productive than many other landowners including federal lands. This pattern may reflect the history of how lands were allocated, purchased and/or held during the 19th and 20th Century
(the “value” of the land in terms of soils and climate and associated species), as well as any loss or gain of productivity through sound management including
prescribed fire and multi-aged management approaches. IFMAT saw no evidence of recent loss of productivity on tribal lands, unlike National Forest
Age Class Distribution (years) – Eastern
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Tribal Industrial
20.0%
Other Federal Small Private State&Local USFS
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0-19
20-39
40-59
60-79
80-99
100-199
>=200
Age Class Distribution (years) - Lake States
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Tribal Industrial
20.0%
Other Federal Small Private State&Local USFS
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0-19
20-39
40-59
60-79
80-99
100-199
>=200
Age Class Distribution (years) - Northwest
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Tribal Industrial
Other Federal Small Private State&Local USFS
0.0% 5.0%
0-19
20-39
40-59
60-79
80-99
100-199
>=200
Age Class Distribution (years) - Southwest
60.0%
50.0%
Tribal Industrial
40.0%
Other Federal Small Private State&Local USFS
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0-19
20-39
40-59
60-79
80-99
100-199
>=200
Figure B.3. A comparison of age class distribution across landowner categories by consolidated BIA regions; Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data from 2021.
84 Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator