tactics implemented by Incident Management Teams (IMTs) are degrading timber and other cultural resources on thousands of acres of Indian forest land while attempting to manage large wildfires. These outside teams with no direct relationship to the reservation land and resources are risk averse and often prefer indirect attack using backfires far from the fire front. This often results in the destruction of timber stands on many acres of tribal forestlands that did not need to be burned to contain the fire (H5). ■ Many tribal communities do not have sufficient local mills and log markets to support a viable wood products economy (D11). The BIA and some tribes themselves have invested in milling infrastructure, but most tribal mills (especially those dealing with small diameter material) have had limited success. However, the ecosystem services and tribal employment that tribal mills can provide are often undervalued (D13). ■ Some tribes express interest in selling timber using direct log sales instead of selling stumpage. BIA’s timber sales policies and procedures are designed for stumpage timber sales unless the tribe has established a tribal forestry enterprise under CFR 163.13. BIA’s process for creating and securing approval of tribal enterprises can be overly complex and involve multiple reviews and delays (H7).
■ BIA forestry regulations and policies restricting delivered log sales need to be reviewed and reforms implemented to facilitate timely creation of forestry enterprises or other acceptable processes for log sales. BIA needs to improve communications to provide other current options for log sales (D8). ■ There are differences in the nature and levels of involvement of the forestry program in voluntary carbon market arrangements and other ecosystem services, although the shorter time frames and greater flexibility have piqued the interest of
many tribes. Carbon market arrangements have often been led by tribal government, sometimes with little input by the forestry program. IFMAT was unable to determine if funds are being reinvested to support forest management. DOI solicitors’ opinion found that carbon is not a trust responsibility. While there are carbon market protocols for both forests and grasslands, woodlands are currently not eligible as a source of projects. There is no single set of standards, guidance, or principles for assessing and managing climate-related forest vulnerabilities.
Culturally significant cedar bark stripping on the Coquille Reservation in Oregon. PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RASMUSSEN
Executive Summary 11
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator