Federal Land Agencies Must Share Management Power with Tribes Under New Forestry Co-Management Act

The “Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025” is essentially telling federal land managers, like the folks at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, to pull up a chair and start sharing the steering wheel with Tribal governments. This bill mandates a major shift in how public lands are managed, especially those with historical or cultural ties to specific Tribes.

The Mandate: Co-Management Plans

Within one year, every federal land management agency—that means the BLM, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)—must create a formal “Tribal Co-Management Plan” (SEC. 2). Think of this as a required partnership agreement. These plans must cover any activities the agencies perform on lands that the Secretary of the Interior deems historically, culturally, or geographically connected to an Indian Tribe. This is a big deal because it formally integrates Tribal input into decisions about everything from forest planning to restoration efforts on millions of acres of federal land.

To make sure federal employees don’t just treat this as another bureaucratic hurdle, the bill requires mandatory training (SEC. 3). Any Department of the Interior (DOI) employee involved in creating or executing these plans must be trained on how to use indigenous knowledge, the specific history of the area, and the trust relationship between the U.S. government and Tribes. This is the bill’s way of saying, “You need to understand who you’re partnering with and why.”

Forest Service: From Partner to Contractor

Section 4 of the bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into direct agreements with Tribes or Tribal organizations to carry out specific Forest Service jobs on National Forest System lands. Instead of just consulting, the Forest Service can now contract with a Tribe to do the actual work—like forest planning, research, or restoration—on lands connected to that Tribe. The Secretary must try to sign at least five of these agreements in the first four years.

When a Tribe submits a proposal, the Secretary evaluates it based on “best value,” giving special consideration to the Tribe’s historical and cultural connection to the land, their indigenous knowledge, and their existing relationship with the Forest Service. This effectively prioritizes Tribes for these contracts over other bidders, recognizing their unique expertise and stake in the land.

Crucially, the bill includes two provisions that directly affect the workers involved. First, Tribal employees working under these agreements are treated as federal employees for the purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act (SEC. 4), meaning they get liability protection if something goes wrong on the job. Second, the Secretary must reduce the reporting requirements for Tribes and protect their data sovereignty, cutting down on the administrative paperwork that often sinks smaller organizations.

What This Means for Everyday People

For most people who use public lands—whether you’re a hiker, a logger, or a small business owner with a grazing permit—this bill won’t immediately change your weekend plans, but it signals a significant shift in long-term management strategy.

If you hold an existing permit or lease on federal land, the bill requires the Secretary to consider how new co-management agreements might affect your interests or existing rights (SEC. 4). While the bill attempts to mitigate conflict, decisions made under these new co-management plans—which may prioritize ecological restoration or cultural preservation over certain commercial uses—could eventually impact how you operate.

For taxpayers, the bill authorizes $50 million for the Forest Service to execute these agreements between fiscal years 2026 and 2030 (SEC. 4). This funding is dedicated to integrating Tribal expertise and labor into forest management, potentially leading to more effective and culturally appropriate conservation outcomes in the long run. The idea is that better, more localized management informed by centuries of indigenous knowledge will ultimately benefit the health of these shared resources.