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

Letter

Background

Historically, the Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement program focused on maximizing timber production. Now, however, the program is intended to achieve a variety of objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat, maintaining water quality, and ensuring sustainable timber production. To achieve these objectives after timber harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest Service staff identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific treatments. For reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow the sites to regenerate naturally as existing trees reseed the area. The latter approach sometimes requires the sites to be prepared by removing unwanted vegetation that could compete with young seedlings. As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest needing timber stand improvement and plan specific treatments. These treatments are intended to provide better growing conditions for trees and include activities such as removing competing vegetation and thinning forests when trees are too crowded.

In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand improvement backlog affecting 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of a backlog on lands available for timber production. The Forest Service primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In 1980, the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.

The Forest Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of the reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized. Its headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and provide technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various aspects of the program. District office staff within these national forests are responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, planning treatments to address the needs, and accomplishing the treatments. Although the Forest Service’s Director of Forest Management in headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-wide reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the standards and procedures for collecting and reporting these data are decentralized.

Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs

Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing trend in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the last 5 years, as shown in figure 1. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency’s specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. Although the Forest Service is developing a new national data system, the agency does not anticipate making significant changes to its policies and practices to improve the quality of the data.

The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs

Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of agency lands needing reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995 and 1999 but then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004. Much of the recent increase in reforestation needs occurred in Forest Service regions located in western states. Officials from three of the four regions we visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest, and Pacific Southwest Regions) expressed concern about the increasing level of their reforestation needs relative to their future ability to meet these needs. With respect to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest Service reports that the acreage of its lands needing such treatments increased most years since 1995. While nationwide timber stand improvement needs generally have been increasing, some regions have reported stable or decreasing trends. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing needs since 1995, which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis on thinning treatments associated with the National Fire Plan.

Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the Agency’s Needs

The Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement data, when combined with other information from Forest Service officials and nongovernmental experts—as well as data on recent increases in natural disturbances such as wildland fires—are sufficiently reliable for identifying relative trends in needs. However, we have concerns about the use of these data in quantifying the acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments for several reasons.

First, Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports reforestation needs in areas where it anticipates a timber harvest, even though the forest is still fully stocked with trees, while other regions we visited do not report a need until after the timber is harvested.

Second, differences in Forest Service data among locations are compounded because the reforestation and timber stand improvement needs reported are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and estimates. In cases where the needs are based on estimates—for example after a wildland fire—the reported needs may not always be adjusted after the actual needs are known.

Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the data to reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Moreover, some regions cannot link reported needs to distinct forest locations, making it difficult for them to detect obsolete needs and update the data.

Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not conducted reviews in the last decade to ensure that the data reflect on-the-ground conditions.

These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and cannot be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many of these data problems are long-standing and may not be adequately addressed when the Forest Service implements a new data system later this year. Although the new system will replace individual district, forest, and regional systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-wide database, the quality of the data used in the new system will not improve unless the Forest Service addresses how reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are defined, interpreted, and reported. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems and are preparing an action plan to address them.

Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been rising largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by causes other than timber harvests, and funding to address these needs has not kept pace. During the early 1990s, the agency shifted its management emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest ecosystem health and, as a result, harvested less timber. Timber harvests, which provided sufficient revenue to pay for related reforestation needs, are no longer the main source of such needs. According to Forest Service reports, beginning around 2000, the acreage burned in wildland fires and damaged by insects and diseases annually began to increase significantly, leaving thousands of acres needing reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres in 2000, compared with about 2.3 million acres in 1998. 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.

Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are Not Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage Such Effects

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to accumulate in the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace with the needs, the agency will likely have to postpone some treatment projects. According to agency officials, the agency’s ability to achieve forest management objectives may consequently be impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not clarified its direction and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current context in which the program operates.

Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment Costs Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to Fire, Insects, and Disease

The Forest Service’s ability to meet the management objectives defined in its forest plans—such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a forest or appropriate habitat for certain wildlife—could be impaired if reforestation or timber stand improvement treatments are delayed. For example, an area previously dominated by forests could become dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. Such a situation developed in the Tahoe National Forest, where about 750 acres were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced by shrubs that remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964— 40 years later.

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing competing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber stand improvement projects, will become more costly as the vegetation grows. In addition, forests would likely become more susceptible to severe wildland fires and damage from insects and disease, according to agency officials. When reforestation needs are left unattended, brush can grow in place of forests, providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires. When thinning needs are left unattended, experts believe the tightly-spaced trees fuel wildland fires, causing the fires to spread rapidly and increasing the likelihood of unusually large fires that create widespread destruction. In addition, densely populated forests tend to be stressed because the trees compete with one another for sunlight, water, and nutrients. When insects or diseases infect such forests, they can spread rapidly.

Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of Increasing Needs

Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to address these concerns and adapt to the present context in which the program operates. Over the past decade, the Forest Service has shifted its management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management, sources of reforestation needs have shifted from timber harvests to natural causes, and budgets have become increasingly constrained. The agency, however, has not adjusted the program’s direction, policies, practices, and priorities in keeping with these changes, although agency officials acknowledged the need to do so.

While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there remains a lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more specifically, about the direction and goals for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program, according to agency officials. When timber production was the emphasis, program direction was clearly focused, whereas in the current environment, it is less so. Reforestation and timber stand improvement projects now are done for multiple purposes—such as improving wildlife habitat, protecting streams, and reducing susceptibility to wildland fires—but it is unclear which purposes are more important, if any, and how to allocate limited funds to support such diverse purposes. The lack of clarity is apparent in forest management plans, where objectives are expressed in vague or contradictory language, according to agency officials. The plans are intended to help guide decisions, such as which reforestation techniques to use, but agency officials said it can be difficult to interpret the plans because of the problematic language.

In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are priorities, policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect outdated management emphasis. For example, a 2001 report had recommended that the Pacific Northwest region change its priorities by diverting some of its reforestation funds to pay for timber stand improvement. Doing so could help reduce the impacts of wildland fire, and thereby reduce the reforestation needs created by such fires, the report argued. Nevertheless, regional officials we talked with did not all agree with the recommendation, and the region has instead continued to prioritize reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has done since the inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the Pacific Southwest region, when officials reforest an area, they almost always rely on planting—a more expensive method than natural regeneration. This approach may have been appropriate when timber production was the emphasis and timber revenues were higher, because natural regeneration can be slower and less productive than planting. However, the region continues to avoid natural regeneration because they have always done so and, according to agency officials, this practice has been reinforced by the regional culture.

Conclusions

Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not developed a tally of these needs that accurately reflects the condition of our national forests. While we recognize that the systematic collection of accurate data may take resources away from reforestation and timber stand improvements in the short-term, such an investment could lay the foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible picture of our forests’ needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the opportunity to improve the consistency and accuracy with which its data reflect on-the-ground conditions in our national forests. Consistent, accurate data would help the agency to build a well-founded budget case for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.

However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current, fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not always be funded. The agency needs to update its goals and policies for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect the current fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on ecosystem management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the Forest Service to identify the best investments to minimize adverse effects on the lasting health and productivity of our national forests.

To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to standardize guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and improve the data’s accuracy in time for congressional deliberation on the Forest Service’s 2007 appropriations request. We further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to clarify the program direction and policies, and establish criteria for prioritizing the agency’s use of program funds. The Forest Service, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, concurred with our findings and recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Bill Bates, David P. Bixler, Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena Sinkfield, and Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.

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.