term forest management and, the project funding model may undermine self-governance. Costs of management increase over time, but recurring funding has not kept up with inflation (C2/H11). ■ Due to congressional continuing resolutions regarding the federal budget and agency delays, appropriated funding is arriving too late in the year to efficiently implement forestry practices increasing costs, reducing effectiveness, and jeopardizing both regeneration success and forest sustainability (A6). ■ The need for Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) funds has increased significantly due to more frequent and larger wildfires on Indian lands. However, BAER funding is often insufficient to meet emergency needs and the policies and procedures for administering these funds are not aligned with the timing needs for project implementation. The BIA only has two BAER staff officers (H6).
Figure ES.2. Annual federal budgeted funding level to tribes for forestry and fire adjusted to $2019. IFMAT IV recommended funding level of $313 million is based on a comparative analysis to the U.S. Forest Service and other federal programs. This amount does not include estimated federal contributions of $11 million from other BIA programs or other federal sources such as NRCS. It also does not include needed funding to address the road maintenance backlog which was $200 million in 1991 and has increased to $1.33 billion in 2019. Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.
Annual Federal Funding to Tribes for Forestry and Fire Annual Federal Funding to Tribes for Forestry and Fire
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
$363 million
$313 million
$305 million $295 million
42
113
251
130
96
138
120
$192 million
115
$176 million
$165 million
41 71
$112 million
56
54
49
2001
2011
2019
1991
Funding level recommended from IFMAT comparative analyses in red type Actual funding in black type Funding gap in blue type
Forestry funding Wildfire funding
2019 forestry and fuels funding gap ($96 million) 2019 wildfire funding gap ($42 million) All program gap
funding for comparable lands (A2). The Tribal Forestry Program funding requirements set forth in NIFRMA Section 3310 are not being met, more than 50% were being funded at levels below those prescribed in 25CFR163.36. ■ The gap between federal funding for tribal forests and other lands held in trust by the federal government decreased sharply between 1991 and 2001 (Figure ES.2) due to a significant reduction in Forest Service funding coupled with a large increase in tribal wildfire funding (including fuels reduction). However, since 2001 the gap has been increasing due to a combination of rising federal investments in the Forest Service for forestry and wildfire and reduced or stagnant tribal funding.
■ There is an imbalance between recurring funding and nonrecurring funding as well as no adjustments for inflation (A5). Funding has trended to favor nonrecurring project funding rather than recurring funding that supports stable tribal capacity to carry out long
Figure ES.3. Professional staffing levels for tribes and the BIA for fire and forestry staff. Staffing by Staff Level – Federal and Tribal and Fire/Forestry – Professional Only
- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2019
BIA
Tribal
Total
4 Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator