Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize
Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs (15-APR-05,	 
GAO-05-374).							 
                                                                 
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.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-374 					        
    ACCNO:   A21747						        
  TITLE:     Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and   
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs	 
     DATE:   04/15/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Forest conservation				 
	     Forest management					 
	     Land management					 
	     National forests					 
	     Plants (organisms) 				 
	     Wilderness areas					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-374

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee
                     on Resources, House of Representatives

April 2005

FOREST SERVICE

Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand
                               Improvement Needs

                                       a

GAO-05-374

[IMG]

April 2005

FOREST SERVICE

Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs

  What GAO Found

The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand
improvement generally has been increasing since 2000, according to Forest
Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other
studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to
identify this relative trend they are not sufficiently reliable to
accurately quantify the agency's specific needs, establish priorities
among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data's reliability is limited
in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs
differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect
current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest
Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is
implementing a new data system to better track its needs. While helpful,
this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data problems GAO
has identified.

According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been
increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing
acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires,
insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs
resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced sufficient
revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly
from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained
relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For
timber stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part
because highdensity planting practices, used in the past to replace
harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today and
because treatments have not kept pace with the growing needs.

Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its
forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency's ability to
meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat-one forest
management objective-could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area
formerly forested with tree species that provided forage, nesting, or
other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could
increase because competing vegetation-which must be removed to allow newly
reforested stands to survive-grows larger over time and becomes more
costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency
officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating
competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect
attack. While agency officials expressed concern about these potential
effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse effects
can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however, acknowledge the
need to make such changes.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter                                                                   1 
                                  Results in Brief                          3 
                                     Background                             5 
          Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand 
             Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make 
                   It Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs            9 
          Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to 
               Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement       
                                       Needs                               19 
              Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If      
                  Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not 
                                     Addressed                             25 
                                    Conclusions                            31 
                        Recommendations for Executive Action               32 
                         Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                33 

Appendixes

                                  Appendix I:

                    Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV:

                                  Appendix V:

Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health Trends
in Western Oregon 35 Background 36 BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation
and Growth Enhancement

Backlogs in 2002 36 Agency Officials Link PastBacklogs to Timber
Harvestsand Funding Shortfall 37

Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining Timber
Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management Actions 38

BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with Reforestation
and Growth Enhancement Needs 39

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40

Comments from the Department of Agriculture 43

Comments from the Department of the Interior 44

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 46 GAO Contacts 46 Staff
Acknowledgments 46

Table Table 1:	Forest Service Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement
Treatments 6

                                    Contents

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7: Figure 8:

Map of Forest Service Regions Indicating Regions Visited
by GAO 8
Forest Service's Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal
Years 1995 through 2004 11
Forest Service's Reported Timber Stand Improvement
Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 13
Volume of Timber Harvested from Forest Service Lands
for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 20
Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on
Forested Lands Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through
2003 21
Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation
and Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995
through 2004 22
Shrubfields Persisted 40 Years after a Wildland Fire in
Tahoe National Forest 26
BLM Western Oregon Reforestation and Growth
Enhancement Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through
2004 37

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management NFMA National Forest Management Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

April 15, 2005

The Honorable Greg Walden
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In March 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a
backlog of about 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation.
Reforestation-the planting and natural regeneration of trees-is critical
to
restoring and improving the health of our national forests after timber
harvests, as well as after natural disturbances such as wildland fires,
outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations. The success of
reforestation, as
well as the overall health of the forests, often depends upon subsequent
timber stand improvement treatments, such as thinning trees and removing
competing vegetation to allow seedlings to survive. In some parts of the
country, without active intervention, it may take decades for disturbed
land
to return to a forested condition. In other parts, trees may naturally
return
soon after a disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent
with Forest Service program objectives. Historically, the Forest Service's
reforestation and timber stand improvement program focused on
maximizing timber production. Now, however, the program is intended to
achieve a variety of objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,
enhancing recreational opportunities, maintaining water quality, and
ensuring sustainable timber production. For example, reforestation can
improve wildlife habitat by providing forest cover for species like the
black-tailed deer and timber stand improvement can make forests less
susceptible to wildland fires by removing brush that fuels the fires. The
Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility
for both reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments in 155
national forests. The agency manages 192 million acres of federal land and
has a stewardship responsibility to maintain the health, productivity, and
diversity of the national forests on this land.

In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand
improvement backlog that affected 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To
address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to
annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of
a backlog on lands available for timber production.1 The Forest Service
primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas
where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual
appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In
1980, the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded
through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding
for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help
eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had
virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.

With the 2004 announcement of a new backlog, you asked us to (1) examine
the reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, (2) identify the factors that have contributed to these
trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of these trends that
federal land managers have identified. This report focuses primarily on
the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement program
because it is the largest one managed by a federal land management agency
and covers the broadest cross section of the country. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior also has responsibility
for reforestation and timber stand improvement on federal lands, but its
program is much smaller than the Forest Service's. In 2003, for example,
the Forest Service reported reforesting more than 160,000 acres of federal
land nationwide, while BLM reported reforesting less than 11,000 acres,
with the majority of this activity occurring in western Oregon. The
results of our limited review of BLM's program are summarized in appendix
I.

To examine the trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service data for the 10
years between 1995 and 2004, analyzed applicable statutes and agency
regulations, and interviewed agency officials and other experts about
these

1Shortly after the Forest Service reported its backlog, the Congress
enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974,
requiring the Forest Service to annually request funds for an orderly
program to eliminate backlogs in all Forest Service renewable resource
programs. This act was amended by NFMA, which contains more specific
direction to address the elimination of reforestation backlogs.

trends. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed Forest Service documents,
including database manuals and agency-wide and regional procedures for
gathering and reporting data related to reforestation and timber stand
improvement. To identify factors that have contributed to reforestation
and timber stand improvement trends and describe potential effects
identified by federal land managers, we reviewed internal Forest Service
reports, as well as other studies, and interviewed agency officials in
both headquarters and selected regions. We also visited four regions with
the largest reported reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and
national forests within these regions. We conducted our work from June
2004 to March 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix II provides further details about the scope
and methodology of our review.

Results in Brief	Forest Service officials and data reported to the
Congress, as well as expert opinions and studies, point to recent
increasing trends in the acreage of agency lands needing reforestation and
timber stand improvement treatments. For the decade beginning in 1995, the
Forest Service reported that the acreage of its lands needing
reforestation at first declined steadily between 1995 and 1999 but then
increased through 2004. Much of this increase occurred in regions located
in western states, where reforestation needs associated with natural
disturbances, such as wildland fires, began to increase dramatically in
2000. During the same 10-year period, the agency also reported that the
acreage of its lands needing timber stand improvement generally increased,
although trends within individual regions show considerable variation. The
Forest Service data, when combined with other information, are
sufficiently reliable for identifying these relative trends; however, we
have concerns about the data's use in accurately quantifying the acreage
of agency land needing reforestation and timber stand improvement
treatments. These concerns arise because the agency's regions and forests
define their needs differently and do not systematically update these data
to reflect current forest conditions, nor do they review the accuracy of
these data. Forest Service officials acknowledged these problems but
explained that the agency focuses its efforts on undertaking reforestation
and timber stand improvements and is less concerned about accurately
collecting and reporting data on lands needing these treatments.
Nonetheless, the Forest Service is implementing a new data system that
will replace the individual regional systems with a single, agency-wide
system. However, this change will standardize only the structure of
regional reporting to headquarters and will not, on its own, make the data
more consistent or accurate without changes to agency

policies and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs are defined, reported, and validated. While we
understand the Forest Service's desire to carry out reforestation and
timber stand improvements as quickly as possible, without more reliable
data, it is difficult for the Forest Service to accurately quantify its
needs, establish priorities among treatment needs, and estimate a budget
accordingly.

According to Forest Service officials, despite declining timber harvests,
reforestation needs are accumulating because the acreage affected by
natural disturbances has increased in recent years. Since 2000, wildland
fires, insects and diseases have destroyed increasing amounts of forest
lands. In the past, timber harvests created the majority of reforestation
needs and generated revenue that helped pay for harvest-related
reforestation. In contrast, reforestation needs are now arising largely
from natural disturbances, and funding sources for such needs-annual
appropriations and the Reforestation Trust Fund-have not risen in step
with reported needs. Instead, they have remained relatively stable.

For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that changing
management practices have been the primary factor contributing to the
increase in acreage needing treatment. Specifically, managers in some
Forest Service regions do not emphasize timber stand improvement
treatments because they believe reforestation treatments are more
important. This is in part because there is no legal deadline for
completing timber stand improvement, whereas, by law, reforestation
generally must be completed within 5 years after trees are harvested.
Another reason for the reported increase is that agency officials have
identified more timber stand improvement needs as they have expanded the
scope of the program. Reported needs also have increased because
previously favored highdensity tree planting practices to replace
harvested trees have led to increased needs for thinning today.

If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
outpace the Forest Service's ability to meet these needs and treatments
are delayed, agency officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its
forest management objectives may be impaired; treatment costs could
increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and
insect damage. Unmet needs could prevent the Forest Service from achieving
its forest management objectives, such as protecting wildlife habitat or
improving forest health. For example, an area previously dominated by
forests could become dominated by shrub fields, compromising wildlife
habitat, recreation, and timber value. Treatment costs also could increase
if

projects are delayed. For example, competing vegetation often must be
removed to allow newly reforested stands to survive; the larger the
competing vegetation grows, the more costly it is to remove. Finally,
forest susceptibility to severe wildland fires, disease, and insect damage
could increase, according to officials, because without needed thinning
treatments, forests become dense, fueling severe wildland fires and
creating competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to
insect attack. Although agency officials expressed concern about the
potential harmful effects of delaying some projects, the Forest Service
has not clarified its policies, practices, and priorities for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern
and the current environment of constrained budgets. Forest Service
officials acknowledged the need to make such changes. However, until they
do so, it will be difficult to ensure that limited reforestation and
timber stand improvement funds are targeted toward activities that will
have the greatest impact in mitigating potential adverse effects.

We are making recommendations to help the Forest Service better identify
and prioritize its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and
aid the Congress in making more informed funding decisions. In responding
to a draft of this report, the Forest Service agreed with our findings and
recommendations. The Forest Service's comments are reprinted in appendix
III.

Background	The Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement
program shapes our national forests as well as their associated plant and
animal communities through treatments that establish, develop, and care
for trees over their lifetime. Under NFMA, each national forest is
required to have a forest management plan describing the agency's
objectives for the forest, including those related to reforestation and
timber stand improvement.

To achieve these management objectives after a timber harvest or natural
event that damages forests, Forest Service staff identify areas needing
reforestation and visit forest locations to plan a specific sequence of
treatments needed, known as a prescription. The prescription directs how
many young trees must be reestablished and the proper mix of vegetation
necessary to achieve specific objectives in the forest plan, such as
maintaining wildlife habitat. Reforestation prescriptions may call for
planting or natural regeneration, as outlined in table 1. To plant a site,
Forest Service staff order seedlings from a nursery up to 3 years in
advance of planting to allow enough time for them to grow, then plant the
seedlings

when conditions are favorable. For natural regeneration, agency staff
allow seeds from trees left on the site or nearby trees to germinate and
grow, which sometimes requires removing unwanted vegetation and surface
debris to improve the likelihood that the trees will survive or accelerate
their growth.

As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest
needing timber stand improvement and prepare prescriptions. Timber stand
improvement prescriptions are intended to improve growing conditions for
trees in a stand and typically call for treatments such as release or
thinning, as outlined in table 1. To conduct a release treatment, Forest
Service staff remove competing vegetation to allow seedlings to grow; and
to thin a stand, agency staff remove some trees to accelerate the growth
of the remaining trees or to improve forest health.

 Table 1: Forest Service Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Treatments

Forestry treatments Treatment description

Reforestation

Planting	Foresters collect or obtain seeds, and grow seedlings for 1 to 3
years in nurseries, then transplant the seedlings to the site when
conditions are favorable.

Seeding	Foresters directly apply seed collected from known seed sources to
prepared sites when conditions are favorable.

Natural regeneration with site preparation	Foresters remove vegetation
that could compete with young seedlings, as well as other debris, then
allow existing trees to naturally seed the area.

Natural regeneration without site preparation	Foresters rely on existing
trees to naturally seed the area, and do not remove any vegetation or
debris. This technique is sometimes used after wildland fires, which often
create a site that is free of vegetation and debris.

                            Timber stand Improvement

Release treatments	Foresters remove competing vegetation near seedlings or
young trees to improve the chances of survival and health.

Precommercial thinning	Foresters remove trees from forests that are overly
dense. In such treatments, the trees removed are too small to sell as
commercial timber.

Fertilizing	Foresters apply nutrients to increase tree growth or to
overcome a nutrient deficiency in the soil.

