[Senate Hearing 113-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-352
WILDFIRES AND FOREST MANAGEMENT: PREVENTION IS PRESERVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-363 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Mary J. Pavel, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Rhonda Harjo, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 14, 2014..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 14
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 17
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 1
Witnesses
Breuninger, Hon. Danny, President, Mescalero Apache Nation....... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Brooks, Jonathan, Tribal Forest Manager, White Mountain Apache
Tribe.......................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Hubbard, James, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Leighton, Adrian, Ph.D., Chair, Natural Resources Department,
Salish Kootenai College........................................ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Rigdon, Philip, President, Intertribal Timber Council............ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Washburn, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Additional statement submitted for the record:
Hon. Michael O. Finley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation................................... 60
WILDFIRES AND FOREST MANAGEMENT: PREVENTION IS PRESERVATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
Good afternoon. It is good to have you all here today for
this hearing. A special thanks to Kevin. Kevin, every Wednesday
at 2:30 p.m., you have had a date here for about the last
month. We appreciate you being here.
This Committee is holding an oversight hearing on Wildfires
and Forest Management, with a particular focus on the
relationship between Federal and tribal forest management.
The 2014 fire season is just beginning and thousands of
families across the country, particularly western communities,
are bracing for another season of devastating forest fires.
Already this year, there are at least 17 large fires
burning across the southern United States. The latest fires are
part of an ominous trend toward bigger, hotter and longer fire
seasons. Since 1960, there have been 235 million acres plus
burned. To put that in perspective, that amount would cover the
entire area of Montana and New Mexico combined.
Federal agencies responsible for protecting our communities
are working to develop and apply smarter fire fighting
strategies and focus on fighting fires and cleaning up the mess
afterwards is like trying to live off a high interest credit
card. We keep paying more by picking up the pieces at the end
as risk for wildfire continues to escalate the cost of damages.
Last year, the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior spent a combined $1.7 billion on suppression alone.
This is in line with the last five year average of about $1.8
billion annually. This amount does not count the State, local
and travel costs.
I think everyone can agree that wildfire prevention
activities such as hazardous fuel treatments reduce fire
suppression costs. Yet, budget requests from the Forest Service
and DOI don't keep up with the need for hazardous fuel
treatments.
No where are the effects of wildfire more apparent and the
benefit of working ahead of time to reduce the threat of fires
more obvious than on tribal forests. Tribal communities rely on
their forests for economic development, recreation and cultural
activities. Each year, tribal habitat is lost for decades,
sometimes forever.
The damage is not just to trees. Every year wild fire
firefighters risk their lives to protect others and each year,
we lose too many of these brave men and women. Just last year,
34 wildfire fighters died in the line of duty.
Forest management does not stop at the border of any
jurisdiction anymore than the wildfire does. That theme is
echoed in three topics our witnesses will discuss today: the
Anchor Forest Pilot Project; the IFMAT III report; and the
Tribal Forest Protection Act Report.
The Anchor Forest Pilot Project offers an alternative,
cross jurisdictional approach to forest management. The IFMAT
III report highlights how chronic under funding is leading to
lost economic opportunities and tribal resources. Federal
funding of Indian forests is still greatly lacking and staffing
shortfalls jeopardize the capacity to care for the forest
resource.
The Tribal Forest Protection Act Report shows there is
still a long way to go for tribes and Federal agencies to work
together to better protect tribal lands from threats
originating on Federal lands. As we will hear today, tribal
forests serve as models of how all of our Nation's forests
should be cared for. We need to provide the appropriate support
for them to continue to do so.
With that, I will welcome all our witnesses today. It is
certainly an important issue in my home State of Montana as
well as tribal and non-tribal communities across this country.
I look forward to the testimony today regarding how we can
improve forest and wildfire management in tribal and Federal
forests.
When Senator Barrasso comes, we will have his opening
statement. In the meantime, I think we will start with Kevin
Washburn and James Hubbard for their opening statements.
Once again, welcome. You have five minutes. Your entire
testimony will be a part of the record. After you are done, we
will have questions.
We have the Honorable Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior and Mr. James
Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. These folks will offer
their agencies' and the Administration's perspective.
I welcome you both. Thank you for taking time out of what I
know is a very busy schedule to come and enlighten this
Committee.
Kevin, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN WASHBURN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY--INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Washburn. Chairman, thank you so much for having us.
Thanks for having a hearing on this very important subject.
One of my first experiences with forest fire was in Montana
at Flathead. I was a baby lawyer at the Department of Justice.
There was a fire called the NORTH I fire. It was probably 1991
or something like that. I was brought in to sue General Motors
because General Motors was arguably the cause of the fire. We
ultimately obtained a settlement.
I was at the Justice Department. Why was I bringing a case
on behalf of Flathead? It was a trust resource of the United
States for the Flathead Tribe, the Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation. I have been somewhat attuned to these
issues for a very, very long time.
I came from New Mexico and more recently I have seen the
devastation that forest fires have caused there. I will say as
the temperatures grow hotter--what some scientists believe is
happening--we are worried that we are going to see more and
more fires. It is very timely for such a hearing and I thank
you for that.
I agree with your opening statement that the answer to
address the fire problem is at least, in part, better
prevention, including hazardous fuel treatment but also
harvesting of the forests. A forest fire causes a lot of damage
and wrecks streams, waterways, landscapes and in some respects,
if you view this from the trust resource, it is like lighting
money on fire and letting it burn up. That is a bad thing and
we need to be very creative in how we address these important
issues.
Forests turned out to be one of our most important trust
resources. There are 310 forests at Indian reservations located
in 24 States, so this is something that broadly affects much of
the country. Certainly Montana and New Mexico are two of the
States that have a lot of forest land but they range across a
lot of States, including over 18 million acres of Indian
forests in the United States held in trust by us.
This is no small issue. For many of the tribes, it is their
principal source of economic development. It is something we
take very, very seriously.
We are grateful to the IFMAT team doing the decennial
reports. We have fairly recently been briefed on the most
recent decennial report. There is a lot of interesting
information in there. One of the things we have seen of
interest in this report is everyone knows that I am very much
in favor of tribal self governance. We have just about doubled
the number of tribes involved in self government since the
first IFMAT report was produced in the early 1990s.
Having said that, even for the tribes that aren't
contracting or compacting for these functions, they are working
very, very closely with the BIA. There is a nice, cooperative
arrangement between direct services tribes and the BIA on
managing these forests. It is a huge task, so it wouldn't be
done nearly as well without that great cooperation.
We are very interested in the Anchor Forest model. It
combines both good management of forests with good economic
management of trust resources. We are anxious to learn more
about that and see how we can be supportive of it. Those are
the principal things I would like to say in my opening
statement.
I will stop there. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Washburn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior
(Department) to provide testimony about tribal forestry and wildland
fire management. Forests encompass about a third of the total Indian
trust lands and provide irreplaceable economic and cultural benefits to
Indian people. Forests store and filter the water and purify the air.
They sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife that provide sustenance
for the people. They produce foods, medicines, fuel, and materials for
shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. Forests provide
revenues for many tribal governments and in some cases provide the
principal source of revenue for a tribal government and provide
employment for Indian people in these rural communities.
Overview
There are over 18 million acres of Indian forests in the U.S. held
in trust by the federal government. There are 310 forested Indian
reservations located in 24 states. Six million acres are considered
commercial timberlands, nearly four million acres are commercial
woodlands, and more than eight million acres are a mixture of
noncommercial timberlands and woodlands. Commercial forests on trust
land are producing nearly one billion board feet of merchantable timber
every year.
Historically, the management of tribal land was accomplished
through the use of fire. Today however, fire alone cannot be used to
accomplish forest management activities. The management of Indian
forests and other resources is limited by geographic and political
boundaries and increasingly threatened from external forces, such as
wildfire, insects, disease, development and urbanization.
Forests on tribal reservations and throughout the country, but
particularly in the more arid interior west, have grown much denser in
recent decades, have undergone shifts in species composition, and have
experienced more frequent epidemics of insect and disease infestations.
These conditions are considered indicators of poor forest health and
jeopardize tribal forest resources. Left untreated, forests in poor
condition pose a threat of catastrophic loss by wildfire. Maintaining
healthy, productive tribal forests requires the cutting and sale of
large trees as well as the thinning of small trees through mechanical
and prescribed fire methods.
Timber Management--Thinning the Large Trees
Our professional foresters and fire managers who work for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and for Tribal programs understand the art and
science of maintaining forest health, as well as the need to
incorporate Tribal goals, objectives and traditional ecological
knowledge. However, there are various limitations to the amount of work
these dedicated land managers can perform, including the absence of
viable forest products markets, milling infrastructure, and resources
for post-harvest thinning, burning, and planting.
Since 2003, timber harvest levels have dropped 42 percent, from
635.4 to 367.9 million board feet. Tribes are now harvesting only 38
percent of what is currently available to be harvested on an annual,
sustained yield basis. By not harvesting what is growing annually, the
forests continue to get denser. It is important to note that these
larger trees are not being removed through the Bureau's Forest
Development program or the Department's Fuels Management program and
contrary to common belief, the large tree component of the forest often
sustains catastrophic stand replacement crown fire.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tribes which actively manage timber and other forest products rely
on sale proceeds to employ tribal members, finance economic development
projects and tribal infrastructure, and provide social services.
Tribes have begun coordinating and collaborating with their federal
and state partners on a regional basis to identify ways marketable
forest wood fiber supply can be pooled in an effort to entice industry
to finance regional milling and biomass utilization converting
facilities, through what is known as the Anchor Forest Initiative. As a
stand-alone supplier, most tribes lack the amount of wood fiber
necessary to support the capitalization of converting facilities that
utilize forest-based fiber. The maintenance of a healthy forest
products economy and strategically located regional processing
facilities promotes long term forest health and helps to prevent
catastrophic wildfire. The Department supports concepts such as the
Anchor Forest Initiative and is working with the Tribes, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture in nurturing this
initiative.
Forest Development and Fuels Management--Thinning Small Trees and
Treating Dead Fuels
Investments in pre-commercial thinning and hazardous fuels
reduction operations keep forests healthy and resilient, helping avoid
stand-replacing crown fires and associated environmental and economic
consequences, including pollution to the atmosphere.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs funds project work for thinning excess
small trees while the Department, through the Wildland Fire Management
Appropriation, funds hazardous fuels treatments which reduce both dead
and live fuels. These funding sources complement one another and are
often strategically comingled in order to meet silvicultural
prescriptions. From 2003 to 2013, the BIA has treated an average of
31,430 acres annually, using funding appropriated through the BIA's
Forestry Subactivity. During this same period, an average of 210,746
acres annually has been treated using funding appropriated through the
Department's Wildland Fire Appropriation. In many tribal forests,
treatments which include both the harvesting (sale) of large trees and
the removal of excess small trees must be combined in order to ensure
treatments are comprehensive and meet science-based silvicultural
prescriptions. A comprehensive treatment is the most effective way to
ensure the forest stays healthy, free of infestation and disease, while
being resilient to the effects of unwanted wildfire.
National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA)
In 1991, the Department supported enactment of the National Indian
Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA). The Act authorized the
Secretary to conduct a comparative analysis of investments made in
Indian Forestry, versus those made in other land management agencies,
every ten years (25 USC Sec. 3111). This periodic assessment is known
as the Indian Forest Management Assessment (IFMAT).
The IFMAT Report
The IFMAT Report addresses eight required NIFRMA evaluation
criteria which include:
1. an in-depth analysis of management practices on, and the
level of funding for, specific Indian forest land compared with
similar Federal and private forest lands,
2. a survey of the condition of Indian forest lands, including
health and productivity levels,
3. an evaluation of the staffing patterns of forestry
organizations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and of Indian
tribes,
4. an evaluation of procedures employed in timber sales
administration, including preparation, field supervision, and
accountability for proceeds,
5. an analysis of the potential for reducing or eliminating
relevant administrative procedures, rules and policies of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs consistent with the Federal trust
responsibility,
6. a comprehensive review of the adequacy of Indian forest
land management plans, including their compatibility with
applicable tribal integrated resource management plans and
their ability to meet tribal needs and priorities,
7. an evaluation of the feasibility and desirability of
establishing minimum standards against which the adequacy of
the forestry programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in
fulfilling its trust responsibility to Indian tribes can be
measured, and
8. a recommendation of any reforms and increased funding
levels necessary to bring Indian forest land management
programs to a state-of-the-art condition.
The third IFMAT report was recently completed in 2013. The report
found that tribes are assuming an ever-increasing leadership role in
forest management activities through self-determination and self-
governance, with 38 percent of the 310 Indian forestry programs nation-
wide currently managed by the Tribes. I am proud to say that the report
found that both Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal forest managers
rank as some of the most dedicated, hardworking individuals in the
forest management profession. Their innovation and influence on the
science of integrated forestry practices and sustained yield management
is widely recognized, providing a solution for ecosystem health and
productivity and a framework for cross-jurisdictional management of
federal and state lands through the Anchor Forest Initiative.
The IFMAT team visited 20 Indian reservations and received input
from Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and tribal foresters and resource
managers, forestry students, tribal leaders, and tribal elders. The
reservations, forests, and people visited were highly diverse, each
with their own set of local challenges. It was broadly noted by
respondents that Indian forests are increasingly threatened by external
forces, such as wildfire, insects, disease, development, climate
change, declining access to markets, and urbanization.
The Report showed many positive examples of people caring deeply
about the land and their management decisions. Indian forests represent
a unique window into the interaction between forests and people.
The management of Indian forests must be directed toward achieving
a dynamic set of tribal objectives, making the management of Indian
forestlands particularly unique. Tribal leaders have recently begun
extending their influence beyond reservation boundaries to build
interagency partnerships for a sustainable future. Tribes with
permanent land bases and a demonstrated history of long-term
stewardship play a pivotal role to achieve cross-boundary, landscape-
level resource management and restoration.
Current Department Initiatives
There are many opportunities to build on the findings and
recommendations of the IFMAT Report. The groundwork has already been
laid through FY14 Forestry program initiatives that include additional
support to tribes to maintain productive levels of forest management.
In addition, as part of the Administration's commitment to advance
science-based collaborative efforts, we have provided for climate
change research and the development of a youth program in forestry.
We are particularly pleased with our Youth Initiative which
supports the development of tribal youth engaged in projects that
promote climate change awareness. This program, in partnership with a
tribal college, will provide opportunities for youth to gain hands-on
classroom and field experience in the field of forestry and study the
relationship to climate change and the long term implications to tribal
forestry. Furthermore, the college currently sponsors 14 cooperative
education students who are receiving Forestry education at universities
throughout the country. Our goal is to increase the number of students
enrolled in this program by FY16, which provides tuition and other
support, as qualified entry level American Indian and Alaska Native
foresters are in short supply.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views.
The Department continues to work with Tribes to promote healthy forests
and will continue to work closely with this Committee as well as our
federal and state partners to address forestry and fire management
issues
Thank you for focusing attention on this important topic. I am
available to answer any questions the Committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Kevin. I appreciate your
perspective. There will be questions. I appreciate your
willingness to be here.
Mr. Hubbard?
STATEMENT OF JAMES HUBBARD, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE
FORESTRY, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
I appreciate being here today.
In terms of relationships, as you stated, it is important
to the Forest Service, the government-to-government
relationship, recognition that the tribes are the original
stewards of the land and their traditional knowledge is
something we need to pay attention to and take into account.
This came through loud and clear when we started looking at
our sacred sites policy. We would talk to tribal councils and
elders and learn from that the only way we are going to better
understand is to walk the land with those tribes, where they
live and where they are familiar with territory.
How the land is managed, whether it is the national
forests, the reservations, any of the trust lands that the
tribes are interested in, is an important thing. I think IFMAT
points out that to us and gives us a trend of how we are doing,
where we are going and what we might want to pay more attention
to.
Certainly Anchor Forest is an exploration of how we might
better do things across boundaries and how we might use well
managed tribal lands and existing processing infrastructure to
support an economic base for good forest, active forest
management and build off that that.
The Tribal Forest Protection Act, stewardship contracting,
good neighbor, all are tools that we can throw into that
equation and I think do a better job of managing the forest
condition. It is the forest condition and the wildfire threat
that results that worries us the most. If we are going to have
resilient forests, if we are going to reduce fire risk, it will
take that active management to accomplish it. We know that.
The forecast for fire conditions is not good any time in
the foreseeable future. The western forests, in particular, are
old and dry and in many cases, they are ready to burn or, as we
have seen, be susceptible to insect and disease attack on a
wide scale. That isn't something that is going to change
anytime soon.
We have to pick our places and pick our priorities and make
the right kind of choices together across those boundaries on
the landscape to have any different outcome if we expect things
to look better than they look now.
Those are gut examples of how we can cross those boundaries
but we haven't done nearly enough and are going to have to be
more selective in choosing our priorities for where we can
actually affect that outcome.
The Forest Service has struggled with how to budget and how
to pay for fire suppression. Our 2015 budget proposal proposes
something different for suppression financing. It says if we
have any relief from that suppression bill, we would like to
put it into restoration and hazardous fuel reduction.
Those are our priorities. How we deal with fire
suppression, we will be prepared to respond to fire suppression
as part of our job. We know it. We'd like to do more in the
realm of mitigation and the forest management across the
boundaries of other partners is the only way we get to a
different outcome on a landscape.
We know that and tribes are very much a part of that. There
are plenty of examples of well managed tribal land that we
could build from.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of Agriculture
to provide testimony on our longstanding and productive partnerships
with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations as we responsibly manage
shared resources, improve the health of our forests across boundary
lines, support rural economies, and work together to make both public
and Tribal lands more resilient.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Indian Tribes
Indian Tribes have a unique status established by the Constitution.
The Forest Service and USDA are committed to a government-to-government
relationship with federally recognized Indian Tribes. We recognize that
American Indians and Alaska Natives were the original stewards of the
lands that now comprise the National Forest System. In addition, for
some National Forest System lands the Forest Service is responsible for
fulfilling treaty obligations of the United States. In many cases,
National Forest System land shares borders with Tribal land. As part of
the government-to-government relationship, the Forest Service
coordinates, collaborates and consults with Indian Tribes in the
management of the National Forest System and the provision of Forest
Service program services. Through this process, the Forest Service
seeks to understand and identify areas for common management
objectives, as well as to recognize differing landownership and
management objectives. Although the agency and Tribes operate under
different laws and regulations, the Forest Service intends to be a good
neighbor and foster beneficial collaborative relationships and
partnerships with Indian Tribes in the management of common landscapes
and ecosystems.
There are a number of Federal laws that build upon the
Constitutional bedrock of the sovereignty of Tribal governments. Key
among those laws for the Forest Service are the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, both of which provide opportunities for consultation and
coordination and commit agency employees to seek and encourage active
Tribal participation in many aspects of land management and program
services administration and delivery. In the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 land management planning process, the Forest Service
consults with Tribes and invites their participation. In addition,
Forest Service line officers (Chief, Associate Chief, Deputy Chiefs,
Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Directors, Forest
Supervisors and District Rangers), in accordance with agency policy,
frequently meet and consult with the leaders of Tribes who have treaty
and other Federally protected rights on National Forest System lands.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, requires Federal agencies to develop an ``accountable
process'' for ensuring meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials
in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal
implications. The Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook
further define and clarify agency policy with respect to Tribes and are
used extensively throughout the agency.
The Forest Service Office of Tribal Relations was formally
established in 2004 within the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area.
This year will mark ten years of the coordination, collaboration and
consultation that the national office has provided to the various staff
areas of the Agency. The Tribal Relations directives, including the
handbook and manual that guide all 30,000 agency employees on their
work with Indian Tribes, have been updated and revised and are
currently out for Tribal consultation.
Partnering to Improve Forest Resiliency to Wildfire
A recent report found the U.S. Forest Service may need to spend as
much as $1.55 billion fighting fires this year while the agency has
only $1 billion available for firefighting. If the season is that
costly, the Forest Service will need to take funding out of other
critical programs that increase the long-term resilience of our
National Forests to wildfire in order to continue fighting fires.
The Forest Service has had to divert funds from other programs to
fund firefighting efforts for 7 of the last 10 years. Fire transfer
takes funding away from forest management activities such as mechanical
thinning and controlled burns that reduce both the incidence and
severity of wildfires. In addition to fire transfer, over the last two
decades, the Forest Service has also had to shift more and more money
to firefighting, thereby reducing foresters, Tribal liaisons, and other
staff by over 30 percent.
In its 2015 budget proposal, the Obama Administration proposed a
special disaster relief cap adjustment for use when costs of fighting
fires exceed Forest Service and Department of Interior budgets. The
proposal tracks closely with legislation authored by Oregon Senator Ron
Wyden, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Representatives Mike Simpson of
Idaho and Kurt Schrader of Oregon.
Fuels Reduction
Planning and implementation of vegetative fuels treatments are
critical for all land management agencies, including Tribes, to reduce
the risk of undesired wildland fire impacts. The Forest Service
consults with Tribes to design and implement fuels treatments. Fuels
treatments must be carried out before a wildfire occurs because when a
wildland fire is already burning, it is too late to reduce the risk.
Wildfire is a landscape-scale phenomenon that does not acknowledge
political or administrative boundaries. The purpose of fuels treatment
is to alter potential fire behavior; its full value is only realized
when tested by a wildland fire. However, that value also relies on
careful planning and design, and on proper implementation. Some fuels
treatments require collaborative work between many partners and
governments and years of arduous efforts to complete a project. Fuels
treatments can be effective in changing the outcome of wildfires
because the fuel volume has been reduced and the structure and
arrangement of the fuel has been modified. The resulting fire behavior
has lower intensity thus providing wildland suppression personnel more
options to safely manage the fire. Fuels treatments can serve as
strategic points on the landscape from which to implement suppression
operations and protect property and natural resources. Congress
recognizes the utility and value of fuels treatments and has enacted
legislation to support land management agencies to effectively
implement fuels treatments.
Two recent examples of the Forest Service working with the Tribes
in support of fuel treatments are:
The Isleta Project in New Mexico, and
The Chippewa National Forest support for Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe in Minnesota.
As part of The Chiefs' Joint Landscape Restoration Partnership, the
U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service have
approved $1,520,000 for the Isleta Project in the East Mountains near
Albuquerque. The funds will be used for cross-boundary tree thinning,
hazardous fuel removal, and controlled burns to restore 2,500 acres of
the Cibola National Forest and 2,600 acres in Isleta Pueblo and Chilili
Land Grant.
The ponderosa pine and pinon juniper forests of the East Mountains
are dense, dry and overgrown. A wildfire in this area would be
devastating to both people and nature. A Wildfire Hazard Risk Report
found nearly 11,000 high-risk homes in the East Mountains. A wildfire
in this area also has the potential to burn west through the Manzano
and Sandia Mountains where it could jeopardize Rio Grande water
supplies.
Since May 2008, 11 project partners have committed to this multi-
jurisdictional project. Approximately 10,420 acres are identified for
treatment on this landscape including approximately 2,000 acres on the
Pueblo, 620 acres on Chilili, and 7,800 acres on National Forest System
lands. These projects are cross-jurisdictional efforts that will help
protect communities, cultural resources, wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities and improve overall watershed health. One of
the overall measures of success for this project will be in the reduced
threat to communities and homes in the project area from destructive
wildfire, demonstrated by fuels reduction and improved resiliency
(e.g., thinning). Treatments conducted through this partnership will
protect Tribal communities as well as the ecosystem services they rely
upon from across the landscape. In addition, some work on National
Forest System lands will be implemented using Tribal crews through
agreements under the Tribal Forest Protection Act, providing an
economic benefit to Tribal communities.
The Chippewa National Forest signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) in June 2013 with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, pledging to work
together in many areas, including hiring Tribal members, contracting
with the Tribe, technology transfer, training, and more. The Chippewa
is unique in that it shares overlapping boundaries with the Leech Lake
Indian Reservation. Approximately 90 percent of the Leech Lake Indian
Reservation lies within the Chippewa National Forest boundary.
Although the MOU was signed last June, collaborative efforts have
been going on for years. In 2005, a Forest Service prescribed fire
escaped onto reservation lands. To prevent similar events, the Forest
offered the Tribe $300,000 in Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels funds to do
fuels treatment and prescribed burns on their reservation. The Tribe
treated 500 acres of their land. Following that success, in 2010 the
Tribe treated an area close to a Tribal school that was an elevated
fire risk. A third project is ongoing, and a fourth is being planned.
To date, the list of fuels projects that have been collaboratively
designed include: three Hazardous Fuels Treatments; a Recovery Act
project; a Prescribed Fire Agreement; two stewardship projects; and
agreements to improve forest conditions on Chippewa NF lands. These
projects have improved over 1,000 acres.
Fire Preparedness
The Forest Service is responsible for managing nearly 193 million
acres of the National Forest System. We manage these lands mindful of
the role they play in providing clean water, wildlife and wildlife
habitat and other resources valued by communities and neighboring
landowners, including Tribes. The Forest Service has a long and largely
successful history of consulting and coordinating with Tribes in a
government-to-government relationship on all aspects of forest and
natural resource conservation and management, including wildland fire
preparedness and wildfire suppression response. In the interagency
environment of wildland fire management, the wildland fire management
agencies of Tribes and Bureau of Indian Affairs are full partners in
managing wildland fires, including coordinating and allocating assets
to prepare for and suppress wildland fire.
The Forest Service also assists Tribes to prepare for wildland fire
through the Cooperative Fire Assistance Program. Tribes may apply for
assistance in training wildland fire fighters and acquiring
firefighting equipment through the State Forester. Through coordination
and unified command within a geographical area, interagency leaders
determine priorities for fire fighter and public safety, identify
resources at-risk to wildland fire, and identify post-burn fire
rehabilitation needs. For example, in the Southwest Area, interagency
wildland firefighting resources are coordinated by the Southwest
Coordinating Group which includes agency representatives from the
Forest Service, four agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior
(the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as the
States of Arizona and New Mexico. In the Southwest Area, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs represents Tribes with three members on the nine-member
Southwest Coordinating Group. The Southwest Coordinating Group manages
the Southwest Coordination Center, which is responsible for
coordinating and facilitating the movement of wildland firefighting
assets within the Southwest Area or as needed nationally through the
National Interagency Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho.
Fire Suppression
The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior agencies
manage the primary Federal wildland fire suppression crews and assets.
The State Foresters and local fire protection districts also provide
fire suppression crews and assets to the interagency effort and serve
as partners with the Federal agencies. Fire suppression crews and
firefighting assets are shared and assigned by an interagency system
that includes priority for human health and safety, socio-cultural
attributes and biological/natural resources. In periods of high fire
danger or during a wildfire incident, Tribal lands are assigned fire
prevention and/or suppression crews and assets as fire ignition danger
increases. When a critical fire ignites or a fire builds into a large
fire on Tribal lands, interagency fire suppression crews and assets are
directed to the Tribal agencies that manage the affected lands.
Incident Management Teams arrive at an incident with Tribal Liaison
Specialists to initiate consultation with affected Tribes on a
government-to-government basis as management strategies are developed
for the incident.
Burned Area Emergency Response
Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) is a program that addresses
post-fire threats to human life, safety and property, as well as,
critical natural and cultural resources in the immediate post-fire
environment on federal lands. Common post-fire threats include flash
flooding, mudflows, rock fall, hazard trees and high impact erosion.
Under the BAER program, scientists and other specialists quickly
evaluate post-fire threats to human life, safety, property and critical
natural or cultural resources including traditional cultural properties
and sacred sites and take immediate actions to manage unacceptable
risks. BAER assessments begin when it is safe to enter the burned area,
but usually before the fire is completely contained. BAER may include
soil stabilization treatments (e.g., seeding and mulching,) or
structure stabilization treatments such as road storm proofing (e.g.,
constructing rolling dips, and removing undersized culverts, to pass
water and avoid damage).
Tribal consultation is an important part of Forest Service BAER
assessments. BAER team personnel and the forest supervisor consult with
Tribal governments, including elders designated by the Nation, to
identify sacred sites, cultural sites and traditional cultural
properties, and to address mitigation or stabilization treatments for
those sites.
Planning Rule
To create more effective and meaningful engagement with Indian
Tribes, the Forest Service chose to start with coordination and
collaboration before moving to formal government-to-government
consultation on the revision of the National Forest System Land
Management Planning Rule. In 2010, the Forest Service started its
engagement with all 566 federally-recognized Indian Tribes by hosting
16 national and regional roundtable sessions followed by individual
one-on-one Tribal consultation meetings between local Forest Service
officials and Tribal leaders. In March 2011, Indian Tribes were invited
to a listening session on the proposed rule with the Forest Service
subject matter experts available to answer questions. This provided an
opportunity for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to
continue to be part of the process of developing the rule.
Following the September 2011 release of the proposed rule, Indian
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were invited to consult at the
local level. Prior to this date, the Forest Service issued a directive
requiring a minimum 120-day period for Tribal consultation on the
development of all new national policy that might impact Indian Tribes,
allowing more meaningful opportunity to consult. The proposed rule was
the first national Forest Service policy to implement a 120-day Tribal
consultation period.
Since the Rule was issued on April, 12, 2012, engagement and
consultation has continued. An opportunity for Tribal consultation for
the proposed implementing directives for the rule was initiated in
February 2013.
Additionally, the Agency developed a 21-person Federal Advisory
Committee to provide recommendations to the Secretary and Chief on
implementation of the rule. The advisory committee includes Tribal
representation. To date, 13 forests have begun Tribal outreach and
dialogue prior to formal consultation as part of land management
revisions initiated under the new rule. This pre-work fosters
relationship building as well as provides time for more meaningful
dialogue. The more formal government-to-government Tribal consultation
is strengthened and becomes more meaningful and effective.
Climate Change and the Tribal Engagement Roadmap
The rapidly changing climate has introduced new risks and
opportunities for tribal forests and forestry. Tribes are adapting to
the changing climate as they have through centuries of historic
climatic changes, and in this new and perhaps unprecedented set of
changes, forests and forestry programs can become an important element
in that overall adaptation. To manage their forests effectively in a
changing climate, Tribes need improved access to science-based
information about the impacts of the changing climate and management
options for local forests and woodlands.
The Forest Service Research and Development Tribal Engagement
Roadmap is a major step in improving the way our research community
works with and serves Tribes. Under the Roadmap, we are building and
enhancing partnerships with Tribes, Indigenous and Native Groups,
Tribal colleges, Tribal communities and InterTribal Organizations. We
are enhancing communication with Tribes and other Native communities on
research results that are relevant for their needs, as well as in forms
and forums that are culturally appropriate and effective.
In all lines of research of mutual interest, we will include and
consider Tribes, and keep them involved through the entire research
process. This includes collaboration in setting research priorities,
designing projects, implementing projects, and analyzing/disseminating
results. We encourage Tribal and Native representation in the Forest
Service workforce through recruitment and outreach, as well as programs
such as Pathways and other internship opportunities. We also partner
with Tribal colleges and universities to engage students and Native
faculty in order to share perspectives and increase their capacity for
research engagement.
This effort supports the goals and objectives outlined in the
agency-wide Tribal Relations Strategic Plan 2010-2013, and contributes
to the broader Forest Service Tribal Relations Program. Consistent with
Forest Service national strategic goals and objectives, this strategic
plan identifies specific goals, objectives, and actions to guide the
agency. http://www.Forest Service.fed.us/research/Tribal-engagement/
roadmap.php
Sacred Sites
In 2010, USDA Secretary Vilsack directed the USDA Office of Tribal
Relations and the Forest Service to review policies and procedures for
the protection of and access to Indian Sacred Sites on National
Forests. The results were published in the Sacred Sites Report in
December of 2012, and the Forest Service began to implement the
review's recommendations. While the report itself is not a policy, it
has paved the way for a new approach to do business, encourages better
use of existing policies, and the creation of new policy where needed.
Any changes to policy will go through public review and tribal
consultation. The report does promote flexibility in using existing
policy to meet the need to protect sacred sites.
A charter signed in June 2013 established Executive and Core teams
to develop strategies and actions to implement the recommendations in
the Sacred Sites Report. The teams are comprised of executive leaders,
field line officers, and staff officers with a commitment to cross-
cultural understanding and Tribal relationships. These teams are
working to develop a shared program of work, advance specific
recommendations in the report, and enhance the relevance of sacred
sites though first-hand interaction with local Tribal elders and
medicine people. The teams benefited from exceptional and powerful
interactions with Tribal leaders regarding the nature of Sacred Sites.
These interactions provide the teams with insights necessary to develop
a strategic and inspirational approach for advancing recommendations in
the Sacred Sites Report.
Anchor Forests
Forests throughout the United States are negatively impacted by
fragmentation, wildfire, insects, disease, drought, and climate change.
The management, harvesting, transportation, and processing
infrastructure necessary to sustain healthy and productive forests are
disappearing. As a result, vital ecological systems and economies of
rural communities are suffering. Anchor Forests are large contiguous
areas of Tribal trust land that can support sustainable long-term wood
and biomass production levels; are backed by local infrastructure and
technical expertise; and are endorsed politically and publicly. Anchor
Forests are intended to mitigate the above listed negative impacts by
creating large networks of interdependent local partners to promote
robust large scale landscapes. The Intertribal Timber Council
representing over 60 Indian Tribes with forest interests believes that
Anchor Forests are a ``common sense, multifaceted approach for
retaining healthy working forests through partnerships, collaboration
and coordination.'' The Anchor Forests pilot project is a $700,000
grant from the Forest Service to ITC. The pilot consists of three study
areas in eastern Washington State involving the Indian Tribal land on
the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville, and Spokane
Tribe. Partners include the Forest Service (Region 6 and Pacific
Northwest Research Station); Washington Department of Natural
Resources; researchers from the University of Washington, The Nature
Conservancy, and the University of Idaho. Data is being gathered for
six tasks: infrastructure analysis; Tapash collaborative case study;
institutional capacity; barriers and solutions; tools and funding
opportunities; and ecosystem services.
Three recent Indian Forest Management and Assessment Team studies
spanning the last three decades have indicated Indian Tribal Forests
have desirable management practices. And, because most Indian Tribes
have their lands held in trust with most lands considered ancestral
land, the Anchor Forests will remain intact for future generations.
Special Forest Products
The Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority (25 U.S.C. 3055;
Section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill) gives the Secretary discretional
authority to provide, free of charge, any trees, portions of trees, or
forest products from National Forest System lands to federally
recognized Indian tribes for noncommercial traditional and cultural
purposes. These products are currently being provided to Tribes under a
Forest Service Interim Directive. The Department is developing a
regulatory process to implement the authority. [A Proposed Rule is
being prepared.] Providing federally recognized Indian tribes with a
clear and concise process to request forest products for traditional
and cultural purposes not only will improve our quality of customer
service but demonstrates respect for our government-to-government
relationship with Indian Tribes.
The Forest Service continues to work in partnership with Indian
Tribes to enhance traditional foods. For example, the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have entered
into a partnership to enhance the production of big huckleberries in
the Government Meadows area of the Snoqualmie Ranger District, in
response to Muckleshoot tribal elders concern that berry yields were
declining. Additionally, UC-Berkeley and the Karuk Tribe plan to
conduct research with USFS scientists and others to investigate how
traditional land management techniques impact the productivity and
availability of traditional Karuk foods, and have been working with the
Six Rivers and Klamath National Forests under a Memorandum of
Understanding since July 2012. Through their research, they plan to
determine what the impact of that management might be on the other
interests that the National Forests have to also address (such as fire,
disease, water, and recreation).
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004
The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) of 2004 provides Indian
tribes the opportunity to apply for and enter into stewardship
contracts to protect Indian forest land, including projects on Federal
land that borders on or is adjacent to Indian forest land and poses a
fire or other threat to Indian forest land under the jurisdiction of
the Indian tribe or a tribal community.
Since the TFPA was enacted, a limited number of federally-
recognized Tribes have used this authority. In an effort to discover
why the authority has gone underused and find solutions, the Forest
Service funded a $302,824 cooperative agreement with the Intertribal
Timber Council (ITC) in 2011. The ITC reported their findings in April
2013, finding that in many areas, Forest Service and Tribal personnel
are working together, but that it is not universal. Generally, there is
some awareness and understanding of TFPA by both Tribal and Forest
Service personnel, yet there is the need for clear, consistent guidance
that is readily available to remote locations so new personnel become
properly oriented and trained in using the authority more effectively.
Tribes are often unable to actively participate in developing plans for
restoration of neighboring National Forest System lands due to staff
and funding limitations.
Several actions that address the recommendations of the report are
already in progress. For instance, we have already identified personnel
to serve on the Agency's TFPA implementation team; those individuals
will work in conjunction with the ITC and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A framework has been developed, outlining the guiding principles for
the team that will lead to implementation of the recommendations. In
addition, the Agency and the Department are working to develop tribal
relations training including a module that will be required for all
employees. It will be important to use these training tools when
considering a training specifically related to TFPA.
Agreements, such as memorandums of understanding, are excellent
ways to maintain relationships in the midst of turnover between the
Agency and Tribes and to lay out expectations and protocols. Several
agency units have existing MOUs. The team will identify where
additional MOUs are needed to address TFPA goals and will work with
units to develop those.
We also know that Tribes have accomplished several projects that
meet the intent of the Act but are not considered TFPA projects. It
will be important to identify that work so that the larger context of
accomplishments by Tribes can be appreciated.
OTR Mapping Project
The Forest Service offices of Tribal Relations, Engineering, and
Forest Management, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
are developing an interactive map called Native Connections. This tool
will be available to Forest Service staff, Tribes, and others,
providing a visual map across landscapes to identify Forest Service
land, Tribal lands, and ceded lands all in one place. It will help
improve decisionmaking on incident and resource management; identify
cooperative opportunities; honor and strengthen the federal trust
responsibility and treaty rights; and recognize historic Tribal
interests and customs relative to contemporary circumstances such as
forced Tribal removal.
Conclusion
USDA is ready to assist Tribal governments and communities in
managing Tribal forests to improve their health and resiliency, and to
avoid, mitigate or replace lost natural resources, crops,
infrastructure developments or property due directly to the occurrence
of wildfire or the post-burn environmental and social consequences. We
are committed to our government-to-government relationship as
Sovereigns with Tribes and welcome the opportunity to consult with
Tribal governments to improve the health of our nation's forests across
boundaries. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the
Committee, this concludes my testimony. I'll be happy to answer any of
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your
testimony.
I will turn it over to Vice Chair and Ranking Member
Barrasso for his statement and his questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding today's very important oversight hearing, obviously
healthy forests are vital to many Indian and rural communities,
including those in my home State of Wyoming. They provide a
foundation for job creation, economic development and tribal
cultural preservation.
A healthy forest requires proper forest management. I
introduced S. 2132, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and
Self Determination Act Amendments of 2014 earlier this year.
This is a bill that would, among other things, create biomass
demonstration projects over the next several years.
These projects would help create jobs and spur tribal
economies. Michael Finley, on behalf of the National Congress
of American Indians, testified two weeks ago that this bill
would also provide other ancillary benefits to tribes, such as
wildfire prevention. Through these biomass projects, tribes
could thin forests and reduce hazardous fuels to prevent
wildfires and protect their communities. For that reason alone,
the bill should be advanced and signed into law this year.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bill
and that leads to the questions. I can start with you, Mr.
Washburn.
You talked about the Indian Tribal Energy Development and
Self Determination Act to allow the tribes to use the biomass.
You testified on the provisions of the bill just two weeks ago.
In that bill, tribes could use this biomass material to thin
dense forests and suppress hazardous fuels.
What kind of impacts do you think this use of biomass could
have on tribal economies?
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Vice Chairman, and thank you for
that bill.
We actually supported some biomass projects, not around
this particular subject, forestry, but we have seen tribes
being very entrepreneurial in the energy space. I think biomass
is something that we think is part of the future. The all the
above energy strategy would include this. I do think if we can
support biomass projects, it is good for the country and for
tribes.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Hubbard, kind of along that same line
of questioning based on allowing tribes to use biomass
materials, I believe such use is going to benefit tribes,
generating revenue and preventing wild fires on Indian lands.
How would tribal use of the biomass material benefit Federal
lands?
Mr. Hubbard. The Anchor Forest concept is a good example of
how we are trying to capitalize on existing processing and
infrastructure where we have active management and expand that
active management across boundaries on all ownerships,
including the national forests.
New efforts in biomass help us to find ways of paying for
that mitigation in a different way than with appropriated
dollars.
Senator Barrasso. When you think about 2011, the Wallow
Fire burned over 500,000 acres across the State of Arizona. In
December 2011, the Bureau of Indian Affairs report highlighted
the benefits the White Mountain Apache Tribal Forest Management
Practice had in reducing the intensity of that fire.
Is the Forest Service incorporating any of those tribal
forest management practices into its forest programs?
Mr. Hubbard. What we are trying to do is a number of
different explorations: how we do with integrated resource
restoration, collaborative forest landscape restoration and how
we do with landscape scale restoration which means crossing
those boundaries and learning from one another what works the
best.
Mostly, it is a matter of where we have enough momentum to
accomplish that active management and support the industry base
that it serves.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chairman Barrasso.
I would say, God willing, we will be doing a markup on your
energy bill next Wednesday.
Senator McCain, if you are ready, you can go. If not, I'll
ask a few questions and then you can go, whatever you like.
I'll start with you, Mr. Washburn. You noted the great
cooperation between tribes and the BIA. How can that be
maintained without sufficient funding?
Mr. Washburn. Well, it's difficult. We live in tight fiscal
times. I will tell you that cooperation helps a lot, especially
in tight fiscal times. Cooperation is crucial no matter how
much money we have. Good cooperation can sometimes help during
difficult fiscal times to plug some holes.
We certainly need adequate funding to do this job well. It
is a trust responsibility of the United States, so adequate
funding is important.
The Chairman. You talked about investments being critically
important. I agree. The question is what can you do to make
sure that happens?
Mr. Washburn. The Anchor Forest Initiative is a good
potential solution. The market can help solve some of these
problems for us because if there is a market for these forestry
products, there is an ability to thin the forests and manage
them better, but the market needs some help. The market doesn't
solve all our problems.
What we have seen with the market is when the economy went
down, we lost a lot of mills. We need to be more thoughtful
about developing those markets and preserving that
infrastructure, those mills, so the market can continue to work
because I think the market helps a lot. If there is a market
supporting the thinning of the forest, that certainly helps.
The Chairman. There is another issues out there. That is
the issue of supply for those mills right now because the
market is there. We will be working with the Forest Service as
we have in the past to make sure we try to get adequate supply
for the mills because that piece of infrastructure needs to
remain there so the government doesn't have to bear the entire
cost.
Mr. Hubbard, you talked about the fact that--and it's a
real world approach--if you have money left over after you
fight the fires, you put it into hazardous fuel reduction. Is
that what I heard you say?
Mr. Hubbard. I think what I tried to say was that if we
found a way of paying the suppression bill, our priority for
any other dollars, the first part of those dollars would go to
that hazardous fuel reduction and restoration.
The Chairman. That is good because I think prevention is
absolutely the way to go here to move it forward. The complaint
we have seen, both in written testimony, at this hearing and
the witnesses in prior wildfire forestry hearings in this
Committee and others, is the length of time that it takes for
the Forest Service to respond to a request from tribes for
action to fire events.
For tribes concerned about fuel build up on Forest Service
land adjacent to reservations, perhaps the only thing more
frustrating than waiting for a response is falling victim to
that wildfire that ultimately happens.
Why do we hear from tribes that the Forest Service is not
responding to their concerns regarding fuel build up on forest
land? Is that a valid complaint? If so, what could be done
about it?
Mr. Hubbard. I would suggest it is a valid complaint. It is
a valid complaint because of the amount of hazardous fuel that
we have to deal with and how we prioritize them. One of our
more recent ways of prioritizing them is to look at where that
national forest fuel is at risk to other neighbor values that
are most important to those neighbors and to look at those
places first.
Then the economics comes in, whether or not we have money
to pay for that or whether we have existing markets to get the
job done.
The Chairman. Is this about money entirely or even does
resources fall into it? If it's about money, it's about money.
I know it costs a lot to fight fires. Does human resource fall
into it as far as the problem?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, I think to a certain extent it does. We
are looking at how we can shift some of our expertise around to
meet the need because there is more need out there than we can
cover. We know that and that will always be the case. It is a
matter of making sure we get the right expertise in the right
place to get these jobs done.
The Chairman. Senator McCain?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
As I am sure has already been mentioned, our forest
communities are experiencing wildfires on catastrophic scales
we have never seen before. In the State of Arizona, we have
lost approximately 20 percent of our forest to wildfires over
the last decade. Today, our Federal Government frequently
spends over $2 billion fighting forest fires in active years.
We have a rather striking comparison between what the White
Mountain Apache Tribe in northern Arizona was able to do with
forest management following the Rodeo-Chediski fire and the
Wallow fire.
In the 2003 Rodeo-Chediski fire, 60 percent of it occurred
on the Ft. Apache Reservation. In the aftermath of that fire,
Congress passed laws--the Restoration Act, the Tribal Forest
Protection Act--and it changed how we managed our Federal and
tribal forests.
In 2011, these new forest management techniques paid off
during the 535,000 acre Wallow fire where less than three
percent of the burn occurred on the Ft. Apache Reservation. In
areas where the Wallow fire did burn on the reservation, the
tree death rate reached only 10 percent and the surrounding
non-Indian lands, reached 50 percent.
Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Washburn, that this is a graphic
example of two approaches to the issue? In other words, the
White Mountain Apache were able to clear and, through a
commercial enterprise which maybe we will mention a little bit
later on, have a situation where a very small amount many some
years later was burned as opposed to the way that the non-
Indian forest was managed which the next time there was a fire,
there was a 50 percent burn.
It seems to me--I'd be glad to have your view--that this is
a startling contrast between the approaches taken on Indian
land and non-Indian land. I'd like to hear from both of you.
Mr. Washburn. Senator McCain, you have long been a leader
in self governance for tribes and that is a great example of
where tribes when they are given the resources and given the
ability to control, along with the BIA, can work really well
together to address serious problems. It is also a symbol of
the importance of preventive work.
I think that does represent great success. I think tribes
do a really good job when we put them in a leadership position
to manage their lands. Together with the BIA, we have made
great strides in Indian country to manage those well and put in
prevention where we can.
Senator McCain. Forest clearing matters immensely as to the
amount of damage. We are going to have forest fires and they
are probably going to get bigger. We are in the 13th year of a
drought, as I calculate, in the southwest.
It seems to me we have the example of vigorous clearing,
which was an example of tribal sovereignty, versus a very slow
and hesitant process on non-Indian lands. Mr. Hubbard, maybe I
am drawing the wrong conclusion there.
Mr. Hubbard. Not at all. I think those two examples, Wallow
and Rodeo-Chediski, are good examples of well managed, actively
managed tribal lands that are more resilient to fire when it
comes and more resilient than most other lands, whether they be
national forest system or private. That is a good example. That
is part of what we must do with the Anchor Forest and build on
that.
Senator McCain. You would agree that we can't do it just
with government money? In other words, it has to be private
enterprise. There are just not enough tax dollars to do all the
clearing with just a Federal program. The real answer is to use
companies that will go out and do the forest thinning and then
sell that for proceeds. That way it is a free enterprise, a
profit-making enterprise. Is that right? Would you agree with
that, Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Hubbard. I absolutely agree.
Senator McCain. Right now we have in Arizona, because of
another fire that we had, these companies are telling us that
they don't have enough NEPA-ready acres to sustain their
stewardship contracts. Are you hearing that?
Mr. Hubbard. We are hearing that. We have had discussions
with the region to make sure we are addressing that. We don't
want to lose the ground we gained for our project.
Senator McCain. We are hearing there is a sense of urgency
out there. Senator Flake and I met with Chief Tidwell, he did
well on this issue which I am sure you probably heard about.
I'd like you to keep us up to date on that progress.
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. I think you would agree also that if these
people go out of business, then no commercial enterprise is
going to come back to places like Show Low and others where
they are located.
By the way, the White Mountain Apache has the largest wood
processing facility in all of Arizona and maybe even the
southwest. I am sure you are familiar with that, Mr. Washburn?
Mr. Washburn. Yes, I am, Senator.
Senator McCain. It has been a success and the source of
quite a bit of revenue for the tribe.
Mr. Washburn. And jobs.
Senator McCain. I think 145 tribal employees.
I guess my point here, Mr. Chairman, is we have a situation
where the Native Americans, thanks to tribal sovereignty, were
able to move quickly forward after a devastating fire--it was
huge--and set up an enterprise that is involved in forest
clearing, that is making money, that is hiring employees.
Frankly, we have had fits and starts on the non-Indian
land. The next time we had a fire where only 3 percent of the
Indian land was burned, we had 50 percent of the non-Indian
land. There is something wrong with that picture.
Now we have these fledgling companies in the business of
sawmills and collecting some of this fuel and they are still
having trouble getting amount of acreage released so they can
continue their operations. It is of enough importance to all of
us that Senator Flake and I met with the Forest Chief the other
day.
If you have any recommendations, Mr. Hubbard, as to what we
can legislatively do, if anything, I would be more than eager
to hear any recommendations you might have. I hope you are
giving this issue the priority and a little bit of the passion
that I obviously feel about it. Is that true?
Mr. Hubbard. That's true. You did get the Chief's
attention.
Senator McCain. That means we can expect immediate action?
Mr. Hubbard. I think you can expect action.
Senator McCain. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McCain. I very much
appreciate the line of questions. You are spot on.
I can tell you from my perspective that there are several
issues. In fact, the Forest Service, not to make any excuses,
but the amount of their budget that goes to fires--I am going
to ask about that in a second--could be used for forest
restoration and reducing fuel.
The other thing that is out there is there are few folks
out there who don't want to cut any trees. They tend to bring
these guys to court regularly.
Senator McCain. I think your latter point is really very
important. Second of all, I'm not sure why the money for forest
clearing should be in the same pot, very frankly, as fighting
fires.
The Chairman. Amen. I look forward to working with you to
make that happen. I think that is smart.
Mr. Hubbard, you testified that you have had to divert
funds from other programs seven out of ten years to fight
fires. Give me an idea on what that does to your ability to
manage the forests?
Mr. Hubbard. It's dramatic. It is not just the money that
gets moved; it's the timing of the money that gets moved. When
we go into fire season, we are also into our most active field
season.
When we exceed our suppression budget and have to start
transferring funds from other line items to cover the ongoing
suppression costs, we won't stop fighting fires, so we have to
pay for it, then we disrupt that field season, that activity
that is ongoing. We shut it down and move the money and have to
pick it up at a later time if the dollars are available.
Congress has been good about providing supplementals, but
that is after the fact and definitely affects what we can get
done during the field season.
The Chairman. The fractionated lands issue has been
something we have regularly talked about. There are thousands,
if not tens of hundreds of thousands, of fractionated lands
within the tribal Indian reservations. Could you tell me how
the land buybacks are going and if this is enhancing your
ability to do forest management or enhancing the tribes'
ability to do forest management?
Mr. Washburn. The buyback program, we are getting started
and it is actually going very, very well. I think we have
already consolidated more than 185,000 acres of land. We have
had more than 5,000 sales. I can't tell you how many millions
of dollars we have already spent out of that $1.9 billion
Cobell Settlement Fund. It is really starting to ramp up and
run.
It will absolutely have some improvements because there are
certainly a lot of allotments that are forest lands. This
buyback program, by restoring land to tribes or at least
fractionated interest of tribes, will restore tribal control
and its ability to harvest those lands and exercise control
over those lands in other ways. It will definitely improve
things.
If I could respond to the last question a little bit, the
President, in his budget, did ask for a great increase in our
budget authority to address mostly forest fire because it is
true when we have a really bad fire year, it eats into our
prevention money.
We have presented to the Congress a proposal that would
lift the cap for really bad fires. We do that for other kinds
of national emergencies and would ask Congress to do it for
forest fires because those of us in the southwest and your
State as well, know this is a serious emergency and it causes
devastation to tribes.
We have heard figures that one percent of the fires takes
like 30 percent of our budget. We have proposed for that really
bad one percent that we able to lift the budget caps. We
strongly understand the need for fiscal restraint but for these
very serious emergency fire events, we would like to see the
budget cap lifted so that it can be treated like other national
emergencies.
The Chairman. I appreciate the perspective.
Senator McCain, did you have anything else?
Senator McCain. No. Mr. Hubbard, we don't want to have to
call you back up here.
Thank you and I thank the witnesses.
The Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses. There will be
further questions I will submit in writing and other Committee
members can also.
With that, we will go to our second panel.
I will introduce the members of the panel with the
exception of Mr. Brooks. I will let Senator McCain introduce
him if you'd like, John. That would be fine with me.
We have: Danny Breuninger, Sr., President of the Mescalero
Apache Nation; Mr. Philip Rigdon, President, Intertribal Timber
Council; Dr. Adrian Leighton, Chair, Natural Resources
Department, Salish Kootenai Tribal College.
Senator McCain, would you like to introduce Mr. Brooks?
Senator McCain. I'd like to introduce Mr. Brooks. He's a
White Mountain Apache. Mr. Brooks, I want to thank you for the
great job you all are doing and your stewardship. It is
important that you are here so we can hear your story of
success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will start with you, Danny. As with the
previous panel, you have five minutes. Your entire testimony
will be part of the record. If you can keep it as close to five
as possible, we would appreciate it so we have time for
questions.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY BREUNINGER, PRESIDENT, MESCALERO APACHE
NATION
Mr. Breuninger. Good afternoon, Committee members and
Chairman Tester.
My name is Dan Breuninger. I am the President of the
Mescalero Apache Tribe. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
The forest is a source of life that provides water, food
and shelter to our people. Our ancestors roamed the southwest
but always returned to our sacred White Mountain and its
forests.
I have a map of our reservation that illustrates the 720
square miles here to my right. As you can see, Forest Service
and BLM lands border our reservation and our ancestral
homelands. Our people continue to gather medicines and conduct
ceremonies on these lands.
For more than a century, we have worked with BIA Mescalero
Agency to make the forestry program one of the best in the
southwest. The tribe has created more than 100,000 acres
through commercial harvests and thinning projects to maintain
forest health.
We've done a good job maintaining a healthy forest on a
shoestring budget, but two things are working against us. The
Forest Service is not maintaining this lands property. This
impacts our lands, especially in wildfire situations.
Also, drought, insects, lightning and flooding all affect
our forests as well. If you'll notice the picture to my left,
you'll see the thinned out area. That is the piece on the
Mescalero Apache Reservation. The densely forested area is part
of the Lincoln National Forest which has not been treated.
Whenever you have forests that are still densely forested,
particularly in a drought situation, they become very
vulnerable to insect infestation such as the bark beetle that
you see there.
The 2012 Little Bear fire showed the impact of an unhealthy
national forest. This fire started with a lightning strike in
the national forest. The Service viewed this fire as non-
threatening and allowed it to smolder for days. On the fifth
day, the fire exploded and raged through the Ski Apache Resort
and crossed onto tribal lands.
As the fire approached the reservation, the tribe's prior
hazardous fuel treatments were critical in preventing complete
devastation to the Village of Ruidoso and water sources. Our
hazardous fuels reduction efforts proved that this program does
work. The fire burned more than 44,000 acres of prime timber
and destroyed more than 255 homes and other structures. The
estimated cost of the damage exceeded $100 million.
I have photos of the fire and damage to Ski Apache Resort.
The upper right photo shows the fire. The upper left photo
shows the tribe-owned snowmakers and other equipment to protect
our significant investment on Forest Service land. The lower
right photo shows an area that used to be heavily forested but
now is totally destroyed as a result of the fire.
For 50 years, the tribe has operated and managed the resort
under two special use permits. These permits expire at the end
of this year. The fire cost to the tribe was $15 million to
repair and replace three damaged ski lifts and currently we
plan to invest another $2.6 million to add a year round
attraction a Ski Apache.
Ski Apache currently generates 350 jobs and contributes
millions of dollars to the local economy. As a permittee, we
are responsible for rehabilitation and related costs for our
structures damaged by the fire. We accept these
responsibilities, but we are frustrated that it took 18 months
for the Forest Service to carry out their rehabilitation
responsibilities.
Our hope is that our permits will be renewed but also that
our relationship can be redefined through this process. We
believe it is time for Congress to consider enhancing tribal
control over these lands to protect our ancestral homelands,
sacred sites, investments and jobs.
Forest management is critical to us. Our reservation and
nearby communities rely heavily on the watershed sustained by
the forest as well as on the forest itself. We also owned and
operated two sawmills which was a forest management tool
through timber harvesting. The closure of these mills
eliminated jobs for nearly 300 workers.
Also, Federal funding cuts over the past five years have
devastated our forestry program. In 2012, we had to lay off 25
people.
In closing, we recommend three straightforward actions.
First, authorize and fully fund forest management and hazardous
fields programs in Indian country. Two, enact Senate Bill 1875,
a bipartisan bill to increase wildfire suppression funding.
Finally, foster greater cooperation among tribal, State and
Federal forest managers.
Our forest is our home. We must work together to ensure its
health.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Breuninger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Danny Breuninger, President, Mescalero
Apache Nation
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senator
Udall and Members of the Committee. My name is Danny Breuninger. I am
President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe (Mescalero Apache or Tribe).
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the topic of forest
management and the need to improve wildland fire prevention in Indian
Country and nearby forestlands.
Background: the Mescalero Apache Tribe
Long before the first European settlers came to this land, our
Apache ancestors roamed the Southwestern region, from Texas to central
Arizona and from as far south as Mexico to the peaks of Colorado. We
were protected by our four sacred mountains: White Mountain/Sierra
Blanca, Guadalupe Mountains, Tres Hermanas/Three Sisters Mountains, and
Oscura Peak. We traveled the rough Apacheria through mountains and
deserts but always returned to our sacred White Mountain.
As Europeans began to encroach on our lands, the Apaches entered
into a treaty with the United States on July 1, 1852. This treaty,
known as the Treaty with the Apaches, promised the Tribe a permanent
homeland in its aboriginal territory. The Mescalero Apache Reservation
(Reservation), located in the White and Sacramento Mountains of rural
south-central New Mexico, was created by a succession of Executive
Orders in the 1870s and 1880s. The Reservation spans approximately 720
square miles (460,405 acres) across south-central New Mexico. Our
elevation ranges from 4,000 feet in the Chihuahuan desert plateau to
over 12,000 feet above sea level in the sub-alpine pine forests. The
Reservation is home to approximately 4,900 tribal citizens and
approximately 200 non-Indian residents.
The original Reservation boundaries included lands that are
currently held in federal ownership, such as Lincoln National Forest
(LNF) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands surrounding the Fort
Stanton State Monument. However, the Mescalero Apache people have
maintained strong cultural ties to these lands, which constitute our
ancestral homelands. To this day, we continue to gather plants
important to our traditions and conduct ceremonies on these federal
lands. To strengthen our ties to these lands and to have input into
their management, the Tribe has entered into Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) with federal agencies, including the U.S. military and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
Mescalero Apache Forest Management
For centuries, we have managed our forests holistically, as a way
of life, to promote the growth of food and medicinal plants, to manage
the wildlife in these forests, and to protect our lands from invaders.
This tradition of forestry was put into formal practice when the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Mescalero Agency opened its Branch of
Forestry in 1910. Mescalero's first major commercial timber sale was in
1919. With the opening of the tribally owned Mescalero Forest Products'
(MFP) sawmill in 1987, the Tribe entered a new era of forest
management. Today, the Mescalero forest remains one of the best-
managed, healthiest forests in the Southwest.
For more than a century now, the BIA Mescalero Agency and the Tribe
have worked together to develop a premier forestry program on the
Reservation. The BIA Branch of Forestry currently employs 3
professional foresters and 2 forestry technicians in the Timber Sale
section. This small staff is responsible for preparing and offering for
sale lumber at 16.8 million board feet annually and completing all sale
planning, environmental compliance work, timber sale layout and
administration. Due to the amount of lumber harvested, the BIA
identifies the Reservation as a Category 1-Major Forested Reservation.
Additionally, the Fire Management and Fuels Management Programs are
each rated as High Complexity. These ratings describe not only the
complexity of addressing fire concerns across a large landscape but
also the need for coordinated efforts among programs and agencies.
Despite the importance of this mission and a small budget, over the
past five years the Mescalero BIA Branch of Forestry has seen a 43
percent reduction in its staffing levels.
Operating on a shoestring budget, the Tribe's Division of Resource
Management and Protection has been able to provide high quality
forestry services on the Reservation and has even been able to assist
the BIA in coordinating timber sales and performing fuels management
projects. While the local BIA agency oversees the overall management of
the forest on the Reservation, many of the projects, such as thinning
for hazardous fuels reduction and timber marking, are completed by the
Tribe. The progressive working relationship with BIA Forestry and the
implementation of contracts under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) has allowed the Tribe to ensure
continued success on forest management.
Out of a total Reservation land base of 460,405 acres, the Tribe
has treated approximately 42,671 acres through commercial harvest in
modern times. Through funding allocated under the Department of the
Interior's (DOI) National Fire Plan program and other federal programs
starting in 1999, the Tribe has treated an additional 59,094 acres
through hazardous fuels reduction projects. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``hazardous fuel'' is any kind of living or dead vegetation
that is flammable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We view our forest as a dynamic living entity. It provides water,
food, shelter and a means of providing jobs and revenue for Tribal
members. When the Tribe first began commercially harvesting timber,
many opposed the concept. This resistance to proactive forest
management began to dissipate, however, in 1996 when the Tribe
experienced its first large fire in recent history, the Chino Well
Fire. This fire began on a windy spring day in April; and, within one
day, the fire threatened 42 homes, forcing evacuation and burning a
seven-mile strip of forest of more than 8,000 acres. Due to the rapid
fire response of Tribal fire crews, no homes were damaged; but, very
quickly, we had homeowners wanting to learn how they could protect
their homes from future wildfires.
With the advent of the National Fire Plan in the late 1990's, the
BIA Branch of Forestry worked with the Tribe to develop strategic
ridgetop fuel breaks and implement wildland-urban interface treatments
around residential and recreational areas across the Reservation. These
projects were coordinated with harvest operations, recognizing that
understory thinning alone would not reduce the potential for
destructive crown fires. As a result of implementing wildfire
mitigation measures to reduce fire danger, the Tribe earned Firewise
Communities/USA recognition in 2003 and was the first tribe in New
Mexico to earn such recognition.
Since then, Tribal leadership and forestry staff have provided
congressional testimony and advised the federal government in
developing both the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and the
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (TFPA). In particular, the TFPA
helped pave the way for the Tribe to work with LNF to develop the first
Tribal stewardship contract called the 16 Springs Stewardship contract
in 2006 to implement hazardous fuel reduction projects on adjacent U.S.
National Forest lands.
Hazardous fuel reduction projects are vital. Forests are living
organisms; and, with reductions in density, trees and ground cover are
better able to thrive. Southwestern forests grow with very little
precipitation. On the Reservation and in LNF, 26 inches of annual
precipitation is considered a ``wet'' year. By reducing tree densities
to ensure the crowns are not touching, we greatly enhance the available
water, light and nutrients each individual tree receives. With open
forest conditions, pine seedlings have a better environment to
germinate, resulting in increased forest regeneration.
While the Tribe has worked hard to maintain a healthy forest on our
Reservation, for many years Tribal leadership has been concerned about
the very dense forest conditions in LNF, which borders our Reservation
on three sides. These overly dense, unnatural conditions are not
healthy. Due to the unhealthy condition of the LNF, we have seen the
escalation of insect populations, including bark beetles and other
defoliators on the Reservation, and have watched as large swaths of
USFS lands die around us.
As bad as it is, it is not too late to remedy this situation. A
case in point is the successful stewardship contract that the Tribe
entered into with the USFS. Through the 16 Springs Stewardship contract
with LNF, the Tribe has treated more than 6,300 acres of LNF lands
mostly located along the shared boundary between our Reservation and
LNF. Due to the Tribe's efforts, these USFS lands are much healthier
than they were. However, there are many thousands of additional acres
of dense forest within LNF that remain untreated and continue to
threaten the lives and property of Tribal members and the general
public.
In addition to its hazardous fuels management program, the Tribe,
as mentioned above, owns and operates the MFP sawmill. Using the
sawmill as a first-line forest management tool, we have been able to
treat the larger trees of the forest overstory through selective
harvests. We followed up these activities with hazardous fuels
reduction projects in the smaller size classes.
To date, Mescalero has been able to make the most out of a
shrinking federal budget and a depressed lumber market. The decline in
the lumber market, combined with process inefficiencies and a lack of
by-product markets, has resulted in the closure of MFP twice, once in
December 2008 and again in July 2012. The closure of the sawmill cost
jobs for 55 mill workers and close to 150 supporting staff (including
marking, harvesting, hauling, and administrative staff). The Tribe was
also forced to close a second mill that it owned in Alamogordo, which
employed 82 workers.
Needless to say, the closing of these sawmills significantly hurt
our economy, exacerbating high unemployment conditions on the
Reservation. The closures are also beginning to impact our ability to
effectively manage our forest and assist in the management of LNF.
Efforts are currently underway to fully assess the condition of the MFP
sawmill and evaluate various management options with the intent to once
again open the sawmill.
Even more harmful, in 2012, our forest on the Reservation
experienced a 70 percent cut in DOI's Hazardous Fuels Reduction program
funding. For the previous 12 years, Congress had appropriated between
$2-$2.5 million annually to treat hazardous fuels. In 2012, Congress
slashed this amount to $800,000, with only $550,000 being allocated for
Tribal fuels projects.
These cuts have had direct and real impacts. The Mescalero Division
of Resource Management and Protection had to lay off a 20-man tribal
thinning crew and 5 support staff, causing additional unemployment on
our Reservation. Unless funding is restored, rather than treating
thousands of acres per year, we will only be able to treat a few
hundred acres per year.
Because of the combined lack of milling capacity and hazardous
fuels reduction funding, Tribal and BIA Foresters have estimated that
in 20 to 25 years, Reservation forest conditions will be the same as
those in LNF. Prior to congressional funding cuts, the Tribe was able
to manage the forest better than LNF on a budget that was a fraction of
LNF's budget. Failure to restore this modest funding will ensure the
demise of a hugely successful program.
Little Bear Fire: Lessons Learned
Nature has provided us a preview of what will happen if the
Mescalero forestry program is allowed to die. The Little Bear Fire
started in a modest way on Monday, June 4, 2012. The initial small fire
was caused by lightning in the White Mountain wilderness in LNF. Over
the first five days, LNF deployed relatively few assets to contain what
it thought was a non-threatening forest fire. Firefighters worked only
on day shifts, air tanker resources were not utilized and helicopter
water drops were minimal. On the fifth day, the fire jumped the
fireline and high winds turned the fire into a devastating inferno. By
that night, the fire had blazed through the Tribal ski area, Ski Apache
Resort (Ski Apache), and crossed onto Tribal lands. Within two weeks,
the Little Bear Fire burned 35,339 acres in LNF, 8,522 acres of private
land, 112 acres of state land and 357 acres of the Reservation. The
fire also destroyed more than 255 buildings and homes in the region and
burned 44,500 acres of prime watershed. The overall estimated cost of
the fire, including suppression and damages, exceeded $100 million.
A comparison of the impacts of the Little Bear Fire on the
healthier tribal forests and much less healthy LNF demonstrates the
need for continued funding of smart fuels management projects. In 2008,
the Tribe completed an important, cost-effective hazardous fuels
reduction project on a portion of the Reservation called Eagle Creek.
As the Little Bear Fire moved across the landscape, the previously
treated Eagle Creek project area was used as a defensible space to turn
the Little Bear Fire away from the steep, densely forested terrain of
the North Fork of the Rio Ruidoso, and prevented complete devastation
of the Village of Ruidoso source waters. The Little Bear Fire is proof
positive that hazardous fuels reduction projects DO WORK.
Many members of the surrounding communities, including our Tribal
community, felt this fire should have been contained and controlled
within the first few days after detection. The proximity of the fire
start to Tribal lands, Tribal infrastructure, the Village of Ruidoso
and its location within a New Mexico State priority watershed should
have triggered a more aggressive response to suppress the fire.
Unreasonable restrictions placed on fire suppression actions within LNF
wilderness areas contributed to the failure to immediately suppress the
fire using all available resources. Had Mescalero not managed its
forest through fuels management projects, the fire would have
devastated the Village of Ruidoso.
Mescalero Apache Investments in Lincoln National Forest
As noted above, much of LNF is carved out of the ancestral
homelands of the Mescalero Apache. Evidence of our connection to LNF
can be found throughout the forest, from rock art to mescal pits to the
Apache Trail, which was a prime route for water in the Sacramento
Mountains. These Mountains are home to the Mountain Spirit Dancers, who
are holy beings that ensure our well-being.
Since 1960, the Tribe has leased approximately 860 acres of LNF
lands under two special use permits to establish, manage, and operate
Ski Apache. Ski Apache is located on the northern border of the
Reservation. The land is part of the Tribe's aboriginal homelands and
is located within the Sierra Blanca Mountain Range, which is sacred to
the Mescalero Apache people.
Over the past 50 years, the Tribe has made significant improvements
to the Resort. Recently, the Tribe invested $15 million to triple the
ski lift capacity at Ski Apache. In addition, this year the Tribe plans
to invest over $2.6 million for non-ski, year-round recreation at Ski
Apache. Ski Apache employs up to 350 people during the ski season and
contributes many millions of dollars to the local economy in tourists
and lodgers.
To protect these investments and our sacred lands, the Tribe has a
considerable interest in preventing future wildfires and resulting
flooding that would devastate the Resort.
Under the current arrangement, the USFS administers these lands,
and LNF has the legal responsibility to respond to emergencies, such as
the June 2012 Little Bear Fire. However, it has been the Tribe that has
acted as the primary first responder in emergency situations. If the
Tribe had not taken the initiative to protect its own assets, they
would have been lost in the Little Bear Fire.
As noted above, Ski Apache incurred significant damage from the
Little Bear Fire. The Tribe has projected a loss of over $1.5 million
to tribal assets within the special use permit area due to the fire.
Because of the volume of trees that were burnt, there existed a real
danger of flooding that could have destroyed buildings, completely re-
shaped the existing ski runs, and taken out access roads. Due to
additional investments and work conducted by the Tribe, major flooding
was avoided.
Ski Apache is located at the highest point of the Little Bear Fire.
Failure to address flooding at higher elevations could have made
rehabilitation at lower elevations less effective. The Little Bear Fire
crossed the Reservation line at a key topographic area. There are two
major canyons, Upper Canyon and the Eagle Creek area, that start on the
Reservation and then lead off the Reservation. Both areas are heavily
populated off-Reservation.
Even though the Tribe, as a permittee, is solely responsible for
rehabilitation and all costs related to the Little Bear Fire, the Tribe
first had to gain approval from LNF prior to taking such action. Ski
Apache quickly submitted a request to LNF to begin rehabilitation
efforts. The request included specific rehabilitation actions. It took
LNF months to respond. While, LNF committed to cleaning piles of burned
trees, it took over 18 months for that action to occur. Burning began
in March of 2014.
The BIA has a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team that tried
to communicate with the USDA/LNF/BAER team to discuss rehab, especially
in the area of these two canyons. However, USDA/LNF/BAER and BIA BAER
teams lacked coordination to fight fires and flooding, leaving the
Tribe and Ski Apache left in the middle.
Little consideration was given to the importance of Ski Apache to
the overall economy of the area. Closure of Ski Apache for a single
season would devastate the economies of both the Village of Ruidoso and
the Tribe. Despite the importance of Ski Apache, LNF prioritized other
areas for fire rehabilitation efforts instead of Ski Apache.
The Tribe's special use permits expire at the end of this year on
December 31, 2014. With this impending expiration, the Tribe believes
that this is an ideal time to consider enhancing its control over the
lands that encompass Ski Apache.
Further Identification of the Problems and Specific Recommendations to
Improve Wildland Fire Protection in Indian Country
Tribal forest managers often have a different mission than that of
federal land managers. For example, Tribal forest managers work to
protect lives and property on our Reservation. Conversely, BLM
historically oversees gas/oil/mining permits. BLM has spent millions of
dollars implementing projects that are called wildland-urban interface
(WUI) that, in reality, only protect the resources under these permits.
Likewise, we have seen the USFS propose true WUI projects only to have
them challenged in court by third parties. Rather than contesting these
legal claims, USFS often chooses to move projects to areas where there
is less controversy and less actual fire danger to life and property.
Although many project acres are treated, these areas are sometimes not
the areas that most need treatment. The current selective WUI process
is often implemented at the expense of needed WUI projects that could
improve the health of federal lands adjacent to our Tribal lands.
In recent years, due to fires such as Little Bear, annual
firefighting costs have exceeded federal budget allocations. This
further reduces funding available for prevention programs such as
hazardous fuels reduction.
Tribal forestry programs receive far less funding than our state
and federal counterparts. A 2013 Report by the Indian Forest Management
Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council stated, ``Indian
forests are receiving much less forest management funding per acre than
adjacent forest land owners.'' BIA allocations to tribes average only
$2.82/acre; whereas, National Forests receive $8.57/acre and state
forests in the western U.S. average an astounding $20.46/acre. At one-
fourth to one-tenth of the funding our state and federal counterparts
receive, tribes are able to accomplish vastly more reductions in
hazardous fuels and have healthier, functioning forest ecosystems. In
addition to greatly reducing wildfire hazard on reservations, tribal
land managers have seen forest thinning treatments result in increased
water yields despite the current extreme drought situation. This work
is not sustainable.
To address the shortfalls and concerns listed above, we submit the
following recommendations to improve funding mechanisms and methods of
managing both tribal and nearby federal forestlands.
The Tribe's hazardous fuels treatment and its positive
impact in helping stop the Little Bear Fire represents
conclusive proof that hazardous fuels treatments save lives,
protect property, and maintain healthy forests. Hazardous fuels
funding levels must be restored to enable tribes to continue to
protect our communities. Each year, more forests throughout the
country are burning, more critical watersheds are jeopardized,
and more communities are placed at risk. Congress must
acknowledge and fulfill the legal treaty and trust obligations
of the United States to help protect and care for Indian lands
and our forests as permanent homes. Tribal forestry programs
must be funded accordingly. Congress should authorize and fully
fund hazardous fuels treatment funding for Indian lands and
nearby federal lands separately from the national firefighting
budgets.
Federal agency reports show that firefighting costs have
exceeded budget allocations for 8 of the past 10 years. As a
result, federal agencies have taken money from wildfire
prevention and hazardous fuels reduction programs. These cuts
have devastated the Tribe's forestry program and our proven
wildfire prevention efforts. Instead of taking from the proven
hazardous fuels reduction program, emergency wildfire should be
funded as natural disasters. The Tribe supports the bipartisan
proposal put forth in S. 1875, the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act, which was also included in the President's FY15 Budget. We
urge the Committee to work with your Senate colleagues to enact
S. 1875.
As noted above, it is not enough that tribal forest managers
work to protect tribal homelands. Missteps and mismanagement of
federal and other nearby lands can just as easily destroy
thousands of acres of adjacent Indian lands. There needs to be
better and faster interagency coordination among federal land
managers. At this time, both the Tribe and LNF are in the
process of updating and revising our respective Forest
Management Plans. The TFPA provides for meaningful consultation
with tribes to develop strategies for protecting Indian forest
lands and tribal interests as well as the restoration of
adjacent federal lands. Because these lands are part of our
ancestral homelands, we need to be able to provide input on
management of these lands that goes before and beyond NEPA
requirements. In order to move forward with restoration
strategies, the USFS also needs to implement new guidelines
acknowledging the benefits of selective harvesting that were
approved in 2012 under the Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican
Spotted Owl. Tribes need to have a greater presence in the
development of forest management strategies. We urge Congress
to take the TFPA to the next level and actively promote true
partnerships. Extending tribal values and management
philosophies to National Forests would provide for more
holistic management of forested watersheds that do not
recognize political boundaries.
As we have seen over the past few years, medium size to
severe wildfires like the Little Bear Fire can have devastating
impacts to our watersheds and domestic water supplies. The
scorched soils become hydrophobic where water is not absorbed
into the soil, causing groundwater storage functions to be
diminished. The runoff causes highly erosive flooding and
debris flows can damage water intake systems. The sacred
mountains where we live provide the groundwater recharge for
much of southeastern New Mexico. In order to maintain the
ecological functions of these watersheds, we need to preserve
the infrastructure necessary to commercially harvest and thin
the dense forest overstories on USFS lands and Reservation
lands. USFS thinning practices, including the practice of
thinning from below, are not sustainable. These practices
weaken forest structure and reduce biodiversity. The Tribe has
already shown its dedication and commitment to proactively
managing our lands and preserving both the cultural and
ecological integrity of the landscape. Congress must facilitate
the regional dialogues necessary for tribal, state and local
governments to work together to explore options for
sustainable, regional support of forestry infrastructure. All
options, including non-traditional funding options from non-
tribal sources and education missions, should be considered.
Conclusion
The Reservation is our permanent homeland. Our lands serve as the
groundwater recharge areas for much of south-central and southeastern
New Mexico. We cannot allow a century of work to restore forest health
and reduce the threat of wildfire simply fall by the wayside. Congress
must work with tribes to find large-scale long-term solutions to this
problem to maintain the forestry infrastructure necessary to accomplish
a fully integrated forest health treatment program that will help
maintain our way of life, create jobs in Indian Country, and sustain
the vital watershed for the Apache people and our neighbors.
The Chairman. Thank you for your comments, Dan. We will get
back to questions in a minute.
Phil Rigdon, you're up.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP RIGDON, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER
COUNCIL
Mr. Rigdon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members.
Indian forests cover 18.6 million acres, about one third of
all Indian trust land. Tribes strive to manage forests for the
triple bottom line--sustainable economic, ecological and
cultural values. We are stewards for generations yet unborn.
Our decisions reflect thoughtful deliberation of risks posed by
fire, insect, disease, drought and threats from hazardous
conditions on neighboring Federal forests and by emerging
challenges from climate change.
Our forests are held in trust by the United States for our
benefit. Management is guided by tribal direction or
participation under Public Law 93-638 contracts and our
partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Increasingly, this has led to the development of
responsive, flexible and innovative management approaches.
Today, severe consequences of chronic under funding and under
staffing of the Indian forests are materializing.
My testimony today reflects a variation of the theme of
this hearing, the lack of adequate investment in our forests
will result in continued deterioration. The Third Independent
Indian Forest Management Assessment Team report provided to
Congress and the Administration last June found that in
constant dollars, BIA fiscal year 2014 forestry funding is 24
percent below the fiscal year 2001 levels.
Total Federal funding for Indian forests, both BIA
management and Office of Wildland Fire is only one third of
that per acre for the Forest Service. An additional $100
million is needed on an annual basis to meet the minimum
requirements for trust management and an additional $12.7
million is required per year to improve staffing and skill
level development.
Staffing is down 13 percent from 1991. Additionally, 800
staff positions are now needed. We are facing the loss of
expertise from the great tsunami of the aging workforce. We
experience high vacancy rates for forest positions and
difficulties in recruiting and retaining replacement staff.
Using my reservation as an example, Yakama is the largest
tribal forest and of the 55 BIA forestry positions at Yakama,
33 are unfilled due to budget shortfalls and insufficient pools
of replacements. BIA cannot achieve my tribe's timber harvest
targets, costing us jobs and economic opportunities and
increases the risks to the health and productivity of our
forest and its ability to provide for the water, fish,
wildlife, foods and medicines so vital to our way of life.
In addition, to the mounting challenges from funding and
staffing shortfalls, we are facing increased risks from
catastrophic loss of tribal forests from wildfire, insect,
disease and droughts. While funding to address wildfire threats
has been appropriated in recent years, tribal participation has
been inequitable, both in fuels management and preparedness
funding.
For instance, at our agency, Yakama receives 57 cents per
acre for preparedness while nearby forests get between $1.18
and $2.83 per acre. Tribes are now working with the Interior
Office of Wildland Fire to try to correct these disparities.
The consequences of failing to invest in our forests are
dire. Community service is suffering and social welfare costs
are escalating as tribes divert scarce funds to try to care for
our forests. Deterioration of our forests will increase
unemployment, reduce economic opportunities and exacerbate the
social problems.
We try to cobble together programs piecemeal, relying on
short term soft money grants that are unstable and have high
administrative costs. The situation is now reaching crisis
proportions.
Mr. Chairman, I realize this is not an appropriations
committee but despite our best management efforts, the chronic
erosion of funding is crippling us and placing our forests in
great peril. I ask you to communicate the needs to address the
situation to the Administration and to the Appropriations
Committees.
This Committee, however, can help preserve our forests by
taking preventive measures to institute active management.
Active management has made our forests more resilient to fire,
has reduced the severity and intensity of wildfires and enabled
us to carry out post-fire recovery more quickly and
effectively.
Active management is needed across the landscape to fulfill
fiduciary responsibilities to protect the health and
productivity of the tribal trust forest. To advance our active
forest management, the ITC would like to work with the
Committee on several legislative concepts including amending
the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 setting aside Forest
Service funding to improve the ability of tribes to carry out
forest fields and health projects on adjacent forests and to
provide a means for direct long term tribal management of
neighboring forests, Federal public forests perhaps under a
leasing contract or assignment arrangement.
We would suggest supporting the Anchor Forest concept to
facilitate collaboration of tribes and their forest
neighborhoods and Federal, State and private to actively
management the lands to support forest health and forest-
reliant communities.
Finally, we would suggest supporting the tribal
environmental laws and regulations with forest resources. The
HEARTH Act and the Indian Energy Act are examples where this
type of authority has been provided.
Despite chronic funding and staffing deficiencies, IFMAT
III found that tribes have been able to create forestry
programs that can serve as models of sustainability. However,
Chairman, we are now running on fumes. We are facing an ominous
future as cumulative impacts of chronic under funding and under
staffing of the Indian forests come home to roost.
Increased investment and new legislative authorities are
needed to prevent forests and communities from being placed in
grave jeopardy.
Thank you for my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rigdon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip Rigdon, President, Intertribal Timber
Council
I am Phil Rigdon, President of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC)
and Natural Resource Deputy Director for the Yakama Nation in South-
central Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its more than 60
member Tribes, I am here to share observations, concerns and
recommendations over the management of our nation's forests.
Tribal forests are critical to the ability to restore and sustain
the health and productivity of ecosystems across the landscape. On a
total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 18.6 million acres of
forestland are held in trust by the United States and managed for the
benefit of Indians. Pursuant to both tribal direction and federal law,
tribal forests must be sustainably managed. Indian tribes work with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and others to actively manage our
forests and other resources within a holistic, integrated approach that
strives to simultaneously sustain economic, ecological, and cultural
values, the so-called ``triple bottom line.'' We operate modern,
innovative and comprehensive natural resource programs premised on
connectedness among the land, resources, and people. Our approach
reflects the concept of reciprocity. If we care for the land, it will
care for us. If we neglect our stewardship responsibilities, our lands
and communities will suffer.
Our management approach is balanced. We protect our resources yet
we understand that utilization is essential to enable us to meet the
``triple bottom line.'' We rely on our forests to provide employment
and entrepreneurial opportunities and to generate income needed to care
for the land and provide services for our communities.
Pursuant to federal statute (P.L. 101-630, Sec. 312), management of
our forests is evaluated every ten years by an independent scientific
panel. In 2013, an Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT)
completed the third independent evaluation of the status of Indian
forests and forestry. The IFMAT III report shows that tribes are
suffering from chronic underfunding and from challenges created by the
loss of leadership and staffing, but still notes that tribal forests
can serve as models of sustainable management that other federal
agencies could follow.
Ecological Conditions: Tribal forests must meet the same goals as
other federal lands, and are subject to both NEPA and the ESA. But we
are able to meet, and often exceed those goals. We live with the
consequences of our actions and are driven to meet the ``triple bottom
line.'' If forests are overcut or devastated by wildfire, we lose
revenue and jobs, the myriad ecological benefits we rely upon from our
forests, and the traditional and cultural sustenance our forests have
provided since time immemorial. The active management tribes employ to
realize the ``triple bottom line'' is facilitated by three elements:
The fact that our forests held in federal trust are for the
use and benefit of our tribes and their members and, within the
scope of the trust, are subject to the direction of our tribal
governments,
The federal law guiding BIA and tribal management of these
trust forests, the National Indian Forest Resources Management
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-630, Title III), is the most recent and
most flexible federal forest management statute, and
The Indian Self-Determination Act (PL 93-638) has enabled
tribes to assume direct and comprehensive management of our
forests.
The Tribal forest of the Menominee Nation in Wisconsin is a clear
display of the ``triple bottom line.'' As the Menominee Tribal
Enterprises publication ``The Forest Keepers'' stated back in 1997,
``The 140 year history of forest resource use and management of the
Menominee forest stands as a practical example of sustainable
forestry--forestry that is ecologically viable, economically feasible,
and socially desirable. This refers not only to forest products and
social benefits, but also to wildlife, site productivity, and other
ecosystem functions.''
Individual tribal witnesses at today's hearing will provide the
Committee with other examples of how different tribes fulfill their
stewardship obligations to protect the interests of the generations yet
unborn.
While IFMAT III certainly identifies possible improvements, our
demonstrated successes in innovative forest management offer striking
examples that can and should be replicated across the landscape. The
ITC offers the following administrative and legislative recommendations
that will help all rural communities and federal forests; tribal and
non-tribal.
IFMAT III Recommendations: The 2013 IFMAT report identified 68
administrative and legislative recommendations to improve forest
management in Indian Country. Last fall, the ITC requested that the
Interior Department appoint an IFMAT implementation team that includes
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the BIA Director and Chief
Forester, and others. That team has recently been appointed by the
Interior Department, and we are urging the Forest Service to designate
a participant as well. We hope that the Team's work can begin soon so
that the analysis provided by the IFMAT report will not go stale or be
abandoned to some dusty shelf.
Funding: One of the key findings of the IFMAT III report is that
the chronic underfunding noted in the previous two IFMAT reports
continues. On a per acre basis, tribes receive only about one-third the
funding for forest and wildfire management as the Forest Service. Yet,
with our holistic approach and a less constrained statutory and
regulatory framework, we are able to do more with less, providing more
flexible, varied and responsive management than other federal forest
managers.
But while tribes are able to do more with less, we are being
confronted with increasing, unprecedented challenges. Federal funding
is now so insufficient and staffing levels so inadequate that the
ability to fulfill fiduciary trust obligations and provide the economic
and ecological benefits needed by our communities is very much in
doubt.
IFMAT III's finding that tribal forestry is funded at only one
third the per acre amount for the Forest Service is based on total
combined amounts provided tribal forests from both Interior's Wildland
Fire program and B.I.A. funds for forest management. Within that
combined total, BIA funding for tribal forest management programs has
seriously eroded over the past twenty-three years. In terms of constant
dollars, BIA per acre funding for forest land management declined by 22
percent between 1991 and 2011 and 31 percent between 2001 and 2011. We
note, and appreciate, that BIA Forestry funding has increased $5
million for FY 2014, but even with that increase, our funding is still
24 percent below 2001 purchasing power.
Because funding drives almost every aspect of forest management,
its broad erosion affects virtually all aspects of the BIA program,
including on-the-ground projects, technical support, staffing and
leadership. For tribal forests that rely on comprehensive active
management, this chronic under-funding is taking its toll. Using the
Yakama Nation as an example, we typically have 55 BIA forestry
positions to help manage our forest. Currently 33 of those are vacant
because of budget shortfalls, an insufficient pool of available
manpower, and BIA delays in filling vacancies. The Tribe has diverted
funds from other Tribal functions to help mitigate that loss, but this
reduces our capacity to provide sorely needed services to our
communities and cannot be supported over the long-term as the BIA fails
to meet its trust responsibility. Meanwhile, the lack of staff is
preventing the Yakama Nation's harvest targets from being met and
resulting in lost economic opportunities and jobs.
The rise of wildland fire and its associated funding in recent
years has masked the growing deficiency of BIA forest management
funding. For instance, the increase in wildland fire fuels management
projects has helped, to a degree, to ameliorate the growing inadequacy
of the BIA forest management thinning programs, as there is some
overlap in the goals of these two functions. But these are only
emergency patchwork efforts to stave off crisis, have very narrow
application that fails to recognize interdependence of forest
management and wildfire risk, and cannot be relied upon as a substitute
for adequate funding of the base BIA Forestry program.
With BIA's Forestry funding deficiency steadily mounting over the
past twenty-plus years, any source of additional support is welcome.
The improvement in the Interior Department's wildland fire funding
would be helpful for tribes, but our participation in the Interior
Department's wildland fire funding has not been without problems.
As with funding for forest management generally, wildland fire
funding for tribal forests has not been equitable. Using my own
Reservation again as an example, the Yakama Nation is funded for fire
preparedness at $0.57 per acre per year while the adjacent Gifford-
Pinchot National Forest is funded at $1.18 per acre per year; and the
Mount Hood National Forest at $2.11; the Columbia Gorge National Scenic
Area at $2.83--nearly five times what we receive at Yakama. This
unconscionably disparate funding was a major factor in the Yakama
Nation's recent loss of 20,000 acres of timber in the Mile Marker 28
Fire. When the fire just started, we could only send one piece of heavy
equipment--a tanker truck--because our federal preparedness budget only
supports one heavy equipment operator for our entire 1.1 million acre
Reservation. While a bulldozer was also needed and available, we didn't
have a person to operate that equipment. The fire got away and burned a
total of 28,000 acres, including 20,000 acres of our trust forest
resource.
Wildland fire and its budget play a significant role in the
management and preservation of our trust forest assets, upon which
tribes rely for governmental revenues and community employment. Yet in
the past, when the Office of Wildland Fire Management established
funding distribution policies and formulas under its Hazard Fuels
Priority Allocation System (HFPAS) that greatly disadvantaged the
tribes, we were held off at arm's length from almost any real and
meaningful consultation, despite our repeated objection. Today, we hope
those contentious times are behind us.
The Interior Department's Office of Wildland Fire Management has
recently been working diligently to try to increase tribal
participation in the Department's wildland fire program. The ITC
greatly appreciates this effort and hopes the Department will embrace
the Administration's policy of meaningful tribal consultation to
improve tribal engagement in the future.
Indian forests are experiencing challenges caused by ownership
fragmentation and threats from wildfire, insects, disease, drought, and
climate change, all of which are increasing every day. We are losing
the management, harvesting, transportation, and processing
infrastructure to provide the economic benefits needed to maintain
healthy forests across the landscape. The inability of federal agencies
to overcome gridlock and polarization that impedes management of their
land is creating hazardous conditions for our forests and communities.
Transaction costs of forest administration are increasing and fleeting
economic opportunities are being lost as burdensome business models
promulgated by bureaucracies like the Office of the Special Trustee are
being imposed. Tribes are being increasingly called upon to provide
funding for resource management at the expense of other pressing needs
or by piecing together programs with soft money to try to address long-
term issues. Our capacities are being strained to the breaking point.
Our trust forest resources are at significant and increasing risk.
Wildfire & Recovery: Compared to other managers of federal forest
land, tribes are better able to use scarce resources to prepare our
forests for fire, recover after fire and ensure the continuity of
forest resources for generations to come.
First, tribes are not hamstrung by cumbersome administrative
procedures or the imposition of policies that fail to protect the
resources and values that are vital to our communities. For example, we
understand that there are circumstances in which a ``let it burn''
approach would increase the risk of catastrophic loss given the current
overstocking and forest health conditions found across the landscape.
Active management treatments are needed to address unnatural fuel
conditions in the forest prior to letting fires serve their natural
role across ecosystems.
When we experienced budworm infestation on the Yakama Reservation,
we prioritized timber sales to treat areas that were most severely
affected. Between 1999 and 2003, silvicultural treatments were
implemented on approximately 20,000 acres of budworm habitat per year.
The epidemic peaked in 2000 when the budworm defoliation affected trees
on 206,000 acres. As a result of the Yakama Nation's silvicultural
treatments, defoliation decreased dramatically. In 2002, only 1,207
acres showed signs of defoliation--a reduction of over 99 percent.
Significant economic value was recovered from dead and dying trees
while forest density was reduced, promoting forest health and
resiliency. While such forest health treatments are common on tribal
lands, it would be a challenge to find a similar example of speed,
scope and effectiveness on neighboring federal forests.
I must also hasten to point out that today, on Yakama, we would not
be able to conduct such an effective response. To move that volume of
timber requires boots on the ground, and today the BIA forestry staff
at Yakama has been so decimated that we are unable to meet our regular
harvest target, let alone such an accelerated emergency removal of
material. If we were confronted today with circumstances similar to
those in the late 1990s, tens of thousands of acres of trust timber
would likely be left to die and deteriorate on the stump, with serious
consequences for increased insect infestations and fire, and unwanted
impacts to our people and economy.
Tribes also respond to fires more effectively. While the comparison
is not completely equivalent, the average size of a fire on BIA-managed
lands is typically one-third the size of those on Forest Service land.
Even after fires, BIA and tribes are able to respond far faster than
other federal agencies to recover economic value and begin the
rehabilitation process. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski fire burned 467,000
acres of Tribal and federal land, including a significant amount of the
timber on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. While significant damage
was done to the Tribal forest, the intensity of the fire was
dramatically less on Tribal land as the result of the Tribe's stand
density treatments and follow-up prescribed burning to maintain stand
vigor and resiliency and minimize unwanted impacts to tribal resources.
Tribal forest management in that southwestern part of the country
served as a model for active management, salvage and rehabilitation.
Within months of the Rodeo-Chediski fire, the White Mountain Apache
Tribe was removing up to 500,000 board feet of fire-killed timber a day
and managed to salvage over a hundred million board feet of fire-
damaged timber before value would be lost to decay and disease. In
contrast, the Forest Service faced litigation that delayed salvage
operations, reducing the value of salvaged timber and increasing the
cost of the operation.
After the Rodeo-Chediski fire, the effectiveness of the White
Mountain Apache's thinning program to actively treat the land was amply
demonstrated as treated areas were proven to substantially reduce
damage and risk to property. When the devastating Wallow Fire ravaged
the area in 2011, the White Mountain Apache treatments were credited
with stopping the westward advance of the fire onto the Reservation.
Tribal interests in healthy landscapes go beyond our reservation
boundaries. Many tribes have off-reservation treaty and other reserved
rights on our ceded lands that became National Forests. Catastrophic
wildfire on these forests directly and negatively impact tribal
reserved hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping rights and cultural
resources like burial grounds and sacred sites. Moreover, wildfires
that start on federal lands often burn onto tribal forests and damage
watersheds that protect our water and soils. Even with effective
treatments on our own lands, severe wildfires from adjacent federal
lands inflict significant damage and economic cost to tribal forests.
Administrative Recommendations: Some of IFMAT III's administrative
recommendations include:
Addressing staffing shortfalls with recruitment, training
and retention programs to provide well qualified staff and
leadership for the management of our forest resources;
Reducing or eliminating costly administrative requirements;
Better defining BIA's trust standards for the management of
tribal forests;
Separating trust operations from oversight responsibilities;
Investing in harvesting, transportation, and processing
infrastructure to provide the means to sustain forest health,
produce ecological benefits, and provide employment and other
economic opportunities; and
Allowing self-governance tribes to develop their own
procedures for implementation of NEPA, replacing BIA NEPA
manuals and handbooks.
Legislative Recommendations: The IFMAT report also contained
recommendations for restoring and maintaining working forests on the
landscape to sustain ecological functions and support rural economies,
a key one of which is the ``Anchor Forests'' concept. Like other forest
land owners, Indian tribes are being challenged by the impacts of
disappearing management, harvesting, transportation, and processing
infrastructure on their capacity to realize the economic benefits
needed to maintain healthy forests and economies. Many of the sawmills
that used to operate in Indian Country have been closed; only six
tribal lumber mills are currently operating. The vast majority of
tribal timber is sold to non-tribal mills. Particularly in places like
Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Montana, tribal timber has helped fill
the gap of a faltering federal timber program, but those areas too are
experiencing an infrastructure decline. The ITC is exploring the
concept of establishing Anchor Forests to provide a framework for
collaboration across ownership boundaries to sustain healthy,
productive forests on the landscape. Because tribes are committed to
long-term forest retention and stewardship, coupled with proven
management expertise, Indian forests are prime candidates to serve as
anchors to achieve ecological and economic goals by preserving forest
products infrastructure needed both for economic vitality and forest
health treatments.
Currently, ITC is working with four Tribes, Forest Service Region 6
and other forest stakeholders to evaluate the feasibility of
establishing Anchor Forests in three areas of central and eastern
Washington State and Idaho. Elsewhere around the country, ITC has
received expressions of interest in Anchor Forests from tribes in the
Lakes States, the Midwest and the Southwest. We would like to work with
Congress to create legislative direction for this concept.
Second, ITC recommends amending the Tribal Forest Protection Act
(TFPA) or other authorities to expedite consideration, approval, and
implementation of TFPA projects. In 2004, Congress passed the TFPA to
provide tribes a means to propose projects on adjacent federal lands
that would protect tribal rights, lands, and resources by reducing
threats from wildfire, insects, and disease. This is similar to the
``good neighbor authority'' that Congress has provided states.
Unfortunately, the TFPA has not met expectations on the ground.
Since 2004, only six TFPA projects have been effectively implemented on
Forest Service lands. Others have languished for many years in the NEPA
process with little hope of completion. We note the determined but so
far fruitless efforts of the Tule River Tribe in California as an
example. As depicted in the Appendix of the April 2013 ITC report
``Fulfilling the Promise of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004,''
the Tule River Tribe has struggled for 10 years since enactment of the
TFPA to obtain a TFPA project to treat conditions that threaten sequoia
forests on and near their reservation. To date, their efforts have not
been able to overcome a seemingly endless environmental review that is
only exacerbated by frequent turnover of local Forest Service staff,
including since 2005 five different Forest Supervisors, three different
District Rangers, and four different lead planners.
With the ITC TFPA implementation report, which was done in
collaboration with the Forest Service and BIA, we hope that a
combination of administrative cooperation and legislative action to
implement the report's recommendations can bring the TFPA to realize
the potential Congress intended. We would like to explore TFPA
improvements with you.
Third, ITC is working on a legislative idea whereby tribes could
assume long term management authority--we refer to it as ``stewardship
assignments''--with federal land managers to address emergency
conditions on Forest Service and BLM lands that threaten tribal forests
or tribal rights on federal land such as hunting and protection of
cultural resources. This concept, involving longer timeframes and more
comprehensive tribal management than TFPA, would enable tribes to apply
performance-based active and holistic ``triple bottom line'' forest
management to imperiled and threatening nearby National Forest and BLM
lands to restore long term health, productivity and sustainability. We
note that legislation has been introduced in the House to turn Forest
Service and BLM lands over to states for management (H.R. 3294, the
State-Run Federal Lands Act).
Summary: We believe the nation would benefit greatly by looking to
Indian forests as models of sustainability. We can help move the
country forward to create a healthier, sustainable future for our
forests and natural resources. We recommend that the Congress and the
Administration work collaboratively with the ITC and timber tribes to
implement the recommendations of IFMAT III.
We believe that tribal and other forestland owners are suffering
from the lack of cohesive and comprehensive policy and programs for our
nation's forestlands. A solid foundation for the future is needed now.
We recommend that a high level task force or commission, with
representation from Congress, the Administration, tribes, academia,
private industry, small forest landowners, and others be appointed to
develop practical recommendations to restore and maintain healthy,
productive forests on the land. Such an effort would require effective
leadership and an ambitious timeframe for completion. The need is
urgent. The nation's forest circumstances are dire and getting worse
with each passing day. Without a unifying actionable vision and the
means to attain it, everyone will suffer the consequences of our
nation's forests' continued deterioration. Somehow, we must
collectively muster the will to care for the land with the respect and
proper stewardship it needs so that it can care for us.
Either as part of a federal forest renewal effort or on a stand-
alone basis, the full funding of the BIA trust Forestry program is
essential. The degree of the BIA's current Forestry funding inadequacy
is underscored by the Cobell-related tribal trust mismanagement
lawsuits, the settlement of which cost the United States more than $1
billion. Although the terms of each tribe's settlement are
confidential, it is certain that mismanagement of tribal trust forest
assets was a significant element in the lawsuits and their settlements.
It is startling and deeply disturbing that the BIA's Forestry budget--
the same insufficient budget that subjected the U.S. to many millions
of dollars of liability--has failed to reflect a concerted attempt to
meaningfully address the very deficiencies that led to the necessity
for these settlements.
While we again note with appreciation the recent $5 million
increase in BIA Forestry funding, IFMAT III finds that, to meet minimum
requirements for management and protection of Indian forests, a $100
million increase is needed for the BIA Forestry budget, including an
additional 800 staff positions, and a separate $12.7 million increase
is needed for staff recruitment and training. The Administration's
insistence on crippling natural resource budgets can only generate new
management insufficiencies and failures, and lead to renewed trust
mismanagement lawsuits that will cost the U.S. additional billions and
cost the tribes untold lost employment, governmental revenue, and
economic opportunity. This vicious cycle of trust management
insufficiency must be broken, and we urge this Committee to convey this
message to the Administration and your colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee. We are sustainably managing our forests in an exemplary way,
but cannot continue our upward path without timely and strategic
investment and access to the management of a broader land base. You can
help us achieve both.
We stand ready to help. To share what can be done to save our
forests and see firsthand how tribes care for our lands, I invite you
to visit Indian country. Come see our forests.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, Phil.
Jonathan Brooks, you are up.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BROOKS, TRIBAL FOREST MANAGER, WHITE
MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. It is an honor to be here today.
We have already heard the example of the White Mountain
Apache Tribe's active forest management and the resilient and
health forests that we create through our management.
Why do we manage our forests? We have heard about all the
benefits--ecological, cultural and financial--attained by
active forest management. We live in these forests. We don't
just recreate, don't just get money but they are homes since
time immemorial. We make a living and have so many benefits as
my testimony states.
How are we able to do all this management? That is the
question. What happens on tribal lands like White Mountain
Apache lands compared to the national forest lands? How does
this happen? We have to. It has to occur. We understand that a
healthy, resilient forest is one that is prevented from
wildfire.
If you have a wildfire, you will have devastating
consequences and you will not have a sustainable forest. People
are not going to be able to have the opportunities that exist.
Environmentalists, the Forest Service, how they get
mitigated, they say that active forest management--logging,
thinning, prescribed burning--there are associated negative
consequences but it is not true. An actively managed forest is
one that is healthier, more resilient and all the benefits are
there--wildlife benefits, habitat, water quality is protected
and saved, there are financial and ecological benefits,
cultural resources and sacred and holy sites are protected. It
is interesting that people say unmanaged forests are better
than managed forests.
My question is what is more hurtful--logging, thinning and
prescribed burning or Rodeo-Chediski fire, erosion that
destroys the forest? Watersheds and livelihoods are destroyed,
lives and property are threatened. What is more hurtful, an
actively managed forest or one that is not managed?
Rodeo-Chediski, the rehabilitation cost alone was $15
million and cost still continues today, just for the
rehabilitation, post-fire rehabilitation. If you look to the
left, we have an 800-acre fire that occurred on the reservation
last year--800 acres in red, the yellow are two prescribed
burns of 1,900 acres.
The wildfire cost $2 million to suppress for a total of
$2,750 per acre costs. The prescribed burn cost $21 per acre, a
total of $40,000 and used 16 personnel to treat 1,900 acres.
The wildfire used 490 personnel to fight that fire.
The fire started in the lefthand corner and as it
progressed to the northeast, the fire picked up intensity. At
its hottest and most intense point, it reached our prescribed
burn. As you can see, it is kind of difficult, but the brighter
red areas show where the fire burned into the prescribed burn.
It was pretty much halted, stopped in its tracks.
Rodeo-Chediski was the same thing--hot, intense, infernal
burning. Here on the right, you can see. The brighter the pink,
the more intense the fire, the more devastation was caused.
Anywhere that is not pink on the reservation, you see the
yellow line that is the fire boundary or the reservation
boundary, anything below that yellow line, you can see there is
a lot less pink and it is overlaid with forest management
treatments--thousands of acres of logging, thinning, prescribed
burning.
What happens on the other side, as soon as the fire gets to
the Forest Service again after going through our treatments
where it laid down, it picked up intensity again. There is more
pink. Fire reaches our treated areas, it shows down and reduces
its intensity. Green forest is left behind. It gets to the
Forest Service side and there is more devastation.
The Wallow fire was mentioned, another great example of
what our forest management has done. It is our legacy at White
Mountain Apache Tribe. It needs to occur. Why doesn't it happen
on Forest Service land or litigated? They have all these
concerns.
The Tribal Forest Protection Act is a very valuable tool
that we have employed at White Mountain Apache. We were able to
treat 1,500 acres of Forest Service land. The tribe proposed
treating Forest Service land, was able to do that and got a
more resilient landscape that crosses boundaries.
These management practices that we employ are an example
and need to be replicated across the landscape, not just on the
reservation but off the reservation, not just small scale but
large scale. I mentioned $21 per acre for a prescribed burn on
the reservation to help protect our lands from fire.
It is cost effective. It is beneficial. It is a no brainer,
in my opinion. Active forest management is the main tool that
can help prevent these large, devastating wildfires.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Brooks, Tribal Forest Manager, White
Mountain Apache Tribe
Introduction
My name is Jonathan Brooks and I am the Tribal Forest Manager for
the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT). Today I will be providing
testimony on behalf of the WMAT, our Tribal Chairman, and Tribal
Council. I am here to highlight our long standing efforts to actively
manage our forests and share our experiences that the benefits of
active management have in helping to fight wildfires. I will also
provide discussion about concerns and recommendations we have in moving
forward in managing our Tribal forests.
The WMAT in east-central Arizona has a 1.68 million acre homeland
that is called the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR). The
reservation is covered by 1.3 million acres of forest lands. We have
755,051 acres of timbered forest (pine, spruce, fir species) and
615,258 acres of woodland forest (pinyon/juniper species). These
forests are managed by the WMAT and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Fort Apache Agency for the benefit of our Apache people. The goals and
objectives that guide our forest management are multi-faceted and
provide a wide range of economic, cultural and ecological benefits for
our land, our resources, and our people. These benefits include(but are
not limited to) economic revenue through the sale of timber resources;
jobs created for tribal members in all aspects of forestry, logging,
and mill industries; sustainable and healthy forests that are more
resilient to negative effects of natural processes (insect, disease,
and fire); protection of cultural resources, sacred sites, and
medicinal plants for the Apache people; habitat for all species of
wildlife including popular game species as well as threatened and
endangered species; abundant recreation opportunities for tribal
members and non-tribal members alike; protection of our water resources
which are a major issue with the passing of the Tribe's Water
Quantification Settlement; as well as a healthy functioning forest
ecosystem that is as aesthetically beautiful as any in the country. All
of this is possible due to the active and responsible management of
these forests between the WMAT and the BIA.
Our forests have been actively managed through various forest
management activities, predominantly sustainable timber harvests
(logging), prescribed fire, pre-commercial thinning, and hazardous
fuels reduction thinnings. Logging began early in the 1900's, and since
that time, our management has evolved into what it is today. Our tribal
leaders, our people, and our trust agents have embraced a history, a
culture, and a need for forest management which has helped create a
healthy and sustainable forest landscape that has adapted to the
demands, needs, and objectives of the WMAT and the forest itself. The
forests have always been a part of our culture and our heritage,
providing food, water, medicine, and materials for survival; and now
today that includes providing jobs and economic gains for the benefit
of the Tribe and our people.
Management Background/Accomplishments
The theme of today's hearing, ``Wildfires and Forest Management:
Prevention is Preservation'', is a very important subject that has been
a topic of discussion and debate among politicians, government agencies
and the general public for many years, but it is a subject that the
White Mountain Apache Tribe is well rehearsed to speak about.
Preserving and protecting our forests is our duty, and that has only
been accomplished through our legacy of active forest management.
Actively managed southwest pinyon/juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine
forests, and mixed conifer forests are forests that are far more
resilient against the threat of today's devastating, catastrophic
wildfires than unmanaged forests, which do not receive frequent
thinning, logging, and/or prescribed burning. Devastating fires, which
are far more commonplace now than anytime in recorded history, are able
to occur because of a century of ``hands-off'' management and a century
of fire suppression which removed fire as an integral part of these
forest ecosystems. Natural fire helps keep the fuel loads of these
forests from accumulating to what we see today. These ecosystems
adapted with, and are dependent on, fire to maintain an ecological
equilibrium that protects and preserves the forests in their healthiest
and most sustainable form, a form which existed for centuries prior to
European settlement. With the exclusion of fire for decades, and the
controversy that has always surrounded fire, active management is
needed to mimic the role of fire in our forests. Today I will highlight
some of our recent and historic management accomplishments, and provide
testimony on the benefits our management practices have on the impact
of wildfires. I will also highlight some of our more recent and
innovative management approaches that we have had to use, and also
discuss shortcomings we are facing and what we need to be able to
continue our legacy of sustainable forest management.
The following tables and figures are a quick illustration that
highlights the level of active management that the Tribe and the BIA
have executed on the FAIR through various types of forest management
activities. This is not an all-inclusive list, but is a snapshot of
what I was able to gather in the short time I had to prepare this
testimony. I will be happy to gather more exact information at your
request.
Table 1. Recent Accomplishments for Pre-Commerical Timber Stand
Improvement Thinnings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA + WMAT
FY's BIA TSI Acres WMAT TSI Acres Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995-1999 9193 2583
2000-2009 13825 5574
2010-2013 6639 254
Total Since 1995 29657 8411 38068
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Fuels Management Thinning and Prescribed Burning
Accomplishments (data for all years was not immediately available). This
type of thinning began in 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA + WMAT
FY's BIA + WMAT Prescribed Burn
Thinning Acres Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1948-1949 n/a 2,980
1950-1959 n/a 164,906
1960-1969 n/a 210,285
1970-1979 n/a 88,226
1980-1989 n/a 244,941
1998-2013 75,000 225,000
Totals Since 1948 75,000 936,338
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Logging History on Fort Apache Indian Reservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year that timber sales Board Foot
approved Volume Removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1918 490,380,590
1929 2,212,170
1930-1939 303,155,870
1940-1949 594,745,925
1950-1959 103,168,540
1960-1969 613,500,561
1970-1979 775,638,878
1980-1989 636,134,701
1990-1999 613,977,240
2002 92,224,670 2002 Rodeo/Chediski Fire
Salvage
2000-2009 216,115,900
2010-2013 7,000,000 Sawmill Closed in 2010,
reopened 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table shows board foot volumes that were removed by decade. Each
decade had logging in multiple timber sale units.
Forest Management Impacts On Fire Prevention/Suppression
All of these accomplishments that I have shown amount to a forest
that is healthier, more resilient and better protected from wildfires.
The success of our fire management staff to effectively put out fire
starts on our reservation is astonishing and can be attributed to our
management. Our firefighting initial attack success rate on the
reservation, which is measured by keeping fires at less than one acre,
is consistently greater than 95 percent! The small percentage of fires
that we are not able to keep at less than one acre, range from 2 to
468,000 acres (Rodeo/Chediski fire, although only 276,000 acres of that
were on the reservation).
In order to capture the theme of today's hearing, I will highlight
three fires on the reservation in which our active management proved
extremely beneficial to help reduce the intensity and spread of these
fires which helped preserve and protect forest resources. What I am
providing here are brief summaries of what occurred in these fires and
more detailed information is available on each of them.
Rodeo/Chediski Fire Response to Management Activities
In 2002 our reservation experienced what was at the time the
largest wildfire ever to happen in the state of Arizona, the Rodeo/
Chediski Fire. This was two human-caused fires that both started on the
reservation and merged together to burn a total of 469,322 acres of
tribal, federal, and private lands. Of this amount, 276,355 acres
burned on the reservation. Despite the severely devastating nature of
this fire, there were some valuable lessons learned within areas on the
FAIR that had been actively managed in the decades prior by logging,
thinning, and/or prescribed fire.
In untreated forest stands with little to no management, there
existed thick, heavy loadings of ground fuels, heavy brush, and dense
stands of stressed small diameter trees, all of which created a ladder
of fuels into the canopies of larger pine trees, creating a raging,
devastating and intense inferno that left moonscapes in its wake and
associated negative ecological consequences (soil sterilization,
erosion, loss of forest ecosystems) . But, where this raging inferno
came across areas that had received logging, thinning, or prescribed
burning (especially in areas that had received more than one of these
management activities), there did not exist the heavy ground fuels and
underbrush, there were not thick stands of stressed small diameter
trees, the larger trees were more well spaced, and all of this helped
slow the inferno and it dissipated as it passed through these managed
areas, leaving some black behind, but also leaving green, leaving life
that provides all the benefits I mentioned on Page 1, 2nd paragraph of
this testimony. These forests lived, and continue to live as
functioning healthy ecosystems, a testament to the management that
helped prevent more widespread devastation.
Summary and findings of management activities on fire effects and
forest stand structure;
Forest thinning and prescribed fire use were highly
effecting in reducing fire intensity.
Fire behavior was low intensity burns that consisted of
ground fire and under burning activity.
A combination of treatments (i.e. thinning and prescribed
fire) were most effecting in reducing fire behavior and
intensity.
There was low to moderate burn severity effects on soils,
whereas untreated areas had moderate to severe impacts on
soils.
Previously managed stands required little to no emergency
stabilization and rehabilitation treatments. (emergency
stabilization and rehabilitation treatments were extensive on
the rest of the fire, they have cost over 20 million dollars
and are ongoing still today).
Management treatments must be implemented at landscape
scales to effectively mitigate against large fires that occur
at the same scale.
Wallow Fire Response to Management Activities
The Wallow Fire of 2011 became the largest wildfire ever in the
history of the state of Arizona, and burned under forest and weather
conditions that mirrored those of 2002 for the Rodeo/Chediski Fire. The
Wallow Fire burned a total of 538,049 acres, of which, 12,959 acres
burned on the FAIR. This fire started just off the eastern boundary of
our reservation and despite winds that moved from west to east pushing
the fire away from our lands, the fire progressed west against the wind
toward our lands. As the fire grew and created its own weather (which
these large intense fires always do), erratic winds and downdrafts
combined with dry thunderstorms that were forming over the fire area,
and the threat of fire consuming our prized eastern timberlands
increased. This area of our reservation is full of values at risk that
include culturally significant areas, sacred springs, threatened and
endangered species, economically valuable timber lands, and our Sunrise
Ski Resort, all of which are extremely valuable to the WMAT. The
western edge of the fire could not be anchored, it could not be
controlled, and it was not held in check until a large burnout
operation was conducted on the actively managed forests of the FAIR.
A BIA report was produced following the Wallow Fire that examined
the beneficial effects of forest management on the FAIR and its impacts
on the Wallow Fire. The report was released in December of 2011 and is
titled ``Fuel Treatment Effectiveness on the Wallow Fire on the Fort
Apache Indian Reservation''. A brief summary of the findings are:
Timber harvests, fuels management, forest thinning and
prescribed fire were highly effective in reducing fire
intensity by reducing heavy fuel loads.
Fire behavior from the Wallow Fire on the FAIR consisted of
low-intensity surface fire that predominantly burned the
understory fuels component.
Forest and Fuels management treatments provided fire
managers a successful option of a large burnout operation to
halt the westward movement of the fire on the reservation.
Fuel treatments allowed firefighters to implement their
suppression strategy safely and quickly enough to be effective.
Of the area burned on the FAIR, less than 7 percent of the
acreage experienced high tree mortality, and the remaining 93
percent experienced less than 10 percent tree mortality (very
low intensity burn). And
Fuel treatments ensured that the Wallow Fire's negative
effects on values at risk and resources were kept at minimal
levels.
This report helps solidify the fact that managed forests which
exercise various combinations of fuels management techniques are
effective at mitigating negative consequences of wildfire.
Rock Creek Fire Response to Management Activities
The Rock Creek Fire of 2013 was a 795 acre fire that occurred in a
high use recreation area just beyond the city limits of our main tribal
community. The fire exhibited active and sustained crown fire behavior
which increased as it moved N and NE from its point of origin, being
pushed by winds out of the southwest. The size of this fire does not
appear significant at first, but the small size is exactly what makes
this fire significant. As the fire moved to the NW, N and NE, and
became an intensifying crown fire, it moved into a large area of 2
prescribed burn projects that had been completed in 2012 and 2010. The
2012 project was the first buffer against the fire and was fortified
further to the NW, N and NE by the adjacent prescribed burn project
that was conducted in 2010. The results were astonishing as the fire
penetrated no more than 40 acres into the 2012 prescribed burn, and did
not even burn into the 2010 project area! Fire behavior was almost
immediately reduced due to the removal of excessive fuel loadings on
the ground and ladder fuels that would have carried the fire through
the canopy.
A report was carried out following this fire which not only showed
the remarked effectiveness of stopping the spread of the fire and
protecting firefighter safety and abundant forest resources, but it
also showed an extremely effective cost benefit analysis of carrying
out fuels management projects versus the cost of fighting the fire. The
following table illustrates a comparison between the firefighting
efforts of the Rock Creek Fire versus the efforts needed to carry out
the two prescribed burn projects.
Rock Creek Fire Cost Benefit Analysis of Fuels Management vs Fire
Suppression Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Fighting 2012 Rx Burn 2010 Rx Burn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres 795 1303 600
# of Personnel 491 8 8
Total Cost $2,043,290 $27,363 $12,600
Cost/Acre $2,570 $21 $21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some key points to be taken from the above table are;
The per acre cost of conducting prescribed fire in this area
was more than 100 times cheaper than the cost of fighting the
fire!
For the cost of fighting this 795 acre fire, that same 2
million dollars could have treated 97,299 acres with prescribed
fire!
Conducting well executed prescribed burn projects takes
nearly 40 times fewer personnel than fighting a wildfire of
similar size, greatly reducing the level of threat to human
lives.
All three of these fires(R/C Fire, Wallow Fire, and Rock Creek
Fire), are examples of how active forest management can help protect
and mitigate the effects of wildfires. The Rock Creek Fire, and its
comparison of fuels management costs versus fire suppression costs is
compelling. I would like to have shown this same analysis for the
Rodeo/Chediski and Wallow Fires as well, but with short notice of this
hearing I was not able to research all of the data to come up with this
same comparison. However, it is safe to say that fighting the bigger,
hotter, and more dangerous fires was more expensive per acre than
conducting the prescribed burn and thinning activities that helped
reduce the intensity and/or spread of those fires. If the Committee is
interested in knowing this information, please let me know and I can
research the matter further to come up with exact cost comparisons.
Newer/Innovative Forest Management Techniques and Practices
Despite the extensive forest management that has occurred on the
FAIR, we are facing new challenges that we have not faced before.
Climate change, drought conditions, lack of management on adjacent land
ownerships, larger fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and depressed
housing markets which slowed and eventually stopped timber harvests for
a few years, all have forced the WMAT to develop and consider different
forest management strategies to protect against these challenges. This
section will highlight a few projects that the WMAT has undertaken to
address these challenges and further protect and manage our forest
resources.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction/Wildand Urban Interface Fuels Management in
High Elevation Forests
In 2012, the WMAT Tribal Forestry program began a Hazardous Fuels
Reduction/Wildland Urban Interface project in and around our ski resort
in our high elevation spruce/fir and mixed conifer forests. This type
of thinning had never occurred in this forest type on the FAIR, but
after the Wallow Fire scare of 2011 in which adjacent Forest Service
lands of the same forest type were devastated, the Tribe became
proactive in addressing the heavy fuels loads in and around the ski
resort. These forest ecosystems exhibit steeper terrain and are less
accessible for typical logging and thinning equipment and have
different ecological processes, especially with fire. In these steeper,
thicker, less accessible forest areas, the cost to effectively thin
them increases to well over $1,000/acre. The fuel loadings are
tremendous and pose many challenges to traditional thinning practices
because the ground is littered with ``jackstraws'' of dead and down
fallen trees. Despite these challenges something needed to be done
because the ski resort is infrastructure, it is property, it is a large
revenue source, and it is jobs and livelihoods for over 200 employees.
This project has to occur in phases due to the heavy fuel loads of
this forest type. The first phase is to remove all of the already down
and dead trees that cover the ground surface. This has to be done so
that thinning (phase 2) can occur. We cannot thin the standing forest
until we remove all of the woody material on the ground so that logging
equipment and tree fallers can safely and effectively maneuver
themselves. At the time this project began, the sawmill was closed and
could not take the vast amounts of raw material that was generated.
Because the material we were dealing with was dead trees and in various
stages of rot, we had to work with the sawmill management team to
market and sell the wood for whatever product we could. The logs were
hauled to the base of the ski resort and a sort yard was established,
separating the logs from higher grade house logs to firewood to
biomass. The work we did in 2012 only covered 75 acres but it removed
2400 tons (120 logging truckloads) of dead and down material and
generated over $60,000 dollars for the sawmill. The revenue was not a
lot, but the fact that this project removed more than 30 tons/acre of
heavy fuels from the forest is extremely significant as a fire
protection measure. As a comparison, WUI thinning in our small diameter
ponderosa pine stands that cut green trees yields 3-5 tons per acre!
From a forestry perspective, this work we are doing in the high
elevation forests is exactly the type of work that needs to be done,
but not on 75 acres, not on 1000 acres (which is the current project
boundary), but on over 200,000 acres which comprise this forest type.
We have been able to work with our local agency to set aside funding
for small portions of work for this year and next, but we need more
stable federal appropriations so that we can help treat this forest
type more effectively on a landscape scale. Without funds to treat this
area, there is no effective way to remove the excessive and dangerous
fuels loads that create an extreme fire hazard.
Tribal Forest Protection Act With the Apache/Sitgreaves National Forest
The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) of 2004 is federal
legislation that was passed in response to large devastating wildfires
that caused many human casualties and destroyed entire reservations in
California. These fires started on National Forest Service lands and
then moved onto these reservations. The purpose of the TFPA is to
provide a mechanism for Tribes to propose forest management projects on
Forest Service lands to protect tribal resources.
In 2009, the WMAT submitted a proposal to the Apache/Sitgreaves
National Forest (ASNF), requesting that the ASNF thin their overgrown
forest adjacent to the reservation, to protect our already thinned
forest from fire, and insect and disease outbreaks that could move onto
the reservation from the ASNF. The ASNF and Forest Service Regional
office in Albuquerque, NM approved the project which was funded by
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars and became known
as the Los Burros TFPA. In the project proposal, the WMAT also
requested that our own WMAT Tribal Forestry crews conduct some of the
thinning work and receive training/certification to become more
proficient with timber cruising activities.
Project implementation and success was facilitated by several key
factors:
The WMAT Tribal Forestry and ASNF had a pre-existing working
relationship in which they collaborated successfully on several
prior projects.
The WMAT had already successfully treated more than 30,000
acres of their forest lands adjacent to the proposed project
area.
The ASNF had previously identified the Los Burros project
area as an area that needed fuels management treatment and had
conducted the necessary environmental (NEPA) reviews for the
project.
As a result of the Tribe's TFPA proposal, the ASNF re-
prioritized the Los Burros project for implementation as part
of their White Mountain Stewardship Contract.
WMAT Tribal Forestry staff assisted with the project
development due to strained Forest Service staffing who were
busy with other projects.
Overall, the project was successful in every aspect and should be
used as an example of how inter-agency management can be done to
protect both reservation and National Forest lands. The project
accomplishments include:
Training for 3-5 WMAT Forestry crew members in the areas of
timber cruising and Forest Service standards for project
preparation activities.
Using this training, these WMAT employees helped ``prep''
5,800 acres for the ASNF on various areas within the White
Mountain Stewardship Project (including the Los Burros TFPA
project area).
A crew of 6-13 WMAT Forestry employees thinned 1,580 acres
on the Los Burros TFPA project.
Biomass Removal and Utilization
Much of our current fuels management thinning activities focus on
WUI areas with overstocked forest stands comprised of stressed, small
diameter trees which are not valuable from a traditional lumber
standpoint. This material is referred to as ``biomass''. When our
sawmill (Fort Apache Timber Company, or FATCO) was shut down, our WMAT
Tribal Forestry department worked with the BIA and FATCO to use
existing fuels management dollars to generate a wood products
utilization program which thinned over 4,000 acres of WUI areas and
generated over $300,000 in revenue for the Tribe from the sale of
biomass material to the nearby pellet plant off reservation. Prior to
this, our Tribal Forestry Fuels program was not allowed to use federal
dollars to get rid of the material, and so for many years the wood was
piled and burned out in the woods, or even worse was just left out in
the woods to rot, ineffectively leaving the fuel in the woods and not
reducing the fire hazard completely. But with a lot of effort through
my department and by the Tribe, we were able to negotiate and get
permission from the national fuels management program within the BIA,
to use some fuels management dollars to process the biomass into chips
and haul the material to the pellet plant. This is a little more costly
per acre, but extremely beneficial in creating healthy and fire
resilient landscapes which is the ultimate goal of the fuels management
program. It also helped generate revenue which helped to re-open the
sawmill after being closed for several years (this was just a small
portion of the money needed to re-open the sawmill but it helped with
feasibility studies, consulting work, and repairs and maintenance).
However, this utilization program was only conducted over a 2 year
period (2010-2012) and the Tribe and Ft. Apache Agency received fewer
fuels management dollars due to federal budget cuts, which for the time
being has halted this beneficial program.
Restraints on WMAT/FAIR Forest Management
1.)Federal Appropriations--Unfortunately, WMAT and other Indian
Tribes fall victim to less adequate funding through the BIA than our
counterparts in the U.S. Forest Service. On a per acre basis, the BIA
and Tribal funding is on average, one third the amount that the Forest
Service receives for the same work. The result is, we have to be more
innovative and extremely stringent in how we utilize our dollars, and
the one glaring result is we pay our staffs and contractors less than
what the work garners elsewhere. It is something that needs to be
remedied, especially given the fact that the WMAT and other tribes are
far more effective in managing our forests than the Forest Service.
2.)Restrictions on how Fuels Management Dollars can be spent:
a.) Areas prioritized for thinning are confined to WUI areas--
Our Tribe has been very effective since the year 2000 at
prioritizing and thinning around local communities and
infrastructure (WUI). This has been a very successful endeavor,
but in order to fully protect these communities and values at
risk, thinning treatments need to move further away from the
WUI zones and deeper into the forests. Large fires like Rodeo/
Chediski Fire and Wallow Fire demonstrated that forest
management is much more effective at reducing negative fire
effects when treatments are conducted on a broader landscape
and not just confined to smaller patches of land.
b.) Funds are not readily available to be spent on biomass
utilization--Fuels management programs and thinning projects on
our reservation (and other Tribal lands) are not as heavily
subsidized as projects on U.S. Forest Service lands which allow
for biomass utilization to be included in the treatment costs.
Projects such as the White Mountain Stewardship contract on the
Apache/Sitgreaves National Forest provided funds not only for
the thinning to be done in the forest, but were funded to allow
wood utilization industry (pellet plant) to be constructed as a
destination for the material to go. Although WMAT does not have
a biomass facility on the reservation to utilize the material,
the pellet plant located just off the reservation is a viable
destination where we can sell our biomass material. Our
projects need to be funded so that we can do more biomass
removal like what we did in 2010-2012, and/or establish our own
biomass facility on the reservation.
3.)Fire Suppression Costs vs Management Costs--The example I used
earlier of the Rock Creek fire shows that the cost of fighting fire is
far more costly than conducting prescribed burn activities in these
same forests. Unfortunately, these dollars which are used to fight fire
are not spent more effectively by actively managing forests. The Rock
Creek Fire example compared fire suppression to prescribed fire, and
did not include mechanical or crew thinning costs. Our WMAT Tribal
Forestry costs to conduct thinning in this same forest types averages
from $150-$300/acre, which is still 10-20 times cheaper than the $2570/
acre cost of fighting the fire. Somewhere in the federal budgeting
process, the cost benefit analysis of fighting fire versus managing
fire through active fuels management practices needs to be more
seriously considered. The effectiveness of our Tribe and local BIA
office at actively managing and protecting our forests through
efficient and cost saving practices should not only be heeded, but
replicated more on our own lands and elsewhere across our Nation's
forests.
4.)Reliable Lumber/Housing/Wood Products Markets--The continued
success of our commercial logging and timber harvest activity is
centered on reliable lumber and housing markets. These markets are
directly affected by the growth and stability of our national economy.
In recent years, these markets hit an all-time low and the cost of
logging and manufacturing wood products was more than the revenue
generated from selling these wood products and the WMAT was forced to
close our sawmill. The closure of the sawmill results in a loss of
potential annual sales of 10 million dollars of manufactured wood
products, and the loss of over 200 associated jobs in the sawmill and
out in the woods. Recently, the WMAT was able to secure financing to
re-open our sawmill and we began logging again in November 2013.
However, if future markets for commercial timber products are not
beneficial to support the logging and sawmill industry, then
appropriations for BIA timber sale activities (through fiduciary trust
responsibilities) should be re-appropriated into the fuels management
program for our Tribe so that we can continue to manage timber sale
areas.
Summary/Conclusion
The work that has been done by the White Mountain Apache
Tribe and the Fort Apache Agency can, and should be used as a
model that demonstrates how active forest management preserves
the forest and creates a healthy and sustainable environment
which is more resilient to devastating wildfires.
The work that we have done is nothing compared to what we
need to do. It is a small portion of what needs to be done to
protect our land, our people, and our resources, and also those
of our neighbors adjacent to us.
Federal appropriations need to be proactive and focus on
active fuels and forest management activities that prevent
wildfires, instead of being reactive to fire suppression which
is far more costly and dangerous and results in millions of
dollars of rehabilitation work as well.
Active forest management on our reservation and other
forested lands cannot occur in just a certain forest type, it
can't focus only on WUI areas, but rather it needs to occur
forest wide, in all forest types, away from communities, across
the entire landscape and across jurisdictional boundaries.
With our active forest management, we are protecting our
home, our way of life, and our culture. We as indigenous
people, who have depended on these forests and their resources
since time immemorial, are not only managing and protecting
them for ourselves in the present, but we are managing for
sustainability and to protect them for our future generations
who will need to depend on the forest as much as we do, and who
will need to protect it for their future generations as well.
On behalf of our Tribal Chairman, Ronnie Lupe, and the entire WMAT
Tribal Council, I thank you for the honor and privilege of being able
to testify on this hearing and provide insight into our storied forest
management. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, Jonathan.
Adrian?
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN LEIGHTON, Ph.D., CHAIR, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE
Dr. Leighton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain and
members of the Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
I am one of the ten independent forestry professionals
assembled to form the Third Indian Forest Management Assessment
Team. I also teach forestry at Salish Kootenai College. I will
do my best to do this without PowerPoint or dry erase markers.
Forest management performed by tribes and the BIA is a
remarkable, innovative blend of placed based wisdom and active
management that has the potential to be a national model.
However, lack of stable, equitable funding, an understaffed and
aging work force and inadequate access to technical resources
comprises long term sustainability.
Twenty-three years after the first IFMAT assessment, tribes
are constrained by conflicting rules and regulations that
hinder rather than help them achieve self governance. Tribal
forests are increasingly threatened by inaction on the borders
of their lands. Here are some of the challenges we see.
Insufficient funding, in 2011, BIA and tribal forestry
programs received on a per acre basis one-third of the funding
allocated for Forest Service management. This funding has been
consistent across all three IFMATs. That figure is fairly
stable.
Staffing levels are well below State, private and Federal
comparators. Funding reductions over the last 20 years has
further compounded this problem. Mr. Rigdon's example at Yakama
of over half the BIA forestry positions being vacant is just
one of many examples.
We have an aging workforce with an uncertain supply of
future foresters. While the number of Native foresters in the
BIA and working for tribes has doubled in the last 20 years to
about 50 percent of the total, there is still only
approximately 100 Native American students in four year
forestry programs nationwide. That includes the 40 at Salish
Kootenai College, the only tribal college with a Bachelor's
degree in forestry. Meanwhile, the average age of BIA and
tribal foresters is 51 and less than 2 percent of the
professional workforce is under the age of 30.
There is a diminishing infrastructure. Timber harvest
levels and revenues have steadily dropped since IFMAT I and
since 2001, ten tribal sawmills have closed, leaving four
operational and two trying to reopen, while total employment
associated with management, harvest and processing of tribal
timber has dropped by 10,000 jobs, 38 percent.
To aid in understanding of these challenges and
opportunities, IFMAT has introduced the concept of FIT: fire,
investment and transformation. These things embody the progress
that has been made over the last two decades as well as the
issues that lie ahead for tribal forests and the people, Native
and non-Native, who depend on them.
Fire and related threats, such as insects, disease and
climate change, pose serious risks to tribal lands, resources
and communities as you have heard from other testimony today.
We found many examples of healthy and productive forests and
successful treatment such as Mr. Brooks pointed out. Such
effective treatments offer hope but are not enough to match the
growing magnitude of the problem.
We estimate that if tribes to restore ecosystems and reduce
fuel accumulations, then the amount of acreage treated each
year much increase by five to ten fold. Stable and reliable
funding is crucial to this task. Strategic investment is needed
to achieve tribal vision and plans and to fulfill the
government's trust responsibility.
We find that tribal forests require a minimum annual
appropriation of $254 million to bring per acre funding up to
par with comparators. This is $100 million over the current
funding level. Also, an additional 792 professional and
technical staff are needed to adequately support tribal
forestry programs. This is about a 60 percent increase.
Transformation, tribal knowledge and stewardship
capabilities are now uniquely positioned to help sustain
forests beyond reservation boundaries. The Tribal Forest
Protection Act is an under utilized opportunity to be
aggressively expanded as tribes have nearly 3,000 miles of
common boundary with at risk national forests and range lands.
To add to the list of endorsements for the Anchor Forest
concept, the IFMAT team fully supports the expansion of this
pilot project. As a tribal member told us in a focus group
interview, if we are not maintaining our forests, then that is
a reflection of how we are living our lives.
This level of dedicated commitment to integrated management
was a common theme observed by the IFMAT team and I think one
you have heard expressed very well today. However, we are
concerned that such high caliber management cannot be
sustained. Chronic under funding is limiting the ability to
maximize the forest economic and ecological potential.
If support for tribal and BIA forestry programs is
increased to recommended and equitable levels, and fulfillment
of trust responsibility assured, tribal forests will continue
to grow into their role as a model of sustainable management
for Federal and private forests alike.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leighton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adrian Leighton, Ph.D., Chair, Natural Resources
Department, Salish Kootenai College
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Adrian
Leighton, Natural Resources Department Head at Salish Kootenai College.
I am also one of ten independent forestry experts assembled to form the
Third Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT III). During the
course of our two-year investigation we visited numerous Indian
reservations, tribal colleges, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offices,
and other federal agencies. Pertinent government reports, manuals,
historical literature, and journal publications were reviewed. Cultural
and workforce surveys were conducted, focus groups with tribal members
were held and Indian forestry symposia attended. In 2013, the IFMAT III
assignment was completed and our final reports were submitted for
publication. The Committee has been provided copies of IFMAT documents.
IFMAT III web-published materials (Executive Summary, Volume I, and
Volume II) are also available for download at: http://www.itcnet.org/
issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your Committee. I
will begin by summarizing IFMAT III's principal finding and its main
recommendations.
IFMAT III Summary
Forest management performed by tribes and the BIA is a remarkable,
innovative blend of placed based wisdom and active management that has
the potential to be a model for ecosystem management nationwide.
However lack of stable, equitable funding, an understaffed and aging
workforce and inadequate access to technical resources compromises the
long term sustainability.
To be sustainable, Indian forestry programs must:
1.) be assured of predictable, consistent, and adequate
funding;
2.) have access to up-to-date technical and research support;
3.) be guided by each tribe's vision for its forests; and
4.) have a capable workforce committed to protecting tribal
resources.
Twenty-three years after the first IFMAT assessment,
notwithstanding the record of tribes improving management of their
forests, Indian forests remain underfunded and understaffed, tribes are
constrained by conflicting rules and regulations that hinder rather
than help them achieve self-governance, and tribal forests are
increasingly threatened by inaction on the borders of their lands. The
result is a decades-old tale of missed opportunity for economic and
environmental benefits.
IFMAT Backround
During the development of the National Indian Forest Resources
Management Act in 1991 (NIFRMA, PL 101-630, Title III), Congress
acknowledged that the United States has a trust responsibility toward
Indian forest lands and that federal investment in Indian forest
management was significantly below levels for comparable public or
private forestry programs.
NIFRMA mandated that independent assessments of Indian forests and
forestry programs be conducted every ten years. Three have been
completed (1993, 2003, 2013).As with preceding reports, the Secretary
of the Interior contracted with the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), a
national organization of forest-managing Indian tribes, to select IFMAT
members and provide administrative support for completion of this
report. The findings and recommendations in the IFMAT report represent
an independent evaluation of members with a broad range of expertise
and knowledge was brought to the task, including silviculture, wildlife
management, engineering, wildland fire, education, economics, and
climate change. The three reports are national in scope and provide
periodic evaluation focused on eight topics of inquiry:
1. Management practices and funding levels for Indian forest
land compared with federal and private forest lands,
2. The health and productivity of Indian forest lands,
3. Staffing patterns of BIA and tribal forestry organizations,
4. Timber sale administration procedures, including
accountability for proceeds,
5. The potential for reducing BIA rules and regulations
consistent with federal trust responsibility,
6. The adequacy of Indian forest land management plans,
including their ability to meet tribal needs and priorities,
7. The feasibility of establishing minimum standards for
measuring the adequacy of BIA forestry programs in fulfilling
trust responsibility, and
8. Recommendations for needed reforms and increased funding
levels.
At the request of ITC, the assessment was expanded to include the
following three questions regarding contemporary issues of special
interest to forest-managing Indian tribes:
1. Issues relating to workforce education, recruitment and
retention with special attention to recruiting more Indian
professionals in natural resource management.
2. Quantification of economic, social, and ecological benefits
provided by Indian forests to tribal and regional communities.
3. Consideration of changes to enhance collaboration in forest
management, harvesting, and transportation infrastructure in
the vicinity of reservations and the potential for Indian
forests to become ``anchors'' of forest infrastructure.
Other topics that currently affect Indian forests include trust
responsibility, federal budget reductions, policies related to
fractionated ownership, widespread loss of timber harvesting and
processing infrastructure, and the Tribal Forest Protection Act.
Immediate threats to the sustainability of forests across all
ownerships, such as forest fire hazard, insect and disease infestation,
invasive species, trespass, climate change, endangered species, and
market declines, also warrant consideration.
Tribal Forests
Spread across 334 Indian reservations on more than18 million acres,
tribal forests cover about one-third of all Indian trust lands and
serve as the economic and cultural backbone for many Indian
reservations. More than one million acres of tribal forests have been
set aside from harvest by tribal governments as cultural and ecosystem
reserves.The standing inventory of commercial timber in Indian Country
is 43 billion board feet. There is perhaps no other single natural
resource as varied or as important to tribal governments and their
members. Forests store and filter the water and purify the air. They
sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife that provide sustenance for
the people. They produce foods, medicines, fuel, and materials for
shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. Forests generate
revenues for many tribal governments and sorely needed employment for
Indian people and rural communities. Forests provide a sense of place
that sustains tribal lifeways, cultures, religions, and spiritual
practices. Since the first IFMAT report in 1991, through dedicated
programs of consolidation and reacquisition, tribes have been able to
gradually increase their cumulative forest holdings by more than 2.8
million acres.
IFMAT III Principal Finding
In spite of formidable obstacles, such as chronic underfunding and
understaffing, tribal forestry programs are remarkably successful.
Progress continues in innovative silviculture, adaptive integration of
forest management for a range of values, and in the presence of quality
staff. However, if these positive attributes are to be retained and
strengthened, tribal and the BIA forestry programs will need to secure
stable and adequate funding mechanisms.
Insufficient Funding
In 2011, Indian forests received less management funding per acre
than adjacent public and private forest owners (as example, tribes
received only 33 percent of Forest Service funding). See Attachment 1.
Recurring program funding has been declining in real terms (23 percent
decline since 1991) and tribes are not receiving additional funds as
their land base (17 percent increase since 1991) and obligations (such
as climate change adaptation and forest health restoration) increase.
Funding for hazardous fuel management on Indian forests (2011 per acre
basis) is equivalent to just 49 percent of Forest Service allocations.
Only 16 percent of tribal roads are functioning at acceptable or better
levels. Remote locations and inadequate protection (BIA Forestry
receives no funding for law enforcement) leave tribes vulnerable to
timber theft and trespass (illegal marijuana ``grows'' are an
especially troubling example) that bring violence and pollution to
remote locations on many reservations
Insufficient Staffing
Staffing shortfalls for Indian forestry programs are worsening (13
percent staff decline since 1991; 51 percent of foresters are 50 years
old or older). An example of this is at Yakama where 33 of 55 forestry
positions are currently vacant due to lack of funding. See Attachment
2. Wages and benefits for tribal forestry positions are 15-30 percent
lower than for comparable federal jobs. Yet there are no systematic BIA
programs for employee recruitment and retention such as exist for other
federal agencies. BIA Forestry lacks in-house scientific and technical
support sufficient for inventory updates, topical research and
reporting, and long-range planning.
An Aging Workforce With Uncertain Supply of Future Foresters
The average age of BIA/Tribal foresters is 51, several years older
than that of comparable resource management agencies. In some regions,
over half of the BIA foresters are eligible to retire in the next 5
years. While the number of Native foresters has more than doubled in
the last 20 years (from 22 percent in 1992 to 48 percent in 2013) there
are still only approximately 100 Native American students enrolled in
forestry programs nationwide (with about 40 percent of them located at
a single tribal college: Salish Kootenai College). The BIA funded
National Center for Cooperative Education (NCCE) has supported dozens
of tribal and BIA foresters through school and provided internships,
but this program alone is not enough. A BIA/Tribal partnership to
strategically plan workforce recruitment, retention and training is
needed that will also work with tribal and non-tribal colleges and all
universities to ensure that the future generation of Native foresters
is present and properly trained to deal with the management challenges
of the coming decades. The creation of a four year forestry program at
a single tribal college has resulted in a greater than 50 percent
increase in the number of Native forestry students. What more could be
done with a coordinated, strategic approach? As the title of this
hearing suggests, ``prevention is preservation'', and one way to
prevent future challenges is through preparation. The better we prepare
the next generation of managers now, the more likely that they will
have the tools they need to preserve tribal lands and the values
associated with them.
Diminishing Infrastructure
Timber harvest levels (down 51 percent) and timber revenues (down
64 percent) have steadily dropped since IFMAT I. Since 2001, ten tribal
sawmills have closed, leaving justsix surviving, while total employment
associated with management, harvest, transport and processing of Indian
timber has dropped by 10,000 jobs or 38 percent. Experiences throughout
the rural West have shown us that once harvesting and processing
infrastructure is lost, it is very difficult to replace. The consequent
loss of infrastructure exacerbates problems of unemployment, social
welfare, public health and safety while reducing tribal stewardship
flexibilities.
Undermanaged Woodlands
Woodlands encompass the largest area of Indian forest ecosystems.
In total, 202 tribes have woodlands. For 109 of these tribes, woodlands
are their only forests. Water, firewood, wildlife, foods and medicines
are important resources derived from woodlands. But, with little
commercial value, woodlands receive insufficient funding and attention
from the BIA for proper stewardship. Tribal elders are already noticing
climate change impacts to woodlands such as juniper encroachments and
lowered water tables but scarce funding seriously limits tribal options
for management.
Economically Vital, Innovatively Managed
However, although tribal timber activities have slowed considerably
in recent years, Indian forests remain a source of significant
employment (19,000 full- and part-time jobs). Timber harvests extend
high job and revenue leverage, in part because of the labor-intensive
nature of some Indian forestry practices, such as uneven-aged
management. New opportunities for forest enterprises may also be
emerging. The sensitive harvest of non-timber forest products for
health, herbal, and cosmetic products holds promise and may align well
with sustainable forestry.
IFMAT III Framework: FIT (fire, investment, and transformation)
Underfunded and understaffed yet applauded for successes, Indian
forest programs appear as an enigma. To aid understanding, IFMAT
introduced the concept of FIT (fire, investment, and transformation).
These themes embody the progress that Indian forestry has made over the
last two decades, as well as the opportunities and challenges that lie
ahead. Indian forestry is at a tipping point. Choices for moving
forward will have profound and lasting consequences for Indian people
and forests.
Fire
Fire represents threats to forest health such as wildfire, insects,
disease, and climate change. These threats pose serious and increasing
risks jeopardizing the economic, cultural, and ecological
sustainability of Indian forests and tribal communities. Despite rising
costs of wild fire suppression across the nation, and the National Fire
Plan (2000) that led to major increases in federal agency funding for
preparedness and fuel treatments, there has been an increase in the
acreage of forests and woodlands consumed by wildfire each year. In
proactive response, tribes are drawing upon traditional knowledge to
restore the cultural role of fire to the landscape but funding
shortfalls slow progress.
We found many examples of healthy and productive Indian forests as
a result of sound forest management practices such as innovative
uneven-aged forest management including prescribed fire, thinning
regimes, and increasing use of integrated multiple resource management.
Such effective treatments offer hope, but are not enough to match
the growing magnitude of the challenges facing Indian forests. This is
especially the case in the dry interior West where much of Indian
forest acreage is located adjacent to untended federal forests at risk
from uncharacteristically severe wildfires, drought, insects, and
disease that pose significant hazards to tribal communities. We
estimate, that if fire is realistically to be used as tool to restore
ecosystems and reduce landscape-level fuel accumulations, then the
amount of acres treated each year must increase by five to ten times.
Investment
Strategic Investment is needed to achieve tribal forest visions and
plans, and to fulfill the U.S. government trust responsibility for
Indian forests.When investments in tribal forests support stewardship
and recoverable products can be sold, caring for the forest can bring
net return instead of reactive cost. But when investments are
insufficient the productivity of forest lands is compromised. For
example, there are currently about 750,000 acres (about 4 percent of
Indian forests) that need planting or thinning if future yields are to
be realized.
IFMAT found that Indian forests require a minimum annual
appropriation of $254 million to bring per acre funding on a par with
appropriate comparators. \1\ Current annual funding of $154 million is
$100 million below comparable public and private programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forest Service for stewardship and wildfire for commercial
timberlands; BLM for stewardship and wildfire on non-commercial forest
lands; state and industrial forests for timber production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This base funding does not include support for substantive tribal
involvement in the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives or other collaborative initiatives. Tribes
need equitable access to funds and services related to climate change
planning, adaptation, and response. In 2012, the BIA received just one-
tenth of one percent of the total climate change funding allocated to
DOI despite the fact that DOI has a unique trust obligation for tribal
lands which account for 10 percent of the DOI land base and host the
largest residential population of any DOI agencies. BIA and tribal
staffing is inadequate in number and expertise to provide the quality
and quantity of services needed to care for Indian forests. The
involvement of Native American professionals has increased, but
retirements, insufficient recruitment and retention, employment
transfers for higher wages, and limited professional training
opportunities are resulting in the erosion of workforce skills,
leadership, and institutional knowledge within BIA and tribal forestry
programs. Due to the lack of stable and adequate funding, Indian forest
programs have become increasingly reliant upon non-recurring grants
from other agencies and NGOs that come with high transaction costs,
hit-and-miss alignment with tribal priorities, and uncertain funding
futures.
Review of the 2011 Funding and Position Analysis indicates that an
additional 792 professional and technical staff (a 65%increase above
current levels) are needed to adequately support Indian forestry
programs. In addition, IFMAT recommends that a BIA national education
coordinator be recruited to pursue and oversee forestry education and
training programs as envisioned by NIFRMA.
Transformation
An auspicious Transformation may be underway in Indian forest
management and should be continued. BIA-dominated policies and programs
of the past are being replaced by tribal visions and leadership. In the
last twenty years, the number of contract and compact tribes that have
taken control of their own forest management programs has doubled.
Management priorities are shifting more towards forest protection, with
commodity production receiving less emphasis. Tribal members define
protection as the sustainable provision of all benefits derived from
the forest, including but not limited to harvesting and revenue-
generating activities but beginning with the assurance that forests are
kept as forest land in perpetuity. IFMAT III found that forest
management plans now exist for most tribal forest lands. In 1991, 5.8
million acres were covered by a forest plan, whereas, in 2011, 15.5
million acres of tribal forests had forest plans. We recommend that
management plans could serve tribes in new ways: as a vehicle for
funding and staffing negotiations, as a planning agreement that sets
forth the Trustee's obligations to tribal beneficiaries, as a
conservation strategy toreduce the regulatory burdens of the National
Environmental Policy Act, and as adaptive approach to mitigate climate
change impacts.
In policy and action, there appears a growing acceptance of an
Indian worldview that ``all things are connected,'' accompanied by
recognition that environmental challenges cannot be contained within
political boundaries. Tribal knowledge and stewardship capabilities are
now uniquely positioned to help sustain forests beyond reservation
boundaries. In particular, we encountered numerous instances where
tribal approaches to sustainable forestry and resource stewardship
could find beneficial application on the neglected federal forest
estate.
For example, the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (TFPA) was
passed to protect tribal assets by allowing tribes to contract with the
federal agencies to carry out hazardous fuel and forest health
silvicultural treatments on adjacent at-risk federal lands. TFPA
represents an underutilized opportunity to work with state and federal
agencies to increase jobs and economic stability in tribal communities,
protect tribal resources and treaty rights on and off the reservation,
and implement needed hazardous fuels reductions that otherwise might
not be accomplished. TFPA partnerships should be aggressively expanded,
as tribes share nearly 3000 miles of common boundary with 80 million
acres of at-risk national forests and rangelands.
An initiative of the Intertribal Timber Council, the ``Anchor
Forest'' concept centers on the idea of tribal forest managers
collaborating with neighboring ownerships to collectively ensure a
long-term flow of harvested timber sufficient to sustain wood
processing facilities and maintain healthy forests. A key aspect of
this collaboration is a shared recognition that forest management must
be both ecologically sustainable and economically viable. The third
component (with economic viability and ecological sustainability) of
this ``triple bottom line'' is social sustainability. The jobs provided
directly and indirectly by the timber flow under the Anchor Forests
concept will provide stable employment to tribal and non-tribal
residents and do much to reduce poverty, thus greatly strengthening the
social fabric of rural communities.
Indian forestry programs can become models of sustainable forest
management for federal and private forests alike. However, without
increased federal resolve and investment, historic obligations will
remain unfulfilled and opportunities on and off the reservation will be
lost.
Trust Responsibility
Federal statutes, court decisions and treaties establish the trust
responsibility of the federal government to Native American tribes.
This responsibility extends beyond BIA to all agencies of the federal
government. Treaties further establish tribes as sovereign nations and
grant tribes rights to hunt, fish, and gather natural resources on
lands ceded to the federal government. Ceded lands include both public
and private ownerships. Meeting the trust responsibility and satisfying
treaty rights requires environmental conditions both on and off
reservations such that lands and waters are biologically diverse,
productive, resilient to both natural and human-caused disturbance, and
capable of sustainably yielding desired resources and settings.
The preamble to NIFRMA [Title III SEC 302] explicitly recognized
the US trust responsibility for sustained management of Indian forests
and identified a number of concerns with the government ability to
fulfill those obligations. Two decades later, IFMAT III finds that the
federal government continues to inadequately fulfill its trust
obligations to Indian forestry. Real funding and staffing levels are
lower now than at the time of IFMAT I. We remain concerned that funding
and staffing levels continue to be insufficient to support state-of-
the-art forest management, that sufficient separation of oversight from
operational responsibilities has not been put into effect, that
administrative processes for Indian forestry are increasingly costly to
complete, and that trespass remains a serious problem. In addition,
there continues to be an inadequate response to the mandate of NIFRMA
that the federal government work with the tribes to provide for
multiple use management consistent with tribal values and needs such as
subsistence and ceremonial uses, fisheries, wildlife, recreation,
aesthetic and other traditional values.
After 20 Years, Still Both ``Pitcher and Umpire''
A conflict of interest is created by the dual obligations of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to both deliver Indian services and to assess
whether those services are adequate and well-executed. Prior IFMAT
reports characterized this situation as the BIA attempting to perform
as both ``pitcher and umpire''.
The organizational diagram, as presented in Attachment 3, was first
proposed by IFMAT I, two decades ago, as a framework to restructure
trust oversight. An independent commission would periodically review
performance of services against tribal plans, accepted by the Secretary
of the Interior, and would have the power to require corrections. The
commission would be national-level, but with local reach. An example of
such a model is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The trust oversight
commission could contract with regional entities to be primary
providers of oversight duties, subject to commission review. Any trust
oversight body must have the technical capacity and skill to assess
forest management issues.
Fulfillment of the federal trust duty depends upon standards
against which performance can be evaluated. Standards must have
adequate oversight for their execution, and must be enforced. An
effective mechanism for enforcing standards does not currently exist,
and the third party oversight as recommended by past IFMAT reports has
not been implemented.
IFMAT III Key Recommendations
The IFMAT III report contains a total of 68 recommendations,
including the 10 below considered to be key.
1. The trust oversight recommendations of previous IFMATs
should be further developed and implemented. An independent
commission should be formed to periodically review performance
of services against tribal plans.When third party oversight is
augmented by signed agreements between tribes and the DOI, the
role of BIA can evolve out of the umpire/pitcher impasse toward
that of technical service provider and facilitator of
communication between Indian tribes and the federal government.
2. Increase Indian forestry funding by a minimum of $112.7
million per year. Increase annual base level funding by $100
million to $254 million-the amount we estimate necessary for a
level of forest stewardship and timber production that would be
consistent with Indian goals and comparable to funding provided
to National Forests. Appropriate an additional $12.7 million to
support education and professional training programs as
envisioned by NIFRMA.
3. Increase staffing by 792 professional and technical forestry
positions. An education coordinator will also be needed.
Staffing replacement procedures need to be reviewed so that
funded positions can be filled promptly according to an
established recruitment and retention strategic plan. Adequate
compensation and relocation programs must be available.
4. The Anchor Forest concept should be supported and expanded.
Innovative tribal management techniques should be considered
for appropriate portions of the federal forest estate. We
hypothesize that collaborative agreements such as Anchor
Forests, TFPA, and stewardship contracting will result in
valuable market and ecosystem benefits that more than
compensate for investment.
5. The implications of organizational and personnel changes
within the BIA and the federal establishment should be examined
for their immediate and potential effects on trust
responsibility and the sustainability of Indian forests.
6. Self-governance tribes should be able to develop tribal NEPA
procedures and to replace BIA NEPA manuals and handbooks. This
approach furthers self-determination and self-governance and
would reward tribes for progress in integrated planning.
7. A specific list of unfunded mandates should be drawn up and
recommendations for their alleviation made and implemented.
8. Control of trespass within tribal boundaries should be
reviewed and strengthened.
9. Tribes should consider a desired-future-conditions based
approach to forest planning. We note that a DFC is not a static
state, but takes into account and makes provision for the
dynamics of natural agents of change (fire, insects, disease,
storms, and climate change). DFC forest planning will require
better research and technical support from BIA.
10. A regularly recurring state-of-the-resource report,
including a protocol for continuing data acquisition should be
implemented jointly between BIA and tribal organizations such
as the Intertribal Timber Council. An IFMAT-type study of the
Native peoples of Alaska and their forests is needed and long
overdue. Lack of technical support for economic analysis,
climate change adaptation, timber and non-timber forest
products marketing, habitat and ecosystem enhancement, and
forest planning and inventory severely undermines self-
determination and integrated forest management.
In conclusion, IFMAT observed dedicated forestry professionals and
technicians, Indian and non-Indian, working together in tribal and BIA
operations to care for Indian forests. Tribal forestry programs strive
to do the best they can with limited available resources in accord with
the wishes of tribal leadership. Accomplishments notwithstanding,
Indian forestry appears at a tipping point as decades of ``begging
Peter to pay Paul'' cannot be sustained. Chronic underfunding is
limiting tribal abilities to maximize the forests' economic and
environmental potential. On the other hand, if federal support to
Indian forests and forestry programs is increased to recommended levels
and fulfillment of trust responsibility is assured, Indian forests
stand to become a model of sustainable management for federal and
private forests alike.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Leighton. Thank you for your
testimony.
There will be questions. I am going to start with you, Mr.
Breuninger.
You indicated that the tribe has made significant effort on
the reservation to maintain a thriving forest industry. How
many people do you employ, a ballpark figure, in the forest
business--harvesting, thinning and sawmills, if you have them?
Mr. Breuninger. As I mentioned, Chairman, our sawmill is
closed right now. It has been closed about four or five years.
BIA maintains a staff--and I will guess right now--but they
are also in their fire season so they have hired additional
fire response teams, but as far as the tribe is concerned, we
have probably around I would say 20 members employed in our
Division of Resource Management. They do a host of other things
not just thinning but also range improvement projects,
repairing fences, putting in solar wells and these kinds of
things.
We did receive a cut in 2012. I think our budget at that
time we were receiving about $2.5 million for fuels reduction.
Now, we are receiving around $550,000, so we are still able to
638 contract that amount from BIA. That in turn puts these out
for bid to our local tribal members. They will bid on plots. I
will use an example of maybe 10 acre plots. We will have maybe
25 of those plots. The individuals fortunate to be drawn will
hire a small crew of local individual tribal members. I don't
have an exact number of folks they are hiring.
The Chairman. You said the forest management dollars was at
$2.5 million and was reduced to $550,000?
Mr. Breuninger. That is what we are receiving now.
The Chairman. Could you tell me what impact that has had on
your ability to manage your forests as far as fire reduction
capabilities?
Mr. Breuninger. Obviously, we are not able to clear and
perform the hazardous fuels reduction as much as we'd like. I
think in my testimony I mentioned that thus far, over the
years, we have done about 100,000 acres of hazardous fuels
reduction, thinning and so forth. As a result of those cuts, we
are not going to be able to continue to thin the forest at that
same rate that we'd like.
The Chairman. The amount of money spent on thinning the
forest and hazardous fuels reduction, with the greater number
of dollars does it correlate not only proportionally a greater
number of acres but even more than that? Do we get a bigger
bang for the buck by running you at a budget that might not be
at $2.5 million but not as low? That is about an 80 percent
cut.
Mr. Breuninger. I would fully agree with that, Mr.
Chairman. Obviously the more funding we receive, the more crews
we can hire and more areas we can treat. Obviously that
translates into a much healthier forest, lowering the
probability of infestation of bark beetles and other insects
and reduces our fire danger.
The Chairman. You have a stewardship contract with the
Forest Service and the BLM. Tell me how or if this agreement
has provided greater protection for you as per the Lincoln
National Forest?
Mr. Breuninger. It has obviously assisted in providing
resources but also working in collaboration with the Forest
Service and also working and doing some thinning projects off
reservation. This was prior to my administration but so far it
has proven to be very successful. I would strongly urge that
other tribes possibly look at that.
I would also expand on that for Congress to consider
expanding the ability of tribes for 638 national forest dollars
to contract those funds to not only work on the reservation but
perhaps even go into the national forest and assist in doing
some of their thinning projects. The value of that is it places
our people at work and gives them an opportunity for
employment. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
The Chairman. Thanks, Dan.
Senator McCain?
Senator McCain. Mr. Brooks, an argument against forest
thinning by some environmental activists is that thinning will
hurt the endangered Spotted Owl habitat. It is my understanding
that the Wallow fire and the Rodeo-Chediski fire destroyed
about 20 percent of the Spotted Owl nests that exist in the
world. How are the Spotted Owls doing on the Ft. Apache
Reservation?
Mr. Brooks. I don't know their exact numbers, but I know
that during the Rodeo-Chediski fire, the areas that had been
logged were definitely protected and sustained populations in
those areas after the fire. According to our sensitive species
coordinator, for the last 18 years, the populations are
thriving and are not going down, are being maintained and
sustained by our active forest management.
Senator McCain. Some environmental groups want to diameter
cap on harvesting trees. They want I think below 16 inches.
What range of tree diameter does the tribe harvest?
Mr. Brooks. Our range of trees goes from 8 to 22 to 25-
plus. We manage all diameter classes of trees and practice
uneven age management which creates a more sustainable and
healthy ecosystem. We don't go in and create stands of trees
that are all the same age. We do harvest all size classes.
Senator McCain. How have mills survived all these years,
avoided lawsuits and remained largely operational all these
years?
Mr. Brooks. Sustainability. It has shown that it can be
financially sustainable but also out of the woods. The work
speaks for itself, in my opinion. Our forest exists, it's
resilient, it's healthy and provides all the benefits that the
tribe needs according to the tribal objectives. We have been
able to avoid that and one of the large things is sovereignty.
We are a sovereign nation.
People might be able to express their concerns about their
dislike for how we manage our lands. If they think we are
cutting too much, we can say we appreciate your concern, but
thank you very much, we are managing in the best interest of
the tribe.
Even some of our tribal leaders may not like thinning and
prescribed burning for various reasons--smoke is not a pleasant
thing. Aesthetically, you see logging slash piles, logging
trucks and they might impact your recreation, so some of our
tribal leaders many not like it, but they agree with it because
they understand the benefits it has for the Apache people and
their forests.
Senator McCain. The fact is that tribal sovereignty is a
key element in management of your own lands and to criticize
your management is, in a way, an affront to the tribe and their
members. As you pointed out, it is not just a place of
recreation, it is a place of living.
Mr. Brooks. Yes.
Senator McCain. Wally Covington, the director of Northern
Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute, said
tribes can conduct forest treatments faster and cheaper because
the stakeholders are limited to tribal members and that tribal
forestry throughout the west had done some very innovative
techniques, many of them adopted from the experience of your
tribe, is that correct?
Mr. Brooks. Yes. To go back to his statement about faster
and cheaper, that is true. People who say faster might think
that we don't follow environmental policy. I have heard that
before. We follow all Federal environmental regulations. The
Spotted Owl is a perfect example. It is a threatened and
endangered species. We follow that.
Water is sacred, water is holy and we just had our huge
water quantification act signed recently and passed into law.
We have to follow all those Federal standards and guidelines,
so faster, yes, but that is because we are able to prepare
these projects but still go through all the environmental
processes, Federal and tribal. We have our own internal tribal
environmental review. Cheaper, yes.
Senator McCain. What is the size of the finances of the
operation which you oversee?
Mr. Brooks. It varies based on Federal appropriations and
tribal appropriations, but it can range anywhere from $500,000
to $2-$3 million depending on the appropriations.
Senator McCain. How many employees?
Mr. Brooks. It varies again. For forestry from the tribal
side, anywhere from 10 to 100. When we had our stimulus dollars
from the Forest Service, that was $7.4 million and that
employed over 100 people.
Senator McCain. Where did you get your training?
Mr. Brooks. I got my training at Arizona State University,
Northern Arizona University and at home in the woods.
Senator McCain. I think you would agree that Mr. Covington
is one of the better experts on this issue who warned us all
through the 1990s of the catastrophic consequences of failure
to thin the forests. Unfortunately, we had to learn very, very
sad lessons as so much of our forests have been destroyed in
the last ten years.
The real great challenge, I'd say, Mr. Chairman, is there
is no end in sight of the drought that we are experiencing in
the southwest. Unless we do something really different, we are
literally in danger of losing our national forest. That is why
I thank all the witnesses for coming here today. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McCain. I look forward to
working with you on giving the Forest Service the tools they
need to be able to be successful in forest management because
we spend a lot of money on fighting fires. From my perspective
right now, the resource has to be taken care of in a better
way.
Philip, I want to visit with you a little bit. Native
Americans know that a healthy forest is a good thing and is
worth more than logging or preventing fires. It is a bigger
issue than that.
Could you talk about some of the efforts you have done to
help other tribes with their forestry projects?
Mr. Rigdon. There are some key things going on right now
across Indian country as a whole. I think our relationship of
working together as a collective group is to address common
interests and things that we face.
As I discussed earlier, many of our tribes are facing staff
deficits and these kinds of things. The Intertribal Timber
Council is the Anchor Forest concept, how do we maintain the
forest infrastructure that is necessary so we can maintain the
values we want from our forests and continue to do the type of
work that we are currently doing.
I think there are a lot of different ways tribes are
working together. If it is the Salish Kootenai in Montana to
the Yakama to the Coville to Oregon to the Apache who we
listened to, we come together as collective tribes saying look
at what we were able to accomplish with the resources we have.
All across Indian country we are seeing examples.
To use an example on just my reservation, in the late
1990s, we had Western Spruce Budworm outbreak where we were
seeing mortality of our forest stands in 70 percent of the
stands. Our tribe was able over a five year period and treating
about 20,000 acres a year, to reduce the impact across the
landscape and were able to open our own sawmills and get our
economy to function in support of our community.
It is those kinds of things, stuff we don't just do
ourselves; we watched the White Mountain Apache deal with
salvaging their forests following the Rodeo-Chediski fire. It
is that interception between our foresters and the
interconnection between our folks. That is the really important
part we are starting to see disappear in Indian country. I
think it is really important.
People come through Yakama as foresters and work there for
two or three years and then move on to other tribes and we had
other tribal people come and work. Today, you are not seeing
that type of thing. All we are seeing are vacancies, so it is
less and less people. I think that is the real struggle we are
watching in Yakama and you could talk to any direct service
tribe, the compact tribes, all of us are facing those types of
situations.
One of the key elements the Intertribal Timer Council wants
to focus on is the educational piece, what is the next
generation. The $12.7 million I discussed is necessary because
we need that next generation of foresters, those people who
grew up in our communities who are able to go out and treat,
understand and have the knowledge of our land from our cultural
perspective but also understand and deal with the current
ecological things and deliver what we are doing, people like
Jonathan sitting next to me who works for his tribe. We need
the next Jonathans, the next myself across there.
That is a real part of some of the main issues and missions
the Intertribal Timber Council is pushing forward on.
The Chairman. We appreciate your work and thank you.
Let's talk about the next generation of foresters with Dr.
Leighton. Correct me if I am wrong, the Salish Kootenai College
is the only tribal college in the country that offers a four
year forestry degree, correct?
Dr. Leighton. Correct.
The Chairman. Give me an idea on what has made this program
successful?
Dr. Leighton. I think a combination of things. We saw, for
one thing, that there was a real need at larger, more
conventional universities where there was a 25 percent success
rate of Native American students going into forestry programs.
We offer smaller classes, the cultural connection, we integrate
culture and case studies into all of our classes.
The fact we can be out in the woods in five minutes since
we are located right on the edge of the Mission Mountains and
we have had wonderful cooperation from the Confederation of
Salish Kootenai Tribal Forestry Department.
We have also gotten students to feel they are a part of
something. They go to Intertribal Timber Council meetings, we
have speakers from tribal forestry programs and they see they
are an important part of this next generation. We get them
early on to help with that. There has been support, scholarship
support from the Intertribal Timber Council and the BIA has a
wonderful workforce development program that supports students
in school and internships around the Nation.
The Chairman. That's good to know.
I don't want to put words in your mouth. You said Native
American students who go to not your school but other schools,
there is a 25 percent success rate? Is that what you said?
Dr. Leighton. That is correct.
The Chairman. What is your success rate?
Dr. Leighton. Around 50-60 percent.
The Chairman. That is good. Are they all tribal members?
Dr. Leighton. About two-thirds are. We do have students
from around 14 different tribes right now in forestry, so they
learn from each other.
The Chairman. IFMAT found that we need about a 65 percent
increase in professional and technical staff to adequately
staff the Indian forestry programs. Say we were able to get
that 65 percent and forward fund these programs, do we have the
trained professionals to fill the jobs?
Dr. Leighton. We don't right now. We need to expand at all
levels for recruitment. There are 100 Native American students
right now and we are looking for 792 positions, so there is a
real need.
The Chairman. Back up. What did you just say?
Dr. Leighton. There are 100 Native American students in
forestry programs and the call is for 792 additionally.
The Chairman. Where did you get that figure? Was that in
Salish or all the forestry programs?
Dr. Leighton. That is all the forestry programs across the
Nation. Salish has about 40 percent. That was based on USDA
education statistics.
The Chairman. What can be done to recruit those Native
American students where in a place like Montana and maybe every
one of these tribes unemployment is so high and there is that
much need out there, what can be done?
Dr. Leighton. Many things. One thing is getting the story
out to younger Native students from youth camps all the way up
to supporting some of the big schools. Northern Arizona
University used to have a Native American Forestry Mentoring
Program that is not currently operational. The University of
Montana has a very successful one they started a few years ago.
These are real models.
When SKC built the forestry program, they gained and we had
a 40 percent increase or more than. More tribal colleges need
the help to step up and start forestry programs. There are many
things we can do.
The Chairman. Have tribal colleges expressed an interest to
you since you have a program?
Dr. Leighton. Yes. We have had quite a few. The problem
frequently with tribal colleges like the tribes is due to
funding. The funding has to come first, so they struggle to
find that.
The Chairman. I just want to say thank you all for your
work. I very much appreciate it. Thank you all for being here
today and your testimony. I appreciate you guys making the trip
out here today to testify and talk about an issue that quite
frankly needs attention on a broad based level, not only tribal
governments but the Forest Service and BLM.
The record will remain open for two weeks from today.
Additional Statement for the Record
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael O. Finley, Chairman, Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation
On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(``Colville Tribes'' or the ``CCT''), thank you for the opportunity to
provide this statement for the record for this important hearing, which
focuses on three issues: (1) how the Colville Tribes' forest management
activities are more efficient than neighboring federal land managers;
(2) how the Tribal Forest Protection Act (``TFPA'') can be a critical
tool to protecting the Colville Tribes' on-reservation forests; and (3)
the importance of having a sustainable timber economy that involves
local communities.
Background on the Colville Tribes and its Forest Economy
Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation is a confederation of twelve
aboriginal tribes and bands from all across eastern Washington State.
The present day Colville Reservation is located in north-central
Washington State and was established by Executive Order in 1872. The
Colville Reservation covers approximately 1.4 million acres and its
boundaries include parts of Okanogan and Ferry counties. The CCT has
more than 9,400 enrolled members, making it one of the largest Indian
tribes in the Pacific Northwest, and the second largest in the state of
Washington. About half of the CCT's members live on or near the
Colville Reservation. Of the 1.4 million acres that comprise the
Colville Reservation, 922,240 acres are forested land.
The Colville Reservation originally consisted of nearly three
million acres and included all of the area north of the present day
Reservation bounded by the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers. This 1.5
million acre area, referred to as the ``North Half,'' was opened to the
public domain in 1891 in exchange for reserved hunting and fishing
rights to the CCT and its members. Most of the Colville National Forest
and significant portions of the Okanogan National Forest are located
within the North Half. Both forests are contiguous to the northern
boundary of the Colville Reservation.
For decades, commercial timber harvests provided the backbone of
the CCT's economy. Until the economic downturn and the housing market
crash of a few years ago, the CCT's enterprise division operated two
mills. One of the mills was a traditional sawmill, Colville Indian
Precision Pine (CIPP), that was designed to process larger diameter
logs. The other, Colville Indian Power and Veneer (CIPV), manufactured
plywood and veneer. When both mills were operational the CCT's forest
products industry employed nearly 600 people and injected millions in
payroll dollars into the local economy. Market conditions forced both
CIPV and CIPP to close in 2009. Closure of the mills resulted in the
loss of more than 350 jobs for an already economically depressed rural
area, not including the loss of the secondary jobs that the facilities
supported, such as contract loggers and truck drivers.
Early last year, the CCT's enterprise corporation entered into an
agreement to lease CIPV to a third party and for the mill to reopen.
CIPV was renamed Omak Wood Products and had its grand opening last
October. At full capacity, not only will it create as many as 200 jobs,
but it will also create a much needed outlet for forest products in
north central Washington.
Tribal Forest Management Practices are More Efficient than other
Federal Land Managers and should be incorporated into other
Federal Land Management Plans
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) comprehensively regulates all
forest management activities on Indian trust lands. The Colville Tribes
conducts its on-reservation forest management activities under an
Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP), which incorporates natural
resource, economic, cultural, and social priorities of the CCT and its
membership. The CCT's IRMP is comprised of individual component plans,
each of which has been approved by the Colville Tribes and the BIA and
sets forth in more specificity the management of each resource. These
component plans address forest management, fire management, range
management, water quality, fish and wildlife, and parks and recreation.
While each plan has specific goals for the respective resource, they
each work toward the same holistic goals and desired future conditions
established by the CCT and its membership in the IRMP.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a full
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for the IRMP.
Because the IRMP went through a full EIS, subsequent approval of the
component plans required only an Environmental Assessment (EA). With
the EAs completed and the component plans approved, further NEPA
compliance is accelerated because the EIS and the respective EAs
already address most of the larger issues that would otherwise arise
with activities on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or other federal lands.
When the CCT coordinates a salvage log sale in the aftermath of a
wildfire, the IRMP and its tiered approach to NEPA compliance allows
the Colville Tribes' personnel to act quickly to identify mitigation
measures and complete the public comment process. In past years, the
CCT has been able to complete salvage log sales so efficiently that
some of the logs were still smoking when they were salvaged. Despite
the speed with which the CCT is able to effectuate a salvage sale, the
environmental review and public comment periods are maintained for each
sale--they are simply expedited.
The BIA's forestry regulations also provide increased efficiency
for tribal forest management. The Department of the Interior
promulgated these regulations in 1995 and they govern nearly all on-
reservation forest management activities. For appeals by third parties
of timber sales and other forest management decisions, the regulations
define ``interested party'' as any person ``whose own direct economic
interest is adversely affected'' by the action or decision. This limits
the universe of persons and entities who can appeal timber sales on
Indian trust land to those with a direct economic interest. For appeals
of timber sales and other decisions on USFS and other federal lands,
there is no such limitation and appeals can be brought by entities with
little relation to the decision or the local community. Further,
litigation and appeals over timber sales on federal lands can last for
years, often resulting in significant costs and devaluation of
projects.
In addition to the regulatory differences between tribal and other
federal forest lands, the CCT also has a cultural and political
motivation to ensure that its own forests are managed in a sustainable
manner. The CCT adapts to changing conditions by modifying harvest
schedules to treat watersheds before insect and disease issues become
epidemics. This minimizes the impact to the resource and removes at-
risk volume before these agents cause mortality. Also, the IRMP
requires the CCT to manage its forests not only to maximize the
economic return and provide benefits to the local economy but also to
accomplish forest restoration and resiliency goals. Tribal members
depend on our forests to live, hunt, and gather cultural foods. The CCT
has an obligation to ensure that our forests will be healthy and
sustainable for generations to come. In the Tribes' view, the health of
the community is directly tied to the health of the environment.
Agencies that manage other federal lands do not have such a motivation.
Finally, federal land managers should incorporate these and other
tribal land management principles into their own land management plans.
Notably, Section 202(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
requires the USFS to coordinate the lands use plans for National Forest
System lands with tribal management practices. For the past few years
the CCT has provided detailed comments on the USFS forest plan revision
process for the Colville and Okanogan National Forests. The CCT has
recommended the establishment of a ``Buffer Zone'' that encompasses
approximately 242,000 acres in both the Okanogan and Colville National
Forests to protect the Colville Reservation lands as well as
incorporate some of the CCT's on-reservation management principles.
In a November 25, 2009, letter, the Director of the BIA informed
the USFS that the BIA agreed with the CCT's management recommendations
and concerns with disease and fire threats from Colville National
Forest lands. The draft EIS for the forest plan is scheduled to be
unveiled late this summer. Although the CCT has not yet been consulted
in the development of alternatives, the CCT is hopeful that the USFS
will consult with us soon and will ultimately incorporate the CCT's
recommended management regime in the draft EIS.
The TFPA Can be a Critical Tool for Protecting Reservation Forests
The TFPA, which was signed into law in 2004, establishes a
mechanism that allows Indian tribes to perform hazardous fuels
reduction and other forest health activities on federal lands that are
contiguous or adjacent to Indian trust lands. Congress's primary reason
for enacting the TFPA was the fire and disease risk that many Indian
tribes face from adjacent federal lands.
The Colville Reservation's forests face an imminent threat from
pests that have infected large areas of the Colville and the Okanogan
National Forests, specifically the spruce budworm and mountain pine
beetle. Some of the infected areas are currently just a few miles north
of our Reservation boundary. Wildand fire from neighboring federal
lands also continues to pose a danger to the Colville Reservation. Many
areas of the neighboring national forests contain overstocked stands
with fuel loadings well outside historic ranges. When fires occur on
these stands they are extremely difficult to manage and pose an extreme
risk to the CCT's trust lands. The CCT's management practices have
largely prevented on-reservation catastrophic fire events, but wildland
fires that start on federal lands could decimate our forests without
regard to political boundaries.
The CCT is currently working with officials from the Colville and
the Okanogan National Forests to initiate what the CCT intends to be a
TFPA project that will allow the CCT to have a role in treating these
infected areas in the North Half. The details have yet to be worked
out, but discussions with the forest supervisors have been productive
and encouraging for both parties. The CCT believes that its desire to
treat the affected areas in the North Half to protect our own
Reservation lands will assist the USFS in carrying out its management
activities. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has been supportive of the
CCT's efforts and her office has assisted with these discussions. The
CCT is hopeful that this effort will result in a long-term TFPA
agreement that will benefit not only the CCT and the Colville National
Forest, but also the forest products economy in both Ferry and Okanogan
counties.
If fully embraced by the USFS, the TFPA can provide an effective
tool for tribes. While the CCT has been encouraged with its discussions
with USFS officials, we understand that other tribes' proposals have
been met with resistance by their local USFS officials or delays in
implementation. Going forward, changes will likely be needed to the
TFPA to encourage its use by the USFS and to expedite approval and
implementation of TFPA proposals.
The Importance of a Sustainable Timber Economy
When the CCT closed CIPP and CIPV in 2009, very few timber sales
were approved on the Colville Reservation. One of the reasons is that
for on-reservation timber sales, forest restoration activities on
timber sale areas are funded by the proceeds of the sale. Without
milling capacity, forest management shifted exclusively toward forest
health and essentially stopped. Harvest levels dropped from an average
of 78 million board feet per year to two million board feet in 2010.
With timber prices extremely low, no funds were available to support
tribal programs or forest restoration projects.
Most of the experienced logging contractors on the Colville
Reservation retired or moved on to other endeavors during this
downtime. Now that the timber market has rebounded, the CCT is
presented with a severe shortage of qualified contractors to log timber
sales, both on and off the Colville Reservation. The severe market
downturn has made many of these former contractors hesitant to invest
in new equipment for fear that the market will again dip. Worse, the
vast majority of experienced contractors are over the age of 50. At
this point there are very few young people who want to pursue a career
in logging.
All of this presents a very real challenge to providing needed
treatments to the forests in north central Washington. Without milling
capacity and logging contractors, a community loses its ability to
manage forests. As we are seeing on the ground on the Colville
Reservation, huge financial investments are required to replace this
infrastructure once it has been lost.
The CCT believes that stakeholders and land managers must
collaborate across ownership boundaries to ensure that the
infrastructure needed to maintain healthy, productive forests can be
maintained, even during market downturns. This is one of the goals of
the Intertribal Timber Council's ``Anchor Forest'' initiative. The CCT
is participating in this initiative and is hopeful that it will lead to
a solution that will prevent the severe labor shortage we are currently
experiencing from repeating itself in future years.
Thank you for allowing the Colville Tribes to provide this
statement. We look forward to working with the Committee on these
issues.
The Chairman. Once again, thank you all and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]