Tribes and Tribal Management

The Quest for Clear Definitions of Co-Management Continues: Grist and E&E News Stories in Conversation

by

Here’s a link to the story.  Note that it is part of the Climate Desk collaboration, described here.

The reporter starts out with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, who did not want a wind turbine project in a specific place.

That’s what happened earlier this month when the Biden administration expanded a national monument to include Molok Luyuk, joining the mountain ridge to the nearby Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument, nearly 350,000 acres of coastal range in Northern California. Tribes are now working on a co-stewardship agreement for the Molok Luyuk area, but not for the whole national monument.

But the tribes that have a relationship with Molok Luyuk aren’t done with their advocacy. They’ve protected the area from energy development, but they still have little say in how the land is managed. While the federal government has pushed co-stewardship agreements over the years, national monuments are still considered property of the federal government.

Melissa Hovey is the manager at Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument, and she said that co-management happens between BLM and the Forest Service. These federal agencies can enter into co-stewardship agreements with tribes, but they can’t delegate management without congressional approval.

“Co-management means decision-making authority,” she said. “Co-stewardship means one entity still has the decision-making authority.”

You would think that “co-stewardship” and “co-management” would be simple terms to define, but there are numerous federal documents that have used the two terms interchangeably over the years. Co-stewardship is a broad term that describes agreements made between federal agencies and tribal nations to hash out shared interests in the management of federal lands. Co-management refers to a stronger tribal presence and decision-making power.

Congressional action is not the only way to gain co-management powers. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition in Utah has one of the most successful stories of tribes gaining co-management status—they were given “true co-management” by an Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement.

In 2022, the federal government agreed to co-manage Bears Ears National Monument with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and the Pueblo of Zuni. For the first time ever, tribal nations worked with federal agencies to draft a resource-management plan that would dictate how a national monument should be run.

I’m still a little confused, if Hovey says  “co-management means decision-making authority” and Bears Ears has co-management (without Congressional action?) .. meanwhile we see this from E&E News yesterday..

Native Americans and conservation advocates on Monday rolled out a campaign urging the Biden administration to adopt a strategy that emphasizes tribal management of the Bears Ears National Monument.

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition — composed of leaders of the Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe, Zuni Tribe, Hopi Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe — and outdoor retailer Patagonia pledge to press for adoption of a management plan that stresses resource protection along with the use of Indigenous knowledge to steward the 1.35 million-acre monument in southeastern Utah.

“Bears Ears holds deep spiritual and cultural significance, and is rich in ancestral history,” said Craig Andrews, who serves as co-chair of Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and vice chair of the Hopi Tribe. “Protecting Bears Ears ensures that future generations can continue to connect with our history and cultural identity.”

The group is urging the Biden administration to adopt a version of the management plan known as Alternative E, one of five options being weighed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Agriculture Department’s Forest Service. In a draft of the plans published in March, both agencies identified that version of the management plan as their “preferred option,” although a final selection has yet to be made.

***************

So if Tribes have decision-making authority, why do they need a campaign to adopt the strategy? In fact, why did they need five alternatives?  They could have had “current conditions” and “preferred by Tribes” and save much money and time of agency employees and the public.  Also I’m a little leery of Patagonia having a strong presence in this.. getting rid of OHVs opens up more country for those who buy their stuff.  That is,  the folks who can afford to buy their stuff.  It looks like the spinoff charitable organization from Patagonia helps fund many groups we are familiar with.

Anyway, back to the Grist article.

****************************

Patrick Gonzales-Rogers is a professor at the Yale School of Environment where he specializes in tribal sovereignty and natural resources. He is also the former director of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.

Co-management allows tribes to exercise sovereignty, according to Gonzales-Rogers. “It allows them to be more assertive,” he added. And when that happens, tribes can bring in religious and spiritual practices to utilize traditional knowledge, wisdom that had been minimized by federal agencies in the past.

Gonzales-Rogers is hopeful that, exponentially, these choices will compound, “and may even have a nexus to say something like landback,” a reference to a movement that is not only rooted in a mass return of land to Indigenous nations and peoples, but also tribes having sovereignty to steward the land that was taken from them.

Gonzales-Rogers thinks the two terms have not been very well-defined over the years, but said co-stewardship agreements might be a good way to start building to co-management.

This is confusing, because the FS and BLM are already required, as far as I know, to use traditional knowledge in decision-making on all lands, and maybe co-stewardship as well.  Is sovereignty like being pregnant, you either are or you aren’t? Or are there degrees of sovereignty? It seems to me that we won’t know what “sovereignty” really means for a place that’s co-managed until an Admin disagrees with a Tribe about management.

And the more tribes have autonomy over their ancestral lands, the better it is for conservation goals. According to a recent study, equal partnerships between tribes and governments are the best way to protect public lands—the more tribal autonomy, the better the land is taken care of.

The reporter asserts that based on an international study. Some international studies say the same thing about local people.. Not to be unduly skeptical, but the study involved lots of different places and the authors’ own view of what is more autonomy and what is more conservation.  And I just think about the Izembeck Road, the Utah oil train and so on, as Wuerthner described in a previous post:

What I call an Indian Iron Curtain exists among the media and conservation organizations. Like the old Soviet Union Iron Curtain, which attempted to promote Communism and censored anything contradicting the notion that Communism was anything but a perfect social and political system. The Indian Iron Curtain exists to promote tribal people as somehow exemplary conservationists.

Who is doing this in the media? For example, who funds the Climate Desk Collaboration? Here’s a story about how it started from Yale Climate Connections. Since I’m an alum, I thought they might let me know who funds YCC. No such luck, donor privacy invoked. But back to the Climate Desk.

To help fund The Climate Desk, including hiring freelance writers, the partners have so far secured a $100,000 grant from the Park Foundation. Other money has come from the Surdna Foundation, which has supported Mother Jones in the past.

Grant money has come without any expectations of control over editorial content, the partners said.

I’m sure that’s true, but it seems to me that funding reporters at Grist is likely to produce different copy than for example, funding reporters at the National Review.

George Wuerthner on the “Indian Iron Curtain”: His View of Tribal Environmental Miscreance and the Great Media Silence

by

George Wuerthner did an impressive roundup of examples of Tribes wanting to produce useful things for the rest of us on their land. Many thanks to Patrick McKay for finding this! It’s fairly long and worthy reading in its entirety, but I did summarize and excerpt the parts I thought of particular interest to TSW folks.

Wuerthner  joins us in lamenting some of the choices made in media about what they cover- and what they don’t:

What I call an Indian Iron Curtain exists among the media and conservation organizations. Like the old Soviet Union Iron Curtain, which attempted to promote Communism and censored anything contradicting the notion that Communism was anything but a perfect social and political system. The Indian Iron Curtain exists to promote tribal people as somehow exemplary conservationists.

At the same time, any information that might temper that conclusion is ignored or suppressed. Of course, just as in the larger society, there are diverse opinions among tribal groups. They are no more monothetic than American society as a whole.

Like the fable about the emperor who wore no clothes, people are afraid, especially with the advent of the social justice movement, to suggest that tribal people are like other humans and are capable of good and bad conservation positions.

Anyone who questions the dominant paradigm that tribal people are somehow “naturally” environmenalists (which is a racist assertion in its own right)  is immediately branded as a racist, a colonialist, an imperialist, or, in some cases, a White male, which means you have no credibility since you are the ultimate beneficiary of “white privilege.”

Yet there is plenty of evidence—evidence that is too often ignored or overlooked–that tribal entities are perfectly capable of environmentally destructive policies.

*******

What I think is most interesting about George’s view is his view  that people who produce natural resources (used by everyone around the world) are only driven by the desire for money.

I must state that I am not judging these tribal decisions to exploit wild nature. I cannot say with any assurances that if presented with the opportunity to reap a fortune from oil and natural gas drilling, logging old-growth timber or mining a significant gold or copper deposit I would reject the financial prospects. Nevertheless, I would expect conservation organizations to criticize my choices.

There is a fundamentally different view from mine. Mine is that as long as people make useful things from natural resources, to eat, build housing, heat their homes and cook their food, transport things and provide electricity (just for a few examples), it is right for people who have the resources to share them with others who need them.  I think “sharing useful things with those who don’t have them” is a positive human view of the same phenomenon.

If using the resource, say, is morally wrong, then the folks who believe that should stop using them first, before they ask others to stop producing them.  National security-wise, it is bad juju to decide to stop producing things people need domestically.

Anyway, I think Wuerthner definitely has a point about what some conservation groups (and Colorado politicians) don’t mention, and media outlets don’t look into. Like when BLM had its webinar about the oil and gas regs, and the Tribal folks said they wanted “all of the above” and union folks were concerned.  I guess it either didn’t fit the narrative, or there were no media folks there.

Here are the topics:

Fossil fuel development Alaska

Badger-Two Medicine (I’m posting all this one because it’s related to NFs)

The last oil lease in the Badger-Two Medicine area of the Helena- Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana was recently canceled. In numerous newspaper stories and among conservation groups, this was celebrated with many references to the Badger-Two Medicine as “sacred” land to the Blackfeet Indians, whose reservation borders the area. However, it is essential to note that the tribe does not own the national forest lands. Why that is important is critical to consider.

Badger Two Medicine Area on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

What is never mentioned is that for decades, conservationists have tried to protect the Badger-Two Medicine as federal wilderness, which, given the strict limits on any development, would seemingly protect the “sacred” status of the area from any exploitation. Most recently, after the tribe agreed to a watered-down agreement to protect the Badger-Two Medicine by federal legislation introduced by Senator John Tester, the tribal representatives arrived in Washington to testify against the proposal, much to the chagrin of Senator Tester.

No environmental organizations reported on this reversal in tribal support for protecting the “sacred” Badger-Two Medicine.

Oil drill rig on the Blackfeet Reservation, Montana. Photo Tony Bynum

The Blackfeet have continuously opposed wilderness designation for the Badger Two Medicine. Meanwhile, the Blackfeet have promoted oil development on their reservation and the lands they control are leased for oil development. If the Blackfeet considered land “sacred,” wouldn’t they at least place some of the reservation off-limits to oil development.

However, at least some tribal members are not opposed to oil development per se, but rather who gets the financial benefit. Half of onshore oil and gas revenues from federal public lands goes to the federal treasury, while the other have is shared with the states where development occurred). Tribal members are willing to admit that while they oppose oil development on the national forest, some hope to get the Badger-Two Medicine transferred to tribal control so THEY can lease it for oil development.

Indian Reservations with Oil and Gas Wells

Navajo Coal

Other Tribal Coal

Mining

The media and many conservation groups repeatedly report when tribes oppose a mining operation or proposal but fail to note when they hold a positive perspective on mining.

Unbeknownst to most conservationists, most high-value mineral deposits are owned by Native people or the state of Alaska due to the selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Thus, in Alaska, much of the support for mining operations comes from Native corporations (the equivalence of tribes elsewhere in the US) and their representatives.

Various Alaska Mines

Thatcher Pass Lithium Mine

Navajo Lithium Mine

The Logging Section

As we know, Wuerthner seems to believe that Tribal wildfire concerns are basically about logging.

There is even legislation that would allow tribes to share in timber revenues from federal timber sales, an incentive that is designed to garner tribal support for more logging.

I think the point of the legislation is to give Tribes the same advantages as States. More of a justice thing and less of a bribe. In Alaska.

There is currently new legislation to transfer 115,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to five tribal corporations (In Alaska, courts have ruled that Native corporations are “tribes”).

I know there are Elliot Forest interests here at TSW so:

TRIBAL OPPOSITION TO ELLIOT STATE FOREST PROTECTION

Recently, efforts to protect the Elliott State Forest in Oregon’s Coast Range were stymied by opposition from the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI), who demanded more logging of the area. The tribes have expressed “significant concerns regarding the limitations and constraints placed on the management of the overall forest and the acreage dedicated to reserves in the research design.”

An insider to the Elliott process confirmed that the Tribes have been expressing their opposition to limits on logging in the Elliott reserves for roughly a year.

Even though conservation groups have been working for years to protect the remaining old growth of the Elliott State Forest, I am unaware of any of these groups  who has publicly expressed any disappointment or criticism of the tribal position for more  logging.

BLM Oregon Land Transfer

Blackfeet and Quinalt have clearcuts

TPL Gave Land to Penobscot

Izembek Road (we’ve covered this before, Biden Admin supports ENGOs over Native Alaskan village)

The Sauk Suiattle Tribe opposes the reintroduction of grizzlies into the North Cascades. They see bears as an obstacle to their “treaty rights” in that it will make it more dangerous to gather berries, fishing, and hunting. Arguably, the grizzly bears were on the land before the Sauk Suiattle Tribe.

Well, there’s lots more.. wolves, fish, Camp Hale National Monument.

TRIBAL CONDEMNATION OF PARKS AND WILDERNESS

What I see as an even graver threat to conservation efforts is the on-going denigration of the entire concept of parks and preserves from the WOKE left, social science academics, and their tribal allies. It deserves an entire book, but basically, there is a growing condemnation of parks, wilderness, and other preserves as cultural genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and other such negative terminology that pose a long-term threat to efforts to protect wild Nature. Much of this opposition is based on flawed logic, a limited understanding of conservation biology and ecology, and a revisionist history.

For example, the Muccosukee  tribe in Florida is opposed to wilderness designation for the Big Cypress Preserve because they assert it will limit their ability to hunt, fish, and gather plants. “We’re opposing very, very hard right now because we don’t believe this is the right thing for the Big Cypress,” said Curtis Osceola, chief of staff for the Miccosukee Tribe. “The fear from the tribe is that a compromise is being made to put these lands into wilderness at the expense of the rights of the tribe, the rights of the public.”

It seems to me that there has been an environmental and conservation movement with a set of goals determined by folks within the movement.  Some I agree with, some I don’t.  Some seem unrealistic, and some have had social repercussions on working class people. Some just didn’t work as per stated intention (spotted owl).  Now our view of people whose views count is much broader – folks such as Native Americans and Alaskans are coming into focus-and we have younger people with different backgrounds and concerns- and the environmental movement itself.. their interests, their positions, may have to change.

AWR Litigates Project Initiated and Supported by Kalispels on Colville National Forest

by

Interesting (free) article in the Capital Press.

A Montana environmental group sued the U.S. Forest Service on Tuesday to stop logging initiated by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, who are concerned wildfires will start in overstocked federal forests and burn onto tribal lands in northeast Washington.

*****************************

The Tribal Forest Protection Act allows tribes to propose projects on federal land to protect adjacent tribal land. The Kalispel tribe asked the Forest Service in 2018 to reduce fire risks in the national forest.

“We believe an ‘All Lands-All Hands’ approach, involving all parties is a bold and necessary step to improve the current ecosystem conditions,” according to a tribal statement.

****************

The alliance asserts the Forest Service should have done an environmental impact statement, rather than the shorter environmental assessment.

The assessment gave short-shrift to carbon emissions from logging and their potential contribution to climate change, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also alleges the assessment didn’t thoroughly investigate how timber harvests, prescribed burns and road-building would impact wildlife such as lynx, grizzly bears, wolverines and wolves.

More wolves may be poached if new or improved roads open access to wolf territories, according to the lawsuit.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies has prominent supporters, according to its website, including former President Jimmy Carter; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; music legend Carole King; and singer Gloria Estefan.

For some reason the reporter missed Reps. Grijalva and Maloney.

Now I think it’s highly likely that none of the supporters know the details of this project. I wonder if they know they are operating against apparent Tribal wishes and threats to their land and homes?

If we go to Rep. Grijalva’s website, he says..

As the first Americans, the Indigenous people of this region have culture and traditions embedded to the land. I am working to ensure that their rights as sovereign nations are not only respected, but emboldened, through policy-making at the federal level. We have an atrocious history of injustice towards the Indigenous people of this land that goes against the very values of our country and that we must constantly work to rectify. I will continue to be a strong voice for tribal rights in Congress whether it be fighting to protect sacred land from being sold to the highest bidder, working toward better health and economic opportunities for Native communities, or urging Congress to codify the tribal consultation process.

According to InfluenceWatch (and they could be wrong, and knowledgeable folks can correct me) Earthjustice is a vendor of AWR.

Here’s what Earthjustice says:

Earthjustice has a long history of partnering with Tribes, Native groups, and Indigenous communities to ensure their natural and cultural resources are protected for future generations. Today, as Native peoples lead from the frontlines of many pivotal environmental fights, our Tribal Partnerships Program is proud to continue that tradition.

Was it so long ago that the Colville Tribes sued the feds:

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Wednesday, alleging federal agencies failed to fulfill their legally required duties before, during and after the 2015 wildfires that burned more than 240,000 acres and turned parts of the reservation into a “moonscape.”

So I wonder whether these supporters of AWR, or the funders (who are not included in the 990), pay attention to this aspect of what AWR is doing? Or if they know, do they support it? Because at least with Mr. Grijalva it doen’t sounds like “respected and emboldened” “rights as sovereign nations” to me.

 

 

 

Co-Management Bill with Warm Springs: Roadless Requirements for “Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones”?

by

Inquiring minds might wonder why there has been only limited use of TFPA and GNA in this area, compared to other places, and how (or if) this bill would help that (other than providing funding?)

**************************

 

Jon posted this news story in a comment yesterday, and I think it’s innovative enough to deserve its own post. We’ve talked about what “co-management” means, and how it’s interpreted.  I think we have to look very specifically at what is meant.  Let’s develop a range of options- these are just some.   Talking more? Sharing information? Using traditional ecological knowledge? Prioritizing projects of interest to Tribes?  Giving Tribes’ views on management priority over other members of the public? Giving projects supported by Tribes some relief from litigation?  Giving Tribes a seat at the table during legal settlements involving projects of concern? Conceivably, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are called co-stewardship, and all Forests (and the BLM) are supposed to be doing those, and they don’t require specific treaty rights or specific legislation.

WASHINGTON (KTVZ) — Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Senator Ron Wyden, along with Senator Jeff Merkley, reintroduced the Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act. The legislation directs the U.S. Forest Service to partner with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to develop a co-management plan for agreed-upon Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones.

The legislation would establish one of the first placed-based co-management strategies in the nation.

It was introduced last Congress, and had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“Indigenous communities have been responsible stewards of Oregon’s lands and wildlife since time immemorial. We must do more to capitalize on their leadership in our conservation efforts—not just because the federal government has a moral obligation to do so but because we will not be successful without them,” said Blumenauer. “Tribal co-stewardship represents 21st?century public lands management.”

“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have generations-long knowledge of best ecological practices and treaty rights with the federal government that must be protected,” Wyden said. “This legislation would secure both goals in the Mount Hood National Forest by giving the Tribe an important voice and role in the management of its precious cultural resources.”

“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are the largest neighbor to the Mt. Hood National Forest and are essential in maintaining and protecting the region’s cultural and ecological resources,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “This legislation is a critical step in fulfilling our treaty and trust responsibilities to the Warm Springs community by creating a framework for them to take an active role in co-managing the forest and utilizing their knowledge, traditions, and expertise to improve forest management.”

The Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act:

· Directs the U.S. Forest Service to develop a co-management plan with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to protect and enhance Tribal Treaty resources and protect the Reservation from wildfire within agreed-upon “Treaty Resources Emphasis Zones.” These zones are areas within the Mount Hood National Forest subject to the Warm Springs-Forest Service co-management plan;

* Requires implementation of the Cultural Foods Obligations, which were included in the Public Lands Management Act of 2009 but have never been implemented;

· Integrates traditional ecological knowledge as an important part of the best available scientific information used in forest and resource management areas within the Zone;

· Authorizes $3,500,000 in annual appropriations and the use of existing Forest Service revenue to ensure the Tribe is a full participant in management.

Click here for bill text. Click here for a one-page fact sheet.

“We are grateful to Rep. Blumenauer and Senator Wyden for this legislation. Warm Springs people have cared for the land since the Creator placed us here, and this legislation will help reconnect Wy’east to its original inhabitants and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into federal land management. The bill would allow the Warm Springs Tribe to improve fish and wildlife habitat, reduce forest fuels and wildfire risk in the borderlands of our Reservation — an area designated as a priority fireshed by the U.S. Forest Service.? The result will improve forest and wildlife health for the benefit of all Oregonians,” said Warm Springs Chairman Jonathan Smith.

Note that all the folks quoted, except for Sustainable Northwest, are all recreation outfits of various kinds.

I thought that this was interesting, it seems to relate to the Zones of co-management and echoes the 2001 Roadless Rule (except off the top of my head the RR did not have the language “promote fire resilient stands.”

(C) include requirements that no temporary or permanent road shall be constructed within a Zone, except as necessary
‘‘(i) to meet the requirements for the administration of a Zone;
‘‘(ii) to protect public health and safety;
‘‘(iii) to respond to an emergency;
‘‘(iv) for the control of fire, insects, diseases, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
‘‘(D) to the maximum extent practicable, to meet the purposes of this section, provide for the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the historic forest structure or promotion of fire-resilient stands.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like the intention is to have specific areas on the Forest to be co-managed for various reasons including wildfire resilience, without temporary roads.  Which doesn’t really seem like co-management, suppose the Tribe wants to move material offsite for whatever reason? It seems like co-management within parameters the politicians have decided with the same analysis and litigation processes as currently exist.  So what’s the advantage to the Tribe, or to the taxpayer other than more discussion and integrating TEK (everyone’s supposed to do that), and for which a statute is not needed?  Actually it seems more restrictive to wildfire resilience than the current situation, based on the roadless-like requirements, so that’s puzzling.

Finally, I guess another question, perhaps more philosophical, is “suppose Tribes’ ecological knowledge is that temp roads are useful”?  Maybe it’s not Traditional, but then who decides?  Seems like sovereignty would say that Tribal views and knowledge are important, no matter what over what time frame this knowledge was developed. Here’s a USFWS definition of TEK.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, also called by other names including Indigenous Knowledge or Native Science, (hereafter, TEK) refers to the evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. This knowledge is specific to a location and includes the relationships between plants, animals, natural phenomena, landscapes and timing of events that are used for lifeways, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry.

There might be an implicit colonizer bias here that Indigenous knowledge stopped being valuable when immigrants shared new technologies.  Like other humans, Tribal folks adapt new ideas and technologies that work for them- in ways that might be different from the technologies as introduced.  Think horses, woodstoves, and temp roads. What would a court case look like in which a Tribe argued that temp roads, done their way, used the best available science based on Current Indigenous Ecological Knowledge?

Anyway, I could have gotten this wrong, and I realize that there is a theatrical element to proposed legislation, so would appreciate thoughts of folks who know more.

Tribal Relations and Enhancing Co-Stewardship: PNW Story Map

by

This story map is nicely done.  Shout out to the folks who produced it!

***********************

If you, readers, have something you are proud of.. please send it in and I will share.  Some FS people do this, but as with our piece on SERAL, there are many great stories out there.  And I know of some great work, that I can’t share because some Powers Who Decide are hinky about sharing with the public.  Hopefully, that is short-term and election-related.

*************************

Below, I excerpted one paragraph from a few of the projects to give you a flavor.  These projects have to do with wildfire resilience in one form or another, and there are others that deal with watershed restoration, check them out! I particularly like the one with free firewood for Tribal members from wildfire salvage.

You’ll remember that a few weeks ago, Cody Desautel (of the Intertribal Timber Council) testified at the House Natural Resources Committee, including difficulties carrying out joint projects with the Forest Service due to litigation.   I wonder whether folks have thought about some kind of litigation carve-out for joint projects with Tribes, who conceivably have some treaty rights (different for different now-Forests).

Johnnie Springs Tribal Forest Protection Act Project – Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

The partnership combines resources from the Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe and Umpqua National Forest to co-implement thinning and fuels reduction treatments on the Tiller Ranger District through a three-phase partnership called the Johnnie Springs Project. Phase one started in October of 2023 and authorizes the Tribe to implement fuels reduction treatments along 17 miles (618 acres) of road in areas where the Forest has already completed environmental analysis. Phase two has identified additional areas within the Johnnie Spring project area that are adjacent to Tribal trust lands and in need of active management. Phase two proposed treatments includes an additional 12 miles (436 acres) of roadside fuels treatments and 570 acres of small diameter tree thinning units. Phase three is proposed as a planning phase, in need of additional NEPA analysis to move forward. Currently, Forest and Tribal managers are looking at opportunities to analyze new acres available for commercial thinning and opportunities for additional roadside thinning work within the current Johnnie Springs planning area. Additionally, in phase three, the Umpqua National Forest and Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe will evaluate other portions of the Tiller Ranger District for future co-stewardship opportunities. All phases include a prescribed fire element, ensuring opportunities to reintroduce healthy fire back to the landscape is considered when the right environmental conditions are in place.

Upper South Fork Tieton River (SFT) -Yakama Nation

The Yakama Nation requested to enter into agreement under the Tribal Forest Protection Act to coordinate and collaborate with the United States Forest Service on the South Fork Tieton Project on Yakama Nation Ceded Lands. The project was funded with the Central Washington Initiative as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill with the goal to complete planning and environmental analysis on 40,000 acres with a 189,500 acre fire shed. This project will focus on wildfire risk reduction.

The Sxwuytn-Kaniksu Connections (Trail) Project/ LeClerc Rd Reroute-Mill Creek Restoration Project

The Trail Project is located in Pend Oreille County in northeastern Washington State, four miles north of Newport. Restoration work will include a suite of tools, over the next 10-15 years, to accomplish the goals of the project. For example, commercial and non-commercial thinning of trees and prescribed fire will increase diversity and resilience to forest stands, decrease potential for insect and disease, maintain more characteristic open tree stands to increase tree vigor by reducing competition for resources, provide economic opportunity from the surrounding community, while also reducing fuels and limiting the severity of wildfires.  Open tree stands will improve forest health and increase forage for wildlife by allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor.

Double Creek Fire Recovery Project –Nez Perce Tribe

The Nez Perce Tribe Forest and Fire Management Division leads this program to supply free firewood to more than 160 tribal elders, disabled, and even single parents leading into and during the cold winter months. This program depends on a steady supply of firewood and is an important way that the Tribe provides heat sources throughout the winter for their elders and other eligible tribal members.

Through this partnership the Tribe will be able to provide approximately 60 truckloads of firewood to elders and others in need within the Nez Perce Tribe community.  This agreement is part of the agency’s overall commitment to strengthen nation-to-nation relationships and enhance co-stewardship of National Forest lands with American Indian Tribes. Together, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Nez Perce Tribe are fostering mutual trust and building relationships that contribute to improving forest management and restoration activities in a way that reflects mutual goals, values, and objectives.

Does Anyone Have the Rest of the Story? Navajo Nation Lawsuit Over Forestry Management Program

by

Hopefully someone out there has more information on this one from Law 360. I can’t access it.

Law360 (March 27, 2024, 7:09 PM EDT) — The Navajo Nation claims the U.S. Department of the Interior unlawfully withheld more than a million dollars in funding for its contracted forestry management program, telling a D.C. federal judge the department should be forced to provide the money and accept the funding ..

That’s all we get.

If we look at the past, we have this..from Holland and Knight in 2020:

Native American Law Partner Philip Baker-Shenk is representing the Navajo Nation in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) claiming the department is illegally holding back money for the tribe’s forestry program that the government owes under a self-determination contract. In its complaint, the Navajo Nation said that the DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act by failing to deliver over $700,000 under a funding agreement for the tribe’s forestry management program, even though a representative for DOI Secretary David Bernhardt had recommended that the tribe’s proposal be approved.

Now if the DOI Sec at the time recommended it.. and the government isn’t sending it.. there’s an interesting story of some kind out there.  Does anyone have access or further info? If so, please share in the comments.

Pumped Hydro, FERC and Policy that Tribes Approve Projects on Tribal Lands

by

In this story,

Federal officials Thursday denied preliminary permits for multiple pumped storage hydroelectric projects proposed on the Navajo Nation that would have required vast sums of water from limited groundwater aquifers and the declining Colorado River, citing a lack of support from tribal communities.

In the order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced it was implementing a new policy requiring that any project proposed on all tribal land must gain the respective tribe’s consent to be approved, a move that local tribes, opposed to the proposed hydroelectric projects, had been calling for. The decisions pave the way for increased tribal sovereignty in energy-related projects seeking federal approval across the country.

“This is a federal commission acknowledging tribal sovereignty,” George Hardeen, a spokesman for the Navajo Nation president’s office, said. “If a company wants to do business on the Navajo Nation, it, of course, needs to talk to and get the approval of the Navajo Nation. And in the eyes of FERC, that has not yet happened.”

I notice the caveats “all Tribal land” so maybe not where projects are partially on Tribal land?  It seems to me like Tribes should be able to approve any projects on Tribal land.  Maybe some readers in the legal space can help clarify.   And what energy projects does FERC regulate exactly? Transmission?

If  energy policy were only linear and rational.. first we’d ask Tribes and locals and environmental organizations what kind of build out they want, and the impacts on critters, plants and water supplies, and then assess what energy sources and transmission would best avoid those areas and impacts.  Seems like proposing a seemingly endless series random projects (some pumped hydro storage here, some geothermal there) and getting shut down project by project is not going to resolve the climate emergency anytime soon.

Anyway, the story is interesting and not paywalled so I recommend reading the whole ting.  No paywalls seems to be the case for news funded by foundations because they want their version of the news to get out there.  I’m just noticing a pattern here, as my media bills go up and my access to media goes down.

 

A Roundup of Tribal Views on Energy Projects

by

Photo is from AP story on SunZia transmission line (see last story below).

 

Utes Supports Rail Transport of Crude Oil.  These Utes seem fairly invisible in the media reports on  the Forest Service permit for the oil train.  I looked at several news stories about the Forest Service decision on the railroad. The AP story did not mention the Utes.  All of the Colorado stories I reviewed did not mention them. Only the Salt Lake City Tribune, in my review, mentioned them.

The Ute Indian Tribe, whose reservation is in the Uinta Basin, and Utah’s elected officials support the railway, arguing that it would boost struggling local economies and aid domestic energy production.

Here’s a link to an op-ed I think I posted before. Title:  “Opinion: Blocking the Uinta Basin Railway is another injustice to the Ute Indian Tribe Hickenlooper, Bennet and Polis are wrong to oppose this project needed for the reservations.”  It’s one thing for your opinions to be ignored; it’s another to be mostly invisible to the media, at least compared to the examples below.

Tribes Against Uranium Mine.

Grand Canyon -Guardian Article

“There are so many reasons why this mine doesn’t belong where it is,” said Amber Reimondo, the energy director with the Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental group focused on protecting the region. “And the fact that it is allowed to operate is a stark example of the weaknesses in our regulatory system.”

Across the south-west, local communities and tribes have been pushing back against uranium mining proposals, including in Utah, where the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is concerned about air pollution from a nearby Energy Fuels mill facility. Similar tensions have arisen around lithium mining in the west, as a need for the metal in clean energy components grows.

Tribe Against Wind Turbines.

Federal Judge Sides With Osage Nation, Orders Removal Of 84 Wind Turbines

Tribes Against Transmission Lines

From the AP yesterday.

Pattern Energy officials said Tuesday that the time has passed to reconsider the route, which was approved in 2015 following a review process.

“It is unfortunate and regrettable that after a lengthy consultation process, where certain parties did not participate repeatedly since 2009, this is the path chosen at this late stage,” Pattern Energy spokesperson Matt Dallas said in an email.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Tohono O’odham Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the nonprofit organizations Center for Biological Diversity and Archaeology Southwest.

“The case for protecting this landscape is clear,” Archaeology Southwest said in a statement that calls the San Pedro Arizona’s last free-flowing river and the valley the embodiment of a “unique and timely story of social and ecological sustainability across more than 12,000 years of cultural and environmental change.”

The valley represents a 50-mile (80-kilometer) stretch of the planned 550-mile (885-kilometer) conduit expected to carry electricity from new wind farms in central New Mexico to existing transmission lines in Arizona to serve populated areas as far away as California. The project has been called an important part of President Joe Biden’s goal for a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.

Work started in September in New Mexico after negotiations that spanned years and resulted in the approval from the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency with authority over vast parts of the U.S. West.

The route in New Mexico was modified after the U.S. Defense Department raised concerns about the effects of high-voltage lines on radar systems and military training operations.

Work halted briefly in November amid pleas by tribes to review environmental approvals for the San Pedro Valley, and resumed weeks later in what Tohono O’odham Chairman Verlon M. Jose characterized as “a punch to the gut.”

SunZia expects the transmission line to begin commercial service in 2026, carrying more than 3,500 megawatts of wind power to 3 million people. Project officials say they conducted surveys and worked with tribes over the years to identify cultural resources in the area.

A photo included in the court filing shows an aerial view in November of ridgetop access roads and tower sites being built west of the San Pedro River near Redrock Canyon. Tribal officials and environmentalists say the region is otherwise relatively untouched.

Yakama Tribe and Washington State Land and Solar

From High Country News.

Yale Forest Forum Spring 2024 Speaker Series on Tribal Forestry

by

Join us for this spring’s speaker series held every Thursday from January 18 to April 25. The sessions will also be recorded.  Here’s a link with all the details.

Tribes and First Nations have been forest stewards since time immemorial on the land that is currently called North America. In the face of climate change, tribes and First Nations continue to work with institutions, NGOs, and federal and state agencies to support Indigenous sovereignty and resilient forested landscapes. This webinar will focus on the current state of tribal forest management and Indigenous stewardship with a series of speakers from different tribes, universities, non-profits, and agencies.

I’d just add that peoples who have been around North America since glaciation may know quite a bit about responding to climate changes..

The speaker series is co-developed and co-hosted by The Forest School at the Yale School of the Environment, the Yale Center for Environmental Justice, and Salish Kootenai College.

The series is facilitated by Gerald Torres (Yale School of the Environment), Adrian Leighton (Salish Kootenai College), and Marlyse Duguid (Yale School of the Environment).

 

When Monumentizing Goes Wrong?: The Case of Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument

by

This is related to yesterday’s post..Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks is considered to be a co-managed federal unit between the Cochiti Pueblo and the BLM. It’s been closed for three years.

Here’s a story from KRQE News 13.  The story starts out with how difficult it was to find anything out about the closure and when it might be reopened:

The National Monument was closed to the public in the 2020 pandemic shutdown and it remains closed today. Why? KRQE News 13 went digging for answers.

For months, emails and phone calls requesting interviews with the state’s Tourism Department, the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior’s Office, Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernandez, and Senator Martin Heinrich were answered with replies such as, “We will not be providing a comment or participating in this story at this time.”

Cochiti Pueblo leaders also declined to comment. The BLM updated the statement on its website on April 28, during the weeks of KRQE’s requests for information. Finally, the BLM agreed to chat via Zoom.

“BLM has been meeting regularly with the Pueblo,” said Jamie Garcia, an outdoor recreation planner with the BLM. “We have been in discussions about what reopening looks like.”

This isn’t very transparent.  Conceivably it could have been possible to give that answer sooner. One wonders if the co-management aspect may have made it more difficult to arrive at one answer that could be communicated.

On to the Monumentization aspect:

A ‘Double-Edged’ Sword

Garcia said they’re addressing long-standing issues including over-visitation, staffing needs, and resource protection, alongside Pueblo de Cochiti. “We’ve had such high recreation use and we want to make sure that we are taking a step back and really looking at that big picture item there, and seeing how we can move forward in a more sustainable and responsible way,” Garcia told KRQE News 13.

The Cochiti Pueblo remains closed citing Covid-19 restrictions, blocking road access to the national monument which sits on BLM land. As part of the presidential proclamation, the site is managed by the BLM in “close cooperation and partnership” with the Pueblo.

“I suspect that the designation of the National Monument was a double-edged sword,” said Dr. Smith. “On one hand, it provides resources and legal protections for preservation. But once someone sees a national monument on a map, it’s close to Interstate 25, it’s close to the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho-Santa Fe metropolitan areas — then that just becomes a magnet to draw more people,” Smith explained.

DR. GARY SMITH, UNM PROFESSOR

There’s a calculus here.. do more resources show up in enough quantities to deal with the enhanced visitation from Monumentizing? What, I wonder, was the Monument protected from?

Data published in a government-issued 2020 science plan shows visitation levels each year since the monument designation. In 2000, Tent Rocks recorded 14,674 visitors.

In 2001, that jumped to 25,000 annual visitors with the presidential proclamation. And since then, visitation has soared to more than 100,000 people a year before the covid shutdown.

(Tent Rocks Visitations by Fiscal Year )

“But even before the pandemic, I recall seeing activity discussions between the BLM and Cochiti trying to think about how to handle the large crowds, that it was having a detrimental impact on the landscape that they were joint stewards to preserve,” explained Smith.

During Spring Break 2018, KRQE News 13 reported on the massive line of cars waiting to enter Tent Rocks National Monument. Visitors were waiting 90 minutes just to park their vehicles.

“In the past few weeks, they’ve been over-capacity,” said Danita Burns during that Spring Break surge in 2018. “People from Australia, people that are coming in from Japan. It’s quite the destination now,” she said.

Monuments can attract tourists from outside the area.. this may be good for some in local communities, but lead to problems of overcrowding and reduction of the experience for locals and wildlife.

According to the pre-2020 data report, “Current visitation is nearly three times the original planned capacity,” which was designed to hold about 50,000 visitors annually. That’s been a concern for those working at the site.

Dr. Gary Smith with UNM students at Tent Rocks in 1992.

Timed ticketing, fee increases

So, will visits to the monument move to timed ticketing? Garcia says an online reservation system along with a fee increase has been proposed.

“We have not implemented anything yet, but it is something we would like to do, make sure that we can keep up with growing costs of supplies and demand,” Garcia told KRQE News 13.

Meanwhile, locals are still seeing advertisements for Tent Rocks, and still waiting for the monument to reopen. “Oh, I’ll look forward to going back again, for sure,” said Smith.

Dr. Smith said his colleagues and friends have been messaging him, asking for updates about the monument. “Do you think Tent Rocks will open this spring? How long can they keep it closed? You know, so it’s – everyone wants to know,” Smith said.

The Bureau of Land Management says it will update plans for Tent Rocks on its website, but they have yet to provide a timeline on when the national monument will reopen. Part of that depends on when the pueblo decides to open its gates to the public once again.

It seems to me that Monumentizing, in some cases,  is like many politically symbolic activities.  Someone announces something that sounds good and makes a splash… then leave the same old folks with the same pots of dollars and competing priorities to actually carry it out.