Forest Service: Factors Affecting Timber Sales in Five National Forests
(Letter Report, 10/28/94, GAO/RCED-95-12).
In recent years, debate about the future of the national forest system
has focused on ensuring that timber harvests do not exceed the forests'
ability to replenish the available supply of timber. An important
component of managing forests on a sustained-yield basis is each
forest's "allowable sale quantity"--an estimate of the maximum volume of
timber that can be sold from each forest over a 10-year period without
impairing other uses of the forest, such as recreation or wildlife
habitat. GAO reviewed the allowable sale quantities and the timber sales
at five national forests--Deschutes and Mt. Hood in Oregon, Gifford
Pinchot in Washington, Ouachita in Arkansas, and Chattahoochee-Oconee in
Georgia. The Forest Service did not meet allowable sale quantities in
the five forests for a variety of reasons, including (1) limitations in
the data and estimating techniques on which the allowable sale
quantities were originally based, (2) new forest management issues and
changing priorities, and (3) rising or unanticipated costs associated
with preparing timber sales and administering harvests. Although forest
officials believed that the Service has used the best information
available to develop the allowable sale quantities, they later failed to
meet these levels. As a result, timber sales for each of the five
forests between fiscal years 1991 and 1993 were significantly below the
average annual allowable sale quantity.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-12
TITLE: Forest Service: Factors Affecting Timber Sales in Five
National Forests
DATE: 10/28/94
SUBJECT: Environmental policies
Natural resources
Land management
Timber sales
Data collection operations
National forests
Forest conservation
Forest management
Endangered species
Administrative costs
IDENTIFIER: Gifford Pinchot National Forest (WA)
Ouachita National Forest (AR)
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest (GA)
Deschutes National Forest (OR)
Mt. Hood National Forest (OR)
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks
and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
October 1994
FOREST SERVICE - FACTORS AFFECTING
TIMBER SALES IN FIVE NATIONAL
FORESTS
GAO/RCED-95-12
Factors Affecting Timber Sales
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ASQ - allowable sale quantity
FORPLAN - forest planning model
GAO - General Accounting Office
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA - National Forest Management Act
RPA - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-257771
October 28, 1994
The Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In recent years, debate about the future of the national forest
system has focused, in part, on the issue of sustained yield--that
is, on ensuring that timber harvests do not exceed the forests'
ability to replenish the available supply of timber. An important
component of managing forests on a sustained-yield basis is each
forest's "allowable sale quantity," or ASQ. As defined by the Forest
Service, the allowable sale quantity is an estimate of the maximum
volume of timber that can be sold from each forest over a 10-year
period without impairing other uses of that forest, such as
recreation or protection of wildlife habitat.
The exact role of the allowable sale quantity in setting timber sale
volumes has been a source of controversy. The Forest Service, which
is not required by statute or regulation to prepare the entire
allowable sale quantity for harvest, views it as an upper limit on
timber sales, not as a specific goal. The timber industry, however,
often regards it as the volume that should be provided for sale.
Meanwhile, some environmental groups maintain that the allowable sale
quantity overstates the ability of some forests to produce timber on
a sustained-yield basis.
The quantity of timber sold from a national forest is sometimes
substantially below the allowable sale quantity. You asked us to
identify the reasons for this difference. As agreed with your
office, we reviewed the allowable sale quantities and the timber
sales at five national forests--three in the Forest Service's Pacific
Northwest Region and two in the Southern Region. The five forests
were the Deschutes and Mt. Hood in Oregon, Gifford Pinchot in
Washington, Ouachita in Arkansas, and Chattahoochee-Oconee in
Georgia. We chose forests in these two regions primarily because
these regions sold more timber in fiscal year 1993 than the Forest
Service's other seven regions.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The Forest Service did not meet allowable sale quantities in the five
forests we reviewed for a variety of reasons, including (1)
limitations in the data and estimating techniques on which the
allowable sale quantities were originally based, (2) new forest
management issues and changing priorities, and (3) rising or
unanticipated costs associated with preparing timber sales and
administering harvests. Although forest officials believed that they
had used the best information available at the time to develop the
allowable sale quantities, they subsequently did not meet these
levels. As a result, timber sales for each of the five forests
between fiscal years 1991 and 1993 were significantly below the
average annual allowable sale quantity. Reasons for these
differences included the following:
Limitations in forestwide data and estimating techniques
contributed to lower timber sales. For example, officials at
the Deschutes National Forest found that they had overestimated
the size of the timber inventory in timber harvest areas. They
had based their inventory on an average volume that might have
been accurate for the forest as a whole but was not accurate
within the parts of the forest where they were preparing a sale.
New forest management issues reduced timber sales. For example, in
the Pacific Northwest forests we reviewed, the northern spotted
owl was listed as a threatened species after the allowable sale
quantities were established. Many timber sales in these forests
were halted after substantial portions of the forests were set
aside for spotted owl habitat.
Costs rose or unanticipated costs were incurred in preparing and
administering timber sales. For example, at the
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, officials said that the
costs of preparing timber sales and administering harvests rose
by about 36 percent between 1988 and 1993, in part because of a
change in timber harvesting methods. As a result, less timber
was prepared for sale than had been planned.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages for
multiple uses 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands
under a wide and complex set of laws and regulations. For fiscal
year 1993, the Forest Service reported selling 4.5 billion board
feet\1 of timber from the lands for a total bid value\2 of $774.9
million.
Developing ASQs is part of a legislatively required process specified
in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614), as amended by the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614). RPA requires
the Forest Service to develop long-range planning goals for
activities on rangelands and in national forests, and NFMA directs
the Forest Service to develop detailed management plans for national
forests and to regulate timber harvests to ensure the protection of
other resources. The Forest Service has supplemented this guidance
with regulations, first issued in 1979 and revised in 1982, and with
a manual and handbooks for forest-level use. (See apps. I and II
for further discussion of these laws, regulations, and policy
guidance.)
The Forest Service also has management responsibilities that extend
beyond timber production, including such other activities as
protecting natural resources like air, water, soils, plants, and
animals for current and future generations. The Multiple
Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531) gives the Forest
Service authority to manage lands for multiple uses and to sustain in
perpetuity the outputs of various renewable natural resources. In
carrying out its responsibilities, the Forest Service must also
comply with other requirements for identifying and considering the
effects that activities may have on natural resources. For example,
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires the preparation of environmental impact statements for
major actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
National forest management can be divided into three main
processes--planning, budgeting, and (for timber resources) preparing
timber sales. These processes are summarized below and explained
further in appendix III.
--------------------
\1 A board foot, a standard measure of timber, equals the amount of
wood in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12
inches wide.
\2 Bid value is the dollar amount the Forest Service expects to
receive from the timber purchaser over the life of the sale contract.
PLANNING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1
Forest Service officials use the guidance in federal laws and Forest
Service regulations and policies to develop a forest-specific plan
for managing lands and resources (forest plan) that explains how the
various forest resources will be managed for the next 10 to 15 years.
The planning process is complex, involving extensive surveys of
forest resources, the use of computer models, the development of
management alternatives, and substantial public participation. The
process is also lengthy, taking generally 3 to 10 years to complete.
Part of this process involves developing the ASQ, which is the Forest
Service's estimate of the maximum harvest consistent with sustaining
many other uses of the forest. Although the ASQ covers the first 10
years of the forest plan, it is usually expressed as an annual
average (i.e., one-tenth of the total ASQ). Timber sales in any year
may fluctuate above or below the average annual ASQ as long as the
cumulative sales for the 10-year period do not exceed the total
ASQ--that is, the maximum amount to be sold over the 10-year period.
