Methods
Over a period of two years IFMAT addressed the eight congressionally mandated tasks and the three additional tasks provided by the ITC by 1) visiting 37 tribal forests and hosting 41 virtual calls with tribal forestry departments of varying sizes and governance structures; 2)
surveying tribal communities and the BIA staff about tribal forestry and staffing issues; 3) conducting focus groups during visits to obtain the perspectives of tribal communities; 4) comparing forest management on tribal lands to similar federal and private lands; and 5) hosting virtual and fish and wildlife species, roots, moss, firewood, gravel and minerals, fungi and tree components (bark, sap, leaves/ needles, seeds/nuts) that are harvested by the community for food and medicinal purposes, to maintain cultural traditions, ceremony, and connections to the land (NTFP1). ■ Numerous threats exist to NTFP. These include reduced access, decline in NTFP populations, increased human pressure, changes in forest structure, as well as loss of native language resulting in loss of traditions around gathering, preparing, and processing NTFP (NTFP4). ■ Approximately 80% of tribal trust forested acres (includes all categories) are managed wholly or partially under P.L. 93-638 contracts, cooperative agreements, or SG compacts rather than direct service. This is 38% of all tribal forestry and fire programs. The continued advancement of tribes to SG and new opportunities provided by the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA) makes the current BIA manual and handbook approach to development and compliance
in-person visits with BIA agency offices, regional and central office. Eight major findings arose from these efforts that are listed below with supplemental information for each. From the eight major findings IFMAT proposes a suite of major and supporting recommendations. with federal standards less relevant (G6, Appendix xi). Also, inconsistent requirements and guidance exist between BIA direct operations and SG tribes relating to trust oversight, trust standards and trust responsibility (G7). ■ A significant shift in concept and performance of inherent federal function for SG/ITARA tribes leaves unaddressed issues relating to the Secretary’s trust responsibility: As tribes continue to move towards SG and perform programs under ITARA, the context of the inherent federal function and the relationship of the performance of this function in fulfilling the Secretary’s trust responsibility changes. This leaves a residual trust responsibility that is not well understood and can lead to underutilization of SG authorities (G18). In theory the intent of SG can improve the ability for tribes to accomplish their vision (Table SG.1). 2. Funding to support tribal forest management is limited. ■ Funding for BIA forestry and wildfire preparedness continue to be far below investments in National Forest and BLM
Major Findings
1. There is a unique tribal vision of forest management including a focus on stewardship and non-timber
forest products (NTFP) as self-governance (SG)
increases yet the Secretary’s trust responsibility remains and is vaguely defined. ■ As in previous assessments, forest-based income continues for many tribes to be a less-important value (V1). Many tribes are prioritizing stewardship and traditional uses of their forests over timber production (A1). Tribes continue to question Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) achievement as a success measure, as used by BIA in the past (E7). The aggregated AAC for tribal forests has increased slightly overtime but timber harvests have generally not been achieved, with 2019 being the lowest since the Depression era, and management of tribal forests has shifted from a focus on timber production toward forest stewardship (H1). ■ There is a wide range of NTFP and benefits that come from tribal forests that sustain tribal lifeways and traditions. Most commonly identified NTFP include herbaceous plants,
Executive Summary 3
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator