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 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-586T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Forests and 

Forest Health, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives 

April 2005

FOREST SERVICE

Better Data and Clear Priorities Are 

Needed to Address Increasing 

Reforestation and Timber Stand 

Improvement Needs 

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 highdensity 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. 

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 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. 
Page 1 GAO-05-586T 

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.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. 

 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). 
Page 2 GAO-05-586T 

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 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-05-586T 

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. 

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 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-586T 

a backlog on lands available for timber production.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 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. 

 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. 

Forest Service 

Reports Increasing 

Reforestation and 

Timber Stand 

Improvement Needs, 

but Inconsistent 

Definitions and Data 

Make It Difficult to 

Accurately Quantify 

Its Needs 
Page 5 GAO-05-586T 

Figure 1: Forest Service’s Reported Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement 

Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 

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. 

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 

The Forest Service Reports 

Increasing Needs 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Timber stand improvement needs

Reforestation needs

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Thousands of acres

Source: Forest Service data.
Page 6 GAO-05-586T 

needs since 1995, which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis 

on thinning treatments associated with the National Fire Plan.3

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 

 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. 

Forest Service Data Are 

Not Sufficient to 

Accurately Quantify the 

Agency’s Needs 
Page 7 GAO-05-586T 

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. 

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 1998.4

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 1999.5

 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 

 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. 

Agency Officials Link 

Natural Causes and 

Management 

Decisions to 

Increasing 

Reforestation and 

Timber Stand 

Improvement Needs 
Page 8 GAO-05-586T 

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. 

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. 

Agency Officials Cite 

Adverse Effects That 

Could Result If Needs 

Are Not Addressed, 

but Have Not 

Positioned the Agency 

to Manage Such 

Effects 
Page 9 GAO-05-586T 

The Forest Service’s ability to meet the management objectives defined in 

its forest plans6

—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. 

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 

 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. 

Achievement of 

Management Objectives 

Could Be Impaired; 

Treatment Costs Could 

Increase; and Forests 

Could Become More 

Vulnerable to Fire, Insects, 

and Disease 

Forest Service Is Not Well 

Positioned to Manage 

Potential Effects of 

Increasing Needs 
Page 10 GAO-05-586T 

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. 

Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and timber 

stand improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not developed a Conclusions 
Page 11 GAO-05-586T 

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. 

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. 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360561) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER