Tribes and Tribal Management

From Bloomberg Government

The Interior Department Wednesday announced the transfer of 28,000 acres of federal land in Alaska to further the Trump administration’s goal of developing more natural resources in the state.

The conveyance from the Bureau of Land Management to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., adds to the Alaska Native Corporation’s land ownership in the region and could help reignite a controversial mining project.

Bloomberg Gov one of those “big money for subscriptions” outfits so the article is paywalled.  Good news.. Natives getting land back.  Potentially bad news for some.. they might not like what the Native Alaskans do with it.

But that’s sovereignty for you.

Please be patient as you follow me down this bunny trail.

It started with our discussion which seems to have been in an Oregonian letter by Ingalsbee and Wheeler mentioned  by Steve Wilent in a comment.

The inclusion of tribal co-stewardship and Indigenous knowledge represents a profound change that goes beyond undoing past wrongs to Indigenous peoples — it will help restore species, habitats and landscape diversity. But these benefits are under threat. The Trump administration now threatens to subvert the progressive prospects of the Northwest Forest amendment by its effort to banish the words “diversity” and “inclusion.”

1) Certainly the Oregonian is not The Smokey Wire, but it probably doesn’t matter what the “generic Trump Admin” says about abstractions.. what probably matters is what the new Chief,  and the Secs of Int and Ag think about the topic, specifically, co-stewardship and co-management. We’ve discussed those before in detail last year, riffing on a Mother Jones story.

but 2) I know people make the claim that co-stewardship will “help restore” those thing; but co-stewardship, again, is kind of a generic abstraction.  I’m sure that the FACA recommending folks for the Northwest Forest Plan would be more specific, because I have much respect for them, and perhaps someone else can look it up or knows offhand what page it’s on..

But folks keep making that claim,  like this generic statement (in bold) by a professor at the Yale School of the Environment:

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.

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.

This seems like an odd generic statement to make. It’s one of those statements that I think people keep saying because they operate at the abstraction level, and not at the observational level. I’ve run into those kinds of statements a few times in my career, and in my experience it can be an academic/media echo chamber.  And it seems that  the folks with the observations are never brought into the conversation, nor is there an opportunity to have the discussion. It’s kind of like a policy mantra.

Then there was our post earlier this year on George Wuerther’s idea of the “Indian Iron Curtain” and his review of Native Alaskan support for energy projects. In fact, if you scroll down on the right, there are categories for posts, and if you look on Tribes you’ll see that we’ve had many posts on this topic.

People in Tribes are ultimately people. And people disagree with each other. Like other folks, they handle decisions that have to be made jointly via some kind of governmental organization. So folks who make claims that “autonomy is the best way to protect public lands” have a great deal of confidence not only in the philosophies of individual Tribal members, but of the ability of Tribal governments to act in the way that some individuals would define as “conservation.”

Let’s look at some observations of where conservation organizations and Tribes apparently do not agree. Some have argued that the definition of “conservation” is a Euro-American concept, so that is a bit of a philosophical issue, but still relevant.

There is the Ute support of the litigated oil train, which Colorado is against.
The Navajo did a deal with Energy Resources allowing uranium access (but not all Navajos agreed with their government, duh, see above).
The Navajo did not agree with the buffer zone around Chaco Canyon (apparently Pueblo and Navajo did not agree).

Conservation groups were against the Izembeck Road (apparently because doing what the King Cove people want would “set a dangerous precedent by undermining conservation laws.”

In our world,

The Kalispels supported the Sxwuytn-Kanisksu Connections Trail Project which was litigated by AWR.

And the Black Ram project, poster child of the “Climate Forest Campaign”, the project supported by the Kootenai.

“The Tribe supports the Black Ram project, because it protects our Ktunaxa resources, furthers restoration of Ktunaxa Territory forests and was developed through our government-to-government relationship with the United States Forest Service,” said Gary Aitken, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

But apparently not by the below groups, who support the Climate Forest Campaign (there are more, but I think everyone from Earthjustice to FUSEE (the very Ingalbee of the Oregonion op-ed) gets the point across.  Sometimes when some folks are for “co-stewardship” they seem to think that means.. ?unless the Tribes want to do something we don’t support.”

Some organizations who consider themselves “conservation organizations” are not in favor of cutting trees;  for some, pretty much not on private, state, nor federal land, and yet many Tribes have forest management programs, and some have their own sawmills.

In fact, there is an active Intertribal Timber Council.

It seems that another op-ed could be written on how by deferring to the wishes of some environmental groups (aka “conservation organizations”) the Biden Admin went against the will of Tribes as evidenced by their Tribal Governments.  In fact, I attended a webinar early in the Biden Admin on oil and gas policies and the two Tribal organizations (Native Alaskans and that spoke both preferred “all of the above.”

 

 

 

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.

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.

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

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 21^st?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.

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

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.