a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

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

GAO-05-374
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-374.

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 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-374, a 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 

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 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. 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 federal land managers have 

identified. 

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. 
Page i GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand 

Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make 

It Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs 9

Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to 

Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement

Needs 19

Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If 

Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not 

Addressed 25

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation and Related 

Forest Health Trends in Western Oregon 35

Background 36

BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation and Growth Enhancement 

Backlogs in 2002 36

Agency Officials Link Past Backlogs to Timber Harvests and Funding 

Shortfall 37

Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining 

Timber Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management

Actions 38

BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with 

Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs 39

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 43

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior 44

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 46

GAO Contacts 46

Staff Acknowledgments 46

Table Table 1: Forest Service Reforestation and Timber Stand 

Improvement Treatments 6
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figures Figure 1: Map of Forest Service Regions Indicating Regions Visited 

by GAO 8

Figure 2: Forest Service’s Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal 

Years 1995 through 2004 11

Figure 3: Forest Service’s Reported Timber Stand Improvement 

Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 13

Figure 4: Volume of Timber Harvested from Forest Service Lands 

for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 20

Figure 5: Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on 

Forested Lands Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through 

2003 21

Figure 6: Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation 

and Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2004 22

Figure 7: Shrubfields Persisted 40 Years after a Wildland Fire in 

Tahoe National Forest 26

Figure 8: BLM Western Oregon Reforestation and Growth 

Enhancement Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 

2004 37

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NFMA National Forest Management Act

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.
Page 1 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 15, 2005 Letr

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.
Page 2 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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.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 

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.
Page 3 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 4 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 highdensity 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 
Page 5 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 6 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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

Source: GAO interpretation of Forest Service information.

Forestry treatments Treatment description

Reforestation

Planting 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. 

Seeding Foresters directly apply seed collected from known seed sources to prepared sites 

when conditions are favorable.

Natural regeneration with site preparation Foresters remove vegetation that could compete with young seedlings, as well as 

other debris, then allow existing trees to naturally seed the area.

Natural regeneration without site preparation 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.

Timber stand Improvement

Release treatments Foresters remove competing vegetation near seedlings or young trees to improve 

the chances of survival and health.

Precommercial thinning Foresters remove trees from forests that are overly dense. In such treatments, the 

trees removed are too small to sell as commercial timber.

Fertilizing Foresters apply nutrients to increase tree growth or to overcome a nutrient 

deficiency in the soil.

Pruning 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.
Page 7 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 program2

 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.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 

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.
Page 8 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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

Note: The Forest Service does not have a region 7. Highlighted regions are those we visited.

Source: Forest Service.

Region 5

Pacific Southwest

Region 6

Pacific Northwest

Region 4

Intermountain

Region 1

Northern

Region 2

Rocky Mountain Region 9

Eastern

Region 8

Southern

Region 3

Southwestern

Region 10

Alaska Puerto Rico
Page 9 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 10 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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.
Page 11 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figure 2: Forest Service’s Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

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.

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 2004.4

 Officials at two of the four regions we visited, 

0

600

700

800

900

1,000

100

200

300

400

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service data.

Thousands of acres

2002 2003 2004

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.
Page 12 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 13 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figure 3: Forest Service’s Reported Timber Stand Improvement Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

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.

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 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service data.

Thousands of acres

2002 2003 2004
Page 14 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 15 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

region redefined the methods for justifying a timber stand improvement 

need.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 

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.
Page 16 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 17 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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.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

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).
Page 18 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

additional standardization.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 agencywide 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 

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-TP05-01 (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).
Page 19 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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.
Page 20 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figure 4: Volume of Timber Harvested from Forest Service Lands for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

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 1998.8

 

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.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

Billion board feet

Source: Forest Service data.

2002 2003 2004

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

8

These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not just Forest Service 

land. 
Page 21 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figure 5: Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on Forested Lands 

Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003

Note: These numbers include all forested lands under federal, state, and other ownership, not just 

Forest Service land.

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. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service.

Millions of acres
Page 22 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Figure 6: Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2004

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.

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 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Dollars in millions

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

2002 2003 2004

Source: Forest Service data.
Page 23 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 24 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 25 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 welladapted 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, 
Page 26 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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

Source: USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-248, 2003.
Page 27 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 28 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 29 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 
Page 30 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 31 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Page 32 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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:
Page 33 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

• standardize collection, reporting, and review procedures for data on 

reforestation and timber stand improvement needs by clarifying agencywide 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 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 34 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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,

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 35 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation Apendxies

and Related Forest Health Trends in Western 

Oregon ApendxiI

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,1

 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 treatments2

 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.

1

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.

2

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. 
Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation 

and Related Forest Health Trends in Western 

Oregon

Page 36 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement 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.3

 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.4

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.5

 According to a BLM official, after the backlogs were 

identified, needs generally decreased (for reasons noted in

3

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 Serviceadministered forest).

4

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.

5

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).
Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation 

and Related Forest Health Trends in Western 

Oregon

Page 37 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

the following section) until both backlogs were eliminated in 2002.6 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

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 

6

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. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

Source: BLM.

Thousands of acres

2002 2003 2004
Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation 

and Related Forest Health Trends in Western 

Oregon

Page 38 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation 

and Related Forest Health Trends in Western 

Oregon

Page 39 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 costsaving 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.
Page 40 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

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 2003.1

 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).2

 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 

1

At the time we began our review, 2003 data were the most current available. 

2

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.
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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.
Page 43 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiI
Page 44 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 45 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
Page 46 GAO-05-374 Forest Service’s Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

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)
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