Lankford lobbies Congress for more forest management funds
Boone Goddard
Carole Lankford, CSKT Tribal Council Vice Chair, spoke to members of Congress last month about how the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have maintained local forests despite low appropriations.
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have been more efficient at forest management practices than federal entities tasked with similar goals, Tribal Council Vice Chair Carole Lankford told the United States House of Representatives Natural Resource Committee April 10.
The benefits of those management practices could be in danger if Congress does not earmark more funds for tribal government to continue its work, Lankford said.
“We think the rest of the country could learn much from (the Tribes’) type of management and had our national forests been managed similarly, this country wouldn’t be having the massive forest fires that have been occurring with great frequency in recent years,” Lankford said.
Congressionally mandated studies of tribal forest management were conducted in 1993, 2003, and 2013. Those studies revealed the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and other federally recognized tribes do a better job of managing forests, but only receive one-third of the funding on a per acre basis as the U.S. Forest Service. Lankford pointedly asked members of the committee if Congress would be able to operate effectively on one-third of its current budget and explained what low funding levels mean for the Tribes.
“Operating understaffed and underfunded programs mean that we cut corners and pay our employees less than what other federal agencies pay their employees for the same work,” Lankford said. “We ask our employees to perform multiple jobs for little compensation which leads to retention problems. When we cut corners some important job requirements fall off the table and don’t get done. This can lead to mismanagement.”
In the past decade the Tribes have treated an average of more than 7,638 acres per year for fuel reduction purposes. The Tribes were the first indigenous entity to treat more than 10,000 acres in a single year, Lankford said. Prescribed burns were historically used by tribal ancestors to reduce fuel for wildfires, but when the Bureau of Indian Affairs took over management decades ago, those practices languished. When the Tribes resumed control of the forests, the situation improved, according to Lankford.
Lankford asked the committee to think of the recent Nez Perce vs. Salazar settlement where the federal government was forced to pay more than $1 billion to tribes for mismanagement of assets held in trust and examine whether or not Congress was acting similarly in this case. All tribal representatives that spoke at the hearing said they believe the government is not meeting its trust obligations to adequately fund tribal forest management.
The Tribes’ penny-pinching resourcefulness is common in Indian Country, according to Phil Rigdon, who is president of the non-profit national consortium called the Intertribal Timber Council.
“We’re basically running on fumes,” Rigdon testified.
The already stressed system faced more possible funding cuts when the Obama administration proposed a new system of allocating dollars for fuels reduction, Lankford said. The new method would have reduced the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ fuels reduction program by 94 percent.
Lankford claimed the new allocation method was “biased in how it could be applied and how easily the formula could be gamed.”
Lankford and other tribal representatives from across the western United States said the lack of parity between funding is especially detrimental when many tribal lands are located in close proximity to federally regulated lands where funding is abundant, but management is often held up by litigation and burdensome red tape. Fuel builds up on the federal lands and feeds mega-fires like the 2007 Chippy Creek blaze. That fire burned almost 155 square miles. It crossed federal and state lands before it raced into the Flathead Reservation, where the effects of regular fuel reduction management was beneficial, Lankford said.
“We were able to get it extinguished more efficiently than other jurisdictions,” Lankford said. “Firefighters from other jurisdictions, who were helping us as we helped them, commented on how efficient the fuels-reduction program in this part of the reservation was.”
Representative Steve Daines said the U.S. Forest Service can learn from the Tribe’s management and that the inequality in funding tribal fire management is unacceptable. Daines said that what impresses him most is “how the Tribes stretch their resources thin and are still better managers of the forest.”
“I think it shows how important tribal sovereignty is,” Daines said. “The Tribes know best how to manage their own lands where their ancestors have lived for centuries. I think we need to allow the flexibility for the Tribes to continue to do so.”
In Lankford’s written testimony she said adequate funding for fuels reduction and forest management is the ounce of prevention that’s worth a pound of cure necessary to utilize emergency dollars for firefighting. Daines said that comparison was too generous.
“When these catastrophic wildfires hit it’s not a pound of cure, it’s a ton of cure,” Daines said.
The congressman touted an amendment made by the House Natural Resources Committee to the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act that would require the U.S. Forest Service to prioritize projects designated under the Tribal Forest Protection Act.
“That’s just being a good neighbor,” Daines said. “That’s where the federal government can be a better neighbor of Indian Country, and I look forward to continue to move forward with progress and getting that bill passed.”
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the act six months ago, but the Senate has failed to act.
“It’s certainly time for Senate to get off the sidelines and take action on this important piece of legislation,” Committee Chairman Rep. Doc Hasting said.
The committee that heard Lankford’s concerns is not an appropriating committee that can allocate funds. Lankford asked those in attendance to get their fellow congressional representatives to recognize the importance of funding for the issue.
