Editor's Column

Guest Columns

Notes From All Over

By: Don Motanic

A bee at work atop a thistle growing in a harvest opening near Ronan, Montana

Before white settlement began in America, the rules, roles and relationships linking Indians to their forests were not governed by legal codes. They were parts of a way of life that dominated the North American landscape for thousands of years.

Some parts of this way of life are still very much alive in Indian Country, but until recently, these institutions and traditions were not recognized in U.S. law. Now they are, thanks to ratification of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA) on Nov. 29, 1990. It was long overdue.

What was Before

NIFRMA was signed into law, three statutes guided the Bureau of Indian Affairs in its management of the 17.1 million acres of Indian forestlands. Two were enacted in 1910 and a third in 1934. Together, they covered two pages and included two short paragraphs concerning tribal timber. A third paragraph described the need for sustained yield management.

Such limited law is insufficient to guide the federal management of a forest resource from which annual modern day harvests regularly exceed 800 million board feet. Its shortcomings were compounded by the fact that the federal government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was managing Indian forest resources as a trustee, and as such is obliged to meet strict fiduciary standards.

NIFRMA acknowledges the federal trust responsibility for forests, requires management plans that accommodate a broad array of tribal forestland uses and recognizes the need for integrated resource management plans. The BIA role in completing these plans is monitored through annual compliance reports to Congress and through national independent assessments conducted every ten years.

The Act also codified tribal financial contributions to the management of their forests, established trespass enforcement mechanisms that recognize both tribal and federal laws, and streamlined the handling of timber receipts. A comprehensive Native American forestry education and outreach program was also authorized, as was a technical assistance program for Alaska Native Claims Act Corporate lands.

Overlooking western Montana's Mission Valley from Salish-Kootenai timberland. ...Indian tribes are here to stay. We will not sell our land or shear down our forests during wavering economic times and relocate our operations elsewhere. Our ancestors - our culture - is committed to the land upon which we live. We have become new pathfinders searching for ways to revitalize our environment and thus our communities. When our work is done, our greatest honor is not in what we celebrate in ourselves today. The greatest honor lingers in the future when our grandchildren will stop and say, “Our elders, our grandmothers and grandfathers,did do it right.” They will enjoy the success of our lifetime in their future." Jaime A. Pinkham, Nez Perce Tribe President, Intertribal Timber Council Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act September 20, 1995

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team Report

The Act also mandates an independent assessment of Indian forest lands every ten years. To fulfill this requirement, the BIA and the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) developed an assessment plan and selected a panel of respected forest scientists to conduct the first assessment. Panel members included Dr. John Gordon, Dr. John Sessions, Dr. Jerry Franklin, Dr. Norman Johnson, Dr. David Patton, Dr. Jim Sidell and Ed Williston, a forest products manufacturing and marketing specialist.

Among the tasks assigned the IFMAT (Indian Forest Management Assessment) team: conduct an analysis of management practices, comparing them with similar practices in federal and private forests; survey the health, productivity and condition of Indian forests; evaluate forestry staffing patterns of the BIA and tribes; evaluate timber sale administration procedures; review the potential for reducing or eliminating relevant administrative procedures, rules and policies of the BIA, consistent with federal trust responsibility; review the adequacy of Indian forest management plans, including their compatibility with tribal integrated resource management plans; determine the feasibility and desirability of establishing minimum standards that could be used to determine if BIA forestry programs fulfill the federal government’s trust responsibility; and make recommendations concerning reforms and funding levels necessary to bring Indian forest land management programs to a state-of-the-art level.

In the 18 months leading to IFMAT’s December 1993 report, the team visited 33 reservations, surveyed attitudes about forestry in tribal communities and analyzed an enormous amount of data concerning forestry, harvesting and funding levels. The team’s final report included more than 70 findings and 50 recommendations. Among the major findings: there was a difference in forest perspectives held by Indians and BIA forestry staff; there was a significant disparity between the funding level for coordinated resource management in Indian forests ($4.14/acre), and the funding level for national forests ($11.69/acre); and there were stress points in the BIA-tribal relationship, especially involving technical assistance and trust oversight.

ITC Develops an Action Plan

After the IFMAT report was issued, the Intertribal Timber Council developed an action plan designed to focus congressional— and public—attention on the team’s findings and recommendations Nationally, the Council would assist the U.S. Senate in its conduct of an oversight review of the status of NIFRMA. Regionally, it would help develop and conduct timber sale administration workshops on the Warm Springs, Fort Apache and Menominee Indian reservations.

On September 20, 1995, the Senate Indian Affair Committee revisited the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act with an oversight hearing conducted by Arizona Senator, John McCain, NIFRMA’s sponsor. The IFMAT report was formally entered into the hearing record, and team chairman, Dr. John Gordon, discussed the group’s findings and recommendations, warning that many innovative tribal forestry programs might lose opportunities for flexibility for lack of adequate federal funding. Representatives of individual tribes and the Intertribal Timber Council also testified, documenting continuing inadequacies in federal funding for the BIA forestry program. Senator McCain was clearly disturbed by what he heard, leveling sharp criticism at the Department of Interior for its failure—after five years—to issue NIFRMA regulations. Less than two months later, on October 5, final regulations were published.

New Programs Established

Subsequent to the hearings, ITC unveiled a series of programs designed to capitalize on IFMAT recommendations. Among them: to support a national prescribed fire initiative aimed at restoring fire to tribal forests, woodlands and rangelands. The plan helped the BIA gain authorization to spend up to $10.5 million on prescribed burns in FY 1998.

Locally, the Council conducted telephone and workshop surveys to see how member tribes were implementing IFMAT recommendations. Larger forestry programs (more than 10,000 acres) reported they were making major investments in upgrading forest roads—from $17.2 million in 1991 to $35 million in 1996. The Hoopa Valley Tribe reported it had increased its road investment from $48 to $72 per thousand board feet of timber harvested. New, larger culverts were installed and roads were surfaced to protect watersheds.

The survey also revealed many forestry programs were integrating staff management functions, including forest protection, timber sale preparation and administration. Tribes were also integrating federal and tribal staffs through cooperative agreements (Colville), tribal Self-Determination contracts (most forestry programs nation-wide) and self-governance compacts. The number of tribes compacting forestry increased from five in 1991 to 48 in 1998. Many tribes reported using the IFMAT report to support overall tribal reorganization and integrated resource management plans. The Warm Springs Tribe is using IFMAT to supplement its “Bridge Report.”

The survey also revealed that smaller forestry programs needed a local natural resource intern program to help educate tribal members who wanted to become resource managers. Such a program has now been developed with the help of intertribal organizations, the Natural Resource Advisory Board and Haskell Indian Nations University at Lawrence, Kansas. The program funds up to 20 positions annually, providing students with an opportunity to earn undergraduate and advanced degrees, while also gaining valuable field experience.

What will be

Almost eight years after Congress ratified NIFRMA, and almost five years after the scientific assessment team made its recommendations, tribes are still looking for ways to reduce bureaucratic barriers that are impeding progress in development and implementation of coordinated resource management programs. The IFMAT report documented the shortcomings of assisting tribal forestry, the stresses that impact the BIA/tribal forestry relationship, and the funding gap that distances tribal forestry from forestry as it is practiced on other federal lands across the nation.

Meanwhile, tribal forestry programs are moving ahead on their own, nearly matching the federal government dollar for dollar. According to The Journal of Forestry, [Nov. 1997] the Yakama Indian Nation funds two-thirds of its forestry program with timber receipts. These long-term investments, and the rich cultural heritage they embody, seem certain to pay big dividends, not just in terms of improved forest productivity, but also in terms of the quality and integrity tribes can bring to forestry, wherever it is prac-ticed. Eventually, a bridge will be built between the past and the future — between what was in Indian Country and what will be. The only question is, “Will the federal government honor its legally-binding trust obligation by helping tribes complete the bridge?”