Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:09:54.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Reweaving Earth: An Indigenous Perspective on Restoration Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

Linda Moon Stumpff
Linda Moon Stumpff
Affiliation:
Environmental Studies Department, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington
Get access

Abstract

Tribal restoration planning, based on indigenous ideas and practices, evolved with the self-determination and self-governance initiatives of tribal governments in the United States. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation was roughly concurrent with the return of management authority over Indian trust lands to tribes in the 1970s and 1980s. Many, but not all, of the 556 federally recognized tribal governments have assumed responsibility for NEPA planning processes. Other planning processes pursued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Indian trust lands and those of the State of Washington for educational trust lands offer significant contrasts; to further delineate these contrasts, the author overlays tribal planning activities with a four-point methodological framework. The tribal restoration planning approach begs the question of how to maintain a dynamic range where human and natural environments are connected in past, present, and future. Tribal resource planning supports ecosystem processes and maintains tribal values at the same time. Today, federal devolution and the effects of previous intervention combine with accelerated processes of decline resulting from global warming and species extinction. The future of Indian trust lands as natural and cultural homelands may depend in large part on the ability of tribes to implement planning strategies that assure continuous restoration. The case of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (hereinafter referred to as “Salish Kootenai”) in Montana offers hope through landscape-level planning strategies applied to restore that cultural and natural landscape.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 93 - 103
Copyright
© 2006 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Basso, K. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, 171 pp.
Boggs, J. 1991. NEPA in the Domain of Federal Indian Policy: Social Knowledge and the Negotiation of Meaning. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 9(1):31–42.Google Scholar
Cajete, G. 1998. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Books, Albuquerque, NM, 315 pp.
Cameron, A. 1989. Dzelarhons. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park, BC, Canada, 160 pp.
Castile, G. P. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy 1960–75. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 227 pp.
Deloria, P. S. 2004. Lecture delivered at The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA, February.
Fixico, D. L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, 258 pp.
Flathead Indian Reservation Forest Management Plan [Integrated Forest Management Plan DEIS]. 1999. Prepared by Tecumseh Professionals Association for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Salish and Kootenai Tribes, released March 2000 (copy in author's possession obtained from Salish Kootenai Tribal Natural Resources Department), 350 pp.
Jojola, T. 2001. Indigenous Planning and Resource Management. In Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Natural Resource Management, R. Clow and I. Sutton, eds. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 303–314.
Kimmerer, R. W. 2002. Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action. BioOne 52:432–438.Google Scholar
Krahe, D. L. 2001. A Sovereign Prescription for Preservation: The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness. In Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Natural Resource Management, R. Clow and I. Sutton, eds. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 195–224.
Matt, D. F. 2004. Chairman, Salish Kootenai Tribe, in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton, April 23 (copy in the author's possession; requests for copies from US government files can be made through the Department of the Interior or the Salish Kootenai Tribe).
McDonald, T., T. Tanner, L. Bigcrane, and D. Rockwell. 2005. Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study. Prepared for the Native Lands and Wilderness Council by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT, 35pp.
McQuillan, A. G. 2001. American Indian Forestry: Its Evolution in the Context of US Forest History. In Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Natural Resource Management, R. Clow and I. Sutton, eds. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 73–104.
Morganroth, C. E., III 2004. Natural Resources in the Pacific Northwest: A Personal and Quileute Perspective on Environmental Ethics. Environmental Practice 6(1):11–14.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. L. 2002. Wildlife Restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC, 202 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans. Federal Register 70(247). Available at http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/plan/docs/FRN.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Salish Kootenai Tribe. 2004. Bison Initiative. http://www.cskt.org/nr/bison/html. Accessed February 27, 2004.
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2006. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/plan. Accessed February 21, 2006.
Sutton, I. 2001. Indian Cultural, Historical and Sacred Resources [quote from D. Rockwell]. In Trusteeship In Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Natural Resource Management, R. Clow and I. Sutton, eds. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 277–298.
US Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190, 1 January 1970). 42 United States Code, 4321–4347, as amended.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act. Secretarial Order 3206. Washington, DC. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/tribal/Esatribe.htm. Accessed February 19, 2006.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Untitled visitor brochure on National Bison Range (in author's possession). Washington, DC.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2004. State Lands Managed by the Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/base/statelands.htm. Accessed December 21, 2005.
Washington State School Directors' Association. 2004. Trust Lands and School Construction. In Hot Topics, Washington State School Directors' Association, Olympia, WA, 6 pp.
Wolf Center. 2006. Nez Perce Role in Wolf Reintroduction. http://www.wolfcenter.org. Accessed February 20, 2006.
Zaferatos, N. C. 1999. Tribal Planning as Strategic Political Action: A Case Study of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Journal of the American Planning Association 64(4):395–410.Google Scholar
Zuni Cruz, C. 2003. Tribal Law (FNa) as Indigenous Social Reality and Separate Consciousness: (Re)Incorporating Customs and Traditions into Tribal Law. http://www.tlj.unm.edu/articles/czc/content.htm:1-28. Accessed February 4, 2004.