PACIFIC WEST REGION NATIONAL PARK-TRIBAL-CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION

SUMMIT:

“A NEW BEGINNING FOR EQUITY &

UNDERSTANDING THROUGH NATIONAL PARKS and TRADITIONALLY

ASSOCIATED AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES”

Yurok Indian Reservation Klamath, California

October 7-9, 2003

Report Prepared by T. Destry Jarvis, Outdoor Recreation & Park Services, LLC

for National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

Funding provided through a grant from the Andrus Family Fund

1

Table of Contents

PAGE Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Acknowledgments ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 The Summit Dialogue ------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Conclusions & Recommendations --------------------------------------------- 31 Appendices--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 1 - List of Participants------------------------------------------------------------- 2 – Tribal/Environmental Dialogue (TED) Principles of Collaboration ---- 3 - Proposed Questions for Framing Discussions ------------------------------ 4 - Executive Orders 13007 and 13175 ---------------------------------------- 5 - Chapter 5, “An Anthropological Overview of Redwood National Park” – “Consultations with Native Americans” -----------------------------------

6 - 3/31/03 General Agreement among NPS, Redwood National and State Parks, and the Yurok Indian Tribe -------------------------------------- 7 - MOU Regarding Gathering of Plant Resources between Mount Rainier NP and Nisqually Indian Tribe ------------------------------------------------- 8 - 36 CFR section 2.1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 9 - Recommended reading list regarding parks and tribes -----------------------

2

Introduction

“Five thousand years of human interaction with the area stopped just fifty years ago. We are trying to see the effects of reviving some human disturbance on the prairie areas.” From the Makah Tribe-Olympic National Park discussion.

Native Americans have a deeply rooted cultural affinity for the great lands which they have used and occupied since time immemorial. With some exceptions, Indian tribes today have been largely excluded from those lands with which they were traditionally associated. For example, federally recognized American Indian Reservations today are usually just a small percentage of the lands that they traditionally used, and some tribes have been uprooted entirely from their ancestral homelands. In many instances, traditional Indian lands are now controlled by one of the several federal public land management agencies, with a high percentage under statutory management by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Certainly, virtually all federal lands that have been preserved in such a manner as to resemble their pre-contact, Native American use and condition are managed either by the NPS, or have been designated as wilderness areas. Frequently, where national parks and traditionally associated tribes are adjacent, there is a long history that is unknown or has been obscured by misunderstanding, miscommunication, and conflict, and certainly lacking in a mutually beneficial relationship or vision. Consequently, in 2002 several national conservation organizations and several representatives of Indian tribes, facilitated by CDR Associates, a conflict management firm, began a dialogue to focus on opportunities for improving understanding and cooperation on specific park projects that could benefit both national parks and tribes. After more than a year of fruitful but inconclusive discussions (see Appendix 2), these two groups decided to directly approach the NPS in one region to test their ideas. The goal would be real action on the ground that could mutually benefit both national parks and tribes, and that would be compatible with the philosophies of the conservation organizations. Thus, in October 2003, after much thought and planning, representatives of three national parks, three traditionally associated American Indian tribal governments, and three national and one local conservation/preservation organizations met for three days to explore the hypothesis that constructive dialogue could lead to greater understanding and opportunities for mutual cooperation on shared values with tangible, on-the-ground results. The groups were vastly aided in their discussions by the presence and involvement of the NPS Pacific West Regional Director and the President of NATHPO. (See full Attendees list in Appendix 1)

3

Acknowledgements The Summit participants wish to express many thanks to the Andrus Family Fund without whose generous financial support this Summit meeting and the preceding Tribal/Environmental Dialogue would not have been possible. The Summit participants also wish to thank the professional mediation and facilitation team from CDR Associates of Mary Margaret Golten and Peter Woodrow for their talented guidance to the flow of the meeting and the preceding Tribal/Environmental Dialogue. The Summit participants also wish to thank the Yurok Indian Tribe for their generous offer to host the Summit and for sharing their knowledge, experiences, and resources with the group throughout participants stay among them.

4

Background For the Summit In the 1988 edition of NPS Management Policies Manual, the NPS adopted a service-wide management policy for the first time directly addressing adjacent and traditionally associated Indian tribes. NPS had begun discussing just such a policy 50 years earlier, but it was not formally adopted until 1988. This 1988 policy stated, in part:

In developing its plans and carrying out its programs, the National Park Service will ensure the following:

NPS general regulations on access to and use of natural and cultural resources in parks will be applied in an informed and balanced manner that is consistent with park purposes and does not unreasonably interfere with Native American use of traditional areas or sacred resources and does not result in degradation of park resources.

Superintendents will establish and maintain effective consulting relationships with potentially affected Native American tribes or groups. Management decisions will reflect knowledge and understanding of potentially affected Native American cultures and people, gained through research and consultations with potentially affected groups.

This policy statement sets out the general approach that the NPS must use in working with Indian tribes, but leaves a great deal of discretion with individual park superintendents as to when, how, how often, or to what end the relationship will be developed. Moreover, NPS policy does not reconcile the apparent conflict between its own policy toward Indians and that prescribed for federal agencies in statutes, such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. This inconsistency is most apparent in current NPS policy toward gathering of plant materials by Indians for traditional uses, including religious, medicinal, ceremonial, food, craft, or related purposes. When NPS re-issued Management Policies 2001, little had changed regarding the relations between parks and tribes from the 1988 edition, with one notable exception. The 2001 document states, inconclusively, that

With regard to consumptive use of park resources, current NPS policy is reflected in regulations published in 36 CFR 2.1 These regulations allow superintendents to designate certain fruits, berries, nuts, or unoccupied seashells which may be gathered by hand for personal use or consumption if it will not adversely affect park wildlife or the reproductive potential of a plant species, or otherwise adversely affect park resources. The regulations do not authorize the taking, use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes,

5

except where specifically authorized by Federal statute or treaty rights, or where hunting, trapping, or fishing are otherwise allowed. These regulations are under review, and NPS policy is evolving in this area. (Emphasis added.)

With the exception of activities with clearly religious purposes, current NPS policy does not acknowledge any difference between Indian rights to gather traditional plant materials in parks from the rights of any other park visitors. This point was a particular issue for discussion among the three parks and Indian tribes that participated in this Summit meeting. It became clear to most of the participants that clarification of NPS policy in this area, as envisioned in Management Policies 2001, is long overdue. Certainly, it appeared that the majority of participants recognized the need for NPS policy to acknowledge that there is a significant inherent difference in the legal standing of American Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, and their traditionally associated lands that are now national parks, and that which exists between the parks and any other parties, adjacent or otherwise. By virtue of its limited size, scope, and time, this Summit was not intended to address applicability of laws, regulations, or treaty rights relative to specific parks, Indian tribes, or environmental protection. Nor was it convened to reconcile the apparent legal tangle that exists between Indian treaty rights and a national park’s mandates under the 1916 NPS Organic Act. The Summit did, however, focus on raising and discussing as many of the relevant questions about these relationships as possible, at least in so far as the three individual parks and their traditionally associated Indian tribes are concerned. In general, the Summit attempted to raise and clarify issues of importance to the NPS, tribal governments, and conservation organizations, and to establish the grounds for expanded communications, cooperation, and consultation, in the name of conservation and of the rights of Indian sovereign nations in and around those parks.

Profile of the National Parks and Summit Participants Mount Rainier National Park Mount Rainier National Park was established in 1899, as the greatest single-peak glacial system in the United States. At 14,411 feet it is the third tallest peak in the lower 48 states, with the glacial system radiating from the summit and slopes of an ancient, mostly dormant volcano, nurturing and threatening the dense forests and sub-alpine flowered meadows below. Mount Rainier National Park includes 235,625 acres, with about 97% of these land designated as wilderness, and most of the remaining 3% designated as a National Historic Landmark District. At the end of 2002, Mount Rainier NP had an operating budget of just over $9 million per year. The park received about 1.3 million visits per year, which it managed with fewer than 200 employees.

6

Nisqually Indian Tribe Rights of the Nisqually Tribe, such as they are, were outlined in the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek, which among other provisions, stated;

The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and or erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed grounds.

A major focus of the Nisqually Tribe is the condition of the fishery fostered by the waters of the Nisqually River. Much of the ancestral lands of the tribe was taken by the federal government without compensation for use as the Fort Lewis Army Base near the mouth of the river. In addition, significant estuary and marsh lands at the mouth of the river are managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as the Nisqually Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Within Mount Rainier National Park, the Nisqually Tribe has sought use of sites as places for traditional religious and ceremonial purposes, and the right to gather native plant material for traditional religious, ceremonial, medicinal, food, craft and related uses. add # of tribal members and acreage of reservation Olympic National Park Designated as a national park in 1938, the core of the park was proclaimed a national monument by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the NPS in 1933. Consisting of 922,650 acres, of which 876,669 is designated wilderness, Olympic National Park has also been designated an International Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site. Olympic National Park is known informally as three parks in one, with the glaciers and alpine forests surrounding Mt. Olympus, the temperate Hoh Rain Forest at lower elevations, and the 57-mile coastal strip with its distinctive sea stacks constituting three very distinct ecosystems offering very diverse scenic and recreational resources to visitors. At the end of 2002, Olympic NP had an operating budget of about $10.2 million per year. It annually was receiving more than 4.3 million visits, which it managed with about 131 full-time employees, and about 150 seasonal employees. Makah Indian Tribe The Makah Tribe today lives at the northwestern tip of the continental USA, on Neah Bay, Washington and has relied for centuries on the bounty of the sea for sustenance and unique cultural characteristics. The Makah were highly accomplished mariners with a keen understanding of the navigational and maritime skills, enabling them to travel long distances along the coast or through the Straits of Juan de Fuca into Puget Sound waters to fish and hunt whales and other marine mammals.

7

In recent decades the Makah began a vigorous and cooperative program in conjunction with the National Park Service, and a team of archeologists in excavating, recovering, and interpreting the Ozette Village archeological site, a Makah village wiped out instantaneously in a mudslide centuries ago. The impressive Makah Cultural and Research Center today exhibits numerous artifacts from that excavation, and has enabled the Tribe to re-establish a direct link to a substantial portion of its cultural heritage. The 1855 Treaty between the US government and the Makah Tribe secured certain rights for fishing, whaling, and other gathering. Today there are 2,400 tribal members, with about half of those living on the Reservation. The tribe’s current land base consists of 38 square miles on the Olympic peninsula, plus Tatoosh Island. Redwood National Park Redwood National Park was established in 1968, and significantly expanded in 1978. Today it encompasses 112,430 acres, including the grove of the world’s tallest trees, and 40 miles of rugged Pacific coastline. The park has been designated as both an International Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site. The 1978 addition to the park, consisting entirely of private cutover timberlands that were purchased, established the need for an unprecedented ecological restoration project, which today is far from complete, though hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended. In 1994 the NPS and the California Department of Parks and Recreation signed a Memorandum of Understanding for cooperative management of Redwood National Park and three adjacent state parks within the authorized boundary of the national park, whereby the federal and state managers share administrative offices, maintenance, resource management, interpretation, and law enforcement operation in a nearly seamless system of shared responsibilities. It was agreed that the entire area within the authorized boundary would be referred to as Redwood National and State Parks. At the end of 2002, Redwood NP had an operating budget of about $7 million per year. Redwood National and State Parks receives about 800,000 visits annually, which it managed with 129 federal employees, and fewer than 20 state park personnel. Yurok Indian Tribe The Preamble to the Constitution of the Yurok Tribe states, in part:

Our people have always lived on this sacred and wondrous land along the Pacific Coast and inland on the Klamath River, since the Spirit People made things ready for us and the Creator placed us here. From the beginning, we have followed all the laws of the Creator, which became the whole fabric of our tribal sovereignty. In times past and now Yurok people bless the deep river, the tall redwood trees, the rocks, the mounds, and the trails. We pray for the health of all the animals

8

and prudently harvest and manage the great salmon runs and herds of deer and elk. We never waste and use every bit of the salmon, deer, elk, sturgeon, eels, seaweed, mussels, candlefish, otters, sea lions, seals, whales, and other ocean and river animals. We also have practiced our stewardship of the land in the prairies and forests through controlled burns that improve wildlife habitat and enhance the health and growth of the tan oak acorns, hazelnuts, pepperwood nuts, berries, grasses and bushes, all of which are used and provide materials for baskets, fabrics and utensils.

The Yurok Tribe’s great cultural affinity for the Klamath River and that river’s proximity to the redwood forest, made this tribe the major provider of handcrafted canoes, carved from redwoods, both for their own uses and in trade with other Pacific coastal tribes. Today, the tribe has secured legal rights along the river, and to a portion of its historic fishery, but does not have clear title to most of the lands within its reservation boundary. It does, however, maintain its strong ties to the land, the river, and the coastal Pacific Ocean, keeping its homes, and most of its jobs along the river. Of the 57,000 acres within reservation boundaries, the tribe today owns fewer than 10,000 acres. Most of its 4,500 members reside in small hamlets scattered along the Klamath River, with access either along the river or on dirt roads that wind through non-tribally owned lands, or closer to the town of Klamath along US Highway 101. Save the Redwoods League Ninety-seven percent of the ancient redwood forests of California have been logged. Since 1918, the Save the Redwoods League, a California-based conservation non-profit organization, has been working to protect both the California coast redwoods, sequoia semper virens, and the giant sequoia, sequoia gigantia, through direct acquisition with donated funds and by influencing public policy. The League led efforts in the 1970s to expand Redwood National Park, which culminated in the 1978 addition of some 48,000 acres to the national park. Both before and since, the League has acquired numerous small groves of redwoods throughout their range in California. National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) is the only national non-profit membership advocacy organization establihsed by and for the officially appointed historic preservation officers of each membership tribe. Non-THPO tribes may become associate members. NATHPO was formed to support and assist tribal governmental efforts to preserve, maintain, and revitalize their cultures and traditions. NATHPO’s main mission is tribal historic preservation and accomplishes this mission by supplying building blocks for successful tribal heritage and cultural protection and rejuvenation, including tribal tourism.

9

National Parks Conservation Association National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) was established in 1919 as America’s only private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the US national park system. NPCA has a citizen membership of about 300,000 individuals who care about the national parks. NPCA staff are working with American Indian tribal governments at a number of parks, usually to stop invasive development that would harm the parks’ natural and cultural resources. The Wilderness Society The Wilderness Society (TWS), founded in 1935, works to protect America’s wilderness and to develop a nationwide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis, and advocacy. The TWS goal is to ensure that future generations enjoy the clean air and water, beauty, wildlife, and opportunities for recreation and spiritual renewal provided by the nation’s pristine forests, rivers, deserts, and mountains. TWS has over 200,000 members nationwide and operates nine regional offices throughout the country. the focus of TWS is on conserving federal public lands including lands in the national park system. The National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

10

The Park-Tribe-Conservation Dialogue Summit Opening – October 7, 2003 On the opening evening of the Summit, the group was welcomed by Yurok tribal Heritage Preservation staff, tribal elders and a council member. In order to set the stage for the more specific discussions to follow, several of the elders made heartfelt presentations about their culture, heritage and cultural affinity for the redwood country and the Klamath River in particular, which have sustained them for thousands of years. During the opening presentations and also during the next day’s field trip, all of the elders stated and then illustrated with site specific examples that the Yurok Tribe had occupied the river and redwood forests and associated prairies long before the white man first arrived in what is now northern California. Thus, the pre-contact condition of the land most assuredly did not mean wilderness with no human hand affecting it. The ancestors of today’s Yurok had created or maintained the open prairies by burning, and later by cutting trees and shrubs, and had developed the art of felling ancient redwood trees for their canoe-making craft when needed for transportation and trade, for cutting plank boards for housing, or for ceremonial purpoes. It was noted by those knowledgeable about NPS history that The Leopold Report, one of the most important guidance documents ever written for the NPS, which has heavily influenced the Service’s thinking and policy development since 1965, suggests that national parks should be maintained as “vignettes of primitive America.” This implies a condition coincident with that which Native Americans would have caused, rather than a condition where no human had affected the landscape. First day of Summit – October 8, 2003 The first morning of the Summit was largely consumed with each constituency– parks, tribes, and national conservation organizations - making brief presentations to the entire group about their overarching issues and concerns. After an initial prayer and welcome from the Yurok hosts, Ms. D. Bambi Kraus, President of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers provided the group with a thumbnail sketch of NATHPO, as well as its desires and expectations for the Summit and beyond. Ms. Kraus observed that an important bond that exists among the three groups - parks, tribes, and conservation organizations - is that each entity’s focus is on the future of cultural and natural resources, rather than dwelling on past problems, and that our shared concerns for the future of these resources are a shared value for our present day decisions. NATHPO today represents the tribes that have chosen to appoint a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) as well as those tribal governments that support NATHPO’s goals and mission. Ms. Kraus noted that membership will grow in the future as funding and tribal priorities allow. The history of persecution, and tribal survival, is the great unifier in Indian country today. Federal laws, usually subsequent to the negotiation of

11

treaties with individual tribes, too often have been enacted to keep tribes out of their ancestral homelands. Most commonly, the various Homestead laws allowed non-Indians to select lands within reservation boundaries, and have title conveyed from the federal government to these non-Indians, without tribal involvement. Tribes today are focusing on developing traditional access, with or without owning title to the lands. Tribes have modest expectations in this regard, but expect to be treated fairly this time. They are seeking ways to achieve their ends within a spirit of cooperation and reconciliation, as long as that is reciprocated. NPS Pacific West Regional Director Jon Jarvis also welcomed the group to the region, and suggested that trust and open communications are key to developing an effective and lasting partnership with Indian tribes. He emphasized that improved communication and collaboration are key to all that NPS does today, and work with Indian tribes can be no exception to this approach. While acknowledging the apparent discrepancy that exists in law and policy between the NPS Mission “…to conserve unimpaired….for future generations…” and the various treaties and laws relating to the federal responsibilities to American Indian tribal governments, Mr. Jarvis assured the group that both he and the Service were committed to finding the ways and means to work better with Indian tribes, especially those traditionally associated with specific parks. Jarvis noted that the NPS process for developing a general management plan for each park was the best means by which to evaluate and develop new policies and operating relationships with adjacent and traditionally associated tribes. He acknowledged that the Service has not sufficiently focused on relations with such tribes in the past, but that he was committed to doing so in the Pacific West region. Both Ms. Kraus and Mr. Jarvis observed that a means must be found, given the fairly rapid turnover that occurs in both park superintendents and tribal chairpersons and governing councils, for agreements, understandings, policies and practices to be carried on from one administration to the next, so that a consistent pattern of communications, collaboration and consultation could be depended upon by both parties. Liz Raisbeck, Vice President of National Parks Conservation Association, spoke as a representative of the national conservation groups present, by summarizing their desire to find ways to establish an alliance of mutual benefit between tribes and national conservation organizations. For that to be achieved, she felt that more effort was needed from national groups to understand and appreciate the legal underpinnings and cultural values of tribes today. She cited examples of collaboration between NPCA and tribes in the defense of the Okmulgee Old Fields in Georgia from highway encroachment, and between Friends of the Earth and Alaska Natives for maintaining the Inuit bowhead whale hunt along the Arctic coast. Ms. Raisbeck noted that it is the profound sense of loss that brings tribes and conservation groups together. Environmental and public land laws are under assault at the national level, and are of benefit to future generations of all Americans, including Indians. It is in defense of these laws that conservation values show up, and with

12

sensitivity and open communication, can serve the interests of both tribes and conservation. Following these overview presentations, each of the park-tribal working partnerships made brief background presentations to the larger group, with Olympic/Makah and Mount Rainier/Nisqually doing so verbally, and Redwood/Yurok doing so through an afternoon field trip to key sites around the national and state parks and the Yurok Indian Reservation. Olympic National Park/Makah Tribe Presentation For Olympic National Park, newly selected Superintendent Bill Laitner deferred to the tribal THPO, Jeanine Bowechop, and noted that he felt strongly the need to share core values of both the mind and the heart between the park and the tribe. The Makah THPO illustrated the intertwined relationship of the park and tribe with the example of Shi Shi Beach, which has historically been difficult to access and receives few annual visitors. Shi Shi, which is in the park but can only be accessed by crossing tribal lands, is attracting a host of new visitors after its recent designation as the “Best Nature Beach” in America. Trail tread and signage improvements on tribal lands, facilitated by the good working relationship between Olympic and the Makah, have made a potentially bad situation manageable, and have presented an opportunity to expose more park visitors to the Makah culture. A major element of the presentation, and of the current tribe-park relationship, has been the joint work in the Lake Ozette Village archeological site. NPS Cultural Resources Manager Dr. Paul Gleeson observed that Ozette Village is hugely significant, both to the tribe and to cultural anthropology, as a complete record, not merely a sample site. Instantaneously overwhelmed and submerged by a mudflow centuries ago, the Village has been revealed, both to the tribe and the Park, for the first time through the excavation. The artifacts and information from Ozette have formed the core of the Makah Cultural and Research Center at Neah Bay, where many of the artifacts are curated, exhibited and interpreted. Ms. Bowechop noted that Ozette Village should have National Historic Landmark designation, both to provide recognition of its significance, and to justify additional resources for its further preservation and interpretation. Park biologist Cat Hawkins-Hoffman noted the significant need to restore the Ozette sockeye salmon population as another joint project, since this population has been recognized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as an “evolutionarily significant species,” and since it has served the tribe in the past as a major food source. Ms. Bowechop, and Makah Forest Institute Director Theresa Parker noted that there is no current gathering agreement between the park and the tribe. However, it is critical that

13

tribal members are able to gather plant material from the park, especially from the prairies, for food, medicines, tools, crafts and utensils. Mount Rainier National Park/Makah Tribe Presentation Superintendent Dave Uberuaga noted in his overview of Mount Rainier National Park’s relationship with the Nisqually Tribe that the NPS allows the tribe to accurately tell its story in park interpretation, hires tribal members where possible, allows tribal ceremonies in the park, and permits gathering of certain plant materials in the park. All of these have been done as a local, informal initiative in an effort to recognize the traditionally associated role of the tribe. Nisqually Tribal Natural and Cultural Resources Director Georgiana Kautz noted that one of the greatest current issues of tribal concern is overall growth management in the region. This is a concern because of rapid and rampant growth, and because while the tribe has access rights and fishing rights, it has very little land base of its own. The tribe has lost most of its aboriginal land base in the formation of Fort Lewis Army Base and more recently in the Nisqually Delta National Wildlife Refuge. The Tribe currently has a fish hatchery on the Fort, has clear rights to half of the harvestable fish, and can gather needed plant material in the park, but all of this is threatened by regional growth. “We share a mutual interest in quality of life,” she noted. Redwood National Park/Yurok Tribe Presentation For Redwood National Park, chief of resources management and science Terry Hofstra summarized some recent park/tribal successes. For example, in 1996 Redwood National Park was the first national park to sign a memorandum of understanding for government- to-government relations with a tribal government (Yurok Tribe) that set the stage for improved communications and relationships. In 1999, the park and tribe entered into an Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) under the Indian Self-Governance Act for conduct of watershed rehabilitation work in the park. The AFA was amended in 2000 to include additional rehabilitation work and in 2001 for culvert replacement as part of park road maintenance. Karin Anderson, park cultural resources manager, pointed out that in 2002 and 2003, pre- and post-prescribed fire monitoring was conducted by the tribe under the amended AFA, and an ethnographic study was completed for the park by the tribe. The park’s new general management plan (GMP) includes language that sets the stage for traditional tribal activities being included as part of cultural landscape management activities. Significant improvement has also been made in the area of park planning. For example, Yurok tribal representatives participated as members of the planning team for the development of the new GMP for the park and other operational plans, such as for fire management.

14

Field Trip Yurok tribal staff and Redwood NP staff conducted a tour for Summit participants to various sights in the park and on the reservation. One key site visited was Ganns Prairie, which has been an important ceremonial and gathering site for the tribe for thousands of years. The prairie, which in the past has been maintained by burning and cutting, has begun to close in with new forest growth. The GMP for Redwood NP has designated the prairie as a cultural landscape, a necessary step preceding any decision to restore and maintain the formerly open character of the landscape. The NPS is in the preliminary stages of talks with the tribe whereby the tribe may be formally contracted by NPS to restore and manage the prairie. Various studies to determine the optimum size and management methods are underway at present. From the prairie, the group moved to the Klamath River where they traveled by boats provided by tribal law enforcement staff to view important salmon spawning sites and to get a visual sense of the river-scape and the role it could play in a possible future Yurok Tribal Park. The group covered the lower 20 miles of the Klamath within Reservation boundaries and was treated to an impressive and scenically attractive river valley, even though much of the neighboring forest, mostly privately owned redwood timber land, had been cut over in the past, and is likely to be cut over again in the future under current ownership and management of Simpson Timber Company. Finally the group moved to the dramatic river mouth, where the Klamath meets the Pacific Ocean. The group observed firsthand this important site of the age-old conflict between opportunistic sea lions and salmon-filled fishermen’s nets. Since the river mouth is the one site where current reservation and park boundaries coincide, the group spent some time discussing the respective rights and responsibilities of the two parties to each other, to Tribal members and their livelihood, to the general public, and to the natural and cultural resources aspects of the Klamath. Second day of the Summit – October 9, 2003 Throughout the second day, the participants divided into three breakout sessions, each group consisting of a park, its associated tribe, and one or more conservation group representative. In addition for these sessions, four leaders and subject experts circulated among the three groups during the course of the Dialogue and made comments to each group: Jon Jarvis, NPS Regional Director, Dr. Fred York, NPS Regional Anthropologist, Bambi Kraus, NATHPO President, and Michael Smith, Counsel, National Trust for Historic Preservation.

15

The Makah Tribe-Olympic National Park-Conservation Organization Dialogue

Participants: Janine Bowechop, Makah Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Teresa Parke, Makah tribal member David Lawes, Makah tribal member Bill Laitner, Olympic National Park Superintendent Paul Gleeson, Olympic National Park Cultural Resources Manager Cat Hawkins-Hoffman, Olympic National Park Natural Resources Manager Heather Weiner, Regional Director, National Parks Conservation Association Facilitator - Peter Woodrow (CDR Associates) Description of an Ideal Relationship This group began by developing a very useful, and potentially widely applicable, set of principles for determining an “ideal relationship” between the park and the tribe, as well as for their relationships with conservation organizations: 1. Clearly reflect the government-to-government relationship, recognizing tribal

sovereignty. 2. Ensure the ability of the tribal government’s designated representatives to

communicate directly with higher levels U.S. officials, after first attempting to resolve issues with local Park officials.

3. Identify one primary point of contact for the park superintendent, but also encourage technical staff to communicate directly on issues in their areas of responsibility.

4. Develop regular/constant notice of activities that may affect the other party—a “no surprises” policy.

5. Check out assumptions—don’t assume that you understand what the other group intends, their rationale for it, what is going to happen as a result.

6. Hold an annual “training” event for mutual education about protocols and procedures, to update and reinforce understandings. Account for turnover on both sides and build/maintain personal relationships.

7. Build government-to-government consultations into park and tribal planning processes. Identify issues for each group and determine what issues are in or out of discussion. Develop plans for joint follow-up on specific issues. Recognize that neither group has veto power over the other.

8. Work together on areas of overlapping or adjoining interests (such as Shi Shi Beach). 9. Continue to cooperate on projects of joint concern (such as the sockeye recovery

plan). 10. As personnel change, make sure each group understands the rights of the other group. 11. Understand traditional uses of natural resources. 12. Encourage regular interaction and building of relationships with each other. 13. Recognize the need to educate the public on treaty rights.

16

14. Acknowledge that tribal engagement benefits the park and vice versa. 15. Acknowledge that the sincerity of the NPS message is critical to building a trusting

relationship. 16. Encourage communication with other tribes, especially regarding overlapping use and

access areas. Relationship of Tribe, Park and Conservation Groups 1. Work towards each group seeing the park as a resource of mutual concern and work

together to protect it, based on common goals. Improve environmental groups’ understanding of traditional tribal uses (usual and customary practices), and develop tribal understanding of environmental groups’ perspectives.

2. Acknowledge different missions and mandates of tribe, NPS and environmental groups. The groups will be allies at some times and opponents at other times. Avoid demonizing the other regarding any particular issue. Appreciate, value and respect each other, even when we disagree.

After a full discussion of the elements of an ideal relationships among the Makah Tribe, Olympic National Park and associated conservation organizations, the group began to identify issues, both generic and specific, that affect the park, tribe and concerned groups. The group divided these issues into three categories – administration and communication; interpretation and education; and natural and cultural resources. Administration and Communication Issues

Education of park staff, the public, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) about treaty rights and federal trust obligations.

NGOs and NPS’s awkwardness or fear of making offense, most often based on lack of knowledge about the Tribe, leading to lack of communication with Tribe and lost opportunities to improve relations.

Responsibility of tribal staff generally and the Makah Cultural and Research Center specifically to educate the tribal community about the park: How to do it easily and accurately? Who is most appropriate to do it, and how to coordinate and catalyze action to this end?

Education & Interpretation Issues

Developing tribal involvement in the interpretation programs at Olympic NP. Natural and Cultural Resource Issues

• Salmon recovery • Management of marine reserves, shellfish, and the intertidal zone. • A source of potable water for the tribe—possible use of Lake Ozette waters. • Plants and wood (cedar, mulewood) gathering. • Protection of Lake Ozette (related to salmon recovery), resisting development

pressures

17

• Developing an inventory of “cultural landscapes.” • Management of access points, such as Shi-Shi beach. • Overlapping tribal claims of usual and accustomed areas. • Lake Ozette area issues.

Then, after some discussion of ranking these eight issues based on urgency and overall significance to the developments and improvement of relationships, the group decided to focus the full discussion for the balance on the Summit meeting on Shi-Shi Beach and the Lake Ozette area issues. Shi-Shi Beach Rated the “Best Nature Beach in America” in a recent survey conducted for the Travel Channel, Shi Shi Beach is a fairly recent addition to Olympic National Park, but has been a part of the Makah Tribe’s ancestral landscape for generations. Shi Shi has been visited by hardy travelers from Washington and other states for decades, though access to it across tribal lands has not been unauthorized by either the tribe or the park. A result of this use was uncontrolled litter and human wastes, erosion and other resource damage, and crime. Even after the addition of Shi Shi Beach to the national park, the NPS did little to curb abuses, and the tribe bore the brunt of the problems associated with unplanned public use. At one point, the Makah Tribe, in frustration with the lack of resolution of these problems, closed access to the beach from tribal lands, which is the most accessible route. Most recently, the tribe carried out trail improvements and has re-opened the trail to the beach across tribal lands, adding a designated parking area and a parking/user fee. Numerous issues remain to be resolved between the park and the tribe, however, including resource impacts, waste disposal, fire prevention, responsibility for and conduct of search and rescue operations, development of associated concessions, resolution of a long-standing mineral claim on the beach area, management of camping and other recreation uses on the beach, and the need for guides and/or interpretation in the area. The group discussed the development of a joint planning initiative to address and attempt to resolve these issues in a mutually satisfactory manner. Possible additional representatives to be involved in this initiative would include the tourism businesses on the Olympic Peninsula, recreation, wildlife protection, and environmental groups, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration because of its national marine sanctuary in adjacent waters. Such a joint planning effort, uncommon if not unprecedented in the NPS, would necessarily involve a wide range of staff from both the park and the tribe. In the NPS, the planning effort would engage staff from natural and cultural resources management, law enforcement, interpretation, maintenance and concessions. For the tribe it would be necessary to involve staff from cultural resources, parks and recreation, realty, tourism and planning, and public safety.

18

Among key issues that should be addressed in such a joint plan are a visitor capacity determination that could include limits to both day use and overnight accommodations and/or camping permits, and development of a variety of educational messages to gain public support for limiting use in order to preserve the pristine quality of the beach and its title as “Best.” In particular, the group discussed development of various resource protection methods, including monitoring, and discussed having the park contract with the tribe to carry out some of the management functions for the area. In addition, there was some discussion about the potential for the tribe to develop relevant concession operations and interpretive programs aimed at the general public who visit this area of the park and the Tribe’s reservation lands. Lake Ozette The group identified a range of pending issues that eventually must be addressed and resolved between the park and the tribe associated with the Ozette site, Cape Alava and adjacent park lands.

Protection of Ozette Village archeological site, information and artifacts Plant gathering on Ozette prairie lands Treatment of public camping at Cape Alava (and attendant issues of waste,

impacts on beach vegetation, etc.). Potential for a camping program at Ozette/Cape Alava administered by the tribe Ownership/jurisdiction of two islands National Historic Landmark status for Lake Ozette Village Archeological Site Problems resulting from the fact that current permitting does not differentiate

Olympic NP from Makah reservation lands. Protection of sensitive areas of the Makah reservation from access by the public.

Given the limitation of time during the Summit, the group decided to focus on the issue of plant gathering and management of the Ozette prairie, based on tribal interest in gaining access to plants that are not available on the reservation. In particular, the group discussed the desirability of developing of an NPS policy on cultural landscapes that would recognize that in certain instances, such as the Ozette prairies, the native plant species there can best be managed and maintained through active management, including gathering by tribes as they had done for centuries, rather than letting nature take its course as though man had not been a part of it. Plant Gathering and Potential Joint Management Response

Begin by identifying which plants are of interest, quantities needed by tribal members, capacity of each species population to withstand gathering without “impairment,” determination of permitting and monitoring processes to be established. (The Makah Tribe has a list of the plant species of interest for gathering purposes.).

Assemble research performed by biologists Cat Anderson and Andy Bach

19

Identify desired conditions of Ozette Prairie Undertake a scientific study of the interactions of human activities and plant life

on specific plots within Ozette Prairie—monitor results of varying kinds of activities (Methods may include no action, fire only, fire plus plant gathering, uses of traditional implements, etc.).

Experiment with cultural activities associated with plant and prairie management for the desired ecological conditions identified.

Discussion Points:

Consider the effects of wilderness designation, if any. (It was clarified that wilderness designation does not limit the ability to perform research or gathering, though it would constrain the methodology.)

Make a distinction between ecological health and cultural activities. (One cannot manage for ecological health—it’s a measure. One can define the ecological conditions to manage for, however.)

Perhaps identify a Makah graduate student who might undertake this study—or any graduate student for whom this would be an interesting thesis topic. Apply for a scientific permit to learn more about the effects of human activities on prairie areas. This would be a combination of scientific study and social and culture interactions analysis.

Any burning regime would have to be quite small and controlled; the rationale for using fire would have to be scientifically well founded. There is a butterfly species of concern in the area, but the park staff does not yet know the effects of burning on the vegetation important to that species.

Five thousand years of human interaction with the area stopped just fifty years ago. We are trying to see the effects of reviving some human disturbance on the prairie areas.

This Summit group reached a general agreement on the following points, which will need additional follow-up and reviews:

The group generally approves the overall concept of improving park/tribe relations.

The next step would be to convene a group of appropriate experts to design the experimental program, engaging both scientific and cultural issues.

Once a scientific and cultural program has been defined, apply for a permit to undertake the study. (If NPS personnel are performing the research, no specific permit will be required.)

Ensure that the program does not impair the resource, although it is permitted to have an impact. (NPS Management Policies 2001)

It will be important to develop language that everyone agrees to in order to communicate this program to others—both within the NPS and the larger community.

20

The plant gathering/prairie management issue is only one of the issues at Ozette. The group has not gotten to those others. The tribe and NPS will work on those through the GMP process.

Several assignments were undertaken for immediate follow-up in order to assure continuity from the Summit meeting:

• The park superintendent will initiate tribal-park discussions regarding management of Shi-Shi Beach, anticipating increased use next summer.

• The park cultural resources manager and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer will develop appropriate steps to assure stabilization of the archeological site at Lake Ozette.

• The NPS will incorporate the broad concepts behind the study at Ozette Prairie into the draft general management plan as it is being developed.

• Cat Hawkins-Hoffman will convene the research professionals and tribal representatives to design the research project.

Yurok Tribe – Redwood National Park –Conservation Organization Dialogue

Participants: Troy Fletcher, Executive Director, Yurok Tribe Dr. Thomas Gates, THPO, Yurok Tribe Walt Lara, Jr., Tribal Council member Barry McCovey, Tribal Self-Governance Officer Terry Hofstra, Chief of Resource Management & Science, Redwood NP Karin Anderson, Cultural Resources Program Manager, Redwood NP Bill Pierce, NPS Park Superintendent (new) Kate Anderton, Executive Director, Save-The-Redwoods League Don Barry, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, The Wilderness Society (TWS) Sue Gunn, Director, National Parks Program, TWS Facilitator: Destry Jarvis, ORAPS The Yurok Vision – Redwood National, State and Tribal Parks Troy Fletcher, Yurok’s Executive Director, opened the discussion with a wide-ranging presentation of a tribal vision for the future relationship between the park and the tribe, which centered on a proposal that the existing partnership between Redwood National and State Parks be expanded to become “Redwood National, State, and Tribal Parks.” While the tribe would not cede sovereignty over its existing land and waters, Mr. Fletcher felt passionately that the addition of the tribe’s interest in the Klamath River could combine with the national and state parks to create a far more diverse, and ecologically and culturally important complex of resources. This would not only serve the Tribe’s interests and needs better, but would offer the American people the opportunity to

21

support a whole new way of caring for its public land heritage and the Native American population. This vision for a new concept of co-management would offer mutual benefits to all parties, according to Mr. Fletcher, and would thus serve to avoid many of the misgivings, or complaints, about tribal self-governance compacting with non-BIA federal agencies. He further asserted that both the park and the tribe already share most, if not all, resource management values. The ensuing discussion, with input from all parties, seemed to indicate a willingness on the part of participants to explore the concept further. Kate Anderton (STRL) expressed her desire to know the ultimate goals of the joint venture, rather than to focus on the specific management mechanisms to achieve the goals of co-management. Similarly, Don Barry (TWS) expressed a willingness to proceed, with caution, once he had a better understanding of the overall management policies that would apply to such a joint project. He also wanted assurance that the predominant legal requirement that parks remain unimpaired for future generations would be maintained. Both conservation organizations expressed concern that any precedents to be set by such a new relationship should be carefully defined, based on a legal framework, and not subject to unintended consequences. Mr. Fletcher asked the conservation groups to express the values in the park that they sought to preserve, so that they could be incorporated into any co-management regime that might be developed. Mr. Barry responded, rhetorically, by asking whether the tribe could envision a form of wildlife co-management that did not involve hunting, a prospect that the conservation organizations would consider an unacceptable deviation from national park purposes. Mr. Fletcher replied that in any such negotiation the first step would be to design the research to gather basic population and habitat data; that the utilization of elk by tribal members had gone on in the area of the park for generations and the population was obviously still healthy, and that any future management of elk would have to be mutually agreed upon. Beyond the key conflict over hunting elk, Mr. Fletcher laid out his suggestions for other areas where the likelihood of mutual agreement was much greater, and suggested that the two sides could make substantial progress by beginning with these. Mr. Fletcher laid out the following as potential starting points for co-management arrangements of a Redwood National, State and Tribal Park: Trail maintenance (e.g. with a Yurok youth trail crew) Process through which the tribe can tell its own story. The park does reach out but

the Yurok feel it’s never quite enough. (Who better than the tribe to talk about tribal culture and today’s issues?).

Fire management and fire protection. (Tribal people have always used fire and thus may be well prepared to take on some management responsibility in this area.).

Recreation with the exception of preserved areas. (The values of the parks need to be maintained, but could be expanded with tribal roles.)

22

An Eco-lodge, built by the tribe, could go hand-in-hand with park activities. Tribal plans for using the park’s resources for traditional cultural purposes. Joint law enforcement (each of the three agencies already has its own law

enforcement program). A Federal-State-Tribal law enforcement program would be more cost effective and would serve the same purposes as each now does separately.

Assuring tribal access to sacred sites and resource gathering sites. This would be achieved without exposing these resources to inappropriate abuse, either by Tribal members or non-tribal park users.

Cultural Resources Management. Perhaps there could be some collaboration on compliance, collections and archives management.

Employment of tribal members by national and state parks Access to appropriate redwood logs for traditional canoe carving and plank house

construction by the tribe. All of the values shared by the tribe and park should be confirmed by in writing, by both entities. One issue of particular concern to the park and tribe in the past has been the management of the Klamath River mouth, the one place where the current boundaries of the park and reservation overlap. In the past, the park has objected to the tribe’s taking of sea lions that were raiding the salmon gill nets of tribal fishermen. Park visitors in the area who have observed tribal members shooting sea lions, without having the benefit of educational information about the fishery or tribal rights, have raised their objections to the NPS. The tribe is steadfast in its unwillingness to cede jurisdiction to the NPS for fishery or marine mammal management on the Klamath River. However, the tribe is willing to consider, in the context of a tribal park along the Klamath, some joint resource management, interpretation, and facility development activities that would mutually benefit both tribal members and park visitors, and which would be fully compliant with the shared vision and values of the two. Michael Smith, NTHP, interjected the point that Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, rather than the more commonly applied Section 106 compliance provisions, offered the NPS and the tribe a good opportunity for cooperation on management of cultural resources of interest to both. Section 110 of the NHPA requires each federal agency to consult with Indian tribes on its preservation-related activities, among other provisions. Further, the historic property leasing provisions of the NHPA in Section 111, would allow NPS to “lease” to the tribe for management such culturally significant sites as Split Rock, one mile south of the Mouth of the Klamath River, a tribal sacred site. This could enable the park and tribe to control, or possibly eliminate, the unauthorized sport rock climbing that is occurring there. Don Barry noted that for any such co-management activities to occur with the support of NGOs, management activities, together with long-term objectives, would have to be

23

spelled out in some public process so that everyone would have a chance to understand how the arrangement was authorized, what was intended, whether precedents were being set, and how such decisions would affect other types of co-management. Redwood National Park Vision Statement Redwood National Park staff said that they had never thought about the possibility of adding the tribal entity to the co-management agreement covering the national and state parks. However, the idea of developing a larger ecological unit that could be managed holistically would be well worth careful consideration. The tribe’s perspective, developed over thousands of years in the area, brings considerable credibility to the prospect of the three agencies managing the area as a larger ecological unit. For any new relationship to develop and flourish, both entities must do a better job of communicating and building mutual trust and understanding. To date, both the park and the tribe have developed and maintained open communications and trust exists such that meaningful dialogue occurs. The stated desire for transparency and shared functionality among the managing agencies depends on such trust and open communications. Park staff described the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the park and tribe (see Appendix 6) that was originated in 1996 and recently renewed. The fear that co-management means “wholesale taking over of park management by the tribe” exists within the park’s staff and needs work to be overcome and to clarify intentions. Staff present agreed that the fear was overstated, but that misperceptions often are responsible for inaction. Trust can only result from open communications. The park’s large new archival collection and storage facility offers a possibility for future cooperation. The facility, houses the park’s natural history specimens, archives, and archeological collection and artifacts, some items from which could be subject to repatriation to the tribe. Currently however, the park facility offers more sound and secure curatorial storage than any facilities that the tribe has to offer, including for items already repatriated to the tribe. An agreement to cooperatively manage objects associated with Yurok culture would be beneficial for both entities. The group discussed the technicalities and complexities of two important processes of federal law - federal employment, and the terms and intent of the compacting provisions for non-BIA agencies contained in the Indian Self-Governance Act. The tribe would like opportunities to have its members employed by the NPS, and/or to compact for certain specific functions within the park’s operations, that would in turn create jobs for tribal members to work on park projects. However, the tribe also pointed out that before success could be fully realized in this regard that their overhead and other administrative charges associated with employees must change. An illustration of this was the park’s attempt a few years ago to have the tribe provide a physical science technician to assist park employees in the field. To

24

achieve this goal would have cost the park significantly more than their standard federal hiring practice for a temporary employee. Impediments to Cooperation The group shifted its focus to discuss “impediments” to progress in developing the park-tribe relationship, including:

• How the tribe deals with the answer “no” on issues of perceived mutual interest. • Public perception of the appropriate relationship between park and tribe, and the

variance between this perception at the local and national levels. • The “Fortress Mentality” that both the park and tribe have developed. • Incremental vs. Absolute approaches – “picking low-hanging fruit” versus

addressing the big picture. • How could the tribe‘s reservation lands be part of the new park complex in view

of the fact that only 10,000 acres of the Yurok reservation is actually owned by the tribe. A collaborative group might look at development of a means to secure funding to purchase private lands within the reservation for the tribe, which would then become part of the Tribal Park. There is already a nearby tract designated as a biosphere reserve, currently an experimental forest, which is to be transferred to the tribe as a result of its claims settlement.

• Questions regarding the scope of authority to influence land use over lands that are private, but within the Yurok Reservation. What role would this play in a future joint park?

• Public perception of what is subsistence use by the Tribe. What is the public perception of traditional use, specifically in the evolution of culture and technological advances (e.g. hunting with rifles rather than bow and arrow)

• Park interpretation addressing the Tribe is too often put in past tense as if the Tribe no longer exists. This needs to be updated to include current conditions.

• Overcoming prejudices and mistrust by relying on project driven relationships as an incremental means of improving perceptions and making progress.

Despite past failures to communicate, there appears to be a sincere willingness to work together and to build a fresh relationship around the possibility of the new joint park concept. Negotiating the existing joint agreement between national and state parks was a monumental task that took several years, and takes constant work to maintain. The relationship is greatly aided by having the two managers, federal and state, share office space and thus more easily maintain daily communications. This proximity is key, and should not be overlooked if the tribal park were added to the joint administration regime. If the three were working together, it would make sense to put the tribal park manager in the same building as well. While the group fully recognized that there would be federal legislative hurdles to overcome, some of the perceived impediments were recognized as based more on tradition than on law. For example, one of the NPS’s most cherished perceptions of its management vision, stated in the 1965 “Leopold Report,” is that national parks should be managed as “vignettes of primitive America.” Over time, this reference to “primitive

25

America” has come to be perceived to mean a wholly natural landscape, with no human involvement, whereas the reality was quite different. The Leopold Report’s authors were clearly referring to pre-contact America, which had been heavily influenced by Native American management and manipulation of the landscape, primarily by use of fire. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 provides some recognition of this for subsistence rights in parks. However, this law’s subsistence provision is not exclusive to Alaska Natives, allowing anyone living such a lifestyle to engage in subsistence taking. Some other specific parks, where an adjacent tribe’s treaty rights give it clear access, have recognized that Indian rights are separate, but there are still instances where inappropriate restrictions apply. Redwood National Park has clearly recognized the influence early humans had on forming landscape features of the park by including consideration of native burning equally with natural ignited fires when developing prescribed burn plans. The park’s Bald Hills vegetation management plan (1992) also clearly recognizes native influence, and the new general management plan (1999) not only recognizes the influences, but sets the stage for restoration of traditional activities as part of the broader management plan for the future of the park. Solutions In beginning to discuss possible solutions to issues facing the tribe and park, the group discussed the pros and cons of starting with the big picture issues, or with the easy fixes. One person expressed the need to start discussing those issues where positions were farther apart, rather than with those issues that seemed closer to agreement, given that those issues will take longer to resolve. Similarly, another suggested that if the big issues could be clarified so that there is a common vision, then the parties would be more comfortable negotiating over the specific issues. Likewise, another noted the need to be aggressive in moving towards the larger goals. Otherwise the group would always be working on the small stuff and never get to the big items. Consequently, the group developed a list of key issues to be addressed:

• Surf fishing, fish drying on the beach, redwood logs for canoes and planks for houses, and the means of access for each.

• Future tribal use of the Requa maintenance facility as a staging area for a tribal youth service corps, among other activities.

• Tribal use of a traditional Brush Dance site on the river • Visitor interpretation and management regarding beach fish camps • Subsistence versus sport fishing catch limits, as set by California Fish & Game

Department • Prairie management in the Bald Hills, especially Ganns Prairie • Tribal access to redwood logs for canoe construction • Plant gathering • Cooperation on law enforcement • Cooperation on land acquisition • Elk management

26

• Cooperation on public recreation and tourism activities • Development of joint interpretive programs • Management of activities at the mouth of the Klamath River

Prairie management was the issue that was discussed, given the time constraints. The others will remain on the future agenda for the park and tribe. Having visited Ganns Prairie the day before, the group had a collective vision of the site and of its original size. The group discussed perceived and real obstacles that would have to be overcome to enable the tribe to undertake restoration and management of the prairie, including especially the need to cut the 40-50 year old second growth Douglas Fir trees that have encroached on the prairie. These trees are too big to take out with fire alone. After an initial mechanical removal of the 40 year old Douglas fir trees, the prairie could easily be maintained in the future by use of fire. Serious effort would have to be undertaken to educate the public as to the need for this extreme measure, normally not done in national parks. This education would be aided by the fact that the public already understands that Redwood National Park is currently undergoing a major restoration program. Moreover, restoration to the period of 1850, prior to the arrival of European immigrants to the north coast of California, would also enable the tribe to explain and demonstrate its use of various plant materials from the prairie for traditional foods, as well as ceremonial, medicinal, craft, and related uses. It was mutually agreed and understood that as soon as the Redwood National Park superintendent has settled into his new position, these discussions would be reopened and be expanded into an action agenda for both the park and the tribe. In the meantime, the tribe will pursue a major grant from the California Coastal Conservancy for developing a management plan that would include the concept of the joint park. Nisqually Tribe - Mount Rainier – Conservation

Dialogue Participants: Georgiana Kautz, Nisqually Tribe Natural and Cultural Resources Manager Dave Uberuaga, Superintendent, Mount Rainier NP Greg Burchard, Cultural Resources Manager, Mount Rainier NP Roger Andrascik, Natural Resources Manager, Mount Rainier NP Liz Raisbeck, Vice President, National Parks Conservation Association Facilitator: Mary Margaret Golten, CDR Associates Although constituting the smallest group of participants at the Summit, the Nisqually-Mount Rainier group benefited from having developed the most extensive formal agreement between the park and the tribe, which was already in place prior to the Summit. Nevertheless, there was ample material for fruitful discussion. At the outset,

27

the group developed a list of topics to be discussed between the park and the tribe, not all of which could be addressed during the Summit, but which would serve as a basis for future dialogue:

• Plant collecting in the park and the threat of a lawsuit over it. • Other traditionally associated tribes - can there be a gathering management plan

among all of them? • Discussion of other tribal relationships • Historic preservation concerns • Carbon River and Muckleshoot Tribe • Interpretation at the park about traditionally associated tribes: visitor centers,

ranger interpretation, utilizing tribal members • Development of jointly sponsored tribal/environmental research for park

(inventorying and monitoring, regional scale, collection impacts) • Employment and recruitment of tribal members for the park • Regional sprawl and its threats to the park and associated habitats • Opportunities for collaboration between park and tribe • Hunting (ceremonial and subsistence)

Early in the discussion, the participants developed the following Vision Statement: “Management of the watershed in partnership with other stakeholders should be our goal. From the mouth of the river to the top of the mountain—to have access to traditional lands for cultural purposes forever, which is understood and appreciated by the larger community.”

To provide further depth to the discussion, Ms. Kautz stated the tribe’s vision for its own future, which they recognized to be inextricably linked to others, including the Mount Rainier National Park:

“We fight these fights today so that our children won’t have to fight them. Our Vision is to have access to the traditional lands from the mouth of the river to top of the mountain (Mount Rainier) for traditional activities. We want to manage the watershed in partnership with the governments. We want governments and others to trust us to manage responsibly. We want government officials at all levels to understand our traditional needs for subsistence and ceremony. We want to operate in a community of mutual trust. Under the self-governance principle, the tribe can enter into partnerships for management with any agency. We need to develop extra funding for that so that we do not threaten the agency.”

With very little land base of its own, the Nisqually Tribe has become adept at collaboration. Examples include not only the five-year old agreement with Mount Rainier, but also new agreements with Fort Lewis Army Base. The Fort Lewis agreements have led to development of a fish hatchery on the Base, a cessation of bombing that was harming habitat and the riverscape, and Base personnel no longer driving tanks into the river. The tribe is currently developing a new agreement with the US Fish & Wildlife Service at the Nisqually Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

28

The Bolt Decision that allocated 50% of harvestable fish in the northwest to tribes has had serious side effects that have led to strong mistrust of Indians and their ability to effectively manage natural resources on a sustainable basis. However, Ms. Kautz noted that most of the criticism comes from people who have never visited the tribe or sought to directly observe their capabilities, and thus had little basis in fact to judge the situation. Once the list of issues was developed, and because of time constraints, the group concentrated on only two items - improving communications with tribes, and plant gathering. Communication between the Nisqually Tribe and Mount Rainier National Park One example of the effects of failure to communicate was the recent boundary change legislation that would have added not only private timberlands but also a portion of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands that lie within the Carbon River watershed to Mount Rainier NP. The park had negotiated for months with the timber company and the USFS, its sister agency, and worked out a deal that was proceeding through the legislative process, when the Muckleshoot Tribe objected to the loss of hunting lands that would result from the addition of forest lands to the national park. The park had not realized that this was a concern for the tribe, because it had not consulted with them. As a result, the Forest Service lands were left out of the park addition when the legislation passed the U.S. Congress. Plant collection by tribes within Mount Rainier National Park In 1998, the park signed an Agreement with the Nisqually Tribe regarding plant gathering (see Appendix 7) that has recently expired. The park and tribe are in a quandary because a non-governmental organization, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has threatened to bring a lawsuit against the Agreement. They allege that it is illegal for the NPS to enter into such an arrangement under its current regulation and without environmental compliance. In the absence of such formal agreements, other tribes are likely to continue gathering plant materials in Mount Rainier National Park without such an agreement, and without NPS approval. The Muckleshoot Tribe, for example, had specifically rejected such an agreement with NPS, because they did not want their activities in the park to be monitored, which to them is an inappropriate infringement on their aboriginal rights. However, Ms. Kautz, noted that because of the gathering Agreement, the Nisqually Tribe had been able to develop trust with the NPS and thus to work on other issues with the park. She said the agreement had been the doorway to full collaboration; that without it the tribe and park would not have undertaken other areas of cooperation. Superintendent Uberuaga agreed that the Agreement had been critical to building trust on other issues. He noted that the actual level of plant material collection is minimal, far less than could be allowed under the Agreement. Park staff is compiling data to

29

determine effects of gathering, but while the agreement covers five plant species, the park is currently able only to effectively monitor one of these. More funding for research and monitoring is needed. It is important for the park to do NEPA compliance documentation on gathering, but to date it has not had the funding to do so. They would like to have a one-year extension on the Agreement, while putting the needed monitoring in place. There is a strong possibility that a new federal regulation is needed to allow tribal gathering of plant material. The superintendent suggested the idea of an annual consulting plan to be developed by the park, in cooperation with the several affiliated tribes. Ms. Kautz recommended that, at a minimum, there be an annual all-tribe meeting with park staff. Clear goals should be developed for the scope and outcome of the meeting to avoid false expectations, but that is just another reason for open, honest, and regular communication between the park and tribes. Conclusion of Mount Rainier NP/Nisqually Tribe Dialogue This session concluded with a wide-ranging discussion of tribal employment issues. Among a variety of suggestions was the idea that NPS hire a “circuit rider” tribal liaison who could travel the tribal circuit for each park in the region, or certainly for the big three parks in Washington State - Mount Rainier, Olympic and North Cascades National Parks. This could likely be done under authority of the Indian Self-Governance Act. Ms. Kautz urged the NPS to hire tribal members for its regular jobs more frequently, but NPS staff noted that federal hiring policies made it very difficult to hire Indians who did not have college degrees for many of the most likely jobs. If finding qualified candidates is such a problem for NPS, they discussed various ways for NPS to identify and recruit local Indians at a younger age. Other suggestions were to provide on-the-job training and college financial support through a number of federal programs that are available.

30

Summit Conclusions and Recommendations Both during the general discussion sessions among all Summit participants, and in the breakout tribal-park sessions, there were several key points that warrant further discussions and actions at the individual park-tribe level. In addition, there were a few items on which there was a clear consensus among summit participants that lend themselves to consideration for immediate adoption by NPS service-wide. Finally, it was clear that, while this Summit was a success, it only represented a small sample of all of the parks and tribes that are or should be interconnected through such a renewed commitment to enhanced dialogue and consultation. Continuity A recurring concern for both parks and tribal members is the frequent turnover of key personnel and the resultant discontinuity of knowledge and understanding of pre-existing agreements between park and tribe. It is normal NPS practice that park superintendents transfer on average every five to seven years in order to be promoted. Likewise, tribal elections often result in changes of tribal leadership. Thus, a mechanism is needed to facilitate better continuity of knowledge of what has already been put into place in the park-tribe relationship. One of the strong recommendations that emerged from the Summit is that the status of every park-tribe relationship be put in writing, then vetted and endorsed by both entities. This will provide the historical record that will be passed along from superintendent to superintendent, and from tribal council to tribal council. Even when changing personnel results in changes in attitude or position, knowing clearly what commitments have been made previously, what joint projects are underway or planned, and other aspects of their existing formal and informal relationships will go a long way toward avoiding the all-too-common practice of starting over with each change in key leadership. Incremental improvements, or even dramatic developments in park-tribe relationships will be given a greater opportunity to succeed by adopting this practice. Cultural Landscapes There was wide agreement at the Summit that park GMPs should recognize traditionally associated tribes, and should document and designate tribal cultural landscapes within parks. This would be similar to what Redwood National Park has done in its GMP with Gann’s Prairie and the other prairies in the Bald Hills. A cultural landscape designation for sites within a park would open up new opportunities for collaboration between the park and tribe, which could range from simple collaborative research, to joint interpretation, to co-management of these sites. It should be noted that this concept of tribal cultural landscapes is much broader than the existing approach that NPS has taken to cultural landscapes under the National Historic Preservation Act and through the National Register of Historic Places program.

31

For example, the legislation that endorses the park-tribe agreement between Death Valley National Park and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe recognizes the cultural landscape of large portions of the valley. This provides a legal basis for the co-management by the tribe of springs, mesquite, and other key cultural elements that stem from the tribes aboriginal occupation of the valley. An NPS Director’s Order, along with an appropriate new section of NPS-2, the Park Planning Guideline, that directs the study and appropriate designation of tribal cultural landscapes would be of enormous benefit to universal implementation of this worthy goal. Gathering Gathering of plant materials and sometimes minerals, such as for dyes and paints, is a customary and traditional practice for Indian tribes, and they have continued to gather, with or without explicit support from federal land managers. These plant materials fulfill a variety of needs, including uses in ceremonies, medicines, foods, art, crafts and related purposes. In a few national parks, explicit treaty rights permit gathering. In other parks, the NPS has actively sought to recognize this culturally significant activity, and has signed agreements allowing it. Other park managers have officially refused to permit gathering but have tacitly allowed it through a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Finally, in still other parks, managers have taken a restrictive posture, and in the absence of explicit authorization in the Code of Federal Regulations, have refused to allow it. Thus, there is no consistent policy or practice in the NPS toward traditional, culturally relevant plant gathering. On an entirely different level of concern and focus, virtually all NPS managers have refused to recognize any tribal rights to take wildlife in the parks, without an explicitly stated reserved right in treaties or statutes. For example, the public feud over an attempt to allow a clan of Hopi Indians to take golden eaglets used in religious ceremonies in one NPS cultural park has brought this issue into sharp focus with the result that for the present, there is no likelihood of consensual agreement between parks and tribes over taking of wildlife. In 1999 and 2000, the NPS internally developed a proposed regulatory change on gathering of plant materials within national parks, but this change never reached the Federal Register for public consideration. At this writing, the NPS is re-considering this issue, and may take the proposed plant-gathering rule to public comment in the near future. Among most Summit participants, there was cautious sympathy for this proposed rule, with the understanding that it would have to be very carefully defined and sufficiently narrow to completely avoid any possibility that taking of wildlife could be considered under this rule. It was also noted that any gathering rule should take an incremental

32

approach, and that much public education, research and monitoring would have to accompany any such proposal. Compacting with Tribes and Hiring Indians There was widespread agreement that the NPS would have a better relationship with American Indian tribal governments today if more of its employees were Indians, especially if Indian employees were given, at the least, tribal liaison roles. NPS participants acknowledged that past efforts to recruit more Indians into the NPS workforce had met with limited success, and that new strategies were needed. While the few successes, like the work of Gerard Baker (career NPS and Mandan-Hidatsu tribal member) as superintendent of the Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail, and as the senior NPS employee for the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, are excellent, they are all too infrequent. Though underutilized, the provisions of the Indian Self-Governance Act (ISGA) authorize tribes to compact (contract) with federal agencies for selected management functions or activities. NPS fears losing jobs of existing staff and of giving up control of its own management mission. Conservationists fear diversion of funds from park management to other tribal priorities, or a diminishment of park resource protection. Too little confidence is expressed in the ability of tribes to perform these non-tribal functions. Clearly, some serious application of ISGA authority is a good possibility in several national parks, for a variety of programs, functions, and resources. There was some discussion at the Summit of creatively using the compacting authority that would allow tribes to hire individual personnel to perform specific jobs for parks, as an alternative to contracting out whole functions from the outset. While no conclusions were reached that offered a definitive solution for tribal employment in the parks, there was consensus that more effort was needed in this area by both parks and tribes. Education and Interpretation Finding creative ways to work with tribal governments in public education and interpretation in our national parks was a recommendation that had broad support, and one which generated numerous good suggestions. It was felt by all Summit participants that nothing could improve upon having an Indian from a traditionally associated tribe provide interpretation of that tribe’s culture, traditions, and heritage for park visitors. NPS can and should make this happen expeditiously as a service-wide approach. The jobs that would be created by this initiative, as important as they would be to tribes, would be even more important to enhanced visitor education. In fact, for parks like Redwood, that have a greater capacity for visitors than they receive, having a strong program of Indian guides and interpreters would be likely to enhance visitation. This could be especially true for international visitors. Further, having such an interpretive program would also serve to better educate the public about the rationale for the special

33

relationship, and rights, that are available to traditionally associated tribal governments, but not to the general public. Continuation of the Dialogue All of the participants agreed that the Summit was worthwhile and worth repeating. There was a strong feeling that the NPS Pacific West Regional Director had taken a very important step forward, both through his personal involvement in the Summit, and through the commitment of the three superintendents from the region. There also was a sense that the NPS should follow-up with concrete actions in a timely manner, keeping all parties well informed. Like the NPS leadership, the national and local conservation leaders present had taken their own share of risks by being willing to participate openly and fully in the dialogue. They also took risks by expressing a willingness to consider increased tribal involvement in park management practices that accommodate traditional tribal interests, so long as the overarching national park mandate to conserve parkland “unimpaired” can be maintained. Similarly, the participating tribes assumed risks by being willing, once again, to trust the words of the federal government that tribal sovereignty would be upheld and their traditional cultural practices would be honored. The Summit group agreed that there were additional parks and tribes in the Pacific West Region that would benefit greatly from initiating and participating in a similar process in the future. Finally, the Summit group also agreed that there are other NPS regions, in particular the Intermountain and Southeast regions, which have numerous national parks with traditionally associated tribes nearby, which should also consider a similar process to improve cooperation and understanding. The Pacific West Regional Director committed to communicating with his fellow regional directors about the success of this meeting in the hope that they would decide to convene a similar dialogue.

34