| I am typically engaged in a variety of
projects and issues. At this time I will comment briefly
on a project that has been an active project for me for
the past four and one half years and for the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) since
1994. The project is the National Bison Range Complex (NBRC).
The principal issue with the NBRC that we have been and
continue to deal with is the CSKT effort to achieve
agreement with the Federal Government, particularly the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), for the
CSKT to manage the NBRC, within exterior boundaries of
the Flathead Reservation, under a Self Governance Act,
Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). The 1994 Self Governance
Act amendments allow Tribes that demonstrate capability
and a geographic, historic and cultural connection to
negotiate for the management of specific projects listed
in the National Register. The National Bison Range is
one of those projects. The CSKT have demonstrated our
excellent ability to contract for and manage federal
programs (and Tribal programs) and manage natural
resources. The CSKT have an unarguable geographic,
historic and cultural connection to the National Bison
Range. So why, even after we successfully negotiated an
agreement with the FWS for activities at the NBRC, and
successfully carried out those activities for 18 months,
do we not have an agreement with the FWS to manage the
NBRC today? The answers are simple but the story and the
facts behind the answers are complicated. The basic
answer is that the FWS does not want to have a Self
Governance Agreement with the CSKT to allow the CSKT to
manage the NBRC. In fact the history of negotiations
beginning in 1994, the FWS behavior during the operation
of the AFA, the way the FWS terminated the AFA, and the
FWS behavior after the termination of the AFA all
clearly demonstrate the FWS extreme resistance to having
such an agreement. Another simple answer is politics.
The FWS has simply made as much political hay as
possible to influence the decision making process to get
the first agreement terminated and to avoid any future
agreements.
From the CSKT perspective the first agreement could
have worked however we were obviously working with an
unwilling partner. Despite FWS resistance, we were able
to successfully complete the tasks assigned to us during
the 18 months we operated under the AFA, regardless of
what the FWS put in the “evaluations”. Also, the
continued FWS unwillingness is having an effect on our
ability to get a second agreement.
So where does all of this leave us? First, after the
FWS unilaterally (with out any prior communications with
CSKT about any issues and in violation of all
performance, compliance, grievance and termination
provisions of the AFA, and without communication and
concurrence by the Department of Interior) terminated
the first AFA, in December 2006, the Assistant Secretary
of Interior and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior
met with the Director of FWS and came to an agreement
to, among other things, reestablish a relationship with
the CSKT and immediately establish a new agreement so as
to get the CSKT staff back out on the ground and working
at the NBRC. Shortly after that agreement, as part of
the plan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior,
the acting director of the United States Fish, Wildlife
and Parks, the Director of the FWS and a central office
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs came to
the Flathead Reservation to meet with local FWS staff
and the CSKT, on January 23 and 24, 2007. At that
meeting with the CSKT the Department of Interior
officials and the CSKT came to a tentative agreement
about the framework for a new interim AFA. The CSKT was
asked to work with the FWS to finalize a draft AFA and
submit it to the Department of Interior within two
weeks. At that time the FWS director stated directly to
the CSKT that he wanted to work with us and get this
agreement in place. However, by the very next day the
local FWS staff indicated that they were directed not to
work with the CSKT on the draft agreement. This was
confirmed by the highest office of the FWS within a
couple of days.
Therefore, the CSKT completed a draft agreement, as
requested, and submitted it to the DOI on February 7,
2007. We are waiting on the DOI to complete their review
of the draft agreement and their work with the FWS to
get their input to the agreement.
In the mean time the CSKT also filed a formal appeal
of the FWS decision to terminate the first AFA. The
appeal is based generally on the FWS violation of due
process as spelled out in the AFA.
There are many other issues and details associated
with the NBRC project (as I mentioned, the answers are
simple but the story is complicated) however, we are
optimistic that we will eventually have an agreement but
it will still take some time to complete this process.
Also, the plan laid out by the Assistant Secretary of
Interior immediately after the AFA was terminated called
for an options paper to be written by June, 2007. The
options paper will be for the Secretary of Interior to
use to make a decision on the long term management of
the NBRC. We will provide our input to that options
paper, as will the FWS.
The recent FWS actions regarding the NBRC, are, at
least in part, aimed at discouraging the CSKT from
seeking future AFA’s. It is clear that there are some
national budget issues at work but there are some
regional priorities that don’t make sense regarding the
NBRC (such as the fact that the FWS plan calls for no
full or part-time biologist, only a part-time
bio-technician even though the NBRC will still have
wildlife, including Bison, and more that 6,000 acres of
bird habitat – and the FWS Region 6 priority will change
from wildlife to birds), and the timing and the manner
in which the plans were presented to the CSKT, the
public and the DOI raise questions about the motives of
the FWS.
The Tribal Council remains solidly behind the idea of
CSKT management of the NBRC under a self governance AFA.
The history, geography and culture of the CSKT are
inextricably linked to the NBRC and it is our hope the
FWS will get solidly behind the idea of a Self
Governance agreement with the CSKT. We have seen that
there is common ground between the CSKT and the FWS in
resource management goals and values. We have for many
years had a very good working relationship with the FWS
in many management areas and we hope that these
relationships continue. The CSKT have years of
experience in contracting federal programs however this
has been a difficult concept for the FWS to embrace. The
CSKT will continue to manage resources for all time and
for all future generations.
Please contact the CSKT Natural Resource Department
if you have any questions about any information you see
in this newsletter. As always I want to extend my thanks
to the Tribal Council for their continued support. Best
wishes to everyone for a safe and productive spring.
|
