Flying Finns
Are American Forests and Forest Management Improving?
Indian forests are unique. They are neither federally nor privately owned, but are held in trust by the United States and managed for the benefit of Indian tribes and individuals. Since Indian tribes are sovereign governments in their own right, management of Indian forests must comply with tribal laws and regulations as well as those established under applicable federal laws.
Nationwide, there are 302 forested reservations (199 contain timberlands and 185 contain woodlands), containing 7.7 million acres of timberland (5.7 commercial) and 10.2 million acres of woodlands (IFMAT, 2003). Indian forests have been actively managed by tribal communities for thousands of years and remain a vital part of tribal life on reservations in every part of the contiguous United States and Alaska. Subsistence lifestyles and forest-derived foods and medicines are important to many tribal members. Indian forests often play a role in religious observance and artistic expression. Forest protection and use remain core values on forested reservations.
Timber production, non-timber forest products, grazing, and wildlife management provide revenues and jobs for tribal members and enhance the economic life of surrounding communities. Several tribes operate enterprises to harvest or process forest products, provide management services such as thinning or tree planting, and maintain highly qualified fire crews. Increasingly, tribes are operating their own resource management programs to provide inhouse expertise in forestry, fish, range and wildlife to complement traditional ecological knowledge within their communities.
Compared to some agencies and private timber companies, Indian forests are relatively modest in size. Nationwide, approximately 500 of 2500 Indian forestry staff are classified as professional. The total annual harvest is approximately 600 MMBF compared to an annual allowable cut of 875 MMBF (89% timberlands, 11% woodlands). But Tribes can play an important role in the social and political landscape of forest management. Many tribes have lived in the same place for generations and have and continue to witness the consequences of their decisions everyday. Because of their dependence on resource utilization, tribes cannot afford to allow bureaucratic or judicial processes to paralyze decision processes. They have defined tribal constituencies and unique political and legal rights which enables them to act when the need or opportunity arises. Because of these unique factors—permanence and commitment to stewardship, the capacity to take action in a timely manner—Indian forests can serve as examples of sustainable forest management that provides numerous economic and cultural benefits while protecting the landscape ecology, ecosystem structure and function.
IFMAT I and IFMAT II
 BIA forest planner Ken Borchert examines a “bluestain” ponderosa stump in the Log Springs area. Timely management action is very important not only when disease strikes, but in the salvage of firedamaged wood. Bluestain enjoys a niche premium on the retail end of the supply chain, but takes a significant price hit at the producer end. |
The Interior Department selected the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) to coordinate both assessments.1 ITC recruited a panel2 of nationally recognized forestry experts (IFMAT), including Dr. John Gordon of Yale, to conduct the assessment. The ITC helped facilitate access to timber tribes and federal personnel, but otherwise left IFMAT alone to independently conduct its evaluation. ITC’s charge to IFMAT was simple, “Tell it straight. Tell it like it is. We want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
IFMAT I visited thirty-three timber tribes and interviewed many federal and tribal personnel over the course of two years. Its report found that Indian forests varied widely as to their character, health, productivity, and management objectives; that Indian forests have the potential to serve as models for sustainability, and that pervasive underfunding and understaffing hamper management (IFMAT, 1993). Principal recommendations included increased funding to levels at least comparable to those provided for federal forest lands, and that trust oversight and trust management should be separated.
IFMAT I identified four specific gaps: 1) a gap between the Indians’ vision of their forest and how it is managed; 2) a gap in funding between Indian forests and comparable federal and private forests; 3) a lack of coordinated resource planning and management; and 4) a gap in trust standards and oversight. The report’s principal recommendation was that the trust relationship between the tribes and the U.S. be reconfigured by a) significantly increasing BIA Forestry funding so that it was on a par with funding provided for federal forests, and somewhat controversially b) establishing a separate and independent entity, apart from the Interior Department, to monitor and evaluate the sufficiency of BIA trust forest management. IFMAT I was distributed to the tribes, the Interior Department, and the Congress. As part of IFMAT’s research, every forested tribe visited received its own confidential report on the team’s assessment of that tribe’s forest.
The findings and recommendations in IFMAT I, combined with those contained in the reports provided to individual tribes, provided roadmaps for improving forest management on individual reservations which tribes could pursue on their own volition. Nationally, the report found that, despite significant challenges and funding levels only a third of those provided for the management of federal forestlands (Table 1, page 37), Indian forest lands have a striking potential to serve as models of sustainability.
IFMAT I has continued to contribute to the trust management of Indian forests and has established a benchmark against which change can be measured with a consistent set of criteria. When the Healthy Forests Initiative was getting underway early in this Administration, BIA Forestry program managers referred extensively to the report in policy dis-cussions with senior Departmental personnel, including Secretary Norton. The report increased understanding of the scope and magnitude of the inadequacies of funding the forestry program and awareness of specific actions necessary to correct deficiencies.
The IFMAT II team included six of the IFMAT I members, and was again led by Dr. Gordon3. The background experience of these same members greatly streamlined the processes for IFMAT II and permitted a credible assessment despite the much more limited budget. More importantly, consistency in membership has provided truly invaluable continuity of experience and expertise from IFMAT I to IFMAT II, bringing their intimate first-hand familiarity with both IFMAT’s analytical processes and the national trust Indian forest resource to the second IFMAT assessment and report. Budgetary constraints permitted fewer on-site visits by IFMAT II members than was possible with IFMAT I (30 vs. 33), but the information available through the forest certification readiness scoping assessments provided sufficient data to permit completion of the study. Many of the same reservations were visited in both IFMAT I and IFMAT II, to provide information that enabled the evaluation of progress and change between assessments. Partial funding for IFMAT II was obtained through with the assistance of the Pinchot Institute which secured grants from the Ford and Surdna Foundations to evaluate the readiness of Indian tribes to partake in the two leading third party forest certification systems (those sponsored by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the Forest Stewardship Council). The data collected by these assessments supplemented site visits by IFMAT II.
IFMAT II found that progress had been made in closing the gaps identified in IFMAT I due to efforts of dedicated tribal and BIA resource managers and staff to address problem areas, but noted continuing gaps in funding, forest health, and independent oversight (IFMAT II, 2003). Significant progress toward sustainability in Indian forests was noted, including the continuing opportunity for Indian forests to serve as models of sustainable forest management to meet the needs of human communities.
 The colored flags indicate plots that are being monitored in the Bear Butte Jeff Creek area. The issue here is the need for revenue/funding to support this monitoring process. |
The second gap, in funding between Indian and other comparable lands, particularly federal land, is narrowing due to increased funding to address fire issues in Indian forests, and a redirection of emphasis on federal forests. IFMAT I reported that federal funding provided for Indian forests (including fire funds) in 1991 was only about onethird the amount per acre as was appropriated for national forests. Congress still provides considerably less per acre for management of Indian forests than for the federal forests held in trust for all Americans. Even greater funding is provided by some states and private industry, particularly in the West. IFMAT II reported that in 2001 Indian forestry received about two-thirds the amount per acre as was invested in the national forests (Table 1, page 37). This gap narrowed for two reasons: 1) federal funding for forest management on national forests had been substantially reduced; and 2) funding for fuels management, fire preparedness, and emergency stabilization activities on Indian forests had increased significantly in recognition of the fuel buildup on Indian (and other) forests due to past management practices and forest health needs. IFMAT II also found that improvements in program efficiency could be achieved by integrating funding for wildland fire hazard and risk abatement into a comprehensive forest management program to perform needed silvicultural treatments. While considerable increases in funding are required to address problems with the management of Indian forests identified by IFMAT II, the main organization impediment to realizing the promise of Indian forestry would require minimal expenditures—the establishment of effective, independent oversight.
The third gap, integrated management planning, the larger context for forest management plans, has improved markedly but funding and staff resources are still inadequate to meet identified needs. IFMAT II found that only 40% of tribes had up-to-date forest management plans in 2001.
The fourth gap, in providing independent trust oversight, has seen the least progress on the ground. The BIA is still in the untenable position of “pitching and umpiring”, that is providing management services and advice while at the same time overseeing the adequacy of those services and advice. Both IFMAT reports recommend that a “triangulation” model be employed for trust oversight, involving tribal forest management plans and separation of operational from oversight responsibilities. Under this system, tribes would develop management plans based on tribal goals with the support, if needed, of BIA technical specialists. These plans would then be negotiated with the Secretary of the Interior, and when in place, would form the basis for trust oversight and performance evaluation by a commission independent of the Secretary and the BIA, in a manner consistent with tribal sovereignty and federal law. Responsibility for delivering the natural resource management program would be placed under a single manager for each tribal forest. IFMAT argues that the virtues of such a structure are: 1) separation of the BIA’s role as manager and provider of technical information from its role as arbiter of the effectiveness of management; and 2) establishment of goals and objectives appropriate for each tribe as the driving force of management plans and actions.
Forest Health
IFMAT II found that there has been overall improvement in the silvicultural practices and management of forest health issues (fire, insects, disease) on Indian forests since IFMAT I. Innovative silvicultural prescriptions and improved integrated management is occurring on the ground. Indian forest managers have made significant strides in addressing wildfire risk, but more acreage needs to be treated for hazardous fuels reduction. However, without concerted effort to combat forest health problems and institute sustain-able management, there is considerable risk that Indian forests will deteriorate due to a combination of funding shortfalls, personnel shortages, and ecosystem-based problems (insects, disease, and fire).
 Lake Quinault is a part of the Quinault Reservation. The mountains in the background make up much of the Colonel Bob Wilderness. |
Role of Tribal Forestry Programs and Staffing Needs for Specialized Expertise
Tribal members live intimately with all the results of their forestry activities so they pay close attention to the health of their forests and the effects of forest management activities on themselves and their environment. Much of the progress towards improved management practices on Indian forests is a direct result of the increased credence, acceptance, and prominence of tribal views and philosophies of stewardship in the care of Indian resources. The number of tribes that compact or contract to provide forestry services and functions on their own reservations has nearly doubled since 1991. Despite this, staffing for Indian forest management (both BIA and tribal), exclusive of fire programs, has declined 26%. Overall staffing for Indian forestry programs when fire is included has increased slightly from 1991 levels, and the percentage of workers with professional qualifications has increased. More tribes now employ specialists in wildlife biology, hydrology and landscape analysis. At the same time, BIA technical assistance staffing has significantly declined over the last decade. Tribes receive less assistance from BIA in forest inventory, management planning, marketing and economics. Key personnel are retiring or getting ready to retire; fire funding caused personnel shifts from forestry to fire that have not been entirely made up; and the supply of new Indian professionals is insufficient to meet demand.
Federal Trust Responsibility
In the mid 1970s, self-determination became the official federal Indian policy. Until that time, the BIA had ignored tribal traditions, customs, and practices and managed Indian forests under non-Indian precepts of scientific management. Indian forests have paid a price as the character of the land and its resources have changed dramatically. Imminent threats of devastating loss from insects, disease, and wildfire are posed from both within and outside reservation boundaries.
For the past several years, the U.S. courts, the federal government and the Indian tribes have been intensively reviewing and debating the adequacy of the federal government’s management of Indian resources and fulfilling its trust responsibility to tribes and their members. Both the first and the second IFMAT reports play a very significant role in that debate, because these reports are the only comprehensive, standardized, periodic, and most important, independent evaluations that have been performed for any Indian trust resource. At a time when the trust debate can become heated and skewed, the IFMAT reports provide a professional, analytical approach that can be measured against a similarly based report from ten years earlier.
The independence of the IFMAT reports observations and recommendations have provided a fresh perspective on the trust debate, and have served to stimulate thought on new insights and ideas. Today, the scrutiny of the courts, Congress, tribes, and the Administration has revealed that the systems to administer fiduciary trust duties are broken and sorely in need of repair. Tribes are becoming more aware of the potential need for, and value of, independent trust oversight; the IFMAT reports have contributed constructively to the debate.
IFMAT II Recommendations
The value of the IFMAT process is not only that it identifies strengths, weaknesses, gaps from an unbiased, knowledgeable point of view, but also because it makes specific recommendations for improvement. As part of the IFMAT II process, each participating tribe was provided with a set of three confidential reports containing reservation-specific findings and recommendations:
1) a Preliminary Evaluation Report from the audit team for the Forest Stewardship Council certification system;
2) a Gap Analysis from the audit team for the Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification system; and 3) results of IFMAT II’s assessment of the questions mandated by NIFRMA. Each participating tribe is able to review these reports privately, through its internal processes, and implement such actions as it deems appropriate.
IFMAT’s recommendations are not prescriptive mandates that dictate what must be done; rather, they represent the best advice that the panel can provide from their professional and independent assessment. It is left to the tribes, the Administration, and Congress to decide what path to take to improve the future of Indian forest management.
 Table 1. Comparison of funding and revenues between 2001 and 1991 for Indian Forests and National Forests (1991 data adjusted to 2001 dollars using CPI adjustment factor from 2001). Indian forest land bases referenced are commercial timberland and total timberland plus woodland acres. National forest total landbase includes about 3.0% national grasslands and other miscellaneous categories. Dollar values in parentheses do not include tribal contributions. (IFMAT-II, 2003). |
IFMAT II made six primary recommendations:
1. Bring per acre investment in Indian forestry to levels comparable to that available for similar federal, state, and private forests. An additional annual appropriation of $120 million would be required.
2. Implement a managment and oversight structure to insure effective trust oversight in implementing plans that reflect the visions of individual tribes for forest sustainability.
3. Maintain BIA technical services capacity at least at the 1991 level.
4. Accelerate development of Integrated Resource Management Plans.
5. Fund a “willing buyerwilling seller” program to enable tribes to consolidate tribal and allotment lands.
6. Continue the ten-year cycle of Indian Forest Management Assessments, with improved, continuous, and coordinated interim data collection techniques and provide adequate staffing for a consistent monitoring process.
In addition, IFMAT II provided eleven secondary recommendations and provided comments regarding two emerging issues: third party certification and opportunities for carbon sequestration in Indian forestry operations.
Prospects for the Future
IFMAT II found that tribal forests still have great potential to demonstrate sustainable forestry and to increase their benefits to tribal members. If several key funding and organizational problems can be solved, Indian forestry has a bright future and an important role in informing American and world forest management policies and practices. Increased investment is Indian forestry is needed. Such investments would yield immense future benefits in healthy forests, environmental protection, and available timber that would benefit all Americans as well as in flourishing tribal enterprises and governments. Federal appropriations must be substantially increased to address problems confronting Indian forests.
Congress (through Public Law 101-630) wisely directed the Secretary of the Interior to obtain an independent assessment of the status of Indian forests and their management each ten years. IFMAT is the only independent review of forest management activities covering all Indian forests. Independence by recognized experts is critical to credibility for the BIA, Congress, and Indian Tribes. The process of recurring, independent assessments using a consistent set of questions to provide structure and consistency over time has great utility in evaluating Indian forest condition, management, and discharge of trust responsibility.
by John Sessions
Professor and Steward Professor of Forest Engineering, College of Forestry, Oregon State University
Acknowledgement
This paper draws heavily from a paper developed by Dr. Gary Morishima (2004). The author recognizes Dr. Morishima’s long time leadership, service and contributions to the Intertribal Timber Council, his invaluable review comments during preparation of the IFMAT I and IFMAT II assessments and his ability to succinctly draw together the salient points of the two studies.
References:
IFMAT I (1993). An assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States. Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 172 p.
IFMAT II (2003). An assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States. Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 134 p.
Morishima, G.S. 2004.“The Second Independent Assessment of the Status of Indian Forests and Forestry.” Proceedings of the 2004 meeting of the Canadian Institute of Forestry and the Society of American Foresters, “One Forest Under Two Flags”, October 2-6, 2004, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
U.S. Congress. 1990. Public Law 101-630. [H.R. 3703], National Indian Forest Resources Management Act ‘Title III’ Indian Forest and Woodlands Act of Nov 28, 1990. In its: United States statutes at large, 1990. 25 U.S.C. sec 3101 et seq. (1990). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office: 4532. Vol 104.
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."