is a need to have professional forestry personnel as part of the evaluation team and include a determination of the extent to which the trust functions performed achieve the Tribes’ vision for their forests. Also, the evaluations need to recognize and be consistent with the principles of self-governance. The validity and poten- tial value provided by the evaluations could be enhanced by including inde- pendent third-party representation with expertise and experience in Indian forest management. A significant finding of the four IFMAT reports over three decades is the under- funding of Indian forestry programs. This, without question, is a major failure of the federal government to fulfill is trust re- sponsibility to forest owning Tribes. Lack of funding precludes full implementation of Forest Management Plans approved by Tribes and the Secretary. The Forest Management Plans are the principal documents identifying for- estry functions and services to be accom- plished in fulfillment of the trust respon- sibility and achievement of the Tribe’s vision for their forests. The most recent IFMAT report affirmed past findings that Indian forests continue to receive only a fraction of the funding provided to public and private forests. An annual increase of $96 million is needed to reach per-acre parity with National Forest and Bureau of Land Management funding. At the core of the federal trust re-
books as the standard for fulfilling trust responsibility, and the approval of doc- uments and actions as a validation that trust responsibility is being met. Self-de- termination contract and self-governance compact Tribes are not required to follow BIA policies, manuals and handbooks. ITARA Tribes replace federal regulations with Tribal forestry regulations. With the exception of Forest Management Plans (FMPs) and Forest Management Deduc- tion (FMD) Expenditure Plans, ITARA Tribes operating under Tribal law and regulations approve all forest manage- ment documents and actions previously viewed as inherent federal functions of the BIA (trust responsibility). The impacts of Tribal self-determi- nation and self-governance indicate the need for a different approach to evaluate the performance of the Federal govern- ment in meeting its trust obligations. A consistent recommendation of prior IFMAT reports has been to create an independent trust oversight body, such as a permanent commission independent of both the BIA and Secretary, to evaluate the overall federal government’s fulfil- ment of its trust duties to Indian Tribes. However, this recommendation has never been implemented. Possible alternatives would be to modify the existing trust evaluation processes for self-governance compacts and ITAMPs. To improve the effectiveness of these evaluations for forestry programs, there
sponsibility is the protection of the trust forest asset from loss and the carrying out of responsible forest stewardship. Lack of funding is seriously jeopardizing respon- sible Tribal forest stewardship. 6 The con- tinuing failure of the United States to meet its fiduciary trust responsibilities for stewardship of these renewable resources is placing Tribal forests in jeopardy with the risk of catastrophic loss from insects, disease, and wildfire. 7 The Federal government’s trust rela- tionship with Tribes has proven to be dy- namic and ongoing, evolving over time. 8 Congressional actions providing author- ity for Tribes to take control of federal programs and end federal domination over delivery of services have consistently included language confirming the trust responsibility. The Indian Self-Determina- tion and Education Assistance Act states: that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing or requiring the termination of any existing trust responsibility of the Unit- ed States with respect to Indian people” and the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act states: “ Nothing in this title enhances, diminishes, or otherwise affects the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian Tribes or individu- al Indians”. While reform and modernization may occur, there is strong indication that Congress intends that the federal trust re- sponsibility remain a permanent doctrine defining the relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States.
1. A Forest in Trust: Three-Quarters of a Century of Indian Forestry – USDOI, BIA, July 30, 1986. 2. IFMAT Reports – I-1993, II-2003, III-2013 and IV-2023. 3. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638 – 1975 and amendments) 4. Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (P.L. 114-178 – 2016). 5. IFMAT IV Report, 2023. 6. John Sessions, IFMAT co-chair and Distinguished Professor of Forestry at Oregon State University. PRNewswire, Aug. 3, 2023. 7. Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council. PRNewswire, Aug. 3, 2023. 8. Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments. AILTP, 1991.
Wildfire, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, central Washington
Evergreen
11
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator