Findings and Recommendations Task E Findings and Recommendations
E4 Finding
Recommendation ■ Compact trust evaluations of tribal forest management programs need to include specific assessment of fulfillment of the trust responsibility consistent with the principles and rules of self-governance. Such evaluations need to include professionals with background in the disciplines being reviewed. ■ Trust evaluations for ITARA tribes need to be coordinated with the compact trust evaluations to eliminate redundancy, strengthen focus on trust responsibility in the context of self-governance and reduce the burden of preparing for and conducting separate evaluations. Recommendation ■ Devise ways to mitigate the negative impacts of unfunded mandates on Indian forestry programs, including dedicated project funds to cover their cost. Recommendation ■ Ascertain the resources and the rules that direct resources to each (direct service and self-governance) and determine if they need to be changed to the level of funding and technical assistance obligations needed to maintain the trust responsibility for both. Recommendation ■ Review BIA rules and procedures regarding AAC, particularly non-declining even flow. Determine if there is a need for more flexibility in the implementation of BIA AAC rules. Overstocking needs to be reduced to have resilient forests in the face of increased fire risk and AAC rules should allow and encourage this. Reporting should be reviewed. ■ Acknowledge the shift from timber production and harvesting the full AAC to broader forest stewardship as a success measure.
Trust evaluations for compact tribes focus primarily on internal controls, conflict of interest, waste, fraud, and abuse. Evaluations are conducted by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration and do not include forestry and/or natural resources professionals. ■ In addition to the compact trust evaluations, ITARA tribes have a separate trust evaluation process set forth in their ITAMPs.
E5 Finding
Unfunded mandates imposed on tribes are a source of disproportionate costs, as recognized in previous IFMATs. These costs to tribes include resulting opportunity costs when tribal funds are used for the mandates and not new opportunities. There are two divergent BIA forestry functions: direct service to tribes and working with self-governance tribes. It is not clear that BIA Forestry is adequately funded and staffed to do both at the required scale, nor is it clear what the continued technical assistance role of BIA is for compact tribes.
E6 Finding
E7 Finding
Tribes continue to question Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) achievement as a success measure, as used by BIA in the past.
120 Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator