TASK F: A comparative analysis of forest management plans and their ability to meet tribal needs and priorities.
IFMAT I – 1993 II – 2003 III - 2013
Recommendation Implementation Status
Recommendations in Response to Task F Findings
Funding and Staffing
Direct more staffing and funding towards bringing cultural resource planning, initiatives, and baseline data to where it can be effective in coordinated resource management. (Recommendation F2, page V-49)
Funding remains inadequate to meet legislative requirements. Specific funding for IRMPs, which plan for coordinated resource management, has been eliminated. BIA has reduced capability to provide technical support. Use of contractors or a team of planning specialists may be viable options. Partially implemented, although many plans lack thorough or current assessments. Many FMPs do not include standards setting forth the funding and staffing requirements necessary to carry out each management plan. Partially implemented. Improvement in establishing Tribal visions for reservation forests is occurring. Allotments are being addressed in newly created programmatic FMP. Issues relating to trust lands in Alaska, mixed ownerships and off-reservation lands are being addressed in IFMAT IV assessments. Infodat data reveals few plans are being updated to address Recommendations F4, F5, and F6. Improvements have occurred in identifying staffing and funding needs and including metrics (quantitative criteria) in monitoring plans. However, more work is still needed.
I
BIA should provide more technical support for forest planning. (Recommendation F3, page 176)
III
Forest Management Plan
Broaden and deepen assessment of the ability of management plans to sustain tribal forests and their benefits. (IFMAT II Additional - (H), page 20)
II
Tribes should consider a desired-future-conditions based approach to forest planning. (Recommendation F1, page 174) Address special planning and management issues: allotments, Alaska, mixed ownerships, and off-reservation lands. (Recommendation F5, page V-49)
III
I
Planning for allotments needs more attention. (Recommendation F9, page 178)
III
Forest plans should recognize and account for natural processes. (Recommendation F4, page 176) Forest plans should consider and address climate change. (Recommendation F5, page 176) Forest plans should consider current and future manufacturing infrastructure. (Recommendation F6, page 177) Forest plans should more completely describe staffing and funding needs to carry out implementation of FMP goals and objectives (Recommendation F7, page 177) Forest plans should include quantitative criteria in more detail and clarity to evaluate FMP goals and objectives. (Recommendation F8, page 178) Additional - (I). BIA and/or ITC should convene a task force to further define sustainability on Indian forests in operational terms that can be readily translated to management realities. (IFMAT II Additional - (I), page 22) Convene a task force to further define sustainability in operational terms that be translated to management realities. (Recommendation F3, page 80)
III
III
III
III
III
Sustainability definition task force not implemented
II
II
A-48 Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator