[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL
LANDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
TRIBAL CO-MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-061 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Garret Graves, LA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Jody B. Hice, GA
Joe Neguse, CO Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Mike Levin, CA Daniel Webster, FL
Katie Porter, CA Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM Russ Fulcher, ID
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM Pete Stauber, MN
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Diana DeGette, CO Jerry L. Carl, AL
Julia Brownley, CA Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Debbie Dingell, MI Blake D. Moore, UT
A. Donald McEachin, VA Yvette Herrell, NM
Darren Soto, FL Lauren Boebert, CO
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Jay Obernolte, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Cliff Bentz, OR
Ed Case, HI Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA
David Watkins, Staff Director
Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 8, 2022........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel I
Baker, Melvin J., Chairman, Southern Ute Tribal Council,
Ignacio, Colorado.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Bowekaty, Hon. Carleton, Lieutenant Governor, Pueblo of Zuni;
Co-Chair, Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Zuni, New
Mexico..................................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Sams, Hon. Charles ``Chuck'', III, Director, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Panel II
DeCoteau, Aja, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon................... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council,
Portland, Oregon........................................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Kiel, Doug, Assistant Professor, Department of History,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois................ 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Washburn, Kevin, Dean and Professor of Law, University of
Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, Iowa....................... 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL LANDS AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBAL CO-MANAGEMENT
----------
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., via
WebEx, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman,
Lowenthal, Gallego, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, Soto,
Garcia, McCollum, Tlaib; Westerman, Young, Graves, Hice,
Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, Rosendale, Moore, Herrell,
Boebert, Obernolte, and Bentz.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural
Resources will come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
examining the history of Federal lands and the development of
tribal co-management.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
this hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from the
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be part of the hearing record if they are
submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close of this
hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the hearing notice, statements, documents,
or motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
[email protected].
Additionally, please note that, as always, Members are
responsible for their own microphones. As with our in-person
meetings, Members can only be muted by staff to avoid
inadvertent background noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform the Committee staff immediately.
I will now recognize myself to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The Chairman. Hello, and welcome to the House Natural
Resources Committee hearing entitled, ``Examining the History
of Federal Lands and the Development of Tribal Co-Management.''
I appreciate our Committee members joining us today and hope
that we will have an insightful and productive hearing. Today's
hearing is one that I believe is long overdue--both at the
Committee level and in Congress.
Fundamentally, tribal co-management provides an opportunity
for Indigenous people to work alongside Federal agencies to
manage Federal lands and resources. Indigenous perspectives are
uniquely significant for cultural preservation and can improve
management practices, particularly when coupled with Indigenous
traditional ecological knowledge. Through tribal co-management
we can lift the Indigenous presence, while continuing to meet
our obligations to protect the climate and conserve Federal
lands.
During my time as Chair, this Committee has consistently
worked to elevate the presence of tribal governments in the
Federal decision-making process by strengthening tribal
sovereignty and reaffirming tribal self-determination. The
expansion of tribal co-management on Federal lands further
builds on that essential work.
But if we want to begin the conversation about tribal co-
management meaningfully, first we must acknowledge and come to
terms with the country's history. The European colonization of
this continent and the founding of this country are built on
the dispossession of land from Indigenous Peoples by force,
coercion, or bad faith legal arrangements. Indigenous Peoples,
the original caretakers of these lands and resources, were
forcibly displaced. Congress must formally acknowledge that the
lands we now know as the United States are the ancestral
homelands of millions of Indigenous Peoples who were killed,
removed, or relocated.
It is equally important to acknowledge that while many
tribes suffered and were exterminated through these acts, many
tribes still persist and call these lands home today. As
uncomfortable as it may be to hear, this is our history and it
must be considered honestly and respectfully.
To that end, I plan to introduce the resolution formally
acknowledging the Federal dispossession of these lands from
Indigenous communities and calling on the Federal Government to
include tribal governments and Indigenous traditional
ecological knowledge in the management of these lands.
I am working with the Government Accountability Office to
review how Federal land management agencies work with tribes
regarding their ancestral lands. I am working with soon-to-be-
introduced legislation with Senator Heinrich from New Mexico
that would better protect tribal sacred sites.
While the history of land dispossession and violence can
never be fully redressed, I believe that there are
opportunities to bring tribal communities back into the
management of their ancestral lands. In doing so, we can
support Indigenous communities, while improving land management
based on expertise developed since time immemorial.
I am encouraged by the Biden administration's renewal of
the White House Tribal Nations Summit, which is focusing on
protecting tribal sacred sites, incorporating Indigenous
traditional ecological knowledge, and engaging tribes in land
management.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
Administration and Congress to expand and incorporate
Indigenous knowledge and history in land and resource
management across the country, especially on our public lands.
I look forward to this conversation today and hope that the
insights provided help develop a roadmap for significant
expansion of tribal co-management.
I want to make it clear that today is a starting point, and
efforts to expand co-management must continue in the weeks,
months, and years ahead.
Before we turn to our panel, I would like to thank our
witnesses for their expert testimony and appreciate their being
with us today.
I want to recognize the tribal leaders testifying:
Lieutenant Governor Carleton Bowekaty from the Pueblo of Zuni
and Chair Melvin Baker from Southern Ute.
I also want to acknowledge that we are honored to have a
historic Administration witness, National Park Service Director
Charles F. Sams. Director Sams is the first Senate-confirmed
Park Service Director in nearly 5 years and the first tribal
citizen to lead the agency. He is an enrolled member of the
Cayuse and Walla Walla of the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation.
So, thank you all again for your participation today. I
sincerely look forward to the conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today's hearing is one that I believe is long overdue--both in this
Committee and Congress.
Fundamentally, tribal co-management provides an opportunity for
Indigenous Peoples to work alongside Federal agencies to manage Federal
lands and resources. Indigenous perspectives are uniquely significant
for cultural preservation and can improve management practices,
particularly when coupled with Indigenous traditional ecological
knowledge.
Through tribal co-management, we can lift up Indigenous voices,
while continuing to meet our obligations to protect the climate and
conserve Federal lands.
During my time as Chair, this Committee has consistently worked to
elevate the voices of tribal governments in the Federal decision-making
process by strengthening tribal sovereignty and reaffirming tribal
self-determination. The expansion of tribal co-management on Federal
lands further builds on that essential work.
But if we want to begin this conversation about tribal co-
management meaningfully, first, we must acknowledge and come to terms
with this country's history. The European colonization of this
continent and the founding of this country are built on the
dispossession of land from Indigenous Peoples by force, coercion, and
bad faith legal agreements. Indigenous Peoples, the original caretakers
of these lands and resources, were forcibly displaced.
Congress must formally acknowledge that the lands we now know as
the United States are the ancestral homelands of millions of Indigenous
Peoples, who were killed, removed, or relocated. It is equally
important to acknowledge that, while many tribes suffered and were
exterminated through these acts, many tribes still persist and call
these lands home today.
As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, this is our history, and it
must be considered honestly and respectfully.
To that end, I plan to introduce a resolution formally
acknowledging the Federal dispossession of these lands from Indigenous
communities and calling on the Federal Government to include tribal
governments and Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge in the
management of these lands.
I am working with the Government Accountability Office to review
how Federal land management agencies work with tribes on their
ancestral lands. And I am working on soon-to-be-introduced legislation
with Senator Martin Heinrich (NM) that would better protect tribal
sacred sites.
While the history of land dispossession and violence can never be
fully redressed, I believe there are opportunities to bring tribal
communities back into the management of their ancestral homelands. In
doing so, we can support Indigenous communities while improving land
management based on expertise developed since time immemorial.
I'm encouraged by the Biden administration's renewal of the White
House Tribal Nations Summit, with its focus on protecting tribal sacred
sites, incorporating Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge, and
engaging tribes in land management.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Administration
and Congress to expand and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and history
in land and resource management across the country, especially on our
public lands.
I'm grateful to have the opportunity to host this conversation and
hope the insights provided help develop a roadmap for the significant
expansion of tribal co-management. But I want to be clear: today is a
starting point, and efforts to expand co-management must continue in
the weeks, months, and years ahead.
______
The Chairman. I yield back and recognize our Ranking
Member, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.
Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
While the subject of today's hearing is important to me and
many who are on this WebEx, there is a subject that is being
ignored that is far more important that we should all be
discussing. We should be having hearings on this until we get
to a resolution, and that is the unprecedented energy crisis
that our country and the world is facing right now. This
Committee has jurisdiction over many of the resources that
could be used to solve this energy crisis, and I would consider
it a dereliction of duty to have a hearing and not to bring
this up.
And Mr. Chair, until we start working on this, we won't be
quiet about it. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. The
energy policy that this country has right now is not reliable,
not reliable in the sense of technology, not reliable in where
our energy is sourced from, it is not affordable, and it is
certainly not cleaner, or as clean as it could be if we were
serious about energy policy.
This is affecting everyday Americans. With prices at the
pump at $4.10 a gallon and going up, it is only starting. As we
all know, energy is a component to the cost of everything. It
is time to start planting crops in our country, and the cost of
fertilizer is directly linked to the cost of natural gas. So,
we are going to see food prices go up and probably even food
shortages because of a lack of good energy policy.
The Administration should be talking to domestic producers,
and we should be facilitating that on how we increase
production, not just banning oil and energy from Russia and
then turning around and negotiating with countries like Iran
and Venezuela to fill in that gap.
Contrary to claims about increases in renewable power and
more electric cars on the road, this will not solve the energy
crisis. We have seen the disastrous results of our European
allies who have shut down their own supplies of reliable
baseload power in an attempt to rapidly transition to
renewables.
Mr. Chairman, I was in Germany back before I got into
Congress, when I was doing engineering work 10 years ago,
riding around with German engineers, and them being critical of
the political decisions that were being made to shut down their
nuclear power plants. Today, Germany is getting 44 percent of
their power from fossil fuels. They are supposed to be the
example to the world on how to do renewable energy. But we see
the bind that they are in right now and their dependence on
Russia.
We have to develop our domestic energy resources, and this
Committee needs to be having hearings on this crisis and how
increasing production on Federal lands and waters can directly
address the challenges we face. This crisis is only going to
get worse if we fail to react.
I would like to talk a little bit about the subject of
today's hearing on tribal co-management. I think we can learn a
lot from tribes. As I have traveled around the country and met
with tribes, and I have seen how they manage their land, it is
in stark contrast to the way our Federal Government manages
lands. If we would work more closely with tribes, if we would
truly adhere to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, if we would be more aggressive with the Tribal
Forest Protection Act, then we would see not only better
management on tribal lands, but we could learn from that on how
we manage our Federal lands.
We are getting ready for another unprecedented fire season,
and we are to blame for that. We know what to do, but we are
not doing it. We are continuing to tie up management
activities. Fortunately, we have tribes and state governments
and private landowners who are managing properly, and they can
show the way that we need to manage.
And I also want to acknowledge two of our witnesses joining
us here from the Southern Ute Tribe and the Intertribal Timber
Council, who both support responsibly developing natural
resources, while also protecting the environment. There is a
perspective here that I, as I said, I think we can all learn
from. And I look forward to the testimony today.
But Mr. Chairman, I request that we start having hearings
on domestic energy production and how this Committee can be
proactive in getting more of our energy resources--and not just
energy, but minerals and elements, as well--into the
marketplace.
I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. I think the war in
Ukraine and our dependence on oil and gas are both issues of
great national concern. But we are here to recognize this
country's history of dispossession of tribal communities and to
consider opportunities to expand tribal co-management of
ancestral lands.
And I know my colleagues on my side of the aisle are not
about avoiding the conversation, sir. There is nothing to
protect and any history to look at, particularly the previous 4
years of the previous administration, in terms of policies in
this direction.
But we can go forward, and I will be glad to have our
mutual staffs talk about that and structure something that is
both informative and just doesn't deal with the gas and oil
industries talking points, which seems to be to use the crisis
of Ukraine in a very shameless way, to try to push a drilling
wholly only agenda for our Federal lands. I think that merits
discussion, and I look forward to seeing if we could structure
that.
With that, we can begin with the testimony of our
witnesses.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes and that
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will start, and it will turn
orange when you have 1 minute left and red when your time is
expired.
I recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely use
the grid view, so that they may lock their timer onto the
screen.
After your testimony is over, please mute yourself so that
we don't have any background noise. And I will allow the entire
panel to testify before we begin questioning the witnesses.
Let me begin with the testimony from the Honorable Charles
F. Sams, Director of the National Park Service.
Director Sams, you are invited to share your testimony,
sir. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES ``CHUCK'' SAMS, III, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Sams. [Speaking Native language.] I am Chuck Sams,
National Park Service Director. Good morning, Chairman
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss tribal co-
management of Federal lands.
I would like to submit our full statement for the record
and summarize the Department's views.
I am the first tribally enrolled member to lead the
National Park Service. I come from the Umatilla Indian
Reservation in Oregon, where I am Cayuse and Walla Walla, with
blood ties to the Cocopah and Yankton Sioux. I share the Biden-
Harris administration's commitment to strengthening the role of
Native American tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian
organizations, and I will focus my comments today on
cooperative stewardship of our national parks.
Last November, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of
Agriculture Vilsack issued a Joint Secretarial Order on
Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretary's Order
recognizes that Federal lands were previously owned and managed
by Indian tribes, contain cultural and natural resources of
significance to tribes, and are sometimes in areas where tribes
have reserved rights to hunt, fish, gather, and pray, pursuant
to treaties and agreements with the United States.
The Secretary's Order also directs agencies to increase
opportunities for tribes to participate in their traditional
stewardship of present-day Federal lands and the integration of
Indigenous knowledge into Federal management. As Director of
the National Park Service, I am committed to increasing co-
stewardship with tribes in the interest of all peoples of the
United States.
The co-stewardship of parks by the NPS and tribes takes
many forms, including co-management obligations in law,
collaboration and cooperative agreements, and self-governance
agreements. Currently, four parks in the National Park System
have co-management authority with tribes: Canyon de Chelly
National Monument, which is located within the Navajo Nation in
Arizona; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Southeast
Alaska; Grand Portage National Monument, which is located
within the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in Minnesota; and
Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, which I was very
fortunate enough to visit a couple of weeks ago.
One example of co-management is the traditional harvest of
gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park, a
practice that has ensured intergenerational transmission of
ancestral traditions and strengthens the Huna Tlingit ties to
their homeland.
Another example is the co-management of the Grand Portage
National Monument by the NPS and the Grand Portage Band of
Chippewa Indians. The project in the park and on the
reservation includes preservation of historic structures,
ethnobotanical restoration, wildland fire activities, and
archeological surveys. Most NPS working relationships with
Tribal Nations are collaborative or cooperative opportunities.
To highlight just two examples:
The Nisqually Tribe is currently collaborating with Mount
Rainier National Park to publish a report on traditionally
harvested plants with recommendations for conducting gathering
in a sustainable manner.
At Acadia National Park, a multi-year project with the
Wabanaki Nation of Maine centers on traditional gathering of
sweetgrass within the park. This project incorporates centuries
of traditional ecological knowledge, as well as cultural
protocols to assert Indigenous sovereignty and natural and
cultural resource management on ancestral lands.
The NPS also negotiates with self-governance tribes for
annual funding agreements, or AFAs. As authorized under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
federally recognized tribes that are traditionally associated
with a park may carry out services such as research, fire
protection, interpretation, and educational programing and
maintenance functions.
Since the NPS began entering into AFAs with self-governance
tribes, tribal communities have received over $38 million. To
highlight one example, the Yurok Tribe has an AFA at Redwood
National and State Parks. The Yurok Youth Trail Crew will
assist the park with performing repairs on the California
Coastal Trail. The crew will also participate in resource
stewardship, education opportunities, gain exposure, and
various resource management operations, and receive orientation
to career opportunities within the park system.
Finally, some tribes have specific kinds of statutory
authority related to national parks. For example, the Nez Perce
Tribe owns and operates 29 of the sites that comprise Nez Perce
National Historic Park. While the NPS owns and manages the
other 9 sites, the park is authorized in its enabling
legislation to cooperate with the Nez Perce Tribe through
research and to provide interpretive services.
Although the NPS has entered into a number of co-
management, cooperative, collaborative, and self-governance
agreements, we still have many opportunities to expand the use
and scope of these agreements with interested tribes, pursuant
to the Secretary's Order 3403. With the dedicated professionals
of the NPS, I look forward to continuing to engage,
collaborate, and enter agreements with tribes.
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, thank you for
inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles F. Sams III, Director, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Tribal co-
management of federal lands. President Biden and Secretary Haaland are
committed to improving the stewardship of our Nation's lands and waters
by strengthening the role of Tribal communities in federal land
management.
I am the first Tribally enrolled member to lead the National Park
Service (NPS). I come from the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Northeast
Oregon where I am Cayuse and Walla Walla with blood ties to the Cocopah
and Yankton Sioux. As the 19th Director of the NPS, I share the Biden-
Harris Administration's commitment to strengthening the role of Native
American Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian Organizations, and
will focus my comments today on the NPS's cooperative stewardship of
our national parks.
The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
values of 423 parks, 23 national scenic and national historic trails,
and 64 wild and scenic rivers, for the enjoyment, education, and
inspiration of this and future generations. In addition to welcoming
over 300 million visitors each year to these special places, we
administer nationwide programs to preserve local history, celebrate
local heritage, and create opportunities for close to home recreation.
The NPS collaborates with a variety of Tribal nations, partners, and
communities, to carry out our important mission.
The Biden Administration is committed to strengthening the role of
Tribal communities in federal land management, honoring Tribal
sovereignty and supporting the priorities of Tribal Nations. On
November 15, 2021, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of Agriculture
Vilsack issued Secretary's Order 3403: Joint Secretarial Order on
Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the Stewardship
of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretary's Order recognizes that
federal lands were previously owned and managed by Indian Tribes and
that these lands and waters contain cultural and natural resources of
significance and value to Indian Tribes and their citizens; including
sacred religious sites, burial sites, wildlife, and sources of
Indigenous foods and medicines. In addition, many of those federal
lands and waters lie within areas where Indian Tribes have the reserved
right to hunt, fish, gather, and pray pursuant to ratified treaties and
agreements with the United States.
The Secretary's Order also directs agencies to increase
opportunities for Tribes to participate in their traditional
stewardship of present-day federal lands and waters and the integration
of thousands of years of Indigenous knowledge and sustainability
practices into federal management and operations, subject to the
interest of each Tribe.
The Department, including the NPS, recognizes and values Tribes'
thousands of years of traditional ecological knowledge of the lands the
Department administers. Our collaboration with Tribes, through co-
stewardship and the incorporation of tribal traditional ecological
knowledge into federal management practices, strengthens the management
of the nation's public lands. It also ensures a continued connection
between Tribes and their culturally significant and sacred sites, many
of which are located within national park boundaries.
As Director of the NPS, I am committed to seeking ways to increase
opportunities for co-stewardship with Tribes in the interest of all
peoples of the United States and in accordance with the laws and
policies governing the NPS. The NPS works cooperatively with Tribes in
the stewardship of national parks. This co-stewardship takes many
forms, including co-management obligations in law, collaborative and
cooperative agreements, and self-governance agreements.
The NPS is implementing the Secretary's Order in a variety of ways.
First, together with the Department as a whole, the NPS is reviewing
its sources of authority to enter into the full range of co-stewardship
agreements, inclusive of but not limited to formal co-management. The
NPS is also assessing its Tribal consultation processes to ensure that
parks and regional offices have the necessary support and guidance to
work with Tribal Nations on these agreements and to enhance Tribal
member opportunities to work in and connect to national park sites that
hold significant cultural and spiritual importance, consistent with
President Biden and Secretary Haaland's direction on meaningful
consultation.
Park Specific Tribal Co-Management Agreements
There are currently four parks in the national park system that
have co-management authority with Tribes. The four parks are Canyon de
Chelly National Monument, which is located within the boundaries of the
Navajo Nation in Arizona; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in
Southeast Alaska; Grand Portage National Monument, which is located
within the boundaries of the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in
northern Minnesota; and Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, which
I was fortunate enough to visit a couple of weeks ago.
Canyon de Chelly National Monument is located entirely within the
Navajo Reservation and the monument's enabling legislation preserves
some land and mineral rights of the Navajo as well as the preferential
right to provide some visitor services. An Agreement for Cooperative
Management of Canyon de Chelly was negotiated and signed by the Navajo
Nation President, NPS Park Superintendent, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) Regional Area Director. This process involved extensive Tribal
consultation and community involvement. Development of a joint/co-
management plan is anticipated to begin in FY2023 and will include
determining how joint management will work. A model plan has been
proposed based on the success realized at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park in Australia, which is operated with a board that makes major
decisions. This board consists of park personnel and community members
and is advised by three advisory committees, all of which include local
Indigenous people.
For centuries, the Huna Tlingit harvested gull eggs at rookeries
scattered throughout the recently deglaciated islands of lower Glacier
Bay, now located within Glacier Bay National Park. Egg harvests not
only provided a healthy spring food source, but also served as a
mechanism for families to bond through intergenerational food harvests.
These traditional harvests were curtailed in the 1960s when the NPS
began enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related NPS policies
that prohibited egg harvest. In recent years, the NPS and the Hoonah
Indian Association collaborated on a range of programs designed to
encourage and reinvigorate cultural activities within the park,
including the harvest of gull eggs. With the support of both the NPS
and the Hoonah Indian Association, in 2014, Congress passed legislation
authorizing harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit in
their traditional homeland of Glacier Bay National Park. Hoonah Indian
Association Tribal members harvested gull eggs in Glacier Bay in 2020
and 2021 in accordance with cooperatively developed sustainable harvest
plans, returning hundreds of eggs to community elders. This
collaborative effort has ensured intergenerational transmission of
ancestral traditions, strengthened Huna Tlingit ties to their
traditional homeland, and bridged relationships between the Tribe and
NPS.
Grand Portage National Monument is co-managed by the Grand Portage
Band of Chippewa Indians and the NPS, as provided through the
monument's enabling legislation. The NPS and Tribe have had a unique
and special relationship over the last 20 years. The Tribe donated the
land that became the park, which sits in the middle of its reservation.
Since 1999, self-governance annual funding agreements for maintenance,
interpretation, and resource management positions and projects have
been negotiated between the Tribe and NPS totaling over $27 million. In
2018, the NPS and the Grand Portage Band created the Grand Portage
Conservation Crew. This youth organization now provides resource
management at Grand Portage National Monument, Grand Portage Indian
Reservation, and Isle Royale National Park. Examples of co-management
practices and projects include preservation of historic structures,
ethnobotanical restoration, construction of a LEED platinum dormitory,
archeological excavation at the Monument; wildland fire activities,
timber stand improvement, and archeological surveys on the Reservation;
and moose browse surveys and exclosure construction on Isle Royale. The
stewardship of Grand Portage National Monument exemplifies how
successful co-management can be, while infusing valuable dollars into
the local Tribal economy.
The fourth park, Big Cypress National Preserve, through its
enabling legislation, provides for usual and customary rights to the
Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida, as well as right of first refusal to provide visitor services.
Although the Tribes have the authority to enter into co-management with
the Preserve, neither Tribe has yet expressed interest in pursuing co-
management agreements and there are currently none in place.
Collaboration and Cooperative Agreements
The majority of NPS working relationships with Tribal Nations are
collaborative or cooperative opportunities rather than co-management
and are supported through official agreements, often with accompanying
Tribal Council resolutions. The NPS has approximately 80 agreements of
this type in place, and we expect that number to increase. Two examples
of these widely varied agreements include the following.
The Nisqually Tribe is currently collaborating with Mount Rainier
National Park to publish the report Plants, Tribal Traditions, and the
Mountain Practices and Effects of the Nisqually Tribal Plant Gathering
at Mount Rainier National Park. The report will contain the results of
five years of traditional plant gathering research on three species
traditionally harvested by Nisqually tribal members on Mount Rainier.
It will offer summary considerations and recommendations for
administering traditional plant gathering activities in a manner that
minimizes impact to harvested plants and associated plant communities.
The park's consultation with the Cowlitz Tribe and Yakama Nation in
developing the Ohanapecosh Visitor Center exhibits will give visitors
historical and contemporary context of the traditionally associated
Taidnapam. The park's consultation with the Nisqually on interpretive
programs has resulted in the document Mount Rainier Interpretive Themes
and the Nisqually Tribe, a great resource for developing interpretive
programs.
Acadia National Park has been involved in a multi-year project with
the Wabanaki Nations of Maine for traditional gathering of sweetgrass
within the park. The interdisciplinary work focuses on Wabanaki
stewardship approaches through centuries of learned traditional
ecological knowledge, as well as cultural protocols to assert
Indigenous sovereignty in natural and cultural resource management on
ancestral lands. This research project aims to provide a template of
culturally appropriate engagement between Native American gatherers and
national parks. The results of the project have proven how effective
incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge can be, how plant
gathering has a positive impact on the plant colonies when gathered in
a culturally appropriate traditional manner, and how beneficial it is
to include this knowledge at the initial stages of a project.
Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
Agreements
In addition to co-management and collaborative and cooperative
agreements, the NPS has made a concerted effort in negotiating with
Self-Governance Tribes for annual funding agreements (AFA), as
authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance
Act (ISDEAA). The ISDEAA, as amended, recognized the obligation of the
United States to respond to Tribal self-determination in education and
other federal services to Indian communities. Under Title IV, Tribal
Self-Governance, of the ISDEAA, any non-BIA program, service, function,
or activity that is administered by the Department of the Interior that
is ``otherwise available to Indian Tribes or Indians,'' can be
administered by a Tribe through a self-governance funding agreement.
These include programs, services, functions, and activities or portions
thereof that are of ``special geographic, historical or cultural
significance'' to a Self-Governance Tribe.
On an annual basis, the NPS works with the Office of Self
Governance to publish a list in the Federal Register of potential
activities and locations of national parks with close proximity to
Self-Governance Tribes that may be eligible for inclusion in funding
agreements for the upcoming fiscal year. Elements of programs that may
be eligible for a Self-Governance AFA include resource management
research and activities, planning documents, fire protection, housing
construction and rehabilitation, interpretation and educational
programming, maintenance functions and services, road and trail repair
or rehabilitation. Federally recognized Tribes that are traditionally
associated and have cultural, historical, or geographical significance
to a park in the National Park System may initiate the request to enter
into negotiations for an AFA. Funds are transferred through AFAs to the
Tribe to carry out the agreed upon programs, services, functions, and
activities. Overall, since the NPS began entering into AFAs with Self-
Governance Tribes, the Tribal communities have received an aggregate
amount of over $38 million. The following are examples of these AFAs.
In addition to the earlier mentioned co-management of Grand Portage
National Monument, the National Monument entered into an AFA with the
Grand Portage Chippewa Tribe for 35 total projects plus the base
agreement to do all maintenance and construction work at the National
Monument. This includes project work at Isle Royale National Park.
The Yurok Tribe has an AFA for three projects at Redwood National
and State Parks. The Yurok Youth Trail Crew, established through the
Public Land Corps program, will assist Redwood National and State Parks
with performing repairs to failing and damaged trail surfaces on the
Crescent Beach and Klamath sections of the California Coastal Trail.
This work will bring approximately three miles of trail back to
acceptable trail standards and help reduce the park's deferred
maintenance and repair backlog. The crew will participate in resource
stewardship education opportunities, gain exposure to various resource
management operations, and receive orientation to career opportunities
within the park system.
River Raisin National Battlefield Park entered into AFAs with the
Wyandotte Nation for educational programming, visitor center
operations, volunteer program support, maintenance, research, and to
expand youth kayaking and educational programs. Additionally, the
Wyandotte Nation will complete a special history study with 78
federally recognized Tribes on their connections to the battlefield and
its aftermath. The study will provide valuable information which will
be used in the future in development of the park's interpretive
stories.
In October 2019, Valles Caldera National Preserve entered into a
multi-year funding agreement with the Pueblo of Santa Clara for cyclic
road maintenance on 54 miles of public and administrative use dirt
roads within the preserve.
Additional Statutory Frameworks for Tribal Engagement
Some Tribes have specific kinds of authority in or related to
national parks provided by statute. Nez Perce National Historical Park,
in parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, consists of 38
sites. The NPS owns and manages nine of those sites and the Nez Perce
Tribe owns and operates the others. The park is authorized in its
enabling legislation to cooperate with the Nez Perce Tribe through
research and to provide interpretive services. The park partners with
the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation.
In 2000, the Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act, based on a study by
the NPS identifying lands suitable for a reservation for the Tribe,
transferred lands within Death Valley National Park to the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe. This law also created a ``Timbisha Shoshone Natural and
Cultural Preservation Area'' consisting of NPS and BLM lands and
included other provisions pertaining to access and Tribal cooperative
management with the NPS and BLM.
Since 1964, the Miccosukee Tribe lived and governed their own
affairs on the northern edge of Everglades National Park through NPS
permits. In 1998, legislation was passed to replace the special use
permit with a legal framework under which the Tribe could live
permanently and govern their own affairs in a modern community within
park boundaries.
Although the NPS has entered into a number of co-management,
cooperative, collaborative, and self-governance agreements, we still
have many opportunities to expand the use and scope of these agreements
with interested Tribes pursuant to Secretary's Order 3403. We recently
reestablished a dedicated national Office of Native American Affairs,
which reports directly to me, and I am working to ensure that that
office is appropriately staffed.
The National Park Service is a very special agency with a timeless
mission that is symbiotic with Tribes: to protect and preserve our
resources and to inspire current and future generations. I am impressed
with the dedication and skill of the NPS's workforce and look forward
to continuing to work with these professionals as we engage,
collaborate, and enter into agreements with Tribes.
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, thank you again for
inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or other members of the Committee may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Director Charles F. Sams III,
Director, National Park Service
Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
Question 1. During the hearing, Director Sams mentioned that the
National Park Service (NPS) is working with DOI to examine
opportunities to expand tribal co-management under existing
authorities. Pending the completion of that assessment:
(1a). What additional authorities does NPS require to implement
tribal co-management effectively?
Answer. One authority that could potentially improve the NPS's
ability to implement tribal co-management is the cooperative management
agreement authority found in 54 USC 101703. This authority allows the
Secretary to enter into agreements with State and local governments to
acquire goods and services in order to create a more effective and
efficient delivery of service. National parks across the country have
used this authority to provide a variety of services from snowplow
operations to transit. H.R. 6442, which the House Natural Resources
Committee has approved, would expand cooperative management agreement
authority to include Tribes. The Department believes this authority
could yield substantial benefits for the both the NPS and our tribal
partners, which is consistent with Secretary's Order 3403, Joint
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters, and NPS Policy
Memorandum 22-03, Fulling the National Park Service Trust
Responsibility to Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Hawaiians in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters.
(1b). Is additional funding necessary to expand tribal co-
management?
Answer. Congress may want to consider expanding funding streams
available for the NPS to increase its engagement with Tribes in co-
management opportunities.
(1c). Please provide information on the appropriate levels and
accounts if additional funding is necessary.
Answer. We recognize it is the role of Congress to determine
appropriate funding levels.
Question 2. Director Sams, you mentioned that NPS is expanding the
use of agency funding agreements to expand tribal co-management across
NPS units.
(2a). Can you provide additional details on these efforts?
Answer. The NPS's commitment to strengthening nation-to-nation
relationships with Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and supporting
Tribal self-governance through cooperative agreements and service
contracts is reflected in Policy Memorandum 22-03, Fulfilling the
National Park Service Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. On an annual basis, the NPS
works with the Office of Self Governance to publish a list in the
Federal Register of potential activities and locations of national
parks with close proximity to Self-Governance Tribes that may be
eligible for inclusion in annual funding agreements (AFAs) for the
upcoming fiscal year. Elements of programs that may be eligible for a
Self-Governance AFA include resource management research and
activities, planning documents, fire protection, housing construction
and rehabilitation, interpretation and educational programming,
maintenance functions and services, road and trail repair or
rehabilitation. Federally recognized Tribes that are traditionally
associated and have cultural, historical, or geographical significance
to a park in the National Park System may initiate the request to enter
into negotiations for an AFA. Funds are transferred through AFAs to the
Tribe to carry out the agreed upon programs, services, functions, and
activities. Overall, since the NPS began entering into AFAs with Self-
Governance Tribes, the tribal communities have received an aggregate
amount of over $38 million.
(2b). Are you aware of similar efforts within other Department of
the Interior agencies?
Answer. Other DOI bureaus engage in similar efforts.
Question 3. Director Sams, you identified the need for additional
employee education on the Indigenous history of the United States and
Indigenous connections to current agency resources as an essential next
step in better integrating Indigenous perspectives at NPS and expanding
tribal co-management.
(3a). What efforts is the NPS making to provide staff, both at
headquarters and in the field, with Indigenous culture and history
education?
Answer. The NPS will, in accordance with Secretary's Order 3403,
and NPS Policy Memorandum 22-03, prioritize and make available training
for all staff who may be involved in programs and decision making that
may impact Indian or Alaska Native Tribes, relevant Alaska Native
entities, or the Native Hawaiian Community to ensure staff have an
appropriate understanding of applicable laws and policies, treaty
rights, trust responsibilities, and the Federal relationships with
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and the Native Hawaiian Community. Many
of the parks that have ties to Indigenous cultures are increasing their
training in Indigenous culture and history in order to help ensure the
protection of resources associated with those cultures and to
appropriately interpret the culture and history for park visitors.
(3b). Is the agency working with other Federal agencies or non-
Federal organizations to plan or provide this training?
Answer. The NPS encourages continuous learning and skills
development for staff with ongoing and sustained Federal-Tribal/Alaska
Native/Native Hawaiian responsibilities and supports formal and
informal networks of subject matter experts. The NPS encourages and
supports joint training opportunities with Indian and Alaska Native
Tribes, the Native Hawaiian Community, and other Indigenous or
traditionally associated peoples to promote shared understanding, build
working relationships, and develop best practices for communication and
collaboration at local, regional, and national levels.
Question 4. Director Sams, you mentioned that NPS supported the
work of tribal youth corps programs.
(4a). Can you share the current state of the Indian Youth Service
Corps program (as outlined under P.L. 116-9)?
Answer. The NPS Youth Partnership Program service-wide funding
source (about $11.5 million annually) supports youth engagement and
development, including various Indian youth employment, education and
outdoor recreation projects, across the National Park System. The NPS
received a funding increase of $700,000 in fiscal year 2020 to develop
and invest in Indian Youth Service Corps programs. This funding was in
addition to funds that were already dedicated to natural and cultural
resource conservation projects involving Native American youth and
young adults through service and conservation corps organizations.
Fiscal Year 2022 national funding allocation for Indian Youth Service
Corps (IYSC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Allocation
Total IYSC Allotment FY22: $700,000 Participants of Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Trades TTAP is recruiting 11 $250,000
Apprenticeship IYSC interns for
Program (TTAP) Bandelier NM, Casa
Grande Ruins NM,
Haleakala NP,
Southern Four Comers
Group of parks, and
Zion NP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Affairs Funding will support 3 $120,000
Outreach Internship 2 to 3 long-term
Program interns working in
support projects led
by the NPS Native
American Affairs
Liaison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity Building Native crew members 16 $250,000
Service Corps and interns will be
Programs helping to preserve
and maintain the
natural and cultural
resources of Navajo
NM and Canyon de
Chelly NM for 2 to 3
months. The program
participants will be
recruited from the
local Navajo
communities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Funding will support $80,000
Internship Program the continued work
at the Ahtna
Cultural Center
(Wrangell-St Elias
NP & Pres) for
educational and
community outreach
with a focus on
shared tradition,
science and shared
stewardship goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4b). How many individuals are working under these authorities?
Answer. See chart above.
(4c). In what NPS units?
Answer. See chart above.
(4d). Are there plans to expand these programs to other NPS sites?
Answer. Yes, as additional funding is available.
Question 5. In his testimony, one of our other witnesses, Dean
Washburn, noted that providing contract support costs, engaging in
consultation regarding tribal co-management opportunities, and
incentivizing land managers to support co-management would be key steps
toward expanding tribal co-management.
(5a). Would any of these suggestions require legislative authority?
Answer. The NPS is examining its existing authorities in these
areas. We look forward to continued discussions with the Committee
about future opportunities and potential changes.
(5b). Is NPS considering undertaking any of these efforts? If so,
please provide additional details.
Answer. The NPS is open to exploring multiple pathways to increase
engagement with Tribes.
(5c). How can Congress support these efforts?
Answer. We appreciate the support of the Committee and look forward
to continuing conversations regarding tribal engagement and co-
stewardship.
(5d). Are you aware of efforts at other Federal agencies to act on
these items?
Answer. We defer to these other federal agencies to speak on these
issues.
(5e). Can you provide a cost estimate for these efforts if they
were implemented?
Answer. Further details would be needed to develop cost estimates.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Director Sams. It is much
appreciated. Let me now turn to the Honorable Carleton
Bowekaty, Lieutenant Governor of the Pueblo of Zuni and Co-
Chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.
Lieutenant Governor, you are welcome, and you are invited
to share your testimony. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLETON BOWEKATY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,
PUEBLO OF ZUNI; CO-CHAIR, BEARS EARS INTER-TRIBAL COALITION,
ZUNI, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Bowekaty. [Speaking Native language.] Chairman
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and respected members of
the Committee, I am Carleton Bowekaty, Lieutenant Governor of
the Pueblos of the Zuni Tribe, and the Co-Chair of the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. On behalf of the people of the
Zuni Tribe, with support from the Coalition--namely, the Hopi
Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Ute Indian
Tribe--I want to thank you for inviting me to speak on the
topic of tribal co-management this morning.
To begin, I would like to respectfully ask the Committee to
contemplate how far the arch of Indian relations has been from
the inhumane policies of Indian removal, bounties for Indian
scalps, and the painful legacies of boarding schools and
criminalization of our language and culture from more recent
policies that really began with the Nixon administration.
The arch is now bending in a direction that is very
different. Now, remarkably, presidents and Members of Congress,
like you, are acknowledging that our centuries of experience
living and perpetuating the environment around us, developing
what some people call traditional ecological knowledge, is an
important resource, not something to be ignored, but instead to
incorporate in a collaborative effort to care for our public
lands.
Our present-day lands are comprised of approximately
600,000 acres in Western New Mexico and Eastern Arizona.
However, our aboriginal lands, as well as those of our 18
sister pueblos in New Mexico and the 5 tribes that comprise our
coalition, include the lands that comprise the Bears Ears
National Monument. The lands within Bears Ears are part of our
history and culture, and even today they play an integral role
in our traditions and religious ceremonies. It, along with the
neighboring Grand Staircase-Escalante to the east and Mesa
Verde to the west, is part of the Colorado Plateau, the region
where our Zuni ancestors lived before migrating southward into
present-day New Mexico.
Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition since its inception. It is a unique coalition,
one that has remained focused on our mutual interest in
ensuring that the unique cultural and natural resources found
on these ancestral tribal lands are protected and preserved.
Zuni recognizes that while the Bears Ears lands, though once
controlled and used exclusively by the tribes in the Southwest,
are now Federal lands owned by all Americans, however the
unique historical and cultural ties that Southwestern tribes
have to Bears Ears must also be recognized and given meaningful
voice.
Today, instead of being removed from a landscape to make
way for a public park, we are being invited back to our
ancestral homelands to help prepare them and plan for the
resilient future. We are being asked to apply our traditional
knowledge to both the natural and human-caused ecological
challenges, drought, erosion, visitation, et cetera, that are
growing. What could be a better avenue of restorative justice
than giving tribes the opportunity to participate in the
management of lands their ancestors were removed from?
Tribal co-management of our nation's public lands also
offers our youth the opportunity to learn about public land
management. Tribal co-management provides us the means to
fulfill our obligations to land, our ancestors, and to our
children and grandchildren.
With specific regard to Bears Ears, Zuni, along with the
other four tribes that comprise the Bears Ears Commission, are
eager to work with the Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service to create a management plan for the Monument that we
will hope will ensure that its unique landscape and cultural
resources can be seen and experienced.
I believe that collaborative problem-solving and candid but
respectful exchanges of perspective will be crucial to co-
management. We realize that the Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Forest Service have developed their own policies and
approaches to land and resource management, generally
reflecting the Western point of view. As a coalition, we are
developing and finalizing a land management plan that is based
on and reflects upon our collective traditional ecological
knowledge. We hope that this tribally led combined land
management plan will be given careful consideration by the
Federal land management agencies and will be incorporated into
the Bears Ears Monument management plan and general planning
process.
We also hope that the Federal Government will provide us
with the financial resources to carry on our work as co-
managers. As Dean Washburn recently noted in his University of
Iowa article, through mechanisms like 638 contracts and
cooperative agreements, Federal agencies can facilitate
meaningful tribal participation in the management of public
lands.
We are enormously grateful to President Biden for restoring
the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument, and it is
time we begin the hard work of managing Bears Ears and doing so
in a manner that we can all be proud of.
[Speaking Native language.] Elahkwa for your time today. I
am here because our people care enormously about the Bears Ears
National Monument and stand united with the Bears Ears
Coalition--the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo
Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe. We, along with our sister pueblos
in New Mexico and tribes throughout the country, express our
appreciation for this dialogue and thank you for bringing this
important topic up for discussion. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowekaty follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Carleton R. Bowekaty on Behalf of the
Zuni Tribe
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and respected members
of the Committee, I am Carleton Bowekaty, the Lieutenant Governor of
the Zuni Tribe and the co-chair of the Bears Ears Intertribal
Coalition. On behalf of the people of the Zuni Tribe, with support from
the Coalition, namely, the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo
Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe, I want to thank you for inviting me to
speak on the topic of tribal co-management this morning.
To begin, I would like to respectfully ask the Committee to
contemplate how far the arch of Indian relations has bent that while
the most enduring policies of Indian removal, bounties for Indian
scalps and the painful legacies of boarding schools and criminalization
of our language and culture, this arch is now bending in the direction
that is very different. Now, remarkably, Presidents and Members of
Congress, like you, are acknowledging that our millennia-long
experience living and perpetuating the environment around us, what some
people call ``Traditional Ecological Knowledge'', is an important
resource, no longer something to erase or subjugate, in the combined
effort to take care of our shared home.
the bears ears inter-tribal coalition and the bears ears national
monument
For contextual purposes, the Zuni Tribe has almost 13,000 members,
the vast majority of which live on tribal lands in far western New
Mexico. Our reservation contains 600,000 acres. However, our aboriginal
lands, as well as those of our 18 sister Pueblos in New Mexico and the
5 tribes that comprise our Coalition, include the lands that comprise
the Bears Ears National Monument. The lands within Bears Ears are part
of our history and culture, and even today they play an integral role
in our traditions and religious ceremonies. It, along with neighboring
Grand Staircase Escalante to the east and Mesa Verde to the west, is
part of the Colorado Plateau, the region where our Zuni ancestors lived
before migrating southward into present-day New Mexico.
Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition since its inception. It is a unique Coalition, one that has
remained focused on our mutual interest in ensuring that the remarkable
cultural and natural resources found on these ancestral tribal lands
are protected and preserved. Zuni recognizes that while the Bears Ears
lands, though once controlled and used exclusively by tribes in the
southwest, are now federal lands, owned by all Americans. However, the
unique historical and cultural ties that southwestern tribes have to
Bears Ears must also be recognized and given meaningful voice.
the bears ears commission and tribal co-management
Today, instead of being removed from a landscape to make way for a
public park we are being invited back to our ancestral homelands to
help repair them and plan for their resilient future. Instead of
continuing with a policy to erase our language and way of life, we are
being asked to apply our traditional knowledge to the ecological
challenges (drought, extinction, erosion, etc.) that are daily becoming
more prominent and unavoidable. For progressives that like to talk
about ``restorative justice'' what could be more restorative than
giving tribes the opportunity to participate in the management of lands
their ancestors were removed from.
For conservatives that espouse self-determination and have
consistently supported legislation providing tribes the tools to be
self-reliant, creating a career path for our youth to become public
land managers would establish another pillar in our government's
economically self-sufficient structure. For the Zuni People, tribal co-
management gives us the means to fulfill our obligations to the land,
to our ancestors, and to our children and grandchildren.
In the context of Bears Ears, a place we all agree, regardless of
political affiliation, is stunningly beautiful with diverse terrain and
a variety of complex management challenges, from intentional acts of
vandalism to the exponential growth in tourism, Zuni along with the
other four tribes that comprise the Bears Ears Commission are eager to
co-create a Management Plan for the Bears Ears National Monument that
will create a more durable landscape that can be enjoyed by everyone
for centuries to come.
What is crucial to the success of tribal co-management and I hope
to impress upon you, is that this is a brand new arrangement, together,
the federal agencies and tribes, are still forging the path to tribal
co-management and it will be important to problem solve together,
respond to challenges creatively and fine tune the mechanism so that it
can function efficiently and mutually support the objectives of each of
the co-managers. The Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest
Service have many policies and resources for land and resource
management from a western point of view. As a Coalition we are
developing and finalizing a combined land management plan that is based
on, and reflects upon, our collective ``Traditional Ecological
Knowledge.'' This tribally-led combined land management plan will be
utilized by the Bears Ears Commission for incorporation into the Bears
Ears Monument Management Plan and planning process.
One of the aspects we are looking for creative solutions to is
financing our work as co-managers. Through mechanisms like 638
contracts and cooperative agreements with the agencies of jurisdiction,
we want to increase our tribe's capacity to do the work and be good
partners to the land management agencies, which, in the case of Bears
Ears, are the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest
Service.
conclusion
While we are grateful to President Biden for restoring the
boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument, it is now that the
hardest work, making tribal co-management function and addressing the
management challenges on the landscape, it is only now that the work
can finally begin.
Elahkwa for your time today, I am here because our people care
enormously about the Bears Ears National Monument and stand united with
the Bears Ears Coalition--the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
Navajo Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe. We, along with our sister Pueblos
in New Mexico and tribes throughout our country, express our
appreciation for this dialogue and thank you for bringing this
important topic up for discussion.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Let me now
recognize Chairman Melvin Baker of the Southern Ute Tribal
Council.
Chairman Baker, you are welcome and invited to share your
testimony, sir. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MELVIN J. BAKER, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN UTE TRIBAL
COUNCIL, IGNACIO, COLORADO
Mr. Baker. Good morning. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for
allowing me to do this testimony. Good morning, Chairman
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
Committee. My name is Melvin J. Baker. I am the elected
Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, the
governing body of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Thank you for
the invitation to speak to you today regarding tribal
participation in the management of areas of cultural
significance and the opportunity to acquire public lands that
may benefit tribes.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has extensive experience
working with our Federal and state partners in the maintenance
and management of lands in which we have a mutual interest. We
believe that experience will benefit the Committee.
By way of background, the Southern Ute Indian Reservation
consists of approximately 700,000 acres of land located in
Southwestern Colorado. Approximately 311,000 surface acres of
that land is held in trust by the Federal Government to benefit
the tribe. The reservation is checkerboarded with Federal and
state governments, as well as private landowners holding
interests in reservation land. The tribe, with just under 1,500
members, is a leader in Indian Country, with a demonstrated and
sterling record of foresight and business acumen. The tribe is
the only Indian tribe in the nation with the AAA credit rating,
which was earned through years of steady governance and
successful and prudent business transactions.
However, like many reservations today, the Southern Ute
Indian Reservation was once much larger. The Utes were forced
off their original treaty-protected lands to their present
reservation.
In 1874, Congress approved an agreement between the United
States and the Ute Indians in Colorado, then known as the
Brunot Agreements of September 13, 1873. Pursuant to the Brunot
Agreement, the Utes were forced to cede certain lands to the
United States but reserved a right to hunt, fish, and gather on
that land. This land, which consists of 3.7 million acres on
which this present-day Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Tribes
reserved their rights, has come to be known as the Brunot Area.
While these off-reservation rights were protected by
Federal treaty, history shows that Federal Government often did
not honor those rights. Today, over 27 percent of the lands
over which the tribes could exercise their reserved rights
have, in effect, been lost. Many of those lands currently are
under the control of the Federal and state agencies,
municipalities, and private landowners.
Yet, even today, almost 150 years after the Brunot
Agreement, and despite the Supreme Court's continuing
recognition of the enforceability of tribal treaties, the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe faces a constant battle to protect
its treaty-protected lands. We frequently encounter proposed
land swaps, where the Federal Government considers exchanging
federally owned land for land held by private landowners or
state or municipal governments. At times, the land the Federal
Government wants to transfer is within the Brunot Area and the
tribe must intervene to protect its treaty rights, an expensive
and time-consuming endeavor.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is well known and respected
for its expertise in exercising its self-determination in
managing its natural resources, including its energy interests.
However, it also has a long history of coordinating with the
Federal, state, and local governments in the management of the
land and cultural resources in which governmental interests may
overlap. This is particularly essential in a checkerboarded
reservation like the Southern Utes, where the governmental
interests must co-exist.
A prime example is that, in September 2008, the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe executed a memorandum of understanding with
the state of Colorado so that they could cooperatively manage
the wildlife resources in the Brunot Area. Under that
memorandum, the tribe and the state agreed to develop, adopt,
and enforce basic regulations, including opening and closure
dates by species, designated hunting area units, bag and
possession limits, firearms requirements, and other general
requirements deemed necessary for the management and harvest of
game species. Moreover, it identified how civil and criminal
jurisdiction over violations is allocated. This memorandum
ensures, on a cooperative basis, how wildlife resources are
preserved and protected for both tribal and non-tribal
purposes.
Similarly, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has been
designated for treatment as a state status by the EPA with
respect to regulation of air quality on the reservation. In
order to receive that designation, an intergovernmental
agreement was entered into by the tribe and the state for the
cooperative development of air quality standards, rules and
regulations on the reservation, once again with an allocation
for civil criminal jurisdiction based on that government-to-
government relationship.
The key aspects to the effectiveness of those agreements is
placing tribes on an equal footing with other governmental
interests in the ownership and management of these lands and
cultural resources. The Department of the Interior has
emphasized that the tribes must be participants in the
management of their resources. We agree with this position. It
is essential that the tribes not only have a voice in the
management of their cultural resources on Federal lands, but
actually have an opportunity to administer them on the Southern
Ute land.
We thank you for the testimony we are allowed to give
today. If you have any questions, we would be more than welcome
to try to answer those.
And also, for all of you, if you are ever in our area,
please stop by and visit our land. My background is--I used to
be a former firefighter, so I understand a lot of this
testimony, the land, the resources, and what we could do better
to make our own tribal lands better working in cooperating with
our local agencies, BIA, the forestry. I mean, working
together, we can accomplish a lot. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Melvin J. Baker, Chairman Southern Ute
Indian Tribe
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman and members of the
Committee. My name is Melvin J. Baker. I am the elected Chairman of the
Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, the governing body of the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe.
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today regarding Tribal
participation in the management of areas of cultural significance and
the opportunity to acquire public lands that may benefit Tribes. The
Southern Ute Indian Tribe has extensive experience working with our
federal and state partners in the maintenance and management of lands
in which we have a mutual interest. We believe that experience will
benefit the Committee.
By way of background, the Southern Ute Indian Reservation consists
of approximately 700,000 acres of land located in southwestern
Colorado. Approximately 311,000 surface acres of that land is held in
trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Tribe. The
Reservation is checkerboarded with federal and state governments, as
well as private landowners, holding interests in Reservation land. The
Tribe, with just under 1,500 members, is a leader in Indian Country
with a demonstrated and sterling record of foresight and business
acumen. The Tribe is the only Indian Tribe in the Nation with a AAA+
credit rating, which was earned through years of steady governance and
successful and prudent business transactions.
However, like many Reservations today, the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation was once much larger. The Utes were forced off their
original Treaty protected lands to their present Reservation.
In 1874, Congress approved an agreement between the United States
and the Ute Indians in Colorado, known as the Brunot Agreement of
September 13, 1873.\1\ Pursuant to the Brunot Agreement, the Utes were
forced to cede certain lands to the United States but reserved a right
to hunt, fish and gather on that land. This land, which consists of 3.7
million acres on which the present day Southern Ute and the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribes reserved their rights, has come to be known as the
Brunot Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Act of April 29, 1874, ch. 136, 18 Stat. 36 (1874).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these off-Reservation rights were protected by federal
Treaty, history shows that the Federal Government often did not honor
those rights. Today, over 27% of the lands over which the Tribes could
exercise their reserved rights have, in effect, been lost. Many of
those lands currently are under the control of federal and state
agencies, municipalities, and private landowners.
Yet even today, almost 150 years after the Brunot Agreement and
despite the Supreme Court's continuing recognition of the
enforceability of Tribal Treaties, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe faces
a constant battle to protect its Treaty protected lands. We frequently
encounter proposed land swaps, where the Federal Government considers
exchanging federally-owned land for land held by private landowners or
state or municipal governments. At times, the land the Federal
Government wants to transfer is within the Brunot Area and the Tribe
must intervene to protect its Treaty rights, an expensive and time-
consuming endeavor.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is well known and respected for its
expertise in exercising its self-determination in managing its natural
resources, including its energy interests. However, it also has a long
history of coordinating with federal, state and local governments in
the management of land and cultural resources in which governmental
interests may overlap. This is particularly essential in a
checkerboarded Reservation like Southern Ute where such governmental
interests must co-exist.
A prime example is that in September 2008, the Southern Ute Indian
Tribe executed a memorandum of understanding with the State of Colorado
so that they could cooperatively manage the wildlife resources in the
Brunot Area. Under that Memorandum, the Tribe and the State agreed to
develop, adopt, and enforce basic regulations including opening and
closure dates by species, designated hunting units, bag and possession
limits, firearms requirements, and other general requirements deemed
necessary for the management and harvest of game species. Moreover, it
identified how civil and criminal jurisdiction over violations is
allocated. This Memorandum ensures, on a cooperative basis, how
wildlife resources are preserved and protected for both tribal and non-
tribal purposes.
Similarly, the Southern Ute Tribe has been designated for Treatment
as a State status by the EPA with respect to regulation of air quality
on the Reservation. In order to receive that designation, an
intergovernmental agreement was entered into by the Tribe and the State
for the cooperative development of air quality standards, rules and
regulations on the Reservation, once again with an allocation for civil
and criminal jurisdiction based on that government-to-government
relationship.
The key with respect to the effectiveness of these Agreements is
placing Tribes on an equal footing with other governmental interests in
the ownership and management of these lands and cultural resources. The
Department of Interior has emphasized that Tribes must be participants
in the management of their resources. We agree with this position. It
is essential that Tribes have not only a voice in the management of
their cultural resources on federal lands but actually have an
opportunity to administer them. On the Southern Ute Indian Reservation
is the Chimney Rock National Monument, currently managed by the U.S.
Forest Service. This is a site of cultural importance to the Tribe and
there is no reason why it should not be under Tribal administration.
Likewise, when federal lands are sold, Tribal interests should be
considered. This is particularly important to a Tribe like Southern Ute
where the acquisition of land adjacent to the and the protection of its
cultural resources.
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
importance of Tribal participation in these land management decisions
and look forward to any questions from the Committee.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your testimony is
appreciated. And I want to thank all the witnesses for their
valuable testimony.
I am reminding Members that our Committee Rules impose a 5-
minute limit on questions. The Chair will recognize Members for
any questions they may wish to ask these witnesses. Let me
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Director Sams, I mentioned earlier this is one of the first
times we have discussed tribal co-management in Congress. With
that said, what legislative authorities can Congress use to
assist and facilitate tribal co-management relationships going
forward?
And what current funding streams are available at the
Department of the Interior to support initiatives around tribal
co-management opportunities?
Director?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Executive Order 13175
really provides us the consultation and coordination with
Indian tribes and being able to co-manage these lands.
Congress, under NPS cooperative management agreement
authority found under 54 U.S.C. 101703, grants the Secretary
the authority to enter into agreements with state and local
governments to acquire goods and services in order to create a
more effective and efficient delivery service. National parks
across the country have used this authority to enter into
agreements to provide a variety of services, from snowplow
operations to transit. An expanded cooperative management
agreement authority to include tribes could yield substantial
benefits for both the National Park Service and our tribal
partners.
As far as funding streams, on the Federal side, traditional
NPS funding sources are available to engage with tribes on co-
management opportunities and self-governance and annual funding
agreements. State tribal local planning grants are available
for the tribes through the Historic Preservation Fund, which
supports the work of THPOs through competitive and non-
competitive grant programs. There are currently 203 THPOs. The
Fiscal Year 2022 budget has requested an additional $10 billion
to fund these offices through non-competitive grants.
The Tribal Heritage Grants are competitive and available to
federally recognized tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiian organizations. These grants have been used for such
things as protection of Indigenous language, oral histories,
plant and animal species that are important to tradition, and
to sacred and historic places.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sams. Thank you.
The Chairman. Lieutenant Governor, I have some questions,
but let me ask you--during the times that we are in right now,
Lieutenant Governor, and you caught a hint of the debate, it is
less in terms of the debate that is going to happen around
energy policy, and particularly being driven by what is going
on in that horrible aggression by Putin and Ukraine and the
consequences to those people. And all that now creates a
situation where the value is the extraction, that becomes the
primary value.
Let me ask you about that. When we talk about the struggle,
when we talk about cultural, sacred sites, cultural
preservation, and the topic today relative to the issue of co-
management and the role of defining that trust responsibility
even sharper for the Federal Government, talk about value, if
you don't mind. I mean, the value that we see that is going to
be promoted, the resource is the extraction, is what we can get
out of it, versus some of the discussions, even around Bears
Ears and other struggles, have been around the issue of
preservation, sacred sites, cultural resources.
If you don't mind, Lieutenant Governor, talking a little
bit about value.
Mr. Bowekaty. Chairman, thank you for that question. And I
guess we are speaking to renewable energy versus extractive
industries.
Speaking with our cultural leaders, we are supportive of
those renewable energies, and we understand in a modern world,
our foreign interest in this energy policy--my reflection of
that, I am a veteran of the Iraqi wars, did three deployments
to Iraq, and looking at it, what is our investment return on
that situation? If we committed those resources and that time
and effort into securing some of these agreements, where is
that reflection now?
When I look back on that intensive effort, and seeing the
impact it had to the Iraqi landscape, I come back to my own
reservation and see some of those same policies affecting that.
When we see drought throughout the--and right now, we don't
even know if it is called a mega-drought. We have to find a new
definition for what is occurring in the Southwest here.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Bowekaty. When we look at the Colorado River at
historic lows, how is that going to affect the entire landscape
throughout the Southwest, when many of those people envisioned
that there would be snowpacks or no climate change?
So, when we look at the reflection of conservation and
protection of water, those are the things that we are trying to
protect.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Ranking Member Westerman, sir, you are recognized for your
questions, comments.
Mr. Westerman. I thank the Chairman and thank you to the
witnesses.
Chairman Baker, tribes like the Southern Utes have proven
to be excellent stewards of natural resources. As we think
about the unprecedented spikes in energy costs due to the
Russian invasion of Ukraine--and we know that there are massive
reserves of untapped energy on tribal lands--do you think that
we should be trying to get more oil and gas from hostile
nations like Iran or Venezuela, or from tribes like your own?
Mr. Baker. Well, I believe that if the tribes have it
within their reservation homelands, it is definitely an
opportunity.
We are very advanced in the oil and gas, but of course we
do cater to Mother Nature, the land, all that, and we have to
do things respectfully. Some of our rules and regulations
surpass even the Federal Government's rules and regulations.
So, I think, working together--and we always have other
Native tribes that come and visit with us for a one-on-one, and
how do you do this with new technology like horizontal
drilling. It really changes the footprint of you don't see
lands that are totally destroyed. It is all underground,
horizontal drilling, and there is a lot of new technology we
continue to work.
But we do support domestic production in Indian Country. I
mean, if we have the resources, we should, and I think it could
really benefit some of the tribes that are not doing that.
But again, we have the expertise to even work with tribes,
and that is why they come and talk with us. So, we are always
willing to meet with them, or anyone that wants to come out and
see what we have put together.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman.
And you know we are all concerned about being good stewards
of the environment. As you mentioned, you all are good stewards
of your resources. And we know that the natural gas that we
produce here in the United States is 40 percent cleaner than
the gas that Putin produces.
If folks are really concerned about the environment, do you
think that cutting off production on Federal lands so that we
can source more energy from hostile nations is the right move,
or should we be using the energy that you produce?
And could you talk about some of the hurdles that you face
and the environmental sideboards that go into producing energy
on tribal lands?
Mr. Baker. I definitely would not support utilizing, as you
said, hostile or other countries' oil when we can do it right
here in our own country, using more advanced, economical, as
well as protecting the land.
Again, we are at a good point, where we are at, but we can
do better. We all can do better. But a lot of times it is all
about the Federal funding, what it costs to do that. And I
think here in the United States, working together, sharing that
technology, cleaner energy, everything that goes with it, it
definitely can be done. And I support, if we could move forward
in that direction, working with anyone who wants to work with
us. But as I mentioned, a lot of times it is all about the
funding.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that tribes
had to lobby for an exemption from the Biden administration's
ban on U.S. oil and gas leasing, and fortunately, you were
successful in that. How devastating would it have been for your
tribe had you had oil and gas production banned?
Mr. Baker. Honestly, I don't think we would be where we are
at today. When it started in the early 1980s, and our
leadership that took on those tasks, and where we are today, we
are a major player in that. But again, if we did not go that
route, we would not be where we are today, and continuing to be
helping our membership, helping our reservation, helping others
with what we can. But again, we always could use assistance
doing what we need to do and helping everybody else, helping
our neighbors, as well.
We have a resource development that allows us to provide
education and health care for our membership. There are some
things that we pay for ourselves that we can help, and that is
because of what we have done. If we wouldn't have done it, we
wouldn't be where we are today. And again, our forefathers
built that foundation. It is up to us today to continue and do
even better and still keeping clean energy in mind for the
future.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman. If we are going to ban
Russian energy, I would hope that we would produce more from
tribal lands and from our Federal lands and do it in a clean
and sustainable way.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to Representative
Huffman. Mr. Chairman, you are recognized.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, boy, the false
choices are flying from our Republican colleagues this morning.
Do we respond to Putin by cutting dirty oil deals with Iran
and Venezuela, or do we develop oil and gas on tribal lands?
Our gas is cleaner than Putin's gas.
I mean, our Republican colleagues just keep inviting us to
pick our favorite Menendez brother or pick the prettiest horse
at the glue factory. These are false choices, folks.
There is a third way. We will keep saying it, and I hope
maybe it gets through, but it is called clean energy. It
changes the whole paradigm. And in a decarbonized world, you
don't have to pick the prettiest horse at the glue factory. You
can actually have clean energy, which makes thugs like Vladimir
Putin powerless and poor. And pretty soon it will make Russia
look for a new leader.
But today's hearing is about an important subject, Mr.
Chairman. I am glad that you are focusing us on tribal co-
management with our public lands. It is a big deal in my
district. Indigenous culture is very important. I have dozens
of federally recognized tribes--in fact, more than any other
Congressional District in the Lower 48--and Indigenous people,
we know, have lived on these lands since time immemorial. They
have incredible ecological knowledge and insights.
This is not just something we say, it is actually proven by
the science. In May 2019, the Intergovernmental Science Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services released a
landmark report about the decline of nature globally and the
rise of extinctions. And this report found that three-quarters
of the terrestrial environment and about two-thirds of the
marine environment have been significantly altered by human
activities. But on average, these trends have been less severe
or even avoided in areas managed by Indigenous people. So, this
is data that should not be ignored.
The Biden administration has taken some good steps,
recognizing this important link by creating an Interagency
Working Group on Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
The Administration's America the Beautiful initiative outlines
how we can achieve conservation of 30 percent of lands and
waters by 2030, and that includes not just public and private
lands, but also tribal lands and waters. So, I appreciate all
that.
And as Chairman of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Subcommittee, I am especially interested in how this can help
coastal communities thrive.
I want to start with Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you for your
important work conserving salmon. I understand that this is not
only a subsistence resource for you, but also cultural. And as
you have discussed, tribal governments have very unique
ecological insights. Can you speak to some of the challenges
tribal governments experience under the current consultation
system?
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Oh, I am sorry. I got ahead of myself, and I
was asking the second panel. So, I am going to go to Director
Sams, and I want to ask the Director about the National Park
Service's efforts to dedicate a national office of Native
American affairs, and how this will help with opportunities to
expand co-management and collaboration.
I appreciate the reference to Redwood National Park, which,
interestingly, is co-managed between Federal and state
governments. What can we do to do more with our tribal
partners?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we re-established
the tribal office within my office. Dorothy FireCloud, who is
the Associate Director for that, reports directly to me, and
she is building out her staff. And plus, we are ensuring that
we have tribal liaisons within each of our regions, so that we
will have somebody who can help in that direct tribe
government-to-government relationship and consultation, to
ensure that we are not dropping anything as we go along.
It is very exciting to have this re-established. Before I
came to the National Park Service, I worked, of course, in
conservation for nearly 30 years, and I have done a number of
projects in cooperation with the National Park Service.
Sometimes, there were tribal liaisons and sometimes there
weren't. But when there were tribal liaisons, it really did
help bridge any gaps. It was an opportunity for the Federal
Government to not only meet its trust responsibilities, but to
form long-term relationships that were transformational and
less transactional.
So, I am very happy that we have re-established that here
at NPS, and Dorothy and her team will be working very closely
across the United States with a whole host of tribes and NPS
staff to ensure our government-to-government responsibilities
are being met.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate it. Thanks for your good work
there, and I will circle back with my other question when we
get to the other panel.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Let me
recognize Mr. Fulcher. Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my
friend, Mr. Huffman, and his desire to move toward carbon free
energy. I will share that with my grandkids as an explanation
of why they no longer live in a free and independent America.
But in the meantime, I have a question for Mr. Baker.
The tribes hold about 3 percent of the known oil and gas
reserves in the United States. Mr. Baker, in your view, what is
the proper role of the tribes in managing that, in regard to
the harvesting of oil and gas?
Mr. Baker. I think, first and foremost, it is self-
determination. Again, this goes way back in history, from our
past ancestors, of how we got there, when we had others that
were doing all the drilling and everything on our reservation
lands.
And in the 1980s, the former Chairman Burch had moved that
into where we started taking over our own, and we were in
control of our own destiny.
Mr. Fulcher. So, do you think that it is proper to exercise
the harvesting of more oil and gas on those lands?
Mr. Baker. If there is opportunity, I believe so. Because,
again, we keep talking about we don't want someone else's oil
when we can produce it here in our own country, that we can do
cleaner energy. So, I believe, yes, it is very viable.
But, again, maintaining the clean footprint of--we have to
do a better job. Things have gotten better. And it is up to
each tribe how they move forward, each and every tribe.
Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you, Mr. Baker. You had also touched
on the layout of some of these lands and the checkerboard
nature of that. How does that checkerboarding of Federal,
state, tribal, and private ownership land, how does that impact
the tribe's use of that land?
Mr. Baker. The Southern Ute Indian Reservation was once 56
million acres, covering the western half of Colorado. But after
precious metals were discovered in the mountains, our
reservation was substantially diminished. The tribe now does
its best to preserve and protect the close to 700,000 acres
within the reservation boundaries. After the Homestead Act of
1862, our reservation was reduced once again and led the
tribe's necessary work to collaboratively work with local
jurisdictions in its effort to preserve and protect its
resources.
So, we work pretty well hand in hand. At times we do have a
few hurdles, but we always seem to work through it, whether it
is the state, the Federal, the BLM, whoever, we are always at
the forefront of wanting to do the right thing for our country
and our reservation, first and foremost.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, Mr. Baker.
I would like to shift over, if I may, to Director Sams.
First of all, congratulations to you in your role with the
National Park Service, Mr. Sams.
If the National Park Service were to move forward with
tribal co-management on one or more of our national parks--I
know you touched on that--which ones would you propose as
potential candidates?
Are there any specific units that could serve maybe as a
pilot project for a co-management, or possible co-management
project?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. There are a number of
parks. Many of the lands that the National Park Service has,
particularly out West, are lands that were ceded to the U.S.
Government through treaty, whether that was treaties of war or
peace. But many times, the tribes were able to reserve their
rights to hunt, fish, and gather in those spaces. And they
already do a lot of co-management, along with the states and
the Federal Government on flora and fauna.
So, I think expanding some of those opportunities, there
are great opportunities at Yosemite, there are great
opportunities at Glacier, great opportunities at Yellowstone.
And, of course, as we talked about, in Acadia, where we are
doing sweetgrass.
There is a great opportunity here to be able to bring not
only that traditional ecological knowledge, but the reciprocity
that tribes demonstrate when they are doing restoration and co-
management of these different flora and fauna because,
ultimately, it is for the entire American people. Our idea is
to bring these species back, not to just a survival rate, but
to a thriving rate, so that all people will be able to enjoy
them for future generations.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. Mr. Sams, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Let me turn
to my esteemed colleague from Arizona.
Representative Gallego, you are recognized.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Lieutenant Governor, and thank you for your time today.
I have been proud to work closely with the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition over the past few years to advocate for
the reinstatement of the National Monument, and I was proud to
stand alongside you, as well, as we watched President Biden do
that last year.
While our work to promote and protect Bears Ears Monument
is not over, I am glad we are also discussing how to move
forward and ensure the tribal voices continue to be centered in
land management practices. To that end, I have a couple of
questions for you.
No. 1, why is it important that the Zuni Tribe be allowed
the opportunity to participate in the management of Bears Ears
National Monument?
And then No. 2, what elements do you think need to be in
place for a successful tribal and Federal co-management plan
for Bears Ears?
Mr. Bowekaty. Thank you, Representative Gallego, for that,
and good to see you again.
Going back to part of the reason why we established a
monument and a coalition, we discussed this during the Bears
Ears Prayer Run. The Bears Ears Prayer Run was designated to
allow tribal youth to reconnect to Bears Ears, the landscape,
and in that process, going back to my own personal journey,
Bears Ears landscape and the special ties that have allowed us
to reconnect.
And what I mean, and I need for our younger generations to
understand, is that their existence is bigger than the
reservation. When we speak to the things that we want for them,
and the continuance of traditional ecological knowledge, they
are the ones that are going to continue it for us. We can want
it for them as tribal leaders, but we can't force it on them.
They have to want it for themselves. And if they don't want it
for themselves, we see the spiritual repercussions they have.
When the U.S. Government first asked the Zuni people,
``What are your thoughts on suicide,'' we laughed at them
because that was counter to our narratives, that was counter to
our prayers and our stories. Now if you ask us why do our
children go down suicide, it is that sense of disconnection
from their own sense of self, and it is reflected by a lot of
the policies that were adopted.
What was mentioned earlier about some of the extractive
industries, and right now pitting kind of the idea of tribal
lands, are they open for extraction, we are not trying to say
that tribes shouldn't do that for their own people. At the time
tribal governments were being developed, the BIA had very
limited resources, and most of them were geared toward some
sort of extractive industry that would allow them some sort of
economic development. We have not gone down that route, and we
have found different avenues to be successful, and we are proud
to say that most of our funding--we are our own bank for a lot
of our funding streams. So, in that situation, we have found
different ways to be successful. And it is through a reflection
of those values that we continue to hold today.
So, when we speak of co-management of such places like
Bears Ears landscape, it is essential, because those are some
of the watersheds that continue to feed places like the little
Colorado River, the Colorado River in general, and those are
some of the things that we continue to push for.
We have heard acknowledgments from many representatives of
San Juan County themselves say that there is no extractive
resources available for this region. So, when we look at that,
what is the inherent responsibility of the Federal Government
and the consultation process is that it usually comes back to
the 106 process. And the 106 process--what I mean by Section
106 of the NHPA process, is that it recognizes that certain
consultation has to happen when certain historic places are
affected. But it never reflects the spiritual, physical
connection that we have to that place, because when we connect
to that place, it inherently ties the ancestral past to the
present, and hopefully connects it for the future children.
So, those are some of the things that we hope to ensure
that happens when we look at the protecting of sacred places.
When it comes to co-management what are some of the ways
that we can accomplish that, making sure that we help the
agencies understand that we are approaching it from a cultural
landscape type of perspective. In the 106 process role, we are
often asked to process it piecemeal, and that creates a
hindrance to many tribes when this is one of their priorities.
Knowledge of an area that has ancestral ties is important, and
when we have that responsibility, we can't let that go.
However, the government always treats it as, well, this is
a project, here's this location, how is it affected, when we
know that our approach with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition has been really the 1.9 million acres. We understand
that, in the end, the proclamation states 1.36. However, we are
still looking at that as an entire landscape.
So, those are some of the things that, when we are doing
our land management planning process, that is what we hope will
inform the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service on
how we can accomplish that. Speaking with the Forest Service
and the BLM, they are experts in their processes. However, it
is always absent from the tribal point of view. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Let me now recognize the Dean of the House,
Representative Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. I was really shocked when I say my good friend
got the wrong panel.
I know, Mr. Huffman, we had a tough meeting yesterday, but
I am sorry it took so much out of you. I have a tongue in
cheek, by the way.
But, anyway, I am very interested in this co-management
working together. With all due respects, in Alaska, the Park
Service does not have a good reputation with Alaska Native
tribes. There is a lack of participation. There should be more.
This is for Mr. Sams. In your written testimony, you gave
many examples of how the Park Service is working with tribes. I
would like to make a suggestion. Just give me an example of
where you are working with the Alaska Natives in park lands.
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Young. It is so good to see you
again, and it was a pleasure working with you on the Kennewick
Man several years ago. I appreciate your leadership.
We are in deep discussions with a number of the Alaskan
Natives. We have a new regional director in Alaska now, and we
are wanting to put a lot more effort in that. As I said, we
have worked with the Tlingit in the past regarding the
harvesting of eggs. But we recognize there are much more
opportunities to be working in Glacier Bay on interpretation.
So, we are reinvigorating our consultation and government-to-
government throughout Alaska.
As a matter of fact, next week I will be taking a full
course on ANCSA and ANILCA. And then I look forward to getting
up to Alaska to meet directly with several of the corporations
and the tribal villages to talk about how we can greatly
improve that government-to-government relationship we have with
Native Alaskans, and----
Mr. Young. I appreciate that. I am not really upset with
you, I just say, overall, the Park Service has not done a good
job.
I do a lot of this work, and I will give you an example
now. We have a little project in Sitka, Alaska, 113 acres, very
little participation. Now, with that park--it is just a totem
park, and I think it should be totally managed by the local
tribe. That is who it is, that is their culture, they know more
about it than anybody else. Yet, they can't get any headway in
the presentation in what happens there, culturally, and that's
not right. So, I hope you take a good look at that and say,
``Come on, guys, we could work this out.''
I have the land bridge up at Noatak, that is another one,
and no one wants to work together there. And I have numerous
parks that--Anaktuvuk Pass, I will give you an example. The
Park Service said, ``Oh, we can't hire anybody, they don't have
any experience.'' They will hire somebody from Massachusetts,
but they won't hire a local person.
Don't do that, I mean, that makes everybody--parks and
partners, that is what I want, parks and partners together. And
you will find out your job is going to be a whole lot easier if
you have partners, and the partners should be those that
aboriginally lived there prior to the creation of the parks.
Let them have the opportunity for jobs and the opportunity to
present their point of view. You can do it with covenants.
So, that is just a suggestion, that is all.
And I will ask you, can you give us something in writing,
what you think Congress can do to help you out or give you new
tools to work with the aboriginal people?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. We are analyzing that
right now. I have talked to the Solicitor's Office. I want to
see how we are able to use the authorities that have already
been granted to the Secretary and also to the National Park
Service. But I think there are gaps, and I look forward to
working with you and this Committee as we move forward with
some proposals on some great potentials where you can help us
fill in those gaps so that we have some better authorities to
work in co-management with tribes.
I want to say, especially with Sitka and the land bridge, I
have heard those concerns. I am committed to investigating
those, and I will report back to you on how we can better
partner with both of those parks.
Mr. Young. I appreciate that, sir. And if you do that--like
I say, I want allies, parks and partners. When you don't do the
job I think you should be doing or they think you should be
doing, you are losing a partner. And that is not good.
So, we can work together to do the same thing the Park
Service wants to do to preserve the area, but let the local
people who originally owned it, inhabited it, culturally used
it, let them be the big conveyor and manager of it.
Thank you for your time. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to Representative
Leger Fernandez from New Mexico. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Chair, thank you so much for
holding this hearing.
With over 500 federally recognized tribes and hundreds of
millions of acres of Federal land that was once aboriginal, the
tribes always exercise dominion over those lands, and they knew
how to nurture it to sustain their members. So, the ability of
them to bring their wisdom to bear with the Federal Government
and, indeed, with the state, I think, is key. And I am so glad
we are holding this hearing.
With regard to the comments at the beginning, that we are
facing an energy crisis that should displace this hearing in
any way, I note that oil and gas production is up. It is rising
and approaching record numbers. The United States was a net
exporter of petroleum and petroleum products the last 2 years.
That is not the crisis.
Instead, we need to recognize that real energy security
comes from transitioning away from our dependence on fossil
fuels, so everything is controlled here in the United States.
I love the fact that this hearing is properly on co-
management and Indigenous wisdom in managing natural cultural
resources. And I think some of our tribal leaders might say
this is a long-standing priority itself. This might be the
crisis that we have failed to address.
When I was working with the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the
state of New Mexico, a court said, ``The State of New Mexico,
the Nation is such a better steward of the forests and their
wildlife population.'' This has been proved for decades over
and over again.
Chairman Melvin, thank you so much for your wisdom sharing
with us today how the Southern Utes are embracing the full
range of energy resource development with a true respect for
your lands and your self-determination.
Lieutenant Governor Bowekaty, how wonderful to see you
again, how wonderful to hear your wisdom, which I was so lucky
to hear when we were at Chaco. I wanted to ask a bit about the
co-management at Bears Ears. You noted that it is not just Zuni
Pueblo, but a group of tribes in the Southwest that are working
on this as an inter-tribal coalition. I want to focus on that
role that tribes can play working together and with the Federal
Government.
Can you tell us how you think that strengthens the ability
to protect Bears Ears and their ability to advocate for Bears
Ears?
Mr. Bowekaty. Thank you, Representative. It is good to see
you again.
As far as the work between the inter-tribal coalition,
again, when we looked at our proposal to then-President Obama
on the creation of the Bears Ears National Monument, we did
reflect on our core cultural values, and it was that discussion
and guidance--and again, being backed by a traditional cultural
knowledge--and within our own internal healing we recognized
the importance of this place and how to interact with the
different agencies.
And, again, we all had the same experience, mostly walking
down a Section 106 process, and trying to advocate, in general,
the cultural landscape. However, we all came across the same
issues and the same consistent barriers. So, with that in mind,
that discussion with other cultural leaders and, again, with
our own tribal leadership, that is what was inherent behind the
proposal.
Based on that, we continued to have those discussions, and
they are reflective of each tribe's capacities. But each tribe
has an equal vote and an equal voice at the table. Through that
process it will reflect their own--and again, the coalition is
reflective of each tribal governing process. Each tribal
government appoints or designates a representative to be on the
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, and now the Bear Ears
Commission. And, then again, that is with that inherent voice
and that sovereign idea in mind. That is the handshake
agreement that we have and will continue to forge.
In that spirit, we can help the agencies interact with us
better. And, hopefully, with that model, that is something that
can be shared regionally across agencies and, hopefully, be
adopted by the rest of the United States. Thank you.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And if I could just ask a
quick followup--as the Zuni Pueblo works on this, what are the
ways in which, once again, we can help you and the other tribes
accomplish this goal of co-management and co-coordination?
Mr. Bowekaty. I guess to be really supportive of some of
the memorandums of understanding that have come out. I know
there is a joint secretarial MOU between agencies. Those are
reflective of that and really appreciate some of those efforts
being made. And if those can be reflected on the ground with
the field offices, that is where we can make that discussion
and make sure that what is being spoken here is being reflected
on the ground. That is how we can continue to reinforce that.
Thank you.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields.
Representative Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
sir.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate everyone being
here today. The topic, obviously, is very important to Utah, my
home state, and the state I represent and the areas that I do.
Mr. Melvin Baker, my first question--I will jump right into
questions--like the Southern Ute Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe in
Utah cares deeply about its natural resources and energy
interests. In the Uinta Basin, the Ute Tribe produces more than
45,000 barrels of crude oil per day and 900 million cubic feet
per day of natural gas. This is a major element of the tribe's
economy and a crucial aspect of the Uinta Basin's larger
economy.
However, on President Biden's first day in office he
prohibited all new leasing on Federal lands. This action harmed
the tribe and all of America. Can you describe why this action,
done without consultation, was harmful?
Mr. Baker. Well, first and foremost, consultation is very
important as we move forward. We can learn from each other, we
can talk about it, and we can talk about the challenges. The
tribe has taken the lead in producing clean energy in Southwest
Colorado, often filling the lead role in environmental
protection. As we keep mentioning, we are caretakers of the
land as Native people, so we have to do all we can to protect
the land and Mother Earth.
In the absence of the significant presence of EPA and the
state of Colorado in Southwest Colorado, improving air and
water quality not only for the tribal membership, but for all
citizens of our Four Corners region. So, again, we are always
having to have discussions. Those discussions never stop. We
hit roadblocks, we work through it. We have to work with our
partners and other agencies, remove some of the Federal
hurdles, and shift to self-determination on our reservation.
Mr. Moore. Excellent. The Ute Indian Tribe was also an
equity partner on the Uinta Basin Railway Project, which will
promote the entire region's economy by connecting energy
sources with the larger rail network. However, this broadly
supported effort is being opposed by several groups that have
sought to delay the process.
Why do you think it is damaging for outside groups to try
to undermine self-determination?
Mr. Baker. Well, it just seems like, no matter what we do,
there is always somebody to oppose it, whatever issue it is.
Again, I don't think they have all the facts and all the
information they need to make a vital assessment. But some
groups just jump on the bandwagon and protect whatever without
really knowing the facts of what is the positive of it.
Tribal land is still considered Federal and public land.
So, again, we are going to do the right thing to move forward.
Even though we have that opposition, we still have to strive
each and every day to try to get forward in what we believe in.
Mr. Moore. Yes, our office has been heavily involved with
this. I have seen an enormous amount of thought and care for
how this will impact land--you know, this is area that these
people live and work. It is the water. No one cares more about
these natural resources than those that live in the Uinta
Basin, whether it be with the Ute Tribe, or whether it be in
Utah, Uinta County generally, or Duchesne County, as well.
I would make just one comment, that the amount of thought
that has gone into this project has been all-encompassing. It
is a 360 view on everything related to how it affects the
environment to how it affects the local area, the local
economy. And that concept of self-determination is enormous. I
think that it has been a really neat thing to be a part of and
helping bring the community together. There has been quite a
bit of strife over the years with that region and that
particular part of my district. For them to come together on
this particular railway project has been excellent.
Would you agree with that, that there has been sincere
thought that has gone into this in an all-encompassing way?
And has it brought the community together to some degree?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I agree with it. But again, on our side, we
are not really too familiar with the project that is going on
up there.
And as you first mentioned, you have groups that are
against it. But at the end of the day, this erodes our self-
determination as tribes of how we can move forward with that
opposition. We have it, and tribes should have the authority to
determine what is best for their tribal lands, and that is for
each and every tribe.
We don't know what the resources are, but they know. Years
ago, how did they survive on the land that they were at? And as
years have gone by, certain tribes have been placed in certain
areas, but Native people have always been able to adapt to how
to survive and do the right thing.
Mr. Moore. Excellent. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Mr. Baker. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me now recognize
Representative McCollum. You are recognized.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
holding this first-of-a-kind hearing.
We are here today to understand the path forward for the
Federal Government to work in a serious partnership with Tribal
Nations to manage their resources and our shared resources. And
I just want to clear up a few things that were said earlier,
and it is taking time away from me, but I need to do it about
some of the oil exploration.
The Interior Appropriations Committee worked diligently
with tribes to make sure that they had access to the experts
that they needed in order to do their decision-making process
toward moving forward with any oil exploration or drilling for
oil.
It was really hard during the boom, because the Federal
Government, in and of itself, even in the regular agency for
having people available to do the work that needed to be done
on Federal lands, were competing with oil industries. So, we
got behind on that a little bit, but it was due to just sheer
lack of manpower, person power. And then we were working with
the tribes on how to enhance and work that up, because the
tribes had a right to participate on that.
So, it wasn't necessarily a lack of the Federal Government
not wanting to be helpful in this case. But it was just a sheer
number of having experts needed in order to do this right, and
the tribes deserve to have any leases, any drilling, anything
that happens done with all the due diligence that we give our
other Federal lands.
We know Native Americans were displaced from their
homelands. They lost their practices. They lost the ability to
manage those lands and maintain healthy ecosystems. And that is
a huge loss that we also experienced as a nation.
Tribal Nations continue to fight to retain their rights to
hunt and fish and gather on much of the current Federal land.
And they have a stake, they have a huge stake in making sure
that, when the Federal Government moves forward on any land
that we manage, that we support their tribal rights to hunt and
fish, gather rice, wild rice, be able to harvest walleye. And
it means that those resources should not be depleted or
polluted.
So, we have a lot to do, and I am very excited about this
opportunity how to expand tribal co-management. I want to thank
all the witnesses today.
Director Sams, I am so excited. It took 5 years, 5 years,
for the Senate to confirm a leader for the National Park
Service, and I am thrilled to have you in that position as the
first tribal citizen to lead that agency. Your experience in
tribal local government, I could go on and on, you bring a
great needed understanding.
I want to ask you about how the Park Service is going to
work under your direction to better utilize some of these
existing authorities, such as the 638 contracting, which
includes Tribal Nations in the management of our national
parks. You have been kind of queued up a little bit on some
specifics, with Sitka National Park being one of them, but can
you kind of tell me how you are looking at the big picture?
I know this is something that the Park Service has been
trying to get right for a long time. Now is our opportunity to
get it right.
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Representative. I think, really, what
it comes down to is recognizing tribes as sovereigns and
recognizing that they have that special geographical,
historical, and cultural connections to park lands, and the
tribes have the traditional ecological knowledge and practices
regarding resource management that have been handed down
through generations, as we have said before.
What is important here is, looking at that 638 contracting,
I have been talking with Assistant Secretary Newland, DOI
Solicitor's Office, about how we can more effectively use the
annual funding agreements, the AFAs, to be able to support
direct funding in those co-management and those cooperative
agreements. And I think that will help build capacity with
tribes, because that is the other missing link sometimes, is
being able to ensure that they have the funding necessary, the
capacity necessary, in order to be that partner that can bring
that traditional ecological knowledge, that can bring those
years of practice, and to bring their staff out onto the field
to help us figure out how to better manage the flora and fauna.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I hear you loud and clear. So, we,
as authorizers and appropriators, have a job to do to make sure
that tribes have the tools in their toolbox, both in
authorization and in appropriations. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chair, with your permission I will be leaving to attend
the funeral of my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Hagedorn. No
disrespect to this wonderful hearing that you have put
together, any of the people testifying, or any of my
colleagues. I will be on as long as I can. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields and thank you very
much. Let me recognize Representative Obernolte.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank
you for the fascinating hearing.
Director Sams, let me add my voice to the congratulations
on the new position, and I certainly look forward to working
closely with you. As you probably know, I represent two of your
institutions that we are very proud of, the Mojave National
Preserve and the Joshua Tree National Park.
My first question I would like to ask is--regards to those,
as I am sure you are aware, we have substantial deferred
maintenance issues in those parks. The Joshua Tree National
Park has over $60 million of deferred maintenance, and Mojave
almost $120 million. And, unfortunately, in the first two
rounds of funding under the Great American Outdoors Act, we
haven't seen any money at all awarded to those particular
institutions.
So, first, I hope I can secure your commitment to work with
us in getting that backlog of deferred maintenance needs
addressed at those two parks.
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. My wife is
actually from Palm Springs and she loves the park there, so we
regularly go and visit, and I am hoping to get out to Joshua
Tree in May to go and look at that deferred maintenance. I am
hoping to also get down to Death Valley and several others
while I am out West.
But, yes, I am committed to working with you and your staff
to figure out how we can get to this backlog of deferred
maintenance so that people can continue to enjoy that park in
so many ways.
Mr. Obernolte. Great. Well, I am very happy to hear that
and I know that my constituents will be also, and certainly
welcome you in May. And if you would extend an invitation when
you are going to be there, I would love to join you out there,
and we can show you all of the good work those parks are doing
and the work that needs to be done.
Second question as regards your new role, as a tribal
member I think you bring some valuable experience to the
discussion with tribal co-management, and I think this has been
a fascinating hearing with respect to that. I want to talk
about the fact that this landscape can often be complicated. We
have tribal entities that are federally recognized, we have
tribal entities that are in the process of being federally
recognized, and then we have entities that have not been
federally recognized.
Can you talk a little bit about how you navigate that
landscape and whether or not the Department has the authority
to negotiate with tribes and enter into co-management with
tribes that lack that Federal recognition?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. First and foremost, those
that are constitutionally recognized through treaties, through
Executive Orders, we have to make sure that we are consulting
with them on a government-to-government basis.
Those tribes that are state recognized or working through
recognition, we still want to work with them, and our
Secretarial Order gives us some direction on being able to work
with those tribes in a stakeholder role. But, of course, they
also possess a lot of traditional ecological knowledge. So, we
have an opportunity to work with a number of their elders and
their practitioners on bringing that knowledge to the
forefront.
That being said, we recognize that they have an
obligation--that those tribes are going to go through their
process in order to get Federal recognition. But that doesn't
mean that we aren't going to have an opportunity to sit down
and listen to their concerns also.
Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, it certainly seems like a
reasonable approach.
Then lastly, I would like to talk a little bit about your
philosophy of wildfire management in our national parks. I am
sure you will hear from the park rangers when you visit Joshua
Tree that sometimes the designation of wilderness areas can
really interfere with our ability to do wildfire management,
particularly as respects fuels reduction, just because of some
of the restrictions on using even powered hand tools in those
locations.
Do you think that we need kind of a third designation for
some of the lands that preserves our ability to protect those
lands from access, but at the same time allows us to use some
more tools and maybe mechanized access for the purpose of fuels
reduction?
Mr. Sams. First and foremost, I always liked the term,
``wild.'' That term in most of Indian Country is ``home,''
rather than the word ``wild.''
But that being said, I started my career in trail building
with the Forest Service and firefighting. My son currently is a
wildland firefighter during the summer months. So, when I look
at that, and making sure we have those resources there, I think
that the issue you are bringing up is one that we have to
figure out how to tackle, how to do fuels reduction.
I am looking forward to working with the NPS staff. We are
gearing up, of course, for a fire season. I come from the West,
where we have seen massive fires over the last 3 years that
have blackened our skies, and I look forward to working with
Congress to figure out how we can have more tools in our tool
chest to be able to combat this and prevent it before it
happens.
Mr. Obernolte. Great. We are looking forward to working
with you. Congratulations on the new role, and certainly let me
know when you are going to be in the district, because I would
love to accompany you and meet you personally.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, I would yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields, thank you. Let me
recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, Representative
Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful to
be with you all this morning, and I would like to take just a
moment here to welcome our New Mexicans who are here today.
Lieutenant Governor, it is wonderful to see you. Thank you
for joining us. And also, we have Kevin Washburn, who is
joining on the second panel. It is always a good day to see New
Mexicans on our panels.
And I also want to add my congratulations to you, Director
Sams. I think that it is a new day in Washington, and your
appointment to this role, your amazing expertise and service,
and your willingness to step up and play this role is so
crucial, especially at this historical moment, as conservation
is really, I think, a transition period, and we are really
rethinking the way we think about public lands, we are thinking
about conservation, we are thinking about co-creation of
knowledge, co-management, and all of those things. So, your
expertise that you bring is so crucial in that way.
And I was listening to the testimony this morning, and I
was reflecting. During the Obama administration, I worked at
OMB and one of the rulemakings that I had the opportunity to
work on was removal of language from a national parks rule that
actually made it illegal for Indigenous people to collect
plants and animals for ceremonial purposes in our national
parks land. That was less than a decade-and-a-half ago. If you
think about in the historic trajectory of our country, I think
many Americans would be shocked to know that there are still
rules and regulations on our books across our Federal agencies
that do not recognize that our Federal lands are Indigenous
lands, and that actually prohibit activities that keep our
Native communities from using lands that they have used,
managed, stewarded, cared for, and prayed on since time
immemorial.
So, the crucial work of decolonizing, repatriating, co-
managing, and ensuring that we are creating collaborative ways
to do all of this work is really particularly crucial, I think,
right now, and especially in the context of our national parks.
So, I salute you, Director Sams, for your work, and am grateful
that you are there.
To that end, I am one of the two representatives--well,
actually three, I think--that might be here today from New
Mexico. And as we have heard and we know, New Mexico is home to
23 Indigenous communities, tribes, and pueblos, and our tribes
and pueblos have been here since time immemorial, thousands of
years, have lived on, worked the lands, cared for the lands,
prayed on the lands, and those lands are Indigenous, and our
landscapes tell the stories, and our Federal lands include
those landscapes. They are sacred places, they are places that
are still used for ceremonial purposes.
Likewise, our lands and waters are also sacred and the
wildlife that traverses these different systems. So, ensuring
that our tribes have not only a seat at the table, but that
their knowledge, practices, and priorities are really at the
center of that work is so critically important.
And we already see that across New Mexico. We have pueblos
in the middle Rio Grande that are heavily involved in the
management of our Rio Grande and the water systems. Many of our
pueblos, like Jemez, Cochiti, and Santo Domingo, are doing
important work and important co-management around restoration
of our national forests, and just a tremendous amount of
important work happening with the Navajo Nation and our Apache
Nations, as well.
So, I would like to just ask Director Sams, as you have the
50,000-foot view of your work at the National Park Service and
your collaboration with other Federal agencies, what do you see
as being sort of the critical next step to fostering this kind
of co-management in terms of, like I said, repatriating lands,
making it possible for tribes to have a greater seat at the
table, not just consultation, but actually helping to shape and
inform the kind of management that is happening, and the kinds
of true partnerships and collaborations that are needed to
realize this vision on the ground?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Representative. I think it is summed
up in one word: education.
As you alluded to, much of this has been missing from our
history books, and that understanding that tribes are
sovereign. Within the Federal system, within our republic, you
have the Federal Government, the state governments, and tribal
governments. And those three sovereigns all have rights and
responsibilities.
So, being able to not only ensure that my workforce has
that education and understanding of their trust responsibility,
but working with my sister agencies, and working with our
partners out there so that they ensure, when the tribes come
there, they understand why they are at the table, why their
voice is important, and the obligations we have as Federal
agencies to ensure that their voice is heard.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Director. And I know I am out of
time here, but I just want to make one comment, which is that
myself and Representative Leger Fernandez had the joy of
joining our Madam Secretary Haaland at Chaco Canyon a few
months ago, and I grew up in Farmington. Actually, I am not far
from Chaco Canyon. And I was struck on that visit by the way in
which the conversation has dramatically changed, and how the
voices of the pueblo leadership that were there that day, and
the Dine leadership were not only a part of that celebration,
but the stories of the people who lived in that landscape are
now actually a part of the narrative, which for so long has
been erased from our national parks and our public places.
So, I think that in addition to the co-management, making
sure that Indigenous stories, voices, and the importance of
those landscapes is also made known to our non-Indigenous
communities is so crucial, as well. I really honor and salute
your service. And, again, thank you, Lieutenant Governor, for
being here today.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this important
hearing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields.
Let me recognize Representative Rosendale.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
Westerman, for putting this hearing together today.
Also, I would like to thank all the witnesses for joining
us and for your testimony on these important issues.
Montana is home to eight recognized tribes, so we certainly
understand the importance of tribal co-management. I would like
to start with Mr. Baker.
Can you describe how co-management of the Federal lands
benefits both your community and the Federal Government?
Mr. Baker. Well, I think if we have both mutual interests
on the land that we border, then we have to work together as
partners to do the right thing.
I think today is a new day. Everything we talk about we
have to do better for our country. We have to work better with
each other. We have to be sponsoring each other and helping
each other in a positive way more and less in a negative way.
Less barriers of how we can get things done. And a lot has been
said today about that.
And I think, yes, we can work together in a positive way.
Regular communication and consultation with Federal partners,
local and state governments, and private landowners helps
provide consistency with resource management and development.
Again, the key is communication. As an example, these
cooperative and collaborative arrangements, the tribe has
entered into memorandum of agreements with the Federal, state,
and local governments, covering a variety of subject matters,
including oil and gas management, road maintenance, law
enforcement, social services, wildlife management, and air
quality.
So, again, there is no time to stall. We have to really
move forward and work collaboratively. If we have the same
mindset, we can move mountains, we can get a lot done, rather
than place the barriers.
And we have shared many goals, we have a shared vision,
because we all want the right thing at the end of the day.
Mr. Rosendale. Sir, I appreciate that. And the large
landscapes that we are talking about, no, they don't recognize
the boundaries between the Federal lands and the tribal lands.
So, when we start having these discussions about the different
resources that are located between those areas, again, they go
across those lines.
When we start talking about the management, the range
management of those areas, the waterways, the fires that many
times cross those lines, that interaction is critically
important. Let me ask you, how is your relationship with the
Federal agencies at the Department of the Interior, such as the
BIA and the BLM?
Mr. Baker. I think we have a great relationship with all
entities. At times, we do have shortfalls. But it seems like,
at the end of the day, the big shortfalls are lack of funding.
Like if we had a wildfire, we have the Forest Service, we have
the BIA, we have our own tribal forestry. So, everybody
collaborates in a good way.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe prides itself on its inter-
governmental relationships. The Southern Ute Indian Reservation
is a perfect example of all-hands-on-deck when a wildfire
ignites. Due to the checkerboard status of our reservation, we
share our community response with our Federal partners, local
municipalities, and private landowners. When a wildfire is
reported, all local agencies respond. And as we move into the
new technology in regard to, say, broadband, we are not doing
it just for our reservation. We need that. We are doing it for
our community, for the schools. Everybody who can take a part
of that.
Some may not know--even Representatives from New Mexico--
when we talk about our wildlife, we work with the pueblos. We
offer traditional hunts for some of the pueblo tribes that come
up and harvest off our reservation, because they don't have
maybe as much of those animals. So, we work with that because,
at the end of the day, like we have always said, for us, those
are not our animals, they are Mother Nature's. But it is up to
us to manage those animals correctly. The animals, as
mentioned, they know no state lines, again, but we have to
protect each other.
We work well with our sister tribes, the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, and, again, an example of wildfires.
I think that the bad part is the lack of funding for our
reservation roads. And I, being a former firefighter and being
out in the mountains where our old growth is, I see that, and I
keep telling my leadership, if we don't fix those roads and
there is a lightning strike, we are not going to get there. And
sometimes, we have to take on those responsibilities on our
own, with our own funding and our own resources to fix culverts
and do things. And that even goes for our elders who are
gathering the mountains.
The local, say our Tulare County law enforcement, if there
is a shooting or a theft or something happening on our
reservation lands, really, without broadband there is no
communication. So, we have to do our best to work together. And
we have great working relationships. We meet with the state of
Colorado every 2 weeks with the Lieutenant Governor's office.
We are meeting with the Archuleta County Commissioners. We meet
with our La Plata County Commissioners. We meet with a lot of
different local agencies that, again, we are all striving for
the same thing, for better things in our area. But we have
great working relationships.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much for your input.
And Mr. Chair, I see my time has expired. I would yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields. Let me
recognize Representative Soto.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity.
We know we are in tough times throughout the world with
Russian President Vladimir Putin viciously and unjustifiably
attacking Ukraine. We have faced attack on our democracy
abroad, and Democrats and Republicans need to stand together.
We trained and armed Ukrainians, and this week I am excited to
vote on a package of bills to help with military and
humanitarian relief, forwarding planes through NATO allies, and
a ban on Russian oil imports. That is relevant to this hearing,
of course, as we are talking about all being concerned about
rising gas prices as a result of the Ukrainian invasion.
And there are over 9,000 unused leases representing what
the U.S. Government has put out there, and harnessing those
should be one of the priorities, as well as President Biden
releasing an additional 30 million barrels from the Strategic
Reserves.
Our tribes are a key part of this. We heard from so many
folks today about everything from helping provide for the food
supply to ecology to, yes, energy. So, those relationships and
that stewardship that our Native American tribes understand
better than anybody, as Native Americans, is a critical part of
what we are talking about here today.
Honorable Chuck Sams, III, Director, in your testimony you
mention legislation empowers the Seminole Tribe in Florida and
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida with customary
rights and the right to refuse visitors to the Big Cypress
National Preserve. This is a key part of Florida and of our
local tribes in the Sunshine State.
You also mentioned that, although the tribes have the
authority to pursue co-management agreements, neither have
expressed an interest in doing so yet.
But how does the National Park Service work with tribal
governments to build their capacity to engage in co-management
in places like the Big Cypress National Preserve?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Two weeks ago, we began
that discussion. It was back in my very first government-to-
government consultation. I went directly and met with the
tribal leadership to begin those discussions on how that is
going to move forward.
But more importantly, for the staff, it is to provide them
that training so that they understand those obligations to do
that consultation.
Down at Big Cypress, they already have the agreement that
was provided through legislation to go ahead and harvest
traditional foods and medicines. But they are also looking at
ways to be interpreters within the park. They already provide
some fan boats for their own work there, but they are very
excited about looking at how to expand that.
And I think that, in talking with my staff out in the
field, they are also excited about the ideas and opportunities
to really be able to engage in consultation, to make sure that
consultation is meaningful, and hopefully end up, then, with
those cooperative agreements, so that there is that joint
working together, and also working together with those states
who are involved, so that we ensure that we are covering all of
our bases in how we manage the flora and fauna.
Mr. Soto. President Biden had just announced $1 billion to
help fund, on a Federal level, the restoration of the
Everglades as part of our CERP plan. It was the biggest
investment from the Federal level in the Everglades in decades.
How critical is it, as we are going forward, to help with
water quality issues, with water supply, to work with our local
tribes like the Seminole Tribe and the Miccosukee Tribe?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. I come from the West,
where water is also critically important, and I see how
critically important it is to Southern Florida. The project, an
undertaking between the multiple partners, whether it is the
tribes, the Seminole, the Miccosukee, or whether it is National
Park Service or our partners at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, in
the state, I think this project is extremely critical to ensure
that the flow of water returns back to its natural state,
heading out and south, back out into the Keys and to the
southern tip of Florida. But it also will increase the health
and the vitality of the ecosystem there, and it brings back
ecosystem function into the system.
The work that the staff are doing down there truly amazed
me. The cooperative agreements that they have from the multiple
jurisdictions, including local municipalities and counties, is
extremely impressive. Everyone seems to be moving forward with
that goal, with that funding in mind to ensure that water
quality improves, that there is sufficient water not only for
human consumption, but also for multi-species use.
Mr. Soto. Well, we are very excited about this important
investment for Florida's environment, tourism, and particularly
our water supply, and we want to continue to stress working
with our local tribes, among other residents in the state.
Thank you, Director Sams, I appreciate it.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
I believe, Representative Stauber, you are recognized.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
Westerman, for holding this hearing.
I have heard a couple of my colleagues talk about leasing
of wells. Leasing and actually permitting are two different
things. So, when we talk about permitting, we must allow those
folks that have the leases to be allowed to go through the
permitting process.
And we know that energy security is national security, and
it appears that the President has just banned the importing of
Russian gas moments ago. That is certainly a good start. Now we
need to unleash the economic energy that we have in our
country. Again, energy security is national security.
Chairman Baker, thank you for joining us today. First of
all, thank you for the work that you do to develop the
resources you are blessed with in Utah.
I saw the Ute Tribe recently joined the Western States and
Tribal Nations Natural Gas Initiative. To start, can you please
share how accessing your own resources benefits economic
development for your tribe?
Mr. Baker. Yes. I think, by developing our own, again, it
leads to self-determination on what we can do. It is a struggle
when we have to deal with local agencies and governments as we
move forward. But also for us, we have to work with our
membership. Again, our tribal members are stewards of the land,
and they want to protect it.
We have an issue on our eastern side of the reservation,
where we know there are resources available, but it is pristine
area for wildlife and stuff. So, how do we balance that? When
you have, say, a fence line that separates tribal lands from
fee land or private land, what we have had to learn is that, if
we do not make a decision to move forward and educate our
membership along the way, other private companies can come in
and drill next to us, and take all the reserves out of our
tribal lands, and that could be a loss of millions of dollars
for our tribal community or our tribal reservation.
Again, education and health for our members--when we are
developing and we are successful, that is where that self-
determination comes in. We help our education, the education of
our younger generation, as well as the health for our tribe.
So, those are vital things that keep us going and moving us
forward.
But, again, we have to balance that out to--do we give up
the opportunity to get something or--again, with the horizontal
drilling, that is a newer technology that we are really trying
to educate our membership on, because it is a chess game all
the time, right or wrong, but we always do the right thing. And
we only have one reservation, so we have to protect it and do
the best we can to preserve it.
Mr. Stauber. Those dollars that come in as a result of the
oil and gas economic development, can you just name some of the
things you use those dollars for on your tribal reservation?
Mr. Baker. We have our own private tribal academy for our
younger students, and we try to educate the emphasis on our
language. We have our own health center here, which we always
have to provide. We work well, as mentioned, with the
community. When COVID was a big thing, our local clinic here
opened it up to even Fort Lewis College and other schools in
the area that are not affiliated with the tribe. But we did
many things to do that. We have a great wildlife management
resource. All the wildlife we have on the reservation, we have
to protect them. We have our own EPD department, environmental
protection, whether it is air, water, all those things. We have
our own law enforcement, our justice and regulatory.
So, those are some of the ways that the money is used. We
have a scholarship program for our students that gives them the
opportunity to go to a college and funds them.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, Chairman Baker, that is really an
impressive list, from education to health care to law
enforcement to clean water--you are doing well with that.
One of the goals of the initiative is to help America
export our energy. Right now, Russia is funding its atrocities
abroad because the world is reliant on their oil. How can we
help you and the initiative make it easier to develop and
export our energy, so we are no longer buying Russian energy or
Saudi Arabia or Venezuelan energy, for that matter?
Mr. Baker. Well, I think, again, the funding is a big
thing. New technology, as we move forward. We are working on
the Coyote Clean Energy Project, carbon capture. But now it is
kind of like we are having to go backward because of the oil,
or the gas, that we don't want to depend on foreign countries.
But working together, like I said, communicating, working
together, having these big meetings and keeping in mind that,
again, we can get things done using our expertise, we have
highly paid professionals and engineers and all those that work
for us that help us develop that.
And, again, we have to make sure that they are doing the
right thing in the right way and removing some of the red tape
that does hamper us in certain areas.
But, again, working together, talking together, we can
overcome those hurdles.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Baker.
Mr. Chair, my time is up, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Let me recognize Representative Gonzalez-
Colon.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. If not, let me move down the list and
recognize Representative Bentz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to begin by commenting on something that Chair
Huffman mentioned about how simple it would be for us to switch
over to clean energy and ignore the need for natural gas and
oil. I would just say this is creating one dependency for
another because clean energy, of course, requires aluminum,
graphite, copper, lead. And a quick glance at the source of
those minerals reveals that China and Russia are supplying
something over 60 percent of each of those necessary elements
of clean energy, not to mention the fact that it is going to
take years to get there.
So, in the short run, we need the oil and gas that is
available, whether it is on tribal lands or on Federal lands,
and we need it now. And to suggest that somehow we should all
rely on clean energy, it reminds me of this young mother, a
single mother, I believe, who I saw at the service station in
the middle of my district, who had $15 to buy gas. And that was
about 3 weeks ago. I can just imagine what she is doing now.
So, I just want to say, let's focus our attention on the
reality that faces so many people, and not make these allusions
to how wonderful it would be if we suddenly had nothing but
clean energy. I mean, sure, it would be great, but I don't want
to trade one dependency for another.
With that, I am going to turn to Director Sams.
And Director Sams, it is great to see a fellow Oregonian.
Congratulations. This is the first time I have gotten to see
you in person since your appointment. I am so happy that you
have this job.
But let me turn away from the congratulations and ask you
the tough question, and here it is. We often hear words like
``collaboration,'' ``consultation,'' ``coordination.'' They are
all words that creep toward the fact that somebody has to be in
charge, and usually it is the sovereign. And I have heard much
said in today's hearing about sovereign, sovereignty, and it is
all very important. But at some point, somebody has to be able
to make the decision. If you have two sovereigns in the room,
it is kind of hard to know who is in charge.
So, my question to you is, now that you are wearing the
National Park Service hat, if tribes come in and they say, hey,
we are equal to you, who gets to decide?
Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman, it is great to see you,
and I do owe you a visit, so I will come up to see you soon.
That being said, it really does depend. Tribes have, of
course, reserved rights under treaties, and sometimes reserved
rights under Executive Order. With over 576 tribes, that can be
an issue that we have to tackle, and we have to look at the
legalities of that.
But from a Federal standpoint, we ultimately have the
responsibility of representing the interests of the American
people, and we take that interest very seriously.
But we also, though, still have the trust responsibility
that we are mandated by those treaties that have been ratified
by the Senate, to uphold those laws of the land also. So, we
recognize that treaties, as ultimate law of the land, may
supersede some of our decision making. We also have to go back
to the Organic Act and look at how we are interpreting and
enforcing the Organic Act for the Park Service, and also those
Organic Acts that have actually set up specific parks, because
those may negate or lessen other abilities for tribes at times
to exercise their full authority.
That being said, that is why it is extremely important that
we do have government-to-government consultation, and that when
we do have disagreements, we do our best to work through those
disagreements. But there are times where we do recognize that
those disagreements end up having to go before the courts for
arbitration and decision making. But we get through much of
that through just mutual work and mitigating for circumstances.
Mr. Bentz. Kind of challenging, and that is one of the
reasons I am so happy you have that job, because you can see
both sides of the issue.
You also hold a Masters of Legal Studies in Indigenous
People's Law. Do you see, given that kind of a background and
all the years you have worked in this space, a way to use the
tribes' political power to get back into the woods and start
removing some of this massive buildup of fuel? And I am not
talking just about the forests that are owned by or controlled
by tribes. I am talking about our national forests. Do you see
some opportunity there for tribes to play a part in getting
past all the barriers that have been built up?
Mr. Sams. Down south in Arizona, we have a tribal youth
corps. We also have other tribal youth corps we are doing
cooperatively. Those tribal youth corps that are working with
the National Park Service and with cooperation through tribes
really could be that ground force that we need to go in there
and do some fuels reduction, in cooperation with our other
Federal partners and agencies. So, yes, I think the tribes have
the ability to help us start up these youth corps to be able to
get in there and get some of this work done.
There are other authorities under other sections of law
that are not necessarily with the National Park Service, but
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I won't speak to those
directly, but I do know, as a former tribal administrator, that
there are tools that tribes have that they could be using to
help do fuel reduction so that we have less large
conflagrations.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Director Sams.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me now recognize Representative Graves. You are
recognized, sir.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
heard a number of people say thank you for having this hearing.
I disagree.
Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis going on in Ukraine and
Russia. We have a crisis going on right here in the United
States. This Committee has jurisdiction over our energy
resources, this Committee. We have the highest gasoline prices,
the highest energy prices in American history right now.
Mr. Chairman, I have offered amendments in this Committee
asking that we not carry out policies that have a
disproportionate impact on Native American communities, on
communities of color, on communities of low economic activity.
Mr. Chairman, these are the people that are harmed most by what
is happening.
And what is worse about all this, all of this is
preventable. We have seen the President come out today and say
that, oh, I am supporting a Russian ban. Mr. Chairman, you know
what is not said? It is that for the last 3 years myself, Mr.
Carl, Mr. Moore, Mr. Rosendale, and others on the Committee
have offered amendments to ensure America's energy security. We
have done amendments to explicitly ban Russian oil from
increased imports or increased reliance in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, every single member on your side of the aisle
opposed the amendments. And, now, all of a sudden, everybody is
on board with a Russian ban? Now we do a Russian ban, we don't
have a way to backfill the energy. So, what is going to happen?
You think prices are high now? Just wait. We are getting ready
to further penalize Americans, further penalize the U.S.
economy because energy has an impact on everything. It
transcends everything.
This is the Committee that can actually design an energy
solution. And we are not prioritizing our actions, not
prioritizing this Committee's jurisdiction.
This is an embarrassment, Mr. Chairman. We have Americans
all across the United States. Before this whole thing happened,
one in every six Americans--one in every six Americans--said
they couldn't afford to fully pay their energy. One in every
four Americans said they had to sacrifice some other primary
need in order to cover energy costs.
There is an article on the front page of my hometown paper
today. A guy filled up his truck, $105, and we have some of the
cheapest gas in America at home.
Mr. Chairman, the President came out and said, don't worry,
he is going to release 30 million barrels from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. We have 38 billion barrels of reserves
across the United States, of proven reserves across the United
States. Why don't we look at that and figure out which of that
energy we can be producing? Why don't we figure out how to
address whatever concerns are out there, legitimate or not,
about the Keystone pipeline? We can't just ban oil and think
that all of a sudden it is going to solve problems. We don't
have an energy strategy.
And Members on our side have tried and tried and tried to
offer improvements, to offer amendments, to offer solutions,
and all we have seen is policies that have resulted in just
like we predicted. Everything that is happening right now are
things that we predicted: higher prices, less energy security,
and, Mr. Chairman, higher emissions, higher emissions.
This is an embarrassment. We had achieved energy security,
Mr. Chairman. This Committee needs to exercise its
jurisdiction, exercise its jurisdiction over America's natural
resources, over the opportunities to produce American energy.
And we can make up for the mistakes of our European allies,
as well. The strategy in the United States have been Schumer,
Markey, and others asking that OPEC produce more energy; Jake
Sullivan, the President's National Security Advisor, asking
OPEC to produce more energy; reports of us going to Saudi
Arabia and negotiating an awful deal with Iran right now;
Administration officials going to Venezuela to ask them.
That is our solution, to ask--let's go through this again.
Iran, what are they doing? They are using those dollars to
challenge Israeli security in the Middle East, to disrupt the
entire Middle Eastern region of this world, threatening the
security of Israel. Look at what they are doing in Syria, what
they are doing in Yemen, what they are doing in Iraq. And we
are going to fund them more? Look at what Maduro is doing in
Venezuela. We are going to give them more money?
This doesn't make any sense. My friends in California, they
say, ``Hey, don't worry, we are going to close our nuclear
power plant,'' then turn around and say, ``Hey, can we release
more emissions?''
I mean, all of these strategies are failing. They make no
sense at all.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask. We have to use this
Committee's jurisdiction on true priorities and address this
humanitarian crisis right now in the United States.
Director Sams, for the record I would like for you to
submit an explanation of what the U.S.--excuse me, what the
National Park Service is doing to consult on energy
opportunities adjacent to Park Service boundaries. It is one of
the things that the Park Service does. What are you doing to
help tribes exercise their own self-determination as it relates
to developing energy resources?
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. And there are no
further Members that have questions, so I want to thank this
panel. I appreciate it very much.
And I am going to deal with the debate that is occurring
and needs to occur, but let me just talk about what we were
trying with this meeting.
I support tribal sovereignty. The intent of these
discussions is not about undercutting tribal sovereignty. In
fact, Chair Baker provided expertise to the Committee in the
past to ensure that any legislation considers just that. And it
did. And I appreciate the feedback, and I appreciate his
testimony today.
But as we go into the issue of tribal co-management on
Federal lands, this full scope of Federal responsibilities are
also part of that discussion, very much so.
And I also want to thank the Director. And my request is
this, as you examine how we promote this very valuable and
important--there is the resource issue, there is the
organizational culture that needs to change, and then there is
enhanced legislative authority or to clarify some issues. So,
on the legislative side, it would be important also for the
Committee to know your suggestions and your ideas on that, as
well.
And to the witnesses, thank you so much. We will now
transition to the next panel.
Members may send you and you may receive questions of
Members that were not able to ask, and they will be forwarded
to you, and we would appreciate your timely response.
With that, thank you again, and let's, if we can,
transition to the other panel.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. We will now begin with the second panel, and,
again, let me thank the witnesses for the time that they are
giving to this discussion. It is very much appreciated by all
of us. It is essentially the same instructions that were given
to the previous panel. Your entire statements will be part of
the record.
You have 5 minutes for the oral presentation. The timer
will alert you when you have 1 minute left, but red always
tells you it is over.
After your testimony is complete, please mute yourself so
that you don't have background noise on the other witnesses'
discussion.
With that, let me begin the testimony with Professor Kiel,
Assistant History Professor at Northwest University.
Professor, thank you so much, and you are invited to
present your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DOUG KIEL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
HISTORY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS
Dr. Kiel. [Speaking Native language.] Hello, everyone.
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify before this
Committee today.
The topic of today's hearing is, most of all, about
respect. And in the brief time that I have, I won't go into
detail about what you know: that all of North America is
Indigenous homeland and that the United States acquired those
ancestral lands through means that were, at best, morally
questionable and, at their worst, were genocidal in either
intent or effect.
Rather than address how dispossession happened and explain
how many treaties ratified by the Senate were broken, I would
like to emphasize that these regrettable historical events are
characterized by a disrespect for tribal governments.
Take the United States' founding documents as an example.
Although the U.S. Constitution implicitly acknowledges that
tribes are self-governing, the earlier Declaration of
Independence labels Native Americans as ``merciless Indian
savages.''
Every Indigenous Nation, at one time or another, has
learned of this duplicity. The Oneida people, for instance,
were some of the United States' only Native American allies in
the Revolutionary War. Yet, even the promises of George
Washington were not enough to secure our homelands in New York.
The disrespect of Indigenous peoples has extended and
continues to extend to even our knowledge systems. And for this
reason, the tribal co-management of Federal lands would provide
a meaningful way to re-ground government-to-government
relations with respect.
What we refer to as traditional ecological knowledge, TEK,
is Indigenous science, and it should be respected as such. It
brings a depth of place-based experience that non-Native
Americans simply do not possess. It is this kind of science
that led Indigenous peoples to explore the Pacific Ocean
generations before Europeans, to selectively breed corn and
create one of the most cultivated crops on Earth, and to engage
in controlled burning of the landscape.
The United States holds Indigenous resources in trust. And
adequately taking our knowledge into consideration is part of
the Federal Indian trust responsibility first articulated in
Cherokee Nation of Georgia in 1831.
And as outlined in Seminole Nation v. United States in
1942, the United States ``has charged itself with moral
obligations of the highest responsibility and trust'' when
exercising its power in regards to Indian affairs. That trust
has been shattered numerous times before.
Today's dialogue belongs in a wider international context.
In 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United States initially voted
against it in the U.N. General Assembly but has lent its
support to the Declaration since 2010. This resolution is
legally non-binding, but it nonetheless outlines human rights
norms in regards to Indigenous populations. The Declaration is
the product of over two decades of negotiation, and it
describes the Indigenous world as it should be.
I raise the U.N. Declaration to underscore that the matters
before you extend beyond the United States' Federal trust
responsibility to its Indigenous treaty partners, and
intersects with international human rights law, as well.
By having this dialogue, we are enacting the spirit of
Article 18 of the U.N. Declaration, ``that Indigenous peoples
have the right to participate in decision-making matters which
would affect their rights.''
Moreover, the proposed development of tribal co-management
intersects with Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the Declaration, to
name just a few, in regards to providing redress for the
dispossession of lands and the rights of Indigenous peoples to
maintain and protect sites of religious, cultural,
archeological, and historical significance.
The U.N. Declaration and the Federal Indian trust
responsibility are linked in that they both call for the
highest level of moral obligation toward Indigenous peoples.
In my opinion, the tribal co-management of Federal lands is
an innovative means of sustaining productive nation-to-nation
relations rooted in principles of good faith and genuine
respect. Tribal consultations alone do not constitute real
decision-making authority. What is being proposed today is
shared governance in the interest of good governance. Thank you
very much. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kiel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Professor Doug Kiel, Northwestern University
Introduction
Shekoli swakweku (Hello everyone!) Thank you for the invitation to
testify before this Committee today. I am a citizen of the Oneida
Nation, and an Assistant Professor History and the Humanities at
Northwestern University. I am a faculty affiliate at Northwestern's
Center for Native American and Indigenous Research (CNAIR) as well as
an adjunct curator at the Field Museum in Chicago. I teach a variety of
courses in Native American history, including the histories of federal
Indian law and policy, and Indigenous social movements in the US and
Canada.
Oneida people have engaged with members of the United States
Congress from the time your predecessors in the Continental Congress
first began meeting in Philadelphia. Today, I am here in my capacity as
a historian to speak about the underpinnings of the current
relationship between Indigenous nations and the United States.
Histories of Disrespect
The topic of today's hearing is most of all about respect. In the
brief time that I have, I won't detail what you already know: that all
of North America is Indigenous homeland; and that the United States
acquired those ancestral lands through means that were at best morally
questionable, and at their worst, were genocidal in either intent or
effect. Rather than address how dispossession happened, and explain how
many treaties ratified by the US Senate were subsequently broken, I
would like to emphasize that these regrettable historical events are
characterized by an American disrespect of tribal governments.
Take the United States' founding documents as an example. Although
the US Constitution (1789) implicitly acknowledges that tribes are
self-governing, the earlier Declaration of Independence (1776) labels
Native Americans as ``merciless Indian savages.'' Every Indigenous
nation, at one time or another, has learned of this duplicity. The
Oneida people, for instance, were some of the United States' only
Native American allies in the Revolutionary War, yet even the promises
of President George Washington were not enough to secure our homelands
in central New York.
While such stories about the chicanery of the rapidly expanding
United States are perhaps broadly familiar, the disrespect of
Indigenous peoples has extended to even our knowledge systems. For this
reason, the tribal co-management of federal lands would provide a
meaningful way to reground government-to-government relations with
respect. What we refer to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is
Indigenous science and should be respected as such; it brings a depth
of place-based experience that non-Native Americans simply do not
possess. It is this kind of science that led Indigenous peoples to
explore the Pacific Ocean generations before Europeans; to selectively
breed corn and create one of the most cultivated crops on Earth; and to
engage in controlled burning of the landscape.
The United States holds Indigenous resources in trust, and
adequately taking our knowledge into consideration is part of the
federal Indian trust responsibility. As outlined in Seminole Nation v.
United States (1942), the US ``has charged itself with moral
obligations of the highest responsibility and trust'' when exercising
its power in regards to Indian affairs.\1\ That trust has been
shattered before. The disastrous policy experiment referred to as
``Termination'' during the 1950s, and the events necessitating the
historic Cobell v. Salazar (2009) $3.4 billion class-action lawsuit
settlement are but two examples of federal obligations being grossly
mismanaged.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).
\2\ Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Today's dialogue also belongs in a wider international context. In
2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The United States initially voted against
it in the U.N. General Assembly, but has lent its support to the
Declaration since 2010. This resolution is legally non-binding, but it
nonetheless outlines human rights norms in regards to Indigenous
populations. The Declaration is the product of over two decades of
negotiation, a process reaching back to the 1980s, and it describes the
Indigenous world as it should be. I raise the U.N. Declaration to
underscore that the matters before you extend beyond the United States'
federal trust responsibility to its Indigenous treaty partners, and
intersect with international human rights law.
By having this dialogue today, we are enacting the spirit of
Article 18: ``Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in
decision-making in matters which would affect their rights.'' \3\
Moreover, the proposed development of tribal co-management intersects
with Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the Declaration--to name a few--in
regards to providing redress for the dispossession of lands, and the
rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and protect sites of
religious, cultural, archaeological, and historical significance. The
U.N. Declaration and the federal Indian trust responsibility are linked
in that they both call for the highest level of moral obligation toward
Indigenous peoples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007
(Resolution 61/295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In my opinion, the proposed development of tribal co-management of
federal lands, as will be outlined by Dean Kevin Washburn, former
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, is an innovative means of
sustaining productive nation-to-nation relations rooted in principles
of good faith and genuine respect. Tribal consultations alone do not
constitute real decision-making authority; what Dean Washburn proposes
is shared governance in the interest of good governance.
Yaw-ko (Thank you very much).
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me now turn to our
next witness, Ms. Aja DeCoteau, Executive Director of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Ms. DeCoteau, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AJA DECOTEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA RIVER
INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Ms. DeCoteau. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking
Member Moore, and members of the Committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to recognize traditional ecological knowledge as a
unique asset to tribal co-management of Federal lands.
I am Aja DeCoteau. I am the Executive Director of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which is the
coordinating fisheries agency of the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm
Springs, and Nez Perce Tribes in the states of Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho.
Tribal cultures collectively hold thousands of years of
observations, adaptations, and traditional knowledge of
tamanwit, which is our word for the original natural law that
governs the balance of life on Earth. It is a spiritual
philosophy rooted in a reciprocal and life-giving relationship
between human beings and with the natural world around them.
Understanding tamanwit not only provides a sustainable
relationship with nature, but also strengthens our bond to one
another as a community.
For all that was taken or lost, especially for Native
Americans, our relationship to the land and water remains, so
our natural resources are our cultural and community resources.
These teachings guide our land and resource management not
solely based on economics, politics, and science, though they
are important, but to our cultural values, spiritual practices,
responsibilities, and obligations as humans who live close to
the land.
For millennia, our tribes managed the rich and plentiful
bounty in the Pacific Northwest for 15 to 20 million salmon who
return to the Columbia River each year prior to contact.
Between 6 and 11 million fish supported the ceremonial,
subsistence, and economic needs of all tribes in the region,
while still leaving plenty to enrich the ecosystem and
replenish that abundance.
Treaties signed in 1855 reserved our right to fish for
salmon. However, a variety of impacts over the following
century decimated these runs. By the 1970s, salmon runs had
dwindled to less than a million fish, and multiple stocks faced
extinction. In 1977, our tribes united to collectively protect
and restore salmon and their treaty rights to fish. They
established the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
with fisheries management funds from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs through 638 self-determination contracts. This funding
was provided yearly with autonomy to use as we saw fit in
creating our own modern-day salmon management presence.
Over the following 45 years, our technical capacity has
reached the point where we have now developed successful
programs, including Federal Columbia River Power System
Mitigation Projects and Endangered Species Act recovery plans.
Our holistic salmon restoration plan, called Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-
Kish-Wit, combines multiple scientific fields and traditional
ecological knowledge with a simple goal to put fish back in the
rivers and restore the watersheds where fish live.
The tribes just don't talk about salmon restoration. We are
leading the way in innovative, successful programs that benefit
all people in the Northwest. For example, in 1990, only 78 wild
fall chinook returned to Idaho. Twenty-five years later, more
than 71,000 returned, thanks to the Nez Perce Tribe's fisheries
program.
Collectively, our member tribes have a combined capacity on
par with our fellow state and Federal fisheries co-managers,
with tribal members representing a committed and reliable
workforce motivated by culture and heritage. Our fisheries work
employs over 700 people working throughout the 42.6 million
acres of our reservations and ceded lands. This is over a
quarter of the entire Columbia River Basin and 84 percent of
the rivers and streams that are still accessible to salmon.
We perform a majority of the on-the-ground projects funded
by the Bonneville Power Administration's Fish and Wildlife
Program and through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery's
funds. We have improved more than 5,400 miles of streams,
reconnected over 2,000 acres of floodplains, and improved
15,000 acres of riparian vegetation. These projects are done in
partnership with landowners, ranchers, local and state
governments, and multiple Federal agencies.
Meaningful co-management entails both a seat at the table,
as well as the capacity to fulfill this responsibility. The
Federal funding we received facilitated our participation, and
many times created the form from which many of the recovery
plans in the Basin were initiated and allowed us to grow our
tribal workforce.
Acknowledging this, U.S. policy toward restoring tribal
self-determination can be supported by welcoming tribes as co-
managers of their respective lands and resources and providing
them with non-competitive and recurring funding with a broad
scope. In return, the Federal Government gains the benefit of
the knowledge, commitment, and cultural connection of the
tribes to better fulfill its trust responsibility and
obligation to wisely steward these areas.
Healthy, well-managed public lands benefit all Americans,
both tribal and non-tribal alike, and the work itself brings
stakeholders into a deeper community together. The tribes have
a strong interest to help current landowners, whether they are
private individuals or Federal or state agencies, to maintain
the health and productivity of our traditional homelands.
Working together as partners, the Federal Government and tribes
can successfully preserve, protect, and manage our lands,
rivers, and resources for the benefit of our future
generations. The benefits of this partnership are shared by all
of us.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeCoteau follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aja DeCoteau, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission
Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and members of the Committee. My
name is Aja DeCoteau. I am the executive director of the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the fisheries technical and coordinating
agency for the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the
Nez Perce Tribe.
Recognizing that this hearing's primary focus is tribal co-
management of federal lands outside of reservation boundaries, we would
like to describe how the treaty tribes became an integral part and
partner of Columbia Basin fisheries co-management role across the
Columbia Basin and into the ocean where many of our aquatic resources
migrate. Much of our experience over the last 50 years is a blueprint
for creating tribal management roles with a variety of different
landscapes, species, and areas of cultural significance.
Tribal Tradition of Land Management
Since time immemorial, the Columbia River tribes have developed
ways of life, teachings, and cultures that are intertwined with their
homeland--particularly the fish that return to their rivers and
streams. All four tribes have unique cultural practices, dialects,
homelands, and histories, but they share a common vision of the
significance of salmon.
We have a deep and reverent cultural connection to our homelands
and traditions. The knowledge of sustainable and appropriate management
and care for these lands has been passed down from parents to children
since time immemorial. The fact we are still here today is testament to
the value of generations of observations, adaptations, and traditional
knowledge of tamanwit, our concept of the natural law that governs the
balance of life on earth.
Our cultures represent thousands of years of observation and
learning, intimately connecting us to the unique ecosystems of our
homelands and making us experts in these systems. This understanding
guides us in our yearly rounds to hunt, fish, and gather our
traditional foods, which we call our ``First Foods.''
In bestowing the First Foods, the Creator directed that we have an
obligation to speak for and act on the behalf of them. The water, the
fish, the deer, the roots and berries can't testify before you here
today, but we, as the first people of this landscape are obligated and
honored to speak for them.
We are taught that we don't own these resources. We understand from
the earliest age that we are only caretakers of this land and its
resources for our future generations. We have an obligation to our
children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow to do
everything we can for these resources today. Our natural resources are
our cultural resources. They define who we are as a people. Destruction
of these resources or denying us access to these resources is
essentially a form of cultural genocide.
There is a deep connection between where the tribes live and who we
are. These are themes heard frequently when tribal elders speak about
watershed restoration and bringing the salmon back to the Columbia
Rivers and its tributaries. To our people, salmon restoration is not
just based on economics, politics, and science--it's also about
cultural values, spiritual practices, and ultimately about what it
means to be human.
The charge of tribal elders and leadership consistently remains the
same: We must ensure that our future generations can live as Indian
people on this landscape in the manner that the Creator intended us to
live. That means we must not only be able to determine our own futures,
but also have access to the healthy, functioning ecosystem upon which
our cultures are based. This includes abundant clean, cool water;
salmon to meet our ceremonial, subsistence, and economic needs; deer;
roots and berries; and all the other animals, birds, fish, and plants
that fill out our traditional diet.
Restoration Efforts and Management Actions Guided by Connection to the
Land
For millennia, our tribes managed the natural abundance of this
land, including its legendary fisheries. Pre-contact, the famed
Columbia River salmon runs were estimated to number between 15 and 20
million chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon and steelhead. Tribal
harvests between 6 and 11 million fish sustainably supported all our
ceremonial, subsistence, and economic needs, while leaving plenty to
enrich the ecosystem and replenish that abundance.
Since 1855 when our treaties with the United States were signed,
the Columbia Basin has been dramatically altered. Increased human
population, dam construction, unregulated harvest, and substantial
habitat modifications drastically reduced salmon populations. By the
1970s, the once-bountiful salmon runs had dwindled to less than a
million fish returning each year and the specter of extinction hovered
over multiple runs in the basin. While the US environmental laws helped
stop the wholesale development of the Columbia Basin hydropower
potential, we still faced a continued decline in the habitat and
survival of our salmon resource.
In 1977, the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes
united forces, creating the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC) in an effort to protect and restore salmon and their treaty
rights to fish for them. CRITFC began receiving fisheries management
funds from the US Bureau of Indian Affairs through PL 99-638 contracts.
These funds addressed a variety of needs including our participation in
the US v Oregon harvest management discussion, an ability to begin the
technical review and understanding of the watersheds that hold our
treaty trust resource, a voice at the hydrosystem management table, and
the genesis of hatchery production capability.
Admittedly our early efforts were limited, and our workforce only
numbered a few dozen across the four tribes and CRITFC. But this early
funding was provided yearly with autonomy to use as we saw fit in
creating our modern-day salmon management presence.
By 1980, the four tribes had successfully obtained amendments to
the regional power act to add fish and wildlife mitigation to the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) operations, which was
initially focused solely on hydropower production. The treaty tribes
with their developing technical expertise, which was informed by our
culture, values, and worldview, began successfully developing programs
and projects which were funded as mitigation for the inundation and
operational fish losses associated with the FCRSP.
By the 1990s, many salmon runs in the Columbia Basin were still on
the path to extinction. The National Atmospheric and Oceans
Administration listed 14 Columbia River salmon stocks under the
Endangered Species Act. While the states varied in their response to
these listings, NOAA began developing Endangered Species Act (ESA)
required recovery plans. Based on early experience they sought out the
assistance of the treaty tribes who worked in close partnership with
local city and county governments to develop technically sound and
socially vetted actions to recovery ESA-listed salmonids.
In 1995, the tribes released Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, the
``Spirit of the Salmon'' restoration plan. This plan takes a holistic
approach to salmon restoration in the Columbia Basin, with its goal to
``put fish back in the rivers and restore the watersheds where fish
live.'' The approach is holistic in several ways: First, it emphasizes
the importance of the entire watershed to well-functioning rivers and
streams. Second, it combines multiple scientific fields--including fish
biology, ecology, and genetics--with traditional Native American
knowledge, understanding, and respect for the natural world. And third,
it factors in healthy human communities as part of healthy landscapes.
The tribes implement this plan throughout the 42.6 million acres
that make up our reservations and ceded lands. This area is over a
quarter of the entire Columbia Basin and constitutes 84% of the salmon-
accessible rivers and streams above Bonneville Dam. CRITFC and its four
member tribes employ over 700 people working on fisheries management,
habitat restoration, and research and monitoring activities in the
Columbia Basin. We perform a majority of the ``on-the-ground'' projects
funded by the Bonneville Power Administration's Fish and Wildlife
Program. Our efforts have resulted in many successes across the basin.
Our habitat restoration projects are designed to protect, enhance,
and restore functional floodplain, channel, and watershed processes to
provide sustainable and healthy habitat for anadromous fish. Over the
last decade, our member tribes implemented projects that resulted in
more than 5,000 miles of improved stream flow, 400 miles of improved
stream complexity, reconnected over 2,000 acres of floodplain, and
improved 15,000 acres of riparian vegetation. These projects have often
been done in partnership with landowners and ranchers, local and state
governments, and a number of federal agencies.
The work we conduct in the region is well-designed and respected.
Last month, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council reviewed over
120 Anadromous Habitat and Hatchery Projects conducted in the region.
Of the fourteen that were rated as ``exemplary,'' seven were projects
conducted by scientists at CRITFC and our members tribes. Since 2010,
CRITFC scientists have published 127 peer-reviewed manuscripts and
given over 436 presentations at professional meetings and symposia. The
tribes don't just talk about salmon restoration, they are leading the
way in innovative, successful programs that benefit all of people in
the Northwest. For example, the Snake River fall chinook went from only
78 wild fish returning in 1990 to more than 60,000 due the efforts of
the Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries program.
Working as Co-managers and Partners
Healthy, well managed lands in the Columbia Basin benefit
everyone--not just salmon, but other fish and wildlife and human
populations. On the principle of planning for future generations,
tribal land managers seek to create sustainable economic returns within
healthy watersheds. While the tribes were forced to give up ownership
of the ceded lands, they retain permanent rights to hunting, fishing,
and gathering in all the areas outside the reservations but within
their traditional territories. They have a strong interest to help
other landowners--whether they are private individuals or federal or
state agencies--to maintain the health and productivity of the ceded
lands. Ceding legal title to our territories didn't cede our deep love
for and obligation to protect it.
Sharing the management of public lands with tribal nations is an
aspect of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to American
Indians; it is also wise stewardship to share the management of these
lands and resources with those who have the greatest breadth of
knowledge of and commitment to these areas. In many instances, it has
been the tribes who have not only the greatest interest in the
protection and restoration of these lands, but also the greatest
technical understanding of the needed actions.
Historically tribes have not had the resources or capacity to fully
participate in policy development and access to forums where natural
resources management occurs. Reservation impoverishment meant that day-
to-day survival took precedence over expending resources into the
technical and policy realm of resource management, especially on off-
reservation lands. Much of our success was made possible by early
federal funding of tribal capacity. This created the ability for the
treaty tribes to be at the table and many times created the forum from
which these recovery plans sprung.
Acknowledging this, US policy toward restoring tribal self-
determination can be supported with annual funding which has a broad
scope of work geared toward natural resource management and that is
non-competitive and recurring. Tribes, given their own unique history,
culture, and positioning on the political landscape will use these
resources to establish their own particular co-management presence in
those forums most significant to them. In return, the Federal
Government gains the benefit of the wise stewardship from those with
the knowledge, commitment, and cultural connection to these areas.
We would propose that the greatest tool available to allow Indian
tribes to engage in the management of public lands and natural
resources is to provide and maintain funding streams that enable them
to bring their long-held ecological knowledge and contemporary science
capacities to the management and policy tables for the shared benefit
of tribal and non-tribal publics alike. The funding should have wide
sideboards to address the diverse challenges we face and have
predictable, manageable reporting requirements co-developed by the
tribes. The funding should be recurring basis and without competition.
A Federal commitment to support tribes and partner in public lands
co-management over their areas will help secure and safeguard our
natural resources for the continuity of tribal culture, as well as
provide direct and indirect benefits for all Americans. Working
together as partners, the Federal Government and tribes can co-manage
the lands and resources over which we both have a shared obligation and
duty to protect and preserve for today as well as for future
generations.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me now invite and
recognize Dean Kevin Washburn, Dean and Law Professor at the
University of Iowa College of Law.
Dean Washburn, you are welcome and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN WASHBURN, DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LAW, IOWA CITY, IOWA
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you,
Ranking Member Moore, and members of the Committee, including
old friends. My name is Kevin Washburn, and it is an honor to
be back before this Committee. Thank you for this opportunity.
I am impressed by what I have heard today. I hear many
Members on both sides of the aisle speaking positively about
tribal co-management. I also heard the Administration witness
speaking about concrete actions being taken to pursue more co-
management. I offer the following ideas to encourage tribal co-
management of Federal public land using existing legislative
authority that might need to be tweaked a little bit.
I want to talk about one tool for co-management that has
not been fully utilized by the Federal Government. Chairman
Baker of the Southern Ute Tribe began his testimony by talking
about the lands that Southern Ute lost during the settlement
era under the Brunot Agreement. He described 56 million acres
that the Southern Ute lost, and that their lands were reduced
to only 700,000 acres today. A lot of our tribes can tell the
same story, as our historian on the panel, Doug Kiel, explains.
But the good news is Chairman Baker ended his testimony by
saying, ``By working together with the public land managers, we
can accomplish a lot.''
Lieutenant Governor Bowekaty made a similar point. We
should all be grateful, as I know the Committee is, for his
leadership with the Bears Ears National Monument.
I have come to my own views on these matters by looking at
the kind of history the Southern Ute faced. When one looks at a
map that showcases the loss of tribal land through the 19th and
20th centuries and the development of Federal public lands over
this same time period, it is the same land. It is striking how
much overlap there is in these lands. All current Federal lands
are former tribal lands, and some of them were obtained fairly
recently by the Federal Government, only the last 150 years.
Tribes have consistently sought the return of their lands
from the Federal Government, and there is a widespread movement
today called the Land Back Movement, aimed at finding ways to
address these injustices that happened in the past. Congress
recently returned a significant Fish and Wildlife Service
refuge, the National Bison Range, to the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribe in Montana. And there may be more
opportunities for that kind of action. As our country continues
to reckon with historical injustices and seeks to develop
allies in much-needed conservation efforts, more action is
appropriate, and I want to talk about those opportunities
today.
Indeed, return of Federal lands may be possible in some
instances, but I encourage all of us to think about all of the
options on the table, and not just return. One of those is
tribal co-management. Tribes have had treaty hunting and
fishing and other rights on some of these lands for a very long
time, and they care a lot about these lands, even if they
aren't technically within reservations any longer.
Let me note that tribal co-management can also protect
tribal sacred sites for reasons stated in my longer paper on
the subject.
Broad opportunities for tribal co-management are already
authorized by Federal laws on tribal self-determination and
self-governance. In 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 93-638,
the Indian Self-Determination law, and that allowed tribes to
contract with certain Federal agencies, primarily the BIA and
the Indian Health Service, under 638 contracts so that tribes
could take over Federal services on Indian reservations. And
that has been exceedingly effective, very successful.
In 1994, Congress amended that law, expanded that
contracting authority to allow tribal governments to contract
with Interior agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, BLM, and the
National Park Service. In those 1994 amendments, Congress
authorized tribes to contract for virtually any Federal
program, service, or function at Interior, as long as it has a
special geographic, historical, or cultural significance to a
tribe that is already successfully involved in these self-
determination programs.
Similar authority was eventually extended to the Department
of Agriculture, home to the U.S. Forest Service.
The Department of the Interior is required by law to
publish each year a list to identify existing contracts and
detail the list of programs that are eligible for contracting.
Since 1994, though, this list hasn't grown very much. I think
there is a lot of room for improvement there, and we need to
see that list grow. I think it would be great in supportive of
co-management, so I have four suggested reforms.
One is that Congress could expand Forest Service authority
to match the authority that the Interior agencies have. It is
currently more narrow than that.
Second, Congress should authorize and appropriate contract
support costs for tribes entering such contracts, or at least
modest planning grants for tribes to explore this work.
Third, Departments of the Interior and Agriculture should
take a fresh look at this program, hold tribal consultations,
perhaps on a regional basis, and begin discussions to enter new
contracts.
Finally, let me note that cooperation is hard, as this
discussion says, but the Departments, both Departments, should
incentivize Federal land managers to engage in that kind of
cooperation.
These are just some of the ideas of things that can be
done. I am grateful that Chuck Sams and the National Parks is
looking at more AFAs, and I thank you for bringing attention to
this subject with this hearing.
Thank you for that. This concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Washburn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dean Kevin K. Washburn, University of Iowa
College of Law\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For identification purposes only. The testimony presented here
is made in an individual capacity and is not made on behalf of the
University of Iowa or any other institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for asking me to appear before you. I offer the following context and
suggestions to encourage tribal co-management of federal public lands,
using existing legislative authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A more comprehensive assessment of the ideas discussed herein
will be published in the Wisconsin Law Review, in an article entitled
Facilitating Tribal Co-Management of Federal Public Lands (forthcoming
2002), A draft of the article is currently available here: http://
ssrn.com/abstract=3951290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
One of the most significant long-standing injustices in the history
of the United States is the theft of land from Indian tribes during the
better part of the first two centuries of this nation's existence. The
taking of native land reflects a wide gulf between our idealistic
claims to be a just nation and the truth buried in our nation's
history. Our nation is far from perfect. Since 1787, however, this
country has been working steadily, more or less, to achieve our highest
ideals and to become a ``more perfect union.'' It is in this spirit of
idealism that I appear before you today.
All of North America was once occupied by Native American tribal
nations. Today, the vast majority of federal public land is located in
the western United States, and tens of millions of acres of this land
can be traced to specific land cessions from tribes pursuant to Senate-
ratified treaties, or Presidential executive orders, that were later
violated.
Tribes have consistently sought the return of their lands from the
Federal Government. Tribal nations in South Dakota, for example,
regularly renew their request for the return of the Black Hills. An
outspoken Ojibwe scholar, David Treuer, has boldly called on the United
States to return the national parks to tribes, saying ``there can be no
better remedy for the theft of land than land'' and ``no lands are as
spiritually significant as the national parks.'' Demands by the
``LandBack'' movement have met with some success, as Congress recently
returned a significant Fish and Wildlife Service refuge, the National
Bison Range, to the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribe in Montana. As
our country continues to reckon with historical injustices and seeks to
develop allies in much-needed conservation efforts, more action is
appropriate.
The Need for Tribal Management or Co-Management of Public Lands
While returning federal lands to tribes presents significant
complexities, a wide range of actions can meet some of the same goals.
Today, I wish to discuss tribal co-management of federal public lands
as a meaningful and constructive way to acknowledge and recognize past
injustices and also broaden the federal commitment to conservation and
strong stewardship of public land.
Tribes have a lot to offer in land conservation and management,
including traditional ecological knowledge and thoughtful practices
regarding resource management that have been passed down through
generations. Tribal land managers perform better, in some ways, than
expert federal managers. Bold federal conservation goals need broad
support and tribes can be important allies to the Federal Government
and our international partners in this effort.
Views on the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistant Act
Broad opportunities for tribal co-management are already authorized
by federal laws on tribal self-determination and self-governance. In
1975 Congress enacted Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (``ISDA''), which allowed tribes to
contract with certain federal agencies to administer federal programs
that provide services to Indian people because of their status as
Indians. Under such contracts--commonly called ``638 contracts''--
tribal governments step into the shoes of the Federal Government in
providing federal services. The vast majority of these contracts are
between tribal governments or tribal consortia, on one side, and the
Indian Health Service (``IHS'') and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(``BIA'') on the other. The self-determination laws have transformed
federal services in Indian Country. The contracting scheme has
simultaneously enhanced tribal sovereignty and self-determination and
improved the quality of federal services to Indian people. It has also
had the practical effect of building substantial tribal capacity in a
field of some complexity: contracting with the Federal Government.
In 1994, Congress expanded tribal ISDA contracting authority,
allowing tribal governments to contract with Interior agencies, such as
the Fish & Wildlife Service (``FWS''), the Bureau of Land Management
(``BLM'') and the National Park Service (``NPS''). These 1994
amendments authorized tribes to contract for virtually any federal
program, service or function at the Departments of Interior or Health
and Human Services as long as it has a ``special geographic,
historical, or cultural significance'' to a tribe that is successfully
involved in the ISDA self-governance program. Similar authority was
eventually extended to the Department of Agriculture, home to the U.S.
Forest Service (``USFS'').
To tribes, expanding the contracting regime beyond traditional
tribal self-governance programs held great promise. Opportunities would
seem to abound for partnerships between tribes and federal land
management agencies. However, the strong potential for tribal co-
management in the 1994 amendments has yet to be realized.
Indeed, in contrast to the BIA and IHS, tribes have had very little
success in contracting with the federal land management services.
Compared to more than 800 annual contracts with the BIA in recent
years, tribes have entered fewer than a dozen contracts annually with
all of the other land management agencies within Interior combined,
including the BLM, FWS and NPS. Based on the numbers alone, it is fair
to conclude that the Congressional initiative to encourage federal-
tribal contracts related to public land management has failed.
To address this failure, I respectfully present several
recommendations to incentivize contracts between tribes and federal
land management agencies and to facilitate participation by tribes in
meeting ambitious federal conservation objectives. Some of the
suggestions are directed toward the agencies and some are directed
toward Congress.
Interior Agencies Should Expand the List of Federal Programs, Services
and Activities That Are Subject to Potential Contracting
The Department of the Interior is required by law to publish each
year a list identify existing contracts and detailing the list of
programs that are eligible for contracting. Since 1994, tribal
governments have become more and more successful in running federal
programs and tribal governmental capacity and expertise has expanded.
However, Interior's annual list of eligible programs, services and
activities has changed very little in more than 20 years since the list
was first published in the Federal Register.
To its credit, Interior has not ignored the program. Interior has
occasionally held tribal consultations on the program and the list has
not been entirely static. In light of the ``LandBack'' movement and
heightened interest among tribal governments and conservation
organizations in engaging tribes in land conservation, this program
should be made a Departmental priority. The Department should consult
with tribes with a view toward expanding the lists of functions for
which tribes can contract. The following activities have been included,
but some of these could be expanded:
Eligible Bureau of Land Management programs (among others):
Minerals management and cadastral surveys
Cultural heritage activities
Natural resource management, such as timber management and
watershed restoration
Range management, such as revegetation, noxious weed
control, and wild horse management
Riparian management, such as erosion control
Recreation management, such as facilities construction and
maintenance
Habitat management
Eligible National Park Service programs (among others):
Archaeological surveys
Comprehensive management planning
Ethnographic studies
Erosion control
Fire protection
Gathering subsistence data
Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Housing Construction and Rehabilitation
Interpretation
Janitorial Services
Maintenance
Natural Resource Management
Campground Operation
Range Assessment
Reindeer Grazing in Alaska
Road Repair
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Trail Rehabilitation
Watershed Restoration and
Maintenance
Recycling Programs
Eligible Fish and Wildlife Service programs (among others):
Subsistence programs within Alaska
Technical assistance, restoration, and conservation
Endangered species conservation and recovery programs
Wetland and habitat conservation restoration
Fish hatchery operations
Each Interior agency should be directed to go through the list of
activities anew and take a fresh look, in consultation with tribes.
Interior Agencies Should Also Expand the List of Federal Facilities,
Lands, and Units That Are Subject to Potential Contracting
In the same document in which Interior annually publishes notice of
the list of eligible programs, services and activities for which tribes
can contract, it also publishes the names of the lands or units that
lie in proximity to an eligible tribal government exercising self-
governance. Similar to the eligible program and services lists, these
lists have also remained relatively static during the past 20 years.
To provide examples, the NPS lists 15 park units in Alaska and
eight in Arizona, and even one in my current home state of Iowa--Effigy
Mounds National Monument. It lists six iconic units in New Mexico,
including Aztec Ruins National Monument, Bandelier National Monument,
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Chaco Culture National Historic Park,
Pecos National Historic Park and White Sands National Monument.
However, some newer public land units, which would seem to be
appropriate for inclusion, are omitted from the list. For example, the
Bears Ears National Monument in Southeastern Utah was not included,
despite significant tribal interest in assisting the BLM in managing
this tribally significant landscape. The list contains no units in
Wisconsin, despite press reports that suggest that the Red Cliff Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa has been in talks with the NPS regarding the
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, which is adjacent to the Red Cliff
and Bad River Indian Reservations.
Agencies should schedule tribal consultations, perhaps on a
regional basis, on the scope of the list of public land units, and
actively seek out tribal interest in engagement with particular units.
I am quite confident that such a review would result in the addition of
more parks, monuments, and refuges to the list. Ultimately, agencies
should be encouraged to expand the list by identifying additional units
and additional functions.
Congress Should Authorize Modest Funding for Tribal Planning Grants
and Contract Support Costs to Assist Tribes with Successful Proposals
for Land Management Contracts
Two structural impediments exist to successful tribal contracts for
public land management, at least in comparison to the original program
for contracts for ``Indian services.'' First, contracting is mandatory
for the BIA or IHS when requested by a tribe, while it is only
discretionary for the land management agencies. Tribes have long sought
to make contracting mandatory even outside the BIA and IHS. I recommend
no change here, at this time, but I do believe that Interior should
embrace contracting opportunities much more seriously.
Second, when a tribe enters a contract with either the BIA or the
IHS, the ISDA requires the agency to provide the contracting tribe with
funds equivalent to those that the Secretary ``would have otherwise
provided for his direct operation of the programs.'' The costs are
known as ``contract support costs'' and they have been the subject of
significant stress and litigation. The theory for them is this: in the
normal operation of a federal program, an agency has other expenditures
involved in running the program that may not implicate specific program
funds. For example, the Federal Government may have costs associated
with hiring personnel or with providing employee benefits that would
ordinarily be borne by the Federal Government but may not be allocated
directly from program funds. To account for such expenses, the ISDA
entitles tribes to an additional percentage of program funds, which
varies by tribe and location, to account for other costs that the
Federal Government would have borne in providing the same services.
These funds are akin to ``indirect costs,'' or ``facility and
administrative costs'' allocated in university research grants, for
example.
After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court ultimately held in
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), that the law
requires the Federal Government to pay such costs even if Congress has
not appropriated adequate funding. As a result, tribes can now count on
this funding in Indian services contracts. However, these costs are
significant, often reaching from ten to fifty percent or more of the
principal amount of the contract. Because contracts with other DOI
agencies or the USFS do not address contract support costs, contracts
with other agencies are less lucrative and more burdensome on tribes
than contracts with the BIA or IHS. Because contract support costs
represent the ordinary and routine costs of operating program, every
government must bear them. For a tribe contracting with a non-BIA or
IHS federal agency, the tribe must meet those expenses in other ways.
Because contracts with land management agencies are, in this way, more
costly to the tribe than Indian services contracts, contracts with
these agencies are less attractive and more burdensome to tribes.
Congress should consider awarding contract support costs, at least
in some limited fashion in this context, just as it does in the Indian
services context. From the perspective of tribes, the Federal
Government saves some administrative resources when a tribe takes over
functions. It makes sense to offer some, at least modest, recognition
of these savings. If this proposed reform is untenable, a more modest
reform that might make a difference is authorizing and appropriating
modest planning grants to allow interested tribal governments to
explore options and make a sophisticated judgment about the costs of
running a federal program.
Interior Should Encourage Federal Managers to Negotiate with Tribes
by Rewarding Superintendents and Regional Directors Who Enter
Negotiations for Contracts with Tribes and Recognizing Those Who
Successfully Enter Contracts
Aside from financial barriers tribes may face in seeking contracts
with federal land management agencies, tribes face additional obstacles
related to agency culture, tribal expectations, and even the political
dynamics at the agency and within interest groups and Congress. For a
variety of reasons, federal officials may be unwilling to engage in
serious discussions about such contracts. Because tribes have
significant experience managing lands and resources, however, tribes
have a lot to offer.
Federal opposition to contracting may be rooted in ignorance about
tribal success in running federal Indian programs. As Cherokee
philosopher Will Rogers once noted, ``we are all ignorant, just about
different things.'' A BLM state director, park superintendent, or FWS
regional director may simply not understand the sophisticated programs
being run by tribes in some of the same subject matter areas as the
public land management agencies. Park superintendents are accustomed to
giving tours of the iconic public lands they proudly manage. Perhaps
these superintendents and other federal managers should also be taking
tours of the tribal lands managed by neighboring tribes.
Starting with modest contracts may create an opportunity to build
trust and develop a shared understanding of missions and goals. One
example of low-hanging fruit is so called ``interpretive services.''
Nearly every national park unit has employees who are charged with
explaining the significance of the park unit. Tribal employees may have
unique value in helping members of the public understand the cultural,
historical, and scientific significance of particular lands.
New partnerships are not easy. From the federal side, a partnership
involves compromise and the willingness to give up some level of
control. Federal officials who have the vision to begin such
conversations and successfully develop new ways of approaching the
management of public lands should be rewarded.
Congress Should Align the Criteria for Tribal Contracts for USFS Land
Management Agreements with the Criteria for Interior Agreements
For the programs in the Department of the Interior, Title 25,
Section 5363(c) of the U.S. Code allows a tribe to contract for federal
activities or programs that have a ``special geographic, historical or
cultural significance'' to the tribe. Since virtually all public lands
in the United States were once occupied by one or more tribal nations,
the limitation in this language is not particularly significant. For
almost every public land unit in the western United States and many in
the East, it is likely that there is a tribe that qualifies. To the
extent that this language is limiting, it should be understood to help
the agency determine which tribe should be engaged as to which service
unit.
In contrast, the authorization for tribal contracting with USFS is
more limited. In 2004, Congress expanded contracting to the USFS,
located within the Department of Agriculture, through the Tribal Forest
Protection Act (``TFPA''). The 2004 amendment was passed largely in
response to a bad fire season in which tribes were impacted by the
failure of federal officials to prevent a forest fire from migrating
from USFS land to a tribal forest. In 2018, Congress again expanded
USFS contracting authority in the Agricultural Improvement Act (the
2018 Farm Bill), which granted USFS the authority to enter ISDA
agreements with tribes to undertake TFPA-specific projects and work. In
part because of this context, this law has more restrictive language
than in the DOI authorization.
Under the TFPA, tribes are restricted to contracting only for
projects on federal lands ``bordering or adjacent to the Indian forest
or rangeland.'' I would respectfully suggest that this language is
unduly narrow and restricts tribal nations with significant connections
to the land, including some tribal nations that are located near public
lands, though not formally adjacent. It would make sense to expand the
TFPA authorization to match the broader language in section 5363(c).
Since contracting is not mandatory for USFS, and the agency retains
discretion as to whether to enter such a contract, it is hard to see a
downside to broadening the authorization.
Agencies Should Lengthen Contractual Terms to Develop Longer
Partnerships
Some agencies have begun to execute two-year or more agreements,
and this extension is a positive development. Two-year agreements make
sense because they reflect the limit of federal budget authority (for
many agencies, money appropriated in one year generally can be used
that year and carried over to the following fiscal year). For mature
relationships between tribes and agencies, agencies should be
encouraged to enter long-term arrangements, such as five-year
contracts, which have automatic adjustments if fiscal conditions
change.
While longer contracts would assist with certainty and continuity,
such a contract need not be a straitjacket. For example, if federal
appropriations for the specific facility decrease, the tribe's contract
could be cut by a proportional amount. Moreover, tribes generally have
the authority under the law to retrocede a function or program back to
the Federal Government, and likewise, an agency has the authority to
reassume a program if the tribe is failing to meet its contractual
obligations.
Conclusion
Each year, Native American tribal nations enter hundreds of federal
contracts worth billions of dollars to run federal Indian programs.
These ``self-determination contracts'' have been enormously successful
in improving the effective delivery of federal programs on Indian
reservations, while also maintaining the government's goal of
encouraging tribal participation in economic development. When tribes
manage public land, they bring a long-standing and deep commitment to
land stewardship. They also have strong human capital to bring to bear,
including traditional ecological knowledge that has developed over
centuries.
Tribal governments wish to use their resources and expertise more.
At a time when all nations must work together to address the effects of
climate change, federal co-management with tribal nations can bring to
bear new tools, new expertise, and new players to bear on the federal
conservation agenda. A modest and attainable way to begin the expansion
of tribal co-management is by using the mechanisms already
congressionally authorized. This can lead to a strong potential of
developing more contracts and relationships, breathing new life into
the tribal contracting programs on public lands.
Thank you for inviting my views.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dean. The Chair now
wishes to recognize Mr. Cody Desautel, President of the
Intertribal Timber Council.
Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Chair Grijalva and Ranking Member
Moore. I am Cody Desautel, I am the President of the
Intertribal Timber Council and Natural Resource Director for
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in
Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its more than 60
member tribes and organizations across the country, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss how tribes are well
situated to help co-manage Federal forest lands.
A total of 334 reservations in 36 states includes 18.6
million acres of forests and woodlands held in trust by the
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians. Pursuant
to both tribal direction and Federal law, our forests must be
sustainably managed.
Tribes operate modern, innovative, and comprehensive
natural resource programs premised on connectedness to the
land, resources, and people. Our approach is holistic,
sustaining a triple bottom line of economic, ecological, and
cultural values. We care for the land through active management
and do our utmost to aggressively treat problems proactively
before they reach disastrous proportions, fueling wildfires.
Even with limited budgets, tribes have demonstrated more
effective forest management than Federal agencies. ITC believes
we also have a stronger balance between resource protection and
producing economic outputs that support our local communities.
In addition to having more fire-resilient forests, tribes
also respond to fires more effectively. The average size of
fires on BIA-managed lands is three times smaller than on
Forest Service. Suppression costs on a per-acre basis are five
times lower on BIA-managed lands.
Indian tribes are neighbors to Federal forests and many
tribes retain and exercise treaty and reserved rights.
Unhealthy Federal forests impact tribes' ability to practice
those reserved rights and, in some cases, those impacts
overflow onto our reservations. Even with effective treatments
to our own lands, severe wildfires from adjacent Federal lands
inflict significant damage and economic cost to tribal forests.
In the last two decades, tribes have increased their co-
management activities on Federal forest lands, utilizing tools
authorized by Congress. The Tribal Forest Protection Act
authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to enter into agreements
with tribes for forest health projects on U.S. Forest Service
and BLM lands that pose fire, forest health, or other threats
to adjacent tribal trust forests.
In 2018, the Farm Bill expanded 638 self-determination
contracting authority to USDA for TFPA projects. This provided
a funding mechanism to allow tribal participation to ensure
tribal goals and objectives are included. The ITC and Forest
Service have been working collaboratively to implement this
provision on the ground.
The 2018 Farm Bill also authorized tribes to enter into
cross-boundary forest health projects using the Good Neighbor
Authority. However, the Farm Bill language failed to give
tribes the ability to retain project revenues needed to build
restoration program capacity internally. Legislation has been
introduced in the House to remedy this situation, which the ITC
supports.
The Department of the Interior's Reserved Treaty Rights
Lands program enables tribes to participate in collaborative
projects with off-reservation, non-tribal landowners to enhance
the health and resiliency of priority tribal natural resources
at high risk to wildland fire. This addresses areas where
Federal agencies may not share tribal priorities, or may agree
but do not have the funds available to manage for them.
A major barrier to tribal co-management activities is
capacity. Management of tribal trust forests are funded at a
fraction of the equivalent Federal forests: $.30 on the dollar,
compared to the Forest Service. In addition to the funding
received from the BIA, it is restricted to management of tribal
trust land. It is difficult for most tribes to justify using
tribal funds on co-management initiatives off reservation, when
the tribal needs are so great at home. Tribes have been
deprived of tools like GNA receipt retention, which could be
used to build programs as states have successfully done for
many years.
The ITC recommends the following steps to increase tribal
co-management opportunities on Federal forest lands: provide
parity and project revenue spending authority to tribes
interested in Good Neighbor Authority projects; authorize
Federal hazardous fuels dollars to be used to build tribal
capacity for development of cross-boundary projects; authorize
the tribes to initiate Cooperative Forest Landscape Restoration
projects where TFPA and GNA may not be an appropriate tool; and
statutorily require the National Forests and BLM adequately
contemplate tribal interests in forest planning and processes
under NEPA.
The ITC stands ready to work with the Committee and the
Administration on enhancing tribal participation in the
management of Federal forests. The ITC has and will continue to
support legislation from both parties that increase the roles
and responsibilities of Indian tribes and the management of
Federal forests for the good of all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber
Council
I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council
(ITC) and Natural Resources Director for the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation in Washington State. On the behalf of the ITC and
its more than 60 member Tribes and organizations across the country, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss how tribes are well situated to
help co-manage federal forestlands.
Tribes are first stewards of the land, air, water, earth, and all
things that walk, fly, swim, or grow roots. Tribal wisdom and practices
are needed more than ever. Tribal participation in the management of
public and all lands should be embraced to heal and protect the
resources we share.
Tribes are the experts when it comes to local conditions,
resources, and socio-economic forces. Their cultures, economies,
religions, identities, foods, and medicines are grounded in a profound
covenant of stewardship of the environment connecting the past,
present, and future.
On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 18.6 million acres of
forests and woodlands are held in trust by the United States and
managed for the benefit of Indians. Pursuant to both tribal direction
and federal law, our forests must be sustainably managed. Indian Tribes
work in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and others to
care for the land.
Tribes operate modern, innovative and comprehensive natural
resource programs premised on connectedness to the land, resources, and
people. Our approach is holistic--sustaining a ``triple bottom line''
of economic, ecological, and cultural values. We care for the land
through active management and do our utmost to aggressively treat
problems such as insect or disease infestations, and fuels before they
can reach disastrous proportions fueling wildfires that have plagued
the west.
Even with limited budgets, tribes have demonstrated more
effectiveness in forest management than federal agencies. I believe we
have a stronger balance between resource protection and producing
economic outputs. Our forests are more resilient to fire, Tribes also
respond to fires more effectively. The average size of a fire on BIA-
managed lands is three times smaller than on Forest Service land.
Suppression costs, on a per-acre basis, are five times lower on fires
on BIA lands.
All public lands are carved from historically Indian lands. Indian
tribes are neighbors to federal forests and many tribes retain and
exercise treaty and reserved rights on these lands to hunt and fish,
gather foods and medicines, and for other cultural purposes that define
them as a people. Unhealthy forests impact Tribes' ability to practice
those activities on federal lands, and in some cases those impacts
overflow onto our reservations. Even with effective treatments to our
own lands, severe wildfires from adjacent federal lands inflict
significant damage and economic costs to tribal forests.
In the last two decades, tribes have stepped up their co-management
activities on federal forestlands utilizing the tools authorized by
Congress:
TFPA: The Tribal Forest Protection Act (P.L. 108-278
[2004]) authorizes the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to enter
agreements with tribes for forest health projects on USFS
and BLM lands that pose fire, health or other threats to
adjacent tribal trust forests.
o `` 638 authority'': Additional authority provided in the
2018 Farm Bill allows the Forest Service to enter into 638
self-determination contracts with tribes for TFPA projects
which provides a funding mechanism to allow tribal
participation to ensure tribal goals and objectives are
included in implementation of those projects. The ITC and the
Forest Service have been working collaboratively to implement
this provision on the ground.
Good Neighbor Authority: The 2018 Farm Bill authorized
tribes to enter into cross boundary forest health projects
using this authority with DOI and the Forest Service, but
failed to give tribes the ability to retain project
revenues to build restoration programs. Legislation has
been introduced in the House to remedy this situation and
the ITC would recommend it be addressed in the next Farm
Bill.
Reserved Treaty Rights Lands: Many Tribes possess reserved
rights in off-reservation areas under the management of
other federal agencies. In some cases Tribes share co-
management rights with federal agencies. Federal agencies
may not share the same priorities for landscape restoration
as tribes or, may agree with Tribal priorities but not have
the funds to manage for Tribal priorities. The Department
of the Interior's Reserved Treaty Right Lands (RTRL)
program enables Tribes to participate in collaborative
projects with non-Tribal landowners to enhance the health
and resiliency of priority tribal natural resources at high
risk to wildland fire.
The ITC has and will continue to support legislation from both
parties that increase the roles and responsibilities of Indian tribes
in the management of federal forests. The value of co-management
projects accrues to all Americans, not just tribal members.
A major barrier to tribal co-management activities is capacity.
Management of tribal trust forests are funded at a fraction of
equivalent federal forests--thirty cents on the dollar. In addition the
funding received from the BIA is restricted to management of tribal
trust land. It is difficult for most tribes to self-finance co-
management initiatives.
Tribes have been deprived of tools like receipt retention in GNA
projects that could be used to build programs as states have
successfully done for many years.
The ITC recommends the following steps to increase tribal co-
management opportunities on federal forestlands:
Provide parity in project revenue spending authority to
tribes interested in Good Neighbor Authority projects;
Authorize federal hazardous fuels dollars to be used to
build tribal capacity for development of cross-boundary
projects;
Authorize funding for tribes to initiate Cooperative
Forest Landscape Restoration projects where TFPA/GNA may
not be an appropriate tool;
Statutorily require that National Forests and BLM units
adequately contemplate tribal interests in forest planning
processes under NEPA
The ITC stands ready to work with the Committee and the
Administration on enhancing tribal participation in the management of
federal forests.
______
The Chairman. Let me now recognize the Ranking Member for
any questions or comments he might have.
Mr. Moore, you are recognized.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I do have several questions
I will direct to Mr. Desautel, but I first just want to comment
on kind of what we have seen discussed today, and I get it,
right? Those of us in the Minority, the Republican side of the
aisle, we want to talk about energy production, and we want to
talk about energy independence for, particularly, what is going
on in the world. And there is frustration from the Majority
side, saying that is not what today's hearings are about.
I had a town hall last night, a telephone town hall with my
constituents in Utah. We had 71 questions submitted. Sixty-five
of these questions were about energy independence and the
Russia-Ukraine conflict and how the two are intertwined. So,
when we constantly bring up this topic, this is what our
constituents are talking about. We represent them. This is the
Committee of jurisdiction over one of the most important
things, and we should look at that as an opportunity, in my
opinion.
I serve on Armed Services and Natural Resources,
particularly as the Ranking Member on Oversight and
Investigation. And candidly, I am excited about that, because I
feel like there is an opportunity to do something. I mean, what
is more relevant right now than Armed Services and Natural
Resources and what our nation can do to address this?
So, it is not an insincere sort of political ploy. I want
to re-emphasize one thing that my friend from Louisiana, Garret
Graves, said. We are in a bind now because we can't prepare for
this. We are going to cut off oil energy, or we are going to
cut off energy from Russia, and we can't backfill it. And now
we have to go to other dictators. That is the most
irresponsible thing that we can do as lawmakers.
I emphasize the point--85 to 90 percent of the questions
that I had last night are directly related to this Committee of
jurisdiction.
And, thankfully, I have been able to highlight to my
constituents that I have been speaking out against the
Secretarial Order, the Keystone Pipeline, since last February,
13 months ago. That is good for me politically, but I am not
looking for a political win. I am sincerely looking for a win
for our nation and for our allies. That is what I truly care
about, and I know that is what all of us actually do care
about.
So, that is where it is coming from. It is not coming from
cheap politics, I promise you.
And I am going to take this opportunity, Mr. Desautel, to
just highlight. Given the instability that we are witnessing in
Eastern Europe, can you talk to us about the importance for us
to look at domestic energy production from our tribes and even
other communities? And what benefits would you see from that?
I look at it as an opportunity to avoid the Ayatollah,
avoid Venezuela, and look at what we have here, and do it
better and cleaner. And if we invest in ourselves, we can go
find more renewable opportunities. Any thoughts there, sir?
Mr. Desautel. Yes, thanks for the question. We don't have
much experience with that, as an Intertribal Timber Council,
but we have put significant effort into looking at renewable
fuels, primarily biomass. And we know that, through a number of
studies through universities across the country, that that is
primarily limited by economics, that it is not financially
feasible to remove those products from the forests and make a
profit, so you don't see it utilized on the ground.
Now, I think we have had a lot of conversations about a
cost model, recognizing what wildfires cost us on an annual
basis, and how we can do work on the landscape in the near term
to remove those fuels, even if it is at a minor cost. The
benefits that we see in the long term, I think, hold huge
potential.
And most tribal governments exist in rural communities, so
any time there is an opportunity to generate an economy, that
is helpful for the local tribes.
Mr. Moore. Let me put some numbers to it, actually. What I
have here is that the United States imported over $450 million
worth of wood products from Russia. Wood products exports are a
$12 billion economy for Vladimir Putin.
So, similar to the conversations if we talk energy, do you
think there is an opportunity here to source our lumber from
countries, leveraging our Federal and tribal lands to produce
more timber?
Mr. Desautel. Absolutely. That is primarily a limitation of
funding for the BIA, that if you look at what the annual level
harvest is for tribes across the country, we are only utilizing
about half of that on any given year. So, there is a
significant amount of wood that would benefit both tribal and
local economies if we had the funding to ensure that those
forest products made it to market.
Mr. Moore. Thank you. I appreciate you being here and the
chance to talk about this.
I hope my comments are understood in the intent that they
are, that is to be productive and to leverage this Committee to
the best possible use of taxpayer resources. Thank you,
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And in any discussion
going forward on the issue of energy independence, self-
reliance, both as a domestic policy and a foreign policy, yes,
to that conversation. I think my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle--and I appreciate your comments, Mr. Moore--have
to understand that those conversations need to be factual, OK,
and second of all, that those conversations are not one-sided,
that Members on my side of the aisle in the Majority have ideas
on that pathway to energy independence just as some Members on
your side have ideas to reinstate former policies as the only
means to acquire energy independence. I think that discussion
is going to be important--it is important.
But I hope there is some acknowledgment that there is not
just one path to this, and that--whether it is the McMorris-
Westerman piece of legislation that is counterproductive to
everything this Committee has been doing, if that is the
template that you are using, yes, then it is worth a debate,
because there are some serious questions about the
effectiveness of that.
But we will get at it some other meeting. I want to
concentrate on this. Let me now recognize Chair Leger Fernandez
from New Mexico. You are recognized.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chair Grijalva, and thank
you to the witnesses and this whole discussion that we are
having about the topic in terms of the roles and the importance
of tribes actually participating and managing their own lands,
which are also their aboriginal lands, which are also, in many
cases, their sacred lands.
I worked for many years, had the honor of working with Taos
Pueblo, and we all know the history, that Taos Pueblo was one
of the very first tribes that was able to have returned to it
Blue Lake over 50 years ago. And it was such a celebration for
them to receive back to them that incredibly sacred piece of
land, which meant something to them that none of the rest of us
can understand, other than it is their sacredness, it is their
stories, it is their history, and they are, therefore, the
perfect people to protect it.
But what I also know is that there was supposed to be an
agreement for the wilderness surrounding it and funding for the
tribe to be able to exercise that protection because it does
cost money, right? And protecting a wilderness area requires
the investment of resources, and they have been frustrated time
and time again about the fact that the allocation of resources
hasn't come through.
And that brings me to your testimony, Mr. Washburn, and how
nice to see you again. I love the fact that we have all of
these New Mexico connections on this hearing today. But you had
some good recommendations for tribal co-management, and one of
them involved the issue of costs, right, and how important it
is for tribes to be able to collect contract support costs and
indirect costs when they execute a 638 contract.
We know that happens with the BIA or IHS. It makes it
possible for tribes to actually be able to afford to run that
program. But tell us a little bit more about what a better
estimate of those indirect costs might be, in the context of
co-management of lands, and why the failure to do that is such
a barrier for tribes.
Mr. Washburn. Thank you for the wonderful question. The
challenge here is tribes, they have limited resources. Many of
them have limited resources. I will say there are some tribes
that will do co-management, even without contract support costs
and without additional costs.
But the fact is, when the United States contracts with
others to do work--like universities, for example, for
research--it often recognizes that by giving them additional
sums to help them pay for IT, information technology, and human
resources, and those sorts of things. And tribes can be more
successful if they get the same kinds of resources.
And when they do this, it saves the Federal Government
money. Indeed, in some cases--and you heard some of it here
from one of our witnesses--but tribes can be even more
efficient than the Federal Government in providing these
services. So, that means the taxpayer may be getting more for
its money if it contracts with tribes for some of these
services.
In part, that is because tribes don't necessarily follow
the general Federal pay scale. They don't necessarily have the
same kinds of benefits that the Federal Government has and that
sort of thing. So, they are a little more flexible, I think,
than the Federal Government.
In sum, tribes can do this sometimes cheaper, but they do
need support. They need some of those administrative costs
provided.
So, thank you for the wonderful question.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And it really just makes sense, right?
If the Federal Government would be doing it, they are paying
somebody due to the IT, they are paying somebody to answer the
phones. All of those are simply the costs of doing the
business, right?
And then there is this other piece that is really key, in
terms of the manner in which tribes will hire their own members
to do this work, and the economic impact on the tribe itself,
and how they are able to grow their capacity so that--going
back to Taos Pueblo, they have an amazing natural resources
department that is available to do that, that is constrained by
costs. But their natural resources department is working on
making sure that they are able to do some of the game hunts and
bring in additional resources.
So, can you maybe touch base on the fact that there is a--
well, actually, I am out of time--that there is actually this
multiplier effect that happens when we are basically investing
in tribal infrastructure, and getting the benefits of that deep
knowledge of the land that somebody coming from outside would
never have, is that correct?
Mr. Washburn. That is correct. Thank you.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. Continuing
a markedly New Mexico vibe in this meeting, the gentlelady from
New Mexico, Representative Herrell, you are recognized.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is New Mexico Day in
Washington. I just really appreciate this hearing.
And I have the privilege of representing the Mescalero
Apache Tribe and other pueblos in the district that I
represent. Last year, I actually took Ranking Member Westerman
down to Ruidoso, down to visit the Mescalero Apache Tribe, so
that he could really understand the difference in terms of
forest management done on the tribal land versus on public
land. And I kind of want to ask the same question my colleague
was just asking, but kind of flip it a little bit, and I wanted
to ask this to Mr. Desautel.
In your testimony, you list out several proposals that
Congress should be considering to empower tribes to better
manage forests on their reservations. And in our area, they do
already. The tribes and pueblos do a much better job. So, to
flip it, what do you think that Federal managers should be
doing, and what do you think they can learn from tribal land
managers when it comes to preventing catastrophic wildfires and
managing public lands?
Mr. Desautel. Thank you for the question. The Intertribal
Timber Council has hosted a number of different workshops to
try to leverage the authorities that tribes have currently that
have been granted by Congress, primarily over the last couple
of decades. And TFPA has been the most successful of those so
far.
But, I think, when we develop those projects, tribes have
tried to, one, utilize them along their border, so you see what
tribal management looks like on one side of the fence versus
the Forest Service side, and then create a similar condition on
the other side, where you have resilience, you have those
tribal priorities included in project development and
implementation.
So, in addition to that, you get the economic benefits, the
ecosystem function benefits of having ecosystems that have been
actively managed with a resilience and a climate change
perspective in mind.
And I think tribes carry that throughout the nation. That
isn't something that is specific to the Southwest, but they do
a great job down there.
Ms. Herrell. They really do. I mean, you are exactly right.
You can literally look at the fencing and look at one side of
the fence versus the other and see a stark difference.
And just quick, because I know we are almost out of time, I
am curious. Can you give the Committee any examples, or are you
familiar with any of the steps that the tribal members and
tribes are taking to address watershed health and water supply
issues?
I mean, especially in these rural communities throughout
the Southwest, where we are just riddled with drought
conditions, I am just curious if there is something that you
are familiar with that they might be working on, in terms of
watershed stability in their forest management process.
Mr. Desautel. I don't know of any specific projects, but I
know in general their management approach looks at what a
resilient ecosystem is and the benefits that come from that.
So, we have clean water with good quantity, we have clean air,
and all of the habitat and cultural resource needs that the
tribes have.
So, their guiding principles in management are focused on
that. Although I don't know specific examples, I think there
are probably plenty of them across the West, where tribes
recognize the benefit of those upper watersheds and why it is
important to maintain those and not necessarily where the point
of withdrawal is.
Ms. Herrell. Yes, and I just think the limited number of
trees per acre would certainly have a huge impact on watershed,
downstream users, water availability. And hats off to how well,
especially Mescalero Apache and others, have managed their
properties and their land. It is amazing.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I turn back the New Mexico portion
of your hearing to you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Representative. I happen to be
fortunate, and my spouse is from northern New Mexico. She is
born and bred, and we have been together quite a while. And I
have learned that sometimes you just roll with the punches.
There is not much you can do when it comes to New Mexico.
Anyway, Chairman Lowenthal, you are recognized for any
comments or questions you may have, sir. Thank you.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. If not, let me move down to Representative
Garcia, if you are----
Dr. Lowenthal. No, I am here. I am here, Chairman Grijalva.
The Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Lowenthal. You are recognized,
Chairman.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank
you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing on the
development of tribal co-management on Federal lands.
And I am not from New Mexico. I will state that clearly as
we begin. But I have family in New Mexico, and I have held a
field hearing in New Mexico. So, I am very honored to be part
of this New Mexico-focused hearing.
My question, though, is for Professor Washburn.
Professor, I represent a coastal district, not in New
Mexico, but I represent a coastal district in Southern
California. While this hearing is focused on expanding tribal
co-management on Federal lands, the focus has been on onshore
Federal lands. Is there any reason, Professor, that we
shouldn't also work to incorporate federally recognized tribes
into the co-management of our ocean resources?
As I think you know--I will give you an example--the Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash Indian is trying to do just that with the
proposed Chumash Marine Sanctuary. What can this Committee do
to support the tribe's effort with NOAA?
And what should we do to support co-management outside of
the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture-held lands?
Should Commerce and other departments issue Secretarial
Orders similar to that issued by Interior and Agriculture,
Professor Washburn?
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. Those are
such important efforts, that cooperation around the fisheries
and in California off the coast. I absolutely believe that co-
management can also work offshore. I think that is exactly
right.
I am not sure that NOAA and some other Federal agencies
have quite enough authority necessarily to be doing a lot of
this, but there are good reasons to do so.
You heard a little bit about traditional ecological
knowledge from my colleagues, and it is quite amazing what
tribes bring to the table in management of fisheries. Alaska
Natives can fairly accurately forecast a fish run, based on the
prevalence of mosquitoes in a given season. And they live
there, so they know.
So, there are those kinds of things that make sense when
you think about it, but it is not the way that traditional
Westerners approach management of the resources. And they bring
incredible wisdom like that. So, I absolutely think it is
important for tribes to be involved in offshore management, as
well. Thanks for raising that important point.
Dr. Lowenthal. Is there anybody, any other panelists, that
wants to jump into dealing with or expanding tribal co-
management to offshore also, to our fisheries like the Santa
Ynez Chumash Indians?
[No response.]
Dr. Lowenthal. Well, I also agree and concur that it is
very important, and I thank Professor Washburn. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you,
Representative Lowenthal, for expanding the base. Us landlocked
people sometimes don't place the balance right, and I
appreciate your comments, and they are well taken and
necessary.
Let me recognize Representative Rosendale.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Rosendale?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, let me turn to Representative Garcia.
You are recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I just signed on. Can I pass for the
next opportunity, please?
Ms. Tlaib. I am ready. This is Rashida Tlaib from Michigan.
The Chairman. Representative Tlaib, you are recognized.
Thank you.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman. I am so eager to welcome
this panel and thank you so much, again, for your leadership in
holding this important hearing.
I am humbled by what we have learned from our Native
Americans and traditional ecology-centered knowledge. Native
Americans as a timeless connection to our lands that we inhabit
today should help us, really inform us on how we can have a
more sustainable, more managed preservation of our natural
resources in our environment.
Here in Michigan, I am incredibly proud to stand with over
12 Native American tribes as they fight united against the Line
5 oil pipeline owned by Enbridge. This company is responsible
for one of the worst inland oil spills in American history.
Line 5, for many of our communities, is a ticking time bomb
threatening a huge, catastrophic impact on the environment,
water, fish, wildlife of the Great Lakes, and endangering
tribal communities' treaty rights. I was there, serving in the
Michigan Legislature, when that spill happened in Kalamazoo,
and it was devastating, and we are still trying to clean it up.
It is disgusting that there is even a debate about whether
dirty oil should flow through the waters that give us life in
the Great Lakes region. But that is what happens when we allow
corporate profits to matter more than environmental protection
or our public health.
Professor Kiel, can you talk about empowering Native
Americans to use a traditional ecological knowledge to help
guide the stewardship of our land, air, and water and shift the
priorities and values of our Federal Government? Can you talk a
little bit about that?
And also, Professor, would land management more closely
aligned with traditional--you know, what would that look like,
when we align together those traditional ecology-centric
knowledge?
Dr. Kiel. Thank you, Representative Tlaib, for a really
great question.
There are a lot of potential ways to speak to that. I will
draw from my own community's tradition, the Haudenosaunee
people, otherwise known as the Iroquois Confederacy.
In terms of one of the ways, how else could we approach
these conversations, how else could we think about them
alternatively, it is important to recognize in the
Haudenosaunee intellectual tradition we have a philosophy that
guides our decision making, and has since the formation of what
we call the Great Law of Peace, which we refer to as the Seven
Generations philosophy, which is a philosophy of long-term,
sustainable planning as opposed to gambling on short-term
futures. And that depth of planning is central to Haudenosaunee
leadership. It is just one example, but it is a philosophy that
reaches other communities across North America, as well.
And all the decisions that we make in regards to our
community are grounded in thinking about what is going to be in
the best interests of the people for seven entire generations
long. It is a really long time. It is not a brief period of
time, it is approaching 200 years.
So, for that scale of thought to be--how we approach these
conversations, I think that is one important way to think about
what it means to incorporate Indigenous thought into these
dialogues, is to think about depth of time and different
perspectives. That is a lot of what we are talking about with
traditional ecological knowledge. This isn't about family
histories that go back a few generations, or even seven
generations. This is about thousands of years of history. And
to really engage the depth of human experience and to pay
adequate respect to it. I think that is a lot of what these
conversations are about.
And we are in a moment of crisis globally, where our
reliance on fossil fuels puts us all in danger. Thank you.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Professor. I think it is safe
to say, at a minimum, we need to implement real tribal co-
management. That is going to help us fight some of the threats
like Line 5.
Most of the jobs, especially in my community, from
corporate polluters, they are temporary, and they will be of
little use if another oil spill is allowed to destroy the
source of our water and source of our life.
Ms. DeCoteau, in your testimony, you give a great example
of salmon restoration, and you say it is more than economics,
politics, and that it is more than that. If you can, talk about
the Native American, again, ecological management
incorporation--incorporating the culture, values, and spiritual
practices, how these values produce different resource
management outcomes.
Ms. DeCoteau. Yes, thank you so much for the question.
I think I can rely, really, on our restoration plan, which
I spoke a little bit about in my testimony regarding Wy-Kan-
Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit. It is the only restoration plan in the
entire Columbia River Basin that looks at the entire life cycle
of the salmon. So, we are looking at these out-migrating fish
as juveniles, but, really, where they were born as eggs, and
how they go up to the ocean and come back to those same exact
places where they were born to spawn, and then, of course, die
and give the resources of their body and the nutrients back to
the rivers and streams that they were born in.
I think that whole philosophy, in terms of how we look at
restoration and management, is at a very watershed, basin-wide
level, because everything is so interconnected, and we see
that. And I, of course, come from a fisheries organization, but
we do concentrate on all of our foods, which we call first
foods. And traditionally, we have always operated on a calendar
year of when those foods are available. So, we have an innate
knowledge of and experience and expertise that goes back
multitudes of generations looking at these areas.
So, thank you.
Ms. Tlaib. Sorry, Ms. DeCoteau, for not giving you enough
time.
Thank you, Chairman, for your patience.
The Chairman. No, thank you. Let me now recognize
Representative Rosendale.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. If Mr. Rosendale isn't available, let me now
recognize Representative Garcia for 5 minutes.
Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member, and, of course, the witnesses for joining us today.
The Federal Government has a unique relationship with the
tribal governments. Our Constitution recognizes tribes as
sovereign nations. Yet, to date, the Federal Government still
fails to honor tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.
Today's witnesses have shared their experience on the
importance of tribal co-management and what that looks like in
tribal communities.
By listening to Indigenous communities on Federal land
management decisions, we can protect the livelihood and well-
being of Indigenous communities. I applaud the Department of
the Interior and the USDA for working to promote co-management
of public lands with tribes and ensuring that tribal
governments are involved throughout the land management
decision-making process. I look forward to seeing how the
Administration will put these principles into practice.
A question for Professor Washburn: What incentives or
requirements might the Department of the Interior provide to
increase co-management engagements on the ground?
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Congressman. One of the things we
need is just better communication and cooperation, and we need
it in the Administration, we need it in Congress, we need it
across our whole country, honestly.
But one of the things we need to do is reward those tribal
managers, those park superintendents, those fish and wildlife
regional directors, those BLM state directors, reward them when
they are having conversation with tribes. Let's encourage that.
Let's put it in their performance evaluations. Let's reward
them when they do it well. And that is just one simple thing
that the Administration can do to encourage this sort of thing.
We also need more tribal consultations--the Department,
these agencies should go out and consult with tribes, perhaps
on a regional basis, to try to find more opportunities to do
this sort of thing.
And those are two things that are not terribly difficult
but can make a difference. Thanks for the wonderful question.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. A question for Ms. Aja
DeCoteau.
Your testimony mentioned the Commission entered into a
self-determination contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
to support the co-management of the Columbia River Basin. How
did this contract assist you in your work in the Columbia River
Basin?
Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
This contract of self-determination of 638 funds really was
foundational to the creation of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission. It not only recognized the sovereignties of
each of our member tribes acting individually, but also through
our organization as an extension of kind of a policy and
technical arm on behalf of the tribes.
The contract provides the resources to develop policy,
legal, scientific expertise to assist our tribal policymakers
and leadership to make informed decisions that support co-
management efforts and are consistent with our tribal culture,
our treaty rights, and, of course, the knowledge that we have.
It also provides the resources to establish law enforcement
services that are so critical on the Columbia River, and it
also allows tribes to enforce their own fishing regulations as
part of our tribal sovereignty. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. And how long did it take you to put such a
contract together? How long did you work on it?
Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative.
CRITFC was formed in 1977, prior to me being born, so I am
not really sure about the actual time it took to get that
contract together. But I know that the reason we came together
was because we were being denied access to the river to assert
our treaty-reserved fishing rights. And we were being denied
access by law enforcement.
So, by giving us this contract, creating our own police
department at CRITFC has given us the ability to take back our
control over the fisheries management itself, and the
enforcement of fishing laws and regulations, as well as assert
ourselves. And any tribal members who do get cited go back into
their own respective tribal government processes. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And I think that is an example of a
win-win situation for all stakeholders, and justice and self-
determination prevail. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Representative Garcia. I think I
am going to take this opportunity to recognize myself for some
questions.
Professor, speaking of the importance of Indigenous
knowledge, this right following the European contact, the
European colonists relied upon the Indigenous experiences,
expertise, and support in navigating this new environment.
Could you talk a little bit about that?
Dr. Kiel. I would be happy to. Without being too bleak, it
is fair to say that Europeans would not have survived on this
continent without the assistance of traditional ecological
knowledge, the knowledge Native people provided in terms of how
to conduct agriculture in American soils, which was unknown.
The innovations of three sisters' agriculture, for
instance, which is growing of corn, beans, and squash together
in ways that complement one another that are rich and
sustainable for the soil are profoundly important practices.
They come to shape the lives and well-being of the Americans
after arrival.
Oneida people, during the Revolutionary War, bringing our
corn to starving soldiers at Valley Forge, one of many moments
when our traditional crops have come to save Euro-Americans,
for sure.
The Chairman. Yes. The Federal Government's diminishment of
the historical Indigenous land bases across this country, how
has that affected--now that most of them are either Federal or
state land--how has that affected the culturally relevant
management of these lands?
Once they were the land base of the tribe.
Dr. Kiel. Yes, yes. I mean, most of these lands remain
outside of Indigenous control.
One way to emphasize how important it is to recognize that
power imbalance, one way to put it is that, for Indigenous
people, the Holy Land is here, right? Our sacred sites are
here, not across an ocean somewhere. And I think that is an
incredibly important framework for people to keep in mind, that
we are talking about the management of other people's sacred
lands, and that is part of the U.S. responsibility, is to come
and understand them as part of this important work.
The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, I have never understood that
double standard, but that is me.
Ms. DeCoteau, what additional resources could--well, better
said, what advice would you share with the tribal government, a
tribal organization, a Federal land manager seeking to
establish a co-management relationship? What would be one
central piece of advice?
Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you for the question, Chair Grijalva. I
would say, similar to what I explained in my testimony, is
tribes have firsthand knowledge of current conditions and we
have witnessed these changes over generations. And our
knowledge can be used to further direct research. It could be
used to flag problems and challenges. But, furthermore, it is
to come together as partners to come to solutions for the
benefit of all of the resources and all of the people that
depend on them.
I think there are excellent examples out there, in terms of
how these partnerships have come together, even though it has
taken a really long time, potentially. But I think I always
point to the Yakima integrated plan as a bipartisan effort for
all interests alike looking for a reliable quantity of water,
clean water, and in-stream and out-of-stream uses alike.
So, I would suggest that we don't need to reinvent the
wheel in some cases. There are excellent examples out there.
And, really, just to understand that our tribes know best about
our lands, our waters, and our resources that thrive within
them.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dean Washburn, we heard the Professor address the history
of tribes, including the issue central to this discussion, land
dispossession. In your opinion, do you think tribal co-
management is relevant in addressing the history the Professor
discussed with us?
And do you think this tribal co-management is a viable
concept for land management agencies to consider?
Mr. Washburn. Absolutely, Chairman. I have heard some
criticism of you in this hearing for having this session right
now, when we need to be focused, some would say, on energy
independence.
And I see my time is up. May I briefly conclude?
The Chairman. Oh, please. I am the last one and I have a
little bit of flexibility in the time right now, unless my good
friend, the Ranking Member, will indulge----
Mr. Moore. The benefits of being the Chair. Of course, you
could continue.
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Ranking Member and Chair.
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Washburn. Let me just say that tribal co-management is
important to all of this stuff. I have heard people say that
you should be focusing more on energy independence. Well, let
me just say that, yes, using more American natural resources is
a way to get to American energy independence, and tribes can
help us all get there.
Another way--and frankly, the long-term way we need to get
to energy independence is to use fewer fossil resources. We
need to get to that place, and I think we all agree on that,
that it is better not to be reliant on all of these other
countries for oil and gas. And that is a conservationist
strategy, right? We need to use less, and tribes can help us
get there, too.
So, whatever your goals are in American public policy,
tribal co-management is helpful. It is helpful to people on the
right side of the aisle, it is helpful to people on the left. I
think that is the one thing that I think you all agree on, even
if you don't think this hearing should be happening right now.
I think you have to realize that tribes can be good partners in
helping you achieve your goals, and that is sort of the point
that I would like to end on. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony.
In one of the testimonies, we were talking about the
concept of time, and the value and belief that Indigenous
people put in the concept, the concept being thinking beyond
one's self, that this will go on, and I think that is an
important point to make to close for me, that we have some work
to do, some information, but I think conceptually, as we
redefine and as tribes redefine for us in the Federal
Government what trust responsibility means in this real world,
not in that other real world, but this time now, and how tribes
are redefining for themselves what their parameters about
sovereignty are and should be, co-management is a tool. And we
are going to be earnest in pursuing that.
And I want to thank all of you for the testimony. It was
excellent. And it is a perfect time to have these discussions,
because----
Mr. Moore. Chair, we have another Member. We had a Member
join. Representative Rosendale did just join.
The Chairman. Can I finish? And I want to thank you for
that.
With that, let me recapture the one point I wanted to make.
We are going to go forward with this, and it is not about an
immediacy. We have an immediacy in front of us. It is a crisis
of proportions, Ukraine and all the adjacent things that are
occurring domestically and internationally on that issue. And
we have to deal with it. No question about it, and we will.
This issue is something that had been left in the past, and
its immediacy is for us to think beyond ourselves for a second.
And that is the point of this hearing.
Mr. Rosendale, you are here, and my courtesy is to
recognize you, sir. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and
I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to ask a couple of
questions. I have been running two committees, as many of us
do, at the same time.
Last year's near-record-setting wildfire season
demonstrated why it is so important to effectively manage our
Federal lands. All of us on this Committee value our public
lands. But in order to enjoy and conserve them, we need to
allow common-sense forest management controlling highly
flammable underbrush and vegetation. Neglecting to carry out
common-sense management harms our public lands in the long run,
leading to catastrophic wildfires, devastation, destruction,
and cascading effects that hurts everything from our waterways
and our fisheries to just weed management that ends up
affecting other properties.
Our tribal communities have a long history of managing our
lands effectively to promote healthy forests. Mr. Desautel, can
you expand on how tribal partners can help mitigate wildfire
risk and improve forest health through co-management
agreements?
Mr. Desautel. Yes, and thank you for the question. This is
something we talk about quite a bit with Federal agencies, that
there needs to first be a recognition that you can't take fire
out of fire-adapted ecosystems we have in the West. And,
really, the focus should be changed on how we make landscapes
resilient so that those post-fire conditions are more in line
with what would have happened historically.
So, when we look at co-management, it really means tribes
need to have a seat at the table when the decisions are made,
so that we can ensure that those tribal priorities and those
tribal perspectives are included in what that project
development looks like.
And, again, based on the tribal examples we have across the
country, we can build that resilience into the landscape. And
there is example after example of fires that have occurred on
reservations that have had much lower fire severity compared to
fires that happened on adjacent Federal lands. So, again, I
think there is great opportunity to share that knowledge, share
that wisdom and experience with Federal agencies, but the
tribes have to have an active and, really, a prioritized
decision-making process that they are included in.
Mr. Rosendale. I appreciate that, and I think it goes back
to something that we established early on in this Committee in
working with the tribes, and that is no decisions about us
without us. It rings very true, and it is very effective.
There is a forest research lab just outside of Missoula,
Montana. It is called the Lubrecht facility. And I would invite
anyone on this Committee to come up. I will arrange an
appointment so that we could review that, and you will see the
difference in the landscape where the forest has been
mechanically treated, it has had fire treatment, it has had
both, it has had none, and there are stark differences.
While we are on questions, what is the impact of permitting
requirements on the ability of tribal communities to engage in
activities to improve forest health and mitigate wildfire risk?
Mr. Desautel. Is that question for me, as well?
Mr. Rosendale. Yes, I am sorry. Yes, with you.
Mr. Desautel. Thank you. On reservations, we have control
of that permitting process and the NEPA documentation process.
So, that is not really a limitation on tribal land, but we are
subject to line officers for whatever the respective Federal
agency is if we are doing that work off the reservation.
So, there are challenges with process. Again, those
processes are largely dictated by whatever that agency's agenda
is, and those typically don't align with what the tribal
priorities are. So, again, when we look at tribal co-
management, we really need to have a seat at the table in the
decision-making process, and ensure that we, to the extent we
can, work through those regulatory policies and procedures to
ensure that what we are doing aligns with the forest management
plan, and that those forest management plans include the tribal
priorities up front.
Mr. Rosendale. Very good. In Montana, the Forest Service
has set a sustainable yield amount to harvest timber of about
140 million board feet a year. Unfortunately, because of
litigation and delays caused by environmental groups, they are
only reaching about 40 million board feet a year. I mean, just
dramatically less than that.
In your opinion, how does that litigation affect forest
management activities?
Mr. Desautel. Well, based on what we have seen in climate
change, if you are not actively managing ahead of the
disturbance event, primarily wildfire, that Mother Nature will
do it for you, and she likely won't do it at the scale you
want, and the outcomes probably won't be consistent with what
you had planned.
I think it is important that we work through the regulatory
process and collaborate with other interest holders to ensure
that there is support for those projects, and we get them done
before that fire hits.
Mr. Rosendale. Great. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chair, I see my time is expired. I would yield back.
Thank you again for accommodating me.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale.
If there is nobody else, hearing no one seeking
recognition, I want to thank the witnesses and thank the staff
for putting together an excellent hearing. The meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]