Forest Service
Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Gao ID: GAO-05-586T April 27, 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 Forest Service officials have identified. This testimony is based on GAO's report Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement has been generally 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 and disease. 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.
GAO-05-586T, Forest Service: Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-586T
entitled 'Forest Service: Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed
to Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs'
which was released on April 27, 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 27, 2005:
Forest Service:
Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing
Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-05-586T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-586T, testimony before the 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 Forest Service officials have
identified. This testimony is based on GAO‘s report Forest Service:
Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.
What GAO Found:
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement has been generally 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 and
disease. 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:
In its report, GAO recommended 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 the report,
the Forest Service agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-586T].
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
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Last March, the agency
reported to this Subcommittee that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000
acres of land needing reforestation. Reforestation, whether it is
achieved by planting trees or letting them naturally regenerate, 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 efforts, as well as the overall health of the
forests, often depends upon subsequent timber stand improvement
treatments, such as 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 the Forest
Service's program objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,
enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.
My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released today
on the (1) reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and
timber stand improvement, (2) factors that have contributed to these
trends, and (3) potential effects of these trends that Forest Service
officials have identified.[Footnote 1] In conducting our review, we
analyzed Forest Service data for 1995 through 2004, interviewed agency
officials at all levels, and visited four regions with the largest
reported reforestation or timber stand improvement needs. We focused on
the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement program
because this program, which covers 155 national forests, is the largest
one administered by a federal land management agency. In 2004, for
example, the Forest Service reported reforesting more than 150,000
acres nationwide, while the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the
Department of the Interior, which has the second-largest program,
reported reforesting less than 20,000 acres. While our work included a
limited review of BLM's program, my testimony today centers on our
findings about the Forest Service's program because we found no
significant issues to report concerning BLM.
Summary:
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according
to Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well
as other studies. Much of the increase in reforestation needs occurred
in western regions, where needs associated with natural disturbances,
such as wildland fires, began to increase dramatically in 2000. 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 treatment needs, establish priorities
among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data are limited in part
because Forest Service regions and forests define their needs
differently, and some do not systematically update their data to
reflect current forest conditions or review their data's accuracy.
Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is
implementing a new data system to better track its needs. However,
while helpful, taking this action alone will not resolve the data
problems we have identified without making changes to agency policies
and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs are defined, reported, and validated.
According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs are
accumulating because of the increasing acreage of land affected by
natural disturbances--such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and
diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from
timber harvests, and timber sales produced enough revenue to pay for
most of the related reforestation needs. Since 2000, however, needs
have been resulting mainly from natural disturbances, and funding
sources to pay for such needs have remained relatively stable rather
than rising in step with the increasing needs. For timber stand
improvement, agency officials said that needs are increasing in part
because managers in some Forest Service regions do not emphasize these
treatments. They believe reforestation treatments--which generally
must be completed within 5 years after harvesting trees--are more
important than timber stand improvement treatments. Another reason for
the reported increase in the acreage needing attention is that high-
density planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested
trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments 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 their ability to achieve forest
management objectives, such as protecting wildlife habitat, may be
impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more
susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. For example, forest
management objectives could be impaired if an area previously dominated
by forests became dominated by shrub fields, compromising wildlife
habitat, recreation, and timber value. While Forest Service officials
expressed concern about these potential harmful effects of delaying
projects, the agency has not adjusted 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 did acknowledge the need to make such
changes.
In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct
the Chief of the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the
agency's ability to identify its reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs and ensure funding for its most critical projects. In
commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service agreed with our
findings and recommendations and stated it was preparing an action plan
to address the recommendations.
Background:
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, maintaining water quality, and
ensuring sustainable timber production. To achieve these objectives
after timber harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest
Service staff identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific
treatments. For reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow
the sites to regenerate naturally as existing trees reseed the area.
The latter approach sometimes requires the sites to be prepared by
removing unwanted vegetation that could compete with young seedlings.
As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest
needing timber stand improvement and plan specific treatments. These
treatments are intended to provide better growing conditions for trees
and include activities such as removing competing vegetation and
thinning forests when trees are too crowded.
In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand
improvement backlog affecting 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 2] 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.
The Forest Service's implementation, management, and oversight of the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized.
Its headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and provide
technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various aspects
of the program. District office staff within these national forests are
responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs, planning treatments to address the needs, and accomplishing the
treatments. Although the Forest Service's Director of Forest Management
in headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-wide reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the standards and
procedures for collecting and reporting these data are decentralized.
Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It
Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs:
Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing
trend in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the
last 5 years, as shown in figure 1. 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.
Although the Forest Service is developing a new national data system,
the agency does not anticipate making significant changes to its
policies and practices to improve the quality of the data.
Figure 1: Forest Service's Reported Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in
reforestation and 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, these data
cannot be used to accurately quantify the agency's reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs.
[End of figure]
The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs:
Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of agency
lands needing reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995
and 1999 but then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004. Much of
the recent increase in reforestation needs occurred in Forest Service
regions located in western states. Officials from three of the four
regions we visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest, and Pacific
Southwest Regions) expressed concern about the increasing level of
their reforestation needs relative to their future ability to meet
these needs. With respect to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest
Service reports that the acreage of its lands needing such treatments
increased most years since 1995. While nationwide timber stand
improvement needs generally have been increasing, some regions have
reported stable or decreasing trends. For example, the Pacific
Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing needs since 1995,
which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis on thinning
treatments associated with the National Fire Plan.[Footnote 3]
Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the
Agency's Needs:
The Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement 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 fires--are sufficiently reliable for
identifying relative trends in needs. 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 for
several reasons.
* First, Forest Service regions and forests define their needs
differently. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports
reforestation needs 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 the timber is
harvested.
* Second, 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. In cases where the needs are based on estimates--for
example after a wildland fire--the reported needs may not always be
adjusted after the actual needs are known.
* Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the data to
reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data.
Moreover, some regions cannot link reported needs to distinct forest
locations, making it difficult for them to detect obsolete needs and
update the data.
* Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not conducted reviews
in the last decade to ensure that the data reflect on-the-ground
conditions.
These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs
reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and
cannot be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many
of these data problems are long-standing and may not be adequately
addressed when the Forest Service implements a new data system later
this year. Although the new system will replace individual district,
forest, and regional systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-
wide database, the quality of the data used in the new system will not
improve unless the Forest Service addresses how reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs are defined, interpreted, and reported.
Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems and are preparing
an action plan to address them.
Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to
Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs:
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, harvested less timber. Timber
harvests, which provided sufficient revenue to pay for related
reforestation needs, are no longer the main source of such needs.
According to Forest Service reports, beginning around 2000, the acreage
burned in wildland fires and damaged by insects and diseases annually
began to increase significantly, leaving thousands of acres needing
reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres
in 2000, compared with about 2.3 million acres in 1998.[Footnote 4]
Similarly, the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases increased
significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest affected in 2003,
compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999.[Footnote 5] 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.
For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that management
practices have been the primary factor contributing to the increase in
acreage needing treatment. For example, some regions prioritize funding
for reforestation treatments over timber stand improvement treatments
and consequently do not treat timber stand improvement needs as quickly
as they are accumulating. These regions follow this practice 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. National timber stand improvement needs also are
increasing because 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. Finally, 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 so that as the trees grew,
the agency could keep the largest and healthiest of them for
cultivating, and thin out the others. Consequently, many stands that
were planted 15 or 20 years ago now need thinning, according to agency
officials.
Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are
Not Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage Such
Effects:
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
accumulate in the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace
with the needs, the agency will likely have to postpone some treatment
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 its direction and
priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program
to reflect this concern and the current context in which the program
operates.
Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment Costs
Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to Fire,
Insects, and Disease:
The Forest Service's ability to meet the management objectives defined
in its forest plans[Footnote 6]--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, an area previously dominated by forests could
become dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife habitat,
recreation, and timber value. Such a situation developed in the Tahoe
National Forest, where about 750 acres were cleared by a 1924 wildland
fire and replaced by shrubs that remained until agency officials
replanted the area in 1964--40 years later.
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed
in a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because
removing competing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation
and timber stand improvement projects, will become more costly as the
vegetation grows. In addition, forests would likely become 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. When thinning needs are left
unattended, experts believe the tightly-spaced trees fuel wildland
fires, causing the fires to spread rapidly and increasing the
likelihood of unusually large fires that create widespread destruction.
In addition, densely populated forests tend to be stressed because the
trees compete with one another for sunlight, water, and nutrients. When
insects or diseases infect such forests, they can spread rapidly.
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 the present context in which the program
operates. Over the past decade, 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. The
agency, however, 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.
While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there
remains a lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more
specifically, about the direction and goals for the reforestation and
timber stand improvement program, according to agency officials. When
timber production was the emphasis, program direction was clearly
focused, whereas in the current environment, it is less so.
Reforestation and timber stand improvement projects now are done for
multiple purposes--such as improving wildlife habitat, protecting
streams, and reducing susceptibility to wildland fires--but it is
unclear which 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 objectives are expressed in
vague or contradictory language, according to agency officials. The
plans are intended to help guide decisions, such as which reforestation
techniques to use, but agency officials said it can be difficult to
interpret the plans because of the problematic language.
In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are
priorities, policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect
outdated management emphasis. For example, a 2001 report had
recommended that the Pacific Northwest region change its priorities by
diverting some of its reforestation funds to pay for timber stand
improvement. Doing so could help reduce the impacts of wildland fire,
and thereby reduce the reforestation needs created by such fires, the
report argued. Nevertheless, regional officials we talked with did not
all agree with the recommendation, and the region has instead continued
to prioritize reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has
done since the inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the
Pacific Southwest region, when officials reforest an area, they almost
always rely on planting--a more expensive method than natural
regeneration. This approach may have been appropriate when timber
production was the emphasis and timber revenues were higher, because
natural regeneration can be slower and less productive than planting.
However, the region continues to avoid natural regeneration because
they have always done so and, according to agency officials, this
practice has been reinforced by the regional culture.
Conclusions:
Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not
developed a tally of these needs that accurately reflects the condition
of our national forests. While we recognize that the systematic
collection of accurate data may take resources away from reforestation
and timber stand improvements in the short-term, such an investment
could lay the foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible
picture of our forests' needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new
agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the
opportunity to improve the consistency and accuracy with which its data
reflect on-the-ground conditions in our national forests. Consistent,
accurate data would help the agency to build a well-founded budget case
for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current,
fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not
always be funded. The agency needs to update its goals and policies for
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect the
current fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on
ecosystem management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the
Forest Service to identify the best investments to minimize adverse
effects on the lasting health and productivity of our national forests.
To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the
Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to
standardize guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs and improve the data's accuracy in time for
congressional deliberation on the Forest Service's 2007 appropriations
request. We further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to
clarify the program direction and policies, and establish criteria for
prioritizing the agency's use of program funds. The Forest Service, on
behalf of the Department of Agriculture, concurred with our findings
and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Bill Bates, David P. Bixler,
Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena
Sinkfield, and Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs, GAO-05-374
(Washington D.C.: April 15, 2005).
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not
just Forest Service land.
[5] These numbers include all forested lands under federal, state, and
other ownership, not just Forest Service land.
[6] 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.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
