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):

Michigan SCT Briefs in Enbridge Line 5 Matter

Here are the applications for leave to appeal in In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5:

Application for Leave to Appeal

FLOW Application for Leave

Lower court materials here.

NARF Launches The Headwaters Report

The Headwaters Report – is a new digital blog site, bulletin, and source for Tribal water law information and resourcesThe Headwaters Report presents accessible information on foundational Tribal water law concepts and practices as well as current and emerging water-related issues.

    The first article focuses on the Clean Water Act, a 50-year-old law that, among other things, allows Tribes to assert regulatory jurisdiction over water quality and activities that impact water quality within reservation boundaries. In our next Report update, we plan to address the changes the Trump Administration is attempting to make to the Clean Water Act and how that may affect Tribal Nations.

    In the Report you will also find several slide decks on Tribal water rights information, including one on the basics of Tribal water rightsgeneral stream adjudications, and Indian water rights settlements. We intend The Headwaters Report to act not only as a clearinghouse for Tribal water law and policy information, but as a place to bring questions and to get guidance.

    Washington Federal Court Remands Tribal Climate Change Claims to State Court

    Here are the materials in the consolidated cases, Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.) and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.):

    Michigan Tribes Exit U.S. Army Corps Sham “Consultation” re: Line 5

    Here: