U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–009 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–483

INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL’S INDIAN FOREST

MANAGEMENT ASSESSEMENT TEAM REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SUCCESS OF TRIBAL FORESTRY

PRACTICES

MARCH 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Colegrove, Nolan, president, Inter-Tribal Timber Council, Portland, OR ... 4

Gordon, John, Interforest, LLC, Branford, CT ............................................... 6

Martin, Aurene, principal deputy assistant secretary, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ................................................. 2

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ............................................ 1

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, Senator from Colorado, chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs ............................................................................... 13

Colegrove, Nolan ............................................................................................... 14

Gordon, John ..................................................................................................... 17

Martin, Aurene ................................................................................................. 20

(1)

INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL’S INDIAN

FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Building, Hon. Gordon Smith (acting chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senator Smith.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

OREGON

Senator SMITH. Good morning.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to present a forum for the second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team, a report on the

state of Indian forests and forestry. The recently published report

does an excellent job of assessing the effectiveness and success of

tribal forestry practices. I hope this will shed light on the role that

American Indian tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], and

the tribal consortiums play in the management of 18 million acres

of forest land held in trust.

The Inter-Tribal Timber Council [ITC], is a nonprofit nationwide

consortium of Indian tribes, Alaska native corporations, and individuals dedicated to improving the management of natural resources of importance to Native American communities and represents more than 90 percent of the forest land held in trust. The

Secretary of the Interior contracted the ITC for the second time to

oversee this assessment. The ITC turned to a group of nationally

recognized experts, including many of the same individuals from

the first report, to complete the second IFMAT report. The IFMAT

II report assesses eight tasks specified in the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act. Among these is an in-depth analysis of management practices, a survey of the condition of Indian

forest lands, and a recommendation for any reforms.

The IFMAT report describes the substantial progress made toward sustainability in Indian forests since the first report; however, significant gaps still remain. Today’s hearing highlights the

progress made in the last 10 years since the last IFMAT report.

We’ll also hear suggestions on how to help tribal forests reach their

full potential.

Finally, it is important to note that the ITC and BIA forest programs have worked together to make the forestry program one of
2

the best in the Bureau, despite the program’s limited staffing. The

two organizations work closely together, and BIA attends all ITC

Board meetings.

More recently the ITC has been working with the U.S. Forest

Service to improve relations there, and has also established relations with the National Association of State Foresters. Thus, Indian forest management is an excellent example of the benefits of

government-to-government cooperation.

I thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee

today and look forward to their testimony.

I’m going to also enter Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s statement into our record.

[Prepared statement of Senator Campbell appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. If I can ask our witnesses that they hold their

testimony to 5 minutes. We have another hearing after this on the

Coos Forest issue.

Ms. Martin, we’ll begin with you and Mr. Colegrove to follow,

and finally we’ll hear from Dr. Gordon. We thank you all.

Ms. Martin.

STATEMENT OF AURENE MARTIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name

is Aurene Martin, and I am the principal assistant deputy secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. I’d like

to thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department’s views

on the Indian Forest Management Report.

There are approximately 17.9 million acres of forest land in Indian country, of which 5.6 million acres are classified as commercial timber land and 3.5 million acres are commercial woodland.

Most of the economic return derived from these lands comes from

the industrial harvest of commercial timber land, with the northwest region accounting for 70 percent of the harvested timber volume, and the midwest region with 13.5 percent of the harvested

timber volume.

The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990

directs the Secretary of the Interior to obtain an independent assessment of the status and management of Indian forests every 10

years. The first such report, commonly referred to as IFMAT I, was

provided to Congress in 1993 and represents the status of Indian

forests and forest management as of 1991. IFMAT I identified four

areas in need of improvement for the management of Indian forests. There was a gap between tribal goals for Indian forests and

management of those forests as applied. There was a disparity in

funding provided to Indian forest management programs as compared to other similar Federal programs. There was a lack of coordinated resource planning and management. And finally there

was a need to set and oversee trust standards for Indian forestry

programs.

IFMAT I was developed by a group of nationally recognized forestry experts under a contract funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the Inter-Tribal Timber Council. The same issues that

were addressed in IFMAT I are addressed in IFMAT II, and many
3

of the same experts involved in IFMAT I participated in the development of the IFMAT II report.

IFMAT II reviews efforts for the period 1991–2001 and recognizes many improvements in three of the four areas they originally

identified as needing improvement. The gap between tribal visions

for their forests and the management of those forests has shown

marked improvement. This is evidenced by increased self-determination compacting among tribes and the use of integrated resource management plans. This has also been improved because of

increased efforts of the BIA to coordinate with tribes.

Second, increased funding in Indian forestry programs has been

realized. While the report states that additional funding is necessary, the disparity between other Federal programs and Indian

forestry programs has lessened. In 1991, Indian forestry programs

were funded at less than one-third the amount per acre that other

Federal forest management programs were funded. That amount

has increased to more than two-thirds the amount per acre. In fact,

Federal funding of Indian forestry programs has increased by 84

percent over the past 10 years, much of the increase due to recent

efforts to maintain healthy forests.

The report also recognizes the increase in coordinated or integrated resource planning efforts. This is shown by the advent of integrated resource management plans, or IRMPs. The Department

has also recognized the importance of integrated planning and has

requested and received increased funding for IRMPs in fiscal year

2004 appropriations. We have made similar requests for 2005.

Finally, the report claimed that little progress has been made in

the fourth area, the setting of trust standards and trust oversight.

The Department disagrees with this assertion for two reasons. The

Department has made significant improvements in trust oversight

with the realignment of the Office of Special Trustee and the BIA

and through our ongoing trust reform projects. As an example, the

Office of American Indian Trust Functions have been transferred

to the Office of Special Trustee, an independent third party, and

their program has been expanded.

Additionally, the report cites one specific model developed in

1993 as the model for trust reform. While this model is quite interesting and I think bears further discussion, it is not the only model

for trust reform. The report contains a number of recommendations

which are still under review by the Department. After an initial review, we believe a number of the recommendations have merit and

will complement and enhance our commitment to healthy forests.

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views,

and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Martin appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. Ms. Martin, I understand that the Department

of the Interior requested over $90 million for the Office of Special

Trustee, and yet apparently, according to written testimony, it

didn’t fund and actively rejected a funding request for the second

IFMAT. Is that accurate? And if so, why?

Ms. MARTIN. I’m not exactly sure to which fiscal year you might

be referring. That is possible, but I couldn’t tell you off the top of

my head.
4

Senator SMITH. It’s also my understanding that the IFMAT II report expressed concern in the reduction of professional forestry

staff since the last decade and the continuing shortage of personnel

in critical skills areas such as forest engineering. I’m wondering

what the Department of the Interior’s plans are to remedy these

problems.

Ms. MARTIN. Well, the causes of the problem, itself, are complex.

With increased self-determination programs, our staff levels decreased because those funds go out to the tribes to operate programs directly. That’s one cause for the decrease in staff. What we

have been doing at the Department to increase forestry professionals is we operate a program. It’s a scholarship program which

encourages students to seek forestry degrees, allows them to intern

at the Department, and then pays for their education so that they

can come work at the Department when they graduate. We are

looking at increasing those types of programs for all of our trust

programs in the future, and, in fact, our 2005 budget request seeks

an increase in funds for those types of programs.

Senator SMITH. Very good. Thank you.

Nolan Colegrove.

STATEMENT OF NOLAN COLEGROVE, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OR

Mr. COLEGROVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I’m Nolan Colegrove, the president of the Inter-Tribal Timber Council, and I’m also the forest manager in Hoopa in California. It is my pleasure to be here today to present to you the IFMAT

II report on the second independent report of the status of Indian

forests and their trust management. If I may, I will refer to these

two reports as IFMAT I and IFMAT II.

As the president of ITC, I will talk briefly about the ITC as an

organization and its role with the IFMAT process. Dr. Gordon, the

chairman of both the first and second independent IFMAT teams,

will discuss the reports, themselves.

Senator SMITH. Okay.

Mr. COLEGROVE. The ITC is an organization of over 70 timberowning tribes and Alaska native organizations that collectively represent more than 90 percent of the 18 million forest acres managed

by the BIA. Our organization is 28 years old and came together out

of a common interest and concern that the BIA forest management

problems were not being addressed. However, rather than attack

the BIA, the ITC chose to work with the Bureau and others to collectively make improvements. We believe that this approach has

been instrumental in making the BIA’s forestry programs one of

the bright spots in accountability for trust administration in the

Bureau today.

In 1989 and 1990, the ITC actively participated in the development and passage of the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act, which became Public Law 101–630. At the ITC’s suggestion, section 312 of that law requires that promptly after the enactment and every 10 years thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior

shall provide for an independent assessment and report on the status of Indian trust forests and their management. The law also requires that the Secretary enter into a contract with a non-Federal
5

entity to conduct this assessment, and sets forth eight specific

tasks to be covered in every assessment. Copies of these periodic

assessment reports are to be provided to Interior, to the tribes, and

the Congress.

Right after Public Law 101–630’s enactment and with Congressional appropriation support, Interior contracted with the ITC for

the first independent assessment report. The ITC selected a nationally preeminent team of forestry professionals led by Dr. Gordon.

The ITC facilitated the team’s efforts, but otherwise our charge was

simple: Tell it straight, tell it like it is. We want to know the good,

the bad, and the ugly.

Over 2 years, they visited 33 tribes and numerous BIA and tribal

forestry personnel. They issued the IFMAT I report in 1993.

IFMAT II and its report, which was issued in December 2003 and

is before you today, traveled a slightly different path. We were unable to secure Congressional funding, but with modest assistance

from BIA forestry, ITC was able to assemble an IFMAT II team.

To help gather IFMAT II data, the ITC and the IFMAT II team

worked with the Pinchot Institute and two private foundations who

were interested in canvassing Indian tribes for their readiness to

participate in third party certification under the two leading systems, the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry

Initiative.

While the teams collected considerable raw data, some members

of the IFMAT II team, itself, visited 30 reservations, including

many from IFMAT I for comparison purposes. We were fortunate.

Six of the IFMAT I team members wanted to be involved in the

second assessment, including Dr. Gordon as leader. Their familiarity with the IFMAT processes and Indian forest resource greatly

streamlined the assessment and brought invaluable continuity of

understanding. Dr. Gordon will discuss the IFMAT II assessment

and report and its comparison with IFMAT I.

I would like to comment about the role of the IFMAT reports in

the current debate on the adequacy of Federal trust management.

We believe these reports play a significant role in that debate for

two reasons: First, the IFMAT reports are the only ones of their

kind for any trust resource. To the best of our knowledge, there are

no other evaluations or reports for Indian trust resources that are

comprehensive, standardized, periodic, and, most important, independent. As for any trust, we believe this independent review is not

just helpful for tribes, for the Administration, and for Congress; we

believe it is essential.

Second, IFMAT’s independent observations and recommendation

provide a fresh perspective on the trust debate.

Mr. Chairman, IFMAT II notes that tribes have greatly increased

their role in caring for our forests, and we believe that this has

been the major factor in improved management and stewardship of

our resources. We live with our forest every day, as will our children and theirs and all of our future generations. The IFMAT process makes an invaluable contribution by providing periodic independent check on progress and problems in management of our

trust forest resources.
6

We are pleased that the IFMAT II report has been completed

and is now being presented to Congress and the tribes and the Administration. We look forward to the discussion it will engender.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Colegrove appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. Mr. Colegrove, on the issue of trust oversight,

you seem to have some disagreements with BIA, and I wonder if

you can speak just a little more as to how you propose to resolve

those.

Mr. COLEGROVE. I’m sure that every tribe in the Nation would

have a hard time making an agreement on most things, and we

saw that over the course of the last 2 years with the trust reform

efforts that were put on by the Administration, and working along

with the tribes. There are several ideas out there. Some of them

have been agreed to. Some of them there has been a lot of agreement, others there haven’t been. In this case, the oversight has not

been looked on very favorably by the Administration.

Senator SMITH. Do you have concerns about the staffing shortfalls in Indian forests? And how do you propose to remedy those?

Mr. COLEGROVE. Certainly. And as our testimony said, working

cooperatively with the Bureau is one of the best ways that we see

to be able to resolve that. Of course, a lot of money helps resolve

a lot of issues. Some of it is funding, some of it is not funding.

Some of it is the increased funding with the wild land/urban interface, hazardous fuels, fire. New money in the Bureau and the rest

of Interior has taken a lot of the BIA foresters and a lot of the tribal foresters out of the system, as well as what Ms. Martin had alluded to earlier of tribes compacting programs and assuming a lot

of those functions and the BIA staff going down. There has also

been foresters leaving the profession going to work as fire fighters

or fuels technicians.

The way that we are addressing it is there are several ways. Ms.

Martin mentioned one of the most important ways that we’re looking at, and that’s in terms of educating new foresters. Other ways

is bringing other folks in and just trying to entice people to come

to work for the Bureau. It’s a pretty hard thing to do, given other

packages that private industry has, but there are a numbers of

ways that we are trying to address that.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much.

Dr. Gordon.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GORDON, INTERFOREST, LLC,

BRANFORD, CT

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I’m

John Gordon, chairman of the second Indian Forest Management

Assessment Team, or IFMAT II. I’m also chairman and partner of

Interforest, a forestry consulting firm, and Pinchot professor of forestry and environmental studies emeritus at Yale University. It is

my pleasure to testify on an assessment of Indian forests and forest

management in the United States done by the second Indian forest

management team.

President Colegrove has done an excellent job of describing the

fundamentals of Indian forestry, the Inter-Tribal Timber Council,

and the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act, so I
7

will confine my remarks to a brief summary of the major findings

and recommendations of the IFMAT II report and compare it with

IFMAT I in five major areas: First of all, the four gaps described

in the first assessment and alluded to by Ms. Martin; second, funding; third, forest health issues; fourth, staffing of BIA and tribal

forestry organizations; and, fifth, trust oversight on Indian forests.

I’m happy to report that on the whole the management of Indian

forests is different and better than it was 10 years ago, largely

through the efforts of dedicated tribal and BIA resource managers

and staff. There has been a significant amount of progress toward

sustainability in Indian forests since IFMAT I, although significant

progress remains to be made.

Indian forests have retained and enhanced their value, noted in

IFMAT I, as areas upon which sustainable forestry to meet human

needs can be demonstrated. Because tribal members live intimately

with all the results of their forestry activities, they pay close attention to the health of their forests and the effects of forest management activities on themselves and on their environment. This

makes Indian forests of special value to all Americans.

IFMAT I identified four gaps: First, the gap between the Indians’

vision of their forest and how it is actually managed; second, a gap

between Indian forest funding and comparable Federal and private

forest funding; third, deficiencies in coordinated resource planning

and management; and, fourth, the need for better trust standards

and oversight in Indian forestry. Major progress is evident in three

of them.

The first gap between the visions Indians express for their forests and the way they are managed is narrowing. This is due to

greater tribal participation in forest management and greater

alignment between tribal and BIA approaches to management. The

trend toward greater tribal participation and management needs to

be encouraged and strengthened, in our view.

The second gap in funding between Indian and other comparable

lands, particular Federal land, is narrowing due to increased funding to address fire issues in Indian forests and a redirection of emphasis on Federal forests. However, a substantial funding gap still

exists, and fire funds we think need to be made recurring and need

to be integrated with other funds to achieve greater efficiency in

their use.

The third gap in integrated management planning has improved

markedly, but inadequate resources are available for the mandated

preparation of integrated resource management plans, the larger

context for forest management planning. Even now, only 40 percent

of the tribes have up-to-date forest management plans.

The fourth gap in trust oversight has, in our view, seen the least

progress on the ground. The BIA is still in the untenable position

of pitching and umpiring—that is, providing management services

and advice and overseeing the adequacy of those services and advice. IFMAT II strongly believes that the recommendation of

IFMAT I for independent oversight of forest trust responsibility

needs to be implemented on the ground.

Now, innovative management of Indian forests under the principles of adaptive ecosystem management is happening on many

reservations, and the quality and quantity of tribal forest manage-
8

ment staff are increasing. Indian forests remain a vital part of tribal life on reservations in every part of the contiguous United States

and Alaska. Timber production, non-timber forest products, grazing, and wildlife management provide revenues and jobs for tribal

members and enhance economic life of surrounding communities.

Subsistence lifestyles and forest-derived foods and medicines are

important to many tribal members. Indian forests often play a role

in religious observance and artistic expression. Forest protection

and use remain core values on forested reservations.

A number of tribes are increasing their holdings modestly

through fee purchase of forests, and others are increasing their

holdings by reclaiming or attempting to reclaim lost tribal lands.

IFMAT II believes that if the actions described in our report are

taken, this generally positive picture will be maintained and improved at an acceptable rate.

Let me say something more about funding. IFMAT I identified

a large gap between funding provided by the Federal Government

for national forests, forests held in trust for all Americans, and

Federal Government funding provided for Indian trust forests. In

1991, Indian forestry, including fire funds, received only about onethird the amount per acre as was invested in the national forests.

In 2001, Indian forestry received about two-thirds of the amount

per acre as was invested in the national forests, or $0.68 on the

dollar.

This gap has narrowed for two reasons. First, a large reduction

in Federal funding for forest management on national forests; and,

second, a significant increase in funding for fuels management, fire

preparedness, and emergency stabilization activities on Indian forests.

Funding for fire management has increased sharply over the last

ten years in recognition of the fuel buildup on Indian and other forests due to past management practices and forest health needs. Restrictions on the use of fuels management funds often limit the

ability to integrate them with other needed silvicultural treatments

into a comprehensive program of forest management that includes

wild land fire hazard and risk abatement. Protecting forest health

will be an ongoing task that is most efficiently addressed through

integrated management; thus, we recommend making fire funding

a permanent part of the funding base for Indian forestry, and at

the same time removing barriers that reduce tribes’ ability to integrate fire funding into the total forest and natural resource management program. We further recommend that Federal forestry allocations be raised to a total of $181 million annually.

Forest health—there has been an overall improvement in silvicultural practices and management of forest health issues—fire,

insects, and disease—on Indian forests in the decade since IFMAT

I. This is resulting in integrated silvicultural prescriptions and improved integrated management on the ground.

Indian forest managers have made significant strides in addressing wildfire risks during the last decade; however, acreage treated

for hazardous fuels reduction remains lower than needed. In an important related area, good progress has been made on some Indian

forests in road location, construction, and maintenance, but, despite

improvement, there is considerable risk that efforts to combat for-
9

est health problems and to institute sustainable management for

all forest resources will be overwhelmed by a combination of funding shortfalls, personnel shortages, and ecosystem-based problems—the aforementioned insects, disease, and fire.

Immediate and focused attention is needed to improve the rate

of forest health treatment response, utilize small and low-quality

logs, and strength staffing. Some actions can be taken without additional funds. For example, funding for fire and other forestry activities could be better integrated to reduce administrative costs

and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of silvicultural treatments to accomplish management objectives. But some require substantial and immediate investment.

If better forest health is to be achieved and the promise of Indian

forestry described in IFMAT I is to continue to be realized, increases in investment, reduced burden from unfunded mandates,

and immediate action are needed, so we recommend that aggressive treatment of Indian lands for forest health maintenance and

improvement be a major use of the recommended increase in funding.

With regard to staffing, the number of tribes that compact or

contract to provide forestry services and functions on their own reservations has nearly doubled since 1991. That’s good. But despite

this, Indian forestry programs, BIA and tribal together, exclusive

of fire programs, have declined 26 percent in staffing. Overall staffing for Indian programs—that is, including fire—has increased

slightly from 1991 levels, and the percentage of workers with professional qualifications has increased. More tribes now employ specialists in wildlife biology, hydrology, and landscape analysis. At

the same time, BIA technical assistance staffing has significantly

declined over the last decade. Tribes receive less assistance from

BIA in forest inventory, management planning, marketing, and economics. Key personnel are retiring or getting ready to retire. Fire

funding caused personnel shifts from forestry to fire that have not

been entirely made up on the forestry side, and the supply of new

Indian professionals is insufficient to meet demand. So we recommend that additional education and training for tribal members

in key specialties be given additional support, and that BIA technical assistance levels be brought back at least to the 1991 levels.

With regard to trust oversight, we believe that the triangulation

model for trust oversight suggested in IFMAT I remains an appropriate conceptual model for trust oversight. Its virtues are: First,

it separates the BIA’s role as manager and provider of technical information from its role of arbiter of how effective the management

and information is; second, it places tribal goals even more firmly

as the driving force of management plans and actions; and, third,

it allows appropriate differentiation of tribal goals and activities

among the many and diverse tribes that manage forests.

Under this system, tribes would create management plans based

on tribal goals with the support, if needed, of BIA technical specialists. These plans would then be negotiated with the Secretary of

the Interior, and when in place would be the basis for evaluation

of trust oversight performance. Both BIA and tribal performance in

pursuit of the goals would be monitored by a commission independ-
10

ent of the Secretary and the BIA in a manner consistent with tribal

sovereignty and Federal law.

Responsibility for delivering a natural resource management program would be placed under a single manager for each tribe or

tribal forest. In the complex setting of current forest management,

actions taken today have long-term effects on many resource. Thus,

we believe the trustee must first require that specific information

from each tribe, integrated resource plans and cumulative effects

analysis be developed; second, assure that the beneficiary tribe

clearly understands the possible consequences of forest management activities as tribal goals are pursued; and, third, to have a

truly independent mechanism for assessment. Thus, we recommend

that a management oversight structure be put in place to ensure

effective and independent oversight of plans that reflect the visions

of individual tribes for sustaining their forests.

In conclusion, our report provides many other findings and recommendations, all derived from careful conversations with tribal

members, BIA and tribal foresters and resource managers, and onthe-ground observation, data collection, and analysis. We hope you

will give them all careful attention and thought; however, I must

stress again, as President Colegrove did, that IFMAT reports,

themselves, do not present mandates. Ours is simply another view

of this vital part of the forest resources of America and the world.

We do think the process of recurring independent assessments

has great merit and utility and should be regularized and continued. Indeed, we would like to see this process more broadly applied

in natural resource management and forestry.

Indian forests present a unique window into the interaction of

forests and people—in this instance, people who care deeply about

the land and nature and live intimately with both. In this sense,

as well as in the sense of forming a major part of the diminished

heritage of important and vital people, there are major asset obligation and opportunity for us all.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Gordon.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. I note that you participated in the first IFMAT

report, and in that you recommended the triangulated trust oversight model. You’ve spoken to that this morning. And yet what has

developed is a different model between BIA and the Office of Special Trustee. I wonder if you can elaborate a little bit more. Is that

sufficient? Will that work? Or do you think that should go to the

triangulated trust model?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the triangulated model. Our on-the-ground assessment mostly ended in

2001, with a little bit of 2002, and it is those observations that we

report on, and we did not see any change in trust oversight on the

ground in that time. If there has been significant progress since

that time, we’re very pleased to hear about it, but I do not know

the details of what has transpired.

Senator SMITH. You have extensive exposure to Indian forest

lands, and you have suggested that because of the ethic of the

American Indian peoples for the environment, for their land, that
11

they are unusually good stewards of the forest. Can you compare

their forests with those managed by the Federal Government, for

example, or on other private lands? What is your observation?

Mr. GORDON. Well, I think Indian forestry has two big advantages with respect to any other forest management. We’ve talked

about some of the disadvantages—under-funding and under-staffing—but the two big advantages are that they live with the consequences of all their decisions.

Senator SMITH. Because they’re there.

Mr. GORDON. If they decide not to cut timber, they get to not

have the money.

Senator SMITH. Yes.

Mr. GORDON. If they decide to burn, they get to cope with the

smoke. So I think that leads to a balanced view of forest management, and I think that’s a very good thing.

The second thing is that tribes are diverse, so many different

tribes try many different things in forestry, so instead of a fairly

rigid template of management, you have a diverse set of ideas, and

this leads to innovation and to a form of adaptive management,

where you can compare different kinds of management on similar

forests. So to me those are the two major advantages, in addition,

of course, to what you mentioned, innate feeling for the land.

Senator SMITH. And because of those forces that you talk about,

are the Indian forest lands in better condition than those that you

find otherwise in private hands or Federal hands?

Mr. GORDON. Well, I can’t respond directly to that because we

didn’t review private and other Federal lands with regard to quality of management. What I can say is that in many cases you can

see very innovative management on Indian forests and cross the

boundary to neighbors and see management that isn’t as innovative.

Senator SMITH. You have provided written testimony in support

of S. 868. That’s the subject of the next hearing. It’s a bill that I’ve

introduced to restore ancestral homelands to the Confederate

Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. Can you

tell the committee why you are supporting this bill and what transferred management of these lands would do, in your view?

Mr. GORDON. Well, there are two reasons why I strongly support

the bill. The first is that the plan that has been prepared has been

prepared with the best expertise and it is very appropriate to the

ecosystem to which it would be applied. I think in every respect it

respects all the ecological and environmental covenants that now

cover the land and would open the way for innovative management

of the kind I commented on in my last answer. The second reason

is again related to what I said before. It would create yet another

tribal entity managing forest and yet another opportunity for innovative and environmentally sensitive management.

Senator SMITH. Are you familiar with the land in question? Have

you been there?

Mr. GORDON. I spent 7 years in Oregon at Oregon State University in the 1970’s and early 1980’s and I was in that country quite

a few times at that time on the Siuslaw and on——

Senator SMITH. Are you aware that this land in question had

been harvested years ago and is now managed under late succes-
12

sional reserve and trying to bring back spotted owls and other endangered species?

Mr. GORDON. Yes; I’m aware of that.

Senator SMITH. Do you have any familiarity with the condition

of that land now and its ability to help endangered species? Is it

in good condition or is it grossly overgrown?

Mr. GORDON. I can’t comment directly on that because I have not

been there to gather data for years, but my impression is that the

potential of that land remains great, both in terms of timber production and environmental protection, and is some of the best forest land in the world.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Gordon and all of our

witnesses. We appreciate your report. With that we will conclude

this first hearing. We’ll take a 5-minute break and then we’ll reconvene.

[Whereupon, at 9:44 a.m. the subcommittee considered other

matters.]
(13)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM

COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Thank you, Senator Smith. I appreciate your willingness to chair this hearing,

and your long-standing commitment to Indian issues and the specific issue of tribal

forestry. This is an important issue for the Oregon tribes but it is also an important

issue for tribes throughout the West.

Of the 51 million acres of land held in trust for Indian tribes, almost 18 million

acres are forest lands which are a principal source of jobs and governmental revenues for many tribes.

Keeping tribal forests healthy is crucial because tribal trust land is limited and

difficult to increase or adjust—the loss of trust forests, particularly through wildfire,

would be irreplaceable in the near term, and could devastate a tribe’s economy. As

trustee, the United States has a trust obligation to protect these valuable tribal forest assets.

I have reviewed the most recent Indian Forest Management Assessment Team Report [IFMAT II], and would like to welcome Nolan Colegrove, president of the Intertribal Timber Council, and John Gordon, also of the Intertribal Timber Council. I

and my staff have worked with ITC for several years, and our experience has been

a good one. The ITC is a professional and valuable organization that provides expertise and insight to the Congress as well as to Indian country.

The periodic IFMAT reports are an important tool for assessing the relative

health of tribal forests. I was quite gratified to read in this latest report how much

tribal forests have improved since the publication of IFMAT I, 10 years ago. This

improvement is due in large measure to the dedicated efforts of Bureau of Indian

Affairs and tribal forest professionals, but is also due to the guidance of provided

by IFMAT I.

We cannot become complacent about the progress we’ve achieved in the past decade. Although tribal forest health has greatly improved, there are still areas of concern, and we will hear much more about those concerns from our witnesses.

There is one specific tribal forestry issue I would like to address today. Many tribal forests border on or are adjacent to National Forests or Bureau of Land Management lands that pose wildfire, insect, or disease threats to tribal trust timber assets.

In recent years, these potential threats from Federal public forest lands have significantly increased, so that the active management of tribal forests alone does not provide sufficient protection.

Many tribes are very concerned about the protection of their trust timber asset,

and are frustrated by the Federal public forest land management agencies’ inability

to provide timely and appropriate responses.

Last session I attempted to amend the Healthy Forests bill to address this situation by providing willing and able tribes a proactive opportunity to perform needed

management activities on adjoining or adjacent Federal public forests, to help the

United States fulfill its trust obligation to protect tribal trust forest assets.
14

The amendment authorized the respective Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior

to adopt tribal proposals for tribal forest asset protection activities on National Forest and BLM lands in proximity to tribal trust forest lands if the applicant tribe

met the following criteria:

No. 1. The tribal forest had significant exposure to National Forest or BLM land.

No. 2. The tribal forest was a significant percentage of the tribe’s trust assets.

No. 3. The National Forest or BLM land posed a fire, disease, or other threat to

the tribe’s forest or a tribal community.

No. 4. The tribe’s project would not displace an existing forest management

contractor.

No. 5. The tribe had the capability to meet the goals of its proposal.

No. 6. The proposal’s Federal land, or the tribe’s relationship to that land, involved unique circumstances, such as treaty rights or biological, historical, or cultural issues.

The amendment was supported by numerous Indian tribes and the ITC, but unfortunately we were unsuccessful in getting the amendment adopted.

In this session of Congress, this idea has been taken up again in stand-alone companion bills introduced by Senator Feinstein and Chairman Pombo on the House

side. Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Vice Chairman Inouye and I are all cosponsors of Senator Feinstein’s bill, and we all recognize the importance of passing these

bills and addressing this issue before more tribal forest land and more lives are lost

to devastating wildfires.

I look forward to hearing the testimony from today’s witnesses.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NOLAN C. COLEGROVE, SR., PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL

TIMBER COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Nolan C. Colegrove, Sr., Hoopa

Forest Manager and President of the Intertribal Timber Council [ITC]. It is my

pleasure to be here today to testify on behalf of the ITC on An Assessment of Indian

Forests and Forest Management in the United States by the Second Indian Forest

Management Assessment Team, issued December 2003. More informally, this document is referred to as the IFMAT–II report. IFMAT–II is the second independent

evaluation of the status of Indian forests and forestry as required by the National

Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law 101–630). The first assessment was completed in 1993.

My comments today are intended to provide the historical context for the IFMAT

report and to emphasize the importance of periodic, independent assessments of the

management of assets held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indians.

The actual findings and recommendations contained in the IFMAT–II report will be

described in the testimony of the chairman of IFMAT–II, Dr. John Gordon.

The ITC is a 28-year old organization of 70 forest owning tribes and Alaska Native organizations that collectively represent more than 90 percent of the 7.6 million

timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million woodland acres that are

under BIA trust management. These lands provide vitally important habitat, cultural and spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses, and through commercial

operations, income for our tribes and jobs for our members. Last year, 635 million

board feet were harvested from Indian timberlands, with a stumpage value of $62

million. To all our membership, our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical, cultural, spiritual, and economic well-being; their proper management is our

foremost concern.

The principal means by which the ITC has sought to review, coordinate and revise

Bureau and tribal forestry activities has been the ITCs annual timber symposium.

For nearly 30 years, this has been a forum where tribes, the BIA, and outside forestry experts gather to discuss tribal and BIA forestry issues and forest management trends and developments, and to fashion findings and recommendations for cooperatively revising and improving the management of trust forest resources. Each

symposium is held in a different part of the United States on or near a forested

tribe’s reservation.

Our first symposium was convened in Seattle in the late 1970’s by a group of

tribes which had become increasingly alarmed that significant deficiencies in Indian

forest management were not being corrected. At that gathering, Indian tribes discovered that they shared common problems and decided to work together to try to

resolve them. The ITC was formed shortly thereafter. Rather than attacking the

BIA, the founders of the ITC took a path dedicated to working cooperatively with

the BIA, private industry, and academia to improve the management of Indian forests. That philosophy continues to guide the ITC to this day. Over the years, the
15

ITC and its partners have worked together to make the Forestry program one of

the best in the BIA, despite the program’s limited resources. More recently, the ITC

has been working with the U.S. Forest Service to improve relations there, and has

also established relations with the National Association of State Foresters. In legislative activity, the ITC significantly participated in the 1990 enactment of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, has sought to improve appropriations, and helped include a tribal watershed forestry program in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

An 11-member, elected Board of Directors of tribal leaders from throughout the

United States oversees the ITC’s activities, meeting four or more times a year either

at the ITC headquarters office in Portland, Oregon, or at Indian forestry-related locations around the United States. The ITC staff is small (two full time personnel

and one BIA Forester on an IPA), but the ITC has relied upon contributions of staff

from member tribes to work on issues of regional and national significance. The ITC

has been an active force in advancing initiatives to improve the management of Indian forests and other resources held in trust for the benefit of Indians. In addition

to the symposium, the ITC has a strong scholarship and education program, issues

newsletters and updates, participates in national wildland fire activities, monitors

and pursues legislation, is engaged in the forest ‘‘green’’ certification issue, and is

an active contributor to the Indian trust reform debate.

During the development and consideration of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA, 25 U.S.C. 3101), the ITC proposed that the bill

include a periodic independent assessment of Indian trust forests. Working with the

bill’s sponsors, a requirement for independent assessments at decadal intervals was

incorporated in section 312 (a)(1). This legislative mandate provides that ‘‘the Secretary, in consultation with affected Indian tribes, shall enter into a contract with

a non-Federal entity knowledgeable in forest management practices on Federal and

private lands to conduct an independent assessment of Indian forest lands and Indian forest management practices.’’ Subsection (a)(2) then sets forth a list of eight

specific questions to be addressed in each assessment, including reviews of the funding, staffing, management, and health of Indian forests. With bipartisan support,

NIFRMA cleared both Chambers of Congress as title III of H.R. 3703, a compilation

of diverse Native American legislation, and was signed into law November 28, 1990,

becoming Public Law 101–630.

Following the enactment of NIFRMA, the ITC sought and received funding from

Congressional Appropriations Committees to complete IFMAT–I. Congress provided

$300,000 in fiscal year 1992 and another $300,000 in fiscal year 1993. The balance

of funding for the first assessment was provided by a grant from the Administration

for Native Americans. The Interior Department selected the ITC to coordinate the

assessment, and ITC sought and obtained the services of a panel of nationally preeminent experts in forestry, including Dr. John Gordon of Yale to lead the assessment team. Once the team was formed, the ITC helped facilitate access to timber

tribes and Federal personnel, but otherwise left the team alone to independently

conduct its evaluation. ITC’s charge to IFMAT was simple ‘‘Tell it straight. Tell it

like it is. We want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly.’’ The first IFMAT visited 33 timber tribes and interviewed many Federal and tribal personnel over the

course of 2 years. IFMAT–I (a copy submitted with this testimony) was issued in

November 1993. As part of IFMAT’s research, every forested tribe visited received

its own confidential report on the team’s assessment of that tribe’s forest.

IFMAT-I generally found a wide variety of management approaches in Indian forests, that sustainability is a key factor, but that underfunding and understaffing

hamper management, and that Indian forests had mixed health and productivity,

varying by forest type and geographic location. Four specific gaps were identified:

(1) a gap between the Indians’ vision of their forest and how it is managed, (2) a

gap in funding between Indian forests and comparable Federal and private forests,

(3) a lack of coordinated resource planning and management, and (4) the need for

better trust standards and oversight in Indian forestry. The report’s principal recommendation was that the trust relationship between the tribes and the United

States be reconfigured by (1) significantly increasing BIA Forestry funding so that

it was on a par with funding provided for Federal forests, and somewhat controversially, (2) establishing a separate and independent entity, apart from the Interior

Department, to monitor and evaluate the sufficiency of BIA trust forest management. The ITC distributed the report to the tribes, the Interior Department, and the

Congress, accompanied by briefings.

The consequences of the first IFMAT report have been interesting and informative. The findings and recommendations in IFMAT–I, combined with those contained in the reports provided to individual tribes, provided roadmaps for improving

forest management on individual reservations which tribes could pursue on their
16

own volition. Nationally, the report found that, despite significant challenges and

funding levels only a third of those provided for the management of federal forest

lands, Indian forest lands have a striking potential to serve as models of sustainability. This was both gratifying and heartening, but IFMAT–I warned that certain

steps must be taken if this promise was to become reality.

IFMAT–I has continued to contribute to the trust management of Indian forests

and has established a benchmark against which change can be measured with a

consistent set of criteria. When the Healthy Forests Initiative was getting underway

early in this Administration, BIA Forestry program managers referred extensively

to the report in policy discussions with senior Departmental personnel, who themselves took a keen interest in it. It is our understanding that Secretary Norton herself extensively reviewed the report. The report also contributed to the Interior Department’s better understanding of the trust Forestry program’s funding inadequacies, so that over the last 3 years, the base funding level for the BIA Forestry program has increased.

And in the intensive national debate on Indian trust reform over the past several

years, IFMAT–I’s recommendation that an independent entity be established to

evaluate trust management helped spark the presentation and discussion of that

idea as an important component of trust reform.

In 2000, with the approach of the due date for the second IFMAT assessment, BIA

Forestry program managers sought to have funding incorporated into the Department’s budget request. Disappointingly, the request was not included in the Administration’s proposed fiscal year 2002 budget. The ITC’s requests to Congress to provide funding for the assessment and report were also unsuccessful. But because

tribes were convinced of the importance of a periodic, independent assessment of the

status of Indian forests and forestry, ITC sought other ways to complete the study.

A modest amount of funding was made available from the BIA forestry program.

Ultimately, the Pinchot institute, with funding provided by the Ford and Surdna

Foundations, worked with ITC to craft an approach that combined the IFMAT assessment with an evaluation of the readiness of Indian tribes to partake in the two

leading third party forest certification systems, those sponsored by the Sustainable

Forestry Initiative and the Forest Stewardship Council. With limited but critical

BIA support, ITC assembled the second IFMAT team. In the second assessment, 30

reservations were included, many of which were involved in IFMAT–I to provide information to indicate the degree of change over the last 10 years. Compared to the

first assessment, personal site inspections by IFMAT members were reduced and

most of the data was provided by the forest certification inspection teams instead

of first-hand observation.

The ITC is pleased that six of the IFMAT–I members and the IFMAT–I project

manager were enthusiastic about participating in IFMAT–II. Dr. Gordon again led

the team. Their background experience in IFMAT–I greatly streamlined the processes for IFMAT–II and permitted a credible assessment despite the much more

limited budget. More importantly, consistency in membership has provided truly invaluable continuity of experience and expertise from IFMAT–I to IFMAT–II, bringing their intimate first-hand familiarity with both IFMAT’s analytical processes and

the national trust Indian forest resource to the second IFMAT assessment and report.

The ITC is also grateful to the Pinchot Institute, supporting foundations, and the

SFI and the FSC for their contributions to the process. They worked cooperatively

with the IFMAT–II team on the selection and gathering of pertinent data. As with

IFMAT–I, the tribal governments of the thirty reservations visited were provided

with individual confidential reports pertaining to prospects for forest certification

and IFMAT–II’s findings and recommendations.

Today’s testimony by Dr. Gordon discusses the IFMAT–II assessment and report,

and its comparison with IFMAT–I. But before I close, I would like to offer a few

comments on the role of the IFMAT assessments and reports in the context of the

Federal Government’s trust responsibility.

As you are aware, for the past several years, the U.S. courts, the Federal Government and the Indian tribes have been intensively reviewing and debating the adequacy of the Federal Government’s meeting its trust responsibility to Indian people

and Indian tribes. Both the first and the second IFMAT reports play, we believe,

a very significant role in that debate, because these reports are the only ones of

their kind for any Indian trust resource. To the best of our knowledge, there are

no other evaluations and reports on an Indian trust resource that are comprehensive, standardized, periodic, and most important—independent. At a time when the

trust debate can become heated and skewed, the IFMAT reports provide a professional, analytical approach that can be measured against a similarly based report

from 10 years earlier.
17

The independence of the reports’ observations and recommendations also provide

a fresh perspective on the trust debate, and can serve as a source of new insights

and ideas. We note that some of the recommendations of the independent team may,

or may not, be favorably received. Such has been the case for a principal recommendation of both IFMAT–I and IFMAT–II: That management plans developed

and approved by the Secretary of the Interior define standards for management performance and that an independent entity be established to provide regular monitoring and oversight of the programmatic trust management activities provided by the

Interior Department. Ten years ago, when that idea was first broached as a recommendation in IFMAT–I, the team acknowledged it was controversial. Tribes did

not immediately embrace it. But in the interceding 10 years, the landscape has

changed. Today, more tribes contract or compact more BIA trust programs. The long

history of Interior’s trust inadequacy has been bared under the scrutiny of Federal

courts, and the Interior Department has been launched on a broad effort to reorganize and even reform its trust capabilities. Under these new circumstances, the idea

of independent trust oversight has been favorably received by some tribes and tribal

organizations. Recently, the concepts of reliance upon management plans and providing oversight separate from program operational responsibilities have been embraced in proposals for ‘‘To Be’’ process re-engineering currently underway by the

Office of the Special Trustee. There are some significant differences from IFMATI’s recommendation, however. Oversight and operational responsibilities are not proposed to be entirely separated and the concept of an independent entity providing

oversight has not been embraced by the Department of the Interior. Nonetheless,

the recommendations of IFMAT–I have contributed constructively to the debate.

The IFMAT reports themselves do not present mandates. Rather, they provide a

professional and independent assessment and report, along with recommendations

to improve the management of trust resources that are vital to the welfare of tribal

communities. This independent evaluation is equally available to the tribes and tribal organizations, to the Interior Department and other Federal administrative agencies, and to the Congress. In the conduct of any trust, the availability of such an

evaluation and report is, in our belief, not just helpful, but essential. We are pleased

with the presentation of IFMAT–II to the Congress, the tribes, and the Administration, and we look forward to the discussion we hope it engenders.

Until the mid-1970’s when the Federal policy of self-determination was adopted,

we relied principally on the BIA to manage our forests. Our traditions, customs and

practices were ignored in favor of non-Indian precepts of scientific ‘‘management’’.

Today, we are witnessing the terrible price our lands and resources have paid. The.

character of our forests have changed drastically. Imminent threats of devastating

loss from insects, disease, and wildfire are posed from both within and outside our

reservation boundaries. Although our forests still suffer from underfunding of management and forest health problems, in many respects their condition is improving.

Since IFMAT–I the tribal presence in forest management has increased dramatically. We believe that progress toward improved management practices on Indian

forests is a direct result of the increased credence, acceptance, and prominence of

tribal views and philosophies of stewardship in the care of Indian resources.

In Indian country, we view forest management from a unique perspective. We live

with the consequences of management decisions every day because our forests are

a part of our homelands. For thousands of years, we have cared for our forests, fish,

and wildlife to provide for our communities. Because our forests affect our sustenance, livelihoods, recreation, and spiritual expression, our decisions and actions are

driven by a profound sense of duty, a covenant, if you will, with the generations

to follow, to manage our forests wisely for the needs of tomorrow as well as those

of today.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions you may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN C. GORDON, CHAIRMAN, THE SECOND INDIAN FOREST

MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am John C. Gordon, Chairman of

the Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT II). I am also

Chairman and a Partner of Interforest, LLC, a forestry consulting firm, and Pinchot

Professor of Forestry and Environmental Studies Emeritus at Yale University. It is

my pleasure to be here today to testify on An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States by the Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team, issued December 2003.
18

President Colegrove has done an excellent job of describing the fundamentals of

Indian forestry, the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), and the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act (NIFRMA). I will confine my remarks to a brief summary of the major findings and recommendations of the IFMAT II report in five

major areas: (1) the four gaps described in the first assessment (IFMAT I); and specific recommendations regarding (2) funding; (3) forest health issues; (4) staffing of

BIA and tribal organizations; and (5) trust oversight on Indian forests.

I am happy to report that on the whole, the management of Indian forests is different and better than it was 10 years ago, largely through the efforts of dedicated

tribal and BIA resource managers and staff. There has been significant progress toward sustainability in Indian forests since IFMAT I, although significant progress

remains to be made. Indian forests have retained and enhanced their value (noted

in IFMAT I) as areas upon which sustainable forestry to meet human needs can be

demonstrated. Because tribal members live intimately with all the results of their

forestry activities they pay close attention to the health of their forests and the effects of forest management activities on themselves and their environment. This

makes Indian forests of special value to all Americans.

IFMAT I Gaps

IFMAT I identified four major gaps: First, a gap between the Indians’ vision of

their forest and how it is managed; second, a gap in funding between Indian forests

and comparable Federal and private forests; third, deficiencies in coordinated resource planning and management; and fourth, the need for better trust standards

and oversight in Indian forestry. Major progress is evident in three of them.

The first gap, between the visions Indians express for their forests and the way

they are managed is narrowing. This is due to greater tribal participation in forest

management and greater alignment between tribal and BIA approaches to management. This trend toward greater tribal participation in management needs to be encouraged and strengthened.

The second gap, in funding between Indian and other comparable lands, particularly Federal land, is narrowing due to increased funding to address fire issues in

Indian forests, and a redirection of emphasis on Federal forests. However, a substantial funding gap still exists, and fire funds need to be made recurring and need

to be integrated with other funds to achieve greater efficiency in their use.

The third gap, in integrated management planning, has improved markedly, but

inadequate resources are available for the mandated preparation of integrated resource management plans, the larger context for forest management planning. Even

now only 40 percent of tribes have up-to-date forest management plans.

The fourth gap, in trust oversight, has seen the least progress on the ground. The

BIA is still in the untenable position of ‘‘pitching and umpiring’’, that is providing

management services and advice and overseeing the adequacy of those services and

advice. IFMAT II strongly believes that the recommendation of IFMAT I for independent oversight of forest trust responsibility needs to be implemented on the

ground.

Specific Recommendations

Innovative management of Indian forests under the principles of adaptive ecosystem management is happening on many reservations, and the quality and quantity of tribal forest management staff are, increasing. Indian forests remain a vital

part of tribal life on reservations in every part of the contiguous United States and

Alaska. Timber production, non-timber forest products, grazing, and wildlife management provide revenues and jobs for tribal members and enhance the economic

life of surrounding communities. Subsistence lifestyles and forest-derived foods and

medicines are important to many tribal members. Indian forests often play a role

in religious observance and artistic expression. Forest protection and use remain

core values on forested reservations. A number of tribes are increasing their holdings modestly through fee purchase of forests, and others are increasing their forest

holdings by reclaiming lost tribal lands. IFMAT II believes that if the actions described in our report are taken, this generally positive picture will be maintained

and improved at an acceptable rate.

Funding

IFMAT I identified a large gap between funding provided by the Federal Government for national forests and Federal Government funding provided for Indian forests. In 1991 Indian forestry (including fire funds) received only about one-third the

amount per acre as was invested in the national forests. In 2001, Indian forestry

received about two-thirds the amount per acre as was invested in the national forests, or 68 cents on the dollar. This gap has narrowed for two reasons: (1) a large

reduction in Federal funding for forest management on national forests, and (2) a
19

significant increase in funding for fuels management, fire preparedness, and emergency stabilization activities on Indian forests. Funding for fire management has increased sharply over the last 10 years in recognition of the fuel buildup on Indian

(and other) forests due to past management practices and forest health needs. Restrictions on the use of fuels management funds limit the ability to integrate them

with other needed silvicultural treatments into a comprehensive program of forest

management that includes wild land fire hazard and risk abatement. Protecting forest health will be an ongoing task that is most efficiently addressed through integrated management. Thus, we recommend making fire funding a permanent

part of the base funding for Indian forestry and at the same time removing

barriers that reduce tribes’ ability to integrate fire funding into the total

forest and natural resource management program. We further recommend

that Federal forestry allocations be raised to a total of $181 million annually.

Forest Health

There has been overall improvement in the silvicultural practices and management of forest health issues (fire, insects, disease) on Indian forests in the decade

since IFMAT I. This is resulting in innovative silvicultural prescriptions and improved integrated management on the ground. Indian forest managers have made

significant strides in addressing wildfire risk during the last decade. However, acreage treated for hazardous fuels reduction remains lower than needed. In an important related area, good progress has been made on some Indian forests in road location, construction and maintenance. Despite improvement, there is considerable risk

that efforts to combat forest health problems and institute sustainable management

for all forest resources will be overwhelmed by a combination of funding shortfalls,

personnel shortages, and ecosystem-based problems (insects, disease, and fire). Immediate and focused action is needed to improve the rate of forest health treatment

response, utilize small and low quality logs and strengthen staffing. Some actions

can be taken without additional funds (for example, funding for fire and other forestry activities could be better integrated to reduce administrative costs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of silvicultural treatments to accomplish management objectives) but some require substantial and immediate investment. If better forest health is to be achieved and the promise of Indian forestry described in

IFMAT–I is to be realized, increases in investment, reduced burden from unfunded

mandates, and immediate action are needed. We recommend that aggressive

treatment of Indian lands for forest health maintenance and improvement

be a major use of the recommended added funding.

Staffing

The number of tribes that compact or contract to provide forestry services and

functions on their own reservations has nearly doubled since 1991. Despite this,

staffing for Indian forest management (both BIA and tribal), exclusive of fire programs, has declined 26 percent. Overall staffing for Indian forestry programs when

fire is included has increased slightly from 1991 levels, and the percentage of workers with professional qualifications has increased. More tribes now employ specialists in wildlife biology, hydrology and landscape analysis. At the same time, BIA

technical assistance staffing has significantly declined over the last decade. Tribes

receive less assistance from BIA in forest inventory, management planning, marketing and economics. Key personnel are retiring or getting ready to retire; fire funding

caused personnel shifts from forestry to fire that have not been entirely made up;

and the supply of new Indian professionals is insufficient to meet demand. We recommend that additional education and training for tribal members in key

specialities be given additional support and that BIA technical assistance

levels be brought at least back to the 1991 levels.

Trust Oversight

We believe that the ‘‘triangulation’’ model for trust oversight suggested in IFMAT

I remains an appropriate conceptual model for trust oversight. Its virtues are (1)

it separates the BIA’s role as manager and provider of technical information from

its role as arbiter of how effective the management and information is; (2) it places

tribal goals even more firmly as the driving force of management plans and actions;

and (3) it allows appropriate differentiation of tribal goals and activities among the

many and diverse tribes that manage forests. Under this system, tribes would create management plans based on tribal goals with the support, if needed, of BIA

technical specialists. These plans would then be negotiated with the Secretary of the

Interior, and when in place, would for the basis for evaluation of trust oversight performance. Both BIA and tribal performance in pursuit of the goals would be monitored by a commission independent of the Secretary and the BIA, in a manner con-
20

sistent with tribal sovereignty and Federal law. Responsibility for delivering the

natural resource management program would be placed under a single manager for

each tribe or tribal forest. In the complex setting of current forest management, actions taken today have long term effects on many resources. We believe the trustee

must: (1) require that specific information from each tribe (integrated resource

plans, cumulative effects analysis) be developed; (2) assure that the beneficiary tribe

clearly understands the possible consequences of forest management activities as

tribal goals are pursued; and (3) have a truly independent mechanism for assessment. Thus we recommend that a management and oversight structure be

put in place to insure effective and independent oversight of plans that reflect the visions of individual tribes for sustaining their forests.

Conclusion

Our report provides many other findings and recommendations, all derived from

our careful conversations with tribal members, BIA and tribal foresters and resource

managers and on the ground observation, data collection and analysis. We hope you

will give them all careful attention and thought. However, I must stress again, as

did President Colegrove, that the IFMAT reports themselves do not present mandates. Ours is simply another view of this vital part of the forest resources of America and the world. We do think the process of recurring, independent assessments

has great merit and utility and should be regularized and continued. Indeed, we

would like to see this process more broadly applied in natural resource management

and forestry.

Indian forests present a unique window into the interaction of forests and people;

in this instance people who care deeply about the land and nature and live intimately with both. In this sense, as well as in the sense of forming a major part of

the diminished heritage of important and vital people, they are a major asset, obligation and opportunity for us all.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions you may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AURENE M. MARTIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, DC

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today to provide the views of the Department of the

Interior on An Assessment of Indian Forest and Forest Management in the United

States, also known as the Indian Forest Management Assessment Report II (Report). The 1990 National Indian Forest Resources Management Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to obtain an independent assessment of the status and management of Indian forest resources every 10 years, Pursuant to the Act, this is the

second report assessing Indian forests and forestry management. The recommendations included within this Report provide the Department with feedback to better

improve the delivery and management of forestry services provided to federally recognized tribes and individual Indian owners.

Indian forests cover 17 million acres with a commercial timber volume of approximately 42 billion board feet with an annual allowable harvest of 767 million board

feet. Indian forests are located on 275 reservations in 26 states. Forest management

activities, consist of forest inventory and management planning including the development of Integrated Resource Management Plans, forest products marketing timber sale management, forest projection, woodland management forest productivity

enhancement and intensive forest development procedures. These activities ensure

the sustainable management of Indian forests and provide for natural resource, protection.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Division of Forestry serves Indian communities by managing or assisting tribes and individual Indians with the management

of their forests consistent with tribal goals and objectives identified in forest management plans or integrated resource management plans.

In 1993, An Assessment of Indian Forests & Forest Management in the United

States was developed by an independent group of nationally recognized forestry exports pursuant to a contract with the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC). This first

report identified four areas in need of improvement to better manage Indian forests,

as follows: (1) the inconsistency between expressed tribal goals for Indian forests

and the management paradigm actually applied; (2) the disparity in funding of forest management activities between Indian and other similar Federal, state and private lands; (3) the relative lack of coordinated resource planning and management;
21

and (4) the need for a better method of setting and overseeing trust standards for

Indian forestry.

The 2003 Report is a result of a similar contract with the ITC and was produced

by the same group of nationally recognized forestry experts who produced the first

report. The Report recognizes that the overall management of Indian forests has improved and been modified to better meet the needs of Indian tribes, and individual

Indian owners. In addition, the Report indicates that this improvement is due to the

efforts of both tribal organizations and the BIA. Moreover, the Report concludes that

there has been substantial progress toward sustainability in Indian forests since

1993.

The 2003 Report recognizes many achievements in three of the four areas identified as needed for improvement. The first area of improvement has been a reduction

of the inconsistency between expressed tribal goals for Indian forests and the governing forestry management practices. The Report identifies increasing tribal participation in forest management. In fact, the number of tribes that have partially

and fully contracted or compacted management services for their own forests has

increased from a total of 64 in 1991 to a total of 121 in 2001. The BIA has made

improvements in coordination and cooperation with tribes and individual Indians.

This partnership between the tribes and the Federal Government has helped to develop a more unified and consistent vision for managing the forests by incorporating

both tribal and Federal needs.

The second area of improvement identified in the 1993 Report was the need for

increased funding for Indian forestry programs to diminish the funding disparity between Indian forestry programs and other comparable Federal, State, and private

forestry programs. The 2003 Reports notes that progress in this area has been

made. The progress in this area is two-fold: (1) the increased funding provided for

Indian lands under the National Fire Plan; and (2) a more efficient management

of the Federal forests, As illustrated by the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative,

the Administration is committed to improving forest and rangeland health by investing in fuels treatment and related projects and by improving administrative procedures to ensure that projects get accomplished. The Department has significantly

increased funding since 2001 for fuels treatment and other forestry activities to help

create and maintain healthy, and sustainable forests. The Department will continue

to maintain forest and rangeland health as a high priority.

The third area of identified in the 2003 Report showing marked improvement is

that of coordinated or integrated planning. Improvements in forest management

planning were evident by the progress shown in the preparation and implementation of Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs). The Department has recognized the importance of forest and integrated resource planning. In the fiscal year

2004 appropriations, the Administration requested and received a $1 million increase in the forestry non-recurring fund for Integrated Resource Management Planning. In addition, the President’s fiscal year 2005 Budget also includes a program

increase of $1.0 million for the development of forest management plans.

The 2003 Report claimed that little progress had been made on the fourth identified area, that of setting of trust standards and trust oversight. The Department

recognizes that the main point of this Report’s recommendation is the creation of

an Independent Trust Oversight organization outside of the Department. The Department strongly objects to this recommendation. The Committee is well aware of

the huge investments in trust reform that have been made over the past few years.

The Department believes that, with the realignment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, we have made significant

progress in the improvement of our trust oversight capability.

The Report also contained a number of recommendations, which the Department

is in the process of reviewing. At initial reading of the Report, the Department believes a number of recommendations will complement and enhance the President’s

commitment to healthy forests.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on this important report, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Æ