Government Funding of Native American
Cultural Foodways, Conservation and
Land Management

This publication is a Capstone Report to complete a Master of Science degree in Sustainable Food
Systems.
Suggested Citation: Strong, Sharla. (2024). Government funding of Native American cultural foodways,
conservation and land management. Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems.
https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.2.N.196741

Research permits or research agreements were obtained from each of the tribal governments participating
in this study. All cultural information and data are property of their respective tribal governments. To
ensure ethical research practices, researchers wishing to reuse the material from a tribe should seek the
appropriate permits and agreements with each tribal government as needed.

Photo credits
Front cover: C’waam fish, OPB, Brian Hayes/USGS; Huckleberries, Robert Kentta; Camas, Sharla
Strong; Acorn, Kathy Kentta.
This page: Huckleberries, Sharla Strong
Back cover: Lamprey “Eel” filleted, Sharla Strong; Lamprey, USFWS

Author
Sharla Strong (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians)
M.S. Sustainable Food Systems

Partner Tribes
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Karuk Tribe
Klamath Tribes

Acknowledgements
Thank you to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, the Karuk Tribe and the Klamath Tribes for contributing valuable information and insight to
this research project. Special thanks to the tribal government leaders and staff who wear many hats and
made time to be interviewed. Thank you to the non-profit organizations, USDA NRCS and Forest Service
staff who connect tribes with resources and support the needs of tribal governments. And special thank
you to the elders who have contributed to this project and the years of service they have dedicated to their
culture and their communities.

Advisors
Dr. Estève Giraud
Director of Research
Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems
Arizona State University
Dr. Kathleen A. Merrigan
Executive Director
Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems
Arizona State University

Interviewees and Contributors
Les Anderson
Kurtis Barker
Pamela Barlow-Lind
Roylene Comes at Night
Teara Farrow Ferman
David Ferguson
Don Gentry
Neva Gibbens
Isha Goodwin
Jared Hall
Alta Harris
Audie Huber
Mike Kennedy
Robert Kentta
Kathy Kentta
Alissa Lane
Chris Marks
Katherine Minthorn
Annie Marion
Jeff Mitchell
Jeanine Moy
Judy Muschamp
Erik Nusbaum
Kathryn Prive
Charley Reed
Garin Riddle
Colleen Rossier
Cheryl Shippentower
Gordy Schumacher
Kristine Tapio-Harper
Stan van de Wetering
Miranda Williams
Rowena Yeahquo

Executive Summary
Tribes in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) are working to increase First Foods access, heal ecosystems,
preserve their cultures, and prepare future generations to culturally manage First Foods landscapes as
their ancestors have done for millennia. This paper examines present-day government food system
funding and advocates for the integration of tribal governments into funding systems and to address the
funding gaps where agricultural funding does not reach First Foods cultures. This paper explores existing
USDA funding opportunities, analyzes their applicability to First Foods, and produces policy ideas and
recommendations for USDA agencies, tribal governments and tribal food policy leaders.
In modern times, tribal governments represent tribes in their government-to-government relationship with
the U.S., who has treaty and trust responsibilities to tribal governments. These trust responsibilities
extend to food, land, welfare, education, health and many other promises made by the U.S. to tribes, with
federal agencies like the USDA improving systems to be inclusive to tribes.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, the Native Farm Bill Coalition achieved important provisions for Indigenous
foods, laying groundwork for potential funding to be directed to tribal governments for food and
agriculture in the future. This paper explains how Pacific Northwest First Foods cultures are unique from
agricultural tribes in many other regions of the U.S. and explores how funding structures built for
individual businesses do not match the cultural and environmental context for First Foods.
Currently, tribal governments are limited in their capacity to address First Foods needs due to systemic
issues, one of which includes funding systems. This paper explores policy proposals by leading
Indigenous food policy organizations and seeks to add regional context and integrate First Foods needs
into policy proposals for future Farm Bills. Lastly, this paper also seeks to outline the funding
discrepancy for tribal governments, spark regional conversations to build consensus around First Foods
funding needs, and prepare PNW tribes for potential funding for First Foods in the near future.

Preface
About the development of this research project
I am an enrolled Tribal Member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and started a “traditional
foods” program for my tribe in 2010 called Healthy Traditions. The mission of the CTSI Healthy
Traditions project is to improve the health of Siletz Tribal Members through educational activities which
promote the use of traditional foods through: hunting, fishing, gathering, gardening, cooking, food
preservation and protecting our natural resources. One of the main barriers that I found in building the
program was the lack of access to ancestral foods, also known as First Foods. The abundance of First
Foods maintained by our tribes’ ancestors have been depleted or extirpated due to the ongoing impacts of
colonization that continue today with decimated salmon populations and landscapes of camas eradicated
and replaced with modern conventional cropping systems, and development. Our communities have
become, like all Americans, inter-dependent on commercial agriculture. Today there are many individuals
and families who carry out their cultural roles in the food system as gatherers, fishing and hunting to feed
their communities. However, the abundance of those foods has been threatened for generations and are
under increasing pressures as commercial interests seek to commodify sacred foods and export them
outside our tribal communities.
Often, when talking about funding challenges with non-Native allies, they say that tribes should be selling
their First Foods so that they have the funding to continue their First Foods work. This is the modern
commercial model of exporting your food to sustain yourself. I understand why they encourage this
because that is how our modern food system functions. However, because these foods are not abundant
enough for the needs of our tribal communities, how could we, in good conscience, export staple foods–
sacred foods away from our communities? Our First Foods are sometimes rare or on the brink of
extinction. The deprivation of our food system is what needs to be addressed before we can consider an
export model as a feasible option.
What then is the economic system for tribes to heal their food system?
In the absence of commercial funding to support First Foods work, tribal governments are left to sue for
damage to our ecosystems (litigation that they could lose, then set precedent for the denial of other tribes
seeking justice), self-fund restoration of entire landscapes (with the limited funds available from
economic development), seek donations from their communities or philanthropy, or apply for
competitive, short-term, pilot-project grant funding.
This research project seeks to advocate for tribal government funding resources. This is an advocacy
report, intentionally partial and focused on drawing attention to the inequity of the funding system that
tribes find themselves in today. As a student, I have done my best to represent the voices of my tribe and
neighboring tribes who are deep in the work of healing our food systems. I take responsibility for the
contents of this report and invite any criticisms or constructive feedback if I have misinterpreted or
misrepresented tribal history or study participants in any way. I respect the research agreements made
with partnering tribes and am accountable to make any requested changes.

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Project Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Research Design and Framework ....................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 1 - Tribal Government Funding................................................................................................. 17
US Trust Responsibility to Tribes ...................................................................................................... 17
Tribal Government funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) ......................................... 18
First Foods Funding Gap.................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 2 - Tribal Government Interview Data ...................................................................................... 23
Funding Need Theme: Capacity ......................................................................................................... 27
Funding Need Theme: Cultural Resources and NEPA ........................................................................ 37
Funding Need Theme: Outreach, Education and Workforce Development .......................................... 41
Funding Need Theme: Access to First Foods...................................................................................... 46
Other Funding Needs ......................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 3 - The state of USDA funding for First Foods.......................................................................... 65
NRCS Funding .................................................................................................................................. 68
NRCS Funding Opportunity 1: Conservation Technical Assistance ................................................ 68
NRCS Funding Opportunity 2: Urban Agriculture Innovation Grants ............................................. 71
NRCS Funding Opportunity 3: Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities .................................. 72
NRCS Funding Opportunity 4: RCPP - Regional Conservation Partnership Program Projects......... 73
NRCS Funding Opportunity 5: Equity in Conservation Outreach Cooperative Agreements ............ 75
NRCS Funding Opportunity 6: Conservation Innovation Grants ..................................................... 79
NRCS Funding Opportunity 7: Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership ............................. 80
NIFA Funding ................................................................................................................................... 81
NIFA Funding Opportunity 1: Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program.................. 83
NIFA Funding 2: Tribal Programs.................................................................................................. 84
NIFA Funding 3: Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) ................................................ 89
Forest Service Funding ...................................................................................................................... 95
Forest Service Funding Opportunity 1: Collaborative Forest Restoration Landscape Restoration
Program (CFLRP) funding ............................................................................................................. 98

Forest Service Funding Opportunity 2: Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) .................................. 99
Forest Service Funding Opportunity 3: Urban and Community Forestry Program ......................... 101
Chapter 4 - Policy Recommendations .................................................................................................. 102
Funding Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................... 102
Capacity Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 102
Cultural Resources and NEPA Recommendations ........................................................................ 104
Outreach, Education and Workforce Development Recommendations .......................................... 105
First Foods Access Recommendations.......................................................................................... 106
Other Funding Recommendations ................................................................................................ 108
Recommendations for Tribal Governments ...................................................................................... 109
Future Policy Ideas for Native Farm Bill Coalition and advocacy groups.......................................... 115
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 119
Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 122
Leading policy advocates and resources: ...................................................................................... 122
Appendix............................................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix A: About Tribal Government participants ........................................................................ 123
Appendix B: Funding from the Department of the Interior (DOI) ..................................................... 128
Appendix C: Example of DOI funding that will soon be available to tribal governments .................. 131
DOI Land and Water Conservation Fund...................................................................................... 131
Appendix D: NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) grant award data ............. 133
Appendix E: NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) grant award data ................................... 141
Appendix F: Acronyms .................................................................................................................... 147
Appendix G: Additional Terminology .............................................................................................. 148
Appendix H: Mainstream vs. First Foods ......................................................................................... 149
Appendix I: Interview Questions...................................................................................................... 150
References ........................................................................................................................................... 154

Introduction
When making an argument for resources, it is encouraged to identify the “why” of your mission. This
study does not seek to validate why Indigenous food systems have value, rather this project affirms the
inherent value of First Foods and the value of Native American tribes and tribal cultures. This study seeks
to understand “how” Indigenous food systems can be funded to ensure the abundance of First Foods for
current and future generations.
How can tribal governments access funding resources to restore First Food ecosystems
and revitalize their First Food cultures?
The following chapters provide an overview of how tribal governments are funded. To start, a discussion
of how Pacific Northwest First Foods cultures are distinct from domesticated agriculture is presented
(Chapter 1). Next, tribes share their funding needs for First Foods (Chapter 2). Then existing United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding opportunities are assessed for their accessibility to
tribal governments and their applicability to First Foods (Chapter 3). And lastly, policy recommendations
are presented to improve funding accessibility for tribal governments with the goal to make funding more
applicable to First Foods (Chapter 4).
This study examines existing funding structures with special focus on funding available through the
USDA, although there are additional federal agencies that also impact Pacific Northwest First Foods
funding for tribes. During interviews with tribal government employees, questions regarding other
funding sources were raised and those other funding sources will be included for context and additional
information. The project does not address all funding questions from tribes due to the limited duration of
this research project, however, this capstone report demonstrates the need for further research in this
subject area.

Study Design
Research Questions:
How can tribal governments fund their communal First Foods’ food systems?
What are the funding gaps between USDA funding opportunities and the funding needs
of federally recognized tribes to restore and maintain First Foods cultures?
What USDA funding sources can be used by tribal governments to support noncommercial, communal First Foods culture?
What funding policies would make it easier for tribal governments to grow and sustain
First Foods programs?
This report examines existing USDA funding opportunities and examines their applicability to First
Foods, while also building a basic understanding of how tribal governments are funding their work with
1

First Foods. Interviews with USDA employees expand on desk research on funding opportunities.
Interviews with tribal government employees and representatives expand considerations and contexts
specific to each tribal government and identifies funding needs.
By comparing funding opportunities to funding needs–funding gaps are identified and policy
recommendations are developed to describe the need specific to First Foods and tribal governments
(Figure 1).

Figure 1: This study utilizes data from the USDA and tribal governments to identify funding gaps and
inform policy recommendations.

What are First Foods?
First Foods is a common terminology used by many Native American tribes in the Pacific Northwest
when referring to foods that their ancestors have eaten and stewarded since time immemorial. Many tribes
have creation stories about how foods came to be, how the world was put together and how humans are to
live in good relations with everything around them. Tribes have religious practices, traditions and
ceremonies for specific foods, and honoring the foods with their respectful actions is what ensures the
foods come back year after year. First Foods are central to tribal identity and cultural continuity.
There is no formal published definition for First Foods, however the term is used in publications about
First Foods and the researcher can attest that the term is distinctively used by many Pacific Northwest
tribes. When referring to First Foods, a speaker may also say Traditional Foods or Cultural Foods, but the

2

meaning is specifically talking about pre-contact ancestral foods. Tribes might also refer to First Foods in
their own unique languages. The researcher has chosen to use the term First Foods throughout this
publication, because of its prevalence and because the name clearly indicates a distinct regional foods
culture common amongst Pacific Northwest tribes.

What is a tribal government?
A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is
recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States,
with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that
designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent
rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain
federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the
United States. At present, there are 574 federally recognized American Indian and
Alaska Native tribes and villages.
(Indian Affairs, n.d.-b)
Tribal governments represent the interests of their communities in government-to-government relations,
and many of them have ratified and/or unratified treaties with specific rights or jurisdictions. Tribes may
have overlapping homelands, such as areas of historic trade, including tribes who were removed from
ancestral land and placed upon land within another tribes’ homeland. Some tribal governments were set
up separately by the federal government but are made up of individuals who came from the same
ancestral communities, or ancestral communities that were spread between multiple reservations. Many
tribal governments represent multiple tribes who were consolidated (confederated) into one tribal
government. Tribal governments work to protect the rights of their tribes, are accountable to their tribal
citizens, and work to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities.
Terminology:
Tribal government and federally recognized tribes will be used interchangeably.
574 sovereign tribal nations (variously called tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, rancherias,
communities, and Native villages) have a formal nation-to-nation relationship with the US
government. These tribal governments are legally defined as “federally recognized tribes”
(National Congress of American Indians, n.d.-a).

Why focus on funding for tribal governments?
Tribal governments are unique governments with broad responsibilities and funding needs
Since the civil rights era, tribal governments have made hard-earned strides in asserting tribal sovereignty
to improve health, education and economic development. Government agencies are tasked with important
public needs like reducing poverty, increasing food security, combating public health challenges, and
protecting the environment. Various government agencies spread aid and financial assistance down
through tribes, as well as states, counties, cities, and other municipalities. Tribal reservations and
3

homelands overlap and span across state and county lines, and tribal governments provide a broad range
of services often delegated to state and local governments, all while engaging in nation-to-nation
intergovernmental interaction and ensuring treaties are upheld. These are large and heavy responsibilities
on the shoulders of tribal governments.
Tribal communities and economies have suffered enormous loss of First Foods availability due to
compounding factors (including colonization, climate change, loss of rights, etc.), and tribal governments
are leading the efforts to heal ecosystems, restore endangered species and hold the US government
accountable to fulfill obligations made in treaties. Tribal governments have a government-to-government
relationship with the United States, which sometimes causes confusion on where they fit in the trickledown effect of government funding. Systemic racism and exclusion are deeply entrenched in funding
systems (Hipp, 2017) and government agencies need direction from tribal governments and First Foods
leaders on what their tribes need and where the funding is failing to reach them. Many different
government departments and agencies provide funding to tribes which directly or indirectly are applicable
to First Foods. In Figure 2, see how many different departments funnel funding to tribal governments
through various agencies.

Figure 2: Examples of funding agencies which impact First Foods funding for tribal governments.
A budgetary analysis of tribal governments’ expenditures would benefit this report, but is not within the
scope of this research. Such an analysis would be especially difficult for First Foods as there is a lack of
publicly available data focused on this topic. In the absence of data on tribal government budgets, the
author is analyzing funding opportunities, their applicability to First Foods, and following where funding
is institutionalized (for example, tribal governments need First Foods education in their local
communities, but tribes are ineligible for NIFA Tribal Programs funding which is mostly directed to
Land-Grant institutions. To learn more, see the NIFA section starting on p. 80).
This report is part of an important discussion on funding inequity. Tribal governments are governments
but they have historically been excluded from funding structures that support federal, state and local
4

agriculture and food production. Funding from the USDA provides funding to tribal governments as if
they were businesses or individual citizens, but they are governments. What tribal governments need is
base funding for their tribal administrations to address their First Foods’ food system needs. This report is
a call to tribal governments to consider what they need in order to restore abundance in their First Foods
culture. It also calls on government agencies to make funding applicable and available for what tribes
need to protect and continue First Food cultures. Because there is no clear funding dedicated specifically
for First Foods, this report explores how the USDA might design funding that fits the needs of tribal
governments to uphold the USDA’s trust responsibility to tribes.

The difference between Pacific Northwest First Foods culture and
conventional farming agriculture
Modern conventional farming agriculture is very different from First Foods’ food systems (see Table 1).
For Tribes in the Pacific Northwest, First Foods are not planted like crops, they occur in areas naturally
and tribes use cultural land-management techniques including cultural fire, rotational site use, selective
pruning and cultural protocols, which enhance the health and productivity of the area. First Foods are
managed as an entire landscape, rather than planted in row crops or monoculture. First Foods landscapes
provide food for all wildlife, including humans, and wildlife are viewed as a part of the whole food
system, rather than wildlife being considered as pests, as is often the case in conventional agriculture.
Tribes have self-sufficiency and trade regionally with neighboring tribes when they have enough to share.
The First Foods food system is relational in keeping positive relationships with neighboring tribes, for
example tribes sharing management of fisheries, rather than modern commerce-based systems where
business interests aim to out-compete each other. Today, the conventional food system is driven by
commerce with robust government financial support, while the economics of First Foods’ food systems
are volunteer-based, grant funded, contract funded, philanthropy funded, or self-funded by individuals or
tribal governments.
In farming-agriculture, corn is moved to a more desirable location and planted by the hand of the farmer.
Wild foods reproduce on their own, but fare far better with cultural land management. In this way, PNW
tribes seasonally follow First Foods across large landscapes where they occur naturally and manage those
areas. In contrast, farming-agriculture alters the landscape to create plots, domesticating crops and
animals, and using fencing to separate between crops and other farmers. Great diversity of First Foods,
like camas, is possible when it is left and managed within its watershed, rather than collecting seeds from
one area and spreading it across the entire PNW region.
In general, if you were to ask PNW tribal people from First Foods cultures, who gather, fish, or hunt, if
they are farmers, they would say no. Farming came into the PNW with colonization and many tribes were
forced to farm by Indian Agents on reservations, even in climates and geography not suited for foreign
crops. Foreign agriculture has caused devastating harm to tribes in the PNW, tilling under diverse native
vegetation (wild First Food places) and replacing them with monoculture foreign crops. Other issues
include diverting water for irrigation and polluting water quality with siltation, fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides, causing fish kills and increased public health concerns.

5

With this history in mind, there are Native American farmers and gardeners who have adopted modern
agriculture and are contributing to their community’s economy and food security. Pre-contact, Native
American communities in other parts of the continent had traditional farming practices like seasonal dry
land farming and cultivating rare landrace varieties of corn, beans, squash, and other crops. Domesticated
sheep are traditional for tribes in the Southwest and are a staple food and cultural material. Farming was
and is a traditional and cultural practice for tribes of the Southwest, Midwest and East, but this was not
the case for tribes in the Northwest. It should also be noted that all tribes across the United States practice
some form of cultural land management and all tribes practice some form of “wild” food gathering,
fishing and/or hunting.
Economic activity is difficult for many tribes, mostly due to reservations being located far from urban
centers. Therefore, farming is providing subsistence and economic growth for many tribal communities
with a large land base. And with this said, farming and gardening has been adopted by tribal communities
in the Northwest who face similar challenges of rural isolation and food insecurity.
Lastly, the researcher is hesitant to call Northwest First Foods “agriculture”, in part, because of the
association with conventional agriculture, but also because seed saving, moving plants to new areas,
selective breeding, row crops, etc. are not common traditional practices for Pacific Northwest Tribes.
Table 1: Comparing mainstream conventional food system and First Foods’ food system.
What makes First Foods’ food systems different from mainstream conventional food systems?

To see a larger version of Table 1, see Appendix H.

6

Commercialization of First Foods
There are First Foods that have been enveloped in conventional commercial food systems,
such as salmon or corn.
Corn is not a First Food for tribes of the Pacific Northwest because pre-contact ancestors did not grow
corn agriculturally. Any corn would have been obtained via trade with other tribes. Corn is an ancestral
crop for many tribes across the United States, as its use spread north from Mexico thousands of years ago.
The traditional dryland farming techniques of many tribes continue today and rely on seasonal rain,
strategic floodplain land use, limited and locally obtained fertilizer, and diverse seed varieties. Today’s
commercial agriculture produces massive quantities of corn with efficiency, but the corn and the
environment are negatively impacted by over-exploitation, monoculture, GMO seed, and conventional
agriculture practices. Some corn is no longer edible/digestible and is used for other purposes like ethanol.
Commercialization of corn has not led to the preservation of ancient varieties of corn, in fact, it has made
landrace corn cultivation dependent on personal commitment to cultural foods and ancestral varieties, and
landrace corn has become even more expensive to produce. (Thompson, 2017).
Like corn, salmon are another sacred food in Native American culture. To some people, referring to
salmon as simply a food or as a resource would be insulting, because it degrades the sacred relationship
of salmon and humans. Many tribes’ creation stories, traditions and religious practices are directly tied to
First Foods. The reciprocal relationship and responsibility that humans have to live in good relation, is
central to many tribes’ worldview and carried out in cultural protocols to this day.
In the 1800s in the Pacific Northwest, after gold mining extraction–came fish canneries. Canneries
extracted and exported salmon from West Coast coastal rivers until the fishery collapsed due to low fish
returns (Allen, 2006). Commercialization, government policy, non-recognition or un-adjudicated rights,
and sometimes violence have prevented Tribes from being able to fulfill their cultural responsibilities and
to maintain their relationship with salmon and other important aspects of culture as recently as the 1970s
Fishing Wars (KCET, 2016).
Salmon are an example of a First Food that is shared between tribes and has been negatively impacted by
over-exploitation, pollution, dams and other infrastructure. Some tribes who traditionally fished can no
longer access salmon due to dams, high-toxins or die-offs. Today, salmon are negatively impacted by
conventional agriculture through water loss due to irrigation, fertilizer and nutrient run-off from
agriculture, forestry, erosion and dams.
Some Native people may sell First Foods as a way of supporting their work with First Foods, while some
Native people may think that it is taboo to sell First Foods (Tahoma Peak Solutions, 2022). When selling
First Foods is taboo, commercialization is not an option for supporting First Foods work in tribal
communities. For tribes who have been able to maintain access to First Foods, in abundance, engaging in
commerce could be a way for a tribe to generate funds or their Tribal Members to support their cultural
lifestyle. However, it is important to acknowledge that an economic choice that is viable for one
community, may not be a viable choice for another community. The abundant economy and lifeways that
supported First Foods cultures has been disrupted in the wake of colonization, with all tribes experiencing

7

massive loss of First Foods populations. And this is not to say that tribes should not also be able to sell (or
trade) First Foods, as they have done for millennia. And regardless of whether a tribe decides or is able to
sell First Foods, there remains a government role in First Foods and there remains a trust responsibility
that the federal government has to tribes’ and to their First Foods. This paper seeks to call attention to
systems-gaps where tribal governments and First Foods fall outside existing food and agriculture fundingstructures. Tribes should not have to engage in commerce for their First Foods’ food systems to exist and
tribes should not have to compromise their cultural values to financially support their First Foods work.

Policy Inspiration
Native-led organizations are leading policy change efforts and providing technical assistance to American
Indian agriculture producers and tribal governments. The most notable is the Native Farm Bill Coalition
who has been advocating for provisions in the Farm Bill. The Native Farm Bill Coalition is made up of
policy leaders from various tribally-led organizations, tribal governments and Indigenous foods
advocates.
In recent years, the Intertribal Agriculture Council, the Native Farm Bill Coalition, and the Indigenous
Food & Agriculture Initiative have been producing outstanding policy recommendations and advocacy for
Farm Bill provisions for bolstering agriculture in Indian Country. The impact of this advocacy is bringing
more grants and investments to Native producers than ever before. For example, the 2018 Farm Bill
authorized funding for P.L. 93-638 Tribal Self-Governance contracts for forestry management
demonstration projects and authorized FDPIR “638” demonstration projects for food procurement, which
supports local agriculture and tribal farmers.1
For tribes with historic domesticated crop-style agriculture, large land bases and climates suited for
modern agriculture, production of agricultural products and foods is a boon to local economies and
farmers. Some tribes in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) have also adopted modern farming as a way to
increase fresh food availability and build food security. Some Tribal Members are taking it upon
themselves to feed their communities and contribute to local food systems. This work is needed and
necessary for strengthening Native nations.
With this being said, the needs of First Foods differ from that of modern agriculture and policy is needed
to address those gaps. Much of the inspiration for this paper is based on the incredible policy
recommendations developed by the above institutions, and they have laid a path for Food Policy and Food
Systems advocates to dig deeper into the unique needs for diverse tribal communities.

1

To learn more about the Farm Bill provisions achieved by the Native Farm Bill Coalition, see their
publication Gaining Ground: A Report on the 2018 Farm Bill Successes for Indian Country and
Opportunities for 2023 (Parker et al., 2022).
8

International Indigenous Food System Issues and Policy Influence
First Foods needs are mirrored in the international Indigenous food system needs. In 2021, the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations published a report “The White/Wiphala Paper on
Indigenous Peoples’ food systems,” where the FAO outlines “drivers” affecting Indigenous Peoples’ food
systems, some of which include:
● Lack of recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional institutions
● Lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making processes
● Insecurity surrounding access to land, territories and natural resources
● Forced displacement and land grabs
● Educational system without interculturality
● Changing of consumption habits of traditional foods
● Loss of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge and indigenous languages
● Extensive degradation of ecosystems by land clearing, deforestation and extractive industries
● Lack of protection for Indigenous Peoples’ plant genetic resources
● Climate change impacts on food systems
● Environmental pollution and environmental contaminants bioaccumulating in food systems
(FAO, 2021)
As a leader in international policy, the US government has an opportunity to address drivers impacting
First Foods cultures by addressing tribal government funding disparities. And the US government, as an
international policy leader has an opportunity to develop food system policy models that impact
Indigenous peoples around the world.

9

Methodology
This study does not claim to represent any tribal government or speak for Native American people
broadly. Tribal government employees who participated in interviews were given time to review and
comment prior to publication. Any opinions expressed herein should be attributed to the researcher and
any quotes or statements misrepresented or out of context should not reflect negatively on any
interviewee.

Project Scope
Outreach to tribal governments
The researcher limited the outreach to tribal governments due to the complex nature of research with
tribes and the need to obtain research permits and agreements which is an important, but lengthy process.
The researcher’s tribe is located in Oregon, so outreach was made to the researcher’s tribal government as
well as 7 additional tribal governments in proximity to the researcher’s tribe. The researcher was able to
obtain research permits or agreements with a total of 4 tribal governments.
Focus on PNW First Foods
Tribes throughout the Pacific Northwest (PNW) do have similar First Foods, but large differences
between climates going north to south, from coastal climates, valley climates, mountain climates and east
of the Cascade Mountain range there are diverse high-desert climates. First Foods can range between
these climates or have a limited range, for example First Foods that may only occur in a wet or dry
climate. With this in mind, trade is traditional for tribes everywhere, making foods available through
interpersonal distribution networks.
Data collection
Most data will focus on tribes within the United States, with a focus on Oregon, California, and
Washington. Data presented in this report is selected from publicly available databases and publications.

Research Design and Framework
IRB Process
The author submitted an application to the Arizona State University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
which outlined specific interview and confidentiality protocols for the study. Research Permits and
Research Agreements obtained from the tribal governments also passed the Tribal Review as a part of the
ASU IRB process. The IRB determined that the protocol is considered exempt pursuant to Federal
Regulations 45CFR46 (2) Tests, surveys, interviews, or observation on 10/31/2023. The IRB number for
this project is STUDY00017948: Funding of Native American cultural foodways.

10

Permission for research, Tribal Review and data sovereignty
Arizona State University has a Tribal Review process within their Institutional Review Board process,
which is unique from other universities. The Tribal Review protects tribal governments, tribal citizens and
the university from potentially harmful research and fosters positive research consultation and
collaborations between the universities and tribes.
What is data sovereignty2?
The University of Arizona’s Native Nations Institute defines Indigenous data sovereignty as “the
right of a nation to govern the collection, ownership, and application of its own data. It derives
from tribes' inherent right to govern their peoples, lands, and resources” (Native Nations Institute,
n.d.). Each tribal government had their own unique research approval process and the researcher
agreed that the tribal governments would retain rights to the interview data and could withdraw
from the project at any time. The researcher also agreed to interview data sharing for tribes to
retain their own data.
Example of tribal government research policy
The Karuk Tribe has an outstanding research request process and policy that was unique from other tribes
in this study. The Tribe has created a living document called Practicing Píkyav: Policy for Collaborative
Research with the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources (Karuk Tribe, 2021).
The Practicing Píkyav policy outlines protection of the Karuk Tribe’s cultural resources, history,
language, and specifically seeks to limit the expropriation of Traditional Knowledge and prevent
biocolonialism. Researchers seeking to conduct research on the Karuk Tribes are required to read the
policy as a part of the application process. The research application that the researcher fills out then also
reflects the values within the policy. For example, in their research request, a researcher must describe
how their research is of benefit to the Karuk Tribe. This process of managing research requests stands out
because the policy and application leads researchers to reflect on the concept of reciprocity in research.
Practicing Píkyav research policy
The Practicing Píkyav policy is a living document, so researchers should contact the Karuk Tribe
to receive an updated policy. The most recent version available online can be found at:
https://nature.berkeley.edu/karuk-collaborative/?page_id=165
To submit a research request to the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources, apply
through their online research proposal form:
https://airtable.com/appCVg3MoUj7ogQQC/shrXaEG4l7un0Y6sj

2

For more on Data Sovereignty, visit:
https://nni.arizona.edu/our-work/research-policy-analysis/indigenous-data-sovereignty-governance

11

Research Data Framework

Figure 3: Research data framework

Literature Review
The researcher conducted desk research on a broad range of topics to understand how tribal governments
are funded, but less research was available on funding for First Foods. The Intertribal Agriculture
Council, Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of Arkansas, Native Farm Bill
Coalition, and the First Nations Development Institute (FNDI) have the most published data on
Indigenous foods and agriculture. Policy priorities from these organizations have influenced the
researcher’s focus on USDA funding and this paper seeks to add to the policy discourse around PNW
First Foods culture.
The subject area intersection of USDA funding, tribal governments and First Foods is lacking. Often the
literature is focused on environmental issues, but not specifically referencing the funding issues or
funding systems that impact those environmental issues.

12

Primary Data
The primary data source for this study was interviews with tribal governments employees and
representatives and USDA staff that serve or work with tribes. Zoom video conferencing software was
used to conduct virtual interviews and each interview was scheduled for approximately one hour. Second
interviews were scheduled if interviewees wished to share more information.
The 31 interviews were conducted utilizing question templates for general themes and allowing for the
interviewee to share what was important to them related to the topic. For interviews with USDA
representatives, questions were curated based on the programs and funding that fell under their positions.
The author was the sole researcher and interviewer for this project.
Interviews were conducted with USDA staff based in Oregon, California and Washington to discuss
potential funding opportunities for First Foods. Interviews were conducted with 4 tribal government staff,
past-staff, leaders, and representatives.
This interviewee list does not capture the extensive efforts that went into scheduling interviews,
especially with tribal governments.
Interviewee list
This study had a total of 31 interviews, included 22 interviews with tribal government staff, 6 with USDA
staff, and 3 with Non-profit organization staff.
Table 2: Interview list
Tribal staff and representative interviews:
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Karuk Tribe
Klamath Tribes

# of interviews
7
5
4
6

USDA/government staff interviews:
NRCS District Conservationist
NRCS RCPP Coordinator
NRCS State Conservationist (WA)
Forest Service Tribal Relations Specialists (OR/WA and CA)
State Soil and Water Conservation District

# of interviews
1
1
1
2
1

Nonprofit interviews:
Intertribal Agriculture Council
Conservation-focused non-profit organizations

# of interviews
1
2

Declined:
USDA staff declined, did not want to be quoted
NRCS Tribal Relations (CA) - on extended leave

# of interviews
1
1

13

Tribal government participation in interviews
The researcher is enrolled in the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI) and chose to expand the
scope of this study to include other tribes who are leading food sovereignty efforts in the region and are
geographically near and/or have cultural similarities to CTSI. The researcher contacted 8 tribes (4 in
Northern California and 4 in Oregon) to request research participation, and was able to secure research
permits or agreements with a total of 4 tribes. All tribal governments are located in Oregon, except for the
Karuk Tribe, which is located in Northern California northwest of Redding, CA.
Tribal Governments
Tribal Government Headquarters Location
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
OR
Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indians
OR
Karuk Tribe
CA
Klamath Tribes
OR
For more about tribal governments in this study and maps, see Appendix A.
Interviews with tribes provided context and analysis on why current USDA funding systems and funding
opportunities do not adequately translate to the needs of tribal governments and the work needed to
restore First Foods abundance.
● Identify how tribes are funding their First Foods programs
● Identify funding that could be used for First Foods
● Identify barriers or gaps in funding needs
● Identify systemic barriers that may prevent tribal governments from accessing funding, such as
match, cost-share, low maximum award amounts, funding inconsistency, competition, and more.
This research did not include quantitative analysis or comparison data because of the limited scope of this
project and with mindfulness not to compare or contrast tribes. Data presented in this report is selected
from existing publications or publicly available databases. This report is not a full accounting of financial
inequity between conventional food systems and Indigenous food systems, however data was selected to
demonstrate the inequity to the extent that data was easily accessible and publicly available. This report
includes highlights of work being done in tribal communities and the innovative use of funding. This may
include partnerships, grant collaborations, or the impact of policy change on funding for tribal
communities.
This report is also guided by the researcher’s personal experience as an enrolled member of the
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, a past employee of the CTSI tribal government, a First Foods
gatherer, and a community educator.
This report would not be possible without the participation of the tribal government staff who have agreed
to be interviewed for this project. In the process of this study, the researcher has welcomed the tribal
governments to influence the scope and direction of this project. The guidance of tribal councils, staff and
tribal members has been invaluable and sparked conversations, built relationships and generated ideas for
changes we all want to see in the future.

14

Half of the tribes contacted by the researcher are participating in this study. The researcher extended the
project timeline to accommodate the time necessary to obtain permission for research and to give staff
more time to participate. Possible reasons that tribes did not participate include:
● There was a limited timeframe for tribal governments to respond.
● The researcher was not able to connect with a person authorized to approve research.
● As a graduate student project, this research may have been a low priority for tribes.
● Tribal government staff may have had low interest in the study topic.
● Tribal government staff may have felt uncomfortable speaking on this topic.
● Tribal government staff have limited time to address all research inquiries.
● Tribal government may not have a formal research permit process.
● Historic mistrust of academia and other institutions of power due to past exploitation

Secondary Data
Funding sources were identified and selected to be included in this research project using:
● desk research of USDA funding opportunities,
● data on past USDA awards,
● recommendations from interviewees,
● and recommendations from leading food policy organizations.
This research project gleaned data from publicly available websites, such as United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
and Grants.gov.
Table 3: Data analysis color coding indicates the likelihood
of funding going to a tribal community.
Data analysis of funding available
to tribal governments
The researcher conducted desk
research on funding opportunities
from the USDA. Funding
opportunities were selected based
on recommendations from
interviews or based on the
researcher’s assessment of their
applicability to First Foods.
Throughout the report, award data
is presented to indicate funding that
was either awarded to tribal
governments, tribal organizations or
awardees claiming to serve or
partner with tribes. Table 3
demonstrates color coding that will
be used throughout the report. Note
that the dark green color indicates

15

funding that went directly to tribal governments. The light green color indicates funding that likely went
to a tribal population. The white colors indicate that an awarded project claimed to serve Indigenous
people, but it is unclear if funding went to tribes or a tribal population. These projects may claim
affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”, “Native
Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, “Alaska Native
landowners”, but more research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial
funding would be directed to tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian
organizations or peoples.

16

Chapter 1 - Tribal Government
Funding
Economic Context
The sustainable food practices and thriving food economies that tribes have enjoyed for millennia, came
to a sudden and forced halt during colonization, forced removal and environmental degradation. The
impoverishment and hunger that tribes face today is due directly to the prejudice that has kept Native
American people and tribal governments from access and control of their food systems. As this paper
discusses the funding needs of tribal governments, it is important that readers are aware of the wealthtransfer that continues to take place on the ancestral homelands of tribes across the US. Tribal lands,
economies and First Foods did not disappear, they have been transferred out of the hands of tribes to the
wealth and economies of non-Native people.
In order to understand funding gaps for First Foods, it is essential to understand that the US government is
still currently in a long process of revising systems that have long excluded Native American people and
tribal governments. Many federal agencies are still in their infancy of integrating tribal governments into
their funding structures. Tribal governments are not dependent on the US government, they have been
deprived of their wealth and now the US government has a trust responsibility to tribal governments. This
chapter provides an overview on the US government’s relationship with tribal governments and the
funding mechanisms that have been created in the past few decades to honor that relationship and
obligation.

US Trust Responsibility to Tribes
The US government has a trust responsibility to tribal governments which includes a fiduciary
responsibility to tribes regarding their cultural resources and First Foods. The federal Indian trust
responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral
obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States,
1942)” (Indian Affairs, 2017).
Trust responsibility is established in treaties, statutes and historical relations with the obligation to protect
and support Native nations. “Treaties between the federal government and American Indian tribes set out
the duties and responsibilities that the federal government owes to a particular tribe. Treaties can cover
issues such as land boundaries, hunting and fishing rights, and guarantees of peace” (Library of Congress,
n.d.). Whether a tribe has a treaty, unratified treaty, or no treaty, the US government’s trust responsibility
is to all federally recognized tribes.

17

The Federal Government as a whole has trust, treaty and other obligations to Tribes
Often leaders and staff at federal agencies assume that tribal governments receive adequate and sustained
funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and assume that it is solely the BIA that is
responsible for all issues relating to tribes. However, the “Federal Government as a whole carries out
trust, treaty and other obligations to Tribes. Over 20 Federal departments and agencies collectively
provide a full range of Federal programs to American Indians and Alaska Natives similar to those
provided to the general public, but with a recognition of the special relationship between Indian Tribes
and the Federal Government, which is expressed in terms of legal duties and moral obligations” (BIA
2023).
In the book The State of Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-Determination, the
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development describes how during the initial century of
moving tribes to reservations, the federal government essentially ran reservations and the affairs of tribes.
Funding and services were managed “First through the War Department and eventually through agents
[appointed through] the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Department
of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service (IHS), the federal government ran schools,
provided health care, provided the law enforcement, administered all manner of welfare programs, leased
lands, and managed resources on reservations. Tribal governments and tribal citizens had little, if any,
input into the design of these programs” (Kalt et al., 2008, p. 20).
Since the 1960s, funding mechanisms for tribal governments have changed dramatically with assertion of
rights, court decisions and explicit legislation by the federal government in a long road to tribal selfdetermination (Kalt et al, 2008). During the 1970s and into the 1990s, legislation directing funding to
tribal governments has increased health and economic stability in tribal communities.

Tribal Government funding through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA)
Compacting and Contracting
Today, the primary mission of “Indian Affairs”, meaning the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau
of Indian Education, the Bureau of Trust Fund Administration, and the Office of the Assistant SecretaryIndian Affairs, is to honor the Nation’s trust, treaty, and other responsibilities to American Indians and
Alaska Natives and improve the quality of life in Indian Country (BIA, 2023).
“Indian Affairs plays a primary role in fulfilling the Administration’s commitments to
Tribal Nations by carrying out Federal trust, treaty, and other responsibilities serving 574
federally recognized Tribes with a service population of nearly 2 million American
Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal and native communities nationwide. Indian Affairs
provides direct services and funding to Tribes through the contracting and selfgovernance compacting processes authorized under Public Law 93-638, the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, for Tribes to
manage a wide range of activities. Programs address community services, restore Tribal

18

homelands, fulfill commitments related to water and other resource rights, execute
fiduciary trust responsibilities, support the stewardship of energy and other natural
resources, and create economic opportunity” (BIA, 2023).
Today, in tribal governments Public Law 93-638 is often referred to as simply “638”. Operating much
like an ordinary contract for service provision in fulfillment of a federal mandate or policy, tribal
governments are able to agree to administer a particular program and the associated federal funds are
transferred to the tribal government, via a “638 contract.” (Kalt et al., 2008). While PL 93-638 is of great
benefit to tribes being able to have control of federal government services and resources, it does have
limitations because it imposes the federal government’s spending priorities on tribes, burdens tribal
administration switch federal program compliance, guidelines and reporting requirements.
In response to shortcomings of PL 93-638, the federal government enacted the Tribal Self-Governance
Demonstration Project Act in 1988, followed by the Tribal Self-Governance Act in 1994 “that allowed
tribes to ‘compact’ with the federal government under a flexible arrangement similar to block grants
distributed in other areas of federal allocations. In contrast to 638 contracts, which occur on a programby-program basis, compacts allow a tribe to receive a lump sum payment from the federal government for
all services that a tribe chooses to manage, which can range from just one program to a combination of
several programs. Tribal governments can then reallocate funds across the range of compacted services
that they administer. In this way, Native nations are better able to adapt the provision of services in
response to tribal priorities, needs, and changing conditions” (Kalt et al., 2008, p.21).
Contracting and compacting have become popular funding mechanisms for tribal governments and tools
in which they can expand the scope of their sovereignty and increase their ability to respond to the needs
of their citizens. “Tribes that have contracts and compacts with the federal government have found that
success in administering and managing programs is a result, in part, of tribal governments’ inherently
closer ties and, hence, responsiveness to local conditions. Tribal leaders and officials are more familiar
with the needs of their communities and more attuned to changes within these communities then Federal
administrators. tribal governments are also better able than the federal government to deliver culturally
appropriate services, or to deliver services in more culturally appropriate ways, to their citizens” (Kalt et
al., 2008, p.21-22).
Underfunding of trust responsibilities
According to the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, underfunding is an
undercurrent that prevents the federal government from addressing its trust responsibilities. With the
transfer of service and program control to tribal governments, the authority of funding still rests with the
federal government, meaning that self-determination and self-governance contracting and compacting
mechanisms continue to fall short of meeting the federal government’s trust responsibility to tribes.
Severe funding restrictions and shortfalls limit the scale and types of services that tribes can offer. “Since
the mid-1970s, the shift in federal policy toward tribal self-determination and self-government has
improved the intergovernmental relationship between tribes and the federal government. However, Indian
nations remain concerned that federal programs that support tribes are chronically underfunded by
Congress” (Kalt et al., 2008, p.53).

19

While the US government as a whole has a trust responsibility to tribes, “The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) is the primary federal agency charged with carrying out the United States’ trust responsibility to
American Indian and Alaska Native people, maintaining the federal government-to-government
relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes, and promoting and supporting tribal selfdetermination. The bureau implements federal laws and policies and administers programs established for
American Indians and Alaska Natives under the trust responsibility and the government-to-government
relationship” (BIA, n.d. FAQ). Because the BIA is identified as the leader in trust responsibilities, other
federal agencies have overlooked trust responsibilities from their scope of work and budgets.
Increasingly, other federal agencies are realizing their obligation to tribes and creating funding
opportunities directed to tribal governments, often in the form of short-term grants.
Inadequate base-funding limits tribal government grant capacity
Tribal governments are known to be generally underfunded and therefore have fewer staff to address the
needs of their communities. Tribal governments do their best to meet the needs of their communities and
need additional funding to increase their staffing and capacity. Some tribal governments have limited
organizational capacity, such as accounting staff or evaluation staff needed to administer grants that have
high levels of complexity or funding restrictions. Tribal governments require increased staffing due to the
high demands of government administration, including human resources, contracts, expending grant
funds, tracking budgets, carrying out reporting requirements, outreach, planning, communication,
partnerships, and planning and hosting community educational events and programs. These staff need to
be skilled and long-term employees who have the trust of the tribal community, capable of building
partnerships, able to navigate tribal bureaucracy and federal policies.
Below is an example of how the lack of base administrative funding for tribal governments limits a tribe’s
capacity to manage grants. In this case, the grant was funding First Foods staff.
Funding is a boon, but can be a burden when tribal governments are underfunded
The researcher had identified Administration for Native Americans (ANA) funding as
being a potential resource for one of the tribal governments, but during interviews with
Natural Resources staff, they shared that they received an ANA grant only to realize that
their accounting department was not going to be able to administer the grant due to the
high level of requirements set by ANA. The department staff had to absorb the labor to
meet the level of reporting required by ANA, which took staff away from other important
work.
The underfunding of baseline tribal administrations, reduces the overall capacity of tribal
governments to bring in additional funding resources, especially if those funding sources
are highly restrictive or require high levels of reporting. The taxing experience of
administering the ANA funding led the department to choose not to reapply for the
funding. Having funding available does not make it a viable solution on the ground for all
tribes.
Ironically, ANA funding is specifically for tribes, so this funding should be easier for
tribes to access and administrative barriers should be reduced.

20

First Foods Funding Gap
The US government has an obligation to uphold treaty access to First Foods and tribal governments are
the heirs of those treaties. Treaty Rights are held by tribal governments, not by individual citizens of
tribes. The tribal government is the holder and protector of those Treaty Rights; and tribal members
obtain those rights through their enrollment as a tribal member at the discretion of how the tribal
government manages the use of those rights.

USDA Funding Gap: Tribal Governments
While tribal governments are the best placed governments to lead food system resiliency for their
communities, the USDA has historically excluded Native American citizens from access to funding and
has segregated tribal governments from funding that funnels to other state and regional governments. The
US government needs tribal governments to be integrated into USDA and other federal agency funding
systems to ensure that tribes have First Foods for future generations. Tribal governments need funding to
improve landscape-scale ecosystems, restore First Foods abundance, increase economic stability and
wellbeing, improve health outcomes, and ensure cultural continuity.
The argument could be made that cultural continuity is not the function of government, that it is the
responsibility of families and individuals to care to learn about their culture, religion, ceremonies,
language, etc. It is true that there is a responsibility on families and especially individuals to keep
traditions and learn culture. However, the trust responsibility that the US government has to federally
recognized tribes is forever. Tribal governments do have a role in upholding Treaty Rights of citizens,
representing citizens’ interests in government-to-government consultation, managing cultural resources,
and seeking restitution from environmental harm to cultural resources and First Foods–all which impact
cultural continuity and food sovereignty.
Examples of issues of concern for tribal governments:
● Research on First Foods
● Seed sovereignty - seeks to address is the ownership of seeds as a larger majority of seeds are
becoming property of several major agricultural/seed corporations (FNDI, n.d.).
● Mapping of cultural resources (archeological, food, basketry materials, etc.)
● Data sovereignty and protection of cultural resources
● Environmental pollution
● Preventing over-harvesting and exploitation
● and much more.

Funding for First Foods is rare
Some tribal governments may receive some limited funding from the BIA for Natural Resources,
Agriculture and Range, Forestry, Water, Fisheries, etc. However, not all tribal governments receive the
same access to funding and the tribal governments who do have access, often are still underfunded. Tribal

21

governments are not the same, they have different Treaties and have different legal standings, with
different access to funding.
Through intergovernmental agreements, some tribal governments have been successful at receiving
funding that they can put toward Natural Resource, Cultural Resource, First Foods, however this funding
may be very limited and specific on how it may be used. The intergovernmental agreements or mitigation
funds never meet the damages inflicted on First Foods cultures and ecosystems, so the work that tribes
have ahead of them is greater than mitigation can repair.
First Foods is not an area that receives BIA self-governance funding, so tribal governments must make
tough decisions on how to divide the funding between vital services. Tribal governments and tribal
citizens have to get creative when it comes to funding work around First Foods. Many tribal citizens are
self-funded, entrepreneurs, sometimes teaching and working free of charge for the benefit of their
communities. Many First Foods leaders are elders.
Currently, there is limited consistent funding available specifically for First Foods that tribal governments
can rely on. Often the funding amount is limited and grants are short-term, competitive, require extensive
applications and reporting, or don’t apply to the needs of First Foods. Cheryl Shippentower from the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) talked about how funding was needed
for everything related to restoring First Foods. “Funding projects that are important for cultural plants,
culturally important plant resources... There's not much [funding] out there for that, and if there is, it's
super competitive. We've unsuccessfully applied in the past to expand First Food work, but there's a
limited amount of funding for First Food work. I just think there needs to be more funding available for
First Foods, the cultural plant work, whether it's restoration or it's monitoring. In the future, I hope to see
more available funding for Tribes that's specifically directed for First Food work” (Cheryl Shippentower,
personal communication, March 5, 2024).

22

Chapter 2 - Tribal Government
Interview Data
This study seeks to identify specific needs that tribal governments have for funding work to support First
Foods and how those needs may be different from conventional funding. As governments, tribal
governments will have perpetual funding needs for First Foods land management, monitoring, research,
cultural resources, cultural education, nutrition, outreach and consultation.
During the interviews conducted with tribal governments, the major themes discussed include:
● Tribal Government Capacity
● Cultural Resources and NEPA
● Outreach, Education and Workforce Development
● Access to First Foods
● and Other Needs.
With self-governance funding, tribal governments can customize how they allocate funding to address
needs that are specific to their cultural and community needs. However, because self-governance funding
is limited, there is little room for customization or expansion beyond basic department functions. Selfgovernance funding is extremely limited because of low appropriations that have not kept up with
inflation.
In the absence of adequate self-governance funding, tribal governments must look to grants, foundations,
and tribal businesses to supplement and bridge the funding gap. Tribal businesses, such as casinos or
healthcare facilities, provide much needed flexible funding to address the unique funding needs such as
Cultural Resources and First Foods. However, the largest revenue sources for tribes often are grants. And
how funding agencies choose to allocate funding, greatly impacts tribal government capacity, impacts the
protection of Cultural Resources, Treaty Rights, and impacts cultural continuity. The Biden
administration is making important investments in rural, underserved, and tribal communities, but this
project seeks to examine funding as a system that impacts tribal government stability beyond the current
administration.

Funding impacts Organizational Charts
Each tribal government who participated in this study organized their tribal administrations differently
around First Foods.
● The CTUIR organized their entire Department of Natural Resources (DNR) around their cultural
protocols and First Food order.
● The CTSI housed their Healthy Traditions program within their tribal clinic and other staff from
the Education, Culture and Natural Resources Departments also contributed to First Foods
education.

23

●

●

The Klamath Tribes do not have a First Foods program within the tribal government, however,
they have a volunteer committee working on community organizing around First Foods and
agriculture.
The Karuk Tribe’s Food Sovereignty program is housed within their Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), but has an additional Food Security role.

Funding sources greatly impact how First Foods work is being organized. For example, the Karuk Tribe
has experienced growth in the past two decades which has enabled the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to start the Píkyav Field Institute within their Department of Natural Resources. The Píkyav Field
Institute (Píkyav) states their overarching goal is “to expand Tribal capacity within the department and
build upon our partnerships with collaborating academic institutions to address identified program needs
for a dedicated environmental education program, supporting traditional and western scientific knowledge
to inform and augment long-term co-management within Karuk ancestral homelands” (Karuk Tribe, n.d.).
Píkyav is interdisciplinary and includes work with First Foods, which within the Karuk Tribe, is also
referred to as Food Sovereignty. The work in Food Sovereignty is also interdisciplinary and as the
workload has expanded, Food Sovereignty is splitting off into its own program. However, strict funding
restrictions and reporting requirements impact the DNR's ability to organize their workload and staffing.
Numerous funding sources are supporting work within the Department of Natural Resources, Píkyav
Field Institute and Food Sovereignty. Meeting grant deliverables has been challenging when the
department is growing and funding is being shared across multiple positions. One of the largest grants
they received has had such large reporting requirements, that it has made the staff decide that the funding
is not worth the intense reporting labor that has been absorbed by the Department.
Funding agencies dedicated to Native American communities can also have funding restrictions or
overburden tribal governments with reporting requirements, making grant facilitation a challenge. Deputy
Director Neva Gibbens (Karuk Tribe) explained how the increased workload within the Department of
Natural Resources meant that they needed to split programs to hire more staff to accomplish the work.
Neva Gibbens explained how funding sources that required strict, detailed tracking of expenses and
workload made the work on the ground more challenging. “I think this [redacted] grant, covering things
that are both in Food Sovereignty and in Píkyav, has made the split of the two programs a lot more
challenging. Because as it became unsustainable for the Program Manager to do it all, we realized things
needed to split, and we needed to make it two programs. Because [the staff] were all under one funding
source, with matching deliverables, and that has made it really challenging to figure out where those clear
lines are, and how to continue meeting those deliverables, with different ideas of what the staffing should
look like. And for a lot of our development right now, we are looking at these organizational charts, and
figuring out how to map things out to meet the growth that we're having, and how to flex funding and
split up funding to cover different positions, so that we can actually do all the work” (Neva Gibbens,
personal communication, January 17, 2024).

First Foods are interdisciplinary and require the consolidation of multiple funding sources.
Many programs expressed that their work is interdisciplinary and that means that they need staff to
coordinate across different departments and programs.

24

The Karuk Tribe said that they need more staff to focus on Food Sovereignty specifically. Currently, their
Food Sovereignty program staff are split between Food Security (Hunger) and Food Sovereignty (First
Foods work), which are two different goals. “There are such closely tied programs, like Intergenerational
Learning and Food Sovereignty, which are so tied together. But it's too big to be one program, so they
need to separate out. But they're all still within the Píkyav Field Institute and the overarching goals of
that. Yes, so just figuring out how it works, to break things out, but still be connected, and [assessing]
what's going to be sustainable and not like overloading anybody [on staff with too much workload]”
(Neva Gibbens, personal communication, January 17, 2024).
Funding that requires strict tracking and restricts cross-departmental collaboration makes interdisciplinary
or collaborative programs more difficult to organize. Strict funding forces programs to follow a funding
agency’s model and constricts programs from being responsive to developing community needs or
exploring growth opportunities.

Tribes need base funding for First Foods management
There is a general absence of base funding available to tribal governments for First Foods programs.
Much of that funding is focused on ecological issues and short-term grant-based. There was differing
organizational capacity for each tribal government, however base funding is a need for every tribe who
participated in this study.
“Now it takes a lot of work on our part as a tribe, you know–How do you follow
the money?... And one of the things I've seen is that the tribes that are pretty
savvy have actually established positions, entities that really follow the money
well. You know, they've been able to tap into those. But the problem, as I see it,
with grant funding is it’s not base. What I call base funding. And we get a
program, we start it, and our ability to sustain that over a period of time
usually goes away quickly. The funding runs out. And if you haven't figured
out during that period you did have funding, a way of using that money to create
a longer revenue stream—What happens? The people you hired are unemployed
and they're out looking for another job. And it's hard for our tribes to attract
the kind of talent we want, when somebody knows that they're going to be
working off of grant funding. Anybody that has any knowledge or any smarts
will know that, well, the likelihood that a year, 2, maybe 3 years, this grant is
gone. Then what am I going to do at that point? You know, is this program even
going to be in existence at that point?”
(Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March 18, 2024).

25

First Foods Funding Need:
Better funding mechanisms for First Foods
Tribal governments are governments, they are not businesses or nonprofits, but often they are in
competition with these other groups who have revenue or charitable donations to supplement their
funding. Some tribes have protected Treaty Rights to First Foods, however, a tribe having Treaty Rights
does not guarantee funding for the enforcement or protection of Treaty Rights. And tribes have also been
forced to litigate to protect Treaty Rights and prevent extinction of treaty resources.
The USDA has been expanding the definition of agriculture to extend to First Foods, however, the USDA
funding systems are built around domesticated crop agriculture, and are not built for tribal governments or
First Foods. Several interviewees expressed that they do not see First Foods as agriculture and that the
needs of First Foods are very different from agricultural systems. Funders who misunderstand project
proposals for First Foods may under-rate the innovation or importance of a project proposal, leading to
projects potentially being overlooked and not being awarded. First Foods base funding for tribal
governments is not currently available through the USDA.

26

Funding Need Theme: Capacity
The most common funding need expressed by participants was capacity funding or capacity building
funding. Funding inconsistency, inflexibility, restrictions and low levels of funding are barriers that limit
the capacity for all tribal governments in this study. Funding for staffing, including higher level
management positions were common needs. Funding stability and longevity would support every tribal
government's ability to make progress toward First Foods goals.
It was recommended by several interviewees that identifying new sources of funding would be better than
advocating within the tribal government to redirect self-governance or tribal funds to First Foods. There
were interviewees who expressed that they do not have staff capacity to seek additional funding at this
time, but they hope to be able to do that in the future.

Consistent Funding
Consistent, sustainable funding is needed for tribal governments to be able to address long-term
environmental issues impacting First Foods, ongoing threats to First Foods such as the Climate Crisis, and
restore subsistence populations to species on the brink of extinction. Much of the work being done by
tribes in this study is funded with short-term grants that are inadequate to meet the workload and leave
tribal communities jumping from one funding agency grant to another funding agency grant to maintain
staffing within their programs.
Restoring species that have been extirpated from the region for over 100 years.
Klamath Tribes’ Natural Resources Specialist Don Gentry: "We're trying to get
salmon restored up here again… But it's just again, this comes down to how we're
going to fund this. Who's going to do it? Where is the funding going to be
sustainable? What have we taken on? And just to even explore the opportunity takes
quite a bit of commitment and resources. So yeah, lots of opportunity. But you know,
the capacity to take it full advantage of it is just--I feel like we've missed opportunity
because we haven’t had the capacity to just really take it on"
(Don Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Capacity Need:
Long-term funding structure, rather than grant-to-grant funding.
Several tribal government interviewees described the “boom-and-bust-cycle” of funding and how tribal
governments have difficulty accessing the boom funding. Overall, tribal governments have limited
capacity to search for new funding opportunities, evaluate funding opportunities, or apply to new funding
opportunities. Tribal government staff who write grants are often grant funded themselves and have
limited capacity to contribute to additional fundraising or grant writing.

27

“We're in such a grant system to where we have to keep our focus on what's in front
of us, instead of really trying to look into the future... And that's kind of the way the
government has us structured is that we're so focused on administration and how to do
this and that. But we don't think about 5 years from now, you know... Yeah, funding is
a big part of that. It has to be something [that] gets us to a point that it's sustainable.
There's not very much funding that gets us to sustainability.”
(Les Anderson, personal communication, March 6, 2023).
Consistent funding was described as being formula-based, passthrough or tribal set-aside structures.
When funding was directed specifically for their tribe, it reduced the labor of applications and reduced the
risk of investing staff time on competitive grant funding that may not get awarded.

First Foods Capacity Need:
Larger funding amounts to reduce piecemeal funding for programs and projects.
When asked about primary funding sources that are supporting their Food Sovereignty program, Colleen
Rossier, Senior Research and Policy Advisor for the Karuk Tribe, discussed a need for ongoing funding:
“When you say primary [funding sources], the thing is it's very piecemeal. I mean, what we're talking
about now, just like sustainable funding and having to go after all these competitive grants, and having to
apply for them, manage them all, having different requirements and cycles is a huge, huge challenge.
There are a number of grants we haven't even talked about that we are also utilizing…ARPA funding,
that's definitely another big source of funding for some of the infrastructure on the farm this year. It's not
going to be again, like an ongoing [funding source]. But getting ongoing funding for the program is
definitely challenging.” (Colleen Rossier, personal communication, December 13, 2023).
Mike Kennedy, CTSI Director of Natural Resources Department:
“The EPA funding is probably the only one that I've ever seen that is more geared
towards…what they call it is capacity building, but it's gone beyond that. It supports
that program, you know. We would not have that program if it wasn't for that
funding and it's pretty much guaranteed every year. They tell you how much is
available for your tribe, and you just need to put in the budget, and file paperwork for
it. Most other grants are very specifically project funded. They want to know, what
are you going to do with this money? How long will it take to complete it? And then,
once it's done, it's done. That's the end of that grant.”
(Mike Kennedy, personal communication, October 23, 2023).

First Foods Capacity Need:
Grant writing.
In this study, none of the tribal government departments working on First Foods had grant writers in their
departments. The department staff wrote grants to support their own positions and the positions on their
teams. Two of the tribes used contractual grant writing, which they said had been successful.
28

To even begin working on First Foods issues, tribal governments need increased capacity to even apply
for new funding and that is a major limitation for at least 2 of the tribes in the study.
Don Gentry, the Klamath Tribes’ Natural Resources Specialist, described that the tribal government is
seeking “funding that’s flexible to provide sustainable infrastructure for what we need and to fulfill our
goals with the least red tape, and obstacles, and administrative hurdles that we have to go through. And I
mean, that's a job just trying to figure out how to navigate one particular Federal Agency on funding. And
then they're different, you know? And so I mean, it takes specialists to kind of work through that. Even to
develop the master stewardship agreement (with the Forest Service), that's a pretty complex agreement.
There's a lot of things that have to be considered, a lot of back and forth between us and the Forest
Service” (Don Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Capacity Need:
Equitable tribal-capacity in new legislation.
Chris Marks, CTUIR Water Policy Analyst, described how states can make a big difference in tribal
government capacity, “For instance, the States sometimes gets a big influx of cash… Well, it's really
hard [for Tribes] to take advantage of it, because it doesn't come with a lot of capacity funding for
anybody to build up, to provide meaningful engagement and actually be able to use that funding. We
struggle sometimes and so there's a lot of money left on the table. There's a lot of money that could go
further” (Chris Marks, personal communication, November 20th, 2023).
Marks continued with an example from Washington State, “Every time you see some State agencies or
Federal agencies really staff up, you almost need to see that same thing with the tribal governments.
Because we can't be good partners, we can't monitor their work, we can't inform their work, unless
we have that same capacity. …With Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, they were identifying lots
of funding going out the door for renewable projects, renewable energy projects, and whatnot. Tribes,
especially the Puget Sound Tribes, immediately went in and said, ‘Hey, if you're going to go down this
path and if you want the tribes to be meaningfully engaged and support this process, you're going to have
to help us staff up as well.’ And they did. They built in a tribal-capacity component within that
legislation. And so we were able to get some funding to build capacity within the CTUIR to engage in the
Washington process. That's a standard I would love to see more” (Chris Marks, personal communication,
November 20th, 2023).
Funding consistency is an issue for all tribes
Tribes have different capacity depending on how their treaties were negotiated, if their tribe was targeted
by Termination, and their history with how the U.S. settlement funding supplements grant funding,
however it is not an option for all tribes.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation has the largest Natural Resources department
of all the tribal governments interviewed are roughly equally funded by grants and contracts, with staff
writing their own grants. Their staff have to manage multiple grants and contracts to fund their work. And
staff still have funding needs, because grant funding often does not cover the full scope of work needed

29

for supporting First Foods. Audie Huber, CTUIR Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, shared,
“Umatilla has more [funding] resources than most Tribes to fund these projects, in part, because of our
grants and contracts, as well as work with BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). Funding from BPA,
funding from various other entities, and we have a long track record of doing this work well. And many
other Tribes just don't have the funding really to do this. I mean, take our work for Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act work, that's something the Tribe has to dedicate its own money
for, because the grants for it are very limited and focused. But in order to stay involved in the entire
process, it takes a lot of effort and funding. Many tribes, I think, that could benefit most, don't have this
dedicated staff due to the nature of the grants available. And really getting that funding to the tribes for
that dedicated staff is an important step that could be provided by agencies such as NRCS, Forest
Service, BLM, and other land managing agencies that have been impacting these First Foods for a
long time.” (Audie Huber, personal communication, March 14, 2024)
Tribes entering into intergovernmental agreements, like CTUIR and BPA, is one example of a funding
route that tribes could pursue through their Tribal Councils. However, it should be noted that mitigation
funding in general, whatever the source, is never adequate to fully repair harm. Funding to repair
environmental and cultural harm is important for tribes to be able to heal their ecosystems, but integrating
tribal governments in funding systems is the best route for creating funding stability and sustainability.
Litigation is also not always the best way for tribal governments to get justice or compensation. The
Klamath Tribes have had multiple setbacks including the Dawes Act and Termination (see Appendix A
for more detail about these federal policies), which led to the loss of the Klamath Reservation. The
Klamath Tribes were able to win a legal case re-affirming their Treaty Rights. However, legal barriers in
place prevent the Klamath Tribes from being able to receive any compensation or mitigation funding
from dam construction which extirpated salmon from their homelands (Don Gentry, personal
communication, February 21, 2024). Today, Tribal Members who are volunteering on an ad hoc First
Foods and Agriculture Committee are seeking to organize the Klamath Tribes around First Foods and
address the needs of their membership. The committee currently does not receive any funding or
administrative support and is volunteer only.

Staffing Funding
Each of the tribal governments who participated in this study described how their work on First Foods
was limited by a lack of sustained funding for staff. Many interviewees said that they were accomplishing
a large workload with existing funding, but they could do more if they had more funding.

First Foods Staffing Need:
Funding for consistent staffing levels, employee retention and advancement.
Many of the positions that are required in programs require high levels of experience and education, but
the pay scale is comparatively low compared to the cost of living. Tribes in rural areas also have a lack of
housing and this was mentioned specifically by 2 tribes in the study. Attracting staff to rural areas was
also a barrier, since many young workers build their careers away from tribal communities and swaying
experienced workers to relocate away from cities is a challenge. “Yeah, there's a long-term trend [of

30

difficulty retaining staff]. We had a couple of big retirements recently, and staff that had been here for a
really long time, but left some really key positions and have not been able to fill them successfully. And a
part of it is because of where we're at, we are so rural, there is no housing. And so trying to bring people
in for these positions that really require, like a lot of background, experience or education—we don't have
enough of a draw. And honestly, our pay scales need to improve” (Neva Gibbens, personal
communication, January 17, 2024).
Funding needs to scale with the size of ancestral homelands
Tribal headquarters are central organizing points, but tribal governments need to be able to serve tribal
families throughout their ancestral territories and conduct work on land throughout their ancestral
territories. Some tribal communities may be located hour(s) distance from each other, making program
delivery challenging if staff are only located near a tribal headquarters.
The Karuk Tribe’s ancestral lands extend over 1 million acres, so they are seeking to grow their
Department of Natural Resources to be able to manage land across a large area that extends into two
National Forests. “The DNR is located in Orleans, which is the smallest of our 3 main communities.
We're on the most southern edge of our aboriginal territory. So the majority of our work does happen
here, because this is where our office is, this is where it started. We are working to expand into the other
areas. And there is some work happening, especially in Happy Camp. But just because we haven't had the
capacity to grow our staff or to secure office space in those areas, it's hard for us to expand up there. And
like, especially with the food program in particular, we keep getting pushed to start doing more things in
Happy Camp and Yreka. But Yreka is two and a half hours away. So it's not an easy drive for someone to
just go up there, and work on a farm or do a workshop or anything. So we need to be able to have staff
that lives there. And then we would need to be able to have supervision for that staff that lives there. And
then how that all ties back down to the programs that are based here in Orleans, that's a whole other thing
that we haven't figured out yet. So we are able to do workshops here and there, up in those areas. Our
programs like the forestry program and our fire and fuels program, they do a fair amount of work up in
Happy Camp in particular” (Neva Gibbens, personal communication, January 17, 2024).

First Foods Staffing Need:
Funding for First Foods traditional educators, knowledge-keepers and elders.
Oftentimes, the people in tribal communities with the most knowledge of First Foods are elders and
people who grew up in tribal communities who may not have had the opportunity to attain higher
education. These Tribal Members have knowledge of cultural places, plants, weather, language, and
cultural protocols that has been gained through experience with culture, multiple elders, and time on
landscapes. These Tribal Members are the people who are looked by researchers for what is called
Traditional Ecological Knowledge, but they are often expected to provide their consultation for free or
small honorariums. The knowledge that they carry is invaluable to tribes and tribal governments and they
deserve to be compensated as the professionals and consultants that they are. They are the experts in their
field.

31

First Foods Staffing Need:
Long-term funding is needed to support the growth of tribal government staffing.
Short-term grant funding is not an option for tribal governments who do not want to offer a short-term
program that could disappear in a few years. Some tribes may choose not to apply for funding that is
short-term because they need long-term staff who will be able to maintain services to tribal communities.
Capacity-building-funding needs to be followed with sustained-capacity-funding. Funding sources that
expire and are nonrenewable cause programs to close down, staff loss and frustration within the
community who expect consistency from their tribal government, if not increased capacity.
Alissa Lane-Keene, CTSI Education & Cultural Programs Director:
“Things that I go for in funding are the things that I believe to have longevity. So
when you have this short grant or something that's just kind of being offered, but
doesn't have any hope for it to be renewed—those are difficult to want to go for.
Where they leave the Tribe with having received funding brought on a staff person,
maybe that person has done a dynamic job, and then the funding just goes away, and
it's not available for tribes anymore. What I really appreciate that the State [Oregon]
does again, is that set-aside funds, so funds that are for the 9 Tribes [of Oregon].
There's still an application process, you follow all of the same procurement. But
they're intended more for growth, not just to get you started and then it goes away. So
when I'm looking for funding, I'm looking for that longevity and looking for
something that is going to grow with us. So in years 1 and 2, it's the building blocks.
In years 3 and 4, they want to see the program or the position progress. Those are the
things that I look for as a Director, because it provides us stability, not just with the
staff and the department, but also the community we serve. It's really hard to offer
something to folks and then take it away”
(Alissa Lane-Keene, personal communication, December 11, 2023).

First Foods Staffing Need:
Staffing at all levels is needed for First Foods work, from education, to workforce development, to
project managers, to higher-level leadership positions.
Funding for restoration activities is available, however, the staffing to help plan and lead programs and
projects is limited. Alta Harris, Klamath Tribes’ Environmental Coordinator, “I think that there is a lot of
funding right now for actual restoration activities and even for First Food development, those [funds] are
available. One of the things that we are really challenged with, in building out capacity in these programs,
is funding for higher-level positions and also filling those. I think that moving forward with programs
with universities to make sure that Tribal Members are pointed at the right kind of education, that could
help them to prepare to fill these positions would be good. But also just having the long term funding to
fill higher-level program-building positions is a challenge. I think that there is money, but it is short
term and it doesn't really attract folks to come and stay and build new programs. That's a challenge,
right now” (Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

32

“One of our biggest bottlenecks right now is administrative support and higherlevel Project Managers. We recently applied for some funding with NOAA for
capacity building for tribes, and what we requested was 4 or 5 new positions for just
project managers to kind of oversee restoration efforts, or any kind of an enclosed
project... We need a project manager to follow it through any large scale restoration
projects. So more kind of higher-level management, project-design is probably our
biggest challenge right now to fund and to fill. And then that administrative side of
things again, is just a real challenge. And I think especially in Natural Resources it's a
challenge, because we don't always necessarily need regular grant administrators or
regular finance type positions. I mean, for this Master Stewardship Agreement that
we're working on, that's a really complex funding mechanism. It involves agreements,
and then there's supplemental agreements that fund individual projects. So to actually
follow that through and make sure that it is fully benefiting the tribe is really
important, and it would require someone dedicated to that and those kind of positions
are very difficult to fill”
(Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Staffing Need:
Positions within the tribal government to gather for the community.
Garin Riddle, Klamath Tribes’ NAGPRA Specialist (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act), had recently attended a Tribal Food Sovereignty Summit in the Pacific Northwest and shared his
experience, "And I think one of the ideas that came up when I was at the summit was talking about being
able to hire our own people to go out and to gather. I mean, we hire people to go out and cut wood for
our elders. We hire people to go out and to get deer, elk for our elders. Of course, the elders don't pay for
that. That's some kind of stipend that comes from our people. But what if we were to have a crew that
went out and gather traditional foods to be able to give to the commodities program" (Garin Riddle,
personal communication, March 12, 2024).

First Foods Staffing Needs:
Tribal land staffing equivalency to other government agencies, like rangers or enforcement staff.
Mike Kennedy, CTSI Director of Natural Resources Department, talked about the need for funding for
tribal lands protection and said, “I'd love to have somebody that could be out there on all our timber lands
just patrolling. We have all the usual stuff. You know, garbage dumping and gate vandalism and people
trespassing stuff like that. It would be great to have a person like that” (Mike Kennedy, personal
communication, October 23, 2023).

First Foods Staffing Need:
Coordinators for Funding Planning
Staffing is a capacity issue that reduces productivity when funding coordination takes staff away from day
to day responsibilities. Tribes need administrative staff to coordinate funding planning, budgets and
33

meetings. Chris Marks shared, “Oftentimes it's the managers, the project implementers, the folks that
literally have a full-time job already, that are the ones going after more money, and writing the reports,
and trying to huddle everybody together, so we can have an informed, meaningful conversation before we
go out and get that money. And so I think that that is a big need” (Chris Marks, personal communication,
November 20th, 2023).

Funding Flexibility
First Foods Flexibility Need:
Simplified application process, reduce reporting requirements, and eliminate match/in-kind
tracking.
Complex grant administration requirements can make funding inaccessible to tribal governments because
they already have unmet administrative needs. Funding agencies could reduce application complexity,
reduce reporting requirements to annual reporting and eliminating match or in-kind tracking would
alleviate administrative burden and allow tribal government staff to spend more time to carry out projects.

First Foods Flexibility Need:
Tribes need the ability to customize and design programs to fit their own circumstances and needs.
Nearly every tribal government interviewee discussed a need for funding flexibility and many talked
about funding intricacies that limited the scope of work that was possible. Funding administration is a
burden on tribal governments, making Foundation funding easier to administer. Colleen Rosier described
how foundation funding made it possible to access federal funding for their Department, “I think we have
switched to as much Foundation funding as possible, because those are a lot easier to manage than
Federal or State sources. Just in terms of the number of requirements, the application process, the
reporting process. And also, because we currently through [another grant] we have a match requirement,
that we need to do 25 percent match, and so we can't do other federal to match that, it needs to be nonfederal sources. So I would say that developing relationships with foundations is definitely a strategy”
(Colleen Rossier, personal communication, December 13, 2023).

First Foods Flexibility Need:
Make application periods longer for tribal governments.
Many tribal governments have to get Tribal Council approval for grant applications to be submitted and
any discussion or revisions takes time. When a Tribe has low administrative capacity to complete grant
planning and writing quickly, they miss out on funding. Don Gentry (Klamath Tribes) shared a common
frustration expressed by other interviewees that tribal government staff are often stressed that the tribal
government is not moving fast enough to take advantage of funding opportunities. Staff see “all this
opportunity there and we're just not moving fast enough and then the funding is going to go away. We'll
probably get everything in order to start taking advantage of it and the funding may or may not be there”
(Don Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

34

One USDA tribal liaison also shared that applications due during summer or certain times of year are
difficult for tribes who practice subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering.
Foundation funding is helping fill gaps where government funding sources are falling short
Tribal governments are switching to Foundation funding because the funding is flexible and is filling
funding gaps for labor or projects that are beyond the scope of funding restrictions. Examples of this
would include Meyer Memorial funding that is paying for an outreach position with the CTUIR for 1
year.
Self-governance funding provides important flexibility for tribal governments
Increased BIA self-governance funding would help the Tribes administratively to be able to take better
advantage of grants and other federal funds. Don Gentry said, “Being a self-governance Tribe, if we had
the base funding that we could use and kind of direct where needed. You know, base funding for
ecological restoration. And it could be help us provide the funding that our Culture and Heritage
Department needs to do the cultural surveys, that they have a difficult time funding. And just funding that
is flexible, that the tribes have the ability to determine where best to use those funds at the time” (Don
Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).
Funding directly impacts tribal government sovereignty. Some funding agencies have discretion to
design funding specifically for tribal governments that allow for flexibility and greater autonomy. Tribal
governments take funding very seriously because they are accountable to the funding agencies and to
their tribal membership. Many tribes have robust accounting policies that ensure compliance. Gentry
continued, “You know, folks [in funding agencies] would have to trust the tribes to do the right thing, but
we've proven ourselves. We have very few findings in our audits, and usually a finding is just an error
that could be remedied very easily. We have been told by our auditors that we're really conservative. We
have very little debt compared to other tribes. And we've just kind of managed ourselves that way. So
we've got good credit, not very much debt, and we've proven ourselves to be good managers of the federal
funds that we have” (Don Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

Tribal Leadership Funding
While funding for tribal government staff is limited, there is also limited funding for tribal leadership
(Tribal Councils), which limits the number of hours that leaders can serve in their official capacities.
Many Tribal Council members are either retired or also hold a different full-time job. Elected leaders'
capacity to engage in consultation is low because they are not paid full-time positions. Tribal funding is
limited and is often directed to critical tribal membership needs, rather than increasing Tribal Council
member pay.

First Foods Leadership Need:
Compensation for Tribal Consultation.
The labor of consultation is budgeted for other government entities, so consultations should also be
allocated for tribal government consultation labor. Consultation policies are being updated, but currently

35

inconsistencies in polices for every department at the State and Federal levels has created more work for
tribal governments.

First Foods Leadership Need:
Tribes need capacity in order to engage in Partnerships
As a part of the White House Justice40 Initiative, the federal government has made it a goal that 40
percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable
housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by
underinvestment and overburdened by pollution (The White House, n.d.).
One strategy being used by funding agencies is requiring that applicants demonstrate that they have
conducted outreach to underserved populations, like tribal governments. With the Administration
requirement to work with underprivileged communities and report on their engagement, Tribes are getting
overloaded on requests from private industry and NGOs. They cannot respond to all the requests, even if
partnerships would be beneficial to their communities. Capacity needs to be increased at the tribal
government to be able to take advantage of opportunities, but also, funding could just be directed to tribal
governments directly, instead of funding other groups to 'work with Tribes' which doesn't actually mean
that the Tribes will get any funding directed to them.
“I'm getting calls as a woodwork. asking, you know, how can we engage with tribes?
How can we collaborate with tribes? And that's the same money that's going to the
States that comes back through grants. And those grants have criteria that so much of
their money has to go to tribes as well. So I've been getting a lot of calls on. How can
we collaborate with tribes? How do we engage with them? They don't know tribal
relations 101. And they say, Can you give us your contact list? And so we don't give
out a contact list. The tribes get bothered enough, just from the agencies that alone,
[the tribes] get so much emails. Everybody's asking them for things. Everybody wants
input on stuff. Now, where 25 years ago they didn't ask their input on anything. And
now they're wanting their input on everything. So I said, if you have something that
you have available to tribes, I can put it out for you”
(Rowena Yeahquo, personal communication, November 1, 2023).

36

Funding Need Theme: Cultural Resources
and NEPA
Cultural resources are commonly thought of as historic buildings and artifact objects and Native
American cultural and sacred site preservation fall within this scope. But what is less known is that
cultural resources for Indigenous people also include plants, wildlife, water, rocks, soil, landscapes, and
more. Tribal governments may be able to allocate some discretionary self-governance funding toward
cultural resources; however, this funding is limited and must be balanced with the other needs a tribal
government may have. For Native American people to continue their cultural practices today and into the
future, protection of cultural resources is a necessity for cultural continuity. Cultural resources require
protection, sustainable management, accessibility, monitoring, education, and other human services.
Cultural Resources was a recurring theme in interviews and tribal employees said that there is a general
lack of funding opportunities for cultural resource protection. Cultural Resources is a term that can apply
to any pre-contact or historical archeological sites, structures, objects, artifacts, rock inscriptions, and
earthworks. Tribal governments may also consider First Foods and cultural plant materials to be cultural
resources as they are essential to cultural continuity for future generations.
There are several important laws and regulations related to Cultural Resources, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act and Section 106, which requires
government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes. Within tribal governments,
Cultural Resources staff are who respond to NEPA, environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements. Federal agencies, states, and businesses can incorporate NEPA expenses into their cost of
doing business, however cultural resources funding is extremely rare for tribal governments. Most often,
archeology and cultural resource monitoring is conducted at the tribal governments expense without
compensation. This study did not examine how the government agencies afford NEPA environmental
assessments or environmental impact statements, however due to the broad impacts on archeological and
cultural resources, tribal governments are in great need of funding equivalency to address the scale of
NEPA requests.
Cultural loss continues unchecked when tribal governments lack sufficient funding to protect their
cultural sites and resources. “When an agency approaches a Tribe and says, Hey, we're going to go do this
project and blast away this side of the mountain to mine lithium. What are your concerns?’ If [the Tribes]
don't have the staff and resources to identify where the traditional plants are, or don't have a Culture
Resource Program to go out and survey, or don't have just the basic staff that can look at the application,
to develop the questions that need to be a answered prior to the project going forward, you just end up
with continuing destruction of these resources without any, I mean any, meaningful tribal
involvement.” (Audie Huber, personal communication, March 14, 2024).
There are consequences for tribal governments not having adequate staffing to address NEPA, Cultural
Resources and research. Unfortunately, when tribal governments do not have adequate staffing, Huber
said, “the resources are just not considered. I mean, the Forest Service won't come up with ‘We need to

37

protect this root, in this area’ by itself. And the tribes are expected to identify all their resources, all their
traditional resources, all their archaeological resources, all their cultural resources, whenever there they
get a NEPA notice. ‘Hey, we're doing this project here. What are your maps of cultural sites? What are
your traditional foods?’ And the tribes are like ‘we haven't mapped our traditional territory for all these
foods.’ We cannot survey the Tribal Members that gather all them out there. We cannot go out and do an
entire Cultural Resource survey, identifying all the archaeology, all the traditional place names, all that
information without funding. I mean we can't, we don't have that information in a way that's easily
distributable to an agency. Nor would we want to. I mean, the tribes have a history of releasing that
information and then having the sites dug up and looted, or resources extracted. Let's just say the
strategy of ‘trust-us’ for the tribes hasn't worked out so well in the last couple of 100 years” (Audie
Huber, personal communication, March 14, 2024).
Tribes are not businesses that use revenue to offset the cost of environmental surveys. And although tribal
governments are governments, they do not have funding allocated like federal agencies, which means
tribes often have to use their own limited funds to conduct Cultural Resources surveys to protect First
Foods, if they have funding to do them at all. “There's not a whole bunch of funding for the cultural
resource survey, the report writing, the THPO concurrence, and all that--that all comes out of project
dollars. That again, the government's not big on paying for monitoring and those types of activities. They
want to see a fence on the ground if we're proposing a fence, at the end of the day they want a fence. They
don't care about--did you comply with NHPA, ESA, NEPA, and all that stuff--that's kind of supposed to
be woven in” (Gordy Schumacher, personal communication, December 6, 2024).

First Foods Cultural Resources Need:
Base funding for Cultural Resources
For decades, Tribes have been reaching out to federal and state agencies to make sure that Tribes are not
overlooked in Cultural Resources consultation. In recent years, agencies are suddenly increasing their
consultation requests to tribal governments, which is a good thing. However, funding is needed to balance
the demand with the capacity of tribal governments to respond to requests. “So these positions are funded
with the primary base funding through self governance, and then the majority of the other funding is grant
funding, which is not particularly secure. We are pushing forward with our master stewardship agreement
to have more secure long-term funding through the Forest Service. In a kind of a co-management position
or contract with treatments on the forest that will last for 20 years that we are preparing to sign now.
Other than that, is grant funding, and, as I mentioned, that is sometimes difficult with departments like
Culture and Heritage that aren't eligible for the amount of grants that the Restoration crews are”
(Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Cultural Resources Need:
Longer timelines for NEPA to allow time for Tribes to measure impacts on cultural foods.
Funding for Cultural Resource Research and Tracking
“One of the ongoing problems we have is our planning efforts are typically like a year out. So we develop
an annual work plan and implement that. And then if we want to do something, we have to plan it for next
year. And if it's a multi-year effort, we have to plan it for multiple years down the pipe. And typically,

38

when these restoration projects will come up, like ‘Hey, we need to finish NEPA by July of this year.
What can we do for First Foods?’ And it just doesn't work that way. I mean, when it comes to sampling
and identifying First Foods, you have the growing season, you have the dormant season. I mean, there are
times you go out there to survey--you're not going to find anything because they're just not on the
surface” (Audie Huber, personal communication, March 14, 2024).

First Foods Cultural Resources Need:
Systems improvement for agencies and Tribes on NEPA timeline and funding timelines
“NEPA is the one tool that that the Government has for determining the impacts of their actions. But it
tends to be a very short timeline. Many agencies because they're funding cycle, they're funded annually.
And in the last half decade they're funding on continuing resolutions that are sometimes not certain from
week to week. So that really makes it problematic for them to do long-term planning. And studying First
Foods is not something you can do in a 6-12 week window, even a 9 month window, because you have
the entire growing cycle of the plant or root, or wildlife, big game. And just the nature of the resource’s
life cycle is inconsistent with some of the planning efforts, the timeframes that they use for doing these
projects. It's like, ‘Hey, we've got to get this money on the ground right now, what can we do for First
Foods?’ And it's like, not a lot in this timeframe” (Audie Huber, personal communication, March 14,
2024).

First Foods Cultural Resources Need:
NEPA should require impacts on Treaty Rights in EIS.
“Well, the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] was enacted in the 60s to require the government
take a hard look at their decisions and the environmental consequences of those decisions. It doesn't
require protection of the environment, but it requires balancing of the costs and the benefits of really
looking at what are the broad environmental consequences of actions taken by the Federal Government.
And it is kind of a bureaucratic process in each Agency, and some Agencies do it better than others and
look at more detail. Some are just looking for clearance in their projects. But it is really one of the few
mechanisms where Federal Agencies take to look broadly at the impacts of their actions, from climate
change, to Treaty Rights, to recreational tourism impacts. I mean, really take a hard look at why they're
doing it and what the effects are of what they're doing. And what we found is there's no law that says, you
will look at what your impacts of what you're doing on Treaty Rights. I mean, the treaty itself is a law
under the Constitution that they should be reviewing. But it's in the NEPA process that they really are
required to consider those impacts on the resources that were preserved in the Treaty. And we try
to get EISs [Environmental Impact Statements] to recognize that one of the authorities that the
document is being developed under, is the treaty of 1855 itself” (Audie Huber, personal
communication, March 14, 2024).

First Foods Cultural Resources Need:
Funding for Cultural Resources and NEPA would help other departments within the tribal
government complete their projects and meet deadlines.

39

The ability for tribes to use funding that is available for restoration or construction is slowed and impeded
when Cultural Resources does not have adequate staffing to address all of the various NEPA requests, but
internal for other tribal government departments and for external agencies or developers. “There is
funding for restoration on the ground. One of the challenges that we have right now is for our Culture and
Heritage Department to have the capacity to do the archeological surveys before the other Departments do
their work. To provide that support, that Culture and Heritage should provide knowledge of the First
Foods and plants that we want, to getting Tribal Members out there to use them, all of those things. That
department really struggles, because there isn't as much explicit funding for them... We need to do
archaeological surveys out there before they can get to work, and that that particular department is not
funded near as well as the others are able to with these restoration dollars. So to go out there and catalog
the history of the Tribes in that area, or the cultural plants that are already available, to do any kind of
inventories like that, that money is not near as available, and it comes in much smaller bites that are
more difficult to administer than the larger restoration funding does” (Alta Harris, personal
communication, February 21, 2024).

40

Funding Need Theme: Outreach, Education
and Workforce Development
Outreach is needed inside the tribal community to serve tribal membership and needed externally from
the tribal government to provide presentations and communication with outside entities. Outreach
professionals can act as Liaisons between the tribe and tribal community members, or Liaisons between
tribes and outside organizations.
Outreach in a tribal community context can be carried out by many different types of staff and with many
different purposes within the tribal government. For example, Community Health workers play an
important role in connecting tribal communities with health education and healthcare access. Community
Health staff with tribal health departments may assist or lead First Foods education, like they do with one
of the tribal governments in this study.
In mainstream agriculture, outreach and community organizing efforts are funded by commercial profits
and organized by industries to promote specific agricultural crops. Outreach is also conducted by the
nonprofit sector who have fundraising systems that fuel their community organizing for local foods,
school lunch, etc. Tribal governments are governments, but have historically been excluded from funding
systems that go to states, local governments or NGOs, and do not have easy funding mechanisms for
outreach and community organizing.
In mainstream government culture, outreach is considered hosting a community meeting and relying on
interested parties to have the resources and capacity to attend and provide feedback. Increasingly, funders
are requiring a demonstration of community input on plans, but this is limited if a department is not also
afforded resources to conduct true community engagement. One interviewee in the study described their
past experience with outreach being a tool to ensure the community was satisfied with their program and
was aware of any unmet needs. Outreach funding ensures that communities are informed and are able to
engage in decision making.

Communication and Community-Responsive Planning
CTUIR was the one tribal government in this study that has a single long-term Outreach staff member
within their Department of Natural Resources and they recently added one new short-term Outreach
assistant. Their Outreach staff provide education and presentations to the tribal community, to outside
agencies and organizations, to schools, funders, etc. Outreach to the tribal community is a priority for the
Department of Natural Resources and Cultural Resources because those staff help bridge communication
with the tribal community and tribal government staff. Outreach professionals work with the community
to get information about First Foods and collect feedback on the plans and actions of the department.
Chris Marks emphasized the importance of CTUIR’s Outreach staff and the important role they carry out
on behalf of the tribal government and community. “One of the things that we share a lot of around the
governance center is outreach professionals. [They are the people] that can get out there and really
educate the tribal public, get information [into the department] about the First Foods, and different

41

actions, different plans, what people think about them.” (Chris Marks, personal communication,
November 20th, 2023).
For First Foods, Cultural Resources and Natural Resources departments could use evaluation, outreach
and communication funding to improve their response to community needs and ensure that cultural
resources are being protected. Outreach professionals can facilitate culturally-sensitive communication
with the tribal community as a part of planning, decision making and evaluation.
In tribal communities, community outreach is best done by Tribal Members (from that same Tribe) who
have existing familiarity with the culture, language and communication methods, and existing
network/connections within the population. Other staff may be able to build those networks and trust, but
it takes significant effort and time to attain.

First Foods Outreach Need:
Outreach professionals to provide cultural education for cultural continuity.
The CTUIR DNR has an Education Outreach Specialist who provides many important functions,
including community education on First Foods. Chris Marks said, “Wenix Red Elk, the Cultural
Resources Outreach professional, we spread her thin, unfortunately. But she does such a good job out
there. So she's been doing these First Food excursions. She sets it up to where she's got a crew of folks
that know what they're doing and where they're going, and all that kind of stuff. And they just bring in the
community and offering these opportunities to get back up there and to learn about the foods, and to learn
about the harvesting, and the ceremonies, and the celebration and the use of those foods” (Chris Marks,
personal communication, November 20th, 2023).

First Foods Outreach Need:
Tribal Councils need feedback from tribal communities in First Foods decision making.
Because First Foods are specific to Native American communities, tribal governments have special
community responsibilities of rights protection and community organizing. Tribal governments are
accountable to protect the rights and cultural preservation for their citizens, and Don Gentry (Klamath
Tribes) talked about how communication with the tribal community was essential “ because some of these
things are that significant, but probably need a vote of our whole [tribal] membership. So it's just really a
difficult process, you know, for us to take some of these things on there, good things.” (Don Gentry,
personal communication, February 21, 2024)

First Foods Outreach Need:
Evaluation that is tribal-community-focused.
Funders require evaluation and surveys from the community, but it is based on measures set by the
funder. Reporting takes staff time and community member time and is used by funders as an enforcement
tool to ensure compliance with funding and enforce results from awardees. It is well-known that there are
large gaps in Native American data and evaluation funding going directly to tribal governments could
enhance their data sovereignty and their ability to better serve the unique needs of their communities.

42

Rather than funders dictating reporting requirements, tribal governments could be using program
evaluation funding to improve communication with their communities and generate data in culturally
appropriate ways like appearing at TC meetings or community meetings.
Outreach is important to evaluation because many tribal communities have directly been impacted by
theft of cultural knowledge or data being collected/used in ways that harm tribal communities. Funding
agencies should consider how evaluation could empower tribes to develop evaluation that works best for
their goals and reduce the burden and labor of evaluation that is not valuable to tribal governments.

First Foods Outreach Need:
Funding for tribal government consultation with elders on research and historic preservation
Tribal governments rely on their elders for historic preservation and elders are often called on as
consultants to provide information and advice. One tribe had a historic preservation department who
interviewed elders and provided limited honorariums for participation. It would be helpful for tribal
governments to have adequate funding to compensate elders for their time, travel, and contributions to
research on behalf of their tribe. “We should provide honorarium, because we're always seeking info,
outreaching to the public or to the community, and asking elders to share their knowledge. Some CTUIR
tribal departments compensate elders for their time. But I think that would be good to have something in
place so elders are better compensated to continue to contribute to our mission to restore First Foods”
(Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication, March 5, 2024).

Education
Tribal governments have a role in cultural preservation through historical research, ongoing
documentation of tribal elders’ knowledge, preserving artifacts, and also protecting cultural resources.
Tribal governments also take an active role in providing community events and youth programs which
can include cultural education, health education, and academic education. The capacity of tribal
governments to provide cultural education around First Foods is greatly impacted by funding. All tribal
governments in this study expressed a need for more funding for cultural education funding.
Like other education systems, tribal communities also need annual and ongoing cultural education to
continue First Foods culture, especially in the wake of policies that have suppressed cultural practices.
Community education funding provides tribal governments with the flexibility to address cultural
education needs in a format that works best for their communities.
“I mean policy impacted Tribes in so many ways and mostly through losses of family and
a lot of that traditional knowledge was interrupted that normally would have been
handed down in our families” (Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March 18, 2024).
Cultural erasure has been well-funded by the US government in the past and in order to restore cultural
lifeways, tribal governments need funding that supports cultural continuity. Tribal Council Member Les
Anderson estimated that within the Klamath Tribes government, currently about 95% of the funding and
effort around First Foods is going toward environmental restoration, rather than efforts to revitalize

43

culture within the community (Les Anderson, personal communication, March 6, 2023). Caring for First
Foods is central to many tribal identities and when those foods have been rare, it makes passing on First
Foods knowledge more difficult. Restoring First Foods habitats is critical to First Foods culture and First
Foods culture is how tribes care for and maintain First Food abundance. Cultural education is a unique
funding need for tribal governments, because tribes have been targeted with policies of cultural erasure.
To this day, continuity of cultural practices can be challenging for individuals and tribes to integrate into
modern lifestyle, educational structures and economic systems which do not integrate traditional
lifestyles, cultural knowledge or communal ways of educating with all age groups. There are also
systemic challenges with integrating cultural education into mainstream educational institutions when
weather impact scheduling and the Climate Crisis limits First Food availability.

First Food Cultural Education Need:
Funding for Tribes to help pass First Foods and Traditional Ecological Knowledge down through
generations.
● Tribes need funding to support cultural preservation of traditional knowledge.
● Cultural continuity is a shared responsibility of the community and is facilitated through
community education: funding is needed for all ages, elders, youth, families, and community.
○ Community outreach
○ Community education
“We're needing to reteach our people how to identify and gather these foods, because there's been
generational gaps where people haven't had those traditions passed on to them for whatever reason
in their family. And so it's kind of like we're trying to change that and start a new generation of people
gathering that can then teach their kids and continue that tradition on.
And so, even though it's the Tribe as a government doing the work, there's been some resistance of people
being like ‘well, why is the Tribe doing that? That should be the families doing that.’ And I'm like, but
there's a lot of things that have happened through different generations where those traditions weren't
passed down, so they don't know. And so it's a real learning. It's a preservation. And that's how I look at it
is we're preserving the culture and preserving those teachings and passing them on down.
And we have different people that know different things. So we have what I call cultural advisors that we
can use to help teach those things that even we [as the Cultural Resources Protection Program] don't
know. And ideally, the end goal is to create these small videos of how to identify a food, how to harvest
it, how to procure it. And then, if needed, we could do other videos of how do you cook it, and things like
that" (Teara Farrow Ferman, personal communication, April 19, 2024).

Workforce Development
Tribal governments need funding for workforce development, including educational support in order to
increase the number of Tribal Members to be able to lead within the tribal government, whether within
the Department of Natural Resources or other departments focused on First Foods. Career development
and succession planning are areas that many tribes would like to increase capacity, especially help

44

advance Tribal Members in their careers within the tribal government. Two interviewees mentioned that
educated or skilled Tribal Members are likely to be recruited to positions outside of their tribal
government and it is a challenge for tribal governments to fill and retain staff. If tribal governments lack
the funding capacity to provide advancement opportunities, staff may leave to advance their careers. One
interviewee talked about how it is hard to attract Tribal Members back home to their communities once
they start building their careers and personal lives away from their tribe. Several interviewees talked
about how staff who have worked for the tribe for a long time have institutional knowledge that is
valuable and that replacing staff when they retire can be a challenge because it is difficult to attract
experienced and qualified staff to rural areas, far from cities. Natural Resources scientist and archeologist
positions were mentioned, but there are likely other positions that are needed too.
Outreach helps with Workforce Development and consistent funding for outreach and education would
also help expand Workforce Development. CTUIR is the one tribal government in this study with
Outreach staff and they have been doing Workforce Development for years targeting young students and
getting them interested in Natural Resources, science, and also educating youth to value the environment.
Sparking academic interest in youth from a young age, helps prepare them for science careers and helps
build buy-in within local communities to value environmental health and tribal culture. “We are seeing
some of that in our neighboring basins where she's been going to those elementary schools for 10-15
years and so these folks are now graduating and getting into the workforce and bringing some of those
learned values that they weren't getting necessarily into their work zones and into their personal lives.
And so that is helping" (Chris Marks, personal communication, November 20th, 2023).

First Food Education Need:
Funding for tribal governments to support Tribal Member students from elementary through
higher education, including non-college job training.
Tribal governments need funding to:
● support Tribal Member youth in elementary through high school to prepare them for higher
education that they will need to fulfill leadership roles in the tribal government.
● support Tribal Members while they are in college with the social support and resources their
families may not be able to provide.
● support for non-college bound Tribal Member learners who require learning opportunities within
their tribal community or tribal government. Tribal Members who stay living near or within their
reservations also need job training and abilities to advance in their careers.

45

Funding Need Theme: Access to First Foods
First Foods funding needs are unique
As the US government agencies are increasingly making intentional changes to uphold treaties, agencies
will need to integrate tribal governments into management systems which previously excluded tribal
government roles. Funding from agencies will be directed to tribal government staffing due to increased
workload on tribal governments as they carry out responsibilities in land management.
Elements that make First Foods funding unique include that the funding is for tribal governments (not
businesses), Treaty Rights, cultural intellectual property, historically excluded and underserved
communities, subsistence food system, community and multi-family focused, land-scape scale, cultural
protocol management system, associated with cultural resources, cultural education, central to ceremonies
and religious freedom, cultural burning of landscapes, disproportionately impacted by the Climate Crisis,
and more. The Klamath Tribes Planning Director Jared Hall said, “A lot of things you do, just like food
sovereignty, you have to commit funding to it, and you just have to. If you don't commit funding to a
particular program or department, it's really hard for them to grow in the right ways” (Jared Hall,
personal communication, November 20, 2024). Multiple interviewees shared this sentiment and said that
it was better if First Foods advocates found new funding because tribal governments had little to no
capacity to fund food sovereignty or First Foods work with existing tribally controlled funding.

First Foods Access Need:
Tribal staff to gather, hunt, fish to provide food for the community.
Currently, it is rare for tribal governments to have funding to pay staff to provide food for their
membership. Often, First Foods are only accessible to families who are privileged to have resources such
as vehicles to travel to areas with First Foods, time to take off work during hunting season/gathering
season, and they do this labor voluntarily on their personal time. As a community that has been deprived
of First Foods, staff are needed to at least provide community opportunity to gather, hunt and fish.

46

“But in the context of carrying on our traditions, if there's funding that we could even
store traditional foods and serve those you know in a community gathering. Whether
it's during the ceremony, or general council meeting, or wedding, or some kind of a
celebration. That'd be a wonderful thing to do. And I know people would voluntarily
take deer, elk, fish, foods that they gather and store in there... I hope we have a place
like [Umatilla Tribes] that we can gather and store those foods, and if there's funding
to. Because our whole economic system changed, we would like to rely solely on
our native foods–gathering and collecting them, store, and prepare them. And
now that people have to have jobs, you know, why don't we pay people to do
those kind of things? To maintain those traditions, the culture, and teach people how
to do what we've kind of lost. It's kind of certain families know where to go and how
to do certain things. And it's not a whole collective knowledge that we have in one
place. And we're trying to do some things about that, too. By trying to put some
documents together, that from interviews of Tribal Members, what our practices were,
how we use fire, those kind of things. We're trying to do that. But I would like to see
that a program, where we can do that, whether it's casting a cultural enhancement
program. And I just think we need to get back to serving our traditional foods”
(Don Gentry, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Research Need:
Funding is needed for tribes to conduct research, restoration and monitoring of First Foods.
There is limited research on many First Foods because they can be rare or non-commercial crops.
Examples of the unique funding need include:
● Pollinator research funding - commercial crops often rely on foreign pollinators, whereas native
pollinators can be specific to First Foods and research is needed to ensure native pollinators are
healthy.
● Wildlife funding - tribal governments need equitable funding to other governments in order to
adequately manage Treaty Rights.
● Cultural plant funding - tribal governments need capacity to collect baseline data on cultural
plants.
● Funding for restoration - restoring ecosystems is at a larger scale for tribes than it is for
agricultural operations.
● Monitoring funding - several interviewees talked about how it was difficult to find monitoring
funding.
● Funding to combat invasive species - invasive species impact biodiversity and can impact entire
ecosystems by disrupting food webs.

47

Cheryl Shippentower from CTUIR shared, “So within our First Food Order [cultural
protocol], my program is focused on the women's foods (roots and berries). Part of my
work is going out and conducting ethnobotanical surveys. I determine if culturally
important plants are present and if proposed projects will negatively impact them. I
also do non-project related cultural plant surveys, where I'll document culturally
important plants when I see them. This will provide an opportunity for understanding
of the distribution of our food plants and provides opportunities for us to share with
other Tribal Members, if they're not familiar with the area. Tribal people have their
own places they go, but they're always looking for new places to gather foods. And I
think that's what this survey work will contribute to providing additional gathering
locations. There’s not much information known about our plants beyond
traditional cultural knowledge. If you look up our food plants, there's not much
information out there. Standard [conventional scientific] monitoring that occurs, it's
later in the season, and it misses all our First Foods. We don't know if our land
management practices are negatively impacting our food plants. We've collaborated
with Oregon State University and developed this protocol to monitor the abundance of
culturally significant plant resources. We're just doing the baseline collection and will
resample following treatment. We are monitoring about 17 species identified by tribal
gatherers and staff. The protocol measures density and frequency that provides
information on conditions and trends of these species. On the reservation, we've got
multiple grazing and forestry projects that occur. This protocol will inform us on
whether our land practices are benefiting or decreasing our First Foods. The Tribes
are addressing invasive annual grasses, it’s a big issue for us here on the reservation
and [off-reservation] in the Western States. That's a huge impact to a lot of our
resources.
CTUIR also conducts a little bit of restoration work of uplands. It's been a sensitive
issue to restore, you know, actually grow our plants in the nursery. Even though we
own a Tribal Native Plant Nursery, I just think our elders were concerned about our
First Foods being exploited, sold, or commercialized. But I think we've got to that
point where people feel more comfortable with the CTUIR nursery and understand the
need for restoring First Foods. The goal of the native plant nursery is getting food
plants back on the landscape. I think we're starting to move in that direction. The
CTUIR nursery is going to do some native seed collections for cultural plants for
restoring the uplands. The CTUIR nursery has incorporated cultural shrubs in CTUIR
restoration for riparian habitat. There are many trees and shrubs that are culturally
important to the Tribe being planted back along the rivers and streams”
(Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication, March 5, 2024).

48

First Foods Access Need:
Funding for tribal governments to manage lands at a landscape-scale and at an ancestral
homelands scale.
Tribal governments need large landscapes and multiple areas to have sustainable access to First Foods.
Tribes need to be able to harvest sustainably across ancestral homelands and manage multiple sites to
rotate harvesting and allow time for rejuvenation.
Tribes manage First Foods at landscape scale, but the funding systems available to tribal governments do
not allocate funding in that way. The current government system has created systems of classifying
jurisdictions into Forest Service, BLM, State, private fee, and tribal land. Tribal governments need
funding that can be utilized across these new jurisdictions, but all fall within ancestral territories. Today,
land where a tribe has protected Treaty Rights might be assessed as private land, potentially preventing
Tribal Members from maintaining Treaty-Right-protected access to First Foods. So lastly, tribal
governments also need funding to address First Foods needs on private land.

Land Back
Every tribe in the United States has experienced land loss due to forced removal, coercion, fraud and
policy. The loss of land has led to a loss of First Foods as ecosystems have been transformed into other
land uses. In order for tribes to continue their First Food cultures, access to First Foods, access to land,
and tribes carrying out their cultural land management practices are essential. Within areas where tribes
practice their Treaty Rights, policies such as conservation easements conflict with tribes' access to First
Foods. A constant growing threat to First Foods is the ongoing development on farmland, range land and
wetlands, which destroys gathering areas forever. Policy is needed to protect areas with First Foods and
mitigate destruction of First Foods areas.
Land Back is a movement across the United States of returning land to the federally recognized tribes or
tribal communities. Land Back is a complex topic, sometimes with multiple tribes having ties to the same
area.
Tribal governments need funding to facilitate Land Back:
● Restoration of former reservation land to tribal governments
● Restoration of ancestral land to tribal governments
● Land donations to tribal governments
● Land purchases by tribal governments
● Land management funding for tribal governments
● Access to ancestral food places via easement, agreement, etc.
● Reconnaissance, monitoring, and evaluation
● Treaty Rights protection, policy and enforcement
All 4 of the tribal governments in this study have experienced significant Land Loss and loss of access to
First Foods (See Appendix A). Land has been taken using policies such as reductions to reservations, the
Dawes Act, and Termination. Some former reservation land is today National Forest land, BLM land, or
other public land. Jeff Mitchell, Chair of Klamath Tribes Agriculture and First Foods Committee (KTAFF

49

Committee) said, “Now most of our homelands, the former Klamath Tribes reservation, most of it
now is a National Forest. It's the only National Forest in the whole U.S. Forest Service system that was
entirely created out of a former Indian reservation. The Winema National Forest was created 1962 out of
the Klamath Indian reservation. And so from that standpoint, you know, most of our homelands are part
of a public agency today. But we also had around 250,000 acres allotted. And the changes that occurred in
the allotment process and with Termination… And unfortunately, out of that 250,000 acres that was
allotted, over a 100,000 at Termination in 1954 had already gone into non-tribal ownership. And then it
didn't take long for most of it to transfer to non-Indian ownership today. Out of that 250,000 [acres
allotted by the Dawes Act], I estimate there's about maybe 4,500 acres left in tribal ownership,
tribal people. So the majority of that now is transferred to my new neighbors” (Jeff Mitchell,
personal communication, March 18, 2024).
Since the 1970s, tribal governments have had increasing capacity to address the needs of their people,
including economic development. Land Back is a goal for many tribes, but they most often have had to
buy land back that was stolen. Jeff Mitchell shared how land is needed for many different purposes for the
health and wellbeing of the Klamath Tribes. "Practically every river and stream and lake was gobbled up
in the allotment process. There's very little of it that's on public lands. And very little of it we've been able
to acquire back. On our Land Back program, today, we're forced to buy land back, if we have the
resources to do that. Then you have to prioritize what it is you want your land for. Do you want a for
economic development? Do you want it for housing?... Our people have all kinds of need, tremendous
amount of need. You can't look in any direction without seeing need" (Jeff Mitchell, personal
communication, March 18, 2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Funding for staff to facilitate access to areas with First Foods.
“Well, that's one of the shortfalls on most federal programs is monitoring and evaluation. And one of
the things that we've really ventured into is this concept of access. You know, it's one thing to restore, or
maintain, or enhance First Foods. But if Tribal Members can't access it, we're really not making progress.
Most of that work has been done in the Cultural Resources program in the forms of mitigation
agreements. But I know there's a push [by CTUIR leadership], that when we see or hear of opportunities
to get Tribal Members onto new and different properties or lands that have First Foods, that we reach out
and try to work out some kind of a deal. And you know, for us, there's no money for that, for those types
of activities. Whether it be some kind of access agreement that has funding with it, or time to go sit down
with large landowners to work out some kind of an agreement” (Gordy Schumacher, personal
communication, December 6, 2024)

First Foods Access Need:
Funding for tribes to be able to restore First Foods within their reservation and within their
ancestral territories.
“So I would say, one of the primary challenges is just capacity again, right? I mean, we have only so
many crews and so many abilities to do everything. And in the reserve treaty area, we end up focusing
[there]. So we are not able to reach out as far as would actually even benefit the reserve treaty areas, but

50

that would also benefit the ancestral territories, because we only have limited capacity to work in the
areas that will most affect Tribal Members now in the near time. So there is work that could affect
sucker populations, that could affect return of salmon, that could affect mule deer populations
within the reservation, that we just don't have the capacity to do at this time. And we would be able
to do that with more funding and more staffing” (Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21,
2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Funding for tribal governments to protect historic gathering sites and manage First Foods for
future generations.
“I think it's really important that it's recognized that we're out on the landscape gathering these foods and
we're tending to them. Whatever method that we're using, whether it's just gathering or whether it's
burning to maintain the health of natural resources. A lot of [non-CTUIR] people want to kind of
convert how we gather our foods, for us to grow them in a community garden, and I just don't
think that's the right way to maintain our culture. I think it's important to restore gathering areas,
so we can gather as we have always done. We can collect seeds or propagate cultural plants, and get
them back on the landscape. We need to maintain that connection with the landscape. With climate
change or with any kind of land management, having that connection, tribal people can see what kind of
changes are going on. And I would just hate to see traditional food gathering converted to agriculture.
Which I don't think will happen. But [non-CTUIR] people think it would be easier if we just had a garden
for tribal people. But that takes away from cultural learning opportunities to just get out there on the
landscape and knowing the areas that our ancestors went to, so that we can maintain access to those
areas. And so I think that's something that we emphasize is maintaining access to all the ceded
aboriginal territory” (Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication, March 5, 2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Tribal governments need funding support to address First Food losses across the reservation and
ancestral lands (First Food reconnaissance and mitigation).
Not all tribes have access to mitigation funding, but Teara Farrow Ferman shared that CTUIR is using
part of their mitigation funding to do First Foods reconnaissance where they search for areas that have
harvestable abundance of First Foods, so that they can reconnect Tribal Members to those places (Teara
Farrow Ferman, personal communication, April 19, 2024). They also need to find new places so that the
same areas do not become overharvested by the community. Farrow Ferman said that staff actively look
for First Foods, where CTUIR can legally gather them to protect that access for future community use.
These efforts also involve working with private landowners on access agreements within Treaty Rights
protected areas and ancestral territories. None of the other tribal governments described having the
staffing capacity to be able to do reconnaissance work.

First Foods Access Need:
Agencies need to uphold trust responsibility to tribal governments.

51

“I think the biggest thing we all see in a lot of tribes, especially landless tribes,
that we see is politics. These big governments in charge of most the public lands,
which is most the land across America. There's quite a bit of private land too, but
these big government structures are in charge of it. And they seem to manage the land
instead of cultural, natural, where everybody benefits. It's good for the land, good for
the people, good food.
I think that politics behind managing land is geared towards interest. Whether it's big
timber, whether it's mineral rights, whether it's water for agriculture, or water for
anything, water for ranching. It seems our natural resources and the lands that
surround it get managed, for whoever gets the loudest in that political arena and puts
the pressure on these Agencies. And we even see here at these local Agencies, they
just fold when they get a little bit of pressure from some outside interest. They
fold, and they kind of forget who the people who were here first, who we are.
And sometimes they don't even bring us to the table to discuss these decisions.
They just try to go around us, because that's kind of how they operate, is in a
political blender. And that's what they do. And that's the bummer part about it.
And I think that's why you're seeing so many Tribes stepping up now, realizing we
need our land returned, we need to be in control of the land. Because we could
implement something like that. We may not be perfect ourselves. But we would
probably think like that, before we did something with the land. We would think like
that as Tribal people, we would think about the resources, the wildlife, and our
own lives in our community before we made decisions to manage the land”
(Jared Hall, personal communication, November 20, 2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Funding for tribal governments to coordinate with the Forest Service, BLM, and other agencies,
rather than agencies relegating Treaty Rights to local forests who may be ill equipped to address
trust responsibility.
Some National Forests have proactive staff who have taken it upon themselves to create land access for
tribal governments, but that is not always the case, especially in areas with large agriculture experiencing
severe drought. One example is the Karuk Tribe, who controls about 1% of their ancestral territory and
much of the rest is controlled by National Forests. The largest part of Karuk’s ancestral lands are within
one National Forest who has not been a proactive collaborator with the Tribe due to differing priorities.
Staff at National Forests have a direct impact on cultural practices and ability for tribal government staff
to complete projects. “With our TFPA funding, we had approved TFPA proposals for both the Six Rivers
and the Klamath National Forest, because our traditional territory covers both forests. So most of the
work that we do is with the Six Rivers National Forest, because they're much easier to work with. The
main guy we work with is Hoopa, you know, a native guy that wants to work with us. The Klamath
National Forest is not so easy to work with. And we get a lot of pushback up there. And so, despite the
fact that the majority of our traditional territory is now under the jurisdiction of the Klamath National
Forest, that's another barrier to being able to go up and do work in that region. I'm sure we've mentioned,
52

like our tribal aboriginal territories over a million acres, of that, about 1% is actually tribal trust
land or Fee land. So very little of it actually is under our control, where we can do what we want
with it. The rest of it, we have to have these like co-stewardship agreements with the Forest Service. Or
work with individuals who own parcels of land, to do work on their properties. Which is also one of the
main things that we do, since our tribal trust and fee land is so little. We also work with the community
members who want to see restoration happening on their properties and to be able to implement that. And
then, as much as we can with the Forest Service, even with funding coming in to work with Klamath
National Forest, it's still a challenge to get anything done up there. And that just has to do with who the
people who work there and the county that they're mostly in is very much about agriculture and ranchers”
(Neva Gibbens, personal communication, January 17, 2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Land for Community Centers, cultural structures, and other land-use needs.
Land Back also includes areas for tribal communities to be able to come to together, like Community
Centers, seasonal use lodges, etc. Indigenous people are used to living within their ancestral lands and in
seasonal gathering areas, but have been forcibly removed and prevented from accessing areas.

First Food Policymaking Need:
Funding for tribal government labor associated with policy and legal expenses to address policy
inconsistencies where Treaty Rights and access to First Foods are being impacted by land use,
conservation easements, etc.
“And the other policy matter that I would just like to touch on is grazing. The Klamath Tribes have their
reserved treaty area, which is the former reservation and there's land ownership within there, but it's not
large. The majority of the lands we help to manage are the Fremont National Forest, and there are grazing
allotments in there, and it's really frustrating sometimes to think that there is this obligation by the Forest
Service to secure treaty resources for Tribal Members, but outside businesses, entities are allowed to
graze on those lands. So in some cases [the cattle] are directly consuming the plants, they're competing
with wildlife for habitat and it's really frustrating that right for grazing is not included in the rights to
hunt, fish, trap and gather within that area” (Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21, 2024).

First Foods Access Need:
Policy substitution where tribal governments develop their own tribal conservation easements to
replace easements restricting land use and access to First Foods.
In recent years, conservation organizations have been looking to either return land to tribes or to provide
tribes with access to land. Many conservation organizations share a common value of wilderness, a
concept that idealizes natural landscapes void of humans. Indigenous people view themselves as a part of
the landscape and in relationship and responsibilities to the land, fish, etc. This worldview is reflected by
the unique creation stories, teachings on how to live responsibly with the land, and history of sustainably
living on the landscapes for millennia. When tribes are returning to the landscape, they may wish to
establish camps, structures or facilities that make it possible for Tribal Members to use sites.
Conservation organizations have made it their mission to protect land from development, which is an

53

important cause. However, all conservation organizations are operating on ancestral homelands and
operate as an extension of colonialism when they dictate the terms of land use. Conservation
organizations should examine how they can support tribal government autonomy and sovereignty by
opting to transfer land to tribal governments without strings attached.
Conservation organizations, such as land trusts and others, are contacting tribes to inquire about potential
for Land Back by transferring properties to tribal governments. However, the conservation easements on
these properties impedes or prohibits First Food access. Policy development is needed to facilitate work
with land conservation groups. One idea is for tribal governments to create their own tribal conservation
easement policy that would apply when the Tribe acquires property from a Land Trust or Conservation
Organization.
Conservation easements encroach on Treaty Rights when they create policy which restricts Tribal
Member access to First Foods.
"And then, a couple of things that came to mind while we were talking that I just wanted to bring up, was
there's more policy things honestly now, that are kind of getting in the way of what we're doing. One of
the struggles we have is with conservation easements, and the Tribes are very supportive of restoration
activities within their ceded territories and within the former reservation. But there is a problem when
sometimes those lands have restrictions, including the harvest of plants that grow in those riparian
areas, such as [redacted First Food] and practicing other traditional activities…those are all
excluded from the conservation easement. So navigating something that we feel really good about [like
restoration or conservation], but that is limiting Tribal Members, especially if that land comes into Tribal
ownership is a concern” (Alta Harris, personal communication, February 21, 2024).
Klamath Tribal Council Member and KTAFF Committee Member Les Anderson shared, "One thing too,
when you deal with someone like the NRCS—say, we're going into a land conservation district, or
something of that nature, sometimes the easements are encumbrances on that piece of property or what
we want to do. Because their guidelines won’t allow you to practice your traditional things or do what
you want to do. And when you go under partnership or take over a project that they're doing because of
the easements, or like I said, the encumbrances on the property. [NRCS says:] ‘We can't do it. But here's
this piece of land, you guys try to do it. But we're going to tell you how to do it. And we're going to put
all these restrictions or all these things that you have to go by.’ And it's like, well, but why do we want it?
I guess, in in short, it's hard to accept a gift if there's strings attached to it that restrict you from using it.
You can only ride the bike to the end of the street. You can't ride the school" (Les Anderson, personal
communication, March 6, 2023).

54

Policymaking
First Food Policy Need:
Tribal governments need funding to engage in policy making.
Tribal governments need funding for policy and legal staff who can help with a myriad of topics central to
Treaty Rights and First Foods. Examples of topics of importance:
● Co-management negotiations and agreements.
● Protecting foods and basketry materials from being sprayed with pesticides.
● Tribes need a viable way to be able to secure First Food subsistence protection, beyond litigation.
● Funding to restore subsistence populations of threatened and endangered species.
● Policy that guarantees Tribes subsistence rights to First Food populations.
"Hell, we may end up losing an entire fishery before we get out of the court system, because it's
taken so long. You know, we may have species go extinct. [The Endangered Species Act] ESA
was never meant to really address the Tribe's needs. That Act was only put together to protect
species from going totally extinct. Our people depend on those resources for subsistence
needs, but ESA doesn't promise to meet the subsistence needs of the Klamath Tribes… It's
only meant to keep something barely alive and on life support"
(Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March 18, 2024).
In California Region 5, the Forest Service has a traditional gathering policy, which is an important step,
however, Forest Service employees are not getting trained in the policy and interfere with Tribal
Members practicing their culture and gathering (Isha Goodwin, Colleen Rossier, personal communication,
December 13, 2024). So with new policy, education and training of new agency staff is needed to ensure
that Tribal Members are protected from harassment.

First Food Policy Need:
Policy development to address land use damage, for example ongoing cattle grazing that impacts
First Foods.
“What I do know though, is that as things happened over time like the dams and the re-plumbing of this
area down here, it created an enormous amount of change. And that had a change on our diets, that had a
change on practically every facet of our life. When the BIA Indian Service tried to make farmers out of us
here [on the Klamath Indian reservation] it didn't work very well. But they built dams, they created a
reclamation project on the Klamath reservation, and they found out that our elevation here was too high to
support most food crops. And so then they realized that we had a lot of pasture land in and around our
forest, and that it was great cattle country. And so the next thing we had this period where and they
pushed my people into ranching. And people, we really took the ranching. Every family in this Tribe, if
you go back in that family, you're going to find they had a ranch and they had a cattle operation. Today,
we're living with the impacts of all that, too. Because cattle cause a lot of damage to the ecosystem, the
way they graze and the way they use the land. I mean, they were imported here. And you know the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Service immediately started changing our watershed to accommodate
cattle and cattle grazing… And unfortunately, the common practice by the Indian Service was telling my
people ‘Just keep those cows grazing. Keep them grazing.’ And then they started diverting water to keep

55

the pastures more green throughout the summer. All of this, that I'm sharing with you is the impacts that
we had here had a lot of different impacts, had a lot of food sources that were severely impacted by losses
of water and water diversion and things like that. And today, water quality is maybe one of our biggest
issues we have, is lack of good water quality. Now, we have a lot of nutrient loading in our rivers and
streams. And temperature issues associated with water, and that exacerbates a lot of other problems” (Jeff
Mitchell).

Land Management and Research
Alongside Land Back, tribal governments need capacity for land management. Land management is what
keeps land productive and healthy. Some land requires more management than others. For example,
grasslands can be managed through grazing, whether elk or deer or domesticated animal grazing, which
requires minimal staffing. However, in the Pacific Northwest, other land may have trees, shrubs or
invasive weeds that require thinning, removal, or fire treatments. Land management also prevents harm to
First Foods or cultural materials, such as basketry materials. Alissa Lane from CTSI shared, “I think that
being able to harvest our own food is a priority of the Tribe, being able to care for it in the right way. So
making sure that there's not sprays, even on our basket materials, because those go in our mouths even
when we're weaving and things. Our little kids are helping peel sticks, we don't want that kind of stuff on
our food sources or our basket material. So having land that we control how it's cared for is also important
to the Tribe. And so I feel like those land acquisitions, the purchasing of land, solely for [protecting land
with First Foods and basketry materials]. This would be good for hazel, this is a good area to grow food–
is already the path that we're on. It does come with the responsibility of having people manage that land.
But it's a good responsibility” (Alissa Lane-Keene, personal communication, December 11, 2023).

First Food Research Need:
Funding is needed for tribal governments to conduct cultural preservation and research.
Due to data sovereignty issues and the need to protect intellectual property, tribal governments need to be
enabled to direct research on their culture. Historically, tribes have been subjects of research with little
control over data or how it is used.
“I lean on the side of any source of funding is good. Just so long as you can get it to the Tribes with a
focus on letting the Tribe itself manage the resources that are most important to them. Because I mean,
we're losing a lot of the history as the elders pass—the traditional place, names, the traditional practices,
the plants, the animals—over time. And getting that money on the ground for doing oral histories, getting
Tribal Members to tell their stories about what resources they relied upon. And I mean, I don't care if it
comes from USDA, NRCS, or FERC. It's just a matter of making sure that the Tribe is the one that makes
the decision on how to gather information and what to do with the information once it's gathered. Because
I don't like the idea of having the Forest Service doing a study on Umatilla Tribes’ gathering of [redacted
cultural information]” (Audie Huber, personal communication, March 14, 2024).

56

First Foods Research Need:
Funding is needed for data collection and tracking of First Food abundance. One-time funding can
establish baseline data, but ongoing funding is needed for monitoring due to environmental threats,
such as the Climate Crisis.
Audie Huber, who works for the CTUIR, described how funding opportunities can be of great benefit, but
long-term funding is needed to meet the scale of work. “Over the decades we've gotten a lot of support,
but still are pushing up against some really entrained systems of management that don't react well to
change. And I think we've been doing whatever we can in order to gather data on First Foods. I think we
did a project in 2008 with a Bureau of Land Management, where they funded us. I think it was like
$100,000 to develop a model to identify habitat for First Foods and then refine that model based on
individual sampling efforts, developing plots in areas where we think that the habitat would be suitable
for First Foods, going out there and testing it. I think we did it over 3 or 4 years in order to further refine
the model. I mean, it was a very geographic and habitat specific model. Like it was only applied to the
Burnt River base. You couldn't try to transpose that onto the Umatilla River Basin, or Cottonwood Creek
or anything. It's just very habitat specific. But it was a great idea. And I'm sad we haven't done more
efforts like that. But it was like a one-time funding opportunity” (Audie Huber, personal communication,
March 14, 2024).

First Foods Management Need:
Funding for tribal governments to carry out co-management on Federal and State land.
First Foods are a leading priority in co-management and Tribes need to be able to manage according to
their values, not being forced to manage land under another entity’s values, which is often commercial or
recreational. True co-management has not come to pass yet, but funding mechanisms for co-management
is an important part of negotiations. Jeff Mitchell shared, “I've been to Washington more than I ever want
to think about and lobby Congress... And you know I don't want to let them off the hook. I'm going to
hold them to everything that I can. But I'm not going to rely upon them either, because my people need
more and deserve more. And you know I have to work hard to try to figure out how to do that—meet
those needs. And First Foods, they're really, really important. But to get to where we want to be, we're
going to have to really reach deep into those tool boxes that each of us have and build new tools for the
future. And some that may be agreements like I was referring to where we actually do co-management,
real honest co-management. and that might be a way of moving us down the road a little further. Maybe
it's developing opportunities where we can find lands that are very, very important to us and acquire them
back. You know, we've seen Tribes get back some land. Most of the time we have to purchase it back, but
we've had opportunities” (Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March 18, 2024).
“Even when we did get back land, most of that land didn't come back to us in a
manner where we can make the decisions of how we want to use that land to
meet our needs today. Most of those land returns had strings attached to them that
says you got to manage it under State regulation, or you got to manage under federal
regulation. Very few of them, if any of them say ‘yeah, you guys can manage under
whatever regulations that you want to create as a Tribe. So we're forced to have to
accept something and manage it under other people's values”
(Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March 18, 2024).

57

Climate Crisis funding
Tribes are place-based communities with place-based cultures that cannot move to a more suitable
climate. Much of the current funding for the Climate Crisis is related to infrastructure and energy, but
tribal governments have First Foods and Cultural Resources that may be devastated by the impacts of the
Climate Crisis. Like other governments who develop climate action plans, tribal governments need
funding resources to implement plans. Much of the funding for Climate Change is focused on
infrastructure, transportation, energy and technology. Tribal governments require unique funding for First
Food climate planning, First Food restoration, and in the worst circumstances reparations for damage to
or loss of First Foods. First Foods are increasingly impacted by the Climate Crisis as heat, drought,
disease and devastating weather and wildfire events devastate ecosystems or increasingly threaten species
survival. While short-term funding works for infrastructure type Climate goals, tribal governments require
long-term funding to address the damage from the Climate Crisis on First Foods.
The Climate Crisis is leading to extinctions and extirpations of First Foods, impacting cultural resources
and Treaty Rights. Encroaching invasive plants and Climate Crisis impacts mean that degradation of First
Foods is not slowing down. Tribes need to be compensated for loss and the resources to heal landscapes
to preserve their culture. Healing First Food environments and habitats requires long-term funding. The
USDA could create long-term funding to tribal governments to address cultural and environmental harms
that are caused by the Climate Crisis. Once the climate is able to heal and First Foods abundance is at
desired and sustainable abundance levels, then funding for tribal governments could be reduced.

First Food Climate Crisis Funding:
Tribal governments need funding for Climate Change remediation and to prevent extinctions and
extirpations of First Foods.
Tribal governments need ongoing funding to ensure First Food cultural continuity. Chris Marks from the
CTUIR shared, “Our climate adaptation planner has been all grant [funded], and so she has to find money
every 2 years. When that program continues to expand, I think the CTUIR is definitely looking for more
permanent, more certain funding as we start implementing our climate adaptation plan and some of the
sources that we've looked up for projects and all that kind of stuff. Those will continue to be looked at for
those climate implementation projects” (Chris Marks, personal communication, November 20th, 2023).

First Food Funding Need:
Consistent funding for First Foods and Climate Change.
There is no agency dedicated to providing First Foods funding every year. First Foods funding needs to
be institutionalized to ensure compliance with Treaty Rights. Cheryl Shippentower from CTUIR shared,
“I don't think the funding is out there that's specific for First Foods and Climate Change work. There are
organizations like the First Nations Development Institute, but there's not many organizations like it”
(Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication, March 5, 2024). First Nations Development Institute is a
great philanthropic organization that is providing resources to tribal governments and tribal organizations,
however, this funding is again short-term and does not provide the funding stability that tribal
governments need to make a real impact on First Foods goals.

58

Cheryl Shippentower continued, “And I think that there also needs to be more funding for natural
resource restoration. There's some funding out there, but I think it's hard to find that's specific to
Tribes and cultural plants. It's pretty limited, it’ll be like a one-time funding, for example USDA
programs conservation plans, they’ll have different practices they fund, and then it changes every Farm
Bill. We just need that consistent funding. Tribes need consistent funding to do our work, whether
policy, on-the-ground work, and the monitoring as well” (Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication,
March 5, 2024).

59

Other Funding Needs
Health
PNW tribes have enjoyed a healthy diet by managing and consuming First Foods for millennia, which
was interrupted due to colonial depletion of First Foods abundance and mismanagement of ecosystems.
With the loss of First Foods access, tribes have seen a decline in health.
When Tribal Members do not have access to First Foods, their health is negatively impacted. Jeff Mitchell
shared how the loss of access to land meant the loss of health. “When we signed our treaty, we ceded 22
million acres of land, to retain 2.2 million. It took 22 million acres of land to feed this entire nation of 3
tribes, of 3 nations here, the Klamath, the Modoc and Yahooskin. 22 million acres. Now you force them
onto a small reservation, 2.2 million acre reservation that was quickly reduced to 1.2 because of faulty
surveys. And you know the way they fed themselves before, they couldn't even begin to feed themselves
with the limitations that were placed on them, being forced to stay on this reservation. So a lot of things
happened. The introduction of new types of food source foods, and the impacts that that had on us. Our
diets changed so rapidly, the impacts that that had on us” (Jeff Mitchell, personal communication, March
18, 2024).

First Food Health Need:
Funding for Tribal Member staffing to provide the tribal community with First Food access
throughout ancestral lands.
First Foods access involves physical labor and travel, which requires dedicated time from Tribal
Members. As tribes are working to restore access and abundance of First Foods, it is integral that tribal
community management and use of First Foods is built alongside those environmental recovery efforts.
First Foods occur across large areas and sometimes in different elevations or climates, such as oceans,
valleys, or mountains. Cheryl Shippentower from the CTUIR described how First Foods contribute to
physical and mental health for Tribal Members, “We need to maintain access to First Foods across our
ancestral territory. And it's not just that, the First Foods are healthy for us, but it benefits our wellbeing
and cultural identity for us to be out there on that landscape gathering our foods. There are many
benefits from being out there on a landscape, whether it's gathering our food plants, or hunting and
fishing. It’s helping us maintain health, as well as our tribal culture, by having that connection to the
land” (Cheryl Shippentower, personal communication, March 5, 2024).

First Food Health Need:
Prevention and public health funding for First Foods.
CTSI was the only Tribe in this study who had health funding directed to First Foods. Their First Foods
program, called Healthy Traditions, was started with a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) type-2 diabetes
prevention grant in 2009. This program was popular with the tribal community and the tribally-managed
Siletz Community Health Clinic (SCHC) began using clinic revenue to support a single staff person to
run the program. The Healthy Traditions program continues to be popular within the community and has

60

facilitated ongoing successful collaboration with other health departments/programs and other tribal
government departments to leverage staff and funding. Not all tribes have the funding capacity to selffund staff specifically for First Foods and are highly dependent on charitable/foundation funding or
grants, but the SCHC also dedicates some limited funding towards Natural Resources to bridge funding
gaps (Miranda Williams, personal communication, November 28, 2023). The SCHC is seeking new ways
to fund First Foods work. One of the challenges is that First Foods and community health workers are not
billable services, even if they are serving diabetic patients, elders, youth, etc.

First Food Health Need:
Increased and ongoing funding for cultural health staff positions, who contribute to public health,
nutrition, food security, prevention and mental health.
The current Clinic Director, Miranda Williams, discussed how IHS self-governance
funding was limited to cover all health needs and that public health issues tend to be
funded with grants. “As I'm looking at Community Health and Diabetes [programs],
they're funded fully by grants and 3rd party revenue. And so I know that can be kind
of scary, and I know that's something that's been expressed to me. Because there's that
term ‘hard funding’, like there's always that scare of losing your job and stuff, and I
totally get it. But there's only so much Indian Health Service, Self Governance
funding and it's been unchanged for years. So how can we expand? How can we
offer the services that we're offering now, but continue to expand on that, and the only
way we can do that is really by applying for grant funding… At this time, I do see
gaps for spending like in these places that are really critical to prevention… With
our other programs like Community Health and Diabetes–the reporting pieces–I think
they do an excellent job coordinating all of that. But it's a lot of reports to do and turn
those in, but they make it happen. But everybody makes activities and services happen
out in the field and I just think it's so amazing how people make it work. And they
make it work with the little funding that they receive.”
(Miranda Williams, personal communication, November 28, 2023).

First Food Health Need:
Funding for First Foods as public health.
Public health initiatives or grants may dedicate some funding to First Foods, but it is rarely the goal of
health funding opportunities. Judy Muschamp who was the Director of the Siletz Community Health
Clinic for many years has seen changes in government funding that have been of great benefit to the
Siletz Tribe (Judy Muschamp, personal communication, January 16, 2024). She highlighted Diabetes and
Tobacco Prevention funding as examples, which CTSI received to address long-term health issues and
require long-term investment to change health outcomes. What makes these preventative health funding
opportunities unique from other grants is that these funds were specifically directed to tribal governments
and they have been coming to tribes for over 20 years. Public health funding could increase Tribal
Member staffing for First Foods programs to increase access and abundance of First Foods while also
addressing health education, nutrition education and cultural education.
61

Teara Farrow Ferman’s vision for a First Foods program:
"So ideally, my dream is that we have a program year-round. We have tribal
members, they're out gathering foods and other types of resources year-round. They're
taking Tribal Members out to teach them, so that we're doing that cultural continuity.
And throughout the entire year they're creating a food bank or food cache, because I
like to use our traditional terms, it was a food cache back then, not a food bank. A
food cache, so that working with our Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, that we can
do a pilot program, I'm thinking with people that may be diabetic or people that have
maybe high blood pressure or something like that. That they're prescribed traditional
foods and medicines for a year, and they're monitored super closely. Maybe they have
to eat traditional foods 3 times a week. Something like that. We'll set some
parameters, I'm not really sure what it is. And see how that affects their health, if it
improves it, if it stays the same, anything like that. But part of the program is that they
physically have to go out with the cultural practitioners or cultural advisors to get the
exercise for one, but also get the traditional knowledge too. And then ideally, that
food cache could also be used with the tribal community so they could put a request
in. Let's say they're going to have a naming, somebody's going to get their Indian
name, they could put a request in for traditional foods to be served at their traditional
meal. Not saying that we're trying to tell people. You know, this is the only way to get
it. We want to encourage tribal members through the whole year to come and
participate in the program. And it, you know, it could be anything from learning how
to tan hides, learning how to make tule mats, how to go gather tule, how to fish, how
to hunt, how to skin a deer, how to butcher. You know, everything that we can think
of, that's tied to the First Food, but also the medicines. So the medicines get forgotten
so much that very few people know how to use some of our traditional medicines
anymore. So I want to revitalize that as well. And so ideally, to be a program that
funds Tribal Members, several Tribal Members full-time throughout the entire year,
and that's their job. They just are gathering year round."
(Teara Farrow Ferman, personal communication, April 19, 2024).
Putting funding into First Foods, means less funding spent on healthcare. Garin Riddle said, “Ultimately,
you put money into the First Foods, you're going to be able to take money out of Tribal Health because
less people will be in there with diabetes, inflammation, you know…” (Garin Riddle, personal
communication, March 12, 2024).
First Foods are interdependent on tribes, because Tribal Members are the First Food caretakers and the
First Foods are healthy for Tribal Members. This is also expressed in cultural protocols and religious
beliefs. Managing and using First Foods was the “job” of tribal ancestors, and today, First Foods need
tribal members to do their “job” of managing them for future generations.

62

Infrastructure
Alta Harris with the Klamath Tribes talked about the challenge of finding funding opportunities that
matches the needs of the Tribe. "There's a lot of opportunities out there, but sometimes there's limitations
in things like facilities. We're struggling to find the funding to do facilities. Sometimes it's just kind of
what that funding is earmarked for. We're working on a seed strategy that would involve a nursery and
also kind of creating refuge on the landscape that would be seed storages. And you've got to really work
at your language to make sure it fits the appropriate funding mechanism that we're going to create plans
for fire, restoration, or other things. And the truth is that it's a more holistic view of having plants
available for Tribal Members to gather, of habitat for wildlife that Tribal Members can also harvest, but
that are an important part of the ecosystem, and for restoration activities. So to just incorporate that
more holistic view into the seeking of funding is difficult sometimes" (Alta Harris, personal
communication, February 21, 2024).
The Klamath Tribes being terminated and losing their reservation, has impacted their ability to build
cohesive infrastructure for their tribes’ Administration, Health, Cultural Resource, Planning, all being
separated in different buildings around Chiloquin, OR. Les Anderson described how the lack of a unified
land base has made it difficult for the tribal government to build infrastructure for the community to come
together. “We're fractionated in the sense, for our elders to gather, we have lost that cultural community
of gathering together for certain things: making baskets, tanning, processing our foods. You know, it's got
to be a community event that sparks it. That way, if it's a community event, it's elders teaching the young.
And one thing about food security or sovereignty is being able to store it or have it, and then be able to
use it later. But if you first have that culture community. Because of Termination, we don't have that
culture community as we used to have back in the day. We have more Tribal Members that live
elsewhere than we do here within our own county. And so that's very hard to deal with… And I guess
that's kind of what the (U.S.) government wanted to do anyway, was fractionate us. But bringing us back
together and establishing that culture relationship with our foods, our traditions, our ceremonies. And just
gathering together for lunch or dinner, just that time to gather, other than just a senior meal. But just to
come together, because when people come together—things happen” (Les Anderson, personal
communication, March 6, 2023).

First Food Infrastructure Need:
Funding for Community Centers with community food storage for First Foods.
Les Anderson described how the Klamath Tribes need “Cultural Infrastructure” that would include
community centers where people can be together and that funding was also needed for “a larger facility
for processing and storage, cold storage and dry storage. That would be an area that would help to restore
that cultural component of becoming a cultural community” (Les Anderson, personal communication,
March 6, 2023). It is easy to see how architecture, city and regional planning, kitchens, smokehouses,
food processing and storage all have impacts on cultural practices and the ability to be able to physically
carry out cultural practices as a tribal community.
Les Anderson continued, “Right now, we're about ready to have c’waam ceremony in March. We usually
have c’waam ceremony for fish coming back. And so usually, you know, to have a traditional dinner, we
would have had to have gathered all these foods, traditional foods, the previous year in order to have them

63

in the middle of the winter, you know. Do we do that? Some people do. Some people have storage. The
average Indian family probably doesn’t do that. I mean, we have maybe salmon or something in the
freezer, or a little deer meet or elk meat in the freezer, but as far as having any [redacted First Foods], or
anything like that. The average person just doesn't have that. And in order to achieve that it takes a small
army to go out, during that time, to gather that. You bring it in, process it and store it. That's what
our people did, and that's how they survived” (Les Anderson, personal communication, March 6,
2023).

First Food Infrastructure Need:
Infrastructure for program staff to be stationed near work sites and workforce housing in rural
areas.
Neva Gibbens described long term goals that they need funding for: "the goal is to have it be combined
eventually, have the entire food program perhaps stationed down there if we can get facilities. And you
know, a place for people to actually be. But that is like a way, long term goal. But now it's just the farm
that's down there" (Neva Gibbens, personal communication, December 13, 2023). They also have 2 more
community population centers which are located over an hour drive away, making it difficult to serve
their membership throughout their ancestral lands.

64

Chapter 3 - The state of USDA
funding for First Foods
The Department of Agriculture's vision is–
“to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to
promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others
throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation,
restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.”
The USDA’s vision can be adapted for First Foods because:
● Conservation of First Foods ecosystems and landscapes is economic development for tribes.
● Tribes have traditional subsistence economies for First Foods to feed themselves and share with
other tribes.
● Non-commercial First Food landscapes are also working lands.
The conventional funding structures that the USDA and other agencies have historically offered to tribal
governments do not meet the needs of First Foods’ food systems, but they are improving. The origin of
the funding gap between what First Foods need and how the USDA delivers services is somewhat valuesbased. The US domestic food system goal is to maximize profit, stabilize food pricing, and export to feed
the world. These values are institutionalized into the USDA funding structure in the form of subsidies,
incentives, crop insurance, loans and more. The funding structures available for conventional agriculture
are based in commerce. The USDA does provide important financial support to keep farmers working,
however, farmers have other reliable funding to keep their operations afloat–profit.
Tribal governments may have businesses, but they are governments serving a public function. While the
USDA has a large workforce from the federal to local level, tribal governments have not been integrated
into the government food system workforce. Tribal governments need equitable government funding for
food systems, but the USDA does not currently have a base funding mechanism directed to tribes.
First Foods’ food systems also need value-based funding structures that ensure cultural preservation,
support the continuation of First Foods culture, and restore ecosystems and thriving First Foods
economies. Existing USDA funding structures do not take into consideration non-commercially viable,
rare or endangered foods. To attain anything close to subsistence levels of access to and abundance of
First Foods, Tribes need to have increased access to conservation funding, environmental hazard funding,
restoration funding, endangered species funding, community outreach and engagement funding,
workforce development funding, education funding, and more. Tribes want First Foods to be abundant
and to be able to eat their cultural diet on a regular basis. Tribes must first be able to feed themselves and
tribes need a funding-infrastructure that supports the tribal governments’ capacity to restore First Food
abundance.

65

Funding Opportunities developed with the assumption of financial capacity
Mainstream food systems are managed as a business, so individual and business profits form a base
assumption that funding exists to make the individual farm or business venture continue to function.
USDA funding opportunities are designed for conventional agriculture, which are businesses with
presumed financial capacity.
The USDA itself has administrative financial capacity built into every agency and staffed offices at State
and Local levels. Land-Grant universities and colleges also receive base funding, capacity building
funding. Funding Opportunities that work for other entities, do not work for tribal governments. Tribal
governments currently do not receive base funding through the USDA. But if they did, the current
funding opportunities are not designed for First Foods, subsistence, ecological restoration or conservation
at the scale that tribal governments need. Tribal governments perform a public service, so they are not
generating income like a business. Tribes need USDA funding opportunities that are designed for public
service and are flexible for each unique Tribal Government.

How Funding Opportunities were selected
Within this chapter on USDA Funding, the researcher chose select funding opportunities based on their
applicability to First Foods and the First Foods needs of tribal governments. Funding opportunities were
identified based on recommendations during interviews with USDA staff or funding opportunities
promoted by the Native Farm Bill Coalition or the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the
University of Arkansas. Funding opportunities were also included which could apply to First Foods, but
which tribal governments are not eligible to apply.
Some funding recommended during interviews was not selected to be included in this report. For
example, the researcher chose not to include the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR) because the program is focused on hunger (not First Foods), First Foods are generally not
commercial and can be rare or depleted, not every tribe has FDPIR, and FDPIR is limited in the ability to
serve a whole population because it is income-based.

Award Data
The researcher used award data from past grant award announcements to assess the rate that tribal
governments are accessing funding and to assess the funding applicability to First Foods. The largest
charts on award data are located in the Appendix. The award charts also include project descriptions,
which can help indicate the applicability of the award to First Foods, wildlife, fish or native plants. The
analysis of this funding opportunity is based only on successful applications and funding that has been
awarded to tribal governments. Data on tribal government applications that were not awarded are not
publicly available.
Some projects include mention of tribal governments specifically or tribal lands generally, but more
research would be needed to determine if any award funding went to tribal governments for their labor in
participating in collaborative projects or if a Tribe/Indigenous group(s) consent was obtained to be
included in the application. Name dropping or referring to tribes generally can be misleading or confusing

66

when reviewing descriptions of project proposals, so it is possible that consent and funding was directed
to tribes, but this also demonstrates the possibility of funding being awarded to “indigenous” or “BIPOC”
groups, without any formal consent or tracking that funding is actually going to intended communities.
Because federally recognized tribes are verifiable entities and populations, data tracking could be built
into grant application and awarding systems.

67

NRCS Funding
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides conservation solutions, so agricultural
producers can protect natural resources.

NRCS Funding Opportunity 1: Conservation Technical
Assistance
Conservation Technical Assistance3 is administered by NRCS technicians stationed across each state and
provides farmers, ranchers and forestland owners with the knowledge and tools they need to conserve,
maintain and restore the natural resources on their lands and improve the health of their operations for the
future (NRCS, n.d.-a).
Financial Incentives are available to private landowners to cost-share environmental improvements or
compensate landowners for conservation. These financial incentives do not cover the costs of projects,
rather they support efforts landowners wish to make to reduce their environmental impact. Funding may
come from:
● Organic Certification Cost Share Programs
● Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
● Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
● Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA)
● Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
● Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
● Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP)
● Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
One of the overarching assumptions in the design of these programs is that each farm or parcel of land
assumes that the landowner has the capacity to fund the work happening on the property and the program
is designed as an incentive or cost support to completing a conservation project.
For tribes with a large land base, NRCS can provide some limited funding to allottees or tribal
governments. NRCS can also help with forestry, for example, CTSI Natural Resources Director Mike
Kennedy said, “We do get Natural Resources Conservation Service money for a variety of projects we've
been using for probably about 5 years now. Getting funding essentially a contract with NRCS for precommercial thinning in our forest stands and that has made a difference. There's a lot of pre-commercial
thinning we could not afford to do, if it hadn't been for that contract money” (Mike Kennedy, personal

3

For more information on Conservation Technical Assistance, visit: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/gettingassistance/conservation-technical-assistance

68

communication, October 23, 2023). Note that thinning of forestry is not directly tied to First Foods, but
maintaining landscapes and forestland is connected to First Food habitat and ecosystems.
NRCS offers many beneficial programs to improve environmental conditions on farmland, however, not
all of these offerings apply to projects that are needed to support First Foods, or doing projects in a
culturally appropriate manner. For example, First Foods that grow in wetland habitats have been impacted
by runoff from neighboring land, roadways, businesses and industrial sites. Tribes may want to access
and use First Foods from the same places that their families historically harvested for thousands of years,
are faced with food safety concerns due to environmental contaminants. NRCS offers Wetland Creation
(Code 658) for the “establishment of a wetland on a site that was historically not a wetland”, which means
funding will only be directed to “sites where no natural wetland occurred historically.” Wetlands are
important to many First Foods, so providing funding to restore and maintain wetlands is more culturallyappropriate than to build an artificial wetland. Currently, only artificial wetlands are funded.
Advice for tribes considering NRCS
NRCS has staff stationed in districts throughout states to provide conservation information and funding
resources to farmers, ranchers, and forest owners. One district conservationist, Annie Marion, was
interviewed and recommended that tribes interested in NRCS should visit their local office to meet their
soil conservationist or district conservationist to talk about their plans, concerns and what they want to
accomplish (Annie Marion, personal communication, March 15, 2024). NRCS conservationists then are
creative about how to best meet a client’s needs within the specific rules of the different NRCS program.
In working with a local tribe, Marion reported mostly using EQIP funding to meet the tribe’s goals. They
did report that they had heard of tribes with a large land-base to be able to use CSP to obtain some
funding to maintain their current level of conservation or they can use CSP enhancement funding for
specific projects.
Roylene Comes At Night, State Conservationist with NRCS in WA, spoke about limitations with CRP
that may work for some tribes or some land, but have restrictions when it comes to First Foods access.
“The problem with CRP is, you won't be able to harvest every year. It has limitations on how, when you
can manage it. So, for example, we have been able to get the tribal collection of plants [recognized] as a
part of a management practice [for Native American peoples]… Yet with CRP you can't go collect
[First Foods or cultural plants] every year. You can only collect every 3 years, 3 to 5 years.”
(Roylene Comes At Night).
Similarly, conservation easements are too restrictive for tribes. Annie Marion observed, “In my
experience, the tribes I've worked with and what I've heard is that, usually tribes are not interested in our
conservation easement programs, because they don't want to have the restrictions that come with the
conservation easements. So that hasn't been an avenue that I've pursued with anybody” (Annie Marion,
personal communication, March 15, 2024).

First Food NRCS Need:
Tribes need a funding mechanism for trust and public lands within their original reservations and
for areas within their ancestral territories.

69

Tribal governments need funding mechanisms for treaty resource conservation funding. One example of
how tribes are left out of funding structures is that public land is within ancestral territories and tribes
have Treaty Rights within those jurisdictions. This discrepancy occurred to the researcher while in
conversation with NRCS conservationist Annie Marion, who said, “We generally only put funding
towards private land, but there are cases where an operator has some kind of a lease on public land, and
we can still fund those activities. Often that's grazing rights on BLM, or Forest Service land, or something
like that. But there's some wiggle room there” (Annie Marion, personal communication, March 15, 2024).
For tribes who have Treaty Rights on land within BLM and/or Forest Service jurisdiction, a funding
mechanism is needed for conservation funding to be directed to tribes who have great need for
conservation funding.

First Food NRCS Need:
Funding mechanism for tribal government staffing.
Roylene Comes At Night made clear that NRCS grants may be able to provide funding for tribal
government staffing, but Farm Bill funding only pays for conservation practices. Comes At Night
explained, “We won't pay for people. We won't pay for staffing. We pay for the conservation practices, to
get them on the ground. Farm Service Agency has money for Tribes to buy land at a low interest rate.
There's actually a specialized land purchasing program for Tribes through the Farm Service Agency, they
would help them. The Rural Development may be the agency that could help you with staffing and with a
marketing plan and that kind of stuff, more so than us. We don't pay for people, unless it's a grant
program.” (Roylene Comes At Night, personal communication, October 25, 2023). Tribal governments
are governments, not businesses. So funding for conservation staffing equivalency for tribal governments
is an unmet need without an identified funding mechanism.

70

NRCS Funding Opportunity 2: Urban Agriculture
Innovation Grants
Farmers, gardeners, citizens, government officials, schools, and other stakeholders can initiate or expand
First Foods efforts with an Urban Agriculture and Innovation Production (UAIP) grant4. These are
competitive grants and projects may target areas of food access; education; business and start-up costs for
new farmers; and development of policies related to zoning and other needs of urban production.

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
An example of how the USDA is getting creative in opening opportunities to tribes is the Urban
Agriculture Innovation Grants. Roylene Comes At Night recommended that tribes not be deterred by the
names of funding opportunities and instead inquire as to the flexibility of grants to see if there are
allowances for tribes (Roylene Comes At Night, personal communication, October 25, 2023). Many
Tribes may believe they are considered to be located in “rural” areas and may think they are not eligible
for grants for urban areas. However, Roylene Comes At Night explained, “So what we did as part of this
program, is we designated tribal headquarters or tribal centers as their [the Tribe’s] urban centers.
So it doesn't have to be Chicago. It doesn't have to be Los Angeles, it doesn't have to be Seattle. It
actually could be the Tribal Headquarters-Center as also to be included, basically.” (Roylene Comes At
Night, personal communication, October 25, 2023).

First Food NRCS Need:
Funding beyond startup costs.

First Food NRCS Need:
Funding beyond local community area, because tribes migrate to food areas far from their currentday residential communities, but areas that are still within their homelands.

4

For more information about Urban Agriculture Innovation Grants, visit:
https://www.usda.gov/topics/urban/grants

71

NRCS Funding Opportunity 3: Partnership for Climate
Smart Commodities
One of the NRCS funding sources that was suggested to the researcher was called Partnership for Climate
Smart Commodities5. The funding was already awarded in 2023 at the time of the interview, but many of
the awarded organizations who received the grant are looking for partnerships to help spend their award
funds.

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
On first impression, the author was concerned regarding the following barriers for Tribes accessing this
funding:
● Tribes may be insulted to have any First Foods referred to as a ‘commodity’. Historically and
today, commodities are distributed to Tribal Communities who face hunger and culturally there
can be a negative connotation with the term ‘commodity.’
● Tribes want to protect their First Foods, not incentivize them being taken and changed into
domesticated crops or mass produced.
● Having Tribes go through another organization to receive funding puts the awardee in the
position of power in the funding dynamic.
● Intellectual property and data sovereignty may be an issue with partnerships who may want to
collect and use data on the Tribe’s activities or data on the First Foods.
First Food NRCS Need:
Make funding available to individual tribes, not partnerships.
First Food NRCS Need:
Change the name to something like: Tribal Climate Smart Staple Foods. Changing the name to
Staple Foods would be more culturally appropriate.
Roylene Comes At Night from NRCS explained, “So with Tribes, NRCS does not look at tribal plants
differently. Commodities is basically, you'll see in our policy that we actually can do conservation stuff…
So one of the things that we pushed with tribes is that the food for tribes isn't so that they can market and
sell it. It is to feed themselves. Like Alaska's a great example, it's a subsistence. So don't get caught with
that thought on commodities. That's not exactly what it means. People think that ‘I've got to raise a
million chickens and so on.’ That's not our concept. At this point we really do look from the gamut. Of
the backyard conservation in less than an acre, all the way to, 100,000 acre farms. So we've tried to build
our programs extremely flexible. And a lot of our programs, again, is inclusive of the tribes. We also have
a Tribal Ecological Knowledge Committee right now, a national committee, making sure that our practice
standards include Tribal Ecological Knowledge in them. And they're working on those kind of things, too
at this point” (Roylene Comes At Night, personal communication, October 25, 2023).

5

For more information about Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities, visit:
https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities

72

NRCS Funding Opportunity 4: RCPP - Regional
Conservation Partnership Program Projects
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)6 is a partner-driven approach that utilizes
public-private partnerships to support the adoption of climate smart agriculture practices and expand the
reach of conservation efforts (NRCS, n.d.-c).
2 RCPP Categories:
RCPP Classic and RCPP Grants or Alternative Funding Arrangements (AFA)
• Classic - projects are implemented using NRCS contracts and easements
with producers, landowners and communities, in collaboration with project
partners
• Grants or AFA - the lead partner must work directly with agricultural
producers to support the development of new conservation structures and
approaches that would not otherwise be available under RCPP Classic.
RCPP Conservation Activities:
• Land management/land improvement/restoration practices
• Land rentals
• Entity-held easements
• United States-held easements
• Public works/watersheds
RCPP Funding Pools:
Funding is divided 50% and 50% between Critical Conservation Areas projects or
State/Multistate projects.

Critical Conservation Areas

State/Multistate

Source: (NRCS, n.d.-c)

6

For more information about RCCP, visit: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/rcpp-regionalconservation-partnership-program

73

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
RCPP does offer Alternative Funding Arrangements (AFA), however, over the past 3 years, tribal
governments have shown to be awarded as Classic projects, rather than AFAs. It is difficult to assess
why–this could indicate that collaborations with NRCS make projects easier for tribal governments or it
could indicate that tribal governments are more likely to be approved if they apply as a Classic project.
See Table 4 in Appendix D for a list of tribal governments or projects claiming affiliation with Indigenous
people who received RCPP funding awards between 2020-2023. Between 2020-2023 no AFA projects
were awarded to tribal governments, while 8 Classic projects were awarded to tribal governments.
In its current form, RCPP has limited applicability to First Foods and the needs of tribes. Tribal
governments would need staffing capacity similar to NRCS staffing in order to be able to realistically
access this funding. This funding may be accessible to some wealthier tribes who are located closer to
towns or urban centers who can attract more staff. It is possible that tribes with a larger land base could
benefit from RCPP by using funding to enroll their land in programs. However, this funding is the same
standard NRCS programs and would have the same restrictions which make it less compatible with what
tribal governments need for First Foods.
David Ferguson is the current RCPP coordinator within Oregon and shared that, “Originally, when the
Congress authorized [RCPP], innovation was a strong word. You know, how can the private sector be
more innovative than NRCS to implement practices and meet some local, state, tribal resource concerns,
but also more efficiently and less expensively. Well, since we started this program, the innovation has
been kind of thrown out. And now it's just like, how can an entity do it more efficiently and less
expensively than what our agency could do.” (David Ferguson, personal communication, March 21,
2024).
RCPP has essentially become a way for NRCS to outsource the on-the-ground labor to enroll farmland in
standard conservation programs, which normally is carried out by NRCS conservationists. In some ways,
it provides NRCS with an ability to use the network of NGOs to reach demographics who may not
otherwise engage with NRCS. Again, if a tribe has a large land base, this could be of benefit, but is not
useful to PNW tribes who have lost ownership of the majority of their land. RCPP is also another way to
roll out the standard NRCS conservation programs with the same limited applicability to First Foods and
the same limited applicability to the needs of tribal governments.

74

NRCS Funding Opportunity 5: Equity in Conservation
Outreach Cooperative Agreements
In recent years, NRCS has created new funding opportunities to serve historically underserved producers
and underserved communities like the Equity in Conservation Outreach Cooperative Agreements7. Tribal
producers, tribal governments and tribal communities are all considered to be historically underserved.
“The purpose of Equity in Conservation Outreach Cooperative Agreements is to leverage NRCS and
partner resources by developing community-led conservation projects so that historically underserved
producers and underserved communities will be able to access NRCS programs and services and learn of
potential career opportunities in agriculture, natural resources, and related sciences” (NRCS, 2023-b, p.4)

The Equity in Conservation Outreach Cooperative Agreements include projects that:
● Promote the benefits of NRCS programs through education or demonstration
of conservation practices.
● Develop community conservation partnerships that engage underserved
producers to plan and protect farmland ecosystems, watersheds and wildlife
habitat in underserved communities.
● Inform small-scale or urban agriculture producers about opportunities to
participate in conservation programs.
● Support education on, planning for and adoption of climate smart
conservation practices.
Projects will reach underserved groups through a combination of program outreach
and technical assistance in one or more of the following five NRCS priority areas:
● Addressing local natural resource issues.
● Promoting conservation career opportunities.
● Expanding adoption of climate-smart conservation.
● Encouraging conservation in small-scale and urban agriculture.
● Developing conservation leadership skills and opportunities.
(NRCS, 2023-a)
In Table 5, note that tribal governments are in green highlight and project descriptions include reference
to traditional food systems, promoting educational degrees in conservation and natural resources, and
restoring Indigenous ecological management practices. See the right column for suggestions on how this
funding opportunity might be used by tribes or tribal organizations for First Foods.

7

For more information on Equity in Conservation Outreach, visit:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/data-and-reports/equity-in-conservation-outreach-projects-2023

75

Key:
Awarded directly to a tribal government
Awarded project identifies tribal government, but funding arrangement or sharing is unknown.
Awarded project claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”,
“Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, or “Alaska Native landowners”, but more
research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial funding would be directed to tribal
governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

Table 5: Awarded tribal government or Native community affiliated projects in FY 2023 for Equity in
Conservation Outreach Projects
Award
Recipient

Website

Amount

Cherokee
Nation

https://ww
w.cheroke
e.org/

$594,232 Cherokee Nation (CN) is proposing to implement a needed internship
OK
program within the Cherokee Nation Natural Resources (CNNR)
department to fill the existing gap of paid internship availability to
Cherokee students. The goal for this program is to promote educational
degrees in conservation and natural resources for Cherokee students
through targeted internships that result in employment in related fields.
CNNR is partnering with CN's Career Services (CNCS) and Education
Services (CNES), as well as Northeastern State University (NSU) to
achieve this goal and the objectives of this project. This project supports
expanding conservation assistance to underserved communities and
providing opportunities for students to pursue careers in agriculture, natural
resources, and related sciences through the proposed internship program.

TRIBE
AWARDED

$697,000 The goals of the project are to develop the conservation leadership skills of CO
Native natural resource professionals in the Northern Great Plains, who are
tribal employees. This will enable them to address local natural resource
issues, community conservation priorities, restore Indigenous ecological
management practices. Additionally, the project aims to improve and
conserve tribal lands and waters. The project will also boost the capacity of
Native American farmers to address conservation issues, improve soil
health and water quality, achieve sustainable local food systems, and
manage resources in line with Indigenous values.

TRIBAL
ORGANIZATIO
N AWARDED

First Nations
Development
Institute

https://ww
w.firstnati
ons.org/

Project description

State Ideas for NW
Tribes

Greater
Yellowstone
Coalition

https://grea $109,908 Greater Yellowstone Coalition will conduct outreach activities on the Wind WY
teryellowst
River Indian Reservation. The goal is to encourage diverse and inclusive
one.org/
participation in NRCS programs and introduce conservation planning to
protect wildlife habitat in Wyoming's underserved communities. Outreach
to the Fort Washakie, Ethete, Arapahoe, and Crowheart communities will
focus on agriculture, wildlife populations, buffalo restoration, and water
rights. Open community meetings will be hosted to increase awareness of
NRCS program availability to Tribal producers. Targeted one-on-one
conversations will also be conducted with producers working in priority
wildlife habitats. Additionally, enrollment sessions will be held for
interested and eligible producers, featuring agency staff who can provide
technical assistance and facilitate Tribal livestock producer enrollment in
NRCS programs such as EQIP, ACEP, and RCPP.

Knik Tribe

http://knikt $398,598 The project will focus on regional stakeholders from Alaska Native
AK
ribe.org/
Corporations, Tribal Conservation Districts, Tribal Charter Schools, and
other educational partners serving Alaska Native students. It will provide
hands-on training experiences, agricultural curriculum, technical assistance
field trips, farm tours, and competition kits for the Alaska FFA State
Convention.

Partnership with
Natural
Resources, Career
Services and
Education to offer
paid internships
and education.

Project is
regionally
focused. Could
request FNDI to
offer similar
project focused on
NW tribes.

76

Menominee
Indian Tribe
of Wisconsin

https://ww
w.menomi
neensn.gov/

$265,691 The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture
and Food Systems centers on food sovereignty and the return of traditional
Menominee food systems, a direct reflection of tribal culture, values, and
sovereignty. The tribe recognizes the threat of the climate crisis and is
working to prepare for ecological shifts and prevent further damage. This
includes adopting new, green alternatives for clean energy and
implementing mitigation strategies for the potential of environmental
disasters.

WI

Northeastern
State
University

https://ww $258,978 Northeastern State University (NSU), a Minority Serving Institution (MSI)
w.nsuok.ed
located within the Cherokee Nation, will educate 6th-12th grade youth on
u/
careers in natural resource conservation and other agricultural subjects.
Outreach coordinators will also offer training workshops to underserved
farmers in the area on conservation practices, how they can improve their
operations, and applying for NRCS assistance.

OK

Northern
Arapaho
Tribe

https://ww $692,407 The Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River
WY
w.northern
Reservation are establishing an Office of Agricultural and Natural
arapaho.co
Resources (OANR)to implement their Agricultural Resources Management
m/
Plan. The OANR will focus on developing agriculture on the Reservation
in an economically viable and sustainable manner while preserving natural
resources and traditional ways. It will also encourage new farmers and
ranchers. The OANR will assist in agriculture and natural resources
management, including data-driven decision-making to support wildlife,
livestock, natural habitat, rangeland, and economic development on the
Reservation.

Red Cliff
https://ww
Band of Lake w.redcliffSuperior
nsn.gov/
Chippewa
Indians

TRIBE
AWARDED
Potential funding
for First Foods or
establishment of
Department of
Agriculture.

$272,579 This project will provide increased technical support to small-scale
WI
agriculture projects and land stewardship within the Red Cliff community.
This will be achieved through three key focus areas: 1) Enhancing the
capacity and expertise of the Farm's staff by providing funding and
opportunities for professional development. 2) Providing additional
technical support to the broader Red Cliff community and Red Cliff
producers such as agriculture, natural resource management, and food
sovereignty. 3) Conducting outreach initiative to promote youth leadership,
interest, and skill development in the fields of natural resources,
agriculture, and food sovereignty.

TRIBE
AWARDED
Potential funding
for First Foods or
establishment of a
Tribal
Department of
Agriculture.
TRIBE
AWARDED
Project focused on
small-scale ag
projects, land
stewardship,
technical
assistance,
outreach and food
sovereignty.

The Learning
Center at the
Euchee
Butterfly
Farm Inc

https://ww $318,150 The Learning Center at the Euchee Butterfly Farm, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
OK
w.nativebu
founded in 2013 by citizens of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and a
tterflies.or
underserved legal entity, is requesting to support a two-year project entitled
g/
Tribal Alliance for Pollinators: Connecting Native American Producers
with Conservation Resources. The purpose of this project is to remove
identified barriers that prevent Native Americans from accessing NRCS
resources and careers. It will provide training workshops, conferences, onsite technical support, and internships that are designed and led by Native
American project staff in culturally appropriate venues.

Waianae
Community
ReDevelopment
Corporation

https://mao $697,000 Kilohana Kaiulu is a community-based initiative that aims to engage and
HI/PI NATIVEorganicfar
inspire all youth, especially those from unserved communities, Native
A
CONTROLLED
ms.org
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander traditions of alohaina (place-based resource
501c3
stewardship). The project seeks to fosters diversity, equity and inclusivity
NONPROFIT
while empowering leadership for a sustainable and resilient community
Youth focused
farming, food and agriculture system. The initiative will provide educationto-workforce opportunities.
project place-

based
stewardship.

Source: (NRCS, 2023-a).

77

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
Much of the language used in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NFO) reads similar to the NRCS RCPP
Classic and Alternative Funding Arrangements, where awardees are essentially performing the role of
NRCS within the strict parameters of long-standing NRCS conservation programs. However, this
cooperative agreement seems to be a better fit for tribal governments. As demonstrated in Table 5,
projects were awarded directly to tribal governments to address a broad range of projects. The awarded
projects allow for culturally-based education and outreach, enhancing capacity of departments within
tribal governments and small-scale agriculture.
Additionally, within the Frequently Asked Questions, the work plan allows for funding of staff positions
that are more outreach-focused, than technical-assistance-focused (NRCS, 2023-c, p.4). This flexibility is
very important to tribal communities, where elders or other cultural knowledge holders are important
employees and educators within the food system.
Excerpt from Frequently Asked Questions document regarding grant staffing:
Q. How much training would hired staff need? That is, is the expectation they would
be delivering technical assistance for USDA programs (e.g., EQIP) and would need
NRCS training? Or could the positions focus more on outreach activities and
connecting farmers to resources be they state, federal or private?
A. It is the responsibility of the recipient organization to provide qualified staff to
carry out the work plan they propose in their application. It is not expected that all
projects be highly technical in nature; they may be more focused on outreach,
depending on the goals of the project.
(NRCS, 2023-c, p.4)

Recommendation:
Continue funding for Equity in Conservation Outreach Projects.

Attention: Tribal Governments
The Equity in Conservation Outreach Projects is a new discretionary funding opportunity making future
funding years uncertain, but NRCS is using feedback from previous funding cycles to improve potential
funding opportunities in the future. NRCS is awarding projects directly to tribal governments that are
serving a broad range of needs. Tribes are very diverse and require flexible funding, which makes
this a rare example of a funding opportunity that could fit the needs of many tribes.

78

NRCS Funding Opportunity 6: Conservation Innovation
Grants
“Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)8 are competitive grants that drive public and private sector
innovation in resource conservation. CIG projects inspire creative problem-solving—boosting production
on farms, ranches, and private forests through improvements in water quality, soil health, and wildlife
habitat.” (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2019, p. 1)

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
The researcher identified 13 tribal governments who received CIG funding since 2007.
See Table 6 in Appendix E for a list of previously awarded tribal governments or tribal community
affiliated projects. Much of this funding is used for science or restoration efforts including prescribed fire,
research on combating invasive species, coordinating conservation for unique subsistence resource
production issues, research on wildlife diet, as well as conventional agricultural production.

Recommendation:
Expand CIG funding to tribal governments (there are 574 federally recognized tribes in the U.S.).
This funding opportunity also has a 1:1 match requirement (cash or in-kind) and up to 10% of national
CIG funds are set aside for applicants who are historically underserved (beginning, limited resource,
socially disadvantaged, military veteran farmers and ranchers, or American Indian tribes) or communitybased organizations that include or represent these groups.” (Natural Resources Conservation Service,
2019, p. 2)

8

For more information on Conservation Innovation Grants, visit:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/cig-conservation-innovation-grants

79

NRCS Funding Opportunity 7: Joint Chiefs Landscape
Restoration Partnership
During interviews with USDA staff, the researcher was encouraged to consider funding called “Joint
Chiefs”9 where the Forest Service Chief and NRCS Chief join together on a project to treat a larger
landscapes-scale problem.

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
The limitation of this funding is that it is just funding that the agencies use to carry out work on a
conservation project, it is not funding for tribes to carry out conservation work. Tribal governments have
to bring their own financial capacity to participate in a Joint Chiefs project. Ferguson described a
successful Joint Chiefs project in collaboration with another tribe outside the scope of this research
project. Ferguson shared, “So I was involved in helping set up that Joint Chiefs project lasted 3 years.
[Redacted name of tribal government involved because the researcher did not have a research permit with
that Tribe] …they've got a lot quite a bit of capacity already. They have a forestry division staff. And so
that was, I think, why they're able to get into this Joint management position with the Forest Service,
because they do have staff, they do have capacity to help do that... So it depends on the Tribe, and where
they're at now, and how they're already managing or securing funds to maintain their physical capacity
and staff. So that is a big difference, I think, among tribes is tailoring what type of programs fit with a
tribe, in their capacity.” (David Ferguson, personal communication, March 21, 2024).

Recommendation:
Change the name of this funding to something other than “Chiefs”.
Recommendation:
Increase funding available for Partnership projects and make planning a part of Tribal
Consultation.
Recommendation:
In Oregon, outreach and communication regarding project planning could be increased via the
State and tribal government Natural Resources Cluster Work Group.

9

For more information on Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership, visit:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/joint-chiefs-landscape-restoration-partnership

80

NIFA Funding
The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) was established by the Food
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) to find innovative solutions to issues related
to agriculture, food, the environment, and communities.

NIFA offers 3 types of funding:
Competitive Grants: programs that enable NIFA, via a rigorous peer review process, to select the
highest quality proposals from a large pool of institutions and organizations
Competitive Grants are the only types of grants that are currently available to tribal
governments.

Capacity Grant: programs that ensure that the Land-Grant University System and other partners
maintain the ability to conduct research and extension activities
Policy Change Recommendation:
Make Capacity Grants available to Tribal Governments’ Education Departments. With
funding support, tribal governments could institutionalize culturally-based extension programs to
provide community education across their homelands.

Non-Competitive Grants: grants directed by Congress to support designated institutions for research,
education, or extension on topics of importance to a state or region
Policy Change Recommendation:
Make Non-Competitive Grants available to Tribal Governments. With funding support, tribal
governments would be better equipped to collaborate and conduct research with institutions.
Funding for tribes to engage in tribal consultation would make it easier for tribal students to work
with tribal governments and could also prevent extractive or harmful research.

81

NIFA past award data
The graph and data below was obtained from the NIFA Grant Funding Dashboard and only shows NIFA
funding that went directly to federally recognized tribes. Since 2018, NIFA has awarded funding to a
total of 7 Federally Recognized Tribal Governments through the following Federal Programs. Note
that there are 574 federally recognized tribal governments in the US.

Figure 8: Overview of NIFA funding for grants started since FY 2018, data includes only Indian/Native
American tribal governments (Federally Recognized) (NIFA, n.d.-a, retrieved on 3/13/2024).

82

NIFA Funding Opportunity 1: Community Food Projects
Competitive Grants Program
The Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program10 seeks to address food security and
nutrition.
The minimum award is $125,000 over 12 months and maximum award is $400,000 over 48 months. The
average award is approximately $298,000 over 36 to 48 months. CFP has a dollar-for-dollar match
requirement for all federal funds requested. The purpose of the CFP is to support the development of
projects with a one-time infusion of federal dollars to make such projects self-sustaining.

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
Because this funding is only available one-time, tribal governments may use this as a start-up for
community food projects which may or may not include First Foods. This funding is not accessible for
tribal governments who cannot meet the match requirement or who need consistent long-term funding to
support their First Foods.
As indicated in Figure 8, the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program was the NIFA most
awarded funding opportunity to tribal governments between 2018-2023. Since 2018, $1,341,526 has
been awarded between 4 tribal governments (NIFA, n.d.-a).
An example of a PNW tribe that has been awarded is the Yurok Tribe who received a 4 year grant of
$374,020 for 2022-2026.
Yurok Tribe project description:
The Weitchpec Food Village Project will provide access to healthy, local produce to the
rural, remote, under-employed, food desert that exists within the upriver region of the
Yurok Indian Reservation. Community members and other stakeholders will identify
priorities for food production and educational programs, while guiding the Yurok Tribe
Environmental Program (YTEP) Food Sovereignty Division in the long-term planning for
the development of the Food Village and its corresponding structures.

10

For more information on Community Food Projects Competitive Grants, visit:
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/community-food-projects-competitive-grants-program

83

NIFA Funding 2: Tribal Programs
NIFA Tribal Programs11 funding promotes learning, opportunity and health in Indian Country (NIFA,
n.d.-d). The agency has five grants that specifically target Indian Country. Four of the grants support
learning at the 1994 Land-Grants, also known as federally recognized tribal colleges. In addition, the
Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) supports 1890 and 1862 Land-Grants who
provide informal, community-based learning on reservations.

Analysis of Funding:
NIFA identifies funding as “Tribal Programs”, however tribes are not eligible for any of the funding
opportunities (see Table 7). There are no 1994 Land-Grant institutions, also known as Tribal Colleges in
Oregon. The closest Tribal College to CTSI and CTUIR is approximately a 6.5 hour drive away in
Washington State, Northwest Indian College. The Karuk Tribe is located over 6 hour drive from D-Q
University (tribal college), but the institution lost its accreditation in 2005.
Many tribal governments provide educational support to Tribal students and conduct research on First
Foods and would benefit from access to NIFA research and education funding. NIFA and other funding
agencies should consider how funding may not be reaching intended communities when they do not
award funding directly to tribal governments.
Tribal governments are the institutions that are most appropriate for studying First Foods and by
empowering tribal governments in research, NIFA can contribute to data sovereignty and ethical research
with tribes. Tribal Members are the most culturally appropriate instructors for educating Tribal youth
about First Foods, so funding going to tribal governments is a way of supporting culturally appropriate
education.
Recommendation:
Make tribal governments eligible for Tribal Programs, because funding is needed by tribal
governments to conduct research and education within their communities on First Foods.

11

For more on NIFA Tribal Programs, visit:
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/nifa-tribal-programs

84

USDA NIFA Tribal Programs
Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to apply for any of the following, however, institutions may be encouraged or required to partner
with tribal governments or organizations that work with Tribal students.
Table 7: Funding available through NIFA’s Tribal Programs.
Assista Funding Program Area Priority Name
nce
Name
Listing
Number

Limitations

10.500

10.227

Amount Durati Mat Indirect
on
ch allowed

Federall
yRecogni
zed
Tribes
Extensio
n
Program

The purpose and intent of this program is to establish an
Extension presence and support Extension outreach on
Federally Recognized Indian Reservations and Tribal
jurisdictions of Federally Recognized Tribes. This
program seeks to continue the Land Grants mission of
inclusion--providing education and research-based
knowledge to those who might not otherwise receive it.

Only 1862,
$0 5
1890, and 1994 $360,00 years
Land-Grant
0
Institutions are
eligible to
apply.

0 No

Tribal
College
Researc
h Grant
Program

Program Code Name: TCRGP

Only 1994
Land-Grant
Institutions are
eligible to
apply.

0 Indirect
not to
exceed 30
percent of
Total
Federal
Funds
Awarded

Project Types:
• New Discovery
• Area of Expertise
• Applied Faculty/Community
• Conference Grants
• Research Experience for
Undergraduates

$150,00 24-60
0Mont
$650,00 hs
0

Renewabl Notes
e

Yes

Oregon State University or University of California can
apply for this funding.
The priority areas of the FRTEP Program:
1. Positive youth development programs, including 4-H
for tribal youth
2. Native Farmer and Rancher Productivity and
Management
3. Native Community Development:
- Economic and Workforce Development
- Food Systems, Farm and Community Markets, and Food
Sovereignty
- Natural Resource Conservation and Adaptation to
Environmental Changes
- Human Nutrition and Reduction of Childhood and
Adolescent Obesity
- Native Language and Culture Preservation
- Traditional Ecological Knowledge sharing and learning,
or knowledge held by indigenous cultures about the
environment or cultural practices.

Continuati
on Awards
may be
available,
see
criteria.
(Dependen
t on
appropriati
on.)

There are no tribal colleges in Oregon. The closest tribal
college to Siletz and Umatilla is approximately a 6.5 hour
drive away in Washington State, Northwest Indian
College. The Karuk Tribe is located over 6 hour drive
from D-Q University (tribal college), but lost its
accreditation in 2005.

85

10.517

Tribal
Projects or Grants:
Colleges • Single-Function Extension Projects
Extensio • Standard Grants
n
Program
: Special
Emphasi
s

Only 1994
Land-Grant
Institutions are
eligible to
apply.

$60,000 24-36
Mont
$200,00 hs
0

0 No

Continuati
on Awards
may be
available,
see
criteria.
(Dependen
t on
appropriati
on.)

Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 supports pilot projects in extension
at the 1994 Land Grant institutions. A pilot project allows
Extension offices to be responsive to community needs
through two-year projects that address youth, agriculture,
economic development, or other issues important to
stakeholders.

10.221

Tribal
Equity
Grants
Program

Program priorities?
• Culturally relevant curricula design and materials
development
• Culturally responsive faculty development and teacher
preparation
• Student experiential learning
• Equipment and instrumentation for teaching Science,
Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math
• Student recruitment and retention
• Instruction delivery systems and strategic partnerships

Only 1994
Land-Grant
Institutions are
eligible to
apply.

$0 48
$130,00 month
0
s

0 Indirect
not to
exceed 30
percent of
Total
Federal
Funds
Awarded

Continuati
on Awards
may be
available,
see
criteria.
(Dependen
t on
appropriati
on.)

The Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants (TCEG)
program (assistance listing 10.221) is designed to help
build Tribal education capacity in the food and
agricultural sciences for Native Alaskan/American Indian
students.

10.527

New
Beginni
ng for
Tribal
Students
Program

Grant Types:
• Regular Grant Type
• Collaborative Grant Type 1 (CG1) (Applicant +
Another Collaborator, for example, a 1994 land-grant
institution or non-land-grant Tribal college, high school,
Tribal Government, community college, another landgrant institution, a technical school, or an organization
that works with Tribal students)
• Collaborative Grant Type 2 (CG2) (Applicant + Two
or more Partners, with one or more of those partners
being a 1994 land-grant institution)

Only land-grant
colleges and
universities are
eligible to
apply, but are
encouraged to
partner with
high schools,
Tribal
Governments,
community
colleges,
technical
institutions, and
other
organizations
that work with
Tribal students.

$250,00 Up to
04
$500,00 Years
0

TBD

The purpose of the NBTS grant program, Assistance
Listing 10.527, is to increase the retention and graduation
rate of Tribal students attending 1994, 1862, and 1890
land-grant universities. The primary goals and objectives
of the program are for land-grant colleges or universities
to use NBTS funding to support tribal students through all
of the following, but not limited to: recruiting; tuition and
related fees; experiential learning; student services,
including tutoring; counseling; academic advising; and
other student services that would increase the retention
and graduation rate of Tribal students enrolled at landgrant colleges or universities.

100 Yes
%

Source: (NIFA, n.d.-d).12
12

For the most updated information on NIFA Tribal Programs, visit https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/nifa-tribal-programs

86

Example of funding ineligibility: Federally Recognized Tribes Extension
Program (FRTEP)
The purpose of this program is to establish an Extension presence and support Extension outreach on
Federally Recognized Indian Reservations and Tribal jurisdictions of Federally-Recognized Tribes. This
program seeks to continue the Land Grants mission of inclusion - providing education and research-based
knowledge to those who might not otherwise receive it. (NIFA, n.d.-b)

Figure 9: Map of Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Programs. There are currently 35 Federally
Recognized Tribal Extension Programs - Current FRTEP Profiles

Analysis of Funding:
Within Oregon, only Oregon State University is able to access this funding (Federally Recognized Tribes
are not eligible). Currently, Oregon State University only serves 1 out of the 9 Federally Recognized
Tribes in Oregon and has been providing extension services for over 30 years. Currently, California has
no FRTEP. California’s University of California is eligible to apply for FRTEP.
Extension receives an average of $22,250/year through FRTEP funding
In FY 2022, the total grant funding available for FRTEP was approximately $3.2 million with a
maximum of $360,000 per award and anticipation of 36 awards (NIFA, n.d.-b). This averages to just
under $89,000 per award to provide services over a 4 year funding period ($22,250/year).
Limitations of this funding:

87

●
●
●

●
●
●
●

Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to receive funding through the NIFA Federally
Recognized Tribes Extension Program.
FRTEP gives preference to previously established FRTEPs.
Limited funding is available
○ Currently, the average funding amount is not adequate to support 1 FTE. According to
Salary.com, an Agriculture Extension Agent in Oregon earns an average salary of
$58,598 per year.
Extension has established programming and curriculums that are modern-agriculture focused and
not based around First Foods or the diverse cultures of each Tribe.
Extension would need to agree to replace long-established programs and curriculums in favor of
Federally Recognized Tribes co-creating new culturally-based programs and curriculums.
New culturally-based programs and curriculums would need to be developed.
If a Federally Recognized Tribe is located far from an existing Extension office, it may be
difficult to establish a new FRTEP within the tribal community.

Opportunity:
Tribal governments may support their local Land-Grant institution and Extension office to apply for
FRTEP funding. To apply, the Land-Grant institution must obtain an MOU from the Federally
Recognized Tribe. As Federally Recognized Tribes consider drafting MOUs to bring FRTEP to their
communities, they can reference previously funded awards13, where some activities include reference to
cultural education or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).
The amount of funding dedicated to cultural education and TEK is unclear, so the project's objectives and
budget would need to be developed in consultation with the federally recognized tribe to determine needs
and activities.

Recommendation:
Expand funding for FRTEP
● increase the number of awards
● increase the amount per award, especially for Alaska and other rural Federally Recognized
Tribes.

Recommendation:
Employ or contract with Tribal Members of Federally Recognized Tribes to provide culturallybased education within their communities.

Recommendation to Tribes:
Federally Recognized Tribes should request programming that meets their unique needs via their
MOU.
13

Follow link to see a list of FRTEP Awardees and project descriptions going back to 2002.

88

NIFA Funding 3: Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI)
“The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) awards AFRI research, education, and extension
grants to improve rural economies, increase food production, stimulate the bioeconomy, mitigate impacts
of climate variability, address water availability issues, ensure food safety and security, enhance human
nutrition, and train the next generation of the agricultural workforce.” (NIFA, n.d.-c).
Eligibility:
● Native American Tribal Organizations (not federally recognized tribal governments)

Analysis of Funding:
Tribal governments need research and educational funding for First Foods. Tribal governments are not
eligible to lead research projects, however, tribal governments can work with Native American tribal
organizations or specific universities. Tribal governments may or may not receive a share in funding
through these collaborations.
Options for making AFRI funding more accessible to tribal governments:
1. Make tribal governments eligible for AFRI funding.
2. Make 5 year renewable funding available to tribal governments similar to the AFRI grants
available through the BIA 477 Workforce Development
Table 8 shows a selection of funding opportunities available through AFRI that may be applicable to First
Foods. Note that research and education can include TEK and education on First Foods, but federally
recognized tribal governments are not able to apply for this funding.
NIFA Funding Success Story: Klamath Basin NIFA grant
An example of a successful collaboration on a NIFA grant was a 2012 food assessment research
project led by the University of California, in partnership with tribes throughout the Klamath
Basin in California and Oregon. A 5-year, 5 million dollar NIFA AFRI grant was awarded to UC
Berkeley and shared by the university with partnering tribes. The University of California
budgeted grant funding for tribal governments to hire staff to conduct outreach and education
within their tribal communities. It should be noted that it is unusual for universities to direct
funding to tribal governments and that the tribal governments would not have been able to obtain
these funds without the university. The subsequent report, titled “Food Security Assessment of
Native American Communities in the Klamath Basin with the Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes,
Yurok Tribe and Hoopa Tribe,” provided baseline food security and First Foods data which was
instrumental to tribal governments addressing hunger and First Foods’ needs. This research
project involved outreach and evaluation of food security needs, with tribes assisting with
outreach efforts and community food educational workshops.

89

Analysis:
● This grant was written by and managed by UC Berkeley, putting the university in the
position of power in the funding arrangement. The funding then filtered down to tribal
governments.
● NIFA requires large scale projects and this funding would not have been available to the
tribal governments without the grant writing, research and financial administration
capacity of UC Berkeley.
● The project generated baseline food security data and could be used by tribal
governments to demonstrate their community need when applying for future grants.
● The funding budgeted into the grant for tribal government provided tribes with the
opportunity to staff First Foods projects within their community.
● The project funded tribal members employed in First Foods and Food Security work
within their communities, which increased trust between the tribal community and
university.
● After the NIFA grant ended, the Karuk Tribe pursued new grant funding to support First
Foods staff and continue growing the work in the community.
● After the NIFA grant ended, the Klamath Tribes dissolved the staff position due to a lack
of funding.
● NIFA grant funding is unsustainable for staffing First Foods employment in tribal
communities.

90

Table 8: Select NIFA AFRI funding that could be applicable to First Foods.
USDA NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Funding Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to apply.
This is a select list of funding opportunities available through AFRI. This demonstrates funding where tribes are not eligible, but they may wish to
support other entities in pursuing funding. Note that Native American Tribal Organizations and other entities are eligible, but not tribal governments.
In the Description and Notes column, see how other entities are funded to research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, which is considered cultural
property for some tribal governments.
Assistanc Funding
e Listing Name
Number

Program Area Priority Name Limitations

Amount

10.310

Farm Bill priority areas:
Eligibility:
1. Plant health and production colleges and
and plant products;
universities only
2. Animal health and
production and animal
products;
3. Food safety, nutrition, and
health;
4. Bioenergy, natural resources,
and environment;
5. Agriculture systems and
technology; and
6. Agriculture economics and
rural communities.

$50,000 - Up to 60
$10,000,00 months
0

10.310

Sustainable
Agricultural
Systems

Education
and
Workforce
Development
(EWD)

- Professional Development for
Agricultural Literacy (A7501)
- Agricultural Workforce
Training at Community
Colleges (A7601)
- Food and Agricultural Nonformal Education (A7801)
- Research and Extension
Experiences for Undergraduates
(A7401)

Eligibility:
$22,000 - Native American $750,000
Tribal Orgs, not
Federally
recognized Tribal
Governments
- Nonprofits with
or without
501(c)(3) IRS
status
- Small Business

Duration Match

12-48
months

Matching
required if
commodity
specific

Matching
is
Required.

Indirect
allowed

Renewable Description and Notes

Indirect
not to
exceed
30% of
total
award

Unless
otherwise
stated,
grants are
not
renewable.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge is considered an
acceptable topic of research, education, and extension for
projects funded by this RFA (must fit within priorities,
goals, and objectives of the RFA).

Yes

No

Development program areas to support:
- professional development opportunities for K-14
educational professionals;
- non-formal education that cultivates food and
agricultural interest in youth;
- workforce training at community, junior, and technical
colleges;
- training of undergraduate students in research and
extension;

15% of applications funded

91

USDA NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Funding Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to apply.
This is a select list of funding opportunities available through AFRI. This demonstrates funding where tribes are not eligible, but they may wish to
support other entities in pursuing funding. Note that Native American Tribal Organizations and other entities are eligible, but not tribal governments.
In the Description and Notes column, see how other entities are funded to research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, which is considered cultural
property for some tribal governments.
Assistanc Funding
e Listing Name
Number

Program Area Priority Name Limitations

10.310

Eligibility:
$750,000
- 1862, 1890, or
1994 Land Grant
Institutions
- For-profit
Organizations
other than Small
3c. Diet, Nutrition, and the
$1,000,000
Prevention of Chronic Diseases Business
- Individuals
(A1344)
- Native American
Tribal Orgs, not
Federally
recognized Tribal $750,000
4d. Sustainable
Governments
Agroecosystems ( A1451)
- Nonprofits with
or without
501(c)(3) IRS
status
- Small Business

Foundational 1c. Pests and Beneficial Species
and Applied in Agricultural Production
Science
Systems (A1112)
Program

4e. Environmental Justice
(A1461)

Amount

Duration Match

36-60
months

36-60
months

36-48
months

$1,000,000 48-60
months

Indirect
allowed

Applicants Yes
MUST
provide
matching
contributio
ns on a
dollar-fordollar basis
for all
Federal
funds
awarded
under
AFRI for
applied
research
grants or
equipment
grants
unless a
waiver
applies.

Renewable Description and Notes

Unless
otherwise
stated,
grants are
not
renewable.

The goal of the Pests and Beneficial Species in
Agricultural Production Systems program is to advance
knowledge of invasive or established plant pests and
associated beneficial species leading to innovative and
biologically-based strategies to manage pests.
NIFA requests proposals for integrated projects that help
prevent and control chronic disease equitably across the
lifecycle by supporting and encouraging culturally
relevant, healthy dietary choices through data-driven,
flexible, customer-focused approaches.
This program area priority calls for research projects that
focus on improvement of ecosystem health and output of
ecosystem services in managed production systems
(croplands, forests, and rangelands) that are currently
under stress or at risk from climate change, pests,
pathogens, invasive plants, and increased environmental
pressures.
Applications are required to meaningfully incorporate
participation of communities with environmental justice
concerns at all stages of project development and
execution. This may involve incorporating use of
traditional ecological knowledge such as Indigenous
traditional knowledge and/or utilizing methods such as
participatory research and extension, co-production, and
transdisciplinary approaches.

92

USDA NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Funding Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to apply.
This is a select list of funding opportunities available through AFRI. This demonstrates funding where tribes are not eligible, but they may wish to
support other entities in pursuing funding. Note that Native American Tribal Organizations and other entities are eligible, but not tribal governments.
In the Description and Notes column, see how other entities are funded to research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, which is considered cultural
property for some tribal governments.
Assistanc Funding
e Listing Name
Number

10.225

Community
Food Projects
Competitive
Grant
Program

Program Area Priority Name Limitations

Amount

7f. Extension, Education &
USDA Climate Hubs
Partnership

$1,000,000 36-60
months

In FY 2024, CFPCGP will fund
two project types: 1) Planning
Projects (PP), and 2)
Community Food Projects
(CFP).

To be eligible for $25,000 a grant under
$400,000
CFPCGP, a public
food program
service provider, a
tribal
organization, or a
private nonprofit
entity.

Duration Match

12-36
Months

Indirect
allowed

Renewable Description and Notes

This program area priority will support projects that
provide effective, translatable, and scalable approaches to
address climate change through regional partnerships
including the USDA Climate Hubs and extension.
Applicants Yes
MUST
provide
matching
contributio
ns on a
dollar-fordollar basis
for all
Federal
funds
requested.

No

The CFPCGP is designed to:
1. a. Meet the food needs of low-income individuals
through food distribution, community outreach to assist in
participation in Federally assisted nutrition programs, or
improving access to food as part of a comprehensive
service;
b. Increase the self-reliance of communities in providing
for the food needs of the communities; and
c. Promote comprehensive responses to local food, food
access, farm, and nutrition issues; or
2. Meet specific State, local, or neighborhood food and
agricultural needs, including needs relating to:
a. Equipment necessary for the efficient operation of a
project;
b. Planning for long-term solutions; or
c. The creation of innovative marketing activities that
mutually benefit agricultural producers and low-income
consumers.
The CFPCGP is intended to bring together stakeholders
from distinct parts of the food system and to foster
understanding of national food security trends and how
they might improve local food systems. Understanding
that people with low incomes experience disproportionate
access to healthy foods, projects should address food and
nutrition security, particularly among our nation’s most

93

USDA NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Funding Federally Recognized Tribes are not eligible to apply.
This is a select list of funding opportunities available through AFRI. This demonstrates funding where tribes are not eligible, but they may wish to
support other entities in pursuing funding. Note that Native American Tribal Organizations and other entities are eligible, but not tribal governments.
In the Description and Notes column, see how other entities are funded to research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, which is considered cultural
property for some tribal governments.
Assistanc Funding
e Listing Name
Number

Program Area Priority Name Limitations

Amount

Duration Match

Indirect
allowed

Renewable Description and Notes

vulnerable populations. Applications from organizations
that address food insecurity in rural, tribal, and
underserved communities are encouraged.

94

Forest Service Funding
The Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests
and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations (Forest Service, n.d.-g). The Forest
Service is a USDA agency which greatly impacts First Foods, though much of the funding is focused on
forestry, not food specifically. Many tribes have ancestral homelands or reservations that were transferred
to the management of National Forests, but tribes today still need protected access to First Foods within
these lands.
The Forest Service was mentioned in several interviews with tribal government staff as offering beneficial
funding to tribes. The Forest Service was viewed as offering funding that was applicable to the needs of
tribal governments and also the needs of First Foods. Tribes felt that it was hard for the Forest Service to
increase funding to tribes because the Forest Service is underfunded, in general.
Examples of how the Forest Service is working with tribes includes Tribal Liaisons and Region 5 has a
Traditional Gathering Policy. The two funding opportunities most mentioned during interviews were the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and the Tribal Forest Protection Act
(TFPA). Several other funding opportunities were recommended during interviews with Tribal Liaisons
and are listed later in the chapter.

Forest Service Tribal Liaisons
Two Forest Service Tribal Liaisons were interviewed for this project, representing the Pacific Southwest
Region 5 and Pacific Northwest Region 6. Forest Service Tribal Liaison Kristi Tapio-Harper recommends
that tribes work with their local forests to inform them of areas important to the tribe. Tapio-Harper said
that the current Administration is trying to incorporate tribal input into the Forest Service planning efforts
in an effort to be preemptive. (Kristi Tapio-Harper, personal communication, October 17, 2023).
The Forest Service is doing outreach to tribal governments asking for them to attend meetings, participate
in interdisciplinary teams, and be a part of planning, but they repeatedly hear from tribes that they don’t
have time or manpower. Forest Service is looking to help fund positions at the tribal government to help
with liaison work between agencies. Tapio-Harper shared that the Forest Service is planning to start
providing funding for Tribal Liaisons for Yakama and Colville to be the tribal government counterpart to
the Federal Tribal Liaisons.

95

“We have a supplemental agreement with an overarching master agreement with the
Native American Tribal Historic Preservation Office. And part of that consultation
that we're trying to bring to the table is pay for staff time for one of our forests in the
region… But not a Federal Tribal Liaison, so to speak. But it's a Tribal Member or a
person employed by the Tribes, that do kind of the flip side of a Federal Tribal
Liaison. They work with the Tribe and work with the Forest Service on various
things, and [the Forest Service is] going to pay for that position to sit at the table
during NEPA planning”
(Kristi Tapio-Harper, personal communication, October 17, 2023).

Recommendation:
Forest Service funding for new Tribal Liaisons at the tribal government level.

Forest Service Traditional Gathering Policy
The Forest Service (and Bureau of Land Management) have a Traditional Gathering Policy for Region 514
in California (near the Karuk Tribe) that supports traditional native cultural practitioners in gathering
culturally utilized plants for personal, community, or other non-commercial traditional use. Rowena
Yeahquo said that most Forests require a permit, so many Forest Service employees are unaware of the
policy when they come to Region 5.
“It gets a little confusing when the tribe goes out and they start gathering for baskets,
or medicinal, or ceremonial. And then we have Forest Service employees stopping
them and asking questions or law enforcement, or whoever. And so it's one of the
biggest things I'm doing right now is just educating our Forest Service employees…
They [the tribes] have a very small land base here in California, and there's a whole
history behind that. Why their treaties didn't get ratified and all kinds of things, so
they don't have a very. a lot of the tribes don't have a very big land base, so they
depend on the forest. I mean, that is their ancestral lands, and that some of them still
have ceremonies out there.”
(Rowena Yeahquo, personal communication, November 1, 2023)

Recommendation:
In Region 6, Tribes should work with their local forests to develop policy for their Tribal Members
to have protected access for traditional gathering.

14

For more on the Forest Service Region 5 Traditional Gathering Policy, visit:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/workingtogether/tribalrelations/?cid=fseprd683463

96

Recommendation:
The Forest Service should institutionalize the Traditional Gathering Policy into new employed
training within Region 5.

638 Authority for the Tribal Forest Protection Act
In the 2018 Farm Bill, (P.L. 115-334) Section 8703 authorized the Forest Service to use 638 authority for
Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) demonstration projects15, where the Forest Service is doing 638
contracting for “projects”, which is different from how the BIA does 638 contracting for programs or 638
compacting. “To start out, the Forest Service will pilot 638 agreements for projects as we all learn how
this authority can work for the Forest Service and tribal partners for work on NFS lands.” (Forest Service,
2020, p. 13)
TFPA requires a tribal government to develop a proposal to the Forest Service and 638 is a tool to fund
work identified as a priority in an approved TFPA proposal. “TFPA projects can include pre-planning
support work in their proposal, such as the development of the Environmental Analysis. It’s essential that
the Forest Service and the Tribe plan work together in order to ensure a quality project or program.”
(Forest Service, 2020, p. 4)
It is important to note that Forest Service 638 agreements are for work on National Forest System (Forest
Service) lands, while work on tribal lands is ineligible for funding (Forest Service, 2020, p. 2) Tribal staff
work throughout their ancestral homelands on Forest Service, BLM, tribal land and private land. When
planning projects throughout ancestral homelands, it becomes harder to budget staffing when the funding
doesn’t allow tribes to work across these imposed land-classifications or jurisdictions. Regardless, 638
pilot project funding is a move in a positive direction for tribal governments.

First Foods Funding Need:
Funding for Stewardship Agreements that grow into Co-Management Funding
Stewardship agreements are decided on a Tribe by Tribe and Forest by Forest basis and there are no funds
associated with it. The Forest Service has discretion to decide what funding support they want to dedicate
to a tribe and the scope of work. “There is no money in the stewardship agreements. But you can put
money into it, if the Forest Service, if they think that's something that they feel like is a priority, and they
want to put that on their program of work” (Rowena Yeahquo, personal communication, November 1,
2023). Forest Service Tribal Liaison for California, Rowena Yeahquo, said that possibly training funding
or workforce development funding could be a part of agreements with the Forest Service.

15

The Intertribal Timber Council hosted 638 authority webinars, to watch, visit: https://www.fs.usda.gov/insidefs/out-and-about/forest-management-intertribal-timber-council-host-638-authority-webinars

97

Forest Service Funding Opportunity 1: Collaborative
Forest Restoration Landscape Restoration Program
(CFLRP) funding
“The purpose of the Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is to
encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes and:
● encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability;
● leverage local resources with national and private resources;
● facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through re-establishing
natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire;
● demonstrate the degree to which various ecological restoration techniques achieve ecological
and watershed health objectives; and,
● encourage utilization of forest restoration by-products to offset treatment costs, to benefit
local rural economies, to and improve forest health.”
(Forest Service, n.d.-f).
CFRLR was established in 2009, but funding for the program dramatically increased after it was
reauthorized in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 Section 8629 (the Farm Bill), and again when
CFRLR received an influx of funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (H.R.3684 - Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act). Most tribes are not the lead awardee in these collaborations, typically they are
listed as partners. Some collaborations have budgeted award funding for tribes, but the greater award
allocations tend to go to NGOs, businesses or local Forest Service districts. The Karuk Tribe was awarded
in 2022 for their project proposal, Western Klamath Restoration Partnership CFLRP Proposal, in which
they are collaborating to implement cultural burns to improve habitat and reduce wildfire risk. Cultural
burning is an important cultural land management practice for First Foods. The Karuk Tribe shares more
about their experience with CFLRP and TFPA funding in the next section.
Nationally, 37 projects have been awarded since 2010, including both projects that involve or do not
involve tribes.
● 10 projects were awarded in 2010 ranging from $392,000 to $1.63 million
● 10 projects were awarded in 2012, ranging from $324,000 to $3,500,000
● 3 projects were awarded in 2021, ranging from $672,536 to $3,000,000
● 12 new projects were awarded in 2022, ranging from $180,366 to $3,000,000, including two 10
year project extensions which requested $21,406,027 and $10,000,000
● 2 projects were awarded in 2023, ranging from $1,100,000 to $1,093,053
(Forest Service, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c, n.d.-d, n.d.-e).
See the next section for the analysis of CFLRP funding.

98

Forest Service Funding Opportunity 2: Tribal Forest
Protection Act (TFPA)
“The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) allows federally recognized tribes to propose projects to be
conducted on Forest Service land to reduce threats to adjacent tribal lands, trust resources, and
values. Tribal values can be ecological, cultural or archaeological, and the tribe proposing a TFPA
project must specify how taking action on Forest Service lands will reduce risks to those values.”
(Climate Hubs, n.d.).
The 2018 Farm Bill authorized the Forest Service to execute "638" agreements to undertake TFPA work
under the Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) and
demonstration projects are currently being led by tribes who will help shape and expand future
agreements (Intertribal Timber Council, n.d.).
The Intertribal Timber Council has developed TFPA resources and templates, available on their website16.
Kristi Tapio-Harper, Forest Service Tribal Liaison:
“The one [funding opportunity] that has a lot of flexibility right now is the Tribal
Forest Protection Act (TFPA). My history with grants and agreements is mainly with
NRCS, but the TFPA process is really simple. It is probably the most simple
[opportunity] for a tribe to fill out with the Forest Service. And the TFPA right now
with this Administration is very broad. As long as you have some type of restoration
activity within that TFPA, the sky's the limit. The universe is the limit. You can have
it solely focused on forest restoration activities for a little part, and then you could go
as broad as ‘hey, we're going provide some tribal heritage folks to actually do your
cultural surveys and whatnot.’ So it's very open and what I've been told, and I've been
telling tribes is, if you have an idea, submit it. And we'll work to find funding to do it,
whether it's through this TFPA program or some other mechanism. But having that
TFPA process be so simple, we just tell them to like, submit it through. Then we'll
find funding opportunities for it”
(Kristi Tapio-Harper, personal communication, October 17, 2023).

Analysis of CFLRP and TFPA Funding Opportunities:
The Karuk Department of Natural Resources said that their two largest sources of USDA funding are
through the Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and Tribal
Forest Protection Act (TFPA). Both funding sources have portions that can focus on monitoring and
implementations, but there are no planning dollars in CFLRP. The TFPA has planning dollars and was
able to apply to all departments within the Karuk’s DNR.

16

Intertribal Timber Council resources: https://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/tfpa/tfpareports.html

99

Director Neva Gibbens shared how beneficial TFPA has been to the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural
Resources because it applied to First Foods and was able to fund programs across the department.
Gibbens said, “The TFPA funding that we have, the Tribal Forest Protection Act, we got 4.5 million
dollars through the Forest Service from the bipartisan infrastructure law last year. It's a 5 year agreement,
so it'll roll over [each year]... And the Tribal Forest Protection Act really is any sort of work being done in
our traditional territory that has something to do with our natural landscape, so traditional foods are a part
of our tribal forest protection and plants are also a part of that. Yeah, we were able to fund pretty much
every program here at DNR only partially. But every program qualified to be funded through the TFPA.”
(Neva Gibbens, personal communication, January 17, 2024). When funding can apply to multiple
programs or departments within a tribal administration, they are able to better collaborate with staff from
other programs. Funding provided in this way makes work more efficient rather than separating which
staff are eligible to work on projects.
TRPA funding demonstrates that cross-disciplinary funding for tribal governments is possible, within a
single agency within the USDA. Tribes need funding consistency in order to strengthen and maintain their
Departments of Natural Resources and the Forest Service should offer similar funding to more tribal
governments.

Forest Service Funding Need:
Capacity funding for tribal government staffing.
Funding for tribal governments that is not institutionalized into the ongoing agency funding structure can
create instability for tribes. Not all tribes have the administrative capacity to access short-term funding
when it becomes available. Low funding and funding inconsistency also lead to a lack of planning
capacity within departments. Tribal governments need long-term staff and funding fluctuation leaves
tribes in a perpetual start-up phase. The lack of planning funding in CFLRP means that tribal department
staff have to find other funding to cover their staff time for planning. Gibbens said, “CFLRP was also
through the Forest Service last year, and we were able to navigate getting pretty good chunks of that as
well. Some of it more short term, some of it more long term. Like CFLRP I think that one was like 30
million over 10 years. So 3 million a year, for the next 10 years. So that one was huge. The TFPA was
just a one-time 4.5 million. With the hope that we can get more this next year, but it all depends on the
government” (Neva Gibbens, personal communication, January 17, 2024).
Lastly, what makes the Forest Service funding especially helpful to the Karuk Tribe is that the large
majority of their ancestral lands have been taken by the Forest Service, meaning that they have fewer
cross-jurisdictional boundaries to cross than another tribe who may have patchwork ownership throughout
their ancestral territory of trust, fee, State, Forest Service (USDA), National Parks (DOI), BLM (DOI), or
wildlife preserve (DOI).
Recommendation:
The Forest Service should increase the funding and consistency for TFPA and CFLRP, which are
providing multi-million dollar funding over a 10-year funding period. These funds expand the
capacity of tribal governments, but these needs are ongoing beyond 10 years. More tribes need to
be able to access this funding.

100

Forest Service Funding Opportunity 3: Urban and
Community Forestry Program
“USDA Forest Service Urban & Community Forestry Program is the only dedicated urban forest
program in the federal government. It is a technical, financial, and educational assistance program,
delivering nature-based solutions for climate and environmental justice, and green jobs where more
than 84 percent of Americans live, work, and play” (Forest Service, n.d.-h).
Rowena Yeahquo, Forest Service Tribal Relations Specialist, recommended the Urban and Community
Forestry Program17 funding as a resource for projects on tribal land. She described how the funding can
be used to do things like plant trees or start community gardens, with many of the projects focused on
reforestation and environmental justice (Rowena Yeahquo, personal communication, November 1, 2023).
Example of tribal government awarded in PNW
In 2023, the Forest Service Region 6 (Washington and Oregon) awarded the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe
$1,374,299 for their proposal, Snoqualmie Tribe Ancestral Lands Culturally Modified Tree Protection
Program (Forest Service, 2023).

Analysis of Funding Opportunity:
Tribes can sometimes be eligible for funding named “Urban”, especially if they are in proximity to where
a tribe’s headquarters or communities are located. Due to the dollar for dollar match requirement, this
funding may be inaccessible for many tribes. Tribes located in urban areas with more partnership
connections may have an easier time obtaining match or in-kind for projects. This funding is still an
excellent resource, but is limited duration funding. What makes this funding unique is that it also funds
food programs, like community gardens, which in the case of PNW tribes may be able to apply to areas
near the community where First Foods are occurring naturally. Due to the urban nature of this funding, it
is unlikely that this funding could be used for areas far from tribal communities, for example, some First
Foods grow only in different climates, like the mountains. Further research would be needed to identify
the rate at which tribal governments are accessing this funding.

17

For more on Urban Community Forestry Program, visit: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/urbanforests/ucf

101

Chapter 4 - Policy
Recommendations
Funding Policy Recommendations
Capacity Recommendations
Base funding for tribal government First Food Department/Departments
of First Foods.
Tribal governments are like other governments, who operate at local and regional and state (sometimesinterstate), and national levels. Tribal governments are governments and should be funded as
governments, not only as producers, industries, or interest groups.
● Tribal governments need funding for First Foods departments, equivalent to a Tribal Department
of Agriculture.

Consistent funding for First Foods
Funding inconsistency makes it difficult for tribal governments to retain momentum when grant funding
ends, which leaves tribes in a perpetual start-up phase. Pooling funds from multiple grants makes more
work for employees and creates employment instability.
First Food Capacity Needs:
● Long-term funding structure, rather than grant-to-grant funding.
● Larger funding amounts to reduce piecemeal funding for programs and projects.
● Tribes need funding for grant writing and grant coordination.
● Equitable tribal-capacity in new legislation.

Funding for First Foods staff
Many tribal employees working in Natural Resources, Culture, and Health already are overburdened with
existing projects and roles. For tribal governments to be able to effectively expand their work in First
Foods, they require additional staff to help with coordination, leadership, communication, planning,
education and more.

102

First Food Staffing Needs:
● Funding for consistent staffing levels, employee retention and advancement.
● Funding for First Foods traditional educators, knowledge-keepers and elders.
● Long-term funding is needed to support the growth of tribal government staffing.
● Staffing at all levels is needed for First Foods work, from education, to workforce development,
to project managers, to higher-level leadership positions.
● Positions within the tribal government to obtain, process and store First Foods for the community.
● Tribal land staffing equivalency to other government agencies, like rangers or enforcement staff.
● Coordinators for funding planning

Figure 10: Examples of tribal government staffing needs.

Funding Flexibility
Funding that is highly restricted creates more work for tribal governments, who often utilize funding from
multiple federal agencies. Funding that can be reallocated to other needs or funding that tribes can retain
for use later, helps tribes respond faster to their communities and gives tribes more time to meet grant
requirements.
First Foods Flexibility Needs:
● Simplified application process, reduce reporting requirements, and eliminate match/in-kind
tracking.

103

●
●

Tribes need the ability to customize and design programs to fit their own circumstances and
needs.
Make application periods longer for tribal governments.

Fund Tribal Consultation
Tribal governments need adequate funding for tribal consultation. Tribal governments may receive
consultation invitations, policy feedback, or requests for project engagement, however, many tribal
governments lack funding for engagement or outreach. Generally, consultation services provided by a
tribe to local, state, or federal governments, public education institutions, NGOs or private entities ends
up being entirely at the cost of the tribal government. Elected leaders may be able to use their own
personal capacity to provide some amount of engagement with outside entities, however, the labor of
facilitating partnerships eventually falls to already stretched tribal government staff who have existing
grants and programs to run. Other government elected leaders and government employees (local, state,
federal) are funded for their labor in consultation, so tribal governments need funding equivalency for
their consultation services.
First Foods Leadership Needs:
● Compensation for Tribal Consultation.
● Tribes need capacity in order to engage in Partnerships

Cultural Resources and NEPA Recommendations
Funding equivalency for Cultural Resources
Dedicate funding to support Cultural Resources within tribal governments. Tribes should have equitable
staffing that can address needs across their ancestral territories. Engage in Tribal Consultation on the
development of formulas that include ceded territory and usual and accustomed areas.
First Foods Cultural Resources Needs:
● Base funding for Cultural Resources
● Longer timelines for NEPA to allow time for Tribes to measure impacts on cultural foods.
● Funding for Cultural Resource Research and Tracking
● Systems improvement for agencies and Tribes on NEPA timeline and funding timelines
● NEPA should require impacts on Treaty Rights in EIS.
● Funding for Cultural Resources and NEPA would help other departments within the tribal
government complete their projects and meet deadlines.

104

Outreach, Education and Workforce Development
Recommendations
Funding for First Foods Communication and Community-Responsive
Planning
First Foods are communally managed, so funding is needed that is community-focused and enables tribal
governments to be responsive to community needs. Tribal governments need funding for communication,
education, consultation and outreach which all assist with First Foods planning and evaluation.
First Foods Outreach Needs:
● Outreach professionals to provide cultural education for cultural continuity.
● Tribal Councils need feedback from tribal communities in First Foods decision making.
● Evaluation that is tribal-community-focused.
● Funding for tribal government consultation with elders on research and historic preservation

Funding for First Food Community Education
Community education is central to communal food systems by providing opportunity for the community
to come together. Community education is essential to cultural continuity and facilitates intergenerational educational opportunities.
First Food Cultural Education Need:
● Funding for tribes to provide community education to pass First Foods and traditional ecological
knowledge down through generations.

Funding for Workforce Development
To prepare youth for careers within First Foods’ food systems, First Foods must be integrated into
educational opportunities from a young age. Tribal governments want to develop career paths for Tribal
Member employees to work with First Foods because they are central to cultural identity and provide
Tribal Members the opportunity to practice culture as a part of their role in the tribal government.
First Food Education Need:
● Funding for tribal governments to support Tribal Member students from elementary through
higher education, including non-college job training.

105

First Foods Access Recommendations
Funding for Tribes to manage land across boundaries.
For tribal staff, their work spans across ancestral territories, not only on tribal land. Tribes work on land
that is private, trust, Forest Service, BLM, National Parks, state and local public land. Each of these
categories receive different types of funding for work being done on those lands. Funding that is tied to
management across ancestral territories should take treaties into consideration, as well as usual and
accustomed places.
● Funding for Tribes to manage land across boundaries.

Funding for unique First Foods needs
First Foods are unique because they are communal foods, not individual producer foods. Traditionally,
every Native American person had multiple roles in the food system (hunting, fishing, gathering,
transporting, cooking, preserving, storing, trading). Today, many Tribal Members have to have other paid
jobs in order to do these traditional jobs for their community. Multiple tribal interviewees expressed the
need for staff who could assist the community with First Food acquisition and these staff could also be
community educators.
First Foods Access Needs:
● Tribal staff to gather, hunt, and fish to provide food for the community.
● Funding is needed for tribes to conduct research, restoration and monitoring of First Foods.
● Funding for tribal governments to manage lands at a landscape-scale and at an ancestral
homelands scale.

Funding for Land Back
Tribes want to be able to culturally manage First Foods across their ancestral lands. Land Back is a
movement across the United States of returning land to the federally recognized tribes.
First Foods Access Needs:
● Funding for staff to facilitate access to areas with First Foods.
● Funding for tribes to be able to restore First Foods within their reservation and within their
ancestral territories.
● Funding for tribal governments to protect historic gathering sites and manage First Foods for
future generations.
● Tribal governments need funding support to address First Food losses across the reservation and
ancestral lands (First Food reconnaissance and mitigation).
● Agencies need to uphold trust responsibility to tribal governments through funding.
● Funding for tribal governments to coordinate with the Forest Service, BLM, and other agencies,
rather than agencies relegating Treaty Rights to local forests who may be ill equipped to address
trust responsibility.

106

●
●

●

Land for community centers, cultural structures, and other land-use needs.
Funding for tribal government labor associated with policy and legal expenses to address policy
inconsistencies where Treaty Rights and access to First Foods are being impacted by land use,
conservation easements, etc.
Policy substitution where tribal governments develop their own tribal conservation easements to
replace easements restricting land use and access to First Foods.

Funding for First Foods Policymaking
Because tribal governments interface with outside entities regarding Treaty Rights, tribal governments
need funding to be able to engage in policy making.
First Food Policy Needs:
● Tribal governments need funding to engage in policy making.
● Policy development to address land use damage, for example ongoing cattle grazing that impacts
First Foods.

Funding for Land Management and Research
As tribes are able to regain access to First Foods, they need capacity to manage First Foods with
culturally appropriate methods. As tribes are able to manage First Foods places, tribal governments need
the capacity to track and monitor First Foods abundance.
First Food Research Needs:
● Funding is needed for tribal governments to conduct cultural preservation and research.
● Funding is needed for data collection and tracking of First Food abundance. One-time funding
can establish baseline data, but ongoing funding is needed for monitoring due to environmental
threats, such as the Climate Crisis.
● Funding for tribal governments to carry out co-management on Federal and State land.

Funding to address Climate Crisis impacts on First Foods
Tribes are place-based communities with place-based cultures that cannot move to a more suitable
climate. Tribal governments need capacity to address First Foods at risk from the Climate Crisis.
First Food Climate Crisis Funding:
● Tribal governments need funding for Climate Change remediation and to prevent extinctions and
extirpations of First Foods.
● Consistent funding for First Foods and Climate Change.

107

Other Funding Recommendations
Funding for Public Health First Foods needs
First Foods are a public health issue for tribal communities and tribal governments have a role in
addressing public health issues in their communities.
First Food Health Needs:
● Funding for Tribal Member staffing to provide the tribal community with First Food access
throughout ancestral lands.
● Prevention and public health funding for First Foods.
● Increased and ongoing funding for cultural health staff positions, who contribute to public health,
nutrition, food security, prevention and mental health.
● Funding for First Foods as public health.

Funding for First Foods Infrastructure needs
First Foods are managed communally and tribal communities need infrastructure where the community
can all be together for First Foods cultural practices, cooking, preservation and storage.
First Food Infrastructure Needs:
● Funding for Community Centers with community food storage for First Foods.
● Infrastructure for program staff to be stationed near work sites and workforce housing in rural
areas.

108

Recommendations for Tribal Governments
Many tribal governments are creating First Foods programs or Natural Resources programs focused on
restoring ecosystems. They are creating programs that work for their unique circumstances and being led
by passionate First Foods leaders. For grant-funded programs, many staff positions are often funded by
multiple, one-time, short-term grants. Multiple grants are often needed to staff First Foods programs
because the grant amounts are low and staff need to overlap grants to prevent funding gaps which can
lead to staff loss. Tribal government leaders can assist with long-term planning and funding strategy for
how First Foods programs will accomplish their goals.
Questions for tribal governments to consider:
● What are your goals and needs for your First Foods?
● What is your tribal government’s role in managing First Foods and land?
● Does your tribal community need more protected areas to access First Foods?
○ Does your tribal community have reliable First Foods abundance available for future
generations?
○ Will the Climate Crisis make First Foods less available or susceptible to loss?
● Examine how your tribe is funding First Foods work now.
○ Is that funding sustainable? Or will the funding end or run out in the future?
● What existing funding structures could tribal governments use creatively to fund First Foods
work? Ideas:
○ Tribal departments or programs could fund First Foods education for their clients.
○ Natural Resource grant proposals could include an outreach budget to fund cultural
educators.
○ What other tribal departments could partner in grant seeking for First Foods?
Health/Social Services/Youth/Housing
● What are regional or national advocacy groups doing to build capacity and resource equity for
tribes? Are you ready for what they are planning?
○ Are your Tribe’s needs uniquely different from other tribes?
Role of Tribal Governments
Tribal governments role in food sovereignty:
● Provide resources to identify all traditional plants, medicines and foods
● Establish and defend protection for those unique cultural foods and seeds
○ Through written policy
○ Through infrastructure development
○ Through continual propagation, storage and protection
○ Through identification of location and sites and preserving the locations
○ Through establishing staff in government infrastructure to lend assistance to citizenry
○ Through establishing and maintaining importance
Other roles: interface with other tribal governments, anticipate and prepare for future challenges
Source: (Parker, 2018).

109

Participate in regional PNW First Foods policy discussions
The Native Farm Bill Coalition and other national food policy advocacy organizations need to hear from
PNW tribes on the tribal government needs for First Food cultures. Tribal governments need equitable
funding, at the local, state, regional and federal levels, to meet the demands of tribal consultation, to
uphold Treaty Rights, to restore ecosystems, to ensure cultural continuity, and to increase the abundance
of First Foods
Recommendation to Tribes:
Develop consensus between tribes on a First Foods vision for Tribal Departments of Agriculture.
Regional intertribal discussions are needed regarding the potential for 638 funding in future Farm Bills.
This funding could have the potential of providing tribal governments with base funding for First Foods
Departments.
Regional PNW inter-tribal discussions are needed in order to identify how 638 funding could address the
unique needs of First Foods. Outreach and discussions could be hosted at Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
Indians (ATNI), Intertribal Agriculture Council, or other regional inter-tribal gatherings.
The risk of not engaging in USDA 638 design discussions may mean that tribal governments are limited
to only administer the same USDA programs, which currently do not address First Foods’ needs. If PNW
Tribes build consensus on First Foods funding needs, that can be built into a future Farm Bill.
Potential organizing groups for regional discussions:
● Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)
● Intertribal Agriculture Council

Figure 11: Prompt for tribal governments with First Foods funding needs.

110

Develop First Foods Departments
The Native Farm Bill Coalition is recommending that tribal governments develop Departments of
Agriculture in preparation of future Farm Bills where 638 funding may be available to tribal governments.
Some tribal governments may be satisfied with administering existing funding structures designed by
USDA through their Tribal Department of Agriculture. However, for many PNW tribes, much of the
funding available through the USDA does not apply to First Foods.
Native food policy leaders are recommending that tribes develop their Departments in their own image or
according to their unique governmental or cultural needs. Ideally, the 638 funding would allow for a
customization of Departments of Agriculture, however, it will be easier to customize if tribes can provide
the USDA with a demonstration of the diverse needs in the PNW. Tribal governments can become a
model for 638 funding by developing departments within their government administrations. By designing
First Foods departments in a culturally-relevant way, tribes may be able to act as a “model” or influence
the design of USDA 638 funding.
First Food Model Departments
For example, the CTUIR Department of Natural Resources is structured around their First Foods cultural
protocols. Another example is the Karuk Tribe who has an Eco-cultural Revitalization Department and
Food Sovereignty Program within their Department of Natural Resources.
First Foods Departments could be PNW tribes’ equivalent of a Tribal Department of Agriculture.
638 funding has the potential to become tribal governments’ base First Food Department funding.
Pamela Barlow-Lind, CTSI Tribal Planner recommended that tribes create a blueprint and vision for the
funding, before regulations, or before tribes have to concede to what the USDA wants the Tribal
Department to look like. She said that in her experience, tribes will get closer to what they want in First
Foods Departments if they develop the blueprint and guardrails now, rather than wait for the funding to
come and have all the entrenched systems that come with it. Barlow-Lind said, “I think it comes from the
experience of working with things and trying to make them fit after the fact—but my suggestion is to prenegotiate as much of that as you can... When you say ‘we'll go by your rules, start the Department of
Agriculture’, and you start hiring people with that background. So even internally, then, you kind of start
entrenching a certain mindset. …But I think you would end up with a closer progress to what you want to
see happen, to take a little time in the beginning, to get more clarity on an agreement on what your
vision is for where you're going with it, and amend those rules before you get into them. And I think
it's worth the investment of time to do that and because in the long run it'll pay off more. You'll be
spending your energy on getting to that endpoint instead of wrestling each other.” (Pamela Barlow-Lind,
personal communication, March 19, 2024).

111

Increase awareness of national food policy advocacy
Tribal leaders should increase awareness of policy changes proposed by the Native Farm Bill Coalition,
Intertribal Agriculture Council and other leading national Indigenous foods organizations. For example,
the Native Farm Bill Coalition is advocating for a future Farm Bill to include 638 funding for Tribal
Departments of Agriculture, which could create base funding for tribal governments.
Native Farm Bill Coalition Policy Priority:
Alternative Models of Program Delivery—638, Other Flexibilities for Tribes
“Applying “638” Self-Determination contract opportunities to Conservation Title programs would enable
Tribal governments to directly administer Conservation Title programs to eligible Tribal producers in
Indian Country. This is not only a strong acknowledgment of Tribal sovereignty, but it also places
program access within easier reach for Native producers, because their Tribal governments deeply
understand the land holdings issues that often prevent robust Native producer participation.” (Parker et
al., 2022, p. 31). The Native Farm Bill Coalition's advocacy for 638 authority is an important step in
building tribal governments capacity
About 638 Authority:
to administer conservation programs
“Tribal Self-Governance - 638 Authority, The Indian Selfwithin their lands.
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Pub.
L. No. 93-638) allows Tribes to directly assume the
The researcher believes that 638 is an
responsibility of administering programs, services,
excellent funding mechanism to tribal
functions, and activities otherwise provided by the federal
governments that someday could be
government to individual Indians, and to obtain funding in
used to create sustainable base
carrying out these responsibilities–called ‘638 contracting
funding for food and agriculture staff
or compacting authority.’ Examples include healthcare,
within tribal governments. The
education, social services, and construction. 638 authority
flexibility potential, especially for 638
recognizes that Tribal governments are best positioned to
compacts, would provide tribes with
serve their own citizens and communities and allows for
some ability to customize the budget
more direct program delivery, greater service, and programs
to suit the needs of their community,
tailored to suit the unique needs of each Tribal community.”
however tribes generally have to
(Indigenous Food & Agriculture Initiative, 2020)
supplement 638 funds with other
funding to maximize their impact. Ideally, with this authority, tribes would then have the authority to
plan, conduct, redesign, and administer their own programs, functions, services, and activities that meet
the needs of their communities (Native American Affairs, 2020).
Demonstration 638 Pilot Projects are currently underway since the 2018 Farm Bill provided opportunity
for limited demonstration projects with tribal governments for the USDA. At this time, the pilot projects
only extended to the USDA’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and one pilot
project within the forestry title. In future farm bills, tribes will be best served with the flexibility to
redesign and administer food and agriculture programs that better reflect the needs of different tribal
communities, especially in reference to non-commercial, communal foods that are of high cultural value
to tribal communities. Continuation or expansion of the demonstration projects will depend on the next
Farm Bill negotiations, as tribes seek to build off of the momentum of these limited initial projects. If
additional demonstration projects are offered, multiple PNW tribes could propose their First Foods

112

Departments as 638 funding models and cater the funding to the special needs of their departments, such
as cultural fire, monitoring, etc.

Consultation
Tribes have the opportunity to address commercial take of First Foods in the Forest Service’s Northwest
Forest Plan. For tribal governments who are not sitting on the Northwest Forest Plan Federal Advisory
Committee, they can use opportunities for one-on-one consultation, which is important for addressing the
unique needs of different tribal governments.

Recommendation to Tribes:
Tribes should address issues around the Commercialization of First Foods in the Northwest Forest
Plan.
Currently, the Northwest Forest Plan is in the process of being amended. The Federal Advisory
Committee includes some representatives from tribal governments. Tribes have the opportunity to address
commercial take of First Foods in the Northwest Forest Plan. For tribal governments who are not sitting
on the Federal Advisory Committee, they can use opportunities for one-on-one consultation, which is
important for addressing the unique needs of different tribal governments. Tribal Liaison Kristi TapioHarper said, “The Tribal input is going to have a huge opportunity to impact decisions, such as
commercial, cultural uses [redacted cultural information] so there's a huge opportunity there... Once the
Northwest Forest Plan is amended, we've been told it's going to be used heavily as a template for other
Forest Plans, not only in the [PNW] region, but within the whole nation. So yeah, huge opportunity to
incorporate cultural traditional plant uses within that” (Kristi Tapio-Harper, personal communication,
October 17, 2023).

Fundraising
Some Tribes are engaging in fundraising efforts to increase their tribal government capacity to address
needs within their Natural Resources Departments. Natural Resources funding for Outreach and
Education is not generally accessible to tribal governments, so often self-governance, tribal business
revenue, or short-term grants are required for funding those staffing needs. Neva Gibbens from the Karuk
Tribe shared that she would like to see other tribes develop similar Funds, so that they become common
and easy for potential funders to understand (Neva Gibbens, personal communication January 17, 2024).
Karuk Tribe
Eco-Cultural Revitalization Fund
https://connect.clickandpledge.com/Organization/karuk/Campaign/EcoculturalRevitalization/
With this fund we are working to transfer knowledge to our youth, change policies on
land, water, fisheries and fire management, revitalize our cultural principles and
practices and build sustainable capacities for current and future generations. A healthy
113

endowment will allow us to move away from dependency on grants and extraction-based
forest management systems.
The Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources is seeking to raise $50,000,000 to provide 20%
funding sustainability. “With a total annual projected funding need of approximately $8,000,000 to
$10,000,000, it would take an Endowment of approximately $200,000,000 to achieve full funding...
These funds would be used to cover baseline leadership and support positions, along with providing
general operating capital and supporting facilities improvements.”
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
First Foods Fund
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation’s Department of Natural Resources has a
First Foods Fund, which supports multiple funding needs:
1. Land Acquisition: For the purpose of acquiring fee title to lands and/or waters (e.g. water rights)
that provide First Foods, or access to such lands or waters;
2. Cultural Continuity: Projects that promote CTUIR First Foods continuity to CTUIR tribal
members and community; and
3. First Foods Knowledge Development: Including investigative or assessment work that develops
knowledge to inform First Foods management, policy development, and regulatory mechanisms;
and
4. Outreach and Education: Outreach and education activities that promote understanding of First
Foods in 1) the CTUIR community, or 2) external communities where benefits to the First Foods
or CTUIR goals and interests may be demonstrated.
Cultural Resources Protection Program Manager, Teara Farrow Ferman explained that the Fund was
started with mitigation dollars that CTUIR negotiated from environmental impacts on cultural resources.
The Fund can accept donations, but has not been promoted to the public or potential donors.
For anyone wishing to donate, please contact: Teara Farrow Ferman, CTUIR Department of Natural
Resources, tearafarrowferman@ctuir.org

114

Future Policy Ideas for Native Farm Bill
Coalition and advocacy groups
Funding for restoring First Foods abundance
History has shown that government agencies are not adequately working collectively to address First
Foods trust responsibilities, which has led to declines in First Food populations. The success of selfgovernance funding has shown that tribes are more than capable of taking ownership of trust
responsibilities on behalf of the US government. Tribal governments are more dedicated to managing
First Foods than government agencies. Tribal governments are more effective at managing First Foods
because current laws, such as ESA, do not go far enough to actually restore species to meet Treaty Right
subsistence levels.
Tribal governments are justified to receive associated funding and resources to support First Foods’ food
systems for the following reasons:
● Religious Freedom - Creation stories and religious practices for Native American people often
involve First Foods, making them central to religious ceremonies, traditions and cultural lifeways.
(American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Public Law 95-341)
● Cultural Preservation and Protection - Cultural values and teachings, today referred to as
traditional ecological knowledge, is proprietary information that tribes are seeking to protect
from exploitation and preserving for future generations. (Section 106: National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966)
● Cultural Education - In tribal communities, elders and cultural leaders are the educators who pass
on cultural values and teachings on to the next generations in their tribal communities.
● Treaty Rights - Tribal governments hold Treaty Rights on behalf of their enrolled tribal
membership and descendants. (ratified and unratified treaties)
First Foods are interdependent on Native American peoples to carry out their cultural practices. Cultural
resources are more likely to be protected, first foods are more likely to flourish, and ecosystems are more
likely to heal under the leadership and management of tribal governments.

Recommendation:
638 compacting for First Foods Departments, equivalent to Tribal Departments of Agriculture.

Recommendation:
Host First Foods gatherings for PNW tribes to build regional consensus on 638 funding needs for
First Foods Departments.

115

Crop insurance for First Foods
Crop insurance is standard for conventional agriculture. Currently, there is no systemic compensation to
tribal governments for loss of First Foods. First Foods could occur on reservation or anywhere within
ancestral territories. So, what would it look like to have USDA crop insurance pay for landscape losses of
First Foods?
Coverage could include loss due to:
● Wildfire
● Extreme Heat
● Drought, flood
● Fish die-offs, including fry loss
● Plant and animal poaching on reservation land or protected areas - huckleberries
● Landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity (PNW, but also California, Alaska and Hawaii)
● Water contamination
● Invasive species damage
● Disease and pest predation
● Illegal take

Recommendation:
Conduct regional consultation with tribal governments’ Natural Resource Departments and
Culture Departments to consider the potential benefits or negative impacts to crop insurance being
applied to First Foods.
Since crop insurance is assessed based on annual sales/loss, how could crop insurance be applied to
subsistence First Food cultures? But how would this apply to cultures where it is taboo to sell First Foods
commercially? Tribes should not have to sell their cultural foods in order to be compensated for loss.
Also, subsistence crop insurance should not apply to non-Tribal commercial foragers. When damage
happens, tribal governments need compensation for the financial resources they have to deploy to monitor
damages, mitigation and restoration. Crop insurance could be an efficient way to get funding to Tribes’
Natural Resources Departments for these purposes.

116

Staple food financial supports for staple First Foods
For many Tribes, there has been a massive depletion of staple foods within a First Foods diet. The USDA
provides funding for conventional staple crops, so funding is needed that would support Tribal
Government management of staple foods within their First Foods culture.

Recommendation:
Conduct regional consultation with tribal governments’ Natural Resource Departments and
Culture Departments to consider what staple foods funding would look like for First Foods.

Rare food and conservation funding for First Foods
Often, it is NGOs, environmental groups, or governments who receive funding for protecting rare plants
and animals. Tribal governments need to have resources to be in conservation and manage cultural
resources that are depleted and high-risk.
Recommendation:
Tribal governments need funding to conserve and protect sensitive habitats and restore rare First
Foods. Funding needs to go beyond ESA, which currently stops short of actually restoring healthy
long-term populations.

Environmental Restoration Funding
It is only after an oil spill, or energy development, or mining has taken place, that funding is given to heal
the land. Much of current funding for restoration is only to reduce toxic damage.
Since colonization, Tribes have experienced devastating loss of First Foods access, so long-term
environmental restoration funding is needed to repair that harm. Ongoing environmental restoration
funding is needed due to the increasing impacts of the Climate Crisis on First Foods access.
Recommendation:
● Ongoing, consistent funding for environmental restoration.
● Create a system for funding disaster relief like crop insurance for wild foods (currently there is no
disaster funding directed at restoring wild foods).

117

Designate First Foods and cultural materials as Cultural Resources
First Foods are Cultural Resources
The USDA should recognize First Foods as a Cultural Resource and dedicate funding to tribal
governments for their management.
For further examination:
Would this designation as a cultural resource, enable the funding to be applied across jurisdictions beyond
just Agricultural lands? Cultural Resources funding would then be more aligned with the needs to both
use historic gathering places and enable tribes to protect historic places.
Recommendation:
Increase funding for surveys and monitoring of First Foods and cultural materials. Funding for
enforcement for gathering site monitoring.

118

Conclusion
The First Foods’ food systems of Pacific Northwest tribes have unique funding needs that are not being
met by most USDA funding structures. Tribal governments are in need of base funding to support First
Foods abundance and cultural continuity. The recent advancements on the Farm Bill by the Native Farm
Bill Coalition are laying the groundwork for tribes to design culturally-relevant First Foods Departments,
in their own image, with their unique funding needs. Federally recognized tribes need and deserve
consistent USDA funding for base tribal government functions related to First Foods.
Currently, tribal governments are stretched to meet the First Foods needs of their communities because
they are heavily dependent on multiple, short-term, restrictive grants. These funding structures are often
competitive, restrictive, and do not cover the full cost of labor necessary to advance First Foods goals.
The lack of funding structures for First Foods means that tribal governments are prevented from using
their cultural protocols and practices when conducting work with their First Foods. And the lack of First
Foods funding structures encourages tribes to assimilate to modern agriculture to address food security for
First Foods. Based on interviews with tribal governments, funding is needed for tribal government
capacity, cultural resources and NEPA, outreach, education, workforce development, and funding that can
facilitate increased access to First Foods.
Funding opportunities were identified based on recommendations from interviews and desk research, then
analyzed for their applicability to First Foods and recommendations were made to improve funding for
tribal governments. First Foods are communal food systems and require long-term, community-scale
funding, so an outstanding barrier for current USDA funding structures is that they are built for individual
farmers and individual businesses. When the existing funding structure does not provide a pathway for
communal food systems, simply opening existing funding structures for tribal governments does not
adequately address their population-scale and baseline tribal government function funding needs.
In recent years, the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of Arkansas has been
suggesting that tribal governments assert their sovereignty through developing Tribal Food Codes and
Tribal Departments of Agriculture that fit the unique needs of their cultures and food systems.
(Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, 2020Building). As tribes develop Tribal Departments of
Agriculture, the Native Farm Bill Coalition has made it a policy priority for the USDA to recognize Tribal
Departments of Agriculture. The 638 pilot projects currently underway is a positive sign that 638
authority could potentially open base funding to support Tribal Departments of Agriculture (Indigenous
Food and Agriculture Initiative, 2020Building). Funding often dictates what tribal government
departments do, how they function, and through funding structures assimilate tribal governments
by not directing funds to culturally-specific funding needs.
Right now, tribal governments have a unique opportunity to influence the 638 funding planning being led
by the Native Farm Bill Coalition. The Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative is seeking Tribal
model departments to serve as templates for Tribal Departments of Agriculture. The Indigenous Food and
Agriculture Initiative is recommending that Tribes start designing their own unique Tribal Departments of
Agriculture, in their own image (Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, 2020Building). By showing

119

a variety of Tribal model departments, food policy advocates can demonstrate the need for flexible
funding to accommodate the diversity of food cultures.
So the question to PNW tribes is:
● What would a First Foods Department look like? Or a Department of First Foods?
● What funding would be needed to support this Department?

Unfortunately, until 638 funding is secured, tribal governments must secure their own funding if they are
interested in developing model departments. And in the meantime, tribal governments and First Foods
leaders should stay abreast of policy development with the Intertribal Agriculture Council, Native Farm
Bill Coalition, Indigenous Food & Agriculture Initiative and other national and regional organizations.

Recommendation to PNW Tribal Governments:
In preparation for future 638 funding, tribal governments should design First Foods Departments
that model the unique needs of their food cultures. Policy advocates need tribal department models to
demonstrate the diversity of tribal governments and the diverse needs of First Foods.

120

Suggested uses for this report
●

●

●
●
●

Tribal governments may use this report to:
○ advocate for increased funding for First Foods.
○ understand how funding is impacting their tribal government’s capacity to protect and
increase First Food abundance for future generations.
○ identify sources of funding for First Foods.
○ learn about national policy proposals that could increase tribal government funding for
First Foods (for example, upcoming 638 funding for Tribal Departments of Agriculture).
Tribal organizations such as the Intertribal Agriculture Council or Affiliated Tribes of the
Northwest Indians (ATNI) may use this report to address the specific regional needs that PNW
tribal governments need for First Foods and Treaty Rights.
○ Build regional consensus between tribal governments on the design of 638 Tribal
Departments of Agriculture to meet the needs of First Foods Departments within tribal
governments.
Policymakers may use policy recommendations from this report to address funding gaps for First
Foods and develop funding mechanisms for tribal governments.
First Foods advocates may use this report to better understand the economic system underlying
First Foods.
USDA policymakers may use this report to develop funding opportunities that facilitate the US
government upholding treaty obligations and make equitable funding for tribal governments.

Suggested Next Step
Prepare for Tribal Departments of First Foods
The Native Farm Bill Coalition is advocating for 638 self-governance Tribal Departments of Agriculture
funding. However, the funding tribal governments need for First Foods is different from the standard
USDA agricultural funding programs currently available.
To PNW tribal governments:
● What would your Tribal Department of First Foods look like? What are your funding
needs?
Regional discussions are needed in anticipation for 638 Tribal Departments of Agriculture, so that First
Foods do not get left out.
To PNW tribal governments:
● If tribal governments could get PL 93-638 or self-governance compact funding for First
Foods Departments, what funding is needed for First Foods?
● How are the funding needs for First Foods unique and different from agriculture?
Based on interviews, PNW tribes are more likely to get funding that they need for First Foods if we
design the funding now, rather than have the USDA roll out the same funding that they already provide.

121

Resources
Leading policy advocates and resources:
These organizations are drafting policy and laying the groundwork that will support food sovereignty for
tribal governments and tribal producers.
Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC)
Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, University of Arkansas
Developing a Department of Agriculture within your tribal government
Model Tribal Food and Agriculture Code
Native Farm Bill Coalition
First Nations Development Institute (FNDI)
Seed Saving and Seed Sovereignty
Native American Agricultural Fund (NAAF)
Native Agricultural Statistics
Financial Tools
Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance (NAFSA)
North American Traditional Indigenous Food Systems (NATIFS)

122

Appendix
Appendix A: About Tribal Government
participants
Overview of participating Tribes
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI) is a federally recognized confederation of more than 27
bands, originating from Northern California to Southern Washington. The Confederated Tribes of Siletz
Indians include Clatsop, Chinook, Klickitat, Molala, Kalapuya, Tillamook, Alsea, Siuslaw/Lower
Umpqua, Coos, Coquelle, Upper Umpqua, Tututni (including all the lower Rogue River bands and those
extending up the coast to Floras Creek and down to Whales Head), Chetco (including all of the villages
from Whales Head to the Winchuck River), Tolowa, Takelma (including the Illinois Valley/mid-Rogue
River and Cow Creek peoples), Galice/Applegate and Shasta. Each of these Tribes has a unique
individual history, culture and legal relationship with the federal government, which was brought to be
incorporated into the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. Ancestors of the Confederated Tribes of
Siletz spoke at least 10 different base languages. The Coast/Siletz Reservation is located on the Central
Oregon coast.
(Oregon Department of Human Services, n.d.)
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) is a union of three Tribes: Cayuse,
Umatilla and Walla Walla. The CTUIR has over 3,100 Tribal Members. Nearly half of those Tribal
Members live on or near the Umatilla Reservation located in Northeastern Oregon near Pendleton.
CTUIR is governed by a Constitution and bylaws adopted in 1949. The governing body is the ninemember Board of Trustees, elected every two years by the General Council. In 1855, the three Tribes
signed a treaty with the U.S. government, in which it ceded over 6.4 million acres to the United States. In
the treaty, the Tribes reserved rights to fish, hunt and gather foods and medicines such as roots and
berries, and pasture livestock on unclaimed lands.
(Oregon Department of Human Services, n.d.)
The Karuk Tribe is Federally Recognized. The Karuk Tribe’s government-to-government relationship
with the US Federal Government was established in 1851. However, the lack of formal contact with the
Spanish according to the terms of the Treaty of Limits (1828) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
(1848), left the United States’ jurisdiction over Karuk lands dubious, and it continues to be disputed
today. In 1851, Karuk tribal people met with the Redick McKee US Senate delegation, and participated in
treaties signed in Weitchpec, Somes Bar, and near the mouth of the Scott River. That government-togovernment relationship continues to the present day; however, there was a reduction and eventual
termination of services following WWII and during the Termination era of the 1950’s. Federal
Recognition was reaffirmed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs officially in January of 1979.
(Karuk Tribe, 2020)
123

The Klamath Tribes consist of the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Peoples. The present-day Klamath
Indian Reservation consists of 12 small, non-contiguous parcels of land in Klamath County. These
fragments are generally located in and near the communities of Chiloquin and Klamath Falls. The Tribes
have established comprehensive unity by fostering the enhancement of spiritual and cultural values
through a government whose function is to protect human and cultural resources and Treaty Rights, and
to provide for the development and delivery of social and economic opportunities. There are over 5,700
enrolled members in the Klamath Tribes, with the government headquarters centered in Klamath County,
Oregon.
(Oregon Department of Human Services, n.d.)

Termination Policy and the dispossession of land and natural resources
Two of the tribal governments in this study, the Klamath Tribes and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz
Indians, were targeted for termination and experienced a dramatic loss of land, the effects of which are
still felt today.
The Termination Era 1953-1970
Congress adopted termination-the abolition of Indian reservations and the removal of all
governmental power from Indian tribes-as the United States' Indian policy in the 1950's
and applied the policy to numerous tribes. Termination, however, had devastating effects
on tribal autonomy, community, and economic welfare. Consequently, the United States
soon abandoned the policy experiment. But Congress has failed both to fully repeal the
termination acts and to permit the terminated tribes to return to the same status as all
other Indian groups. Though the termination experiment was abandoned long ago, most
of the terminated tribes and tribal members still suffer from the loss of autonomy and
economic and psychological damage caused by termination. (Walch, 1983, p. 1181)
Most of the members of Congress on the committees responsible for Indian affairs were from Western
states, where the pressure from developers and business interests was particularly strong to open Indian
lands for sale and timber harvest (Walch, 1983, p. 1185). In Oregon, demand for natural resources and
commercial interests by political leaders made tribes a direct target for Termination (Walch, 1983).
Timber harvest in Oregon had greatly increased during World War II leading to the extraction of old
growth Port Orford Cedar from the Oregon coast and pine from the Klamath Basin. “Eisenhower’s
secretary of the interior was former Oregon governor Douglas McKay, who spoke for powerful timber
and water resource developers in the West. There is evidence that McKay wanted his home state to serve
as a showcase for the new direction in Indian policy…In the Klamath situation, other forces were
involved—the actions of a coercive federal government eager to force termination and the attractions of
the extensive ponderosa-pine stands on the reservation” (Robbins, 2002).
The Klamath Tribes Reservation
“By 1873, Tribal members were selling lumber to Fort Klamath and many other private parties,
and by 1896 the sale to parties outside of the reservation was estimated at a quarter of a million
board feet. With the arrival of the railroad in 1911, reservation timber became extremely
valuable. The economy of Klamath County was sustained by it for decades. By the 1950’s the
Klamath Tribes were one of the wealthiest Tribes in the United States. We owned and judiciously
managed for long term yield, the largest remaining stand of Ponderosa pine in the west. We were
entirely self-sufficient. We were the only tribes in the United States that paid for all the federal,
124

state and private services used by our members” (The Klamath Tribes, n.d.). In 1973 the
remaining reservation land was sold and shareholders received lump-sum payments, and
Congress turned 700,000 acres of the Klamath forest into the Winema National Forest (Robbins,
2002).
Siletz Coast Reservation
Tribes from across western Oregon were confederated together on the Siletz Coast Reservation
headquartered by an Indian Agent at the Siletz Agency. “All able bodied persons were forced to
labor at these farms, which rarely produced well, and then the people would have to scramble to
prepare enough salmon, shellfish, elk and deer meat to get them through the winter”
(Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, n.d.). The climate and geography of the reservation along
the Oregon coast was ill-suited for crop agriculture, but rich in timber.
Within 10 years of the reservation being established, commercial interests within the reservation
began a series of forced reductions to the reservation without compensation to the tribes. Further,
commercial rights were withheld from the tribes, eliminating any option of economic
development from timber until the Allotment era when 191,000 acres were deemed “Surplus
Lands” and sold away. “Just compensation did not happen. Sale of the land occurred for a
nominal price of $142,000 for 192,000 acres. The land, which consisted of old growth timber,
was purchased by the U.S. for a price of 74¢ an acre. Only by ceding the majority of their
remaining lands did the Siletz Tribes finally received recognition of commercial rights to 3,200
acres of timberland randomly scattered throughout the original reservation” (Confederated Tribes
of Siletz Indians, p. 14)
In 1954, the Klamath Tribes were terminated under the Klamath Termination Act and the Confederated
Tribes of Siletz Indians were terminated under the Western Oregon Termination Act (Fixico, Donald,
n.d.)

Restoration to Federal Recognition
In 1977, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians became the second tribe in the nation and the first in
Oregon to achieve Restoration as a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe. In 1980, CTSI regained
approximately 3,600 acres of scattered parcels administered by the Bureau of Land Management under
the Siletz Reservation Act (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, n.d., p. 15). Today, much of the
original reservation has been converted to private timber land or National Forest.
Klamath Restoration Act H.R. 3554 passed in August 27, 1986. The Klamath Tribes were the only tribe
to be “restored” without a land base, or return of land, however, they retained Treaty Rights in the 1954
treaty boundary area of southern Oregon (Oregon State Legislature, n.d.). Today, much of the original
reservation has been converted to private land or National Forest.

125

Loss of Land
See below, maps showing homelands, reservations and current landholdings. Today, many tribes have to
buy back land to restore their land base.

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Figure 4: Ancestral Area and original
reservation. Note the current land owned by
CTSI is in blue (Confederated Tribes of Siletz
Indians, May 2021).
The dark area shows ancestral territory within
Oregon. The red shows the original
reservation area, which is approximately 5%
of the Tribes’ collective ancestral territory.
Current land holdings are 1.5% of the original
reservation and .0832% of the Tribes’ total
ancestral territory.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Figure 5: Ancestral area and current
landholdings.
All green areas indicate ancestral territory.
The dark green indicates current
landholdings, which is approximately 2.68%
of their ancestral territory.

Source: https://gis.ctuir.org/standard-maps/#Aboriginal%20Title%20Lands%20Map

126

Karuk Tribe
Figure 6: Map of Karuk Aboriginal Territory (California
and Oregon, U.S.) with overlapping National Forest areas.
The Ti Bar Demonstration Project site co-management
initiative is located approximately halfway between the
towns of Orleans and Happy Camp. Map by Jill Beckmann,
Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources. (Diver, S.,
2016)
The black outlines ancestral territory. The magenta
indicates current landholding, which is approximately
0.164% of their ancestral territory.

The Klamath Tribes
Figure 7: Klamath Tribes’ homeland
(ceded lands), Reservation boundary in
Treaty and ultimate Reservation
boundary. (Hatcher et al., 2017)

All colored areas indicate ancestral
territory. Today, the Klamath Tribes have
approximately 5,300 acres, which is
approximately 0.023% of their ancestral
territory.

127

Appendix B: Funding from the Department
of the Interior (DOI)
Below is a selection of BIA and other Department of the Interior (DOI) funding opportunities that could
be applicable to First Foods and conservation.

Conservation Law Enforcement Officer Program

The Conservation Law Enforcement Officer Program18 offers competitive funding to Tribes to
hire conservation law enforcement officers to protect natural resources on Tribal lands (Indian
Affairs, n.d.-a).
Federally-recognized Tribes are eligible to apply for CLEO funding if:
1. The Tribe is responsible for managing fish and wildlife resources on lands held
in Trust status.
2. The Tribe has established Tribal Fish and Wildlife Codes that are enforceable
through an established court system.
3. The Tribe commits to funded CLEO positions obtaining Federal Law
Enforcement Training Certification, or a recognized equivalent, within one year
of the position being filled.
4. The Tribe has an established Law Enforcement Handbook or adopts the BIA Law
Enforcement Handbook.
How to Apply:
New applications for CLEO funding are considered every 5 years. See website for
information on 2024 CLEO applications and deadlines. Successful applicants may be
awarded up to $47,000 per CLEO, per year.
(Indian Affairs, n.d.-a)
Recommendation:
Make more funding available for tribes, so that funds are not competitive and tribes can support long-term
employment for this purpose. Some tribes may need more than one staff position, so the funding amount
should be increased to meet the needs of different tribes.

18

For more information about the Conservation Law Enforcement Officer Program, visit:
https://www.bia.gov/service/competitive-fisheries-wildlife-recreation-programs/conservation-law-enforcement

128

Tribal Youth Initiative Program
The Tribal Youth Initiative Program supports projects that engage and educate Tribal
Youth towards careers related to natural resource management in the context of fisheries,
wildlife, and outdoor recreation.19 The Branch of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreation
provides competitive funding to federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal Organizations’
programs to engage Tribal youth in natural resource management work and prepare them
for careers related to fisheries, wildlife and outdoor recreation (Indian Affairs, n.d.-e).
Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal Organizations may submit project proposals to
the Tribal Youth Initiative Program contact at their Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Regional Office. Project proposals may be inclusive of Tribal youth up to and including
26 years of age. Each application may request between $2,000 - $50,000 in project
funding (Indian Affairs, n.d.-e).
Previously Funded Tribal Youth Initiative Projects
Karuk Tribe’s Tayáv Papírish Project
Willow gathering during youth field trip. Students learn about the cultural value of basket
willow while removing invasive plants that encroach willow patches, such as Himalayan
blackberry.
Tribal youth inclusion is supported
throughout the Karuk Tribe's Tayáv
Papírish (Plant Selection) Project of 2022.
In coordination with the Mid Klamath
Watershed Council and University of
Washington, the Karuk Tribe co-hosted a
restoration field trip for 4-6th graders. The
students participated in invasive plant
removal, traditional basket willow
gathering, and riparian plan community
mapping using drone technology
throughout their ancestral homelands of the middle Klamath River basin.
(Indian Affairs, n.d.-e)

19

For more information on the Tribal Youth Initiative Program, visit:
https://www.bia.gov/service/competitive-fisheries-wildlife-recreation-programs/tribal-youth

129

Indian Youth Service Corp (IYSC)
The Indian Youth Service Corps (IYSC)20 is a Department of the Interior (DOI) initiative designed to engage
Native youth in meaningful public service projects on federal and Tribal lands for the benefit of Native
communities.
Under IYSC, Tribal Nations, Tribally-affiliated organizations, and corps can enter into cooperative
agreements with certain federal agencies to fund youth projects related to natural resources; parks and
recreation; environmental conservation and restoration; infrastructure and construction; energy; and a broad
range of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. These projects provide education, employment, and
training to Native American and Alaska Native individuals ages 16-30 (or veterans up to the age of 35) and
can serve as an invaluable community resource and hiring pipeline to careers in several critical fields.
IYSC funding spans several fields to meet the diverse needs of Indian Country. Youth activities and training
opportunities vary depending on the nature of the funded project but can include: hands-on crew work,
restoration of trails and ceremonial sites, scientific fieldwork, fire and forestry management, watershed
restoration, invasive species removal, habitat surveying, climate mitigation activities, infrastructure projects,
research projects, oral histories, language revitalization, agriculture and food sovereignty, community
education, and more.
In 2023, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) allocated nearly $3.5 million to establish IYSC pilot projects in
partnership with Tribal Nations and qualified youth and conservation corps.
Federally-recognized Tribes, Tribally-affiliated organizations, and corps seeking information about IYSC
project funding for FY 2024 and beyond may contact the acting Indian Youth Service Corps coordinator at
OTSYouth@bia.gov.
(Indian Affairs, n.d.-c)

FY 2023 awarded pilot project descriptions are available on the website. In the pilot year, funding
was not available to Federally recognized tribes and only funding positions working for nontribally owned or controlled organizations. In order for tribes to have the capacity to further tribal
youth employment, funding is needed to retain tribal professionals within tribal communities.
Recommendation:
This program could make funding available to tribes to employ youth in cultural resources within their
communities. Training and education are beneficial to youth to introduce them to different professions
and build interest in cultural resources.

20

To learn more about the Indian Youth Service Corps, visit:
https://www.bia.gov/service/iysc

130

Appendix C: Example of DOI funding that
will soon be available to tribal governments
DOI Land and Water Conservation Fund
Description:
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established by Congress in 1964 to fulfill a
bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage, and to provide
recreation opportunities to all Americans.” (Department of the Interior, n.d.). In 2020, the Great American
Outdoors Act (GAOA) authorized $900 million annually in permanent funding for LWCF. Prior to the
GAOA, funding for LWCF was reliant on annual Congressional appropriations (Department of the
Interior, n.d.). Recently, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior announced a proposed a joint
investment of $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2025 through the GAOA and the Interior Department proposes $8
million to establish a new Tribal LWCF Land Acquisition program (USDA Press, 2024). Tribal
governments will be eligible for the first time to directly participate in the LWCF to acquire lands for
natural and cultural resource conservation and recreation access.
Paid for by oil and gas leases
“The primary source of revenue for the LWCF is from Federal oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental
Shelf. The LWCF is based on a simple concept: take revenues from the depletion of resources –offshore
oil and gas – and use them to conserve other resources: parks, wildlife refuges, forests, open spaces, trails
and wildlife habitat.” (Department of the Interior, n.d.)

Analysis:
Currently, funded programs under the Department of the Interior (DOI) include the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS) who
provide grant programs and federal acquisition programs. While some funds are distributed directly to
states and local communities through grant programs, Tribes have been directed to work with States’
grant programs to secure LWCF funding for recreation and conservation projects. (Department of the
Interior, n.d.) In 2025, as LWCF awards funding to tribal governments, any land acquired with LWCF
funding may require public access to consistent with the purposes of the LWCF and other program
criteria (USDA Press, 2024).
Recommendation:
Tribal governments should be able to restrict public use and access to land acquired with LWCF funding,
because they do not have the staffing capacity for rangers like Federal agencies. Tribal governments may
also need to protect sensitive habitats and cultural resources.

131

Federal Land Acquisition Programs
The BLM, NPS, and FWS can all use LWCF money to acquire land. And “Tribes can collaborate with
agencies to support Federal land acquisition projects funded by LWCF.” (Department of the Interior, p. 4)
Recommendation:
Land purchased for protection purposes, such as a wildlife refuge, should not impede First Foods access.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Lands acquired by FSW with LWCF funding become part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System or National Fish Hatchery System. Lands and waters acquired with the
LWCF must meet the following conservation priorities:
1.) recovery of the threatened and endangered species where land acquisition is
required by the recovery plan;
2.) implementing the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and
3.) conserving migratory birds of conservation concern.
(Department of the Interior, p. 4)
Recommendation:
Ideally, the Klamath Tribes would be able to reacquire land and water to protect C'waam and
Koptu (Lost River and shortnose sucker) endangered species and First Food for the Klamath
Tribes. Currently, the Klamath Tribes only have the option of supporting FWS to use LWCF
funding to acquire land and water.
Conservation and protected areas have a history of intentionally preventing tribes from exercising
Treaty Rights. Having land designated as National Wildlife Refuge should not impede on the
Klamath Tribes’ Treaty Rights.

132

Appendix D: NRCS Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) grant award
data
Below is a list of tribal governments or projects claiming affiliation with Indigenous people which were
awarded RCPP funding between 2020-2023.
Also listed are projects claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”,
“Indigenous”, “Native people”, “Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological
Knowledge”, “Alaska Native landowners”, but more research into individual projects would be needed to
determine if any substantial funding would be directed to tribal governments, Alaska Native
Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

Note the color coding for Table 4 below.
Key:
Awarded directly to a tribal government
Awarded project identifies tribal government, but funding arrangement or sharing is unknown.
Awarded project claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”,
“Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, or “Alaska Native landowners”, but more
research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial funding would be directed to Tribal
Governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

133

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

Sta Project description
te

Award

2023 AFA

Red River
Basin
Commission

ND North Dakota and Minnesota Supply Chain Soil Health Partnership
$20,000,000
The North Dakota/Minnesota Supply Chain Soil Health Partnership project will
work with producers to increase adoption of climate-smart and soil health
practices and systems in the northern Great Plains. Adoption of climate-smart
ag/soil health practices, particularly no-till and cover crops, has generally
lagged in the northern Great Plains when compared to other growing regions
such as the Southeast and Midwest. The short growing season in the northern
Great Plains can complicate adoption of cover crops. The partnership in this
project recognizes the importance of including Historically Underserved
producers in the project and intends to work with CCAs to ensure that outreach
and education is carried out to their client producers who qualify as HU. As part
of its ongoing programming, the Trusted Advisor Partnership will continue
engagement with Tribes to explore how Tribal producers and communities
could benefit from these activities.
Critical Conservation Area: Prairie Grasslands Region

2023 AFA

Oregon
Agricultural
Trust

OR Restoring, Protecting, and Supporting Tribal Connection to Native Oak Habitat $9,232,000
Oregon’s biodiverse oak savannas and woodlands hold immense ecocultural
value. This project’s three interrelated goals are to 1) restore native oak habitat
by reintroducing traditional disturbance regimes, 2) permanently protect private
agricultural lands with associated oak habitats from development and
fragmentation and 3) facilitate access to restored and protected properties for
Native people for harvest, cultural purposes and stewardship. The Oregon
Agriculture Trust’s priority area for this project are Oregon’s Lane and Linn
Counties in the Upper Willamette Valley.
Critical Conservation Area: Western Waters

2022 AFA

one.two.five
Benefit
Corporation

OH Financing Climate Smart Agriculture in Ohio's Miami Valley
$2,900,000
Targeting an urban and rural network of BIPOC farmers as well as non-BIPOC
farmers, the Financing Climate Smart Agriculture project will spur the adoption
of NRCS-based conservation practices and systems designed to enhance soil
quality and soil carbon storage. This project will advance the most pressing
issues for climate smart agriculture, including soil carbon capture and retention
by establishing a pay-for -performance compensation approach for farmers
who adopt climate-smart agriculture practices and systems. The project area
encompasses a diverse landscape of urban and rural and small and large
farms and is home to over 1 million inhabitants, 5,000 farms and 8,000
producers spread across six counties.

2023 Classic Changemakers HI
Community
Economic
Development
Corporation

Ainapreneur Rural Farmer Conservation Collective
The goal of Hiiaka Function Project is to reverse climate change by growing
healthy soil that captures and stores carbon. To achieve this goal, Hiiaka
Function will utilize biochar to create healthy soil and store carbon. By the end
of year one, Hiiaka Function will create a biochar-use educational program for
Native Hawaiian organizations and farmers. By the end of year two, Hiiaka
Function will create a trained biochar soil workforce to create, distribute and
measure the effectiveness of biochar for Native Hawaiian organizations and
farmers. At the end of five years, Hiiaka Function will distribute biochar to 20
Native Hawaiian organizations and farmers with degraded soil through NRCS
financial assistance contracts.

$1,304,878

N/A Critical Conservation Area.

134

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

Sta Project description
te

2023 Classic Grand Traverse MI
Band of Ottawa
& Chippewa
Indians

Award

Tribal Stream and Michigan Fruitbelt Collaborative
$20,359,756
The Tribal Stream and Michigan Fruitbelt Collaborative's primary goal is the
preservation and restoration of the fragmented multi-tribal fisheries and wildlife
populations in northwest Lower Michigan. These natural resources face
challenges posed by the modern transportation network's disruption and
unsustainable development. The Anishinaabeg people heavily depend on
stream crossings within the contemporary transportation system as vital access
points, enabling them to exercise their Treaty-protected rights to hunt, fish, trap,
and gather resources within the 1836 Treaty of Washington Ceded Territory.
Led by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, one objective
of this project is to rectify 29 problematic stream crossing structures throughout
the Ceded Territory. Furthermore, the local waterways and wildlife corridors
face additional threats from escalating development pressures. Particularly
concerning are the areas proximate to water bodies jointly managed by tribal
governments for both commercial and subsistence purposes. To ensure the
protection of vital groundwater supplies and to maintain the viability of these
pivotal wildlife corridors, a second objective will be undertaken safeguarding
3,700 acres with perpetual conservation easements which will significantly limit
development and maintain rainwater infiltration.
Critical Conservation Area: Great Lakes Region

2023 Classic Wildlife
Mississippi

MS Upper Pearl River At-Risk Species and Source Water Protection Project, Phase $25,000,000
III
The Upper Pearl River At-Risk Species and Source Water Protection Project
Phase III will protect 10,500 acres through U.S.-held, high restrictive perpetual
easement on private land, 1,200 acres of a 10-year rental agreement on tribal
land of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and 5,000 acres of entity held
easements utilizing non-USDA funds, and 500 acres of Longleaf Pine and
bottomland hardwood restoration. Through this project, Wildlife Mississippi will
prevent future land-use conversions that would eliminate habitats for native
wildlife and worsen water quality in the river for maintaining populations of two
at-risk aquatic turtles and up to 11 other species considered Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in the state. The project area includes the last
remaining portion of unprotected, privately owned land upstream of
Mississippi’s largest source of surface water used for drinking and protected
lands to the north and its main tributaries. The reservoir supplies drinking water
to more than 200,000 homes and businesses of the majority-African American
city of Jackson.
N/A Critical Conservation Area

2023 Classic Blackfeet Tribe MT The Blackfeet Tribe and project partners will provide sprinkler irrigation as on
$15,350,610
of the Blackfeet
farm/ranch improvements to address conservation priorities as established by
Indian
the Blackfeet Agricultural Resource Management Plan. These conservation
Reservation
activities will be located on both Tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs) irrigation
projects and along rivers and streams in all six of the Blackfeet Nations
watersheds. This allows the Blackfeet Water Department to put water rights
onto the land and improve tribal farms and ranches in the process. It also
provides tribal producers with the opportunity to improve their forage production
for their livestock operations.
N/A Critical Conservation Area

135

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

Sta Project description
te

Award

2023 Classic Rangeley Lakes ME Headwaters Restoration
$2,439,024
Heritage Trust
The Penobscot Indian Nation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have
partnered for the Headwaters Restoration project which will improve fish and
aquatic organism passage while restoring and enhancing instream habitat for
Eastern brook trout in the mainstem and tributaries of the Kennebago River and
in Alder Stream. This project’s goals include enhanced climate resilience, a
more natural flow regime and sediment transport, and habitat connectivity and
associated fish and wildlife benefits.
N/A Critical Conservation Area
2022 Classic O'ahu
Resource
Conservation
and
Development
Council

HI

O'ahu North Shore Working Wetlands
$3,341,099
The O'ahu North Shore Working Wetlands project will focus on strategically
enhancing wetland management of lowland agricultural operations on O’ahu’s
North Shore in order to sustain both indigenous cropping systems and critical
habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds. A combination of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge (TEK), biocultural restoration techniques and other
conservation practices will be used to remove invasive species, restore native
wetland species, and help create a more climate resilient indigenous food
system. Since 2020, Oahu RC&D has worked with NRCS and local partners to
inventory opportunities for indigenous agriculture and wetland management on
Oahu’s North Shore. This project will benefit from this analysis as locations ripe
for restoration have already been identified.

2022 Classic Wildlife
Mississippi

MS Upper Pearl River At-Risk Species and Source Water, Phase II
$2,883,929
Phase II of the Upper Pearl River At-Risk Species and Source Water Protection
Project will build on current efforts underway in phase I of the project to protect,
restore and sustainably manage native forest habitats, associated riparian and
wetland areas. Wildlife Mississippi and four partners will use conservation
easements to protect critical farmland, forest land and Tribal lands to safeguard
the last remaining portion of unprotected private lands upstream of Mississippi's
largest source of drinking water for the majority-African American city of
Jackson. Project activities will also protect and enhance critical habitat for
migratory birds and a turtle species listed as Threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. Partner contributions provided by the Carbon Fund will be used to
report on the carbon sequestration benefits of the project.

2021 Classic Gila River
Indian
Community

AZ Canal 15
$6,363,636
The Gila River Indian Community proposes to protect soil productivity and
conserve scarce water resources for tribal growers by placing a new pipeline
into the main irrigation lateral, Canal 15. Agriculture is the traditional economy
of the Gila River Indian Community and is the core of the cultural and economic
fabric of the Pima and Maricopa Tribes. Integrated with an innovative
partnership between the Tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation, RCPP funding
of this irrigation infrastructure will help ensure the continued economic wellbeing of the community and tribal growers.
N/A Critical Conservation Area.

136

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

2021 Classic Northwestern
Band of the
Shoshone
Nation

Sta Project description
te
ID

Award

BOA OGOI Water/Land/Habitat Restoration Project
$954,351
The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (Tribe) is a federally
recognized tribe committed to developing, managing, and protecting tribal
water and related resources. Tribal members are the direct decedents of those
who lost their lives during the 1863 Bear River Massacre. The Massacre site is
located on the northern bank of the Bear River, also called Boa Ogoi (Big
River) by the Tribe, in Franklin County, Idaho. Over the past 160 years, the
riparian habitat along the Bear River, and the river itself, have become severely
degraded due to agricultural production. In many areas, the native vegetation
has been overrun with non-native, invasive species resulting in negative
impacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitats as well as loss of ecosystem
functions such as nutrient uptake and sediment retention. The specific goal of
the restoration is to create a site that evokes the ethos of the precolonial
landscape but is resilient to climate change. The project will remove invasive
species, re-establish native vegetation including culturally important medicinal
and food species, and improve wildlife and fisheries habitat. Additionally, this
project will improve water quality, restore and enhance existing wetlands and
create additional ponds and wetlands to attract a greater abundance and
diversity of wildlife. Partners will also develop a resource to connect present
and future generations of the Tribe to their historical and cultural heritage and
put project land into entity-held conservation easements. Battle Creek provides
an opportunity to apply processed-based restoration to improve ecological and
hydrologic functions on project land and land serviced by the Bear River.
N/A Critical Conservation Area.

2021 Classic Yakama Nation WA Middle Columbia Steelhead Partnership
The Yakama Nation and 14 non-governmental, state and federal partners will
work with producers and landowners to restore Mid-Columbia Steelhead
habitat with forest stand improvements, invasive weed removal and native
species plantings, and the replacement of inefficient irrigation systems. The
project will target farm operators whose property contains riparian, wetland or
floodplain habitat that impact this Steelhead species, which is of cultural and
ecological importance to the Yakama Nation.

$6,781,670

Critical Conservation Area: Western Waters
2021 Classic Resource
Institute, Inc.

NC EBCI Stream Habitat Improvement
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Stream Habitat Improvement
project will stabilize severely eroding and unstable streams in the Ravens Fork
watershed working with a historically underserved population in the Great
Smoky Mountains of North Carolina. The goals of this project include reduced
stream sediment, improved aquatic habitat, improved plant diversity, and the
planting of riparian buffers to offset carbon emissions.

$3,500,000

N/A Critical Conservation Area.

137

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

2021 Classic Minnesota
Department of
Agriculture

Sta Project description
te

Award

MN Irrigation Partnerships to Protect Groundwater
$3,510,500
The Irrigation Partnerships to Protect Groundwater partnership, consisting of
over 30 entities and an Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, will improve irrigation water
management and reduce energy use and nitrate leaching on approximately 120
irrigation systems in Central Minnesota. The partnership intends to tailor
incentives to producers based on the sophistication of irrigation system
adoption, and also plans to model conservation outcomes and analyze
economic outcomes based on farmers enrolled in a Farm Business
Management program.
N/A Critical Conservation Area.

2021 Classic Lummi Nation

WA Nooksack Watershed Restoration
$4,827,100
The Lummi Nation will partner with the Nooksack Tribe to support recovery of
two native chinook salmon populations essential to the recovery of the
threatened Puget Sound chinook species. The project will increase key habitat
quality and diversity by creating pools with innovative, engineered logjams;
increase the length of secondary and side channels; increase the availability of
cold-water refuges; increase rearing habitat; and improve riparian forest
conditions.
Critical Conservation Area: Western Waters

2021 Classic Roberts
Conservation
District

SD Northeast South Dakota Glacial Lakes Project
$2,425,424
The Roberts Conservation District, in partnership with seven supporting
entities, will implement systems and practices to improve water quality in
impaired lakes and streams in northeast South Dakota. One partner, the
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe, will support efforts to improve water quality on
the Lake Traverse Reservation.

2021 Classic Colorado River
Indian Tribes

AZ Colorado River Indian Reservation Conservation
$4,000,000
The Colorado River Indian Reservation lies entirely within the Lower Colorado
River Valley which is the largest, hottest, and driest subdivision of the Sonora
and Mohave Deserts. Colorado River Indian Tribes will improve soil health,
irrigation systems and water management on Tribal Reservation farms to
address Colorado River water quality degradation. The project will upgrade onfarm irrigation water conveyance efficiency and irrigation water management
practices and address soil compaction, and salinity management.

N/A Critical Conservation Area.

Critical Conservation Area: Colorado River Basin
2021 Classic Wildlife
Mississippi

MS Upper Pearl River At-Risk Species and Source Water
$5,597,900
Wildlife Mississippi and four partners will use conservation easements to
protect critical farmland, forest land and Tribal lands to safeguard the last
remaining portion of unprotected private lands upstream of Mississippi's largest
source of drinking water for the majority-African American city of Jackson.
Project activities will also protect and enhance critical habitat for migratory birds
and a turtle species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
Partner contributions provided by the Carbon Fund will be used to report on the
carbon sequestration benefits of the project.
N/A Critical Conservation Area.

138

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

Sta Project description
te

Award

2021 Classic Copper River
Watershed
Project

AK Restoring Fish Habitat in Copper River Watershed
Copper River Watershed Project partners will help Alaska Native landowners
replace undersized culverts with structures mimicking natural stream features
and revegetate streambanks to improve fish habitat and return natural stream
flows. Supporting state and municipal agencies will implement similar work on
public lands. Landowners will incur less property damage resulting from
extreme flood events. Participating municipalities will enjoy reduced road
maintenance costs. Reconnection of up to 187.5 miles of high-quality stream
habitat and 527 acres of lake habitat will benefit anadromous salmon
populations, a culturally important subsistence resource.

$3,842,440

2021 Classic Urban
Agriculture
Cooperative

NJ

N/A Critical Conservation Area
Northern NJ Small Farm Food Link Conservation Project
$355,000
The Urban Agriculture Cooperative will deliver technical and financial
assistance to new and historically underserved urban farmers in Northern N.J.
Implementation of seasonal high tunnels, composting facilities, cover crops and
irrigation practices will improve soil health and irrigation water use efficiency, as
well as help urban producers realize lower input costs and more production.
Participating farms will also see new revenue streams from composting
activities. The project will increase opportunities for black, Indigenous, people
of color, women, immigrants, and new young farmers to participate in all
aspects of the local food economy from production to retail. Historically
underserved farmers pursuing land tenure will benefit and strengthen their
linkages with rural farmers to bring more food to the urban residents who lack
fresh food access.
N/A Critical Conservation Area
2020 Classic Polk Soil &
Water
Conservation
District

OR Polk County Oak Habitat Restoration 2020
$1,753,247
The Polk Soil and Water Conservation District plans to enhance and restore
oak habitat and associated wildlife species on private lands in Polk County. The
project will create habitat corridors that traverse the county, adding increased
wildlife forage and unobstructed travel from and between neighboring counties.
The partners also plan to acquire three permanently conserved tribal ancestral
lands through the Willamette Wildlife mitigation fund, and to instill a deeper
commitment to maintaining oak habitat among private landowners.

2020 Classic Barry
Conservation
District

MI

Critical Conservation Area: Columbia River Basin
Thornapple-Kalamazoo Water Quality Partnership
The Barry Conservation District aims to make measurable improvements and
protect water quality and habitat for fish, wildlife, and invertebrates in the Gun,
Rabbit, and Thornapple River Watersheds. The local partners, including the
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, plans to build on
existing community partnerships to implement the first farmer-led and
landowner-led conservation practice implementation initiatives in the region.

$762,740

Critical Conservation Area: Great Lakes Region

139

Table 4: List of USDA NRCS RCPP awards which directed funding to a tribe or awarded projects
claiming affiliation with tribes between 2020-2023.
Year AFA

Awardee

2020 Classic Gila River
Indian
Community

Sta Project description
te

Award

AZ Canal 13 Lining Project
The Gila River Indian Community project will protect and improve soil
productivity and conserve water resources for more sustainable agricultural
development on-reservation. Through partnership with the Bureau of
Reclamation, the project will address upstream water quality degradation and
associated soil quality degradation that occur due to upstream diversions.

$9,090,909

Critical Conservation Area: Colorado River Basin

Key:
Awarded directly to a tribal government
Awarded project identifies tribal government, but funding arrangement or sharing is unknown.
Awarded project claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”,
“Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, or “Alaska Native landowners”, but more
research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial funding would be directed to tribal
governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

140

Appendix E: NRCS Conservation Innovation
Grants (CIG) grant award data
Below is a list of NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants awarded to tribes or tribal-related projects since
2007. The green highlight indicates awards to tribal governments.

Key:
Awarded directly to a tribal government
Awarded project identifies tribal government, but funding arrangement or sharing is unknown.
Awarded project claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”,
“Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, or “Alaska Native landowners”, but more
research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial funding would be directed to tribal
governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

Table 6: Conservation Innovation Grants awarded since 2007 to tribal governments or tribal community affiliated
projects (data retrieved on 3/31/2024 https://cig.sc.egov.usda.gov/cig-projects)
Enhanced Satellite Imagery Analysis Providing for Invasive Species Control in the Chickasaw Nation
The Chickasaw Nation | OK | 2021
The project will apply an innovative approach using enhanced satellite imagery analysis for optimizing efforts to
identify and clear invasive red cedar trees in the CN treaty territory. This proposal involves identifying land parcels
that are most suitable for cedar removal through prescribed fire and the transfer of the associated methods for
potential integration into the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP).
Tribal Lands Carbon and Co-Benefits Tool
Indian Land Tenure Foundation | AZ, CO, KS, NE, NM, OK, TX | 2020
The goal of this project is to develop and pilot an operational web-based tool to assess and quantify the co-benefits
of enhanced land-based carbon sequestration produced through ecosystem conservation and restoration activities on
tribal lands.
Increasing Native Producer and Community Access to Quality Water Resources
First Nations Development Institute | AZ, NM | 2020
First Nations Institute will work with two Native American organizations, taking a community-focused approach to
empower Native American agricultural producers both individually and collectively to create, implement, and
sustain conservation strategies that will address water quality and watershed management issues. They will develop
a conservation planning training and build capacity to address watershed issues.
Innovative Approach to Controlling Medusahead at a Management Scale
Burns Paiute Tribe | OR | 2019

141

This project will test the applicability of the combination of prescribed fire, pre-emergent herbicide application, and
seeding at controlling medusahead and revegetation with more desirable vegetation at a management scale and to
compare the efficiency of indaziflam and imazapic within these treatment combinations.
Building Native American Capacity for Conservation of Grazing Lands
First Nations Development Institute | AZ | 2018
The project’s goal is to develop resources that will build the capacity of Native producers to sustainably manage
agricultural natural resources through developing conservation plans as well as monitoring and evaluating grazing
systems. Two-year objectives are to: 1.Build local capacity in three communities on the Navajo Nation Reservation
and at the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona to develop conservation plans. 2.Develop A Conservation
Evaluation & Monitoring Planning Guide for Native American Ranchers to support the evaluation and monitoring
of grazing systems to meet natural resource objectives. 3. Document and publish three case studies of successful
Native conservation plan development and implementation to encourage other Native producers to develop
conservation plans.
Beginning Tribal Ranching Training Course
Hualapai Tribe | AZ | 2017
To create and implement a tribal ranching training course that teaches tribal youth and beginning ranchers
sustainable grazing and livestock techniques and approaches. The project emphasizes outreach and one-on-one
technical training with the Agriculture Program of the Hualapai Department of Natural Resources in collaboration
with the University of Arizona Extension office.
Demonstration of an Advanced Distillation and Nutrient Separation Processor for Dairy Wastewater
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians | WA | 2017
The primary goal of this project is to successfully build, install, and demonstrate the effectiveness of an Advanced
Distillation and Nutrient Separation (ADNS) Processor on a dairy farm in Washington State.
Community Tiered Approach to Conservation Planning
First Nations Development Institute | AZ | 2016
First Nations Development Institute proposes to harness the momentum of the Association of Arizona Tribal
Conservation Districts, an informal group of all 10 of the conservation districts in Arizona established by Tribal
Council law. The project’s goal is to create an adaptable process for Native American communities to engage
multiple and diverse stakeholders in developing community-wide conservation plans, and for Native American
producers to leverage this momentum and information to create their own conservation plans. The effect of the
development of these conservation plans will be to increase the ability of Native American tribes, entities and
producers to participate in USDA programs and grant opportunities.
Strengthening Arizona Tribal Conservation Districts
First Nations Development Institute | CO | 2015
The purpose of this project is to build the organizational capacity of a Native conservation association and the
individual capacity of Native farmers and ranchers who are primarily in Arizona in a culturally-appropriate and sensitive manner that will increase Native control of Native assets of natural resources and of a Native communitybased organization.
Using carbon markets to finance grassland conservation and rangeland restoration on tribal lands
Indian Land Tenure Foundation | MN | 2015

142

The purpose of this project is to increase engagement and participation of Indian Tribes in greenhouse gas markets.
ILT will adapt greenhouse gas protocols to address Tribal issues and complete pilot projects that generate carbon
credits for sale in greenhouse gas markets.
Refining the Use Environmental DNA for Aquatic Species Detection
Burns Paiute Tribe | OR | 2015
The purpose of the proposed project is to refine existing environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques designed to detect
and monitor rare, cryptic, and/or invasive species. eDNA is becoming widely used for detecting the presence of
rare, cryptic, or invasive species. However, sampling is inconsistent and there are no known protocols for
comprehensively sampling a stream or watershed. The project will target brook trout on the Lake Creek system in
order to limit populations to promote Bull trout. Deliverables, development of comprehensive protocol for
sampling eDNA for detection of rare and invasive species in a stream reach or watershed.
Ahtna Region Resource Assessment, EQIP Habitat Tool Development and Inter-Tribal Conservation
District Technology Transfer: A Groundbreaking Project for Alaska
Copper River-Ahtna Inter-Tribal Resource Conservation District | AK | 2014
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has recognized Alaska Native Corporation as agricultural lands and
subsistence food production and harvest as an agricultural product. Native private corporate ownership in Alaska is
over 44 million acres. This has created a significant number of historically underserved and beginning farmers. In
addition, tribal conservation districts are being developed to help serve these landowners in Alaska. Many of the
traditional NRCS EQIP and other practices need to be adapted to Alaska and applied in new, innovative ways. In
addition, tools such as ecological site descriptions are needed in Alaska to help effectively link NRCS programs
and practices with beginning farmers and their unique subsistence resource production issues. This project will
develop technical expertise on wildlife, habitat and forestry and provide advisory services to land managers for two
native corporations and eight regional tribes. These activities will help NRCS better serve its primary clientele in
Alaska and will help other tribal conservation districts recognize their opportunities to positively support
sustainable subsistence food production in their districts.
The Value of Traditional Burning as a Means of Increased Acorn Production
American Indian Education Consultants, Inc. (AIEC) | CA | 2014
Conduct a Field Demonstration designed to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation
approaches and technologies that will enhance the agricultural production of acorn in accordance with NRCS
standards resulting in a technological approach or a substantive method that can be used to augment agency
technical guidance.
Using Innovative Techniques for Assessing Herbivore Animal Diet
Navajo Nation | AZ | 2014

143

Many unknowns exist regarding baseline data for natural resources on Native American reservations. Existing
technologies to examine and assess wildlife diet are becoming more costly, time-consumptive, and inefficient in
their abilities to produce reliable results. This project will help alleviate both issues by introducing a new and
innovative technology for assessing wildlife diet for a Native American tribal wildlife resource. The new
conservation technology may prove more efficient at producing results for wildlife than the old method, will
provide baseline data for the Native American tribal Fish and Wildlife Department, and will provide knowledge
that can then be transferred to Native American tribal natural resources personnel for future use in conservation
efforts. The main objectives of this study are to 1) use an innovative conservation technology to assess wildlife diet
for a socially and economically important natural resource: mule deer, 2) provide baseline wildlife diet data to the
Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife for said natural resource, 3) compare results from the new diet
assessment technique to an older, well used technique and 4) transfer the knowledge from the innovative diet
technique to the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife for future conservation use.
Conservation Planning for Navajo Livestock Producers
First Nations Development Institute | CO | 2014
A development freeze (preventing the erection of buildings, homes and community infrastructure) on lands
disputed between the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe persisted from 1966 until 1999 when it was repealed. Only
now are these communities beginning to initiate new development in this area that depends heavily on farming and
ranching for livelihoods. This project will build on First Nations’ work with Navajo producers started in 2011 with
funding from the USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach and others. These efforts revealed the need to transition
first steps in conservation planning from USDA NRCS to the producers by developing a conservation process for
Navajo producers in a manner that will balance traditional ecological stewardship with NRCS’ requirements.
12,000 conservation plans on the Navajo Nation are stymied by the logjam created by lack of professional
resources. This project will develop a conservation planning process, led by Navajo livestock producers on the
Navajo Reservation, which will be offered as a template to USDA NRCS, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Navajo Nation. The conservation planning process could have the potential to remedy the issue of pending
conservation plans at the producer level on the Navajo Nation and could be replicated in other Navajo communities
and by other tribes.
Native Capacity Building to Address Effective Drought Management
InterTribal Buffalo Council | SD | 2013
The Inter Tribal Buffalo Council sees a need for the formation and implementation of drought-related strategic
plans for Native American Reservations within its Membership Regions. As evidenced by a lack of planning, few
communities are prepared to engage in the formation and implementation of a drought planning process because of
lack of know-how. The purpose of this project is to enhance Tribal system resilience to drought by developing
models using the Tribal Bison Programs that can be used to demonstrate various technology transfer means and
methods for use by other Socially Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers and Indian Tribes. Specifically, an
evaluation/assessment of the impacts of drought across member Tribes, their response to drought and the
effectiveness of the responses will be used as the basis for regional trainings that will involve the adoption of the
appropriate best management practices and associated technologies into each Tribe’s Bison Management Plan. On
line databases will be created for the Tribes that include a resource library for drought management including links
to entities that forecast drought, assistance for drought response, and technical data would enable the Tribes to
adequately prepare system responses to drought. Regional trainings will be provided on the development and usage
of the Tribal databases and drought management resource library. Implementation of conservation technologies,
management, practices, systems, procedures, and approaches will also be supported. This could include alternative
feeding systems, water and range enhancements and fodder systems.
Adaptation of Forest Carbon Protocol to Include Tribal Lands

144

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation | WA | 2011
This project aims to overcome a variety of market-based barriers to entry for American Indians and Alaska Natives
in the AFOLU sector. The project model has two components: it will adapt and implement approved forest carbon
methodologies and protocols (e.g. afforestation, reforestation, improved forest management, and avoided
conversion) to address issues involving tribal sovereignty; and it will create a streamlined system where adapted
carbon methodologies can be applied with participation of tribes to determine baseline values of carbon
sequestration, verify the implementation and maintenance of GHG benefitting practices, and determine GHG
benefits (additionally) to successfully register these benefits in a commonly recognized carbon.
Growing fuel from the sun
Colville Confederated Tribes | WA | 2011
This project seeks to demonstrate the effectiveness of crop rotation sequencing, using canola in rotation with cereal
crops, pastures and hay. This project will stimulate the development and adoption of an innovative conservation
approach, while providing environmental enhancement and protection, and lead to the accelerated transfer of
conservation practices and technologies within the Colville Confederated Tribes.
Demonstrate Innovative Approaches of Carbon Sequestration Strategies
College of Menominee Nation | WI | 2009
The purpose of this award is for the grantee to demonstrate the viability of carbon sequestration as a market
mechanism tool for promoting environmental preservation, biodiversity, conservation, and sustainable development
among tribes and their lands.
Biological Control of Leafy Spurge within the Exterior Boundaries of the Spirit Lake Nation
Spirit Lake Tribe | ND | 2009
This project aims to develop a systematic approach of processes and procedures for integrated leafy spurge control
that is effective in long term control of the weed.
Grassland Restoration and Bison Management on American Indian Lands
InterTribal Bison Cooperative, via NFWF | SD | 2008
Centralize bison management activities on tribal lands. Project will inventory bison and their range ecosystems and
provide data on long-term ecological trends.
Using Carbon Credits to Offset the Costs of Implementing Carbon Conservation Practices: Landowner
Education and Development of a Carbon Credit Market Infrastructure for Coeur d’Alene Tribe
Coeur d’Alene Tribe, via NFWF | ID | 2008
Inform landowners of the developing market in carbon credits, develop carbon credit trading expertise, and
improve water quality, wildlife habitat and ecological resiliency of forest lands on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation.
Improving Conservation of Wetland and Riparian Habitat Through Enhanced NWI Updates, Aquatic Weed
Mapping, and Reed Canary Grass Control Demonstration Project

145

Confederate Salish and Kootenai Tribes | MT | 2007
The purpose of this award is for the grantee to develop promising conservation technologies, practices, systems and
procedures that will aid in the identification, mapping and demonstration of effective Reed canary grass control and
native plant re-establishment. Conservation of wealth and riparian Habitat on the Flathead Indian Restoration (FIR)
of western Montana is complicated by ‘checkerboard’ land ownership. Lands containing wetland and riparian lands
are owned, managed, or regulated by numerous tribal, Federal, State, or local government, or private stockholders.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSK) and other agency stakeholders often share common
conservation goals and objectives that can not be effectively achieved independently. The resources conservation
and management community on the Reservation is in need of accurate, up-to-date mapping of wetland and riparian
resources for effective planning and coordination. In addition to land-use and development pressures, invasion and
spread of invasive aquatic species pose a major threat to the health of aquatic ecosystems on grazing and forest
lands within the Reservation. This project will improve conservation of wetland and riparian Habitat through:
1) enhanced National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and riparian mapping;
2) identification and mapping of aquatic weed infestations from 1m CIR and NAIP imagery;
3) implementation of demonstration projects for RCG control in representative wetland and riparian areas, and
4) development of technical guidance, and improved planning and management tools.
Planting People Project
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe | ND | 2007
Implement Community Conservation Projects on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation

Source: (NRCS, n.d.-b).
Data obtained with search for Awardee Name terms “tribe”, “tribal”, “Indian”, and “nation”.

Key:
Awarded directly to a tribal government
Awarded project identifies tribal government, but funding arrangement or sharing is unknown.
Awarded project claiming affiliation or partnership with “Tribes”, “Tribal lands”, “BIPOC”, “Indigenous”, “Native people”,
“Native Hawaiian”, “Indigenous Food System”, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, or “Alaska Native landowners”, but more
research into individual projects would be needed to determine if any substantial funding would be directed to tribal
governments, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian organizations or peoples.

146

Appendix F: Acronyms
BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
CTSI - Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
CTUIR - Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
DOI - Department of the Interior
IHS - Indian Health Service
KTAFF Committee - Klamath Tribes Agriculture and First Foods Committee
NAGPRA - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NIFA - National Institute of Food and Agriculture
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service
PNW - Pacific Northwest
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

147

Appendix G: Additional Terminology
Native American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Indigenous, Native, Indian, Tribal.
The focus of this report is limited to American Indian or Alaska Native peoples, also referred to as Native
American, Native, Indian and Tribal peoples. Data mentioning Native Hawaiian populations is included
as a demonstration of organizations who claim to be Native or Indigenous-serving entities.
The Native Agriculture Fund explains that “we use the term Indian in the field of agriculture, despite
concerns about its historical and contemporary implications primarily because of its presence in federal
law. This usage reflects the complexity of cultural, legal and political dynamics that shape the way that
Native communities navigate their identities and relationships within broader society” (Native American
Agriculture Fund, 2023).

Tribal Member or tribal citizen
Each tribal government has their own unique enrollment requirements. Tribal members are citizens of
three sovereigns: their tribe, the United States, and the state in which they reside. (National Congress of
American Indians, n.d.-b)
Tribal community
For the purposes of this paper, tribal community refers to a group or groups of enrolled tribal members or
descendants of a tribal government. It may also indicate the community location(s) close to a tribal
government headquarters in reservations or towns. Tribal communities for one Tribe may be multiple
hours travel away from each other because ancestral homelands can be large geographic areas. Outside of
ancestral homelands, Native diaspora populations also often create communities in cities outside of their
ceded territories and sometimes collectively with other Native diaspora.

148

What makes First Foods’ food systems different from mainstream conventional food systems?

Table 1: (enlarged from page 7)

Appendix H: Mainstream vs. First Foods

149

Appendix I: Interview Questions
USDA Interviews
Interviews with staff from the following USDA Agencies:
Forest Service (FS)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Interview Questions:
● Please give a brief overview or description of the different collaborations or partnerships that you
have with tribal governments in Oregon.
● Can you describe MOUs or tribal consultation that your Agency conducts?
● Can you give a brief description of the different types of grant assistance that you provide to
tribes, farmers and businesses?
● Is the data regarding farm demographics that you serve available as public data?
● Do you have demographics of farmers receiving grants/aid from (FS or NRCS)?
● Are they able to share what tribal governments or tribal businesses/entities are receiving grant or
funding through USDA?
● What grants/programs are tribes using?
o How could I find out what programs or how much funding tribes are accessing?
● If a tribal government applies for funding for multiple properties, are they limited to 1 property at
a time, or can they have multiple applications at the same time?
● Could you describe more details about the different conservation programs that you offer?
● Could you describe more details about the workforce development programs that you offer?
Discussion:
For Native American tribes who are wanting to use more of a conservation type of agriculture for cultural
foods that will be communally managed for cultural purposes, but not for commercial purposes--what
types of grants/programs/resources could individuals or tribal governments use to support their cultural
foods?
Needs may include:
Land purchase
Labor (maybe workforce development)
Education
Science/monitoring
Discussion on the different grants/programs/resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

150

Tribal Government Staff Interviews
Additional procedure for interviewing tribal government staff:
This research project is focused primarily on funding sources available from the U.S. government that are
available to Native American tribal governments and citizens.
Recruitment for interviews will focus on Tribal government staff (tribal citizens or non-tribal) who may
work in Natural Resources, Culture, Agriculture, Planning, Health, or other related department who may
be involved in grant writing or grant seeking.
Tribal government staff may be a tribal citizen or non-tribal and will be asked if their tribal government
requires an approved IRB prior to their participation in an interview. If the tribal government requires an
IRB to interview tribal staff, the Co-PI (Sharla Strong) will be responsible for obtaining that IRB prior to
the interview. The Co-PI (Sharla Strong) will work with ASU’s university tribal liaison on the tribal
government IRB request.
This study will include references to food sovereignty and cultural resources, but only to understand
funding sources and will be based on publicly available information only. Sensitive cultural information
is not the focus of this study.
Interview Questions:
Confidentiality:
● Would you approve if I listed you specifically as someone I interviewed in this project? Would
you prefer to be anonymous? I can list responses as being from your tribe, but not name you
specifically, if you prefer. And you can change your mind later.
Intro Qs:
● Can you briefly describe how your food programs were started?
● Where does your food program currently fit within your administrative structure?
o Dept:
● What departments or programs in your tribe are involved with supporting your cultural food
work? Collaborating depts?
o NR, Culture, Health…
● Can you give a brief overview of how you are working to restore ancestral/cultural food and
material availability?
General Funding Qs:
● Do you have a primary funding source that supports your food work?
● What grants, government funding, etc. are you using?
● When you think about annual or regular work that is needed for restoration activities or
maintenance of cultural food places (like gathering areas). What are your workforce needs?
● Do you employ or contract with elders in the projects that you do?
● Volunteers? Or community involvement? #/year
● What do you see as the community role in your cultural foods care, maintenance, etc.?
● What positions in your tribe are working directly on food initiatives/projects?
o # of staff? Different funding sources?
● What positions are indirectly helping? Like sessional or helpful in an annual event.
151

USDA funding Qs:
● What projects are you doing that are funded through USDA?
● Is USDA funding supporting cultural foods or mainstream foods?
● Can you share about your experience with the USDA funding and provide any constructive
criticism?
General grant funding Qs:
● Are you actively looking for additional funding?
● What are you looking for in funding opportunities?
● Can you describe funding that has been successful for you?
Funding barriers Qs:
● Can you talk about capacity? Are there goals or projects that you need funding for, but have not
found a funding source that fits?
● Are there limitations on certain funding opportunities that mean you are less likely to apply?
o Match?
o Indirect?
o Data sovereignty? Cultural resource privacy?
o Reporting requirements? Would you change something about the reporting?
● Are there restrictions on grants or funding that create barriers for your work? (like cannot
purchase food?)
● Can you describe situations where you have decided not to accept funding?
● Can you describe situations where you have decided not to apply for funding?
● Do you talk to your tribal administration leadership about funding needs?
Funding in partnerships Qs:
● Have you received funding support from partners or partnered with groups on funding?
o Can you describe how that went?
● Can you describe your preferences on funding arrangements in your partnerships?
● What capacity would be added if you had funding from partnerships?
Cultural Qs:
● Is there community discussion or known protocols around food access for the community versus
tribal members selling cultural foods? Example: Salmon or plant foods?
o Is communal food access important for your tribe?
o Is selling cultural foods taboo in your culture?
● How does funding impact your tribal governments’ food sovereignty?
Discussion:
● What policy recommendations would make it easier for Tribal Governments to grow and sustain
cultural food programs?
● Other needs?
o Land purchase
o Labor (maybe workforce development)
o Education
o Science/monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

152

Non-profit/NGO Interviews
Recruitment will be to interview non-profit or NGO staff focused on conservation, native plants, forestry,
etc.
Interview Questions:
● Can you give a brief overview of the different projects that your organization is doing?
● Can you describe how you are able to financially support that work?
o Grants, etc.
o # of staff – how are they funded
o Volunteers
o What types of annual or regular practices are needed for restoration activities or
maintenance?
o What is a need that is not currently funded?
o Can you talk about capacity? Are there goals or projects that you need funding for, but
have not found a funding source that fits?
o Are there restrictions on grants or funding that create barriers for your work?
o What are your workforce needs?
o Would additional funding help your cause? How? What types of need do you have?
● What projects are you doing that are funded through USDA?
● Are there limitations on certain funding opportunities that mean you can’t apply (like match or
indirect, or reporting requirements)?
● What types of grants do you wish existed?
● Are reporting requirements challenging or would you change something about the reporting?
● Please give a brief overview or description of the different collaborations or partnerships that you
have with tribal governments in Oregon.
● What are you doing to help tribes who partner with you?
● What funding is shared with tribes to provide capacity for tribal participation?
● Do you compensate tribes for their staff time when they participate in meetings, consultation,
etc.?
o Do you reimburse for travel costs?
● Can you share about your business model? Strengths/weaknesses of that model?
● Can you share more about the sustainability challenges that your organization or organizations
like yours face?

Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, University of Arkansas questions:
Tribal Dept. of Ag
● How would this be funded until Federal funding would be allocated?
● Does 638 funding mean that the tribes are essentially administering the exact same programs?
Rather than administering the exact same programs that USDA offers, would 638 funding be able
to fund staffing for a cultural foods program?
● How would a nonprofit work with 638 funding?

153

References
Allen, Cain. (2006). Salmon Decline, 1894. Oregon History Project: A Project of the Oregon Historical
Society. https://www.oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/historical-records/salmon-decline-1894/
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). (2023). Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year
2023 Budget Request [Report]. U.S. Department of the Interior.
https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/fy2023-bia-greenbook_0.pdf
Climate Hubs. (n.d.). The Tribal Forest Protection Act. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed on
5/23/2024. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern-forests/topic/tribal-forest-protectionact#:~:text=The%20Tribal%20Forest%20Protection%20Act%20(TFPA)%20allows%20federally
%20recognized%20tribes,%2C%20trust%20resources%2C%20and%20values.
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. (n.d.). History of the Siletz [Infosheet]. Retrieved March 9, 2024,
from https://www.ctsi.nsn.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CTSI-Comprehensive-Plan-20052015-History-Pt1.pdf
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. (May 2021). Reservation Maps.
https://www.ctsi.nsn.us/reservation-maps/
Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Department of the Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund
Overview [Infosheet]. Accessed on 1/4/2024.
https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/asia/raca/DOI%20LWCF%20Overview%20and%20Programs%20Sheet.pdf
Diver, S. (2016). Co-management as a Catalyst: Pathways to Post-colonial Forestry in the Klamath Basin,
California. Human Ecology, 44(5), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9851-8
First Nations Development Institute. (n.d.). Seed Saving & Seed Sovereignty.
https://www.firstnations.org/wp-content/uploads/publication-attachments/2015-Fact-Sheet-11Seed-Saving-and-Seed-Sovereignty.pdf
Fixico, Donald. (n.d.) Termination and Restoration in Oregon [Infosheet]. Oregon Department of
Education, American Indian/Alaska Native Education, Tribal History/Shared History, Lesson
Plans, 10th Grade Science, Natural Resource Management: Historical and Contemporary, G10SC
Termination and Restoration. Accessed on 3/9/2024. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-andfamily/equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/termination_and_rest
oration.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2021). The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’
food systems [Report]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en
Forest Service. (n.d.-a). 2010 Project Selections and Work Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed 5/23/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/2010selections.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-b). 2012 Project Selections and Work Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed 5/23/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/2012selections.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-c). 2021 Project Selections and Work Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed 5/23/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/2021selections.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-d). 2022 Project Selections and Work Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed 5/23/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/2022selections.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-e). 2023 Project Selections and Work Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed 5/23/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/2023selections.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-f) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Overview. U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Accessed on 5/23/2024.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/CFLRP/overview.shtml
Forest Service. (n.d.-g). Meet the Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed 5/2//2024.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/meet-forestservice#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Forest,of%20present%20and%20future%20ge
nerations.
Forest Service. (n.d.-h). Urban and Community Forestry Program: Who We Are. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Accessed 5/24/2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-urbancommunity-forestry-who-we-are.pdf
Forest Service. (2020, August). USDA Forest Service 638 Webinars: Questions & Answers. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/638-Webinars-QA20200909.pdf
Forest Service. (2023) USDA Forest Service Makes Historic Investments in Equitable Access to Trees and
Nature in Oregon and Washington through Urban and Community Forestry Grants. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/newsevents/?cid=FSEPRD1139665
Hatcher, W., Rondeau, S., Johnson, D. L., Johnson, K. N., & Franklin, J. F. (2017). Klamath Tribes:
Managing Their Homeland Forests in Partnership with the USDA Forest Service. Journal of
Forestry, 115(5), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-027

Hipp, J. S., & Duren, C. D. (2017, June). Regaining Our Future: An Assessment of Risks and
Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill. Indigenous Food and Agriculture
Initiative. Commissioned by Seeds of Native Health. https://www.indigenousfoodandag.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/Regaining-Our-Future_WEB.pdf
Indian Affairs. (n.d.-a) Conservation Law Enforcement Officer Program. United States Department of the
Interior. Accessed on 3/24/2024. https://www.bia.gov/service/competitive-fisheries-wildliferecreation-programs/conservation-law-enforcement
Indian Affairs. (n.d.-b). Frequently Asked Questions: Why Tribes Exist Today in the United States. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Retrieved on 3/26/2024. https://www.bia.gov/frequently-askedquestions#:~:text=A%20federally%20recognized%20tribe%20is,funding%20and%20services%2
0from%20the
Indian Affairs. (n.d.-c) Indian Youth Service Corps. U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed on
3/24/2024. https://www.bia.gov/service/iysc
Indian Affairs. (n.d., Self-Determination). Self-Determination. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Accessed 10/28/2023. https://www.bia.gov/regional-offices/great-plains/selfdetermination
Indian Affairs. (n.d.-e) Tribal Youth Initiative Program. U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed on
3/24/2024. https://www.bia.gov/service/competitive-fisheries-wildlife-recreation-programs/tribalyouth
Indian Affairs. (2017, November 11). What is the federal Indian trust responsibility? U.S. Department of
the Interior. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federal-indian-trust-responsibility
Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative. (2019, February). NRCS Alternative Funding Arrangements
(AFAs) [Infosheet]. University of Arkansas School of Law. https://indigenousfoodandag.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/nrcs-afa_35979541-1.pdf
Indigenous Food & Agriculture Initiative. (2020, July 1). 638 Opportunities for Tribal Food and
Agriculture [Video]. YouTube. University of Arkansas School of Law.
https://youtu.be/FIplYZXvTBQ?si=fnqRr2rLNZ86h_Kz
Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative. (2020, Jun 8). Building a Tribal Department of Agriculture
[Video]. YouTube. University of Arkansas School of Law.
https://youtu.be/hP2GfBmtftM?feature=shared
Intertribal Timber Council. (n.d.). Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA). Accessed on 5/23/2024.
https://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/tfpa/tfpareports.html

Jefferson Public Radio. (2022, February 7). Indigenous Gardens Network featured in February Stories of
Southern Oregon [Radio Interview]. Indigenous Gardens Network.
https://www.ijpr.org/show/the-jefferson-exchange/2022-02-07/tue-8-am-indigenous-gardensnetwork-featured-in-february-stories-of-southern-oregon
Kalt, J., Henson, E. C., Taylor, J., Curtis, C., Cornell, S., Grant, K., Jorgensen, M., Lee, A., & Nelson, H.
(2008). The state of the Native nations: Conditions under U.S. policies of self-determination: the
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Oxford University Press.
Karuk Tribe. (2020). Karuk Tribe: Tribal Government Profile and Summary.
https://www.karuk.us/images/docs/hr-files/Karuk-Tribal_Government_Fact_Sheet_2020.final.pdf
Karuk Tribe. (n.d.). Píkyav Field Institute. Accessed on 4/30/2024.
https://www.karuk.us/index.php/departments/natural-resources/eco-cultural-revitalization/pikyavfield-institute
Karuk Tribe. (2021). Practicing Píkyav. Karuk – UC Berkeley Collaborative.
https://nature.berkeley.edu/karuk-collaborative/?page_id=165
Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources, Megan Mucioki, and Jennifer Sowerwine. (2016).
Klamath Basin Food System Assessment: Karuk Tribe Data. Orleans, California and Berkeley,
California: Karuk Tribe and University of California at Berkeley.
https://nature.berkeley.edu/karuk-collaborative/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Karuk-Tribe-datasummary-report_March-2019.pdf
KCET. (2016, October 26). “We’re all Gonna Die Right Here”: Talking About the Klamath Salmon Wars
[Video]. Tending the Wild series, Co-Produced by KCETLink and the Autry Museum of the
American West. https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/tending-the-wild/were-all-gonna-die-right-heretalking-about-the-klamath-salmon-wars
Lake, F. (Director). (2021, May 10). PNW Tribal Agroforestry Webinar.
https://media.oregonstate.edu/media/t/1_0hbob1f7
Library of Congress. (n.d.). American Indian Law: A Beginner's Guide, Treaties. Accessed on 5/7/2024.
https://guides.loc.gov/american-indian-law/Treaties
MacFarland , Kate; Elevitch, Craig; Friday, J.B.; Friday, Kathleen; Lake, Frank K.; Zamora, Diomy.
2017. Chapter 5: Human dimensions of agroforestry systems. In: Schoeneberger, Michele M.;
Bentrup, Gary; Patel-Weynand, Toral, eds. 2017. Agroforestry: Enhancing resiliency in U.S.
agricultural landscapes under changing conditions. Gen. Tech. Report WO-96. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73-90.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/55790

Mitchell, J., & Powless, W. (2022, October). Klamath First Foods Roundtable: Summary and
Recommendations [Report]. The Klamath Tribes. https://klamathtribes.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Klamath-First-Foods-Roundtable.pdf
National Agricultural Statistics Service. (n.d.). Census of Agriculture—Frequently Asked Questions 2022.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved June 25, 2023.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/FAQ/2022/index.php
National Agricultural Statistics Service. (February 16, 2022). Census of Agriculture: Frequently Asked
Questions. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/FAQ/2017/#:~:text=In%20such%20cases%2C%20the%20
data,the%202017%20Census%20of%20Agriculture%3F
National Congress of American Indians. (n.d.-a). Tribal Governance. Accessed October 29, 2023.
https://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance
National Congress of American Indians. (n.d.-b). Tribal Nations & the United States: An Introduction.
Accessed on Mar 13, 2024. https://archive.ncai.org/abouttribes#:~:text=There%20are%20574%20federally%20recognized,villages)%20in%20the%20Unit
ed%20States.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). (n.d.-a) NIFA Grant Funding Overview, NIFA Grant
Funding Dashboard. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed on 3/13/2024.
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/data/nifa-dashboards/grant-funding-dashboard
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). (n.d.-b) Federally Recognized Tribes Extension
Program (FRTEP). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed on 2/8/2024.
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/federally-recognized-tribes-extensionprogram-frtep-formerly-extension
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). (n.d.-c). Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed 5/17/2024.
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/agriculture-food-research-initiative-afri
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). (n.d.-d) NIFA Tribal Programs. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Accessed 5/31/2024. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/nifa-tribalprograms
Native American Affairs. (2020, December 7). Public Law 93-638 Program (Indian Self-Determination
and Tribal Self-Governance). Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
https://www.usbr.gov/native/programs/93-638program.html#638

Native American Agriculture Fund. (2023, September 7). Indian Agriculture 101: Discussing Native Ag
Production and Tribal Food Sovereignty [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHG6U95LVbU
Native Nations Institute. (n.d.) Indigenous Data Sovereignty & Governance. University of Arizona.
Accessed on 8/1/2024. https://nni.arizona.edu/our-work/research-policy-analysis/indigenous-datasovereigntygovernance#:~:text=Indigenous%20data%20sovereignty%20is%20the,peoples%2C%20lands%2
C%20and%20resources.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2019, July). Conservation Innovation Grants [Fact
Sheet]. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://cig.sc.egov.usda.gov/sites/default/files/202107/NRCS-CIG_FarmBill2018_Factsheet.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2023-a). Equity in Conservation Outreach Projects
2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 3/25/2024 from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/data-and-reports/equity-in-conservation-outreach-projects2023
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2023-b). Fiscal Year 2023 Equity in Conservation
Outreach Cooperative Agreements: Notice of Funding Opportunity USDA-NRCS-NHQ-ECO-23NOFO0001222. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 3/25/2024 from Grants.gov.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2023-c). Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Equity in
Conservation Outreach Cooperative Agreements NFO Frequently Asked Questions. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 3/25/2024 from Grants.gov.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (n.d.-a). Conservation Technical Assistance. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/conservationtechnical-assistance
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (NRCS). (n.d.-b). Project Search. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. https://cig.sc.egov.usda.gov/cig-projects
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (n.d.-c) Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 3/31/2024
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/rcpp-regional-conservation-partnership-program
Neumann, Erik. (2021, July 3). C’waam and Koptu: The fish at the center of the Klamath Basin’s water
crisis. Oregon Public Broadcasting, Jefferson Public Radio.
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/03/upper-klamath-basin-water-crisis-suckerfish-cwaamkoptu/

Oregon Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Overview of the Nine Tribes. State of Oregon. Retrieved
on 4/1/2024. https://www.oregon.gov/odhs/tribal-affairs/pages/tribes.aspx
Oregon State Legislature. (n.d.) Klamath Tribes. Accessed on 3/9/2024.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/cis/Pages/klamath.aspx
Parker, E., Griffith Hotvedt, C., VanPool, J., Case, K., Zook, M. B., Wilkie, S., Damaso, J., & Coutu, K.
(2022, September). Gaining Ground: A Report on the 2018 Farm Bill Successes for Indian
Country and Opportunities for 2023 [Report]. University of Arkansas, Indigenous Food and
Agriculture Initiative.
https://www.nativefarmbill.com/_files/ugd/8b3589_763e8879ac2842c0baa45c586ddfd83a.pdf
Parker, Erin Shirl. (2018, September 18). Empowering a Culture of Health for Lasting Change in Indian
Country: Tribal Law & Policy Tools. University of Arkansas, Indigenous Food and Agriculture
Initiative.
https://www.nihb.org/docs/nthc18/Presentations/Tuesday%20Presentations/Empowering%20a%2
0Culture%20of%20Health%20for%20Lasting%20Change%20in%20Indian%20Country.pdf
Peterson, Tomie. (2021, May 28). Funding Native Agriculture [Video]. YouTube. Intertribal Agriculture
Council. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drAtwQ03hi8, Minutes 15:00-16:30
Sowerwine, J., Mucioki, M., Friedman, E., Hillman, L., and Sarna-Wojcicki, D. (2019). Food Security
Assessment of Native American Communities in the Klamath Basin with the Karuk Tribe,
Klamath Tribes, Yurok Tribe, and Hoopa Tribe. Karuk-UC Berkeley Collaborative. Berkeley,
CA: University of California at Berkeley. https://nature.berkeley.edu/karuk-collaborative/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/Food-Security-Assessment-Web-5.20.pdf
Tahoma Peak Solutions. (2022). A-dae Briones, Keynote Speaker [Video]. Vimeo. 2022 Food
Sovereignty Symposium, “Keeping the Culture in AgriCulture.”
https://www.tahomapeak.com/foodsovsymposium
The Klamath Tribes. (n.d.) Our History. Accessed on 3/9/2024. https://klamathtribes.org/history/
Thompson, V. (2017, October 27). Ancient Corn is Coming to Whole Foods. Just Don’t Try to Buy it in
Mexico. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2017/10/27/ancient-corn-is-coming-to-whole-foods-butremains-out-of-reach-in-mexico/
The White House. (n.d.). What is the Justice40 Initiative? Accessed 4/30/2024
https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/
Throssell, T. R. (2017, August 21). GRIC to receive $8.57 million in funding to line Casa Blanca canal.
Gila River Indian News. https://www.gricnews.org/index.php/grin-articles/2017-articles/august21-2017-articles/gric-to-receive-857-million-in-funding-to-line-casa-blanca-canal

USDA Press. (2024, June 4). Agriculture and Interior Departments Invest $2.8 Billion to Protect Public
Lands, Support Conservation Efforts Across the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2024/06/04/agriculture-and-interior-departmentsinvest-28-billion-protect
Walch, M. C. (1983). Terminating the Indian Termination Policy. Stanford Law Review, 35(6), 1181.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1228583

“I just think there needs to be more funding available for First Foods, the cultural plant
work, whether it's restoration or it's monitoring. In the future, I hope to see more
available funding for Tribes that's specifically directed for First Food work.”
Cheryl Shippentower, Plant Ecologist
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Contact for more information:
Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems
Email: foodsystems@asu.edu | Website: foodsystems.asu.edu

Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems is a unity of ASU School of Sustainability