Through the 2018 National Association of State Foresters (NASF), cost estimtes for all participating states were available. Selcted states were extracted for an in-depth analysis to compare expenditures. Table A.6 presents the results of this analysis, while Table A.12 presents the summary of all states used in the comparative analysis. Indian forestry programs in the Midwest are generally spending the same amount per acre as the states, but tribes in Northeast and Northwest are significantly below their respective state investments. In the Midwest, the Regional Office allocates $7.09 per acre (Table A.4) where the states allocate in the $6-10 range (Table A.6, Table A.12). In the East, the Regional Office allocates $5.59 per acre (Table A.4) where the states allocate $10-11 (Table A.6, Table A.12). In the western regions, the states spend much higher rates per acre (Table A.6) than the $13.93 per acre spent in the Northwest Region (Table A.4).
Table A.5. Comparators used for BIA Regions.
Forest Service BLM State
BIA Region
Industry
Alaska Eastern
Region 10 Region 9
AK
-
FL, ME, MS, NC, NY
Northeast, Appalachia
Eastern OK Region 8 Great Plains Region 2
OK
-
ND, SD, NE -
Midwest
Region 9
MN, WI, MI, IA North Central
Navajo
Region 3
AZ, NM
-
Northwest
Region 6 O&C lands OR, WA, ID, MT OR, WA
Pacific
Region 5
CA
- - -
Rocky Mtn Region 1,2
MT, UT, CO, KS, OK, TX
Southern Plains Southwest
Region 8
Region 2,3 Region 3,4
CO, NM
- -
Western
AZ, NV, UT
Comparative Funding Analysis
State Forestry Program Expenditure State expenditure in their forest management program varies greatly from state to state, but is primarily based on their land base and forest products infrastructure. Many states have a minimal forestry program, while a few states such as Oregon, Washington and Minnesota are greatly invested in their forests.
As discussed in the Overview, the Indian forestry budget and expenditures were compared to various other federal, state and private organizations. Table A.5 presents a list and groupings of the organizations that were used in the analysis. Where there are overlapping administrative units or states, the data for these units were combined on a weight based on forest acres. Table A.6 presents a summary of the comparison with selected states. These states were selected for a more in-depth analysis of their costs, while Table A.12 presents the averages based on nationally reported data. Table A.7 presents the estimated management costs for private land owners. Table A.9 presents the data for the Forest Service while Tables A.10 and A.11 present cost calculations for the BLM. Table A.12 presents a comparison summary across all analyzed organizations.
Table A.6. Comparison of federal forest management allocations to tribes to selected states ($/acre) 1 . BIA Forestry Allocation to Tribes w/o hazardous fuel reduction 2.89 BIA Forestry Allocation to Tribes with hazardous fuel reduction 4.89 States Midwest/East Wisconsin State Lands 6.06 Minnesota State Lands 6.99 Michigan State Forests 6.66 Maine State Forests 10.40 States West Montana Trust Lands 7.36 Idaho Department of Lands 18.00 Washington Trust Lands West 34.85 Washington Trust Lands East 11.12 Oregon Board of Forestry Lands 39.23 1 BIA allocations are shown with and without hazardous fuel reduction funding. Funding does not include fire preparedness. Land base for tribes is all forest land including woodlands. Derived from Deckard (2021), Gonser (2021), NASF (2018), Poudel (2021), Buffo (2021), ODF (2019), Maine BPL (2020).
Task Findings and Recommendations 61
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator