The bill requires the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs to develop agency-specific Tribal Co-Management Plans identifying activities, services, and management decisions that may be carried out in partnership with Indian Tribes on lands historically or culturally related to those Tribes. Existing co-management plans may be adopted with limited administrative burden on Tribes.
Separately, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Forest Service) to enter into agreements with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to perform Forest Service activities—ranging from restoration and planning to heritage and recreational services—sets minimum agreement targets, provides payment authorities and transfer mechanisms, requires employee training, and appropriates $50 million for FY2026–2030. It also creates reporting, consultation, and review requirements while exempting these arrangements from the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs Interior land-management agencies to produce Tribal Co-Management Plans within one year and authorizes the Forest Service to contract or otherwise agree with Tribes to perform a range of activities on National Forest System lands. It sets procedural rules for proposals, criteria for evaluation, notice requirements for denials, periodic review cycles, and an appropriation to fund agreements.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the BLM, FWS, NPS, BIA, the Forest Service, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations seeking agreements, Forest Service personnel who will manage and train for co-management, and third parties with existing permits or rights on impacted lands. It also touches federal contracting and grants offices because of the statutory procurement carve-outs.
Why It Matters
This bill formalizes tribal co-management across multiple federal agencies and creates a bespoke pathway for Tribes to execute restoration and other land-management functions. For compliance officers and program managers it changes how agreements are sourced, how indigenous knowledge is integrated, and how liability and procurement rules apply to tribal partners.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two interlocking tracks: first, Interior agencies must each produce a Tribal Co-Management Plan that enumerates activities, services, and management decisions that could be co-managed with Tribes on lands tied to them historically or culturally. The plans must align with existing agency land-management plans and comply with environmental laws; if a substantially similar plan already exists, agencies shall adopt and update it quickly and with minimal added paperwork for Tribes.
Second, the Forest Service gains explicit authority to enter agreements with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out specified activities on National Forest System lands. Those activities include restoration, forest and grassland planning and management, research, Heritage Program work, and recreational services.
The bill requires the Secretary to enter into at least five such agreements within four years and authorizes $50 million for fiscal years 2026–2030 to support these arrangements.The statute sets an application process for Tribes to submit proposals, requires the Secretary to apply specified evaluation factors (including landscape features and tribal affiliation), and mandates a written denial explaining reasons, remedies, and technical-assistance steps. Agreements may include payment terms drawn either from unobligated program funds or from a dedicated appropriation, and the bill extends transfer authorities modeled on the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
It also requires DOI employee training on indigenous knowledge, tribal history, and the federal trust relationship to help implement co-management plans.To manage accountability and transparency, the bill obligates periodic publication (a non‑exhaustive list of eligible Forest Service activities) and triennial reporting to Congressional committees on progress. Agreements are subject to periodic 5‑year reviews and can be revisited after natural disasters with compressed timelines for response.
The law clarifies that tribal employees performing under an agreement are treated as Forest Service employees for Federal Tort Claims Act purposes and removes these arrangements from Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements, while expressly preserving existing tribal rights and permitting relationships.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Interior agencies must each adopt a Tribal Co-Management Plan within one year; existing substantially similar plans must be adopted within 120 days and updated to reduce Tribal administrative burden.
The Secretary of Agriculture must enter into at least five Forest Service agreements with Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations within four years and the bill authorizes $50 million for FY2026–2030 to support those agreements.
Agreements may cover management decisions and permissive activities (restoration, planning, research, Heritage Program activities, and recreational services) but may not delegate nondelegable federal functions or make Tribes dependent on state-provided funding.
The bill exempts these agreements from the Federal Acquisition Regulation but treats tribal personnel performing under agreements as Forest Service employees for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Applicants receive a required notice of denial within 90 days that lists specific reasons, actions to cure deficiencies, and a proposed technical-assistance schedule; the Secretary must also publish a non‑exhaustive list of eligible Forest Service activities every three years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Agency Tribal Co-Management Plan Requirement
This subsection obligates each named DOI land-management agency to create a Tribal Co-Management Plan within one year that identifies activities, services, and management decisions suitable for co-management on lands tied to Tribes. Practically, program offices must inventory potential co-management opportunities, confirm consistency with existing land‑use plans, and set mechanisms to consult applicable Tribes during plan development.
Adopt Existing Plans and Minimize Burden
If an agency already has a substantially similar co-management plan, the agency must adopt it within 120 days and update it to limit administrative burdens on Tribes. This creates a fast-track for agencies that have pilot or standing agreements but requires attention to paperwork reduction and procedural harmonization across field units.
Training for DOI Employees
DOI must train any employee involved in developing or executing a Tribal Co-Management Plan on integrating indigenous knowledge, the tribal history of project areas, and the federal trust relationship. Training design and delivery will require interagency coordination and Tribal consultation to ensure cultural competence and practical applicability during project implementation.
Forest Service Agreement Authority and Eligible Activities
This part authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with Tribes or Tribal organizations to perform a defined set of Forest Service activities on National Forest System lands—covering restoration, planning, research, heritage activities, and recreation—provided the work aligns with applicable land-management plans and environmental law. The Secretary may use multiple contracting mechanisms (agreements, ISDEAA-like contracts, or other authorities) and must enter into at least five agreements over four years.
Proposal Process, Evaluation Criteria, and Denial Notices
Tribes must submit proposals identifying proposed activities and the National Forest System lands involved. The Secretary must consider effects on other tribes, existing rights and permits, and may apply best-value evaluation factors including historical affiliation, landscape features, indigenous skills, and working relationships with the Forest Service. If the Secretary denies a request, the agency must provide a timely, itemized denial including corrective steps and offer technical assistance.
Funding, Review Cycles, and Transparency
Payments to Tribes can be drawn from unobligated program funds or the bill’s appropriation, and Tribes can elect annual or semiannual disbursements. Agreements lasting five years or more require a review in year five and every five years thereafter; agreements can be revisited quickly after a natural disaster with 60-day response obligations. The Secretary must publish eligible Forest Service activities and deliver triennial reports to relevant Congressional committees.
Liability, Procurement, Limitations, and Definitions
The statute treats tribal employees performing under agreements as Forest Service employees for FTCA purposes and exempts these arrangements from the FAR. It explicitly prohibits delegating nondelegable functions, making Tribes reliant on state funding, or interfering with existing rights, and includes detailed definitions for indigenous knowledge, tribal organization, natural disaster, and other operative terms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Indigenous Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Indigenous Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Indian Tribes with historical ties to federal lands — gain formal pathways to execute restoration, planning, and cultural-heritage work on those lands, receive payments and capacity support, and can integrate indigenous knowledge into management decisions.
- Tribal organizations and enterprises — obtain new contracting avenues, potential revenue streams, and longer-term agreements that can support workforce development and local economic activity tied to land stewardship.
- Forest-dependent and rural communities — benefit indirectly from accelerated restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and locally informed land management that can reduce catastrophic fire and improve ecosystem services.
- Forest Service field units — receive access to local indigenous knowledge, additional on-the-ground capacity for restoration and stewardship, and potential operational partners in high-need landscape work.
Who Bears the Cost
- Forest Service and DOI program offices — face new administrative workloads to develop plans, evaluate proposals, manage agreements, review and monitor performance, and deliver technical assistance, which could strain existing staffing.
- Federal taxpayers — the bill authorizes $50 million for 2026–2030 and requires agencies to use unobligated program funds or the appropriation to make payments under agreements, which represents a new budgetary commitment.
- Private contractors and permit holders — may see competition for restoration and service work on National Forest System lands, and may need to coordinate more closely with Tribes or adjust operations in co-managed areas.
- State agencies and local governments — may need to coordinate differently when tribes assume functions formerly performed by other entities, and could face friction where state funding or regulation intersects with tribal activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing meaningful tribal self-determination and rapid, locally informed land stewardship against the federal government’s duties to uphold statutory environmental safeguards, protect existing rights, and maintain procurement and oversight standards—accelerating tribal agency roles solves capacity and knowledge gaps but raises questions about accountability, funding sustainability, and the definitional line between partnership and delegation.
The bill packs several implementation trade-offs. First, it pushes a one-year deadline for Interior agencies to develop comprehensive co-management plans across diverse program areas; agencies with limited staffing or uneven existing engagement with Tribes may struggle to produce meaningful plans without additional resources.
Second, exempting agreements from the FAR accelerates contracting flexibility but reduces standardized procurement safeguards and competition; program managers must balance speed with appropriate oversight to prevent misuse or mission drift.
A second cluster of tensions involves legal and evidentiary standards. The statute instructs agencies to integrate indigenous knowledge and to treat it, when appropriate, as best available science; that raises practical questions about how to evaluate, document, and defend indigenous knowledge in statute-driven environmental reviews and litigation.
Similarly, treating tribal employees as Forest Service employees for FTCA purposes simplifies liability frameworks but could create cost and insurance implications for both parties and may influence willingness to assume operational risks. Finally, the bill’s requirement to avoid delegating nondelegable functions leaves an uncertain boundary: agencies and Tribes will need to parse which management decisions are delegable, a process that will produce negotiation friction and likely litigation in contested cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.