planning process. This will allow planning tools such as projection models and harvest schedules to be introduced. But the caution is that there will need to be the funding, technical support, and training necessary for successful implementation. Listed below are some topics that need to be discussed and addressed: ■ What kinds of data do current forest managers need, given the management objectives identified in the forest management plans and IRMPs? ■ What inventory systems can best provide the data needed at a reasonable cost? ■ Are different inventory systems desirable for different forest types? ■ What latitude does the Trustee have to support different approaches across the range of beneficiaries? ■ How would funding for different approaches be allocated between forests? ■ What would it cost to implement new systems and how could those expenditures be justified? ■ Should there be a relationship between timber inventory, timber sale inventory and real estate transaction inventories? Underachievement of the Allowable Cut The Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) is the maximum harvest level allowed during a planning period as per tribal management goals and objectives (BIA Manual 53 IAM 2.8.C.15). This calculated target is important for determining the intensity
Percent of AAC Offered in 2019 Category 1 & 2 Reservations Only Percent of AAC O ff ered in 2019 Category 1 & 2 Reserva tio ns Only
No AAC Reported 19%
0 Pct O ff ered 1-25 Pct O ff ered 26-50 Pct O ff ered 51-75 Pct O ff ered 76-100 Pct O ff ered 101-200 Pct O ff ered 201+ Pct O ff ered No AAC Reported
0 Pct O ff ered 39%
201+ Pct O ffe red 7%
76-100 Pct O ff ered 5% 101-200 Pct O ff ered 8%
51-75 Pct O ff ered 3%
1-25 Pct O ff ered 12%
26-50 Pct O ff ered 7%
Figure F.1 Percent of AAC being offered for sale in 2019. This chart shows the number and percent of tribes that realized the percentage of their AAC being offered. For example, 18 tribes (or 19%) realized less than 25% of the AAC being offered. Some tribes offered more than their AAC in effort to catch up on past missed opportunities. Source: 2019 BIA Report on the Status of Indian Forest Lands.
■ Funding for the timber management program was inadequate and tribes were forced to reduce their harvests due to personnel capacity issues. (See Task A and C) ■ Tribal goals and objectives had changed which has led to the reduction in the amount of timber that tribes wish to put up for sale. This represents a shift from timber production to a focus on broader stewardship management. ■ Local markets do not exist. Based on data reported (FY2019 Report to Congress), less than 50% of the aggregated AAC was harvested that year. Most Category 1 and 2 tribes are not achieving their AAC (Figure F.1). Approximately 16% of the tribes offered their full AAC, while over a third of the Category 1 and 2 reservations combined did not offer any volume. On the other end of the spectrum, some tribes reported offering more volume
of the forest management that reflects these goals along with the capacity of the forest resources to be maintained sustainably. Year-to-year deviations are expected due to markets, sale opportunities, logging capacity, and weather. During the IFMAT IV assessment, both the data analysis and on-site interviews with tribal leaders pointed out that most tribes are not achieving their established allowable cut. The data reported for national annual targets and accomplishments since 1980 indicates that this underachievement is a regular occurrence. At the same time, the actual target level of aggregated AAC volume has dropped nationally from over 1 billion board feet in 1980 to 748 million board feet in 2019 (Table A.1). Three major reasons there was not full implementation of the AAC:
Task Findings and Recommendations 127
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator