Forest Service: Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
Published: 2005-04-27T00:00:00

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 Forest Service officials have identified. This testimony is based on GAO's report Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according to Forest Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data's reliability is limited in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data problems GAO has identified. According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For timber stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part because high-density planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today and because treatments have not kept pace with the growing needs. Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency's ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat--one forest management objective--could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species that provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing vegetation--which must be removed to allow newly reforested stands to survive--grows larger over time and becomes more costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack and disease. While agency officials expressed concern about these potential effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however, acknowledge the need to make such changes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Last March, the agency  reported to this Subcommittee that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres  of land needing reforestation. Reforestation, whether it is achieved by  planting trees or letting them naturally regenerate, is critical to restoring  and improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests, as  well as after natural disturbances such as wildland fires, outbreaks of  disease, or insect infestations. The success of reforestation efforts, as well  as the overall health of the forests, often depends upon subsequent timber  stand improvement treatments, such as removing competing vegetation to  allow seedlings to survive. In some parts of the country, without active  intervention, it may take decades for disturbed land to return to a forested  condition. In other parts, trees may naturally return soon after a  disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent with the  Forest Service’s program objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,  enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.
My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released today on  the (1) reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber  stand improvement, (2) factors that have contributed to these trends, and  (3) potential effects of these trends that Forest Service officials have  identified. In conducting our review, we analyzed Forest Service data for  1995 through 2004, interviewed agency officials at all levels, and visited  four regions with the largest reported reforestation or timber stand  improvement needs. We focused on the Forest Service’s reforestation and  timber stand improvement program because this program, which covers  155 national forests, is the largest one administered by a federal land  management agency. In 2004, for example, the Forest Service reported  reforesting more than 150,000 acres nationwide, while the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior, which has the  second-largest program, reported reforesting less than 20,000 acres. While  our work included a limited review of BLM’s program, my testimony today  centers on our findings about the Forest Service’s program because we  found no significant issues to report concerning BLM.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Historically, the Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand  improvement program focused on maximizing timber production. Now,  however, the program is intended to achieve a variety of objectives, such  as improving wildlife habitat, maintaining water quality, and ensuring  sustainable timber production. To achieve these objectives after timber  harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest Service staff  identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific treatments. For  reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow the sites to regenerate  naturally as existing trees reseed the area. The latter approach sometimes  requires the sites to be prepared by removing unwanted vegetation that  could compete with young seedlings. As with reforestation, Forest Service  staff identify areas of a forest needing timber stand improvement and plan  specific treatments. These treatments are intended to provide better  growing conditions for trees and include activities such as removing  competing vegetation and thinning forests when trees are too crowded.
In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand  improvement backlog affecting 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To  address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the National  Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to  annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of  a backlog on lands available for timber production. The Forest Service  primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas  where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual  appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In 1980,  the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded  through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding  for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help  eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had  virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.
The Forest Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized.  Its headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and provide  technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various aspects of the  program. District office staff within these national forests are responsible  for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, planning  treatments to address the needs, and accomplishing the treatments.  Although the Forest Service’s Director of Forest Management in  headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-wide reforestation and  timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the standards and  procedures for collecting and reporting these data are decentralized.
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: Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing trend  in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the last 5  years, as shown in figure 1. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently  reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to  accurately quantify the agency’s specific needs, establish priorities among  treatments, or estimate a budget. Although the Forest Service is  developing a new national data system, the agency does not anticipate  making significant changes to its policies and practices to improve the  quality of the data.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs
paragraphs: Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of agency  lands needing reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995  and 1999 but then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004. Much of the  recent increase in reforestation needs occurred in Forest Service regions  located in western states. Officials from three of the four regions we  visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest, and Pacific Southwest Regions)  expressed concern about the increasing level of their reforestation needs  relative to their future ability to meet these needs. With respect to timber  stand improvement needs, the Forest Service reports that the acreage of  its lands needing such treatments increased most years since 1995. While  nationwide timber stand improvement needs generally have been  increasing, some regions have reported stable or decreasing trends. For  example, the Pacific Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing  needs since 1995, which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis  on thinning treatments associated with the National Fire Plan.
section_title: Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the Agency’s Needs
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement data,  when combined with other information from Forest Service officials and  nongovernmental experts—as well as data on recent increases in natural  disturbances such as wildland fires—are sufficiently reliable for  identifying relative trends in needs. However, we have concerns about the  use of these data in quantifying the acreage of Forest Service lands  needing reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments for  several reasons.
First, Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently. For  example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports reforestation needs in  areas where it anticipates a timber harvest, even though the forest is still  fully stocked with trees, while other regions we visited do not report a  need until after the timber is harvested.
Second, differences in Forest Service data among locations are  compounded because the reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs reported are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits  and estimates. In cases where the needs are based on estimates—for  example after a wildland fire—the reported needs may not always be  adjusted after the actual needs are known.
Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the data to reflect  current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Moreover,  some regions cannot link reported needs to distinct forest locations,  making it difficult for them to detect obsolete needs and update the data.
Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not conducted reviews in  the last decade to ensure that the data reflect on-the-ground conditions.
These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs  reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and cannot  be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many of these  data problems are long-standing and may not be adequately addressed  when the Forest Service implements a new data system later this year.  Although the new system will replace individual district, forest, and  regional systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-wide database,  the quality of the data used in the new system will not improve unless the  Forest Service addresses how reforestation and timber stand improvement  needs are defined, interpreted, and reported. Forest Service officials  acknowledge these problems and are preparing an action plan to address  them.
section_title: Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
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, harvested less timber. Timber harvests, which provided  sufficient revenue to pay for related reforestation needs, are no longer the  main source of such needs. According to Forest Service reports, beginning  around 2000, the acreage burned in wildland fires and damaged by insects  and diseases annually began to increase significantly, leaving thousands of  acres needing reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8  million acres in 2000, compared with about 2.3 million acres in 1998.  Similarly, the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases increased  significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest affected in 2003,  compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999. As the acreage affected  by these natural disturbances increased, so did reforestation needs.  However, funding allocated to pay for reforestation did not increase at the  same rate, so needs began to accumulate.
For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that management  practices have been the primary factor contributing to the increase in  acreage needing treatment. For example, some regions prioritize funding  for reforestation treatments over timber stand improvement treatments  and consequently do not treat timber stand improvement needs as quickly  as they are accumulating. These regions follow this practice in part  because they are required to complete reforestation treatments within 5  years of harvesting, whereas for timber stand improvement, there is no  such requirement. National timber stand improvement needs also are  increasing because the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the  program, now identifying lands where timber stand improvement work is  needed to meet objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as  improving wildlife habitats or thinning hazardous fuels to reduce fire  danger. As the objectives of timber stand improvement have expanded,  needs have expanded accordingly. Finally, nationwide timber stand  improvement needs are increasing because reforestation techniques  favored in the 1980s and 1990s recommended planting trees much more  densely than may be currently recommended so that as the trees grew, the  agency could keep the largest and healthiest of them for cultivating, and  thin out the others. Consequently, many stands that were planted 15 or 20  years ago now need thinning, according to agency officials.
section_title: Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are Not Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage Such Effects
paragraphs: If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to  accumulate in the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace  with the needs, the agency will likely have to postpone some treatment  projects. According to agency officials, the agency’s ability to achieve  forest management objectives may consequently be impaired; treatment  costs could increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire,  disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service officials expressed  concern about the potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the  agency has not clarified its direction and priorities for the reforestation  and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the  current context in which the program operates.
subsections: section_title: Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment Costs Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to Fire, Insects, and Disease
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, an area previously dominated by forests could become  dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and  timber value. Such a situation developed in the Tahoe National Forest,  where about 750 acres were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced  by shrubs that remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964— 40 years later.
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in  a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing  competing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber  stand improvement projects, will become more costly as the vegetation  grows. In addition, forests would likely become more susceptible to severe  wildland fires and damage from insects and disease, according to agency  officials. When reforestation needs are left unattended, brush can grow in  place of forests, providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires. When  thinning needs are left unattended, experts believe the tightly-spaced trees  fuel wildland fires, causing the fires to spread rapidly and increasing the  likelihood of unusually large fires that create widespread destruction. In  addition, densely populated forests tend to be stressed because the trees  compete with one another for sunlight, water, and nutrients. When insects  or diseases infect such forests, they can spread rapidly.
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 the present context in which the program  operates. Over the past decade, the Forest Service has shifted its  management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management,  sources of reforestation needs have shifted from timber harvests to natural  causes, and budgets have become increasingly constrained. The agency,  however, has not adjusted the program’s direction, policies, practices, and  priorities in keeping with these changes, although agency officials  acknowledged the need to do so.
While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from  timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there  remains a lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more  specifically, about the direction and goals for the reforestation and timber  stand improvement program, according to agency officials. When timber  production was the emphasis, program direction was clearly focused,  whereas in the current environment, it is less so. Reforestation and timber  stand improvement projects now are done for multiple purposes—such as  improving wildlife habitat, protecting streams, and reducing susceptibility  to wildland fires—but it is unclear which purposes are more important, if  any, and how to allocate limited funds to support such diverse purposes.  The lack of clarity is apparent in forest management plans, where  objectives are expressed in vague or contradictory language, according to  agency officials. The plans are intended to help guide decisions, such as  which reforestation techniques to use, but agency officials said it can be  difficult to interpret the plans because of the problematic language.
In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are priorities,  policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect outdated  management emphasis. For example, a 2001 report had recommended that  the Pacific Northwest region change its priorities by diverting some of its  reforestation funds to pay for timber stand improvement. Doing so could  help reduce the impacts of wildland fire, and thereby reduce the  reforestation needs created by such fires, the report argued. Nevertheless,  regional officials we talked with did not all agree with the  recommendation, and the region has instead continued to prioritize  reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has done since the  inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the Pacific Southwest  region, when officials reforest an area, they almost always rely on  planting—a more expensive method than natural regeneration. This  approach may have been appropriate when timber production was the  emphasis and timber revenues were higher, because natural regeneration  can be slower and less productive than planting. However, the region  continues to avoid natural regeneration because they have always done so  and, according to agency officials, this practice has been reinforced by the  regional culture.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and timber  stand improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not developed a  tally of these needs that accurately reflects the condition of our national  forests. While we recognize that the systematic collection of accurate data  may take resources away from reforestation and timber stand  improvements in the short-term, such an investment could lay the  foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible picture of our  forests’ needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new agency-wide data  collection system, the Forest Service has the opportunity to improve the  consistency and accuracy with which its data reflect on-the-ground  conditions in our national forests. Consistent, accurate data would help  the agency to build a well-founded budget case for funding reforestation  and timber stand improvement needs.
However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current, fiscally  constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not always be  funded. The agency needs to update its goals and policies for the  reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect the current  fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on ecosystem  management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the Forest Service to  identify the best investments to minimize adverse effects on the lasting  health and productivity of our national forests.
To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the Secretary  of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to standardize  guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber stand  improvement needs and improve the data’s accuracy in time for  congressional deliberation on the Forest Service’s 2007 appropriations  request. We further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to  clarify the program direction and policies, and establish criteria for  prioritizing the agency’s use of program funds. The Forest Service, on  behalf of the Department of Agriculture, concurred with our findings and  recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Bill Bates, David P. Bixler, Christy  Colburn, Sandy Davis, Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena Sinkfield, and  Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.
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.