Pruning	Foresters remove side branches and multiple leaders from a
standing tree to, among other things, reduce fuel ladders and associated
wildland fire risk or to produce economically valuable wood.

           Source: GAO interpretation of Forest Service information.

Reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments are funded by
various sources, principally congressional appropriations and trust funds.
Congressional appropriations that fund this work include moneys allocated
from the National Forest System appropriation to the reforestation and
timber stand improvement program2 as well as to other Forest Service
programs whose primary purposes include improving forest health,
decreasing hazardous fuels, and rehabilitating burned areas. In addition
to these moneys, the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust fund that collects receipts
generated from timber sales helps pay for reforestation and timber stand
improvement in areas harvested for timber.3 While Knutson-Vandenberg funds
are a dedicated source of funding for reforesting harvested lands, work in
areas destroyed by natural causes, such as wildland fire, is generally
funded through the National Forest System appropriation and a portion of
the Reforestation Trust Fund. Reforestation Trust Fund receipts are
generated by tariffs on imported wood products, and by law, moneys
transferred into this fund for the Forest Service's use are limited to $30
million each fiscal year. Other sources of funds, such as gifts, bequests,
and partnerships, also fund reforestation and timber stand improvement
treatments.

The Forest Service's implementation, management, and oversight of the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized.
Forest Service headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and
provide technical direction to 155 national forest offices on various
aspects of the program. These national forest offices, in turn, provide
general oversight to more than 600 district offices, several of which are
located in each national forest. The district offices plan, fund, and
manage reforestation and timber stand improvement projects, and the
managers of these offices have considerable discretion in interpreting and
applying the agency's policies and selecting projects to fund. District
office staff are responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs, developing prescriptions to address these needs, and
accomplishing

2The National Forest System appropriation provides the funds for the
stewardship and management of Forest Service lands.

3The Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576-576b) established a
trust fund to collect a portion of timber sale receipts to pay for
reforesting areas from which timber is cut. The reforestation projects
eligible for such funding include growing trees for planting, planting
trees, sowing seeds, removing weeds and other competing vegetation, and
preventing animals from damaging new trees. The act was amended in 1976 to
allow the Forest Service to use these funds for other activities, such as
creating wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service's four organizational levels-its headquarters,
regional, national forest, and district offices-share responsibility for
reporting reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the
Congress. Although the Director of Forest Management in its headquarters
is responsible for the agency-wide reporting of reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs, much of the responsibility for establishing
standards and procedures for collecting and reporting these data has been
delegated to the regional, national forest, and district offices. Forest
and district offices use automated systems to record their reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs and accomplishments and each region
collects the data in one of nine regional databases and transmits its
total reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to a centralized
data repository. Nationally, the Forest Service consolidates the regional
data to produce agency-wide reports of reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs and accomplishments by national forest. These reports
are submitted annually to the Congress.

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

From fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the Forest Service reported to the
Congress that the acreage of its lands needing reforestation initially
declined and then increased during the last 5 years, with much of this
increase occurring in regions in western states. During the 10-year
period, the agency also reported that the acreage of its land needing
timber stand improvement generally increased, though some regions reported
slight decreases in these needs. These Forest Service data, when combined
with other information, are sufficiently reliable to identify a general
trend of increasing needs. Nonetheless, we have concerns about the
usefulness of these data in quantifying the acreage of agency land needing
reforestation and timber stand improvement. These concerns arise, in part,
because the Forest Service's regions and forests define their needs
differently, and they do not always systematically update the data to
reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data.
Agency officials acknowledge these problems but said the agency focuses
its efforts on undertaking reforestation and timber stand improvements and
is less concerned about accurately collecting and reporting data on lands
needing these treatments. Although the Forest Service is developing a new
national data system, the agency does not anticipate making significant
changes to improve the quality of the data.

The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs

The Forest Service reports that the acreage of its lands needing
reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995 and 1999 but
then increased from 2000 through 2004, as shown in figure 2. During this
10-year period, the primary source of the Forest Service's reforestation
needs changed. Specifically, the agency reports that its reforestation
needs attributable to timber harvests decreased steadily, while needs
associated with wildland fires and other natural disturbances were
relatively stable until 2000, when such needs rose dramatically with the
increase in wildland fires, particularly in western states. Reforestation
needs reported by the Forest Service's Northern Region-covering all of
Montana and North Dakota and portions of some adjacent states-followed the
national pattern most closely. In addition to the Northern Region, other
regions we visited (Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest) spanning western
states, such as Washington, Oregon, and California, reported large
reforestation needs. These regions expressed concern about the increasing
level of their reforestation needs relative to their future ability to
meet these needs.

Figure 2: Forest Service's Reported Reforestation Needs for Fiscal Years
1995 through 2004 Thousands of acres

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year Source: Forest Service data.

Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in reforestation
needs reported by the Forest Service. Although the Forest Service data, in
combination with other information, are sufficiently reliable for this
purpose, the data cannot be used to accurately quantify the Forest
Service's reforestation needs.

With respect to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest Service reports
that the acreage of its lands needing such treatments increased in most
years following 1995, except for 1999, 2003, and 2004, when the reported
needs declined slightly (as shown in fig. 3). The agency partially
attributes the decline in needs during these years to an emphasis on
thinning treatments and additional work associated with the National Fire
Plan during 2003 and 2004.4 Officials at two of the four regions we
visited,

4In 2001, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed a
National Fire Plan with state and local agencies and tribal governments to
provide technical and financial resources to reduce the risk to
communities and ecosystems from wildland fire, in part, by reducing
hazardous fuels by thinning trees-one type of timber stand improvement
treatment.

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.

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

Thousands of acres 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service data.

                                 2002 2003 2004

Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in timber stand
improvement needs reported by the Forest Service. Although the Forest
Service data, in combination with other information, are sufficiently
reliable for this purpose, the data cannot be used to accurately quantify
the Forest Service's timber stand improvement needs.

Forest Service Data Are Inconsistent Across Regions and Inadequate to
Accurately Quantify Needs

The Forest Service data, when combined with other information from Forest
Service officials and nongovernmental experts-as well as data on recent
increases in natural disturbances such as wildland fire-are sufficiently
reliable for identifying relative trend information. However, we have
concerns about the use of these data in quantifying the acreage of Forest
Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement
treatments because the reported data are inconsistent and insufficiently
reliable for this purpose. These data are not sufficiently reliable
because Forest Service regions define needs differently, influencing the
volume of needs reported, and vary in their ability to link needs to
forest locations, making it difficult to detect obsolete needs and update
the data to reflect current on-the-ground conditions. Additionally, the
data are a mixture of

actual needs and estimates and may not be routinely reviewed for accuracy.
As a result, the needs reported at the regional level cannot be
meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Many of these data problems
are long standing and may not be adequately addressed when the Forest
Service implements a new data system. Without better data, Forest Service
officials said, it is difficult to provide the Congress with estimates of
the funding needed to prevent a backlog of reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs. Additionally, agency officials said that given
constrained resources and competing priorities they focus more on
performing the treatments than accurately identifying and reporting
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.

Regions Use Inconsistent The Forest Service's nine regions have
independently developed their own

Definitions of Need	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.5 According to Northern Region Forest Service officials, these
changes largely were responsible for more than doubling the timber stand
improvement needs reported by this region from 1995 to 1996.

Regions Vary in Their Ability to Forest Service regions and national
forests within regions vary in the Link Needs to Forest Locations quality
of the source data they collect and report. Specifically, some regions

Data Are a Mixture of Actual Needs and Estimates

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.

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

5Prior to 1996, the Northern Region allowed use of only a single type of
site examination- timber stand improvement pretreatment examination-to
prescribe a timber stand improvement treatment. In 1996, the region
changed its policy to allow the use of other, less rigorous examinations.

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.

Data Are Not Reviewed for Accuracy

Data Problems Are Long Standing and May Not Be Resolved with New System

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.

The problems we identified with the Forest Service's data on reported
needs are not new. In 1985, a congressional study of the Forest Service's
reforestation and timber stand improvement program found that numbers used
to report both the reforestation and timber stand improvement backlogs
were unreliable because backlogged needs were not linked to specific
forest locations and because data at different organizational levels could
not be reconciled.6 This study attributed these shortcomings to a lack of
centralized program management to standardize definitions of need and
establish consistent reporting criteria. Subsequent reviews of the
program, including a GAO review in 1991, found similar problems and
recommended

6Surveys and Investigations Staff of House Committee on Appropriations,
99th Cong., A Report to the Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of
Representatives on the 10-Year Reforestation Backlog Elimination Program
of the U.S. Forest Service (1985).

additional standardization.7 The Forest Service recognizes these problems
and has acknowledged it has not provided the Congress estimates on funding
needed to prevent a backlog, in part, because needs data are a mixture of
actual needs, estimates, and obsolete needs. Instead, the Forest Service
provides the Congress with a proposed program of work, outlining the
amount of reforestation and timber stand improvement needs it will address
within certain budget limits.

In an attempt to improve its data and integrate its reporting between
regions and headquarters, the Forest Service is introducing a new
agencywide system for collecting and reporting data on reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs. The Forest Service intends to implement
the new system by the end of fiscal year 2005. When the new system
replaces individual district, forest, and regional systems for reporting
needs with a single, agency-wide database, it will standardize how
reforestation and timber stand improvement activities are tracked as well
as modernize data entry, system maintenance, and security activities.
However, the agency acknowledges these changes will not, in and of
themselves, address the data reliability issues that we have identified
since the Forest Service intends to transfer regional data from the
current systems to the new system without altering how reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs are defined, interpreted, and reported from
the initial needs assessment onward. Since this system does not introduce
any new procedures to standardize how needs are defined or to check for
and correct errors, the consistency and accuracy of the data will still be
determined at the local level. Forest Service officials told us they do
not anticipate making significant changes to current agency policies and
practices that make regions individually responsible for developing data
collection and reporting standards and ensuring that data are accurate.
Therefore, it is likely that present data deficiencies will persist in the
new system if existing data are incorporated into it without additional
efforts being made to improve the data. Officials acknowledge that
improving the data will require a significant investment of resources and
also

7See Department of Agriculture, Performance and Accountability Report for
FY 2003: Appendix A- Management Challenges, (Washington, D.C.: September
2003), p. 264; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Region, Forest Density Management: Recent History and Trends for the
Pacific Northwest Region, R6-NR-TM-TP05-01 (Portland, Oregon, 2001); and
GAO, Forest Service: Better Reporting Needed on Reforestation and Timber
Stand Improvement, GAO/RCED-91-71 (Washington, D.C.: March 15, 1991).

acknowledge that unless the work is done, data reliability issues will
persist.

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

Natural disturbances, such as wildland fires or insect infestations, and
management decisions are the major factors contributing to the recent
increase in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, according to
Forest Service officials. The officials said that reforestation needs are
accumulating primarily because a recent increase in natural disturbances
has created more needs, and funding to pay for such needs is limited.
Other factors, such as reforestation failures, also have contributed to
increasing reforestation needs, according to agency officials. Timber
stand improvement needs have accumulated, in part, because some regions do
not emphasize these projects and consequently, treatments have not kept
pace with growing needs. At the same time, agency officials have been
identifying more timber stand improvement needs as they have expanded the
scope of work included in the program. In addition, timber stand
improvement needs have been increasing because, in the 1980s and 1990s,
the Forest Service used reforestation techniques that favored planting
trees densely, creating stands that now need thinning.

Agency Officials Link Rising Reforestation Needs to Natural Causes Rather
Than Timber Harvests

Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been rising
largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by causes
other than timber harvests, and funding to address these needs has not
kept pace. During the early 1990s, the agency shifted its management
emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest ecosystem health and,
as a result, began harvesting less timber. With the reduction in harvests,
revenue from timber sales decreased. As shown in figure 4, nearly 4
billion board feet of timber were harvested from Forest Service lands in
1995, whereas about 2 billion board feet were harvested in 2004.
Similarly, according to the Forest Service, the timber harvested on its
lands in 1995 was worth about $616 million, whereas timber harvested in
2004 was worth about $217 million. As timber harvests and revenue have
decreased, related reforestation needs also have decreased, and so the
Forest Service has generally been able to meet these needs by using timber
sale revenue to help pay for reforestation. Forest Service officials also
noted that the value of the wood they are now selling is typically much
lower than it was a decade ago.

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

Billion board feet 4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

               1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year Source: Forest Service data.

According to Forest Service reports, as timber harvests and related
reforestation needs were decreasing, the acreage burned in wildland fires
and damaged by insects and diseases annually began to increase
significantly around 2000, leaving thousands of acres needing
reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres in
2000, compared with less than 6 million acres in 1999 and about 2.3
million acres in 1998.8 In 2002, Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon recorded
their largest fires in the last century. Similarly, figure 5 shows that
the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases has increased
significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest affected in 2003,
compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999. As the acreage affected
by these natural disturbances increased, so did reforestation needs.
However, funding allocated to pay for reforestation did not increase at
the same rate, so needs began to accumulate.

8These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not just
Forest Service land.

Figure 5: Acres of Tree Mortality Caused by Insects and Disease on
Forested Lands Nationwide for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003

Millions of acres

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service.

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

While reported reforestation needs have been rising, funding allocated for
reforestation and timber stand improvement has been relatively constant
(as shown in fig. 6). In addition, pressure on limited funding was
magnified in fiscal year 2001, as the Forest Service combined under one
budget multiple programs including reforestation and timber stand
improvement as well as range, watershed improvement, and noxious weed
management programs, among others. Once these programs were combined,
agency officials had to balance reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs against priorities in the other programs. On a broader scale, a
Forest Service official said they must balance reforestation needs against
other competing priorities when requesting a budget from the Congress, so
they did not request more funding to help pay for reforestation needs
during the last decade. Officials did, however, request additional funding
for fiscal year 2006, according to an agency official.

Figure 6: Forest Service Appropriations Allocated to Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

Dollars in millions

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Source: Forest Service data.

Note: The Forest Service allocates funds from its National Forest System
appropriation to pay for reforestation and timber stand improvement.
Amounts presented for 1995 through 2000 are amounts allocated from enacted
appropriation levels. Because the reforestation and timber stand
improvement program was combined with several other programs under one
budget beginning in 2001, the amounts presented for 2001 through 2004 are
estimates provided by the Forest Service.

In addition to natural causes, several other factors have contributed to
the reported increase in reforestation needs, according to Forest Service
officials. In some areas, reforestation attempts have failed, creating
needs where agency officials will try again to reforest the same lands.
Reforestation efforts can fail for a variety of reasons, such as
insufficient moisture, improper planting techniques, or animal damage to
young seedlings. Ongoing drought conditions in the West, as well as the
retirement of experienced foresters, may have played a role in recent
reforestation failures, according to Forest Service officials. Another
factor that has contributed to the reported increase in reforestation
needs is that some national forests have recently acquired lands through
purchase or exchange that need reforestation. For example, the Ozark-St.
Francis

National Forest in Arkansas acquired about 11,000 acres of land in 1993
and 1994 that had been harvested, and much of it needed reforestation.
About 4,000 acres of the land have yet to be reforested.

Changing Management Practices Have Contributed to Reported Increase in
Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Some Regions Emphasize Reforestation Needs over Timber Stand Improvement
Needs

Forest Service Has Expanded Scope of Timber Stand Improvement

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.

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.

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

Forest Service Favored Dense Tree Planting in the 1980s and 1990s

Some Regions' Trends in Timber Stand Improvement Needs Deviate from
National Trends for Various Reasons

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.

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.

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.

Land Managers Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement Needs Are Not Addressed

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to accumulate
in the future, the Forest Service will likely have to postpone some
projects. According to agency officials, the agency's ability to achieve
forest management objectives may consequently be impaired; treatment costs
could increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire,
disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service officials expressed
concern about the potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the
agency has not clarified priorities for the reforestation and timber stand
improvement program that reflect this concern and the current context in
which the program operates. Instead, regions and forests rely mainly on
decision-making practices initiated when the agency's primary focus was
timber production, and timber revenues allowed them to fund reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs with fewer constraints. Forest Service
headquarters officials acknowledged this circumstance and noted that field
staff could benefit from clarified, updated national policy.

Forest Service's Ability to Meet Forest Management Objectives Could Be
Impaired

The Forest Service's ability to meet the management objectives defined in
its forest plans-such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a forest
or appropriate habitat for certain wildlife-could be impaired if
reforestation or timber stand improvement treatments are delayed. For
example, at the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and Idaho, agency
officials have identified a management objective of establishing or
maintaining ponderosa pine forests, which populated the area historically
and are welladapted to high-frequency, low-intensity wildland fires.
Currently, the Bitterroot National Forest has thousands of acres that need
reforestation because of wildland fires in 2000. If these needs are left
unattended, douglas fir forests will likely become established instead of
ponderosa pine; and, according to agency officials, douglas fir tends to
grow into crowded stands that officials believe will perpetuate the cycle
of dense forests, fueling severe fires. In addition, agency officials
prefer ponderosa pine forests because they provide habitat for certain
wildlife species, such as pileated woodpeckers. In other cases, an area
previously dominated by forests could become dominated by shrubfields,
compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. In the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest,

an area that was cleared by logging and wildland fires at the turn of the
century left a brushfield that persisted for over 60 years and only became
forested when the Forest Service actively planted the area. Similarly,
about 750 acres in the Tahoe National Forest were cleared by a 1924
wildland fire and replaced by shrubs (shown in fig. 7) that remained until
agency officials replanted the area in 1964-40 years later. One Forest
Service official expressed particular concern about leaving reforestation
needs unattended because, as these needs are increasingly created by
natural causes such as wildland fires that burn vast areas, adverse
effects have the potential to occur on a large scale. Furthermore, an
agency official said that if they cannot meet the management objectives
defined in their forest management plans, it will be difficult to fulfill
their mission "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
nation's forests."

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

Source: USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-248, 2003.

Similarly, if timber stand improvement needs are not addressed, it also
will be difficult to meet forest management objectives. For example, if
competing vegetation is not removed, the success of recently completed
reforestation treatments can be jeopardized, hindering agency efforts to
meet objectives such as maintaining an area in a forested condition or
reintroducing certain species of trees. If thinning needs are left
unattended, forest management objectives can be thwarted as well. For
example, some forests have identified areas where timber production is an
objective, and thinning treatments are used to increase timber
productivity by removing trees with the least potential for growth and
leaving those with the greatest potential. When these treatments are
delayed, trees grow more slowly and may not reach the desired size,
slowing progress in meeting timber production objectives.

Project Costs Could Increase

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in a
timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing
vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber stand
improvement projects, will become more costly as the vegetation grows. For
example, at the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas, insects
have destroyed thousands of acres of red oak forests since 1999, leaving
large areas that need to be reforested. As the Forest Service has left
these areas unattended, brush that must be removed before new seedlings
are planted is becoming established, and removing it will be more costly
as time passes. When the brush was young and small, it could have been
removed with inexpensive methods such as hand spraying herbicides; but now
it will require a more expensive method such as cutting the brush with a
chainsaw, according to agency officials. If these areas are left
indefinitely, trees may become established, but a different mix of species
will probably replace the red oak forests, which are desirable both for
their commercial value and the habitat they provide for wildlife, such as
large game.

In addition, some Forest Service officials said that because there has
been recent controversy over salvage timber sales-the selling of dead or
dying trees-the sales have been delayed, adding costs to reforestation
projects done following salvage sales. The Forest Service could not,
however, quantify such costs. Although salvage sales do not always precede
reforestation, any salvage harvesting that is done is generally completed
before reforesting begins because logging activities and equipment can
damage young seedlings. Consequently, when salvage sales are delayed,
reforestation projects are delayed as well, causing reforestation costs to
increase as vegetation grows that must be removed before reforesting.

Also, when salvage sales are delayed, revenue declines because over time
the value of the salvage timber decreases as the wood decays. According to
agency officials, revenue from salvage sales was once enough to cover
administrative costs of the sale and also help pay for reforestation in
some cases, but now it is not typically enough to pay for any
reforestation. However, data are not readily available to show how common
it is for salvage sales to delay reforestation projects or the extent to
which revenues for salvage timber have declined, and why.

Forest Susceptibility to Wildland Fire, Insects, and Disease Could
Increase

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed,
forests will be more susceptible to severe wildland fires and damage from
insects and disease, according to agency officials. When reforestation
needs are left unattended, brush can grow in place of forests, providing
dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires. Alternatively, exotic plant
species may become established, some of which are more susceptible to
wildland fires than native species. Once such invasive species become
established, it is difficult to eradicate them. In addition, wildland
fires may weaken some trees without killing them, leaving them susceptible
to insect attack and diseases; and if reforestation needs are left
unattended, an insect infestation can grow to epidemic proportions. In
contrast, when the Forest Service reforests such an area, agency officials
typically will first remove infested trees, which can serve as carriers
for insects and disease, and then plant healthy seedlings that are more
resistant.

Leaving timber stand improvement needs unattended also can increase forest
susceptibility to wildland fire, insects, and disease. Forests that are
densely populated and need thinning tend to be stressed because the trees
compete with one another for sunlight, water, and nutrients. Experts
believe that when wildland fires start in such forests, they are fueled by
the tightly spaced trees, causing the fires to spread rapidly and
increasing the likelihood of unusually large fires, resulting in
widespread destruction. Similarly, when insects or diseases infect such
forests-especially when the trees are of a uniform species and age rather
than a variety of species and ages-they can spread rapidly because of the
stressed condition of the trees and because the trees are close together
and of the same species.

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

Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential
effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to address
these concerns and adapt to changes in the context in which the program
operates. The Forest Service has shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management, sources of reforestation needs
have shifted from timber harvests to natural causes, and budgets have
become increasingly constrained. However, the agency has not adjusted the
program's direction, policies, practices, and priorities in keeping with
these changes, although agency officials acknowledged the need to do so.
Until they do, it will be difficult to ensure that reforestation and
timber stand improvement funds are targeted toward activities that will
have the greatest impact in mitigating potential adverse effects.

While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there
remains a general lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more
specifically, a lack of clarity about the direction and goals for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program, according to agency
officials. When timber production was the emphasis, the direction for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program was clearly focused
around maximizing timber production, whereas in the current environment,
it is less clear. Reforestation and timber stand improvement projects now
are done for multiple purposes-such as improving wildlife habitat,
protecting streams and water quality, and reducing susceptibility to
wildland fires-but it is unclear which of these purposes are more
important, if any, and how to allocate limited funds to support such
diverse purposes. The lack of clarity is apparent in forest management
plans, where management objectives are expressed in language that may be
vague or contradictory, according to agency officials. For example, one
objective in a Montana forest's management plan calls for providing "a
pleasing and healthy environment, including clean air, clean water, and
diverse ecosystems." The forest management plans are intended to help
guide management decisions, such as deciding which reforestation and
timber stand improvement techniques to use, but agency officials said it
can be difficult to interpret the plans when making such decisions because
of the vague language, conflicting management objectives, or a combination
of these factors. A 2004 study in the Pacific Southwest Region found that
many agency officials believe forest management plans are too generic and
lack clear priorities.

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.

Conclusions	The Forest Service needs a more accurate assessment of its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to reflect the condition
of our national forests. Although emphasizing data accuracy may take away
from resources to carry out reforestation and timber stand improvements in
the short-term, this investment is a critical foundation for providing a
credible

picture of these needs to Forest Service managers and the Congress. If the
agency does not have accurate data, it cannot clearly define the extent or
severity of its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs or
effectively channel efforts and resources to meet the most important
needs. Currently, the Forest Service has difficulty estimating how much it
would cost to meet all of its reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs because Forest Service data are inconsistent across regions and are
not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify needs. With the advent of
a new agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the
opportunity to improve the accuracy of its data. However, the new system
will only be as good as the data that are entered into it. The Forest
Service should take this opportunity to address the data reliability
problems by standardizing procedures, developing a common definition of
need, and validating the data-verifying that reported needs accurately
reflect conditions on the ground-so that it can build a well-founded
budget case for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
To seize this opportunity and minimize the potential adverse effects of
unmet needs, it is important for the Forest Service to act soon. While it
may not be possible for the agency to make all the necessary changes in
time for its fiscal year 2006 appropriations request, it should aim to do
so in time to support its fiscal year 2007 request.

The Forest Service also must recognize, however, that in the current,
fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported budget needs may not
always be funded. The shift in management emphasis from timber production
to ecosystem management, combined with constrained budgets and changing
sources of reforestation needs, has changed the context in which the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program operates. However, the
Forest Service has not updated its goals and policies for the program to
reflect this change. Until the agency does so, it will be difficult to
establish criteria for prioritizing the use of reforestation and timber
stand improvement funds. In the current budget environment, such criteria
are crucial for identifying the best investments to minimize possible
adverse effects so that the Forest Service can fulfill its stewardship
responsibility and ensure the lasting health and productivity of our
national forests.

Recommendations for 	To enhance the ability of the Forest Service to
identify its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and ensure
funding for its most critical

Executive Action	projects, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following actions:

o 	standardize collection, reporting, and review procedures for data on
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs by clarifying agencywide
guidance and developing a standard definition of need;

o 	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;

o 	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

o 	require regions and forests to establish criteria for prioritizing the
use of their reforestation and timber stand improvement funds in the
current budget environment.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Forest
Service on behalf of Agriculture and from Interior. The Forest Service
concurred with our findings and recommendations. Interior also concurred
with our findings related to the Bureau of Land Management's reforestation
and growth enhancement program discussed in appendix I and provided a
technical suggestion that we have incorporated into the report. The Forest
Service's and Interior's letters are included in appendixes III and IV,
respectively.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to other interested congressional committees. We also will send
copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and the Chief of
the Forest Service. We will make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
V.

Sincerely yours,

Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Appendix I

Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health Trends
in Western Oregon

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 261 million acres of
land nationwide, including about 55 million acres of forest and woodlands,
which are administered under two management programs- one for about 2.4
million acres in western Oregon,1 and another for the remaining 53 million
acres of public domain lands, located mostly in the West. BLM's western
Oregon lands include both lands managed primarily for timber and reserve
forests, which are managed primarily to meet wildlife habitat and other
objectives. The public domain lands consist mainly of woodlands, with some
commercial forests. We confined our review of BLM to its western Oregon
lands because the majority of BLM's reforestation and related efforts are
focused there and because BLM records for its public domain lands are not
in a centralized, automated database. (For more information on the scope
and methodology of our review, see app. II.)

Regarding trends, BLM reports that it had backlogs of acres needing
reforestation and growth enhancement treatments2 in western Oregon in
1993, but that such needs decreased until 2002 when the backlogs were
eliminated. Since then, BLM reports that it has kept pace with these
needs. According to BLM officials, the backlogs-defined by BLM as needs
delayed 5 years or more-developed mainly because BLM was harvesting large
volumes of timber, which created reforestation needs. The backlogs were
eliminated through a combination of factors, including reduced harvest
levels, increased funding, and management actions taken by BLM. Agency
officials believe that because they are keeping pace with their current
reforestation and growth enhancement needs, they are minimizing any
potential adverse effects that could result from carrying a backlog of
unattended needs.

1BLM manages approximately 2.1 million acres of Oregon and California
(O&C) lands, 75,000 acres of revested Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, and
additional intermingled public domain lands in western Oregon. The Forest
Service manages another 492,399 acres of O&C lands in Oregon.

2BLM's growth enhancement activities are similar to the Forest Service's
timber stand improvement activities. BLM includes thinning, pruning,
fertilization, and one type of release treatment under the heading of
growth enhancement, but another type of release treatment-one that is
essential for seedling survival-is included under BLM's reforestation
program.

 Appendix I Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health
                            Trends in Western Oregon

Background	BLM is required to administer its western Oregon lands in
accordance with the Oregon and California Grant Lands Act of 1937. The act
called for permanent forest production and protection of watersheds, among
other things, on BLM's western Oregon lands. It also established an
initial upper limit of 500 million board feet of timber that could be sold
annually from these lands and directed BLM to adjust the limit, based on
the capacity of the land. Accordingly, BLM has adjusted the limit several
times-to 1,185 million board feet per year in 1983, 211 million board feet
per year in 1995 with the advent of the Northwest Forest Plan, and 203
million board feet per year in 1999, where it remains today.3 To fund
reforestation and growth enhancement work, BLM relies mainly on funds it
has allocated for its reforestation and growth enhancement program-about
$25 million in 2004. In addition, a small portion of such work is funded
through other sources, such as appropriations allocated for wildland fire
rehabilitation and the forest ecosystem health recovery fund.4

BLM Reports Eliminating Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Backlogs in
2002

For the 10-year period between 1995 and 2004, BLM reports that its annual
reforestation and growth enhancement needs on its western Oregon lands
generally decreased until 2002, after which annual treatments kept pace
with such needs, as shown in figure 8. A 1994 Interior Inspector General
report found that at the end of fiscal year 1993, BLM had a backlog of
over 50,000 acres of reforestation needs and over 220,000 acres of growth
enhancement needs.5 According to a BLM official, after the backlogs were
identified, needs generally decreased (for reasons noted in

3The Northwest Forest Plan is a long-term management plan designed to
provide a stable supply of timber while also protecting fish and wildlife
habitat for 22.1 million acres of federal forest in western Oregon,
western Washington, and northern California (including 2.7 million acres
of BLM-administered forests and 19.4 million acres of Forest
Serviceadministered forest).

4The forest ecosystem health recovery fund is a permanent operating
account that collects revenues from timber sales held for forest health
reasons, such as removing dead and down timber or thinning a forest to
reduce hazardous fuels.

5See Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, Audit Report:
Forestry Operations in Western Oregon, Bureau of Land Management, Report
No. 94-I-359 (Washington, D.C.: February 1994).

 Appendix I Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health
                            Trends in Western Oregon

the following section) until both backlogs were eliminated in 2002.6 Since
2002, BLM has kept pace with its reforestation and growth enhancement
needs on its western Oregon lands, agency officials said.

  Figure 8: BLM Western Oregon Reforestation and Growth Enhancement Needs for
                         Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

Thousands of acres

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year

                                  Source: BLM.

                                 2002 2003 2004

Agency Officials Link Past Backlogs to Timber Harvests and Funding
Shortfall

BLM's past backlogs developed primarily because timber harvests on its
western Oregon lands had risen sharply, causing related reforestation and
growth enhancement needs to increase, while funding allocated to address
the needs decreased rather than increasing in step with the needs. Timber
harvests on BLM's western Oregon lands were at their peak in the late

6According to a BLM official, there are still some deferred fertilization
needs, but the needs cannot be addressed because the agency is prohibited
from conducting such activities by a judicial stay related to restrictions
on the use of fertilizer.

 Appendix I Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health
                            Trends in Western Oregon

1980s with over 1 billion board feet of timber sold annually; causing a
spike in reforestation and related needs. However, unlike the Forest
Service, BLM does not have the authority to use timber revenues from
standard timber sales for reforestation and growth enhancement treatments.
Instead, BLM relies on annual appropriations from the Congress to fund
such treatments. According to the Inspector General's report, BLM had
backlogs in its reforestation and growth enhancement program because it
did not request or receive sufficient funding through the budget process
to eliminate these backlogs and because it used about $5.4 million of its
forest program funds for overhead costs not related to forestry. In
addition, large wildland fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s added to
BLM's growing reforestation needs, according to agency officials.

Agency Officials Attribute Elimination of Backlogs to Declining Timber
Harvests, Increased Funding, and Management Actions

Declining timber harvests, increased funding, and actions taken by BLM
combined to help eliminate the reforestation and growth enhancement
backlogs, according to agency officials. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, the volume of timber sold annually on BLM's western Oregon lands
decreased considerably-from a peak of 1,583 million board feet in 1986 to
a low of 14 million board feet in 1994-and associated reforestation needs
decreased in parallel. According to BLM officials, the declining timber
harvests were largely a result of growing controversy surrounding timber
harvests and the protection of endangered species on public land. Related
litigation and judicial decisions hindered BLM from harvesting timber on
its lands. The controversy was addressed in the Northwest Forest Plan,
adopted in 1994, which reduced the portion of BLM's western Oregon lands
to be managed primarily for timber. After adoption of the plan, BLM
reduced the upper limit on annual timber sales from these lands to 211
million board feet. At the same time, BLM modified its harvesting methods
to rely less on clear-cutting and more on thinning. Unlike clear-cut
forests, the thinned forests did not need to be reforested and required
fewer growth enhancement treatments, resulting in a further reduction of
needs. While reforestation needs were decreasing, BLM increased the
funding it allocated for reforestation and growth enhancement from about
$23 million in 1995 to about $26.5 million in 1996-an increase of about 15
percent. According to agency officials, increased funding in 1996 and
subsequent years enabled BLM to treat more acres annually than it had done
previously, thereby reducing the backlogs.

In addition to declining timber harvests and increased funding, BLM took
several actions to help reduce its reforestation and growth enhancement
backlogs in response to the 1994 Inspector General's report. First,
officials

 Appendix I Bureau of Land Management's Reforestation and Related Forest Health
                            Trends in Western Oregon

in the reforestation and growth enhancement program instituted measures to
improve their data collection and tracking so that they could accurately
quantify the size of the backlogs, locate the source of the backlogs, and
track progress in eliminating them. Second, BLM shifted its priorities,
funding, and resources to target the areas where the need was greatest.
BLM officials from all of the districts in western Oregon, as well as the
state office, came together to agree on a list of priorities for the
program, then targeted available funding and resources to the highest
priority needs. For example, they decided to place a higher priority on
maintaining existing timber stands than on planting new stands, because
maintenance needs made up the greatest portion of the backlog. Adhering to
the prioritization scheme helped address the backlog, according to an
agency official, but required staff to have fluid roles. Finally, BLM
officials analyzed treatment costs per acre in each district and
identified best practices to optimize their investments of scarce
resources. For example, one district identified costsaving forestry
techniques for thinning, while another identified lower-cost contracting
procedures. BLM then standardized these practices across all western
Oregon districts.

BLM Reports Preventing Adverse Effects by Keeping Pace with Reforestation
and Growth Enhancement Needs

Because BLM has been keeping pace with its reforestation and growth
enhancement needs on its western Oregon lands since 2002, it is preventing
any adverse effects that could result from a backlog of needs, according
to agency officials.

Appendix II

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To examine the trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, we reviewed the Forest Service and BLM programs because
most of the nation's reforestation and timber stand improvement activities
are managed by these two agencies. We focused our work primarily on the
Forest Service's program because it is larger than BLM's and its forests
cover a broader cross-section of the country. During 2004, we visited the
following four Forest Service regions and one national forest in each
region: Northern, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Southern.
These regions were selected because they had the highest reported
reforestation or timber stand improvement needs for fiscal years 2000 to
2003.1 We obtained and analyzed 10 years of national data, from fiscal
years 1995 through 2004, on the Forest Service's reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs and treatments from the agency's Timber Activity
Control System for Silvicultural Activities (TRACS-SILVA).2 We assessed
the reliability of the data by examining the TRACS-SILVA system as well as
the regional data systems of the four regions we visited, which provide
the source data for the national TRACS-SILVA system. To understand what
standards, procedures, and internal controls are in place for collecting,
reporting, and verifying needs-and to assess the accuracy and completeness
of the TRACS-SILVA data-we conducted structured interviews with
headquarters, regional, and forest-level officials who enter data into the
data systems, maintain the systems, and prepare reports using data from
the systems. We performed basic electronic testing on some of the data and
reviewed manuals and other documents describing the systems, such as
flowcharts and data dictionaries. To obtain information about the new
agency-wide data system, known as the Forest Service Activity Tracking
System (FACTS), we interviewed agency officials involved in its
implementation and reviewed information on the system's data management
functions, procedures, and applications.

To corroborate the TRACS-SILVA data, we obtained information about trends
in the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
from additional sources. Specifically, we interviewed agency program
officials and data experts in headquarters as well as in each regional and
forest office that we visited to discuss the trends in reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs, and we visited sites

1At the time we began our review, 2003 data were the most current
available.

2Our review of the TRACS-SILVA system was limited to the portion of the
system that reports reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and
accomplishments.

Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

where reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments were needed.
In addition, we reviewed agency reports and testimony written by
foresters, budget officials, and researchers. We also reviewed
nongovernmental studies and contacted outside experts to discuss these
trends. Based on our review, we determined that the Forest Service data-
when combined with other information we examined-are sufficiently reliable
to identify general trend information, but we have concerns about whether
these data accurately quantify the acreage of land needing reforestation
and timber stand improvement.

To identify the factors that have contributed to reforestation and timber
stand improvement trends, we interviewed Forest Service officials in
headquarters and the regional and national forest offices we visited. We
also contacted an agency official in the Southwestern Region. We reviewed
headquarters and regional reports on factors contributing to reforestation
and timber stand improvement trends as well as reports from the Forest
Service's research station in the Rocky Mountain region and supplemented
this information by interviewing researchers there. We obtained Forest
Service data on timber harvests, wildland fires, and insect infestations
during the last decade and conducted limited reliability assessments on
these data. We also interviewed experts from nongovernmental organizations
and reviewed publications from the organizations.

To determine the potential effects of the Forest Service's reforestation
and timber stand improvement trends identified by the agency's land
managers, we interviewed agency officials (including ecologists and
silviculturists) in headquarters, regional, and national forest offices.
We visited the sites of ongoing and completed reforestation and timber
stand improvement projects in four national forests and discussed the
potential effects of delaying treatments with local Forest Service
officials. We interviewed Forest Service research program officials as
well as scientific and technical experts at Forest Service research
stations in Arizona and Montana and at nongovernmental organizations. We
also reviewed select governmental and nongovernmental publications,
including scientific studies that discuss potential effects of delaying
reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and interviewed some
of the authors.

We limited our review of BLM to its western Oregon lands because they are
central to the agency's forest development program and because BLM does
not systematically track reforestation data for its other lands. We
obtained and analyzed 10 years of data, from 1995 through 2004, on the
BLM's reforestation and growth enhancement needs in western Oregon. We

Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

Appendix V

                     GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts	Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 David P. Bixler, (202)
512-7201

Staff 	Other individuals making key contributions to this report were Bill
Bates, Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Sandra Edwards, Omari Norman, Cynthia

Acknowledgments Norris, and Jay Smale.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***