Utah Federal Court Declines to Allow Ute Tribe to Intervene in Federal Environmental Enforcement Action against Tribal Business Partner

Here are materials in United States v. Ovintiv USA Inc. (D. Utah)/United States v. Fourpoint Resources LLC (D. Utah):

16 Motion to Intervene

42 Ute Tribe Brief

43 Federal Brief

44 Reply

45 DCT Order

Red Cliff Ojibwe Sues 3M over PFAS

Here is the complaint in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. 3M (D.S.C.):

San Carlos Apache Tribe Renews Opposition to Oak Flat Copper Mine

Here are new materials in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Dept. of Agriculture (D. Ariz.):

Miccosukee Tribe Intervention Materials in Alligator Alcatraz Suit

Here are the materials in Friends of the Everglades v. Noem (S.D. Fla.):

Monte Mills and Martin Nie on Tribal Co-Stewardship of Federal Public Lands

Monte Mills and Martin Nie have published “Planning A New Paradigm: Tribal Co-Stewardship and Federal Public Lands Planning” in the Colorado Environmental Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

Planning is a critical part of the federal government’s management of the nation’s public lands. Over the last halfcentury, Congress has mandated that each of the four major public land management agencies; the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, develop and rely on plans to guide their oversight of public lands and resources. Virtually every activity or decision affecting these public lands can be traced back to language in—or missing from—a plan. But, despite the importance of planning, the process by which each agency develops and implements plans presents complex challenges for both the agencies and those interested in participating in or influencing both planning and resultant management decisions. These challenges can frustrate, if not derail, the incorporation of meaningful changes in planning documents that, given the often decades-long lifespan of a plan, could have long-term impact. The federal Departments of Interior and Agriculture—home to the four major land management agencies—are enhancing their engagement with Native Nations in the co-stewardship of public lands and resources. Given its importance to the management of public lands and resources, planning is key to these efforts, especially because most plans now, in effect, do little to consider the interests of Native Nations. Thus, although federal and tribal co-stewardship covers a range of activities, the relationship between co-stewardship and planning offers one of the most powerful avenues for reshaping the future of federal-tribal relations in the management of public lands and resources. This Article provides the first comprehensive effort to align federal public land planning with tribal co-stewardship through an analysis of the statutory, regulatory, and procedural planning requirements relevant to each of the four major federal public land management agencies. The Article also analyzes various plans and planning efforts to offer a roadmap for how Native Nations and their federal partners can use planning to spark and sustain a new era of tribal co-stewardship of federal lands and resources.

Washington Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Enviro Challenge to Jamestown S’Klallam Oyster Farm

Here are the materials in Protect the Peninsula’s Future v. Haaland (W.D. Wash.):

22 Amended Complaint

44 Motion to Dismiss

56 Federal Response

57 Plaintiffs Response

60 Reply

65 DCT Order

Arizona DCT Stays Oak Flat Land Transfer Pending SCT Cert Decision

Here are the materials in Apache Stronghold v. United States (D. Ariz.):

150 Motion for Emergency Stay

156 Copper Company Response

157 Federal Response

162 Reply ISO 150

170 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Materials in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Teck Cominco Metals LTD

Oral argument (sadly no food fights):

Briefs:

CCT Opening Brief

Nez Perce Amicus Brief

Siletz Letter

Suquamish Letter

US Amicus Brief

Mining Company Answer

Canada Amicus Brief — BOO! Canada

Reply

New Student Scholarship on Anishinaabe Treaty Rights and Bad River’s Suit against Enbridge Line 5

Delaney Kelly has published ““We Stand With the Water”: Ojibwe Treaty Rights, the Walleye Wars, and the Imminent Threat of Enbridge’s Line 5” in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law.

Here is the abstract:

Enbridge Energy’s crude oil pipeline, known as Line 5, currently poses a serious threat to the vitality of the Bad River in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes more broadly. Its construction threatens centuries old treaty rights of Ojibwe nations. Line 5 has been the subject of protest and extensive legal action over the past decade. This Note analyzes the legal claims leveraged by various Ojibwe nations against Enbridge. First, it considers the history of the Ojibwe people in the Midwest region and the treaties forged between the United States and Ojibwe leaders, which enshrined rights to hunt, fish, and gather on both reservation and ceded territory. Then, it analyzes the attempted forced removal of the Ojibwe by the federal government, despite these treaties. Next, it details early twentieth century criminalization of the exercise of the right to hunt, fish, and gather, and the legal battle to exercise those reserved rights. Then, it discusses the Walleye Wars of the late twentieth century. Finally, this Note describes how the contemporary legal battle against Enbridge’s Line 5 builds upon this legacy, arguing that the environmental threat posed by the pipeline inhibits the ability to exercise reserved treaty rights, and threatens the vitality of the land.

Alaska Tribal Village Sues Army Corps over Wetlands Permit Issued to Gold Mining Company

Here is the complaint in Village of Dot Lake v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska):