[Senate Hearing 108-483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-483
INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL'S INDIAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSESSEMENT TEAM
REPORT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SUCCESS OF TRIBAL FORESTRY PRACTICES
__________
MARCH 30, 2004
WASHINGTON, DC
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-009 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements:
Colegrove, Nolan, president, Inter-Tribal Timber Council,
Portland, OR............................................... 4
Gordon, John, Interforest, LLC, Branford, CT................. 6
Martin, Aurene, principal deputy assistant secretary, Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC........ 2
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon................. 1
Appendix
Prepared statements:
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, Senator from Colorado,
chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 13
Colegrove, Nolan............................................. 14
Gordon, John................................................. 17
Martin, Aurene............................................... 20
INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL'S INDIAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room
485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Gordon Smith (acting
chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Good morning.
The purpose of today's hearing is to present a forum for
the second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team, a report
on the state of Indian forests and forestry. The recently
published report does an excellent job of assessing the
effectiveness and success of tribal forestry practices. I hope
this will shed light on the role that American Indian tribes,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], and the tribal consortiums
play in the management of 18 million acres of forest land held
in trust.
The Inter-Tribal Timber Council [ITC], is a nonprofit
nationwide consortium of Indian tribes, Alaska native
corporations, and individuals dedicated to improving the
management of natural resources of importance to Native
American communities and represents more than 90 percent of the
forest land held in trust. The Secretary of the Interior
contracted the ITC for the second time to oversee this
assessment. The ITC turned to a group of nationally recognized
experts, including many of the same individuals from the first
report, to complete the second IFMAT report. The IFMAT II
report assesses eight tasks specified in the National Indian
Forest Resource Management Act. Among these is an in-depth
analysis of management practices, a survey of the condition of
Indian forest lands, and a recommendation for any reforms.
The IFMAT report describes the substantial progress made
toward sustainability in Indian forests since the first report;
however, significant gaps still remain. Today's hearing
highlights the progress made in the last 10 years since the
last IFMAT report. We'll also hear suggestions on how to help
tribal forests reach their full potential.
Finally, it is important to note that the ITC and BIA
forest programs have worked together to make the forestry
program one of the best in the Bureau, despite the program's
limited staffing. The two organizations work closely together,
and BIA attends all ITC Board meetings.
More recently the ITC has been working with the U.S. Forest
Service to improve relations there, and has also established
relations with the National Association of State Foresters.
Thus, Indian forest management is an excellent example of the
benefits of government-to-government cooperation.
I thank all the witnesses for appearing before the
committee today and look forward to their testimony.
I'm going to also enter Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell's
statement into our record.
[Prepared statement of Senator Campbell appears in
appendix.]
Senator Smith. If I can ask our witnesses that they hold
their testimony to 5 minutes. We have another hearing after
this on the Coos Forest issue.
Ms. Martin, we'll begin with you and Mr. Colegrove to
follow, and finally we'll hear from Dr. Gordon. We thank you
all.
Ms. Martin.
STATEMENT OF AURENE MARTIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Martin. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name
is Aurene Martin, and I am the principal assistant deputy
secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department's views on the Indian Forest Management Report.
There are approximately 17.9 million acres of forest land
in Indian country, of which 5.6 million acres are classified as
commercial timber land and 3.5 million acres are commercial
woodland. Most of the economic return derived from these lands
comes from the industrial harvest of commercial timber land,
with the northwest region accounting for 70 percent of the
harvested timber volume, and the midwest region with 13.5
percent of the harvested timber volume.
The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990
directs the Secretary of the Interior to obtain an independent
assessment of the status and management of Indian forests every
10 years. The first such report, commonly referred to as IFMAT
I, was provided to Congress in 1993 and represents the status
of Indian forests and forest management as of 1991. IFMAT I
identified four areas in need of improvement for the management
of Indian forests. There was a gap between tribal goals for
Indian forests and management of those forests as applied.
There was a disparity in funding provided to Indian forest
management programs as compared to other similar Federal
programs. There was a lack of coordinated resource planning and
management. And finally there was a need to set and oversee
trust standards for Indian forestry programs.
IFMAT I was developed by a group of nationally recognized
forestry experts under a contract funded by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs with the Inter-Tribal Timber Council. The same
issues that were addressed in IFMAT I are addressed in IFMAT
II, and many of the same experts involved in IFMAT I
participated in the development of the IFMAT II report.
IFMAT II reviews efforts for the period 1991-2001 and
recognizes many improvements in three of the four areas they
originally identified as needing improvement. The gap between
tribal visions for their forests and the management of those
forests has shown marked improvement. This is evidenced by
increased self-determination compacting among tribes and the
use of integrated resource management plans. This has also been
improved because of increased efforts of the BIA to coordinate
with tribes.
Second, increased funding in Indian forestry programs has
been realized. While the report states that additional funding
is necessary, the disparity between other Federal programs and
Indian forestry programs has lessened. In 1991, Indian forestry
programs were funded at less than one-third the amount per acre
that other Federal forest management programs were funded. That
amount has increased to more than two-thirds the amount per
acre. In fact, Federal funding of Indian forestry programs has
increased by 84 percent over the past 10 years, much of the
increase due to recent efforts to maintain healthy forests.
The report also recognizes the increase in coordinated or
integrated resource planning efforts. This is shown by the
advent of integrated resource management plans, or IRMPs. The
Department has also recognized the importance of integrated
planning and has requested and received increased funding for
IRMPs in fiscal year 2004 appropriations. We have made similar
requests for 2005.
Finally, the report claimed that little progress has been
made in the fourth area, the setting of trust standards and
trust oversight. The Department disagrees with this assertion
for two reasons. The Department has made significant
improvements in trust oversight with the realignment of the
Office of Special Trustee and the BIA and through our ongoing
trust reform projects. As an example, the Office of American
Indian Trust Functions have been transferred to the Office of
Special Trustee, an independent third party, and their program
has been expanded.
Additionally, the report cites one specific model developed
in 1993 as the model for trust reform. While this model is
quite interesting and I think bears further discussion, it is
not the only model for trust reform. The report contains a
number of recommendations which are still under review by the
Department. After an initial review, we believe a number of the
recommendations have merit and will complement and enhance our
commitment to healthy forests.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our
views, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Martin appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. Ms. Martin, I understand that the Department
of the Interior requested over $90 million for the Office of
Special Trustee, and yet apparently, according to written
testimony, it didn't fund and actively rejected a funding
request for the second IFMAT. Is that accurate? And if so, why?
Ms. Martin. I'm not exactly sure to which fiscal year you
might be referring. That is possible, but I couldn't tell you
off the top of my head.
Senator Smith. It's also my understanding that the IFMAT II
report expressed concern in the reduction of professional
forestry staff since the last decade and the continuing
shortage of personnel in critical skills areas such as forest
engineering. I'm wondering what the Department of the
Interior's plans are to remedy these problems.
Ms. Martin. Well, the causes of the problem, itself, are
complex. With increased self-determination programs, our staff
levels decreased because those funds go out to the tribes to
operate programs directly. That's one cause for the decrease in
staff. What we have been doing at the Department to increase
forestry professionals is we operate a program. It's a
scholarship program which encourages students to seek forestry
degrees, allows them to intern at the Department, and then pays
for their education so that they can come work at the
Department when they graduate. We are looking at increasing
those types of programs for all of our trust programs in the
future, and, in fact, our 2005 budget request seeks an increase
in funds for those types of programs.
Senator Smith. Very good. Thank you.
Nolan Colegrove.
STATEMENT OF NOLAN COLEGROVE, PRESIDENT, INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Colegrove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm Nolan Colegrove, the president of the Inter-
Tribal Timber Council, and I'm also the forest manager in Hoopa
in California. It is my pleasure to be here today to present to
you the IFMAT II report on the second independent report of the
status of Indian forests and their trust management. If I may,
I will refer to these two reports as IFMAT I and IFMAT II.
As the president of ITC, I will talk briefly about the ITC
as an organization and its role with the IFMAT process. Dr.
Gordon, the chairman of both the first and second independent
IFMAT teams, will discuss the reports, themselves.
Senator Smith. Okay.
Mr. Colegrove. The ITC is an organization of over 70
timber-owning tribes and Alaska native organizations that
collectively represent more than 90 percent of the 18 million
forest acres managed by the BIA. Our organization is 28 years
old and came together out of a common interest and concern that
the BIA forest management problems were not being addressed.
However, rather than attack the BIA, the ITC chose to work with
the Bureau and others to collectively make improvements. We
believe that this approach has been instrumental in making the
BIA's forestry programs one of the bright spots in
accountability for trust administration in the Bureau today.
In 1989 and 1990, the ITC actively participated in the
development and passage of the National Indian Forest Resource
Management Act, which became Public Law 101-630. At the ITC's
suggestion, section 312 of that law requires that promptly
after the enactment and every 10 years thereafter, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide for an independent
assessment and report on the status of Indian trust forests and
their management. The law also requires that the Secretary
enter into a contract with a non-Federal entity to conduct this
assessment, and sets forth eight specific tasks to be covered
in every assessment. Copies of these periodic assessment
reports are to be provided to Interior, to the tribes, and the
Congress.
Right after Public Law 101-630's enactment and with
Congressional appropriation support, Interior contracted with
the ITC for the first independent assessment report. The ITC
selected a nationally preeminent team of forestry professionals
led by Dr. Gordon. The ITC facilitated the team's efforts, but
otherwise our charge was simple: Tell it straight, tell it like
it is. We want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Over 2 years, they visited 33 tribes and numerous BIA and
tribal forestry personnel. They issued the IFMAT I report in
1993. IFMAT II and its report, which was issued in December
2003 and is before you today, traveled a slightly different
path. We were unable to secure Congressional funding, but with
modest assistance from BIA forestry, ITC was able to assemble
an IFMAT II team. To help gather IFMAT II data, the ITC and the
IFMAT II team worked with the Pinchot Institute and two private
foundations who were interested in canvassing Indian tribes for
their readiness to participate in third party certification
under the two leading systems, the Forest Stewardship Council
and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
While the teams collected considerable raw data, some
members of the IFMAT II team, itself, visited 30 reservations,
including many from IFMAT I for comparison purposes. We were
fortunate. Six of the IFMAT I team members wanted to be
involved in the second assessment, including Dr. Gordon as
leader. Their familiarity with the IFMAT processes and Indian
forest resource greatly streamlined the assessment and brought
invaluable continuity of understanding. Dr. Gordon will discuss
the IFMAT II assessment and report and its comparison with
IFMAT I.
I would like to comment about the role of the IFMAT reports
in the current debate on the adequacy of Federal trust
management. We believe these reports play a significant role in
that debate for two reasons: First, the IFMAT reports are the
only ones of their kind for any trust resource. To the best of
our knowledge, there are no other evaluations or reports for
Indian trust resources that are comprehensive, standardized,
periodic, and, most important, independent. As for any trust,
we believe this independent review is not just helpful for
tribes, for the Administration, and for Congress; we believe it
is essential.
Second, IFMAT's independent observations and recommendation
provide a fresh perspective on the trust debate.
Mr. Chairman, IFMAT II notes that tribes have greatly
increased their role in caring for our forests, and we believe
that this has been the major factor in improved management and
stewardship of our resources. We live with our forest every
day, as will our children and theirs and all of our future
generations. The IFMAT process makes an invaluable contribution
by providing periodic independent check on progress and
problems in management of our trust forest resources.
We are pleased that the IFMAT II report has been completed
and is now being presented to Congress and the tribes and the
Administration. We look forward to the discussion it will
engender.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Colegrove appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. Mr. Colegrove, on the issue of trust
oversight, you seem to have some disagreements with BIA, and I
wonder if you can speak just a little more as to how you
propose to resolve those.
Mr. Colegrove. I'm sure that every tribe in the Nation
would have a hard time making an agreement on most things, and
we saw that over the course of the last 2 years with the trust
reform efforts that were put on by the Administration, and
working along with the tribes. There are several ideas out
there. Some of them have been agreed to. Some of them there has
been a lot of agreement, others there haven't been. In this
case, the oversight has not been looked on very favorably by
the Administration.
Senator Smith. Do you have concerns about the staffing
shortfalls in Indian forests? And how do you propose to remedy
those?
Mr. Colegrove. Certainly. And as our testimony said,
working cooperatively with the Bureau is one of the best ways
that we see to be able to resolve that. Of course, a lot of
money helps resolve a lot of issues. Some of it is funding,
some of it is not funding. Some of it is the increased funding
with the wild land/urban interface, hazardous fuels, fire. New
money in the Bureau and the rest of Interior has taken a lot of
the BIA foresters and a lot of the tribal foresters out of the
system, as well as what Ms. Martin had alluded to earlier of
tribes compacting programs and assuming a lot of those
functions and the BIA staff going down. There has also been
foresters leaving the profession going to work as fire fighters
or fuels technicians.
The way that we are addressing it is there are several
ways. Ms. Martin mentioned one of the most important ways that
we're looking at, and that's in terms of educating new
foresters. Other ways is bringing other folks in and just
trying to entice people to come to work for the Bureau. It's a
pretty hard thing to do, given other packages that private
industry has, but there are a numbers of ways that we are
trying to address that.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gordon.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GORDON, INTERFOREST, LLC, BRANFORD, CT
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm
John Gordon, chairman of the second Indian Forest Management
Assessment Team, or IFMAT II. I'm also chairman and partner of
Interforest, a forestry consulting firm, and Pinchot professor
of forestry and environmental studies emeritus at Yale
University. It is my pleasure to testify on an assessment of
Indian forests and forest management in the United States done
by the second Indian forest management team.
President Colegrove has done an excellent job of describing
the fundamentals of Indian forestry, the Inter-Tribal Timber
Council, and the National Indian Forest Resource Management
Act, so I will confine my remarks to a brief summary of the
major findings and recommendations of the IFMAT II report and
compare it with IFMAT I in five major areas: First of all, the
four gaps described in the first assessment and alluded to by
Ms. Martin; second, funding; third, forest health issues;
fourth, staffing of BIA and tribal forestry organizations; and,
fifth, trust oversight on Indian forests.
I'm happy to report that on the whole the management of
Indian forests is different and better than it was 10 years
ago, largely through the efforts of dedicated tribal and BIA
resource managers and staff. There has been a significant
amount of progress toward sustainability in Indian forests
since IFMAT I, although significant progress remains to be
made.
Indian forests have retained and enhanced their value,
noted in IFMAT I, as areas upon which sustainable forestry to
meet human needs can be demonstrated. Because tribal members
live intimately with all the results of their forestry
activities, they pay close attention to the health of their
forests and the effects of forest management activities on
themselves and on their environment. This makes Indian forests
of special value to all Americans.
IFMAT I identified four gaps: First, the gap between the
Indians' vision of their forest and how it is actually managed;
second, a gap between Indian forest funding and comparable
Federal and private forest funding; third, deficiencies in
coordinated resource planning and management; and, fourth, the
need for better trust standards and oversight in Indian
forestry. Major progress is evident in three of them.
The first gap between the visions Indians express for their
forests and the way they are managed is narrowing. This is due
to greater tribal participation in forest management and
greater alignment between tribal and BIA approaches to
management. The trend toward greater tribal participation and
management needs to be encouraged and strengthened, in our
view.
The second gap in funding between Indian and other
comparable lands, particular Federal land, is narrowing due to
increased funding to address fire issues in Indian forests and
a redirection of emphasis on Federal forests. However, a
substantial funding gap still exists, and fire funds we think
need to be made recurring and need to be integrated with other
funds to achieve greater efficiency in their use.
The third gap in integrated management planning has
improved markedly, but inadequate resources are available for
the mandated preparation of integrated resource management
plans, the larger context for forest management planning. Even
now, only 40 percent of the tribes have up-to-date forest
management plans.
The fourth gap in trust oversight has, in our view, 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 and overseeing the adequacy of
those services and advice. IFMAT II strongly believes that the
recommendation of IFMAT I for independent oversight of forest
trust responsibility needs to be implemented on the ground.
Now, innovative management of Indian forests under the
principles of adaptive ecosystem management is happening on
many reservations, and the quality and quantity of tribal
forest management staff are increasing. Indian forests remain a
vital part of tribal life on reservations in every part of the
contiguous United States and Alaska. Timber production, non-
timber forest products, grazing, and wildlife management
provide revenues and jobs for tribal members and enhance
economic life of surrounding communities. 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.
A number of tribes are increasing their holdings modestly
through fee purchase of forests, and others are increasing
their holdings by reclaiming or attempting to reclaim lost
tribal lands.
IFMAT II believes that if the actions described in our
report are taken, this generally positive picture will be
maintained and improved at an acceptable rate.
Let me say something more about funding. IFMAT I identified
a large gap between funding provided by the Federal Government
for national forests, forests held in trust for all Americans,
and Federal Government funding provided for Indian trust
forests. In 1991, Indian forestry, including fire funds,
received only about one-third the amount per acre as was
invested in the national forests. In 2001, Indian forestry
received about two-thirds of the amount per acre as was
invested in the national forests, or $0.68 on the dollar.
This gap has narrowed for two reasons. First, a large
reduction in Federal funding for forest management on national
forests; and, second, a significant increase in funding for
fuels management, fire preparedness, and emergency
stabilization activities on Indian forests.
Funding for fire management has increased sharply over the
last ten years in recognition of the fuel buildup on Indian and
other forests due to past management practices and forest
health needs. Restrictions on the use of fuels management funds
often limit the ability to integrate them with other needed
silvicultural treatments into a comprehensive program of forest
management that includes wild land fire hazard and risk
abatement. Protecting forest health will be an ongoing task
that is most efficiently addressed through integrated
management; thus, we recommend making fire funding a permanent
part of the funding base for Indian forestry, and at the same
time removing barriers that reduce tribes' ability to integrate
fire funding into the total forest and natural resource
management program. We further recommend that Federal forestry
allocations be raised to a total of $181 million annually.
Forest health--there has been an overall improvement in
silvicultural practices and management of forest health
issues--fire, insects, and disease--on Indian forests in the
decade since IFMAT I. This is resulting in integrated
silvicultural prescriptions and improved integrated management
on the ground.
Indian forest managers have made significant strides in
addressing wildfire risks during the last decade; however,
acreage treated for hazardous fuels reduction remains lower
than needed. In an important related area, good progress has
been made on some Indian forests in road location,
construction, and maintenance, but, despite improvement, there
is considerable risk that efforts to combat forest health
problems and to institute sustainable management for all forest
resources will be overwhelmed by a combination of funding
shortfalls, personnel shortages, and ecosystem-based problems--
the aforementioned insects, disease, and fire.
Immediate and focused attention is needed to improve the
rate of forest health treatment response, utilize small and
low-quality logs, and strength staffing. Some actions can be
taken without additional funds. For example, funding for fire
and other forestry activities could be better integrated to
reduce administrative costs and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of silvicultural treatments to accomplish
management objectives. But some require substantial and
immediate investment.
If better forest health is to be achieved and the promise
of Indian forestry described in IFMAT I is to continue to be
realized, increases in investment, reduced burden from unfunded
mandates, and immediate action are needed, so we recommend that
aggressive treatment of Indian lands for forest health
maintenance and improvement be a major use of the recommended
increase in funding.
With regard to staffing, the number of tribes that compact
or contract to provide forestry services and functions on their
own reservations has nearly doubled since 1991. That's good.
But despite this, Indian forestry programs, BIA and tribal
together, exclusive of fire programs, have declined 26 percent
in staffing. Overall staffing for Indian programs--that is,
including fire--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 on the forestry side,
and the supply of new Indian professionals is insufficient to
meet demand. So we recommend that additional education and
training for tribal members in key specialties be given
additional support, and that BIA technical assistance levels be
brought back at least to the 1991 levels.
With regard to trust oversight, we believe that the
triangulation model for trust oversight suggested in IFMAT I
remains an appropriate conceptual model for trust oversight.
Its virtues are: First, it separates the BIA's role as manager
and provider of technical information from its role of arbiter
of how effective the management and information is; second, it
places tribal goals even more firmly as the driving force of
management plans and actions; and, third, it allows appropriate
differentiation of tribal goals and activities among the many
and diverse tribes that manage forests.
Under this system, tribes would create 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 be
the basis for evaluation of trust oversight performance. Both
BIA and tribal performance in pursuit of the goals would be
monitored by a commission independent of the Secretary and the
BIA in a manner consistent with tribal sovereignty and Federal
law.
Responsibility for delivering a natural resource management
program would be placed under a single manager for each tribe
or tribal forest. In the complex setting of current forest
management, actions taken today have long-term effects on many
resource. Thus, we believe the trustee must first require that
specific information from each tribe, integrated resource plans
and cumulative effects analysis be developed; second, assure
that the beneficiary tribe clearly understands the possible
consequences of forest management activities as tribal goals
are pursued; and, third, to have a truly independent mechanism
for assessment. Thus, we recommend that a management oversight
structure be put in place to ensure effective and independent
oversight of plans that reflect the visions of individual
tribes for sustaining their forests.
In conclusion, our report provides many other findings and
recommendations, all derived from careful conversations with
tribal members, BIA and tribal foresters and resource managers,
and on-the-ground observation, data collection, and analysis.
We hope you will give them all careful attention and thought;
however, I must stress again, as President Colegrove did, that
IFMAT reports, themselves, do not present mandates. Ours is
simply another view of this vital part of the forest resources
of America and the world.
We do think the process of recurring independent
assessments has great merit and utility and should be
regularized and continued. Indeed, we would like to see this
process more broadly applied in natural resource management and
forestry.
Indian forests present a unique window into the interaction
of forests and people--in this instance, people who care deeply
about the land and nature and live intimately with both. In
this sense, as well as in the sense of forming a major part of
the diminished heritage of important and vital people, there
are major asset obligation and opportunity for us all.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Dr. Gordon.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. I note that you participated in the first
IFMAT report, and in that you recommended the triangulated
trust oversight model. You've spoken to that this morning. And
yet what has developed is a different model between BIA and the
Office of Special Trustee. I wonder if you can elaborate a
little bit more. Is that sufficient? Will that work? Or do you
think that should go to the triangulated trust model?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the
triangulated model. Our on-the-ground assessment mostly ended
in 2001, with a little bit of 2002, and it is those
observations that we report on, and we did not see any change
in trust oversight on the ground in that time. If there has
been significant progress since that time, we're very pleased
to hear about it, but I do not know the details of what has
transpired.
Senator Smith. You have extensive exposure to Indian forest
lands, and you have suggested that because of the ethic of the
American Indian peoples for the environment, for their land,
that they are unusually good stewards of the forest. Can you
compare their forests with those managed by the Federal
Government, for example, or on other private lands? What is
your observation?
Mr. Gordon. Well, I think Indian forestry has two big
advantages with respect to any other forest management. We've
talked about some of the disadvantages--under-funding and
under-staffing--but the two big advantages are that they live
with the consequences of all their decisions.
Senator Smith. Because they're there.
Mr. Gordon. If they decide not to cut timber, they get to
not have the money.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Gordon. If they decide to burn, they get to cope with
the smoke. So I think that leads to a balanced view of forest
management, and I think that's a very good thing.
The second thing is that tribes are diverse, so many
different tribes try many different things in forestry, so
instead of a fairly rigid template of management, you have a
diverse set of ideas, and this leads to innovation and to a
form of adaptive management, where you can compare different
kinds of management on similar forests. So to me those are the
two major advantages, in addition, of course, to what you
mentioned, innate feeling for the land.
Senator Smith. And because of those forces that you talk
about, are the Indian forest lands in better condition than
those that you find otherwise in private hands or Federal
hands?
Mr. Gordon. Well, I can't respond directly to that because
we didn't review private and other Federal lands with regard to
quality of management. What I can say is that in many cases you
can see very innovative management on Indian forests and cross
the boundary to neighbors and see management that isn't as
innovative.
Senator Smith. You have provided written testimony in
support of S. 868. That's the subject of the next hearing. It's
a bill that I've introduced to restore ancestral homelands to
the Confederate Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Indians. Can you tell the committee why you are supporting this
bill and what transferred management of these lands would do,
in your view?
Mr. Gordon. Well, there are two reasons why I strongly
support the bill. The first is that the plan that has been
prepared has been prepared with the best expertise and it is
very appropriate to the ecosystem to which it would be applied.
I think in every respect it respects all the ecological and
environmental covenants that now cover the land and would open
the way for innovative management of the kind I commented on in
my last answer. The second reason is again related to what I
said before. It would create yet another tribal entity managing
forest and yet another opportunity for innovative and
environmentally sensitive management.
Senator Smith. Are you familiar with the land in question?
Have you been there?
Mr. Gordon. I spent 7 years in Oregon at Oregon State
University in the 1970's and early 1980's and I was in that
country quite a few times at that time on the Siuslaw and on--
--
Senator Smith. Are you aware that this land in question had
been harvested years ago and is now managed under late
successional reserve and trying to bring back spotted owls and
other endangered species?
Mr. Gordon. Yes; I'm aware of that.
Senator Smith. Do you have any familiarity with the
condition of that land now and its ability to help endangered
species? Is it in good condition or is it grossly overgrown?
Mr. Gordon. I can't comment directly on that because I have
not been there to gather data for years, but my impression is
that the potential of that land remains great, both in terms of
timber production and environmental protection, and is some of
the best forest land in the world.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Gordon and all of
our witnesses. We appreciate your report. With that we will
conclude this first hearing. We'll take a 5-minute break and
then we'll reconvene.
[Whereupon, at 9:44 a.m. the subcommittee considered other
matters.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S. Senator from
Colorado, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs
Thank you, Senator Smith. I appreciate your willingness to chair
this hearing, and your long-standing commitment to Indian issues and
the specific issue of tribal forestry. This is an important issue for
the Oregon tribes but it is also an important issue for tribes
throughout the West.
Of the 51 million acres of land held in trust for Indian tribes,
almost 18 million acres are forest lands which are a principal source
of jobs and governmental revenues for many tribes.
Keeping tribal forests healthy is crucial because tribal trust land
is limited and difficult to increase or adjust--the loss of trust
forests, particularly through wildfire, would be irreplaceable in the
near term, and could devastate a tribe's economy. As trustee, the
United States has a trust obligation to protect these valuable tribal
forest assets.
I have reviewed the most recent Indian Forest Management Assessment
Team Report [IFMAT II], and would like to welcome Nolan Colegrove,
president of the Intertribal Timber Council, and John Gordon, also of
the Intertribal Timber Council. I and my staff have worked with ITC for
several years, and our experience has been a good one. The ITC is a
professional and valuable organization that provides expertise and
insight to the Congress as well as to Indian country.
The periodic IFMAT reports are an important tool for assessing the
relative health of tribal forests. I was quite gratified to read in
this latest report how much tribal forests have improved since the
publication of IFMAT I, 10 years ago. This improvement is due in large
measure to the dedicated efforts of Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal
forest professionals, but is also due to the guidance of provided by
IFMAT I.
We cannot become complacent about the progress we've achieved in
the past decade. Although tribal forest health has greatly improved,
there are still areas of concern, and we will hear much more about
those concerns from our witnesses.
There is one specific tribal forestry issue I would like to address
today. Many tribal forests border on or are adjacent to National
Forests or Bureau of Land Management lands that pose wildfire, insect,
or disease threats to tribal trust timber assets. In recent years,
these potential threats from Federal public forest lands have
significantly increased, so that the active management of tribal
forests alone does not provide sufficient protection.
Many tribes are very concerned about the protection of their trust
timber asset, and are frustrated by the Federal public forest land
management agencies' inability to provide timely and appropriate
responses.
Last session I attempted to amend the Healthy Forests bill to
address this situation by providing willing and able tribes a proactive
opportunity to perform needed management activities on adjoining or
adjacent Federal public forests, to help the United States fulfill its
trust obligation to protect tribal trust forest assets.
The amendment authorized the respective Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to adopt tribal proposals for tribal forest asset
protection activities on National Forest and BLM lands in proximity to
tribal trust forest lands if the applicant tribe met the following
criteria:
No. 1. The tribal forest had significant exposure to National
Forest or BLM land.
No. 2. The tribal forest was a significant percentage of the
tribe's trust assets.
No. 3. The National Forest or BLM land posed a fire, disease, or
other threat to the tribe's forest or a tribal community.
No. 4. The tribe's project would not displace an existing forest
management
contractor.
No. 5. The tribe had the capability to meet the goals of its
proposal.
No. 6. The proposal's Federal land, or the tribe's relationship to
that land, involved unique circumstances, such as treaty rights or
biological, historical, or cultural issues.
The amendment was supported by numerous Indian tribes and the ITC,
but unfortunately we were unsuccessful in getting the amendment
adopted.
In this session of Congress, this idea has been taken up again in
stand-alone companion bills introduced by Senator Feinstein and
Chairman Pombo on the House side. Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Vice
Chairman Inouye and I are all cosponsors of Senator Feinstein's bill,
and we all recognize the importance of passing these bills and
addressing this issue before more tribal forest land and more lives are
lost to devastating wildfires.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from today's witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Nolan C. Colegrove, Sr., President, Intertribal
Timber Council
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Nolan C. Colegrove,
Sr., Hoopa Forest Manager and President of the Intertribal Timber
Council [ITC]. It is my pleasure to be here today to testify on behalf
of the ITC on An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in
the United States by the Second Indian Forest Management Assessment
Team, issued December 2003. More informally, this document is referred
to as the IFMAT-II report. IFMAT-II is the second independent
evaluation of the status of Indian forests and forestry as required by
the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law 101-
630). The first assessment was completed in 1993.
My comments today are intended to provide the historical context
for the IFMAT report and to emphasize the importance of periodic,
independent assessments of the management of assets held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of Indians. The actual findings and
recommendations contained in the IFMAT-II report will be described in
the testimony of the chairman of IFMAT-II, Dr. John Gordon.
The ITC is a 28-year old organization of 70 forest owning tribes
and Alaska Native organizations that collectively represent more than
90 percent of the 7.6 million timberland acres and a significant
portion of the 9.5 million woodland acres that are under BIA trust
management. These lands provide vitally important habitat, cultural and
spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses, and through
commercial operations, income for our tribes and jobs for our members.
Last year, 635 million board feet were harvested from Indian
timberlands, with a stumpage value of $62 million. To all our
membership, our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical,
cultural, spiritual, and economic well-being; their proper management
is our foremost concern.
The principal means by which the ITC has sought to review,
coordinate and revise Bureau and tribal forestry activities has been
the ITCs annual timber symposium. For nearly 30 years, this has been a
forum where tribes, the BIA, and outside forestry experts gather to
discuss tribal and BIA forestry issues and forest management trends and
developments, and to fashion findings and recommendations for
cooperatively revising and improving the management of trust forest
resources. Each symposium is held in a different part of the United
States on or near a forested tribe's reservation.
Our first symposium was convened in Seattle in the late 1970's by a
group of tribes which had become increasingly alarmed that significant
deficiencies in Indian forest management were not being corrected. At
that gathering, Indian tribes discovered that they shared common
problems and decided to work together to try to resolve them. The ITC
was formed shortly thereafter. Rather than attacking the BIA, the
founders of the ITC took a path dedicated to working cooperatively with
the BIA, private industry, and academia to improve the management of
Indian forests. That philosophy continues to guide the ITC to this day.
Over the years, the ITC and its partners have worked together to make
the Forestry program one of the best in the BIA, despite the program's
limited resources. More recently, the ITC has been working with the
U.S. Forest Service to improve relations there, and has also
established relations with the National Association of State Foresters.
In legislative activity, the ITC significantly participated in the 1990
enactment of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, has
sought to improve appropriations, and helped include a tribal watershed
forestry program in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
An 11-member, elected Board of Directors of tribal leaders from
throughout the United States oversees the ITC's activities, meeting
four or more times a year either at the ITC headquarters office in
Portland, Oregon, or at Indian forestry-related locations around the
United States. The ITC staff is small (two full time personnel and one
BIA Forester on an IPA), but the ITC has relied upon contributions of
staff from member tribes to work on issues of regional and national
significance. The ITC has been an active force in advancing initiatives
to improve the management of Indian forests and other resources held in
trust for the benefit of Indians. In addition to the symposium, the ITC
has a strong scholarship and education program, issues newsletters and
updates, participates in national wildland fire activities, monitors
and pursues legislation, is engaged in the forest ``green''
certification issue, and is an active contributor to the Indian trust
reform debate.
During the development and consideration of the National Indian
Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA, 25 U.S.C. 3101), the ITC
proposed that the bill include a periodic independent assessment of
Indian trust forests. Working with the bill's sponsors, a requirement
for independent assessments at decadal intervals was incorporated in
section 312 (a)(1). This legislative mandate provides that ``the
Secretary, in consultation with affected Indian tribes, shall enter
into a contract with a non-Federal entity knowledgeable in forest
management practices on Federal and private lands to conduct an
independent assessment of Indian forest lands and Indian forest
management practices.'' Subsection (a)(2) then sets forth a list of
eight specific questions to be addressed in each assessment, including
reviews of the funding, staffing, management, and health of Indian
forests. With bipartisan support, NIFRMA cleared both Chambers of
Congress as title III of H.R. 3703, a compilation of diverse Native
American legislation, and was signed into law November 28, 1990,
becoming Public Law 101-630.
Following the enactment of NIFRMA, the ITC sought and received
funding from Congressional Appropriations Committees to complete IFMAT-
I. Congress provided $300,000 in fiscal year 1992 and another $300,000
in fiscal year 1993. The balance of funding for the first assessment
was provided by a grant from the Administration for Native Americans.
The Interior Department selected the ITC to coordinate the assessment,
and ITC sought and obtained the services of a panel of nationally pre-
eminent experts in forestry, including Dr. John Gordon of Yale to lead
the assessment team. Once the team was formed, the ITC helped
facilitate access to timber tribes and Federal personnel, but otherwise
left the team 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.'' The first IFMAT visited
33 timber tribes and interviewed many Federal and tribal personnel over
the course of 2 years. IFMAT-I (a copy submitted with this testimony)
was issued in November 1993. 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.
IFMAT-I generally found a wide variety of management approaches in
Indian forests, that sustainability is a key factor, but that
underfunding and understaffing hamper management, and that Indian
forests had mixed health and productivity, varying by forest type and
geographic location. Four specific gaps were identified: (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) the need for better trust standards and oversight
in Indian forestry. The report's principal recommendation was that the
trust relationship between the tribes and the United States be
reconfigured by (1) significantly increasing BIA Forestry funding so
that it was on a par with funding provided for Federal forests, and
somewhat controversially, (2) establishing a separate and independent
entity, apart from the Interior Department, to monitor and evaluate the
sufficiency of BIA trust forest management. The ITC distributed the
report to the tribes, the Interior Department, and the Congress,
accompanied by briefings.
The consequences of the first IFMAT report have been interesting
and informative. 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 forest lands, Indian forest lands have a striking potential to
serve as models of sustainability. This was both gratifying and
heartening, but IFMAT-I warned that certain steps must be taken if this
promise was to become reality.
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
discussions with senior Departmental personnel, who themselves took a
keen interest in it. It is our understanding that Secretary Norton
herself extensively reviewed the report. The report also contributed to
the Interior Department's better understanding of the trust Forestry
program's funding inadequacies, so that over the last 3 years, the base
funding level for the BIA Forestry program has increased.
And in the intensive national debate on Indian trust reform over
the past several years, IFMAT-I's recommendation that an independent
entity be established to evaluate trust management helped spark the
presentation and discussion of that idea as an important component of
trust reform.
In 2000, with the approach of the due date for the second IFMAT
assessment, BIA Forestry program managers sought to have funding
incorporated into the Department's budget request. Disappointingly, the
request was not included in the Administration's proposed fiscal year
2002 budget. The ITC's requests to Congress to provide funding for the
assessment and report were also unsuccessful. But because tribes were
convinced of the importance of a periodic, independent assessment of
the status of Indian forests and forestry, ITC sought other ways to
complete the study. A modest amount of funding was made available from
the BIA forestry program. Ultimately, the Pinchot institute, with
funding provided by the Ford and Surdna Foundations, worked with ITC to
craft an approach that combined the IFMAT assessment with an evaluation
of 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. With limited
but critical BIA support, ITC assembled the second IFMAT team. In the
second assessment, 30 reservations were included, many of which were
involved in IFMAT-I to provide information to indicate the degree of
change over the last 10 years. Compared to the first assessment,
personal site inspections by IFMAT members were reduced and most of the
data was provided by the forest certification inspection teams instead
of first-hand observation.
The ITC is pleased that six of the IFMAT-I members and the IFMAT-I
project manager were enthusiastic about participating in IFMAT-II. Dr.
Gordon again led the team. Their background experience in IFMAT-I
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.
The ITC is also grateful to the Pinchot Institute, supporting
foundations, and the SFI and the FSC for their contributions to the
process. They worked cooperatively with the IFMAT-II team on the
selection and gathering of pertinent data. As with IFMAT-I, the tribal
governments of the thirty reservations visited were provided with
individual confidential reports pertaining to prospects for forest
certification and IFMAT-II's findings and recommendations.
Today's testimony by Dr. Gordon discusses the IFMAT-II assessment
and report, and its comparison with IFMAT-I. But before I close, I
would like to offer a few comments on the role of the IFMAT assessments
and reports in the context of the Federal Government's trust
responsibility.
As you are aware, 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 meeting
its trust responsibility to Indian people and Indian tribes. Both the
first and the second IFMAT reports play, we believe, a very significant
role in that debate, because these reports are the only ones of their
kind for any Indian trust resource. To the best of our knowledge, there
are no other evaluations and reports on an Indian trust resource that
are comprehensive, standardized, periodic, and most important--
independent. 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 10 years
earlier.
The independence of the reports' observations and recommendations
also provide a fresh perspective on the trust debate, and can serve as
a source of new insights and ideas. We note that some of the
recommendations of the independent team may, or may not, be favorably
received. Such has been the case for a principal recommendation of both
IFMAT-I and IFMAT-II: That management plans developed and approved by
the Secretary of the Interior define standards for management
performance and that an independent entity be established to provide
regular monitoring and oversight of the programmatic trust management
activities provided by the Interior Department. Ten years ago, when
that idea was first broached as a recommendation in IFMAT-I, the team
acknowledged it was controversial. Tribes did not immediately embrace
it. But in the interceding 10 years, the landscape has changed. Today,
more tribes contract or compact more BIA trust programs. The long
history of Interior's trust inadequacy has been bared under the
scrutiny of Federal courts, and the Interior Department has been
launched on a broad effort to reorganize and even reform its trust
capabilities. Under these new circumstances, the idea of independent
trust oversight has been favorably received by some tribes and tribal
organizations. Recently, the concepts of reliance upon management plans
and providing oversight separate from program operational
responsibilities have been embraced in proposals for ``To Be'' process
re-engineering currently underway by the Office of the Special Trustee.
There are some significant differences from IFMAT-I's recommendation,
however. Oversight and operational responsibilities are not proposed to
be entirely separated and the concept of an independent entity
providing oversight has not been embraced by the Department of the
Interior. Nonetheless, the recommendations of IFMAT-I have contributed
constructively to the debate.
The IFMAT reports themselves do not present mandates. Rather, they
provide a professional and independent assessment and report, along
with recommendations to improve the management of trust resources that
are vital to the welfare of tribal communities. This independent
evaluation is equally available to the tribes and tribal organizations,
to the Interior Department and other Federal administrative agencies,
and to the Congress. In the conduct of any trust, the availability of
such an evaluation and report is, in our belief, not just helpful, but
essential. We are pleased with the presentation of IFMAT-II to the
Congress, the tribes, and the Administration, and we look forward to
the discussion we hope it engenders.
Until the mid-1970's when the Federal policy of self-determination
was adopted, we relied principally on the BIA to manage our forests.
Our traditions, customs and practices were ignored in favor of non-
Indian precepts of scientific ``management''. Today, we are witnessing
the terrible price our lands and resources have paid. The. character of
our forests have changed drastically. Imminent threats of devastating
loss from insects, disease, and wildfire are posed from both within and
outside our reservation boundaries. Although our forests still suffer
from underfunding of management and forest health problems, in many
respects their condition is improving. Since IFMAT-I the tribal
presence in forest management has increased dramatically. We believe
that progress toward 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.
In Indian country, we view forest management from a unique
perspective. We live with the consequences of management decisions
every day because our forests are a part of our homelands. For
thousands of years, we have cared for our forests, fish, and wildlife
to provide for our communities. Because our forests affect our
sustenance, livelihoods, recreation, and spiritual expression, our
decisions and actions are driven by a profound sense of duty, a
covenant, if you will, with the generations to follow, to manage our
forests wisely for the needs of tomorrow as well as those of today.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of John C. Gordon, Chairman, The Second Indian
Forest Management Assessment Team
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am John C. Gordon,
Chairman of the Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT
II). I am also Chairman and a Partner of Interforest, LLC, a forestry
consulting firm, and Pinchot Professor of Forestry and Environmental
Studies Emeritus at Yale University. It is my pleasure to be here today
to testify on An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in
the United States by the Second Indian Forest Management Assessment
Team, issued December 2003.
President Colegrove has done an excellent job of describing the
fundamentals of Indian forestry, the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC),
and the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act (NIFRMA). I will
confine my remarks to a brief summary of the major findings and
recommendations of the IFMAT II report in five major areas: (1) the
four gaps described in the first assessment (IFMAT I); and specific
recommendations regarding (2) funding; (3) forest health issues; (4)
staffing of BIA and tribal organizations; and (5) trust oversight on
Indian forests.
I am happy to report that on the whole, the management of Indian
forests is different and better than it was 10 years ago, largely
through the efforts of dedicated tribal and BIA resource managers and
staff. There has been significant progress toward sustainability in
Indian forests since IFMAT I, although significant progress remains to
be made. Indian forests have retained and enhanced their value (noted
in IFMAT I) as areas upon which sustainable forestry to meet human
needs can be demonstrated. Because tribal members live intimately with
all the results of their forestry activities they pay close attention
to the health of their forests and the effects of forest management
activities on themselves and their environment. This makes Indian
forests of special value to all Americans.
IFMAT I Gaps
IFMAT I identified four major gaps: First, a gap between the
Indians' vision of their forest and how it is managed; second, a gap in
funding between Indian forests and comparable Federal and private
forests; third, deficiencies in coordinated resource planning and
management; and fourth, the need for better trust standards and
oversight in Indian forestry. Major progress is evident in three of
them.
The first gap, between the visions Indians express for their
forests and the way they are managed is narrowing. This is due to
greater tribal participation in forest management and greater alignment
between tribal and BIA approaches to management. This trend toward
greater tribal participation in management needs to be encouraged and
strengthened.
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. However, a substantial funding gap still exists,
and fire funds need to be made recurring and need to be integrated with
other funds to achieve greater efficiency in their use.
The third gap, in integrated management planning, has improved
markedly, but inadequate resources are available for the mandated
preparation of integrated resource management plans, the larger context
for forest management planning. Even now only 40 percent of tribes have
up-to-date forest management plans.
The fourth gap, in 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 and
overseeing the adequacy of those services and advice. IFMAT II strongly
believes that the recommendation of IFMAT I for independent oversight
of forest trust responsibility needs to be implemented on the ground.
Specific Recommendations
Innovative management of Indian forests under the principles of
adaptive ecosystem management is happening on many reservations, and
the quality and quantity of tribal forest management staff are,
increasing. Indian forests remain a vital part of tribal life on
reservations in every part of the contiguous United States and Alaska.
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. 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. A number of tribes are increasing their holdings
modestly through fee purchase of forests, and others are increasing
their forest holdings by reclaiming lost tribal lands. IFMAT II
believes that if the actions described in our report are taken, this
generally positive picture will be maintained and improved at an
acceptable rate.
Funding
IFMAT I identified a large gap between funding provided by the
Federal Government for national forests and Federal Government funding
provided for Indian forests. In 1991 Indian forestry (including fire
funds) received only about one-third the amount per acre as was
invested in the national forests. In 2001, Indian forestry received
about two-thirds the amount per acre as was invested in the national
forests, or 68 cents on the dollar. This gap has narrowed for two
reasons: (1) a large reduction in Federal funding for forest management
on national forests, and (2) a significant increase in funding for
fuels management, fire preparedness, and emergency stabilization
activities on Indian forests. Funding for fire management has increased
sharply over the last 10 years in recognition of the fuel buildup on
Indian (and other) forests due to past management practices and forest
health needs. Restrictions on the use of fuels management funds limit
the ability to integrate them with other needed silvicultural
treatments into a comprehensive program of forest management that
includes wild land fire hazard and risk abatement. Protecting forest
health will be an ongoing task that is most efficiently addressed
through integrated management. Thus, we recommend making fire funding a
permanent part of the base funding for Indian forestry and at the same
time removing barriers that reduce tribes' ability to integrate fire
funding into the total forest and natural resource management program.
We further recommend that Federal forestry allocations be raised to a
total of $181 million annually.
Forest Health
There has been overall improvement in the silvicultural practices
and management of forest health issues (fire, insects, disease) on
Indian forests in the decade since IFMAT I. This is resulting in
innovative silvicultural prescriptions and improved integrated
management on the ground. Indian forest managers have made significant
strides in addressing wildfire risk during the last decade. However,
acreage treated for hazardous fuels reduction remains lower than
needed. In an important related area, good progress has been made on
some Indian forests in road location, construction and maintenance.
Despite improvement, there is considerable risk that efforts to combat
forest health problems and institute sustainable management for all
forest resources will be overwhelmed by a combination of funding
shortfalls, personnel shortages, and ecosystem-based problems (insects,
disease, and fire). Immediate and focused action is needed to improve
the rate of forest health treatment response, utilize small and low
quality logs and strengthen staffing. Some actions can be taken without
additional funds (for example, funding for fire and other forestry
activities could be better integrated to reduce administrative costs
and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of silvicultural
treatments to accomplish management objectives) but some require
substantial and immediate investment. If better forest health is to be
achieved and the promise of Indian forestry described in IFMAT-I is to
be realized, increases in investment, reduced burden from unfunded
mandates, and immediate action are needed. We recommend that aggressive
treatment of Indian lands for forest health maintenance and improvement
be a major use of the recommended added funding.
Staffing
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 percent.
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. We recommend that additional education and training for tribal
members in key specialities be given additional support and that BIA
technical assistance levels be brought at least back to the 1991
levels.
Trust Oversight
We believe that the ``triangulation'' model for trust oversight
suggested in IFMAT I remains an appropriate conceptual model for trust
oversight. Its virtues are (1) it separates the BIA's role as manager
and provider of technical information from its role as arbiter of how
effective the management and information is; (2) it places tribal goals
even more firmly as the driving force of management plans and actions;
and (3) it allows appropriate differentiation of tribal goals and
activities among the many and diverse tribes that manage forests. Under
this system, tribes would create 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 for the basis for evaluation of trust oversight
performance. Both BIA and tribal performance in pursuit of the goals
would be monitored 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 tribe or tribal forest.
In the complex setting of current forest management, actions taken
today have long term effects on many resources. We believe the trustee
must: (1) require that specific information from each tribe (integrated
resource plans, cumulative effects analysis) be developed; (2) assure
that the beneficiary tribe clearly understands the possible
consequences of forest management activities as tribal goals are
pursued; and (3) have a truly independent mechanism for assessment.
Thus we recommend that a management and oversight structure be put in
place to insure effective and independent oversight of plans that
reflect the visions of individual tribes for sustaining their forests.
Conclusion
Our report provides many other findings and recommendations, all
derived from our careful conversations with tribal members, BIA and
tribal foresters and resource managers and on the ground observation,
data collection and analysis. We hope you will give them all careful
attention and thought. However, I must stress again, as did President
Colegrove, that the IFMAT reports themselves do not present mandates.
Ours is simply another view of this vital part of the forest resources
of America and the world. We do think the process of recurring,
independent assessments has great merit and utility and should be
regularized and continued. Indeed, we would like to see this process
more broadly applied in natural resource management and forestry.
Indian forests present a unique window into the interaction of
forests and people; in this instance people who care deeply about the
land and nature and live intimately with both. In this sense, as well
as in the sense of forming a major part of the diminished heritage of
important and vital people, they are a major asset, obligation and
opportunity for us all.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Aurene M. Martin, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am pleased to be here today to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on An Assessment of Indian Forest and Forest
Management in the United States, also known as the Indian Forest
Management Assessment Report II (Report). The 1990 National Indian
Forest Resources Management Act directs the Secretary of the Interior
to obtain an independent assessment of the status and management of
Indian forest resources every 10 years, Pursuant to the Act, this is
the second report assessing Indian forests and forestry management. The
recommendations included within this Report provide the Department with
feedback to better improve the delivery and management of forestry
services provided to federally recognized tribes and individual Indian
owners.
Indian forests cover 17 million acres with a commercial timber
volume of approximately 42 billion board feet with an annual allowable
harvest of 767 million board feet. Indian forests are located on 275
reservations in 26 states. Forest management activities, consist of
forest inventory and management planning including the development of
Integrated Resource Management Plans, forest products marketing timber
sale management, forest projection, woodland management forest
productivity enhancement and intensive forest development procedures.
These activities ensure the sustainable management of Indian forests
and provide for natural resource, protection.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Division of Forestry serves
Indian communities by managing or assisting tribes and individual
Indians with the management of their forests consistent with tribal
goals and objectives identified in forest management plans or
integrated resource management plans.
In 1993, An Assessment of Indian Forests & Forest Management in the
United States was developed by an independent group of nationally
recognized forestry exports pursuant to a contract with the Intertribal
Timber Council (ITC). This first report identified four areas in need
of improvement to better manage Indian forests, as follows: (1) the
inconsistency between expressed tribal goals for Indian forests and the
management paradigm actually applied; (2) the disparity in funding of
forest management activities between Indian and other similar Federal,
state and private lands; (3) the relative lack of coordinated resource
planning and management; and (4) the need for a better method of
setting and overseeing trust standards for Indian forestry.
The 2003 Report is a result of a similar contract with the ITC and
was produced by the same group of nationally recognized forestry
experts who produced the first report. The Report recognizes that the
overall management of Indian forests has improved and been modified to
better meet the needs of Indian tribes, and individual Indian owners.
In addition, the Report indicates that this improvement is due to the
efforts of both tribal organizations and the BIA. Moreover, the Report
concludes that there has been substantial progress toward
sustainability in Indian forests since 1993.
The 2003 Report recognizes many achievements in three of the four
areas identified as needed for improvement. The first area of
improvement has been a reduction of the inconsistency between expressed
tribal goals for Indian forests and the governing forestry management
practices. The Report identifies increasing tribal participation in
forest management. In fact, the number of tribes that have partially
and fully contracted or compacted management services for their own
forests has increased from a total of 64 in 1991 to a total of 121 in
2001. The BIA has made improvements in coordination and cooperation
with tribes and individual Indians. This partnership between the tribes
and the Federal Government has helped to develop a more unified and
consistent vision for managing the forests by incorporating both tribal
and Federal needs.
The second area of improvement identified in the 1993 Report was
the need for increased funding for Indian forestry programs to diminish
the funding disparity between Indian forestry programs and other
comparable Federal, State, and private forestry programs. The 2003
Reports notes that progress in this area has been made. The progress in
this area is two-fold: (1) the increased funding provided for Indian
lands under the National Fire Plan; and (2) a more efficient management
of the Federal forests, As illustrated by the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative, the Administration is committed to improving forest
and rangeland health by investing in fuels treatment and related
projects and by improving administrative procedures to ensure that
projects get accomplished. The Department has significantly increased
funding since 2001 for fuels treatment and other forestry activities to
help create and maintain healthy, and sustainable forests. The
Department will continue to maintain forest and rangeland health as a
high priority.
The third area of identified in the 2003 Report showing marked
improvement is that of coordinated or integrated planning. Improvements
in forest management planning were evident by the progress shown in the
preparation and implementation of Integrated Resource Management Plans
(IRMPs). The Department has recognized the importance of forest and
integrated resource planning. In the fiscal year 2004 appropriations,
the Administration requested and received a $1 million increase in the
forestry non-recurring fund for Integrated Resource Management
Planning. In addition, the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget also
includes a program increase of $1.0 million for the development of
forest management plans.
The 2003 Report claimed that little progress had been made on the
fourth identified area, that of setting of trust standards and trust
oversight. The Department recognizes that the main point of this
Report's recommendation is the creation of an Independent Trust
Oversight organization outside of the Department. The Department
strongly objects to this recommendation. The Committee is well aware of
the huge investments in trust reform that have been made over the past
few years. The Department believes that, with the realignment of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, we have made significant progress in the improvement of our
trust oversight capability.
The Report also contained a number of recommendations, which the
Department is in the process of reviewing. At initial reading of the
Report, the Department believes a number of recommendations will
complement and enhance the President's commitment to healthy forests.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department on this important report, I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.