Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 14

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 13
13 boundaries that are under the sovereign jurisdiction of the tribe. 2.3.3 Summary Before Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Public Law (PL) 83-280, enacted in 1953 and amended in 1958 to add Alaska, Federal funding for tribal transportation projects was not extended state police jurisdiction over certain crimes into Alaska made available until 1928 through the IRR. Congress passed tribal territory. comprehensive transportation initiatives ISTEA (1991), TEA- 21 (1998), and SAFETEA (2005) which, over time, increased WHAT IS INDIAN COUNTRY IN ALASKA? IRR funding, mandated tribal consultation in state and regional ANCSA extinguished reservations in Alaska, except the Annette transportation planning, established the TTAP program, pro- Island Reservation (Metlakatla Indian Community), and instead vided assistance in developing tribal transportation planning instituted corporations established under state law. ANCSA did capacity, and strengthened the direct relationship between not extinguish tribal status. ANCSA took the land that would in other cases constitute the nexus of the tribe and put it into pri- tribes and the FHWA. vate corporation ownership. As a result of ANCSA, most of the Acquisitioning right-of-way and obtaining project clear- land previously recognized as tribal is not considered Indian ances to construct highway improvements on tribal lands country. This was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in is an on-going issue for state DOTs. The BIA has specific Alaska v Native Village of Venetie (1998), which found that in requirements and interpretations of environmental and his- order to satisfy the test for designation as Indian country, certain criteria must be met. These are: 1) the land must have been set toric preservation regulations and laws that can be different aside by the federal government for the use of Indians as Indian from FHWA rules that DOTs must comply with. Also envi- land; and 2) the land must be under federal superintendence. ronmental law compliance can at time conflict with tribal Since ANCSA land is owned by corporations formed under state sovereign immunity. law, the land is not set aside exclusively for the use of the tribes, Tribal sovereignty and government-to-government rela- nor is it under federal superintendence. It does not, therefore, tions impact all aspects of tribal transportation initiatives meet these criteria for Indian country designation. There are still some categories of tribal land in Alaska that are and government-to-government relations. There are many considered Indian country. Indian Land is generally considered types of federal, state, and tribal jurisdictional issues, and to be land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a recent judicial decisions have limited tribal sovereignty. tribe or Native individual. The basic types of Indian Land in Jurisdiction and legal issues vary from state to state, and Alaska are: the Metlakatla Indian Community Federal Reserva- mutually agreeable procedures for addressing issues need to tion on Annette Island; individual Native Allotments obtained under the Alaska Allotment Act; and Townsite Lots conveyed to be established. tribal governments under the Native Townsite Act. Land con- Increasingly, tribal consultation processes with federal veyed to an ANCSA corporation under ANCSA, then conveyed and state agencies on transportation planning, develop- to a tribal government, does not become Indian Land because of ment, and maintenance of projects have been formalized in tribal government ownership.5 MOUs. These agreements provide practical frameworks and codify these government-to-government relations to 5 define mutual areas of responsibility, communication, and cooperation.