to lower impacts on returning chinook salmon this year.

“To make good on our recent gains in habitat restoration in the Nisqually, fishermen need to decrease how many natural origin chinook are caught,” said David Troutt, natural resources director for the tribe.

In recent years, the tribe has implemented drastic changes to its fishing regime, including a decrease of 15 fishing days since 2004; reducing the number of nets that can be used by a fisherman from three to two; and having just less than a month of mark-selective fishing with tangle nets and beach seines.

This year’s fishing plan will continue implementing mark-selective fishing, but only with beach seines.

“A historically large run of pink salmon is forecast to come in alongside chinook and coho this year,” Troutt said. Tangle

nets – which ensnare fish by their teeth – would catch an un- usually high number of pinks, which tribal fishermen aren’t targeting.

“Since 2004, Nisqually tribal fishermen have already cut hundreds of hours off their chinook season,” Troutt said. “Tribal fishermen are bearing the brunt of conservation for these fish so we can help them recover.”

In a mark-selective fishery, fishermen release natural origin fish that haven’t had their adipose fin removed in a hatchery. The adipose fin is a soft, fleshy fin found on the back behind the dorsal fin. Its removal does not affect the salmon.

“Mark-selective fisheries are a useful tool and the Nisqually is a unique place in western Washington where it could benefit salmon and tribal fisheries,” Troutt said.

Water dispute clouds future for Whatcom County farms, factories

By JOHN STARK — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

Everyone involved in Whatcom County’s water rights disputes seems to agree that a local settlement would be a good idea, but representatives of Lummi Nation have made it clear they will not sacrifice Nooksack River salmon to benefit farms, industries or cities.

Speaking at a May 30-31 water supply symposium at the Hampton Inn in Bellingham, Lummi Nation attorney Diana Bob said the facts were clear.

Dan Kruse, left, and Robert Teton of the Lummi Natural Resources Department, use a net to try to catch juvenile salmon to count on Feb. 15, 2012 at Marine Park in Bellingham. The department counts juvenile salmon around Bellingham Bay about once every two weeks. The Lummi and Nooksack tribes have asked federal agencies to file a lawsuit on their behalf to help determine the amount of water they should be guaranteed to bolster Nooksack River salmon stock.COLIN DILTZ — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD — Dan Kruse, left, and Robert Teton of the Lummi Natural Resources Department, use a net to try to catch juvenile salmon to count on Feb. 15, 2012 at Marine Park in Bellingham. The department counts juvenile salmon around Bellingham Bay about once every two weeks. The Lummi and Nooksack tribes have asked federal agencies to file a lawsuit on their behalf to help determine the amount of water they should be guaranteed to bolster Nooksack River salmon stock.
COLIN DILTZ — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

“We have fish dying in the Nooksack River because we do not have sufficient flows,” Bob said. “That is an unacceptable proposition to Lummi.”

The flow of water in the Nooksack and its tributaries is reduced by withdrawals of water for the city of Bellingham and Cherry Point industries, but Whatcom County farms withdraw even more to irrigate raspberries and blueberries. River water is also used to irrigate cow pastures in dry months.

Both the Lummi and the Nooksack Indian Tribe have a federally recognized right to catch Nooksack River salmon. The tribes have asked federal agencies to file a lawsuit on their behalf to force the state to take steps to define the amount of water that they should be guaranteed, to bolster the flow of water in the river and its tributaries. That likely would mean curbing the amount of water that other users are allowed to withdraw.

The tribes asked the feds to file the lawsuit more than a year ago, and so far there has been no word of a response.

Farmers admit that more than half the water they withdraw is not authorized by state law. Farm groups’ attempts to negotiate a deal with tribes have broken down, as have negotiations between the tribes and city of Bellingham. The city diverts water from the middle fork of the Nooksack River to replenish its direct water source, Lake Whatcom.

While the city has reduced its take of river water and could likely cut it even more, berry growers could be badly squeezed.

Marty Maberry, a prominent fourth-generation berry grower, said he too wanted to see salmon populations increase. He suggested that if farmers can get enough water to stay in business, they could help bolster the amount of water in streams by drilling new wells to spill into streams. He said underground water supplies are abundant in the county.

In many cases, pumping from wells also can reduce the flow of water in nearby streams, making solutions complex. But cutting off the water supply to Whatcom County farms is a poor response, Maberry said.

“The production of food and the care of the land that we farm runs as deep red in my blood … as it does in tribal members about fish,” Maberry said. “They were here first, but we were here second or third.”

He questioned the logic of taking Whatcom County fields out of production.”

We’re in the most natural place to grow food that you can find anywhere in the United States,” Maberry said, adding that putting farmers out of business because of tribal water and fishing rights would embitter the community.

Lummi representative Randy Kinley said the tribes don’t want to put farmers out of business, but they are not afraid of stirring up resentment if that’s what it takes to guarantee their rights.

“We’ve been there and I’m not afraid to go back there,” Kinley said, referring to the 1974 federal court ruling that recognized treaty fishing rights and forced dramatic reductions in salmon harvests by non-Indians.

“That’s not saying we won’t sit at the table,” Kinley said. “We want to be community members. … We hope we can keep the community together, but the community has to understand where we’re coming from. … We don’t want to put anybody out of business, but you have to understand the predicament you got yourselves into.”

Kinley and others noted that withdrawal of Nooksack water for agriculture has increased rapidly in recent years with little oversight by the state or Whatcom County.

Whatcom County’s Cherry Point is home to two oil refineries and an aluminum smelter that provide hundreds of high-wage jobs. They also use significant amounts of Nooksack River water, supplied by Whatcom County Public Utility District.

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export pier also would use river water from the PUD. PUD spokeswoman Rebecca Schlotterback said Gateway Pacific has already lined up its water supply via a PUD contract that extends to 2042.

While the PUD has a legal right to Nooksack water to cover its industrial customers, that right (and every other Nooksack River water right) is considered “junior” to the tribes’ water rights, since they were here first. Attorney Jay Manning, former chief of staff to Gov. Chris Gregoire and former director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said the PUD’s right to its water supply is not ironclad in that situation. Other water users also may be ahead of the PUD in the water line, if the available supply of water is cut back by a court order that allocates a larger share of water to the tribes for salmon populations.

“It’s going to be a function of math,” Manning said. “Where is the PUD’s right in that chain of priority? … Will there be enough water for the PUD to honor that (Gateway Pacific) contract? We don’t know that.”

Manning urged the crowd not to despair. He said workable solutions can be developed at the local level.

Perry Eskridge, government affairs director for the Whatcom County Association of Realtors, said local solutions would be best.

“If we don’t figure this thing out on our own, it is going to be figured out for us,” Eskridge said. “Somebody with a little bit more authority is going to shove it down our throats and we are not going to like that.”

Several speakers urged people to continue to work for a local agreement. Two of those speakers suggested that the tribes still may be motivated to make a deal, because there is no guarantee that the federal government will agree to take the state to court, and no guarantee such a court action would give the tribes all the water they want for salmon.

Michael Mirande, adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law, said legal uncertainty has spurred out-of-court settlements of thorny water rights cases elsewhere.

Jim Bucknell, northern regional manager for RH2 Engineering, agreed.”

If any one person was absolutely certain they would prevail in a lawsuit, they would have sued long ago,” Bucknell said.

Bucknell also observed that no settlement will be painless.

“If you think there’s a solution that everyone in this basin is going to love, you’re delusional,” Bucknell said.

Reach John Stark at 360-715-2274 or john.stark@bellinghamherald.com. Read his Politics blog at blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics or follow him on Twitter at @bhamheraldpolitics.