This is much different than the approach typically used outside Tribal land, which tends to be focused on sing- ular objectives and resource extraction opportunities. For example, the North- west Forest Plan was developed largely in response to declines in endangered spotted owl populations. That plan cov- ered approximately 24.5 million acres of federally managed land in Washington, Oregon, and California, and had a sub- stantial impact on the management of all other resources. That plan was approved in 1994, and almost 30 years later that same management approach remains despite marginal success in increasing populations of spotted owl, a significant change in the size and severity of distur- bance regimes in the forest ecosystems, and climate change accelerating toward an unclear future. However, federal land managers for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS) continue to be direct- ed by the goals and objectives outlined in that outdated plan. By comparison Tribes have recognized these changes and taken strategic measures to plan and im- plement management actions that adapt to the changing conditions and climate. The rate of this response is limited by available funding and staffing, but Tribes are diligently trying to take appropriate action to make these landscapes resilient to change for current and future gen- erations. This does include commercial operations in some situations, which is important to provide revenue to fund additional restoration work and fund essential tribal governmental functions. As noted in the IFMAT report Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is still the metric the BIA uses to measure success for forestry programs. With approximately 80 percent of tribes operating their programs under either 638 contracts or compacts, the de- liverables in those contracted functions include harvesting the AAC. However, many tribes see traditional forest prod- ucts, primarily in log form, as a byproduct of actions intended to accomplish their resource management goals. For many tribes their resource management goals include a long-term vision for the landscape, which includes an understanding that forests are not static. They understand that change should occur through time, and they have a responsibility to ensure that those changes happen in an environmentally and socially responsible way. The desired management outcomes are focused on
the extra work, communication, and out- reach needed to ensure that a landscape approach is considered and practiced on adjacent land. This has been demon- strated through the increased use of Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA), Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL), and co-stewardship agreements. It has also been demonstrated with the ever-taxing demand on tribes to become actively in- volved to participate, and in some cases lead, local collaborative groups. Those collaboratives in local collaboratives. Those local collaboratives recognize the value tribal involvement has with their participation. The Chief of the Forest Service shared a November 2022 press release where 11 co-stewardship agreements had been signed with thirteen tribes, with over 60 additional agreements at various stages of review. Although there are differences in tribal and federal ap- proaches to resource management, we also share many similarities in the goals we are collectively trying to achieve. The last difference in the tribal re- source management approach is creativ- ity and ingenuity. Because tribes operate on budget and staffing levels that are fractions of their other federal counter- parts, and because of their dedication to accomplish the work needed to main- tain those cultural and management objectives, tribes are forced to do more with less. They do not feel obligated to blindly follow the traditional framework of forest management, or outdated management plans. Tribal staff consider the tribe’s pri- orities, the resource challenges they are facing, an uncertain future with climate change, and develop management solutions that address those challenges. This freedom comes from Indian self- determination and the autonomy that sovereign tribal governments have. They are empowered to come up with unique solutions to meet their needs, as their ancestors did. This is both a privilege, and an obligation to ensure your deci- sions today are beneficial to those future generations dependent on our decision making. Because of this you see proactive, responsive management plans and actions in Indian country that you don’t see in other parts of the country. Par- ticularly not on federally administered land. There are countless examples from across Indian country where tribes have recognized the need for action, and quickly developed plans for implemen-
the protection and perpetuation of those sacred resources mentioned above, par- ticularly clean water and the foods and medicines tribal people depend on. Another challenge that is unique to tribal forestry is the location of the work. This entire country was occupied and managed by tribes prior to European contact and colonization. In just over 500 years since Christopher Columbus’s arrival in 1492, tribes are left with a small frac- tion of their original territory, population, and resources, which they had managed and subsisted on for thousands of years. With many tribally important resources located outside the boundaries of their present-day reservations, it is important for tribes to work with their adjacent federal, state, and private partners to en-
There is a unique Tribal vision of forest management includ- ing a focus on stewardship and non-timber forest products.
sure a collaborative approach is taken to landscape management to ensure tribal priorities are accounted for and protected. Over the past few decades Congress and some administrations have noticed the value of tribal approaches to resource management. With this recognition have come authorities from Congress that expand tribal authorities for co-manage- ment, and executive orders from past administrations focused on the consul- tation and coordination between federal land managers and tribes. Typically you don’t see federal agencies looking to their neighbor’s property to provide management recommendations. This is a reality that tribal land managers are faced with every day. Not only do they have to consider the impacts of management decisions on their reservations but must also constantly monitor activities being done on adjacent land. Because of tribal beliefs and management approaches they understand that the landscape func- tions as an interconnected system. While there seems to be some recog- nition of this on federal, state, and private land, rarely do you see examples of cross boundary collaborative planning and implementation of resource management projects. The tribal commitment to sus- tainable resource management seems to drive tribal governments and staff to do
Evergreen
16
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator