under a separate set of goals and mandates generally for profit and are not always in line with the nonprofit tribal organizations and tribal communities of the regions. The villages and tribal communities have identified cultural and traditional foods and subsistence as a priority for their families and lifeways. Recently there is increasing emphasis on working with adjacent lands and to enter co- management and landscape scale projects. These projects could be an opening for entering into a Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) and/or a Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) type collaborative. IFMAT IV observed one example where a tribal non-profit engaged in the planning and implementation of a large scale, landscape level fuel break which was created on Fish and Wildlife Service, State, tribal corporation, and private land using a variety of funding sources including Reserve Treaty Land Rights funding (RTRL) from BIA fuels and NRCS EQIP program. Tribal and BIA Managers interviewed shared that they do not see the staffing issue improving in the future due to lack of funding and qualified applicants. The IFMAT team heard on several occasions that collaboration is common in Alaska because everyone is short staffed, and it is the only way to get things done. GIS services for management in Alaska are needed and there is no database presently to work from. The BIA Alaska region GIS positions are presently vacant, and the tribes are referred to the BIA Branch of Geospatial Support for their GIS needs. The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) meets annually and has up to 10,000 attendees who are primarily Alaska natives discussing these issues on both regional and village corporation lands.
a non-profit tribal organization, the funding amount was moved from the BIA Alaska Region to the service provider and resulted in a reduction of BIA Forestry staff at the region level. Due to varying forested acres, forestry programs received varied funding amounts that may not be adequate to fund a professional forester position, let alone a forestry program. Project funding has been available, and its cyclic nature does not replace recurring funding and project funding has a lag in timing and often the tribes do not know when the funds will be available from year to year. The IFMAT IV assessment in applying the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act (NIFRMA) mandates typically addresses the federal government’s trust responsibility. Except for the Metlakatla Reservation, the trust lands in Alaska are made up of allotments and these allotments are scattered throughout the state with little or no opportunities for active management. The native allotments title is held by the individual owner with restrictions on the title, and this is the basis of the existence of the tribal organizations where they have compacted the federal functions from the government. In forested areas there are forest management plans and some management activities on allotments, but timber sale activity is sporadic due to the lack of markets in these remote locations. Of the 12 Management Units, 11 have forested allotments, of which 10 have an active Forest Management Plan and one (Arctic Slope) has an active Interim Custodial Plan. The Aleut Management Unit does not have forested allotments and as a result is not covered under an Interim Custodial Plan.
The land owned by the regional corporations are managed by the corporations and may operate
Appendix xii — Additional Information About Alaska A-85
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator