Tribal Co-Management Between the Karuk Tribe and the USFS

This article from the American Bar Association has this section: Tribal Co-Management Between the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service in the Klamath National Forest (thanks to Nick Smith for the link).

Excerpt:

A short-lived co-management arrangement between the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Klamath National Forest illustrates both the potential possibilities and challenges of co-management arrangements between tribes and the USFS in National Forests. The “Ti Bar Demonstration Project” was a co-management arrangement between the Karuk Tribe and the USFS relating to management of “cultural areas” within the Klamath National Forest in the latter half of the 1990s. This arrangement aimed to demonstrate culturally appropriate management techniques and “develop effective processes to jointly undertake projects.”

Karuk tribal land managers served as project co-leads and were empowered to propose restoration treatments for this area within the National Forest. Notably, the USFS appointed a tribal member to the interdisciplinary team that was developing a new Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Klamath National Forest. This allowed the Karuk Tribe to successfully lobby the USFS to “address several cultural resource management concerns,” and include within the LRMP a land use designation for Cultural Management Areas that included a memorandum of understanding between the USFS and the Karuk Tribe to support management activities that are “consistent with [the tribe’s] custom and culture.” Tribal inclusion on the interdisciplinary team enabled “agency managers to work with tribal managers as a new kind of expert,” and was the main method through which the Karuk Tribe participated in the formal decision-making process. This allowed Karuk tribal members to take on an authoritative position in implementing their own chosen restoration projects, such as a novel “eco-cultural” restoration strategy that included prescribe burns.

Unfortunately, after the first management treatments under the Ti Bar Demonstration were initiated, USFS leadership changed, and the new forest supervisor was not supportive of this arrangement. The planned restoration was canceled, and the interdisciplinary team including both USFS and Karuk Tribal members fell apart. Nonetheless, the Ti Bar Demonstration project represents the first time the USFS formally recognized the rights of tribal managers to manage cultural resources within federal forests.

8 thoughts on “Tribal Co-Management Between the Karuk Tribe and the USFS”

  1. I can’t count the number of times a forest or ranger district had something good going, usually in collaboration with the public, only to have it shot down when leadership changed. It seems that the wise thing for a new forest sup to do is to check out what is working well before changing everything, but it seems many of us think the world began when we arrived. Sad.

    Reply
  2. I concur with Susan Marsh: Forest Supervisor appointments are critical. Is there any way to ensure accountability to prior commitments by new supervisors (and their key staff)?

    Reply
    • Toby,
      In my experience, that has been communicated by what in FS would be called “line to line” in other words, when the new Supe is hired, the Deputies and RF sit down with them and say “this is what you need to keep up” and “this is what you need work on improving.”

      I’m suspicioning either this didn’t happen for some reason, or that higher-ups may have felt that there were certain aspects that they questioned..
      “Tribal inclusion on the interdisciplinary team enabled “agency managers to work with tribal managers as a new kind of expert,” and was the main method through which the Karuk Tribe participated in the formal decision-making process.”
      After the FS telling all kinds of people they can’t be on various ID teams, this was OK. Why treaty rights? Or just a decision by a Forest Supe?
      I’m not saying Tribal folks shouldn’t be.. I’m saying that once someone does it, it opens the door for every other Tribe to have the same kind of access. Which might be a good idea, but often individuals make decisions (this happens in settlement agreements also) without asking “what if everyone did it?” and “given that, should the decision be made by a Forest Supe alone, or should others be involve? I hope this makes sense.

      Reply
  3. Cool process. Too bad it couldn’t continue with a change in forest leadership. This is a great example of why it is so difficult for a forest to sustain trust with the public, Tribes, industry, and environmental special interest groups. Any change in leadership from the district ranger up can lead to changes in relationships and trust.

    Reply
  4. Years ago, I read something about that end of the world. One or more lower Klamath River tribes spent something like $950,000 to a forest consultant firm to census Northern Spotted Owls. They did. From home. No boots on the ground. Faked it. Got caught.

    The other was a fuels management issue between USFS and the tribes. Post “set fire for resource use,” the tribal basketmakers were using traditional methods to prepare native materials and were repulsed by the taste of diesel from bear grass that failed to fire after being doused by drip torch fuel.

    Best the Indian Nations work with the Congress to make a nationwide treaty that requires mandatory review and response sessions with federal land management deciders before taking proactive management actions. I have a suggestion: find a better source of ignition for set fire. Have a comprehensive discussion with tribal leadership over what they expect from stand and fuels/fire management. There has to be a common goal. I would hope stand removal fire is not the preferred alternative.

    Reply
  5. the supervisor of the Coconino national forest starting talking about co-management with tribes and got run out of agency, and that was in 2022, the first Klamath forest supervisor was well ahead of the times, i’m left to wonder if that second forest supe was installed with direction to abandon this agreement because it went too far beyond the agency’s comfort level.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply