Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
Published: 2005-04-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement generally has been increasing since 2000, according to Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data's reliability is limited in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data problems GAO has identified. According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For timber stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part because high-density planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today and because treatments have not kept pace with the growing needs. Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency's ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat--one forest management objective--could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species that provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing vegetation--which must be removed to allow newly reforested stands to survive--grows larger over time and becomes more costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack. While agency officials expressed concern about these potential effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however, acknowledge the need to make such changes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In March 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a  backlog of about 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation.  Reforestation—the planting and natural regeneration of trees—is critical to  restoring and improving the health of our national forests after timber  harvests, as well as after natural disturbances such as wildland fires,  outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations. The success of reforestation, as  well as the overall health of the forests, often depends upon subsequent  timber stand improvement treatments, such as thinning trees and removing  competing vegetation to allow seedlings to survive. In some parts of the  country, without active intervention, it may take decades for disturbed land  to return to a forested condition. In other parts, trees may naturally return  soon after a disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent  with Forest Service program objectives. Historically, the Forest Service’s  reforestation and timber stand improvement program focused on  maximizing timber production. Now, however, the program is intended to  achieve a variety of objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,  enhancing recreational opportunities, maintaining water quality, and  ensuring sustainable timber production. For example, reforestation can  improve wildlife habitat by providing forest cover for species like the  black-tailed deer and timber stand improvement can make forests less  susceptible to wildland fires by removing brush that fuels the fires. The  Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility  for both reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments in 155  national forests. The agency manages 192 million acres of federal land and  has a stewardship responsibility to maintain the health, productivity, and  diversity of the national forests on this land.
In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand  improvement backlog that affected 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To  address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the National  Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to  annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of  a backlog on lands available for timber production. The Forest Service  primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas  where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual  appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In 1980,  the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded  through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding  for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help  eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had  virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.
With the 2004 announcement of a new backlog, you asked us to (1)  examine the reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and  timber stand improvement, (2) identify the factors that have contributed to  these trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of these trends that  federal land managers have identified. This report focuses primarily on the  Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement program  because it is the largest one managed by a federal land management agency  and covers the broadest cross section of the country. The Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior also has  responsibility for reforestation and timber stand improvement on federal  lands, but its program is much smaller than the Forest Service’s. In 2003,  for example, the Forest Service reported reforesting more than 160,000  acres of federal land nationwide, while BLM reported reforesting less than  11,000 acres, with the majority of this activity occurring in western Oregon.  The results of our limited review of BLM’s program are summarized in  appendix I.
To examine the trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber  stand improvement, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service data for the  10 years between 1995 and 2004, analyzed applicable statutes and agency  regulations, and interviewed agency officials and other experts about these  trends. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service documents,  including database manuals and agency-wide and regional procedures for  gathering and reporting data related to reforestation and timber stand  improvement. To identify factors that have contributed to reforestation and  timber stand improvement trends and describe potential effects identified  by federal land managers, we reviewed internal Forest Service reports, as  well as other studies, and interviewed agency officials in both headquarters  and selected regions. We also visited four regions with the largest reported  reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and national forests  within these regions. We conducted our work from June 2004 to March  2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Appendix II provides further details about the scope and  methodology of our review.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement program  shapes our national forests as well as their associated plant and animal  communities through treatments that establish, develop, and care for trees  over their lifetime. Under NFMA, each national forest is required to have a  forest management plan describing the agency’s objectives for the forest,  including those related to reforestation and timber stand improvement.
To achieve these management objectives after a timber harvest or natural  event that damages forests, Forest Service staff identify areas needing  reforestation and visit forest locations to plan a specific sequence of  treatments needed, known as a prescription. The prescription directs how  many young trees must be reestablished and the proper mix of vegetation  necessary to achieve specific objectives in the forest plan, such as  maintaining wildlife habitat. Reforestation prescriptions may call for  planting or natural regeneration, as outlined in table 1. To plant a site,  Forest Service staff order seedlings from a nursery up to 3 years in advance  of planting to allow enough time for them to grow, then plant the seedlings  when conditions are favorable. For natural regeneration, agency staff allow  seeds from trees left on the site or nearby trees to germinate and grow,  which sometimes requires removing unwanted vegetation and surface  debris to improve the likelihood that the trees will survive or accelerate  their growth.
As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest needing  timber stand improvement and prepare prescriptions. Timber stand  improvement prescriptions are intended to improve growing conditions for  trees in a stand and typically call for treatments such as release or thinning,  as outlined in table 1. To conduct a release treatment, Forest Service staff  remove competing vegetation to allow seedlings to grow; and to thin a  stand, agency staff remove some trees to accelerate the growth of the  remaining trees or to improve forest health.
Reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments are funded by  various sources, principally congressional appropriations and trust funds.  Congressional appropriations that fund this work include moneys allocated  from the National Forest System appropriation to the reforestation and  timber stand improvement program 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. While Knutson-Vandenberg  funds are a dedicated source of funding for reforesting harvested lands,  work in areas destroyed by natural causes, such as wildland fire, is  generally funded through the National Forest System appropriation and a  portion of the Reforestation Trust Fund. Reforestation Trust Fund receipts  are generated by tariffs on imported wood products, and by law, moneys  transferred into this fund for the Forest Service’s use are limited to $30  million each fiscal year. Other sources of funds, such as gifts, bequests, and  partnerships, also fund reforestation and timber stand improvement  treatments.
The Forest Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized.  Forest Service headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and  provide technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various aspects  of the program. These national forest offices, in turn, provide general  oversight to more than 600 district offices, several of which are located in  each national forest. The district offices plan, fund, and manage  reforestation and timber stand improvement projects, and the managers of  these offices have considerable discretion in interpreting and applying the  agency’s policies and selecting projects to fund. District office staff are  responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs, developing prescriptions to address these needs, and accomplishing  the work. Figure 1 shows a map of the Forest Service regions and  highlights the regions we visited.
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.
section_title: Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs
paragraphs: 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.
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. Officials at two of the four regions we visited,  the Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions, told us they were concerned  about the overall increasing level of their timber stand improvement needs.  Timber stand improvement needs reported by the Forest Service’s Pacific  Northwest region—covering all of Washington and Oregon—were the  highest of any region during 4 of the last 5 years. According to officials in  the Pacific Northwest region, timber stand improvement needs have  accumulated, in part, due to placing a lower priority on such treatments  than on reforestation and because many stands in which high-density tree  planting practices were used to replace harvested trees during the early  1990s are now in need of thinning. While nationwide timber stand  improvement needs generally have been increasing over time, some  regions have reported stable or decreasing trends. For example, in the  Southern Region, reported timber stand improvement needs have been  relatively stable over the last 10 years, while the Pacific Southwest Region  has reported slightly decreasing needs since 1995. According to officials in  the Pacific Southwest Region, they have less need for timber stand  improvement projects because they plant fewer trees as the result of  reduced timber harvests. They have increased their ability to meet these  needs by emphasizing projects that are eligible for funding under the  National Fire Plan because they contribute to hazardous fuels reduction  goals.
section_title: Forest Service Data Are Inconsistent Across Regions and Inadequate to Accurately Quantify Needs
paragraphs: The Forest Service data, when combined with other information from  Forest Service officials and nongovernmental experts—as well as data on  recent increases in natural disturbances such as wildland fire—are  sufficiently reliable for identifying relative trend information. However, we  have concerns about the use of these data in quantifying the acreage of  Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement  treatments because the reported data are inconsistent and insufficiently  reliable for this purpose. These data are not sufficiently reliable because  Forest Service regions define needs differently, influencing the volume of  needs reported, and vary in their ability to link needs to forest locations,  making it difficult to detect obsolete needs and update the data to reflect  current on-the-ground conditions. Additionally, the data are a mixture of  actual needs and estimates and may not be routinely reviewed for accuracy.  As a result, the needs reported at the regional level cannot be meaningfully  aggregated at the national level. Many of these data problems are long  standing and may not be adequately addressed when the Forest Service  implements a new data system. Without better data, Forest Service officials  said, it is difficult to provide the Congress with estimates of the funding  needed to prevent a backlog of reforestation and timber stand  improvement needs. Additionally, agency officials said that given  constrained resources and competing priorities they focus more on  performing the treatments than accurately identifying and reporting  reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
subsections: section_title: Regions Use Inconsistent Definitions of Need
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s nine regions have independently developed their own  data collection systems and do not all use the same definitions of need,  influencing the volume of needs reported. As shown by the following  examples from three of the four regions we visited, we found inconsistent  criteria for assessing the need for reforestation or timber stand  improvement between regions, among forests within regions, and over  time.
The Pacific Southwest Region reports a reforestation need in areas  where it anticipates a timber harvest, even though the forest is still fully  stocked with trees, while other regions we visited do not report a need  until after timber is harvested and the last log has been removed from  the sale area.
In the Northern Region, forests share common definitions of need and  do not report acres of burned land as needing reforestation if they plan  to allow these areas to regenerate naturally without any site  preparation. In the Pacific Northwest Region, however, because  definitions of need vary from forest to forest, some report this condition  as a need and some do not.
Some forests in the Pacific Northwest Region define timber stand  improvement needs as those projects they currently need, while other  forests in this region include projects that will not be needed until a  future time.
Prior to 1996, the Northern Region reported, as timber stand  improvement needs, only those projects that would be needed within 5  years. After 1996, however, the region expanded its definition to include  all projects identified within the past 20 years. At the same time, the  region redefined the methods for justifying a timber stand improvement  need. 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.
section_title: Regions Vary in Their Ability to Link Needs to Forest Locations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Data Are a Mixture of Actual Needs and Estimates
paragraphs: Differences in Forest Service data among locations are compounded  because the reforestation and timber stand improvement needs reported  are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and estimates,  due in part to agency guidance and variations in regional reporting  practices. Although agency guidance generally requires that needs be  diagnosed for a specific site and linked to a prescription for treatment, it  also directs staff to estimate reforestation needs following a wildland fire  or other natural disturbance and revise these estimates within the year. We  found in our visits to four regions that they vary in the extent to which they  report needs based on a site-specific diagnosis or an estimate, and  consequently may understate or overstate needs.
Forest Service guidance sets different standards for reporting reforestation  needs that arise from timber harvest rather than those created by fires or  other natural disturbances, in part, to promote timely reporting. For  example, after a clear-cut harvest, the guidance directs regions to  determine reforestation needs using a site-specific diagnosis and  prescription for regenerating the acreage. In contrast, after fires or other  natural disturbances, this guidance encourages staff to immediately  estimate the acres in need of reforestation before they have visited forest  locations to develop a site-specific prescription and refine their estimate  while performing restoration activities. Forest Service officials commented  that at times it is difficult to balance the timely reporting of needs created  by natural disturbances with data accuracy.
Regions we visited varied in the extent to which they used site-specific  prescriptions or estimates as a basis for reporting needs. For example,  although a Forest Service official in the Southern Region told us that over  100,000 acres of land there may need reforestation, in part due to insect  damage, he said none of this acreage will be reported as needing  reforestation until staff diagnose the needs through site visits and prescribe  treatments. In contrast, forests in wildland fire-prone regions, such as the  Pacific Southwest Region, report needs based on gross estimates after  natural disturbances. In cases where reforestation or timber stand  improvement needs are based on gross estimates, the reported needs may  not always be adjusted after the actual needs are known, according to  Forest Service officials. For example, an official from the Pacific  Southwest Region indicated that the moist climate in some areas of the  region causes vegetation to grow quickly, so that when an area initially  needs to be reforested, staff generously estimate all possible treatments  needed to remove unwanted vegetation and are unlikely to update these  reforestation needs, even if subsequent treatments are deemed  unnecessary. On the other hand, this official indicated that staff are likely  to understate the need to thin trees in some areas because they do not  expect sufficient funding to address all of the timber stand improvement  needs. They therefore concentrate their efforts on meeting the needs rather  than diagnosing and precisely reporting them. Officials in other regions  also noted that they emphasize addressing needs rather than accurately  identifying and reporting them, in part because incentives are focused on  accomplishments and meeting treatment goals established by  headquarters.
section_title: Data Are Not Reviewed for Accuracy
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Data Problems Are Long Standing and May Not Be Resolved with New System
paragraphs: 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. This study attributed these shortcomings to a lack  of centralized program management to standardize definitions of need and  establish consistent reporting criteria. Subsequent reviews of the program,  including a GAO review in 1991, found similar problems and recommended additional standardization. The Forest Service recognizes these problems  and has acknowledged it has not provided the Congress estimates on  funding needed to prevent a backlog, in part, because needs data are a  mixture of actual needs, estimates, and obsolete needs. Instead, the Forest  Service provides the Congress with a proposed program of work, outlining  the amount of reforestation and timber stand improvement needs it will  address within certain budget limits.
In an attempt to improve its data and integrate its reporting between  regions and headquarters, the Forest Service is introducing a new agency- wide system for collecting and reporting data on reforestation and timber  stand improvement needs. The Forest Service intends to implement the  new system by the end of fiscal year 2005. When the new system replaces  individual district, forest, and regional systems for reporting needs with a  single, agency-wide database, it will standardize how reforestation and  timber stand improvement activities are tracked as well as modernize data  entry, system maintenance, and security activities. However, the agency  acknowledges these changes will not, in and of themselves, address the  data reliability issues that we have identified since the Forest Service  intends to transfer regional data from the current systems to the new  system without altering how reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs are defined, interpreted, and reported from the initial needs  assessment onward. Since this system does not introduce any new  procedures to standardize how needs are defined or to check for and  correct errors, the consistency and accuracy of the data will still be  determined at the local level. Forest Service officials told us they do not  anticipate making significant changes to current agency policies and  practices that make regions individually responsible for developing data  collection and reporting standards and ensuring that data are accurate.  Therefore, it is likely that present data deficiencies will persist in the new  system if existing data are incorporated into it without additional efforts  being made to improve the data. Officials acknowledge that improving the  data will require a significant investment of resources and also  acknowledge that unless the work is done, data reliability issues will  persist.
section_title: Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Agency Officials Link Rising Reforestation Needs to Natural Causes Rather Than Timber Harvests
paragraphs: 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.
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.   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.
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.
In addition to natural causes, several other factors have contributed to the  reported increase in reforestation needs, according to Forest Service  officials. In some areas, reforestation attempts have failed, creating needs  where agency officials will try again to reforest the same lands.  Reforestation efforts can fail for a variety of reasons, such as insufficient  moisture, improper planting techniques, or animal damage to young  seedlings. Ongoing drought conditions in the West, as well as the  retirement of experienced foresters, may have played a role in recent  reforestation failures, according to Forest Service officials. Another factor  that has contributed to the reported increase in reforestation needs is that  some national forests have recently acquired lands through purchase or  exchange that need reforestation. For example, the Ozark-St. Francis  National Forest in Arkansas acquired about 11,000 acres of land in 1993 and  1994 that had been harvested, and much of it needed reforestation. About  4,000 acres of the land have yet to be reforested.
section_title: Changing Management Practices Have Contributed to Reported Increase in Timber Stand Improvement Needs
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Some Regions Emphasize Reforestation Needs over Timber Stand Improvement Needs
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Forest Service Has Expanded Scope of Timber Stand Improvement
paragraphs: Another reason national timber stand improvement needs are increasing is  that the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the program, now  identifying lands where timber stand improvement work is needed to meet  objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as improving wildlife  habitats or thinning hazardous fuels to reduce fire danger. As the objectives  of timber stand improvement have expanded, needs have expanded  accordingly. For example, the Southwestern region has identified fuels  reduction as a regional priority and consequently dedicates most of its  reforestation and timber stand improvement program funding to timber  stand improvement, using only moneys from the Reforestation Trust  Fund—about 4 percent of the region’s 2003 program funds—to pay for  reforestation projects. However, the region’s increased emphasis on fuels  reduction has added to timber stand improvement needs rather than  reducing them, because as the scope of timber stand improvement expands  to include lands that need fuels reduction, officials are identifying many  more needs than they can meet each year.
section_title: Forest Service Favored Dense Tree Planting in the 1980s and 1990s
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Some Regions’ Trends in Timber Stand Improvement Needs Deviate from National Trends for Various Reasons
paragraphs: The circumstances causing the nationwide trend of increasing timber stand  improvement needs have not always led to increases in individual regions.  For example, the Pacific Southwest region has reported decreasing needs  since 1994. According to agency officials, the decrease is largely a result of  the decrease in timber harvests and associated planting. In some parts of  the country, such as Idaho, timber stand improvement projects may not be  needed until 20 or 30 years after planting. However, the moist climate in  some areas of the Pacific Southwest region causes vegetation to grow  quickly, so timber stand improvement projects are typically needed much  sooner—between 2 and 10 years after planting. Consequently, many of the  region’s harvest-related timber stand improvement needs have already  been addressed and total needs have been decreasing. In addition, like the  Southwestern region, the Pacific Southwest region has begun to give  priority to timber stand improvement projects that contribute to fuels  reduction goals. According to agency officials in the region, this emphasis  has helped finance timber stand improvement work and reduce needs. In  the Southern region, agency officials reported that timber stand  improvement needs have been relatively stable during the period we  reviewed, in part because the timber program in that region is still active,  and timber revenues can help pay for timber stand improvement needs.
section_title: Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not Addressed
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Forest Service’s Ability to Meet Forest Management Objectives Could Be Impaired
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s ability to meet the management objectives defined in  its forest plans—such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a forest or  appropriate habitat for certain wildlife—could be impaired if reforestation  or timber stand improvement treatments are delayed. For example, at the  Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and Idaho, agency officials have  identified a management objective of establishing or maintaining  ponderosa pine forests, which populated the area historically and are well- adapted to high-frequency, low-intensity wildland fires. Currently, the  Bitterroot National Forest has thousands of acres that need reforestation  because of wildland fires in 2000. If these needs are left unattended,  douglas fir forests will likely become established instead of ponderosa  pine; and, according to agency officials, douglas fir tends to grow into  crowded stands that officials believe will perpetuate the cycle of dense  forests, fueling severe fires. In addition, agency officials prefer ponderosa  pine forests because they provide habitat for certain wildlife species, such  as pileated woodpeckers. In other cases, an area previously dominated by  forests could become dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife  habitat, recreation, and timber value. In the Shasta-Trinity National Forest,  an area that was cleared by logging and wildland fires at the turn of the  century left a brushfield that persisted for over 60 years and only became  forested when the Forest Service actively planted the area. Similarly, about  750 acres in the Tahoe National Forest were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire  and replaced by shrubs (shown in fig. 7) that remained until agency  officials replanted the area in 1964—40 years later. One Forest Service  official expressed particular concern about leaving reforestation needs  unattended because, as these needs are increasingly created by natural  causes such as wildland fires that burn vast areas, adverse effects have the  potential to occur on a large scale. Furthermore, an agency official said that  if they cannot meet the management objectives defined in their forest  management plans, it will be difficult to fulfill their mission “to sustain the  health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests.”
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.
section_title: Project Costs Could Increase
paragraphs: If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in a  timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing  vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber stand  improvement projects, will become more costly as the vegetation grows.  For example, at the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas, insects  have destroyed thousands of acres of red oak forests since 1999, leaving  large areas that need to be reforested. As the Forest Service has left these  areas unattended, brush that must be removed before new seedlings are  planted is becoming established, and removing it will be more costly as  time passes. When the brush was young and small, it could have been  removed with inexpensive methods such as hand spraying herbicides; but  now it will require a more expensive method such as cutting the brush with  a chainsaw, according to agency officials. If these areas are left indefinitely,  trees may become established, but a different mix of species will probably  replace the red oak forests, which are desirable both for their commercial  value and the habitat they provide for wildlife, such as large game.
In addition, some Forest Service officials said that because there has been  recent controversy over salvage timber sales—the selling of dead or dying  trees—the sales have been delayed, adding costs to reforestation projects  done following salvage sales. The Forest Service could not, however,  quantify such costs. Although salvage sales do not always precede  reforestation, any salvage harvesting that is done is generally completed  before reforesting begins because logging activities and equipment can  damage young seedlings. Consequently, when salvage sales are delayed,  reforestation projects are delayed as well, causing reforestation costs to  increase as vegetation grows that must be removed before reforesting.
Also, when salvage sales are delayed, revenue declines because over time  the value of the salvage timber decreases as the wood decays. According to  agency officials, revenue from salvage sales was once enough to cover  administrative costs of the sale and also help pay for reforestation in some  cases, but now it is not typically enough to pay for any reforestation.  However, data are not readily available to show how common it is for  salvage sales to delay reforestation projects or the extent to which  revenues for salvage timber have declined, and why.
section_title: Forest Susceptibility to Wildland Fire, Insects, and Disease Could Increase
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of Increasing Needs
paragraphs: Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential  effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs  unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to address  these concerns and adapt to changes in the context in which the program  operates. The Forest Service has shifted its management emphasis from  timber production to ecosystem management, sources of reforestation  needs have shifted from timber harvests to natural causes, and budgets  have become increasingly constrained. However, the agency has not  adjusted the program’s direction, policies, practices, and priorities in  keeping with these changes, although agency officials acknowledged the  need to do so. Until they do, it will be difficult to ensure that reforestation  and timber stand improvement funds are targeted toward activities that  will have the greatest impact in mitigating potential adverse effects.
While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from  timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there  remains a general lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more  specifically, a lack of clarity about the direction and goals for the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program, according to agency  officials. When timber production was the emphasis, the direction for the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program was clearly focused  around maximizing timber production, whereas in the current  environment, it is less clear. Reforestation and timber stand improvement  projects now are done for multiple purposes—such as improving wildlife  habitat, protecting streams and water quality, and reducing susceptibility to  wildland fires—but it is unclear which of these purposes are more  important, if any, and how to allocate limited funds to support such diverse  purposes. The lack of clarity is apparent in forest management plans,  where management objectives are expressed in language that may be vague  or contradictory, according to agency officials. For example, one objective  in a Montana forest’s management plan calls for providing “a pleasing and  healthy environment, including clean air, clean water, and diverse  ecosystems.” The forest management plans are intended to help guide  management decisions, such as deciding which reforestation and timber  stand improvement techniques to use, but agency officials said it can be  difficult to interpret the plans when making such decisions because of the  vague language, conflicting management objectives, or a combination of  these factors. A 2004 study in the Pacific Southwest Region found that  many agency officials believe forest management plans are too generic and  lack clear priorities.
In the absence of program direction that is consistent with the current  management emphasis, reforestation and timber stand improvement  policies remain in place that reflect outdated direction and management  emphasis. For example, some reforestation policies written in the 1980s  call for tight spacing between trees consistent with the agency’s timber  focus at the time. Dense planting can increase timber production and  decrease competing vegetation, but it is more expensive than sparser  planting and can add costs later because dense stands need to be thinned.  Agency officials acknowledged that in many cases, these standards are  outdated and reflect neither the current emphasis on ecosystem  management, nor the current environment of constrained budgets.  Nevertheless, officials explained that they have not changed the standards  because they are not required to comply with them. Rather, they have the  discretion to determine the appropriate spacing for trees on a site-specific  basis and to write a prescription that deviates from the standards by relying  on their professional judgment. While reliance on professional judgment  may result in actions that are more closely aligned with the current  management emphasis, there is no assurance that it will have such results  without clear direction and policies consistent with the direction.
In some places, regional culture that reflects a former management  emphasis and budgetary situation influences current practices. For  example, when reforesting an area, officials in the Pacific Southwest region  almost always rely on planting—a more expensive method than natural  regeneration—because they have always done so and, according to agency  officials, this practice has been reinforced by the regional culture. When  the agency-wide management emphasis was timber production,  reforestation standards called for prompt reforestation and tightly spaced  trees to maximize timber volume; so officials rarely relied on natural  regeneration, which does not necessarily ensure rapid reforestation or  result in tightly spaced trees. In addition, when timber revenues were  higher and reforestation efforts centered on harvested areas, the region  could always afford to plant. Now, as the agency’s management emphasis  has shifted to ecosystem and forest health, and as budgets have become  increasingly strained, officials in the Pacific Southwest region said they are  beginning to encourage greater reliance on natural regeneration, but it  remains to be seen whether forests and districts will adjust their practices,  accordingly.
Priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program also  reflect a lack of clarity about program direction in the context of the  current management emphasis, and a continued reliance on former  program direction. For example, among agency officials we talked with,  there was disagreement on how funding should be allocated between  reforestation and timber stand improvement work and on whether one  ought to be higher priority than the other. In the Pacific Northwest region,  agency officials wrote a 2001 report recommending that the region divert  some of its reforestation funds to pay for additional timber stand  improvement. The report stated that doing so is justified,  because (1) many  of the current timber stand improvement needs resulted from reforestation  projects several decades ago that favored high density planting and (2)  without thinning to help reduce the impacts of wildland fire, reforestation  will continue to be needed after wildland fires. Nevertheless, regional  officials we talked with did not all agree with the recommendation, and the  region has not implemented it. Instead, the region has continued to  prioritize reforestation over timber stand improvement, as it has done since  the inception of the timber program. According to one regional official, the  Forest Service’s history of timber production permeates current thinking,  and many procedures do not reflect the current management emphasis on  ecosystem health.
Without clear program direction, not only is it difficult to determine  priorities between reforestation and timber stand improvement, but it is  also difficult to do so for work within each. For the most part, the regions  and forests we visited have not established clear criteria for prioritizing  funding decisions, and officials do not always agree with one another about  such decisions. For example, at a forest in the Pacific Southwest region,  after district officials replanted most of an area burned by a 1996 wildland  fire, regional officials thought replanting the remaining burned area was a  low priority because of the high per-acre cost. District and forest-level staff,  however, believed it was a high priority because the area was harvested in a  salvage sale after the fire, and the Forest Service is required to reforest all  harvested lands within 5 years. The forest has continued to fund projects to  replant the remaining area. Without clear program direction that reflects  the current management emphasis and budget environment, it is difficult to  identify the highest priority investments to minimize the potential adverse  effects of accumulating reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Forest Service needs a more accurate assessment of its reforestation  and timber stand improvement needs to reflect the condition of our  national forests. Although emphasizing data accuracy may take away from  resources to carry out reforestation and timber stand improvements in the  short-term, this investment is a critical foundation for providing a credible  picture of these needs to Forest Service managers and the Congress. If the  agency does not have accurate data, it cannot clearly define the extent or  severity of its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs or  effectively channel efforts and resources to meet the most important  needs. Currently, the Forest Service has difficulty estimating how much it  would cost to meet all of its reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs because Forest Service data are inconsistent across regions and are  not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify needs. With the advent of a  new agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the  opportunity to improve the accuracy of its data. However, the new system  will only be as good as the data that are entered into it. The Forest Service  should take this opportunity to address the data reliability problems by  standardizing procedures, developing a common definition of need, and  validating the data—verifying that reported needs accurately reflect  conditions on the ground—so that it can build a well-founded budget case  for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.  To seize  this opportunity and minimize the potential adverse effects of unmet needs,  it is important for the Forest Service to act soon. While it may not be  possible for the agency to make all the necessary changes in time for its  fiscal year 2006 appropriations request, it should aim to do so in time to  support its fiscal year 2007 request.
The Forest Service also must recognize, however, that in the current,  fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported budget needs may  not always be funded.  The shift in management emphasis from timber  production to ecosystem management, combined with constrained budgets  and changing sources of reforestation needs, has changed the context in  which the reforestation and timber stand improvement program operates.  However, the Forest Service has not updated its goals and policies for the  program to reflect this change. Until the agency does so, it will be difficult  to establish criteria for prioritizing the use of reforestation and timber  stand improvement funds. In the current budget environment, such criteria  are crucial for identifying the best investments to minimize possible  adverse effects so that the Forest Service can fulfill its stewardship  responsibility and ensure the lasting health and productivity of our national  forests.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the ability of the Forest Service to identify its reforestation and  timber stand improvement needs and ensure funding for its most critical  projects, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief  of the Forest Service to take the following actions:  standardize collection, reporting, and review procedures for data on  reforestation and timber stand improvement needs by clarifying agency- wide guidance and developing a standard definition of need;  require all regions to validate their reforestation and timber stand  improvement data in time for congressional deliberation of the Forest  Service’s fiscal year 2007 appropriations request;  clarify the direction and policies for the reforestation and timber stand  improvement program to be consistent with the agency's current  emphasis on ecosystem management and appropriate for the current  constrained budget environment, and   require regions and forests to establish criteria for prioritizing the use of  their reforestation and timber stand improvement funds in the current  budget environment.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Bureau of Land Management’s Reforestation and Related Forest Health Trends in Western Oregon
paragraphs: 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, and another for the  remaining 53 million acres of public domain lands, located mostly in the  West. BLM’s western Oregon lands include both lands managed primarily  for timber and reserve forests, which are managed primarily to meet  wildlife habitat and other objectives. The public domain lands consist  mainly of woodlands, with some commercial forests. We confined our  review of BLM to its western Oregon lands because the majority of BLM’s  reforestation and related efforts are focused there and because BLM  records for its public domain lands are not in a centralized, automated  database. (For more information on the scope and methodology of our  review, see app. II.)
Regarding trends, BLM reports that it had backlogs of acres needing  reforestation and growth enhancement treatments 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Backlogs in 2002
paragraphs: 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. According to a BLM official, after the backlogs were  identified, needs generally decreased (for reasons noted in the following section) until both backlogs were eliminated in 2002. Since  2002, BLM has kept pace with its reforestation and growth enhancement  needs on its western Oregon lands, agency officials said.
section_title: Agency Officials Link Past Backlogs to Timber Harvests and Funding Shortfall
paragraphs: BLM’s past backlogs developed primarily because timber harvests on its  western Oregon lands had risen sharply, causing related reforestation and  growth enhancement needs to increase, while funding allocated to address  the needs decreased rather than increasing in step with the needs. Timber  harvests on BLM’s western Oregon lands were at their peak in the late  1980s with over 1 billion board feet of timber sold annually; causing a spike  in reforestation and related needs. However, unlike the Forest Service,  BLM does not have the authority to use timber revenues from standard  timber sales for reforestation and growth enhancement treatments.  Instead, BLM relies on annual appropriations from the Congress to fund  such treatments. According to the Inspector General’s report, BLM had  backlogs in its reforestation and growth enhancement program because it  did not request or receive sufficient funding through the budget process to  eliminate these backlogs and because it used about $5.4 million of its forest  program funds for overhead costs not related to forestry. In addition, large  wildland fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s added to BLM’s growing  reforestation needs, according to agency officials.
section_title: Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining Timber Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management Actions
paragraphs: Declining timber harvests, increased funding, and actions taken by BLM  combined to help eliminate the reforestation and growth enhancement  backlogs, according to agency officials. In the late 1980s and early 1990s,  the volume of timber sold annually on BLM’s western Oregon lands  decreased considerably—from a peak of 1,583 million board feet in 1986 to  a low of 14 million board feet in 1994—and associated reforestation needs  decreased in parallel. According to BLM officials, the declining timber  harvests were largely a result of growing controversy surrounding timber  harvests and the protection of endangered species on public land. Related  litigation and judicial decisions hindered BLM from harvesting timber on its  lands. The controversy was addressed in the Northwest Forest Plan,  adopted in 1994, which reduced the portion of BLM’s western Oregon lands  to be managed primarily for timber. After adoption of the plan, BLM  reduced the upper limit on annual timber sales from these lands to 211  million board feet. At the same time, BLM modified its harvesting methods  to rely less on clear-cutting  and more on thinning. Unlike clear-cut forests,  the thinned forests did not need to be reforested and required fewer growth  enhancement treatments, resulting in a further reduction of needs. While  reforestation needs were decreasing, BLM increased the funding it  allocated for reforestation and growth enhancement from about $23 million  in 1995 to about $26.5 million in 1996—an increase of about 15 percent.  According to agency officials, increased funding in 1996 and subsequent  years enabled BLM to treat more acres annually than it had done  previously, thereby reducing the backlogs.
In addition to declining timber harvests and increased funding, BLM took  several actions to help reduce its reforestation and growth enhancement  backlogs in response to the 1994 Inspector General’s report. First, officials  in the reforestation and growth enhancement program instituted measures  to improve their data collection and tracking so that they could accurately  quantify the size of the backlogs, locate the source of the backlogs, and  track progress in eliminating them. Second, BLM shifted its priorities,  funding, and resources to target the areas where the need was greatest.  BLM officials from all of the districts in western Oregon, as well as the state  office, came together to agree on a list of priorities for the program, then  targeted available funding and resources to the highest priority needs. For  example, they decided to place a higher priority on maintaining existing  timber stands than on planting new stands, because maintenance needs  made up the greatest portion of the backlog. Adhering to the prioritization  scheme helped address the backlog, according to an agency official, but  required staff to have fluid roles. Finally, BLM officials analyzed treatment  costs per acre in each district and identified best practices to optimize their  investments of scarce resources. For example, one district identified cost- saving forestry techniques for thinning, while another identified lower-cost  contracting procedures. BLM then standardized these practices across all  western Oregon districts.
section_title: BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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). We  assessed the reliability of the data by examining the TRACS-SILVA system  as well as the regional data systems of the four regions we visited, which  provide the source data for the national TRACS-SILVA system. To  understand what standards, procedures, and internal controls are in place  for collecting, reporting, and verifying needs—and to assess the accuracy  and completeness of the TRACS-SILVA data—we conducted structured  interviews with headquarters, regional, and forest-level officials who enter  data into the data systems, maintain the systems, and prepare reports using  data from the systems. We performed basic electronic testing on some of  the data and reviewed manuals and other documents describing the  systems, such as flowcharts and data dictionaries. To obtain information  about the new agency-wide data system, known as the Forest Service  Activity Tracking System (FACTS), we interviewed agency officials  involved in its implementation and reviewed information on the system’s  data management functions, procedures, and applications.
To corroborate the TRACS-SILVA data, we obtained information about  trends in the Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs from additional sources. Specifically, we interviewed agency  program officials and data experts in headquarters as well as in each  regional and forest office that we visited to discuss the trends in  reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, and we visited sites  where reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments were  needed. In addition, we reviewed agency reports and testimony written by  foresters, budget officials, and researchers. We also reviewed  nongovernmental studies and contacted outside experts to discuss these  trends. Based on our review, we determined that the Forest Service data— when combined with other information we examined—are sufficiently  reliable to identify general trend information, but we have concerns about  whether these data accurately quantify the acreage of land needing  reforestation and timber stand improvement.
To identify the factors that have contributed to reforestation and timber  stand improvement trends, we interviewed Forest Service officials in  headquarters and the regional and national forest offices we visited. We  also contacted an agency official in the Southwestern Region. We reviewed  headquarters and regional reports on factors contributing to reforestation  and timber stand improvement trends as well as reports from the Forest  Service’s research station in the Rocky Mountain region and supplemented  this information by interviewing researchers there. We obtained Forest  Service data on timber harvests, wildland fires, and insect infestations  during the last decade and conducted limited reliability assessments on  these data. We also interviewed experts from nongovernmental  organizations and reviewed publications from the organizations.
To determine the potential effects of the Forest Service’s reforestation and  timber stand improvement trends identified by the agency’s land managers,  we interviewed agency officials (including ecologists and silviculturists) in  headquarters, regional, and national forest offices. We visited the sites of  ongoing and completed reforestation and timber stand improvement  projects in four national forests and discussed the potential effects of  delaying treatments with local Forest Service officials. We interviewed  Forest Service research program officials as well as scientific and technical  experts at Forest Service research stations in Arizona and Montana and at  nongovernmental organizations. We also reviewed select governmental and  nongovernmental publications, including scientific studies that discuss  potential effects of delaying reforestation and timber stand improvement  treatments and interviewed some of the authors.
We limited our review of BLM to its western Oregon lands because they are  central to the agency’s forest development program and because BLM does  not systematically track reforestation data for its other lands. We obtained  and analyzed 10 years of data, from 1995 through 2004, on the BLM’s  reforestation and growth enhancement needs in western Oregon. We  performed a limited reliability assessment of these data and BLM’s  reporting system through discussions with BLM headquarters officials and  a structured interview with officials at BLM’s state office in Portland,  Oregon, which oversees BLM’s western Oregon lands. We supplemented  these efforts by gathering other relevant documents and reports issued by  the department of the Interior’s Inspector General. We determined that the  BLM data were sufficiently reliable to use them descriptively in appendix 1  of this report. To determine the factors contributing to BLM’s reforestation  and forest development trends and to identify potential effects of the  trends identified by the agency’s land managers, we interviewed BLM  officials in Oregon and reviewed relevant BLM and Inspector General  reports.
We conducted our work from June 2004 through March 2005 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Other individuals making key contributions to this report were Bill Bates,  Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Sandra Edwards, Omari Norman, Cynthia  Norris, and Jay Smale.