Why It Matters
Congress faces questions about how much authority Native American tribes should have in managing federal lands, including whether federal agencies should expand tribal decision-making responsibilities, protect treaty rights, and provide additional funding for joint management agreements. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report examines tribal co-management of federal lands and the legal, administrative, and financial issues it raises for Congress.
The Big Picture
Tribal co-management allows federally recognized tribes to participate in decisions about federal lands, including natural resources, wildlife, historic sites, and culturally significant areas. According to CRS, these arrangements can range from consultation with tribal governments to agreements delegating certain management responsibilities.
The report explains that tribal co-management differs from other federal land management partnerships because tribes have a unique government-to-government relationship with the United States. Many federal lands also overlap with ancestral tribal homelands, where tribes retain cultural, spiritual, and economic connections and, in some cases, treaty-protected hunting, fishing, and gathering rights.
Congress has established several authorities that support tribal participation in federal land management, including consultation requirements, partnership agreements, and provisions that allow agencies to delegate certain activities to tribes. However, federal law does not define tribal co-management, leaving agencies considerable discretion over the scope of individual agreements.
The departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense have participated in tribal co-management arrangements involving fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, wildlife in Alaska, watershed restoration in national forests and cultural resource protection at national monuments. CRS identifies several issues for Congress to consider, including whether tribes should have greater decision-making authority, how federal agencies should balance tribal interests with competing land uses, and whether existing legal authorities adequately support co-management agreements.
Funding presents another challenge. Some tribes have sought dedicated, stable federal resources to support their participation, while agencies must determine how to finance agreements and administer responsibilities without exceeding their statutory authority. The report also highlights the potential benefits of incorporating traditional tribal knowledge into federal land management, while acknowledging disagreements over development, conservation, public access and the delegation of federal responsibilities.
The Bottom Line
Congress may consider expanding or clarifying tribal co-management authorities, providing dedicated funding, and determining which federal land management responsibilities it can delegate to tribal governments. Those decisions could affect how federal agencies protect natural and cultural resources, honor tribal treaty rights, and balance tribal participation with other statutory land management obligations.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article