Table F.5. Current Inventory and Planning FTEs at FIP (BoFRP) and the Regional Offices. This does not include Tribal FMIP. Source: 2019 Funding and Position Analysis.
FMIP Function
Region Alaska
GIS
Inventory
IRMP
Planning Grand Total
0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.6
0.1 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 2.6
0.7 7.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.5
Central Office
Eastern
Eastern Oklahoma
Great Plains
Midwest
Navajo
Northwest
Southern Plains
Southwest
Western
Grand Total
11.6
17.4
confusion over the requirements for self-governance tribes for reporting any updates to the FMIP databases. There were many instances in this assessment where tribal data (and some BIA data) was identified as missing due to non-reporting from individual tribes. Again, without
complete, accurate information, the best decisions from leadership may be limited. Summary of previous IFMAT Reviews of the FMIP program IFMAT I found that FMPs had the potential for focusing and directing forest management, but that the analysis was often inadequate, planning faced funding and personnel limitations, and that implementation was difficult. Sustained yield was narrowly improved. IRMPs had not yet been implemented. IFMAT I also recognized that there were issues requiring special planning and management, including allotments, Alaska, mixed ownerships, and off-reservation lands. IFMAT I recommendations on forest management planning (Appendix v) focused on the issue of adequate funding and staffing, exploring expanding the narrow definitions used in defined, forest inventories were useful, but could be
management is not being sustained. This was a conscious decision by BIA leadership that with the limited budget, and increasing self-governance, to pass along to the field units as much funding as possible. Even with this effort in funding the field, many tribes are left with little or no full-time staffing in the FMIP program. With FMIP Central and Regional staffing levels (Table F.5) reporting only 17 FTEs out of a program-wide (BIA plus tribal) FMIP staffing of 145, and a need of 142 additional FTEs (Table F.6), it is evident that program management is not at the level needed for success. Inadequate staffing tends to lead to projects not being monitored properly, incomplete or improper projects, lost funding and many more inefficiencies. Reporting on the status of all FMIP projects is an important part of a successful program. Missing or inaccurate data that is used to portray the FMIP program can lead to poor decisions. There is also
Table F.6. Additional FMIP Funding and Staffing Needs Including Tribal Staffs.
Category Need Staffing Needs (FTEs)
Professional Services
79
Technical Support
54
4
Temp Seasonal
5
Total
142
Funding Needs
Personal Services Service Contracts
$9.1 million
$1.6 million
Other Total
$0.6 million
$11.3 million Source: 2019 BIA Funding and Position Analysis database
Task Findings and Recommendations 129
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator