Forest Service
Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Gao ID: GAO-05-374 April 15, 2005In 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation--the planting and natural regeneration of trees. Reforestation and subsequent timber stand improvement treatments, such as thinning trees and removing competing vegetation, are critical to restoring and improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests or natural disturbances such as wildland fires. GAO was asked to (1) examine the reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement, (2) identify the factors that have contributed to these trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of these trends that federal land managers have identified.
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement generally has been increasing since 2000, according to Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data's reliability is limited in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data problems GAO has identified. According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For timber stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part because high-density planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today and because treatments have not kept pace with the growing needs. Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency's ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat--one forest management objective--could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species that provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing vegetation--which must be removed to allow newly reforested stands to survive--grows larger over time and becomes more costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack. While agency officials expressed concern about these potential effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however, acknowledge the need to make such changes.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-374, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-374
entitled 'Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs' which was
released on April 15, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
April 2005:
Forest Service:
Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-374]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-374, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a
backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation”the
planting and natural regeneration of trees. Reforestation and
subsequent timber stand improvement treatments, such as thinning trees
and removing competing vegetation, are critical to restoring and
improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests or
natural disturbances such as wildland fires.
GAO was asked to (1) examine the reported trends in federal lands
needing reforestation and timber stand improvement, (2) identify the
factors that have contributed to these trends, and (3) describe any
potential effects of these trends that federal land managers have
identified.
What GAO Found:
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement generally has been increasing since 2000, according
to Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well
as other studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently
reliable to identify this relative trend they are not sufficiently
reliable to accurately quantify the agency‘s specific needs, establish
priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data‘s
reliability is limited in part because some Forest Service regions and
forests define their needs differently, and some do not systematically
update the data to reflect current forest conditions or review the
accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge these
problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better
track its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be
sufficient to address the data problems GAO has identified.
According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been
increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing
acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland
fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation
needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced
sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are
resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for such
needs have remained relatively constant rather than rising in step with
increasing needs. For timber stand improvement, the acreage needing
attention is growing in part because high-density planting practices,
used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating needs for
thinning treatments today and because treatments have not kept pace
with the growing needs.
Forest Service officials believe the agency‘s ability to achieve its
forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency‘s
ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife
habitat”one forest management objective”could be hindered if brush
grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species that
provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if
treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing
vegetation”which must be removed to allow newly reforested stands to
survive”grows larger over time and becomes more costly to remove.
Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency officials said
forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition
among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack.
While agency officials expressed concern about these potential effects,
the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse
effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however,
acknowledge the need to make such changes.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of
the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the agency‘s
ability to identify and prioritize its reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service on behalf
of the Department of Agriculture agreed with GAO‘s findings and
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-374].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov].
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It
Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs:
Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to
Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Reforestation
and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not Addressed:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related
Forest Health Trends in Western Oregon:
Background:
BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Backlogs
in 2002:
Agency Officials Link Past Backlogs to Timber Harvests and Funding
Shortfall:
Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining Timber
Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management Actions:
BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with
Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Forest Service Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement
Treatments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of Forest Service Regions Indicating Regions Visited by
GAO:
Figure 2: Forest Service's Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal
Years 1995 through 2004:
Figure 3: Forest Service's Reported Timber Stand Improvement Needs for
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
Figure 4: Volume of Timber Harvested from Forest Service Lands for
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
Figure 5: Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on
Forested Lands Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003:
Figure 6: Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
Figure 7: Shrubfields Persisted 40 Years after a Wildland Fire in Tahoe
National Forest:
Figure 8: BLM Western Oregon Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs
for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
NFMA: National Forest Management Act:
Letter April 15, 2005:
The Honorable Greg Walden:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In March 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had
a backlog of about 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation.
Reforestation--the planting and natural regeneration of trees--is
critical to restoring and improving the health of our national forests
after timber harvests, as well as after natural disturbances such as
wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations. The
success of reforestation, as well as the overall health of the forests,
often depends upon subsequent timber stand improvement treatments, such
as thinning trees and removing competing vegetation to allow seedlings
to survive. In some parts of the country, without active intervention,
it may take decades for disturbed land to return to a forested
condition. In other parts, trees may naturally return soon after a
disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent with Forest
Service program objectives. Historically, the Forest Service's
reforestation and timber stand improvement program focused on
maximizing timber production. Now, however, the program is intended to
achieve a variety of objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,
enhancing recreational opportunities, maintaining water quality, and
ensuring sustainable timber production. For example, reforestation can
improve wildlife habitat by providing forest cover for species like the
black-tailed deer and timber stand improvement can make forests less
susceptible to wildland fires by removing brush that fuels the fires.
The Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture has primary
responsibility for both reforestation and timber stand improvement
treatments in 155 national forests. The agency manages 192 million
acres of federal land and has a stewardship responsibility to maintain
the health, productivity, and diversity of the national forests on this
land.
In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand
improvement backlog that affected 3.3 million acres of forested lands.
To address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest
Service to annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the
recurrence of a backlog on lands available for timber
production.[Footnote 1] The Forest Service primarily uses moneys
generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas where timber has
been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual appropriations to
reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In 1980, the Congress
created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded through tariffs
on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding for
reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help
eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had
virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.
With the 2004 announcement of a new backlog, you asked us to (1)
examine the reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and
timber stand improvement, (2) identify the factors that have
contributed to these trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of
these trends that federal land managers have identified. This report
focuses primarily on the Forest Service's reforestation and timber
stand improvement program because it is the largest one managed by a
federal land management agency and covers the broadest cross section of
the country. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of
the Interior also has responsibility for reforestation and timber stand
improvement on federal lands, but its program is much smaller than the
Forest Service's. In 2003, for example, the Forest Service reported
reforesting more than 160,000 acres of federal land nationwide, while
BLM reported reforesting less than 11,000 acres, with the majority of
this activity occurring in western Oregon. The results of our limited
review of BLM's program are summarized in appendix I.
To examine the trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service data for the
10 years between 1995 and 2004, analyzed applicable statutes and agency
regulations, and interviewed agency officials and other experts about
these trends. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service
documents, including database manuals and agency-wide and regional
procedures for gathering and reporting data related to reforestation
and timber stand improvement. To identify factors that have contributed
to reforestation and timber stand improvement trends and describe
potential effects identified by federal land managers, we reviewed
internal Forest Service reports, as well as other studies, and
interviewed agency officials in both headquarters and selected regions.
We also visited four regions with the largest reported reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs and national forests within these
regions. We conducted our work from June 2004 to March 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II provides further details about the scope and methodology of
our review.
Results in Brief:
Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as
expert opinions and studies, point to recent increasing trends in the
acreage of agency lands needing reforestation and timber stand
improvement treatments. For the decade beginning in 1995, the Forest
Service reported that the acreage of its lands needing reforestation at
first declined steadily between 1995 and 1999 but then increased
through 2004. Much of this increase occurred in regions located in
western states, where reforestation needs associated with natural
disturbances, such as wildland fires, began to increase dramatically in
2000. During the same 10-year period, the agency also reported that the
acreage of its lands needing timber stand improvement generally
increased, although trends within individual regions show considerable
variation. The Forest Service data, when combined with other
information, are sufficiently reliable for identifying these relative
trends; however, we have concerns about the data's use in accurately
quantifying the acreage of agency land needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement treatments. These concerns arise because the agency's
regions and forests define their needs differently and do not
systematically update these data to reflect current forest conditions,
nor do they review the accuracy of these data. Forest Service officials
acknowledged these problems but explained that the agency focuses its
efforts on undertaking reforestation and timber stand improvements and
is less concerned about accurately collecting and reporting data on
lands needing these treatments. Nonetheless, the Forest Service is
implementing a new data system that will replace the individual
regional systems with a single, agency-wide system. However, this
change will standardize only the structure of regional reporting to
headquarters and will not, on its own, make the data more consistent or
accurate without changes to agency policies and practices to
standardize how reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are
defined, reported, and validated. While we understand the Forest
Service's desire to carry out reforestation and timber stand
improvements as quickly as possible, without more reliable data, it is
difficult for the Forest Service to accurately quantify its needs,
establish priorities among treatment needs, and estimate a budget
accordingly.
According to Forest Service officials, despite declining timber
harvests, reforestation needs are accumulating because the acreage
affected by natural disturbances has increased in recent years. Since
2000, wildland fires, insects and diseases have destroyed increasing
amounts of forest lands. In the past, timber harvests created the
majority of reforestation needs and generated revenue that helped pay
for harvest-related reforestation. In contrast, reforestation needs are
now arising largely from natural disturbances, and funding sources for
such needs--annual appropriations and the Reforestation Trust Fund--
have not risen in step with reported needs. Instead, they have remained
relatively stable.
For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that changing
management practices have been the primary factor contributing to the
increase in acreage needing treatment. Specifically, managers in some
Forest Service regions do not emphasize timber stand improvement
treatments because they believe reforestation treatments are more
important. This is in part because there is no legal deadline for
completing timber stand improvement, whereas, by law, reforestation
generally must be completed within 5 years after trees are harvested.
Another reason for the reported increase is that agency officials have
identified more timber stand improvement needs as they have expanded
the scope of the program. Reported needs also have increased because
previously favored high-density tree planting practices to replace
harvested trees have led to increased needs for thinning today.
If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
outpace the Forest Service's ability to meet these needs and treatments
are delayed, agency officials believe the agency's ability to achieve
its forest management objectives may be impaired; treatment costs could
increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire, disease,
and insect damage. Unmet needs could prevent the Forest Service from
achieving its forest management objectives, such as protecting wildlife
habitat or improving forest health. For example, an area previously
dominated by forests could become dominated by shrub fields,
compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. Treatment
costs also could increase if projects are delayed. For example,
competing vegetation often must be removed to allow newly reforested
stands to survive; the larger the competing vegetation grows, the more
costly it is to remove. Finally, forest susceptibility to severe
wildland fires, disease, and insect damage could increase, according to
officials, because without needed thinning treatments, forests become
dense, fueling severe wildland fires and creating competition among
trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack. Although
agency officials expressed concern about the potential harmful effects
of delaying some projects, the Forest Service has not clarified its
policies, practices, and priorities for the reforestation and timber
stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current
environment of constrained budgets. Forest Service officials
acknowledged the need to make such changes. However, until they do so,
it will be difficult to ensure that limited reforestation and timber
stand improvement funds are targeted toward activities that will have
the greatest impact in mitigating potential adverse effects.
We are making recommendations to help the Forest Service better
identify and prioritize its reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs and aid the Congress in making more informed funding decisions.
In responding to a draft of this report, the Forest Service agreed with
our findings and recommendations. The Forest Service's comments are
reprinted in appendix III.
Background:
The Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement program
shapes our national forests as well as their associated plant and
animal communities through treatments that establish, develop, and care
for trees over their lifetime. Under NFMA, each national forest is
required to have a forest management plan describing the agency's
objectives for the forest, including those related to reforestation and
timber stand improvement.
To achieve these management objectives after a timber harvest or
natural event that damages forests, Forest Service staff identify areas
needing reforestation and visit forest locations to plan a specific
sequence of treatments needed, known as a prescription. The
prescription directs how many young trees must be reestablished and the
proper mix of vegetation necessary to achieve specific objectives in
the forest plan, such as maintaining wildlife habitat. Reforestation
prescriptions may call for planting or natural regeneration, as
outlined in table 1. To plant a site, Forest Service staff order
seedlings from a nursery up to 3 years in advance of planting to allow
enough time for them to grow, then plant the seedlings when conditions
are favorable. For natural regeneration, agency staff allow seeds from
trees left on the site or nearby trees to germinate and grow, which
sometimes requires removing unwanted vegetation and surface debris to
improve the likelihood that the trees will survive or accelerate their
growth.
As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest
needing timber stand improvement and prepare prescriptions. Timber
stand improvement prescriptions are intended to improve growing
conditions for trees in a stand and typically call for treatments such
as release or thinning, as outlined in table 1. To conduct a release
treatment, Forest Service staff remove competing vegetation to allow
seedlings to grow; and to thin a stand, agency staff remove some trees
to accelerate the growth of the remaining trees or to improve forest
health.
Table 1: Forest Service Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement
Treatments:
Forestry treatments: Reforestation: Planting;
Treatment description: Foresters collect or obtain seeds, and grow
seedlings for 1 to 3 years in nurseries, then transplant the seedlings
to the site when conditions are favorable.
Forestry treatments: Reforestation: Seeding;
Treatment description: Foresters directly apply seed collected from
known seed sources to prepared sites when conditions are favorable.
Forestry treatments: Reforestation: Natural regeneration with site
preparation; Treatment description: Foresters remove vegetation that
could compete with young seedlings, as well as other debris, then allow
existing trees to naturally seed the area.
Forestry treatments: Reforestation: Natural regeneration without site
preparation; Treatment description: Foresters rely on existing trees to
naturally seed the area, and do not remove any vegetation or debris.
This technique is sometimes used after wildland fires, which often
create a site that is free of vegetation and debris.
Forestry treatments: Timber stand Improvement: Release treatments;
Treatment description: Foresters remove competing vegetation near
seedlings or young trees to improve the chances of survival and health.
Forestry treatments: Timber stand Improvement: Precommercial thinning;
Treatment description: Foresters remove trees from forests that are
overly dense. In such treatments, the trees removed are too small to
sell as commercial timber.
Forestry treatments: Timber stand Improvement: Fertilizing;
Treatment description: Foresters apply nutrients to increase tree
growth or to overcome a nutrient deficiency in the soil.
Forestry treatments: Timber stand Improvement: Pruning;
Treatment description: Foresters remove side branches and multiple
leaders from a standing tree to, among other things, reduce fuel
ladders and associated wildland fire risk or to produce economically
valuable wood.
Source: GAO interpretation of Forest Service information.
[End of table]
Reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments are funded by
various sources, principally congressional appropriations and trust
funds. Congressional appropriations that fund this work include moneys
allocated from the National Forest System appropriation to the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program[Footnote 2] as well
as to other Forest Service programs whose primary purposes include
improving forest health, decreasing hazardous fuels, and rehabilitating
burned areas. In addition to these moneys, the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust
fund that collects receipts generated from timber sales helps pay for
reforestation and timber stand improvement in areas harvested for
timber.[Footnote 3] While Knutson-Vandenberg funds are a dedicated
source of funding for reforesting harvested lands, work in areas
destroyed by natural causes, such as wildland fire, is generally funded
through the National Forest System appropriation and a portion of the
Reforestation Trust Fund. Reforestation Trust Fund receipts are
generated by tariffs on imported wood products, and by law, moneys
transferred into this fund for the Forest Service's use are limited to
$30 million each fiscal year. Other sources of funds, such as gifts,
bequests, and partnerships, also fund reforestation and timber stand
improvement treatments.
The Forest Service's implementation, management, and oversight of the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized.
Forest Service headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and
provide technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various
aspects of the program. These national forest offices, in turn, provide
general oversight to more than 600 district offices, several of which
are located in each national forest. The district offices plan, fund,
and manage reforestation and timber stand improvement projects, and the
managers of these offices have considerable discretion in interpreting
and applying the agency's policies and selecting projects to fund.
District office staff are responsible for assessing reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs, developing prescriptions to address
these needs, and accomplishing the work. Figure 1 shows a map of the
Forest Service regions and highlights the regions we visited.
Figure 1: Map of Forest Service Regions Indicating Regions Visited by
GAO:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The Forest Service does not have a region 7. Highlighted regions
are those we visited.
[End of figure]
The Forest Service's four organizational levels--its headquarters,
regional, national forest, and district offices--share responsibility
for reporting reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the
Congress. Although the Director of Forest Management in its
headquarters is responsible for the agency-wide reporting of
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, much of the
responsibility for establishing standards and procedures for collecting
and reporting these data has been delegated to the regional, national
forest, and district offices. Forest and district offices use automated
systems to record their reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs and accomplishments and each region collects the data in one of
nine regional databases and transmits its total reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs to a centralized data repository.
Nationally, the Forest Service consolidates the regional data to
produce agency-wide reports of reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs and accomplishments by national forest. These reports
are submitted annually to the Congress.
Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It
Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs:
From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the Forest Service reported to the
Congress that the acreage of its lands needing reforestation initially
declined and then increased during the last 5 years, with much of this
increase occurring in regions in western states. During the 10-year
period, the agency also reported that the acreage of its land needing
timber stand improvement generally increased, though some regions
reported slight decreases in these needs. These Forest Service data,
when combined with other information, are sufficiently reliable to
identify a general trend of increasing needs. Nonetheless, we have
concerns about the usefulness of these data in quantifying the acreage
of agency land needing reforestation and timber stand improvement.
These concerns arise, in part, because the Forest Service's regions and
forests define their needs differently, and they do not always
systematically update the data to reflect current forest conditions or
review the accuracy of the data. Agency officials acknowledge these
problems but said the agency focuses its efforts on undertaking
reforestation and timber stand improvements and is less concerned about
accurately collecting and reporting data on lands needing these
treatments. Although the Forest Service is developing a new national
data system, the agency does not anticipate making significant changes
to improve the quality of the data.
The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs:
The Forest Service reports that the acreage of its lands needing
reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995 and 1999 but
then increased from 2000 through 2004, as shown in figure 2. During
this 10-year period, the primary source of the Forest Service's
reforestation needs changed. Specifically, the agency reports that its
reforestation needs attributable to timber harvests decreased steadily,
while needs associated with wildland fires and other natural
disturbances were relatively stable until 2000, when such needs rose
dramatically with the increase in wildland fires, particularly in
western states. Reforestation needs reported by the Forest Service's
Northern Region--covering all of Montana and North Dakota and portions
of some adjacent states--followed the national pattern most closely. In
addition to the Northern Region, other regions we visited (Pacific
Northwest, Pacific Southwest) spanning western states, such as
Washington, Oregon, and California, reported large reforestation needs.
These regions expressed concern about the increasing level of their
reforestation needs relative to their future ability to meet these
needs.
Figure 2: Forest Service's Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal
Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in
reforestation needs reported by the Forest Service. Although the Forest
Service data, in combination with other information, are sufficiently
reliable for this purpose, the data cannot be used to accurately
quantify the Forest Service's reforestation needs.
[End of figure]
With respect to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest Service
reports that the acreage of its lands needing such treatments increased
in most years following 1995, except for 1999, 2003, and 2004, when the
reported needs declined slightly (as shown in fig. 3). The agency
partially attributes the decline in needs during these years to an
emphasis on thinning treatments and additional work associated with the
National Fire Plan during 2003 and 2004.[Footnote 4] Officials at two
of the four regions we visited, the Northern and Pacific Northwest
Regions, told us they were concerned about the overall increasing level
of their timber stand improvement needs. Timber stand improvement needs
reported by the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest region--covering all
of Washington and Oregon--were the highest of any region during 4 of
the last 5 years. According to officials in the Pacific Northwest
region, timber stand improvement needs have accumulated, in part, due
to placing a lower priority on such treatments than on reforestation
and because many stands in which high-density tree planting practices
were used to replace harvested trees during the early 1990s are now in
need of thinning. While nationwide timber stand improvement needs
generally have been increasing over time, some regions have reported
stable or decreasing trends. For example, in the Southern Region,
reported timber stand improvement needs have been relatively stable
over the last 10 years, while the Pacific Southwest Region has reported
slightly decreasing needs since 1995. According to officials in the
Pacific Southwest Region, they have less need for timber stand
improvement projects because they plant fewer trees as the result of
reduced timber harvests. They have increased their ability to meet
these needs by emphasizing projects that are eligible for funding under
the National Fire Plan because they contribute to hazardous fuels
reduction goals.
Figure 3: Forest Service's Reported Timber Stand Improvement Needs for
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in timber stand
improvement needs reported by the Forest Service. Although the Forest
Service data, in combination with other information, are sufficiently
reliable for this purpose, the data cannot be used to accurately
quantify the Forest Service's timber stand improvement needs.
[End of figure]
Forest Service Data Are Inconsistent Across Regions and Inadequate to
Accurately Quantify Needs:
The Forest Service data, when combined with other information from
Forest Service officials and nongovernmental experts--as well as data
on recent increases in natural disturbances such as wildland fire--are
sufficiently reliable for identifying relative trend information.
However, we have concerns about the use of these data in quantifying
the acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement treatments because the reported data are inconsistent
and insufficiently reliable for this purpose. These data are not
sufficiently reliable because Forest Service regions define needs
differently, influencing the volume of needs reported, and vary in
their ability to link needs to forest locations, making it difficult to
detect obsolete needs and update the data to reflect current on-the-
ground conditions. Additionally, the data are a mixture of actual needs
and estimates and may not be routinely reviewed for accuracy. As a
result, the needs reported at the regional level cannot be meaningfully
aggregated at the national level. Many of these data problems are long
standing and may not be adequately addressed when the Forest Service
implements a new data system. Without better data, Forest Service
officials said, it is difficult to provide the Congress with estimates
of the funding needed to prevent a backlog of reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs. Additionally, agency officials said that given
constrained resources and competing priorities they focus more on
performing the treatments than accurately identifying and reporting
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
Regions Use Inconsistent Definitions of Need:
The Forest Service's nine regions have independently developed their
own data collection systems and do not all use the same definitions of
need, influencing the volume of needs reported. As shown by the
following examples from three of the four regions we visited, we found
inconsistent criteria for assessing the need for reforestation or
timber stand improvement between regions, among forests within regions,
and over time.
* The Pacific Southwest Region reports a reforestation need in areas
where it anticipates a timber harvest, even though the forest is still
fully stocked with trees, while other regions we visited do not report
a need until after timber is harvested and the last log has been
removed from the sale area.
* In the Northern Region, forests share common definitions of need and
do not report acres of burned land as needing reforestation if they
plan to allow these areas to regenerate naturally without any site
preparation. In the Pacific Northwest Region, however, because
definitions of need vary from forest to forest, some report this
condition as a need and some do not.
* Some forests in the Pacific Northwest Region define timber stand
improvement needs as those projects they currently need, while other
forests in this region include projects that will not be needed until a
future time.
* Prior to 1996, the Northern Region reported, as timber stand
improvement needs, only those projects that would be needed within 5
years. After 1996, however, the region expanded its definition to
include all projects identified within the past 20 years. At the same
time, the region redefined the methods for justifying a timber stand
improvement need.[Footnote 5] According to Northern Region Forest
Service officials, these changes largely were responsible for more than
doubling the timber stand improvement needs reported by this region
from 1995 to 1996.
Regions Vary in Their Ability to Link Needs to Forest Locations:
Forest Service regions and national forests within regions vary in the
quality of the source data they collect and report. Specifically, some
regions are able to link reported needs to distinct forest locations,
while others cannot. In the Northern Region, for example, all forests
use a common reporting system that links reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs to particular stands of trees by their mapped
locations. Officials in the Pacific Northwest Region, however,
indicated they had difficulty linking reported needs to specific
geographic locations because national forests within their regions use
different, independently developed reporting systems. Like the Pacific
Southwest and Southern Regions, these officials indicated that they do
not always include information describing the locations of reported
needs. In the Pacific Southwest Region, for example, a regional
official told us that some districts link needs to "dummy stands," or
records that do not include information about where a need for
treatment is geographically located. He noted that this practice speeds
data entry but impairs data quality. Officials we interviewed
throughout the Forest Service also acknowledge that the data include
some obsolete needs and exclude some actual needs, in part because not
knowing the location of all reported needs prevents the detection and
removal of obsolete or erroneous needs.
Data Are a Mixture of Actual Needs and Estimates:
Differences in Forest Service data among locations are compounded
because the reforestation and timber stand improvement needs reported
are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and
estimates, due in part to agency guidance and variations in regional
reporting practices. Although agency guidance generally requires that
needs be diagnosed for a specific site and linked to a prescription for
treatment, it also directs staff to estimate reforestation needs
following a wildland fire or other natural disturbance and revise these
estimates within the year. We found in our visits to four regions that
they vary in the extent to which they report needs based on a site-
specific diagnosis or an estimate, and consequently may understate or
overstate needs.
Forest Service guidance sets different standards for reporting
reforestation needs that arise from timber harvest rather than those
created by fires or other natural disturbances, in part, to promote
timely reporting. For example, after a clear-cut harvest, the guidance
directs regions to determine reforestation needs using a site-specific
diagnosis and prescription for regenerating the acreage. In contrast,
after fires or other natural disturbances, this guidance encourages
staff to immediately estimate the acres in need of reforestation before
they have visited forest locations to develop a site-specific
prescription and refine their estimate while performing restoration
activities. Forest Service officials commented that at times it is
difficult to balance the timely reporting of needs created by natural
disturbances with data accuracy.
Regions we visited varied in the extent to which they used site-
specific prescriptions or estimates as a basis for reporting needs. For
example, although a Forest Service official in the Southern Region told
us that over 100,000 acres of land there may need reforestation, in
part due to insect damage, he said none of this acreage will be
reported as needing reforestation until staff diagnose the needs
through site visits and prescribe treatments. In contrast, forests in
wildland fire-prone regions, such as the Pacific Southwest Region,
report needs based on gross estimates after natural disturbances. In
cases where reforestation or timber stand improvement needs are based
on gross estimates, the reported needs may not always be adjusted after
the actual needs are known, according to Forest Service officials. For
example, an official from the Pacific Southwest Region indicated that
the moist climate in some areas of the region causes vegetation to grow
quickly, so that when an area initially needs to be reforested, staff
generously estimate all possible treatments needed to remove unwanted
vegetation and are unlikely to update these reforestation needs, even
if subsequent treatments are deemed unnecessary. On the other hand,
this official indicated that staff are likely to understate the need to
thin trees in some areas because they do not expect sufficient funding
to address all of the timber stand improvement needs. They therefore
concentrate their efforts on meeting the needs rather than diagnosing
and precisely reporting them. Officials in other regions also noted
that they emphasize addressing needs rather than accurately identifying
and reporting them, in part because incentives are focused on
accomplishments and meeting treatment goals established by headquarters.
Data Are Not Reviewed for Accuracy:
The Forest Service cannot attest that the reported data on needs
reflect actual forest conditions nationwide because the data are not
reviewed for accuracy and when errors are found they are not always
corrected. Forest Service officials at headquarters and in the regions
we visited told us that data may be overstated or understated because,
with the exception of the Northern Region, they have not conducted
comprehensive reviews of data accuracy in recent years and because
controls over data are decentralized. Some regions do not consistently
update or review their data for substantive errors before reporting
them. Although Forest Service headquarters staff conduct high-level
checks to ensure that some data are reported consistently, they have
not conducted reviews in the last decade to ensure that the data
reflect on-the-ground conditions. Consequently, an official in the
Pacific Southwest Region speculated that there is an error rate of
approximately 20 percent in the reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs reported within the region. Even when errors are
detected, there is no assurance that data will be corrected. For
example, according to an official in the Pacific Northwest Region, an
error of 10,000 acres dating from 2002 remains uncorrected. We also
found during our visit to this region that another error in reporting
reforestation needs in 2002, compounded by an attempt to correct the
error, resulted in the erroneous reporting of more than 6,000 acres of
reforestation needs in one district.
Data Problems Are Long Standing and May Not Be Resolved with New System:
The problems we identified with the Forest Service's data on reported
needs are not new. In 1985, a congressional study of the Forest
Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement program found that
numbers used to report both the reforestation and timber stand
improvement backlogs were unreliable because backlogged needs were not
linked to specific forest locations and because data at different
organizational levels could not be reconciled.[Footnote 6] This study
attributed these shortcomings to a lack of centralized program
management to standardize definitions of need and establish consistent
reporting criteria. Subsequent reviews of the program, including a GAO
review in 1991, found similar problems and recommended additional
standardization.[Footnote 7] The Forest Service recognizes these
problems and has acknowledged it has not provided the Congress
estimates on funding needed to prevent a backlog, in part, because
needs data are a mixture of actual needs, estimates, and obsolete
needs. Instead, the Forest Service provides the Congress with a
proposed program of work, outlining the amount of reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs it will address within certain budget
limits.
In an attempt to improve its data and integrate its reporting between
regions and headquarters, the Forest Service is introducing a new
agency-wide system for collecting and reporting data on reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs. The Forest Service intends to
implement the new system by the end of fiscal year 2005. When the new
system replaces individual district, forest, and regional systems for
reporting needs with a single, agency-wide database, it will
standardize how reforestation and timber stand improvement activities
are tracked as well as modernize data entry, system maintenance, and
security activities. However, the agency acknowledges these changes
will not, in and of themselves, address the data reliability issues
that we have identified since the Forest Service intends to transfer
regional data from the current systems to the new system without
altering how reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are
defined, interpreted, and reported from the initial needs assessment
onward. Since this system does not introduce any new procedures to
standardize how needs are defined or to check for and correct errors,
the consistency and accuracy of the data will still be determined at
the local level. Forest Service officials told us they do not
anticipate making significant changes to current agency policies and
practices that make regions individually responsible for developing
data collection and reporting standards and ensuring that data are
accurate. Therefore, it is likely that present data deficiencies will
persist in the new system if existing data are incorporated into it
without additional efforts being made to improve the data. Officials
acknowledge that improving the data will require a significant
investment of resources and also acknowledge that unless the work is
done, data reliability issues will persist.
Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to
Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
Natural disturbances, such as wildland fires or insect infestations,
and management decisions are the major factors contributing to the
recent increase in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs,
according to Forest Service officials. The officials said that
reforestation needs are accumulating primarily because a recent
increase in natural disturbances has created more needs, and funding to
pay for such needs is limited. Other factors, such as reforestation
failures, also have contributed to increasing reforestation needs,
according to agency officials. Timber stand improvement needs have
accumulated, in part, because some regions do not emphasize these
projects and consequently, treatments have not kept pace with growing
needs. At the same time, agency officials have been identifying more
timber stand improvement needs as they have expanded the scope of work
included in the program. In addition, timber stand improvement needs
have been increasing because, in the 1980s and 1990s, the Forest
Service used reforestation techniques that favored planting trees
densely, creating stands that now need thinning.
Agency Officials Link Rising Reforestation Needs to Natural Causes
Rather Than Timber Harvests:
Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been
rising largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by
causes other than timber harvests, and funding to address these needs
has not kept pace. During the early 1990s, the agency shifted its
management emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest
ecosystem health and, as a result, began harvesting less timber. With
the reduction in harvests, revenue from timber sales decreased. As
shown in figure 4, nearly 4 billion board feet of timber were harvested
from Forest Service lands in 1995, whereas about 2 billion board feet
were harvested in 2004. Similarly, according to the Forest Service, the
timber harvested on its lands in 1995 was worth about $616 million,
whereas timber harvested in 2004 was worth about $217 million. As
timber harvests and revenue have decreased, related reforestation needs
also have decreased, and so the Forest Service has generally been able
to meet these needs by using timber sale revenue to help pay for
reforestation. Forest Service officials also noted that the value of
the wood they are now selling is typically much lower than it was a
decade ago.
Figure 4: Volume of Timber Harvested from Forest Service Lands for
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to Forest Service reports, as timber harvests and related
reforestation needs were decreasing, the acreage burned in wildland
fires and damaged by insects and diseases annually began to increase
significantly around 2000, leaving thousands of acres needing
reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres
in 2000, compared with less than 6 million acres in 1999 and about 2.3
million acres in 1998.[Footnote 8] In 2002, Colorado, Arizona, and
Oregon recorded their largest fires in the last century. Similarly,
figure 5 shows that the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases
has increased significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest
affected in 2003, compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999. As
the acreage affected by these natural disturbances increased, so did
reforestation needs. However, funding allocated to pay for
reforestation did not increase at the same rate, so needs began to
accumulate.
Figure 5: Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on
Forested Lands Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: These numbers include all forested lands under federal, state,
and other ownership, not just Forest Service land.
[End of figure]
While reported reforestation needs have been rising, funding allocated
for reforestation and timber stand improvement has been relatively
constant (as shown in fig. 6). In addition, pressure on limited funding
was magnified in fiscal year 2001, as the Forest Service combined under
one budget multiple programs including reforestation and timber stand
improvement as well as range, watershed improvement, and noxious weed
management programs, among others. Once these programs were combined,
agency officials had to balance reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs against priorities in the other programs. On a
broader scale, a Forest Service official said they must balance
reforestation needs against other competing priorities when requesting
a budget from the Congress, so they did not request more funding to
help pay for reforestation needs during the last decade. Officials did,
however, request additional funding for fiscal year 2006, according to
an agency official.
Figure 6: Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The Forest Service allocates funds from its National Forest
System appropriation to pay for reforestation and timber stand
improvement. Amounts presented for 1995 through 2000 are amounts
allocated from enacted appropriation levels. Because the reforestation
and timber stand improvement program was combined with several other
programs under one budget beginning in 2001, the amounts presented for
2001 through 2004 are estimates provided by the Forest Service.
[End of figure]
In addition to natural causes, several other factors have contributed
to the reported increase in reforestation needs, according to Forest
Service officials. In some areas, reforestation attempts have failed,
creating needs where agency officials will try again to reforest the
same lands. Reforestation efforts can fail for a variety of reasons,
such as insufficient moisture, improper planting techniques, or animal
damage to young seedlings. Ongoing drought conditions in the West, as
well as the retirement of experienced foresters, may have played a role
in recent reforestation failures, according to Forest Service
officials. Another factor that has contributed to the reported increase
in reforestation needs is that some national forests have recently
acquired lands through purchase or exchange that need reforestation.
For example, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas acquired
about 11,000 acres of land in 1993 and 1994 that had been harvested,
and much of it needed reforestation. About 4,000 acres of the land have
yet to be reforested.
Changing Management Practices Have Contributed to Reported Increase in
Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
Nationally, timber stand improvement needs have generally been
increasing for the 10-year period we reviewed because (1) some Forest
Service regions emphasize reforestation over timber stand improvement;
(2) agency officials have identified increasingly more needs as they
have expanded the scope of timber stand improvement to include work
needed to meet a wider range of objectives; and (3) past forestry
practices called for dense planting, leaving a legacy of thinning needs
to be addressed in the timber stand improvement program, particularly
on forests that had large reforestation programs within the past 2
decades. While these circumstances have contributed to nationwide
increases in timber stand improvement needs, they have not always led
to increases in individual regions.
Some Regions Emphasize Reforestation Needs over Timber Stand
Improvement Needs:
According to Forest Service officials, one reason nationwide timber
stand improvement needs are accumulating is that some regions
prioritize funding for reforestation treatments over timber stand
improvement treatments. These regions do so in part because they are
required to complete reforestation treatments within 5 years of
harvesting, whereas for timber stand improvement, there is no such
requirement. In addition, agency officials said that, generally, lands
needing reforestation change more quickly than lands needing timber
stand improvement, so the opportunity cost of deferring reforestation
treatments is higher than that of deferring timber stand improvement
projects. For example, an official in the Pacific Southwest Region
estimated that if they did not reforest an area immediately after a
fire, brush would likely become established within a few years, and
removing the brush could add as much as $400 per acre to the costs of
reforestation. In contrast, deferring a thinning treatment for 1 or 2
years has little effect on forest conditions and treatment
requirements, agency officials said, although deferring these projects
for longer periods can create problems, as discussed later.
Forest Service Has Expanded Scope of Timber Stand Improvement:
Another reason national timber stand improvement needs are increasing
is that the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the program, now
identifying lands where timber stand improvement work is needed to meet
objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as improving wildlife
habitats or thinning hazardous fuels to reduce fire danger. As the
objectives of timber stand improvement have expanded, needs have
expanded accordingly. For example, the Southwestern region has
identified fuels reduction as a regional priority and consequently
dedicates most of its reforestation and timber stand improvement
program funding to timber stand improvement, using only moneys from the
Reforestation Trust Fund--about 4 percent of the region's 2003 program
funds--to pay for reforestation projects. However, the region's
increased emphasis on fuels reduction has added to timber stand
improvement needs rather than reducing them, because as the scope of
timber stand improvement expands to include lands that need fuels
reduction, officials are identifying many more needs than they can meet
each year.
Forest Service Favored Dense Tree Planting in the 1980s and 1990s:
In addition, nationwide timber stand improvement needs are increasing
because reforestation techniques favored in the 1980s and 1990s
recommended planting trees much more densely than may be currently
recommended. Consequently, many stands that were planted 15 to 20 years
ago now need thinning, according to agency officials. For example,
during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, the Idaho-Panhandle National
Forest had an active timber production program, clear-cutting and
harvesting thousands of acres each year, and replanting densely. During
that period, officials deliberately planted seedlings densely so that
as the trees grew, they could keep the largest and healthiest of them
for cultivating, and thin out the others. Although the Forest Service
has now reduced its emphasis on timber production, thinning is still
needed in these areas to maintain forest health, according to agency
officials.
Some Regions' Trends in Timber Stand Improvement Needs Deviate from
National Trends for Various Reasons:
The circumstances causing the nationwide trend of increasing timber
stand improvement needs have not always led to increases in individual
regions. For example, the Pacific Southwest region has reported
decreasing needs since 1994. According to agency officials, the
decrease is largely a result of the decrease in timber harvests and
associated planting. In some parts of the country, such as Idaho,
timber stand improvement projects may not be needed until 20 or 30
years after planting. However, the moist climate in some areas of the
Pacific Southwest region causes vegetation to grow quickly, so timber
stand improvement projects are typically needed much sooner--between 2
and 10 years after planting. Consequently, many of the region's harvest-
related timber stand improvement needs have already been addressed and
total needs have been decreasing. In addition, like the Southwestern
region, the Pacific Southwest region has begun to give priority to
timber stand improvement projects that contribute to fuels reduction
goals. According to agency officials in the region, this emphasis has
helped finance timber stand improvement work and reduce needs. In the
Southern region, agency officials reported that timber stand
improvement needs have been relatively stable during the period we
reviewed, in part because the timber program in that region is still
active, and timber revenues can help pay for timber stand improvement
needs.
Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Reforestation
and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not Addressed:
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
accumulate in the future, the Forest Service will likely have to
postpone some projects. According to agency officials, the agency's
ability to achieve forest management objectives may consequently be
impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more
susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service
officials expressed concern about the potential harmful effects of
delaying projects, the agency has not clarified priorities for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program that reflect this
concern and the current context in which the program operates. Instead,
regions and forests rely mainly on decision-making practices initiated
when the agency's primary focus was timber production, and timber
revenues allowed them to fund reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs with fewer constraints. Forest Service headquarters
officials acknowledged this circumstance and noted that field staff
could benefit from clarified, updated national policy.
Forest Service's Ability to Meet Forest Management Objectives Could Be
Impaired:
The Forest Service's ability to meet the management objectives defined
in its forest plans--such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a
forest or appropriate habitat for certain wildlife--could be impaired
if reforestation or timber stand improvement treatments are delayed.
For example, at the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and Idaho,
agency officials have identified a management objective of establishing
or maintaining ponderosa pine forests, which populated the area
historically and are well-adapted to high-frequency, low-intensity
wildland fires. Currently, the Bitterroot National Forest has thousands
of acres that need reforestation because of wildland fires in 2000. If
these needs are left unattended, douglas fir forests will likely become
established instead of ponderosa pine; and, according to agency
officials, douglas fir tends to grow into crowded stands that officials
believe will perpetuate the cycle of dense forests, fueling severe
fires. In addition, agency officials prefer ponderosa pine forests
because they provide habitat for certain wildlife species, such as
pileated woodpeckers. In other cases, an area previously dominated by
forests could become dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife
habitat, recreation, and timber value. In the Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, an area that was cleared by logging and wildland fires at the
turn of the century left a brushfield that persisted for over 60 years
and only became forested when the Forest Service actively planted the
area. Similarly, about 750 acres in the Tahoe National Forest were
cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced by shrubs (shown in fig.
7) that remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964--40
years later. One Forest Service official expressed particular concern
about leaving reforestation needs unattended because, as these needs
are increasingly created by natural causes such as wildland fires that
burn vast areas, adverse effects have the potential to occur on a large
scale. Furthermore, an agency official said that if they cannot meet
the management objectives defined in their forest management plans, it
will be difficult to fulfill their mission "to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests."
Figure 7: Shrubfields Persisted 40 Years after a Wildland Fire in Tahoe
National Forest:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Similarly, if timber stand improvement needs are not addressed, it also
will be difficult to meet forest management objectives. For example, if
competing vegetation is not removed, the success of recently completed
reforestation treatments can be jeopardized, hindering agency efforts
to meet objectives such as maintaining an area in a forested condition
or reintroducing certain species of trees. If thinning needs are left
unattended, forest management objectives can be thwarted as well. For
example, some forests have identified areas where timber production is
an objective, and thinning treatments are used to increase timber
productivity by removing trees with the least potential for growth and
leaving those with the greatest potential. When these treatments are
delayed, trees grow more slowly and may not reach the desired size,
slowing progress in meeting timber production objectives.
Project Costs Could Increase:
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed
in a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because
removing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and
timber stand improvement projects, will become more costly as the
vegetation grows. For example, at the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest
in Arkansas, insects have destroyed thousands of acres of red oak
forests since 1999, leaving large areas that need to be reforested. As
the Forest Service has left these areas unattended, brush that must be
removed before new seedlings are planted is becoming established, and
removing it will be more costly as time passes. When the brush was
young and small, it could have been removed with inexpensive methods
such as hand spraying herbicides; but now it will require a more
expensive method such as cutting the brush with a chainsaw, according
to agency officials. If these areas are left indefinitely, trees may
become established, but a different mix of species will probably
replace the red oak forests, which are desirable both for their
commercial value and the habitat they provide for wildlife, such as
large game.
In addition, some Forest Service officials said that because there has
been recent controversy over salvage timber sales--the selling of dead
or dying trees--the sales have been delayed, adding costs to
reforestation projects done following salvage sales. The Forest Service
could not, however, quantify such costs. Although salvage sales do not
always precede reforestation, any salvage harvesting that is done is
generally completed before reforesting begins because logging
activities and equipment can damage young seedlings. Consequently, when
salvage sales are delayed, reforestation projects are delayed as well,
causing reforestation costs to increase as vegetation grows that must
be removed before reforesting. Also, when salvage sales are delayed,
revenue declines because over time the value of the salvage timber
decreases as the wood decays. According to agency officials, revenue
from salvage sales was once enough to cover administrative costs of the
sale and also help pay for reforestation in some cases, but now it is
not typically enough to pay for any reforestation. However, data are
not readily available to show how common it is for salvage sales to
delay reforestation projects or the extent to which revenues for
salvage timber have declined, and why.
Forest Susceptibility to Wildland Fire, Insects, and Disease Could
Increase:
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed,
forests will be more susceptible to severe wildland fires and damage
from insects and disease, according to agency officials. When
reforestation needs are left unattended, brush can grow in place of
forests, providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires.
Alternatively, exotic plant species may become established, some of
which are more susceptible to wildland fires than native species. Once
such invasive species become established, it is difficult to eradicate
them. In addition, wildland fires may weaken some trees without killing
them, leaving them susceptible to insect attack and diseases; and if
reforestation needs are left unattended, an insect infestation can grow
to epidemic proportions. In contrast, when the Forest Service reforests
such an area, agency officials typically will first remove infested
trees, which can serve as carriers for insects and disease, and then
plant healthy seedlings that are more resistant.
Leaving timber stand improvement needs unattended also can increase
forest susceptibility to wildland fire, insects, and disease. Forests
that are densely populated and need thinning tend to be stressed
because the trees compete with one another for sunlight, water, and
nutrients. Experts believe that when wildland fires start in such
forests, they are fueled by the tightly spaced trees, causing the fires
to spread rapidly and increasing the likelihood of unusually large
fires, resulting in widespread destruction. Similarly, when insects or
diseases infect such forests--especially when the trees are of a
uniform species and age rather than a variety of species and ages--they
can spread rapidly because of the stressed condition of the trees and
because the trees are close together and of the same species.
Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of
Increasing Needs:
Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential
effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to address
these concerns and adapt to changes in the context in which the program
operates. The Forest Service has shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management, sources of reforestation
needs have shifted from timber harvests to natural causes, and budgets
have become increasingly constrained. However, the agency has not
adjusted the program's direction, policies, practices, and priorities
in keeping with these changes, although agency officials acknowledged
the need to do so. Until they do, it will be difficult to ensure that
reforestation and timber stand improvement funds are targeted toward
activities that will have the greatest impact in mitigating potential
adverse effects.
While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there
remains a general lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and
more specifically, a lack of clarity about the direction and goals for
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program, according to
agency officials. When timber production was the emphasis, the
direction for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program
was clearly focused around maximizing timber production, whereas in the
current environment, it is less clear. Reforestation and timber stand
improvement projects now are done for multiple purposes--such as
improving wildlife habitat, protecting streams and water quality, and
reducing susceptibility to wildland fires--but it is unclear which of
these purposes are more important, if any, and how to allocate limited
funds to support such diverse purposes. The lack of clarity is apparent
in forest management plans, where management objectives are expressed
in language that may be vague or contradictory, according to agency
officials. For example, one objective in a Montana forest's management
plan calls for providing "a pleasing and healthy environment, including
clean air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems." The forest management
plans are intended to help guide management decisions, such as deciding
which reforestation and timber stand improvement techniques to use, but
agency officials said it can be difficult to interpret the plans when
making such decisions because of the vague language, conflicting
management objectives, or a combination of these factors. A 2004 study
in the Pacific Southwest Region found that many agency officials
believe forest management plans are too generic and lack clear
priorities.
In the absence of program direction that is consistent with the current
management emphasis, reforestation and timber stand improvement
policies remain in place that reflect outdated direction and management
emphasis. For example, some reforestation policies written in the 1980s
call for tight spacing between trees consistent with the agency's
timber focus at the time. Dense planting can increase timber production
and decrease competing vegetation, but it is more expensive than
sparser planting and can add costs later because dense stands need to
be thinned. Agency officials acknowledged that in many cases, these
standards are outdated and reflect neither the current emphasis on
ecosystem management, nor the current environment of constrained
budgets. Nevertheless, officials explained that they have not changed
the standards because they are not required to comply with them.
Rather, they have the discretion to determine the appropriate spacing
for trees on a site-specific basis and to write a prescription that
deviates from the standards by relying on their professional judgment.
While reliance on professional judgment may result in actions that are
more closely aligned with the current management emphasis, there is no
assurance that it will have such results without clear direction and
policies consistent with the direction.
In some places, regional culture that reflects a former management
emphasis and budgetary situation influences current practices. For
example, when reforesting an area, officials in the Pacific Southwest
region almost always rely on planting--a more expensive method than
natural regeneration--because they have always done so and, according
to agency officials, this practice has been reinforced by the regional
culture. When the agency-wide management emphasis was timber
production, reforestation standards called for prompt reforestation and
tightly spaced trees to maximize timber volume; so officials rarely
relied on natural regeneration, which does not necessarily ensure rapid
reforestation or result in tightly spaced trees. In addition, when
timber revenues were higher and reforestation efforts centered on
harvested areas, the region could always afford to plant. Now, as the
agency's management emphasis has shifted to ecosystem and forest
health, and as budgets have become increasingly strained, officials in
the Pacific Southwest region said they are beginning to encourage
greater reliance on natural regeneration, but it remains to be seen
whether forests and districts will adjust their practices, accordingly.
Priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program
also reflect a lack of clarity about program direction in the context
of the current management emphasis, and a continued reliance on former
program direction. For example, among agency officials we talked with,
there was disagreement on how funding should be allocated between
reforestation and timber stand improvement work and on whether one
ought to be higher priority than the other. In the Pacific Northwest
region, agency officials wrote a 2001 report recommending that the
region divert some of its reforestation funds to pay for additional
timber stand improvement. The report stated that doing so is justified,
because (1) many of the current timber stand improvement needs resulted
from reforestation projects several decades ago that favored high
density planting and (2) without thinning to help reduce the impacts of
wildland fire, reforestation will continue to be needed after wildland
fires. Nevertheless, regional officials we talked with did not all
agree with the recommendation, and the region has not implemented it.
Instead, the region has continued to prioritize reforestation over
timber stand improvement, as it has done since the inception of the
timber program. According to one regional official, the Forest
Service's history of timber production permeates current thinking, and
many procedures do not reflect the current management emphasis on
ecosystem health.
Without clear program direction, not only is it difficult to determine
priorities between reforestation and timber stand improvement, but it
is also difficult to do so for work within each. For the most part, the
regions and forests we visited have not established clear criteria for
prioritizing funding decisions, and officials do not always agree with
one another about such decisions. For example, at a forest in the
Pacific Southwest region, after district officials replanted most of an
area burned by a 1996 wildland fire, regional officials thought
replanting the remaining burned area was a low priority because of the
high per-acre cost. District and forest-level staff, however, believed
it was a high priority because the area was harvested in a salvage sale
after the fire, and the Forest Service is required to reforest all
harvested lands within 5 years. The forest has continued to fund
projects to replant the remaining area. Without clear program direction
that reflects the current management emphasis and budget environment,
it is difficult to identify the highest priority investments to
minimize the potential adverse effects of accumulating reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs.
Conclusions:
The Forest Service needs a more accurate assessment of its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to reflect the
condition of our national forests. Although emphasizing data accuracy
may take away from resources to carry out reforestation and timber
stand improvements in the short-term, this investment is a critical
foundation for providing a credible picture of these needs to Forest
Service managers and the Congress. If the agency does not have accurate
data, it cannot clearly define the extent or severity of its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs or effectively channel
efforts and resources to meet the most important needs. Currently, the
Forest Service has difficulty estimating how much it would cost to meet
all of its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs because
Forest Service data are inconsistent across regions and are not
sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify needs. With the advent of
a new agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the
opportunity to improve the accuracy of its data. However, the new
system will only be as good as the data that are entered into it. The
Forest Service should take this opportunity to address the data
reliability problems by standardizing procedures, developing a common
definition of need, and validating the data--verifying that reported
needs accurately reflect conditions on the ground--so that it can build
a well-founded budget case for funding reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs. To seize this opportunity and minimize the potential
adverse effects of unmet needs, it is important for the Forest Service
to act soon. While it may not be possible for the agency to make all
the necessary changes in time for its fiscal year 2006 appropriations
request, it should aim to do so in time to support its fiscal year 2007
request.
The Forest Service also must recognize, however, that in the current,
fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported budget needs may
not always be funded. The shift in management emphasis from timber
production to ecosystem management, combined with constrained budgets
and changing sources of reforestation needs, has changed the context in
which the reforestation and timber stand improvement program operates.
However, the Forest Service has not updated its goals and policies for
the program to reflect this change. Until the agency does so, it will
be difficult to establish criteria for prioritizing the use of
reforestation and timber stand improvement funds. In the current budget
environment, such criteria are crucial for identifying the best
investments to minimize possible adverse effects so that the Forest
Service can fulfill its stewardship responsibility and ensure the
lasting health and productivity of our national forests.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance the ability of the Forest Service to identify its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and ensure funding for
its most critical projects, we recommend that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the
following actions:
* standardize collection, reporting, and review procedures for data on
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs by clarifying agency-
wide guidance and developing a standard definition of need;
* require all regions to validate their reforestation and timber stand
improvement data in time for congressional deliberation of the Forest
Service's fiscal year 2007 appropriations request;
* clarify the direction and policies for the reforestation and timber
stand improvement program to be consistent with the agency's current
emphasis on ecosystem management and appropriate for the current
constrained budget environment, and:
* require regions and forests to establish criteria for prioritizing
the use of their reforestation and timber stand improvement funds in
the current budget environment.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Forest
Service on behalf of Agriculture and from Interior. The Forest Service
concurred with our findings and recommendations. Interior also
concurred with our findings related to the Bureau of Land Management's
reforestation and growth enhancement program discussed in appendix I
and provided a technical suggestion that we have incorporated into the
report. The Forest Service's and Interior's letters are included in
appendixes III and IV, respectively.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to other interested congressional committees. We also will
send copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and the
Chief of the Forest Service. We will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov.].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related
Forest Health Trends in Western Oregon:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 261 million acres of
land nationwide, including about 55 million acres of forest and
woodlands, which are administered under two management programs--one
for about 2.4 million acres in western Oregon,[Footnote 9] and another
for the remaining 53 million acres of public domain lands, located
mostly in the West. BLM's western Oregon lands include both lands
managed primarily for timber and reserve forests, which are managed
primarily to meet wildlife habitat and other objectives. The public
domain lands consist mainly of woodlands, with some commercial forests.
We confined our review of BLM to its western Oregon lands because the
majority of BLM's reforestation and related efforts are focused there
and because BLM records for its public domain lands are not in a
centralized, automated database. (For more information on the scope and
methodology of our review, see app. II.)
Regarding trends, BLM reports that it had backlogs of acres needing
reforestation and growth enhancement treatments[Footnote 10] in western
Oregon in 1993, but that such needs decreased until 2002 when the
backlogs were eliminated. Since then, BLM reports that it has kept pace
with these needs. According to BLM officials, the backlogs--defined by
BLM as needs delayed 5 years or more--developed mainly because BLM was
harvesting large volumes of timber, which created reforestation needs.
The backlogs were eliminated through a combination of factors,
including reduced harvest levels, increased funding, and management
actions taken by BLM. Agency officials believe that because they are
keeping pace with their current reforestation and growth enhancement
needs, they are minimizing any potential adverse effects that could
result from carrying a backlog of unattended needs.
Background:
BLM is required to administer its western Oregon lands in accordance
with the Oregon and California Grant Lands Act of 1937. The act called
for permanent forest production and protection of watersheds, among
other things, on BLM's western Oregon lands. It also established an
initial upper limit of 500 million board feet of timber that could be
sold annually from these lands and directed BLM to adjust the limit,
based on the capacity of the land. Accordingly, BLM has adjusted the
limit several times--to 1,185 million board feet per year in 1983, 211
million board feet per year in 1995 with the advent of the Northwest
Forest Plan, and 203 million board feet per year in 1999, where it
remains today.[Footnote 11] To fund reforestation and growth
enhancement work, BLM relies mainly on funds it has allocated for its
reforestation and growth enhancement program--about $25 million in
2004. In addition, a small portion of such work is funded through other
sources, such as appropriations allocated for wildland fire
rehabilitation and the forest ecosystem health recovery fund.[Footnote
12]
BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Backlogs
in 2002:
For the 10-year period between 1995 and 2004, BLM reports that its
annual reforestation and growth enhancement needs on its western Oregon
lands generally decreased until 2002, after which annual treatments
kept pace with such needs, as shown in figure 8. A 1994 Interior
Inspector General report found that at the end of fiscal year 1993, BLM
had a backlog of over 50,000 acres of reforestation needs and over
220,000 acres of growth enhancement needs.[Footnote 13] According to a
BLM official, after the backlogs were identified, needs generally
decreased (for reasons noted in the following section) until both
backlogs were eliminated in 2002.[Footnote 14] Since 2002, BLM has kept
pace with its reforestation and growth enhancement needs on its western
Oregon lands, agency officials said.
Figure 8: BLM Western Oregon Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs
for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agency Officials Link Past Backlogs to Timber Harvests and Funding
Shortfall:
BLM's past backlogs developed primarily because timber harvests on its
western Oregon lands had risen sharply, causing related reforestation
and growth enhancement needs to increase, while funding allocated to
address the needs decreased rather than increasing in step with the
needs. Timber harvests on BLM's western Oregon lands were at their peak
in the late 1980s with over 1 billion board feet of timber sold
annually; causing a spike in reforestation and related needs. However,
unlike the Forest Service, BLM does not have the authority to use
timber revenues from standard timber sales for reforestation and growth
enhancement treatments. Instead, BLM relies on annual appropriations
from the Congress to fund such treatments. According to the Inspector
General's report, BLM had backlogs in its reforestation and growth
enhancement program because it did not request or receive sufficient
funding through the budget process to eliminate these backlogs and
because it used about $5.4 million of its forest program funds for
overhead costs not related to forestry. In addition, large wildland
fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s added to BLM's growing
reforestation needs, according to agency officials.
Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining Timber
Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management Actions:
Declining timber harvests, increased funding, and actions taken by BLM
combined to help eliminate the reforestation and growth enhancement
backlogs, according to agency officials. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, the volume of timber sold annually on BLM's western Oregon lands
decreased considerably--from a peak of 1,583 million board feet in 1986
to a low of 14 million board feet in 1994--and associated reforestation
needs decreased in parallel. According to BLM officials, the declining
timber harvests were largely a result of growing controversy
surrounding timber harvests and the protection of endangered species on
public land. Related litigation and judicial decisions hindered BLM
from harvesting timber on its lands. The controversy was addressed in
the Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994, which reduced the portion
of BLM's western Oregon lands to be managed primarily for timber. After
adoption of the plan, BLM reduced the upper limit on annual timber
sales from these lands to 211 million board feet. At the same time, BLM
modified its harvesting methods to rely less on clear-cutting and more
on thinning. Unlike clear-cut forests, the thinned forests did not need
to be reforested and required fewer growth enhancement treatments,
resulting in a further reduction of needs. While reforestation needs
were decreasing, BLM increased the funding it allocated for
reforestation and growth enhancement from about $23 million in 1995 to
about $26.5 million in 1996--an increase of about 15 percent. According
to agency officials, increased funding in 1996 and subsequent years
enabled BLM to treat more acres annually than it had done previously,
thereby reducing the backlogs.
In addition to declining timber harvests and increased funding, BLM
took several actions to help reduce its reforestation and growth
enhancement backlogs in response to the 1994 Inspector General's
report. First, officials in the reforestation and growth enhancement
program instituted measures to improve their data collection and
tracking so that they could accurately quantify the size of the
backlogs, locate the source of the backlogs, and track progress in
eliminating them. Second, BLM shifted its priorities, funding, and
resources to target the areas where the need was greatest. BLM
officials from all of the districts in western Oregon, as well as the
state office, came together to agree on a list of priorities for the
program, then targeted available funding and resources to the highest
priority needs. For example, they decided to place a higher priority on
maintaining existing timber stands than on planting new stands, because
maintenance needs made up the greatest portion of the backlog. Adhering
to the prioritization scheme helped address the backlog, according to
an agency official, but required staff to have fluid roles. Finally,
BLM officials analyzed treatment costs per acre in each district and
identified best practices to optimize their investments of scarce
resources. For example, one district identified cost-saving forestry
techniques for thinning, while another identified lower-cost
contracting procedures. BLM then standardized these practices across
all western Oregon districts.
BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with
Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs:
Because BLM has been keeping pace with its reforestation and growth
enhancement needs on its western Oregon lands since 2002, it is
preventing any adverse effects that could result from a backlog of
needs, according to agency officials.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To examine the trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, we reviewed the Forest Service and BLM programs
because most of the nation's reforestation and timber stand improvement
activities are managed by these two agencies. We focused our work
primarily on the Forest Service's program because it is larger than
BLM's and its forests cover a broader cross-section of the country.
During 2004, we visited the following four Forest Service regions and
one national forest in each region: Northern, Pacific Northwest,
Pacific Southwest, and Southern. These regions were selected because
they had the highest reported reforestation or timber stand improvement
needs for fiscal years 2000 to 2003.[Footnote 15] We obtained and
analyzed 10 years of national data, from fiscal years 1995 through
2004, on the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs and treatments from the agency's Timber Activity
Control System for Silvicultural Activities (TRACS-SILVA).[Footnote 16]
We assessed the reliability of the data by examining the TRACS-SILVA
system as well as the regional data systems of the four regions we
visited, which provide the source data for the national TRACS-SILVA
system. To understand what standards, procedures, and internal controls
are in place for collecting, reporting, and verifying needs--and to
assess the accuracy and completeness of the TRACS-SILVA data--we
conducted structured interviews with headquarters, regional, and forest-
level officials who enter data into the data systems, maintain the
systems, and prepare reports using data from the systems. We performed
basic electronic testing on some of the data and reviewed manuals and
other documents describing the systems, such as flowcharts and data
dictionaries. To obtain information about the new agency-wide data
system, known as the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS),
we interviewed agency officials involved in its implementation and
reviewed information on the system's data management functions,
procedures, and applications.
To corroborate the TRACS-SILVA data, we obtained information about
trends in the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs from additional sources. Specifically, we interviewed
agency program officials and data experts in headquarters as well as in
each regional and forest office that we visited to discuss the trends
in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, and we visited
sites where reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments were
needed. In addition, we reviewed agency reports and testimony written
by foresters, budget officials, and researchers. We also reviewed
nongovernmental studies and contacted outside experts to discuss these
trends. Based on our review, we determined that the Forest Service
data--when combined with other information we examined--are
sufficiently reliable to identify general trend information, but we
have concerns about whether these data accurately quantify the acreage
of land needing reforestation and timber stand improvement.
To identify the factors that have contributed to reforestation and
timber stand improvement trends, we interviewed Forest Service
officials in headquarters and the regional and national forest offices
we visited. We also contacted an agency official in the Southwestern
Region. We reviewed headquarters and regional reports on factors
contributing to reforestation and timber stand improvement trends as
well as reports from the Forest Service's research station in the Rocky
Mountain region and supplemented this information by interviewing
researchers there. We obtained Forest Service data on timber harvests,
wildland fires, and insect infestations during the last decade and
conducted limited reliability assessments on these data. We also
interviewed experts from nongovernmental organizations and reviewed
publications from the organizations.
To determine the potential effects of the Forest Service's
reforestation and timber stand improvement trends identified by the
agency's land managers, we interviewed agency officials (including
ecologists and silviculturists) in headquarters, regional, and national
forest offices. We visited the sites of ongoing and completed
reforestation and timber stand improvement projects in four national
forests and discussed the potential effects of delaying treatments with
local Forest Service officials. We interviewed Forest Service research
program officials as well as scientific and technical experts at Forest
Service research stations in Arizona and Montana and at nongovernmental
organizations. We also reviewed select governmental and nongovernmental
publications, including scientific studies that discuss potential
effects of delaying reforestation and timber stand improvement
treatments and interviewed some of the authors.
We limited our review of BLM to its western Oregon lands because they
are central to the agency's forest development program and because BLM
does not systematically track reforestation data for its other lands.
We obtained and analyzed 10 years of data, from 1995 through 2004, on
the BLM's reforestation and growth enhancement needs in western Oregon.
We performed a limited reliability assessment of these data and BLM's
reporting system through discussions with BLM headquarters officials
and a structured interview with officials at BLM's state office in
Portland, Oregon, which oversees BLM's western Oregon lands. We
supplemented these efforts by gathering other relevant documents and
reports issued by the department of the Interior's Inspector General.
We determined that the BLM data were sufficiently reliable to use them
descriptively in appendix 1 of this report. To determine the factors
contributing to BLM's reforestation and forest development trends and
to identify potential effects of the trends identified by the agency's
land managers, we interviewed BLM officials in Oregon and reviewed
relevant BLM and Inspector General reports.
We conducted our work from June 2004 through March 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1420
Date: March 25, 2005:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, GAO-05-374, "Forest
Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize
Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs." The report
recognizes that reforestation and timber stand improvement data, when
combined with other information, are sufficiently reliable to portray a
general trend of increasing needs. The report acknowledges the
influence of recent severe wildfires on reforestation needs and the
expanded scope of timber stand improvement work needed to meet
objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as improving wildlife
habitat or thinning to reduce the risk of losses from future wildfires.
The report also identifies the agency's need to standardize collection,
reporting and review procedures, and to clarify agency-wide guidance to
standardize the definition of needs. It also identified the need to
require Forest Service regions to validate their reforestation and
timber stand improvement data in time for the agency's fiscal year 2007
appropriations request; clarify reforestation and timber stand
improvement program direction as it relates to the agency's emphasis on
ecosystem management under a constrained budget environment; and to
require Forest Service regions to establish criteria for prioritizing
the use of funds for reforestation and timber stand improvement work.
Thus, the Forest Service concurs with the audit findings and
recommendations. Preparation of an action plan to address GAO's
recommendations is in progress.
If you have any technical questions regarding this audit, please
contact Frank Burch, Ecosystem and Planning Team, at (202) 205-0946.
For general questions regarding the audit, please contact Sandy T.
Coleman, Agency Audit Liaison, at (703) 605-4940.
Sincerely,
Signed by
Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:
cc: Christine Roye:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
March 31, 2005:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
entitled Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-
374).
Although the report focuses on the Forest Service and has
recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is discussed in Appendix 1. The BLM has the following
general and specific comments.
General Comment:
The BLM agrees with the findings and recommendations, as they relate to
the BLM.
Specific Comment:
Page 1 of Appendix 1: The sentence, "We confined our review of BLM to
its O&C lands because the majority of BLM's reforestation and related
forest health efforts are focused there...", could be clarified to
reflect that the BLM's forest health efforts encompass both the Oregon
and California Grant Lands in western Oregon and the public domain
forestry program on 53 million acres of BLM-managed forests and
woodlands outside of western Oregon. The sentence could be revised by
striking "related forest health" or replacing that phrase with "related
forest development treatment." Either approach would clarify the
sentence and recognize the BLM's forest health efforts outside of
western Oregon.
The BLM and the Department of the Interior appreciate the work that you
do to improve the management of the public land and mineral resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
If you have any questions, please contact Andrea Nygren, BLM Audit
Liaison Officer, on 202-452-5153, or Kenny McDaniel, Senior Forester,
on 202-452-5097.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Rebecca W. Watson:
Assistant Secretary:
Land and Minerals Management:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841:
David P. Bixler, (202) 512-7201:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Other individuals making key contributions to this report were Bill
Bates, Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Sandra Edwards, Omari Norman,
Cynthia Norris, and Jay Smale.
(360482):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Shortly after the Forest Service reported its backlog, the Congress
enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974, requiring the Forest Service to annually request funds for an
orderly program to eliminate backlogs in all Forest Service renewable
resource programs. This act was amended by NFMA, which contains more
specific direction to address the elimination of reforestation backlogs.
[2] The National Forest System appropriation provides the funds for the
stewardship and management of Forest Service lands.
[3] The Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576-576b) established
a trust fund to collect a portion of timber sale receipts to pay for
reforesting areas from which timber is cut. The reforestation projects
eligible for such funding include growing trees for planting, planting
trees, sowing seeds, removing weeds and other competing vegetation, and
preventing animals from damaging new trees. The act was amended in 1976
to allow the Forest Service to use these funds for other activities,
such as creating wildlife habitat.
[4] In 2001, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed
a National Fire Plan with state and local agencies and tribal
governments to provide technical and financial resources to reduce the
risk to communities and ecosystems from wildland fire, in part, by
reducing hazardous fuels by thinning trees--one type of timber stand
improvement treatment.
[5] Prior to 1996, the Northern Region allowed use of only a single
type of site examination--timber stand improvement pretreatment
examination--to prescribe a timber stand improvement treatment. In
1996, the region changed its policy to allow the use of other, less
rigorous examinations.
[6] Surveys and Investigations Staff of House Committee on
Appropriations, 99th Cong., A Report to the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives on the 10-Year Reforestation Backlog
Elimination Program of the U.S. Forest Service (1985).
[7] See Department of Agriculture, Performance and Accountability
Report for FY 2003: Appendix A-Management Challenges, (Washington,
D.C.: September 2003), p. 264; Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Density Management: Recent
History and Trends for the Pacific Northwest Region, R6-NR-TM-TP-05-01
(Portland, Oregon, 2001); and GAO, Forest Service: Better Reporting
Needed on Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement, GAO/RCED-91-71
(Washington, D.C.: March 15, 1991).
[8] These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not
just Forest Service land.
[9] BLM manages approximately 2.1 million acres of Oregon and
California (O&C) lands, 75,000 acres of revested Coos Bay Wagon Road
lands, and additional intermingled public domain lands in western
Oregon. The Forest Service manages another 492,399 acres of O&C lands
in Oregon.
[10] BLM's growth enhancement activities are similar to the Forest
Service's timber stand improvement activities. BLM includes thinning,
pruning, fertilization, and one type of release treatment under the
heading of growth enhancement, but another type of release treatment--
one that is essential for seedling survival--is included under BLM's
reforestation program.
[11] The Northwest Forest Plan is a long-term management plan designed
to provide a stable supply of timber while also protecting fish and
wildlife habitat for 22.1 million acres of federal forest in western
Oregon, western Washington, and northern California (including 2.7
million acres of BLM-administered forests and 19.4 million acres of
Forest Service-administered forest).
[12] The forest ecosystem health recovery fund is a permanent operating
account that collects revenues from timber sales held for forest health
reasons, such as removing dead and down timber or thinning a forest to
reduce hazardous fuels.
[13] See Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Forestry Operations in Western Oregon, Bureau of Land
Management, Report No. 94-I-359 (Washington, D.C.: February 1994).
[14] According to a BLM official, there are still some deferred
fertilization needs, but the needs cannot be addressed because the
agency is prohibited from conducting such activities by a judicial stay
related to restrictions on the use of fertilizer.
[15] At the time we began our review, 2003 data were the most current
available.
[16] Our review of the TRACS-SILVA system was limited to the portion of
the system that reports reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs and accomplishments.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
