<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR><BR><A name=top></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>From </FONT><A href=""><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>YubaNet.com</FONT></A><A
name=top></A><BR><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>US<BR></FONT><B><FONT
size=4><FONT face="Times New Roman">Tribal Takeover of National Parks and
Refuges on Fast Track<BR></FONT></B></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Author: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER)<BR>Published on Nov 6, 2007, 06:59<BR><BR>This week, Congress will
consider legislation that directs the Interior Department to turn over many
national parks, wildlife refuges and other operations to tribal governments
under virtually permanent funding agreements, according to Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER). National parks such as <B>Redwood,</B>
Glacier, Voyageurs, Olympic and the Cape Cod National Seashore are among the 57
park units in 19 states listed as eligible for tribal operation, as are 19
refuges in 8 states, including all of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and
the National Bison Range in Montana.<BR><BR>This Thursday, November 8th, HR 3994
by Representative David Boren (D-OK) is slated for hearing before the full House
Natural Resources Committee, just nine days after it was introduced. The
committee is chaired by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the bill's lead co-sponsor.
<BR><BR>Under its terms, tribes could take over any Interior programs "that are
of special geographical, historical, or cultural significance to the Indian
tribe" and receive federal payments covering all direct and indirect costs. The
Interior Secretary would "establish programmatic targets" ensuring that "a
significant portion" of federal jobs and programs are included. Assumption would
be mandatory wherever a tribe "has a federally reserved right" in local fish,
wildlife, water or minerals. In all other cases, Interior could refuse a tribe
only where it can show a legal prohibition or "a significant danger or risk to
the public health."<BR><BR>Once executed, the tribal funding agreements could
not be terminated for non-performance, but could only be suspended for "gross
mismanagement" or "imminent jeopardy" to resources or public health. In
addition, tribes would have the right to be fully paid in advance. Any savings
or economies would go entirely to the tribe and future payments to the tribe
could not be reduced.<BR><BR>"This bill would be like having a herd of
Halliburtons permanently embedded inside Interior's budget," stated PEER
Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that tribal profit margins would be
guaranteed and a tribe could stop work entirely if costs exceeded agreement
estimates, yet still keep the federal payments. "It is clear from this measure's
incredibly one-sided terms that lobbyists are still writing at least some of the
legislation before Congress."<BR><BR>HR 3994 stipulates that tribal operation of
parks and refuges would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act or any
other public reporting requirements. Moreover, no federal rules, guidance or
policies would apply to programs under tribal funding agreements. In addition,
tribes could move to waive any applicable regulation and could redesign programs
or reallocate federal funds as they see fit.<BR><BR>"This bill does nothing to
protect the wildlife and natural resources which are the very reasons we have
these refuges and parks," Ruch added. "In fact, these agreements would be
cemented in place even when there is poor performance, rudeness to the public,
sexual harassment, job discrimination or damage to the resource - so long as the
damage is not 'irreparable' in the legalistic lingo of this
proposal."<BR><BR>Much of the bill, particularly the portions preventing
termination of the funding agreements except in very limited, extreme
circumstances, appears to be motivated by the experience at the National Bison
Range. In December 2006, Interior abruptly cancelled a shared operation
agreement with a local tribe citing abusive conduct and intimidation directed at
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service employees, as well as substantial non-performance of
many key tasks.<BR><BR>"This bill reads like a negotiating tactic to pressure
Interior to renew the Bison Range funding deal," Ruch concluded, noting that a
review of the events at Bison Range by the Interior Office of Inspector General
is reportedly ready to be released. "Congress should take a very hard look at
what happened on the National Bison Range before signing away scores of our most
treasured public lands in perpetuity." <BR><BR>© Copyright 2007
YubaNet.com</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>