Each forest's ASQ is affected by factors unique to that forest, such
as the species of trees, the proportion of the acreage devoted to
timber production (as compared with other uses), and the market
demand for timber.
When the forest plan has been completed and put in place, forest
officials monitor and evaluate the results so that the effects of
implementing the plan can be measured, the measurements can be
analyzed, and necessary changes, such as a change in the ASQ, can be
made.
BUDGETING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2
Generally, 2 to 3 years before the fiscal year in which the funds
will actually be spent, each of the Forest Service's nine regions
develops a budget request for its national forests. The budget
requests are based partly on the overall objectives for each forest
plan as well as guidance from the administration. These requests are
then aggregated at the national level, where they are subject to
review and change by Forest Service headquarters, the Department of
Agriculture, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress.
Yearly congressional appropriations are then passed down from Forest
Service headquarters to the regions, and then from the regions to the
individual forests.
PREPARING TIMBER SALES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3
Preparing timber sales usually takes 3 to 8 years and consists of six
steps, or "gates." The early steps involve identifying the timber to
be offered for sale and conducting environmental studies of the areas
to be affected; the later steps involve advertising and selling the
timber. Because timber is offered for sale from most forests each
year, in any given year timber sales may be found at various steps in
the process; some sales are at the beginning and others are at the
last step before the timber is made available for harvest.
SEVERAL FACTORS CAUSED GAPS
BETWEEN ASQS AND TIMBER SALES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Several factors contributed to bringing timber sales below average
annual ASQs from fiscal years 1991 through 1993 at all five of the
national forests we reviewed. At four of these five forests, timber
sales also decreased over the 3-year period. (See app. IV for
forest-by-forest totals.) For example, at the Mt. Hood National
Forest, which had an average annual ASQ of 189 million board feet,
ASQ-related timber sales were approximately 51 million board feet in
1991 and 38 million board feet in 1993. The Ouachita National Forest
was the only forest whose timber sales were higher in 1993 than in
1991. Its ASQ is approximately 147 million board feet, and it had
ASQ-related timber sales of about 40 million board feet in 1991 and
131 million board feet in 1993.
Factors contributing to differences between ASQs and timber sales at
the five forests we reviewed included limitations in data and
estimating techniques, the emergence of new forest management issues
and changing priorities, and rising or unanticipated costs associated
with preparing and administering timber sales.
LIMITATIONS IN DATA AND
ESTIMATING TECHNIQUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
At four of the five forests, officials said the preciseness of the
ASQ was affected by limitations in data and estimating techniques.
To develop the ASQ, officials said they had used the best information
available at the time and a variety of estimating and computer
modeling techniques. However, they noted that these estimating and
computer modeling techniques carry an inherent risk of imprecision.
For example, estimates of timber volumes may be based on analysis of
aerial photographs and sample tracts within a forest. More detailed,
on-the-ground analysis may later reveal that actual timber volumes
differ somewhat from the estimated quantities, as the following
examples show:
After estimating ASQ volumes for planning purposes, officials at
the Deschutes National Forest discovered that they had
overestimated the size of the timber inventory in timber harvest
areas. They had based their inventory on an average volume that
might have been accurate for the forest as a whole but was not
accurate within specific areas where sales were planned. To
correct this weakness, they redesigned the inventory process and
began implementing the changes in 1993.
At the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, officials said that
they had identified limitations in their original estimates of
the timber yield. Forest officials had included all potentially
saleable trees of all species (the forest has about 40 different
species of trees) in their estimates of the timber yield during
the planning process. However, as they began to implement their
forest plan, they found that buyers desired only some of the
species. In addition, the ASQ included yields from some forest
land--such as areas next to visually sensitive travelways--that
could not be fully harvested. Forest officials acknowledged
that including these possible yields lowered the accuracy of
their ASQ estimate. To correct these problems, forest officials
plan to adjust their yield estimates to include only timber with
established markets and to develop a more precise way to
identify acres available for harvest.
Officials at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest said they believe
their ASQ could have been based on an overestimate of the number
of acres available for timber production. In later analyzing
timber management areas, forest officials found that fewer acres
were available for harvest than originally estimated. The
forestwide estimates used to develop the ASQ did not consider
some factors--such as wildlife habitat, sensitive plant species,
or campground uses--later encountered in on-the-ground
examination while preparing timber for sale. To improve the
accuracy of their estimates, forest officials have proposed
collecting more information before determining the number of
acres available for timber production.
NEW FOREST MANAGEMENT ISSUES
AND CHANGING PRIORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
The forest plan, which incorporates the ASQ, reflects the Forest
Service's determination at the time the plan is developed of how
timber production and other uses of the forest will be managed over
the next 10 to 15 years. After these decisions have been made and an
ASQ has been established, however, new forest management issues and
changing priorities often emerge that directly affect how the forest
will be managed. These changes may also affect the amount of timber
that can be sold.
The most dramatic example of such changes for the forests we reviewed
occurred in the Pacific Northwest Region. In mid-1990, when the
forest plans containing the ASQs for the three Pacific Northwest
forests were ready to be implemented, the Department of the
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service announced its decision to list
the northern spotted owl as a threatened species under the provisions
of the Endangered Species Act. Much of the land inhabited by the
spotted owl is managed by the Forest Service. Several environmental
groups challenged the process used to implement spotted owl
management, and on May 23, 1991, many timber harvests in the three
forests were halted by a court injunction. Forest Service officials
said this injunction and similar legal challenges were primarily
responsible for the difference between ASQs and timber sales in all
Pacific Northwest forests.
Sharp declines in the volume of timber sold from the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest illustrate the effects of challenges and the court
injunction on timber sales. This forest had an average annual ASQ of
334 million board feet. In fiscal year 1991, the forest sold 110.2
million board feet of timber that was chargeable to the ASQ and had
been harvested outside the owl habitat. In fiscal year 1992, that
total dropped to 19.8 million board feet, and in fiscal year 1993 it
further declined to 14.8 million board feet. According to the
forest's monitoring report for 1993, "the shortfall continues to be
the result of the owl controversy and recent court decisions."
While the Southern forests we reviewed were not affected by an event
as sweeping as the spotted owl controversy, their harvests were
likewise affected by events that reflected changes in the relative
priorities assigned to timber sales and other uses of the forest.
These changes generally did not result in court challenges but rather
in appeals filed by individuals or groups during an administrative
process established by the Forest Service to review challenges to its
decisions on issues ranging from the size of a forest's ASQ to
aspects of a particular timber sale. Under this process, Forest
Service personnel review and decide on the appeals. At the
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, for example, the majority of
appeals challenged individual timber sales that were below cost or
had been designed without proper environmental evaluations.
According to a forest official, in fiscal year 1993 a total of 10
appeals challenged 8 proposed timber sales, and in fiscal year 1994
(through June 29), a total of 44 appeals challenged 22 proposed
timber sales.
The Forest Service is revising its policies to respond more
effectively to changing priorities for uses of the nation's forests.
On June 4, 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service announced a new
policy of multiple-use ecosystem management for the national forests
and grasslands.\3 Four of the five forests in our review are included
in pilot projects proposed for fiscal year 1995 as tests of ecosystem
management's potential to better ensure the sustainable long-term use
of natural resources. One project addresses common problems
associated with air and water quality, conservation, biological
diversity, and sustainable economic growth in the southern
Appalachian highlands,\4 a region that includes the
Chattahoochee-Oconee forest. In an August 1994 report on ecosystem
management,\5 we concluded that such projects afford an opportunity
to test this approach to land management.
The three Pacific Northwest forests we reviewed are included in
another ecosystem management pilot project that could affect the
current process for developing ASQs. In response to the spotted owl
controversy, the administration created an interagency team to
develop alternatives that would "attain the greatest economic and
social contribution from the forests of the region and meet the
requirements of the applicable laws and regulations." In April 1994,
the interagency team produced a land management plan based on broad
land areas, such as river basins and watersheds.\6
Forest Service officials indicated that under the new plan, although
an ASQ would still be developed in order to comply with the
requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976,
individual revised forest plans might also include a "probable sale
quantity" to reflect the uncertainty associated with selling timber
at the ASQ. For example, for the three Pacific Northwest forests we
reviewed, the new land management plan identifies an average annual
probable sale quantity of 157 million board feet, as compared with
the existing average annual ASQ of 621 million board feet. The
difference is due primarily to the allocation of fewer acres for
timber production.
--------------------
\3 Ecosystem management is a new, broader approach to managing the
nation's lands and natural resources. Ecosystem management
recognizes that plant and animal communities are interdependent and
interact with their physical environment (soil, water, and air) to
form distinct ecological units called ecosystems that span federal
and nonfederal lands.
\4 This area includes parts of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
\5 Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug. 16, 1994).
\6 This plan was submitted to the courts, and the May 23, 1991,
injunction was lifted in June 1994. The revised plan, however,
spurred new lawsuits that will be heard by the courts beginning later
in calendar year 1994.
RISING OR UNANTICIPATED
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PREPARING TIMBER SALES AND
ADMINISTERING HARVESTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Forest Service officials cite the timing of the budget process, as
well as new forest management issues and changing priorities, as
contributing to the shortfall in the moneys available to prepare
timber sales and administer harvests at ASQ levels. According to
these officials, budget requests must be prepared 2 to 3 years before
the funds are actually received, and emerging issues and changing
priorities may render the original request insufficient, as in the
following instances:
At the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, officials estimated
that the costs per million board feet to prepare timber sales
and administer harvests rose by approximately 36 percent between
1988 and 1993 when the Forest Service began to reduce its use of
clearcutting and increase its use of other harvesting methods.\7
These other harvesting methods, such as single-tree and group
selection methods, require Forest Service personnel to mark each
tree planned for harvest. Because this and other activities
increase the cost and time associated with preparing each timber
sale, available staff and funds cannot be spread over as many
sales as originally planned.
At the Mt. Hood National Forest, officials said that in recent
years they had underestimated their costs to prepare timber
sales and administer harvests when developing their annual
budget requests. They noted that between fiscal years 1990 and
1991, preparation and administration costs rose by about 39
percent, and between fiscal years 1991 and 1992, these costs
rose by an additional 147 percent. Factors contributing to
these increases in costs included requirements for (1)
conducting surveys of cultural and historical resources and of
threatened and endangered species that took more time and
resources than had been anticipated and (2) switching from
clearcutting to other harvesting methods and shifting timber
harvests out of owl habitat to comply with court injunctions.
While preparation and administration costs increased by only 8
percent between fiscal years 1992 and 1993, forest officials
believe that they will increase by another 51 percent between
fiscal years 1993 and 1995 as the new Pacific Northwest forest
plan is implemented.
--------------------
\7 Clearcutting is a harvesting method that involves removing all
trees from a timber harvest site at one time.
OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Given the uncertainties inherent in developing ASQs, shortfalls
between ASQs and timber sales should be expected. An ASQ is, to some
extent, imprecise because it is based on estimating techniques and
forestwide data rather than on detailed, on-the-ground data from the
timber sale area. Even more significantly, however, an ASQ
represents a planning "snapshot" that can quickly become outdated as
new forest management issues emerge and priorities change. As the
value placed on timber production shifts toward other forest uses,
ASQs established under earlier, somewhat different priorities may no
longer reflect estimated sale quantities. Although forest planning
allows ASQs to be updated as needed, the experience of the five
forests we reviewed indicates that events may quickly overtake even
revised ASQs.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We discussed the facts and observations contained in a draft of this
report with officials from Forest Service headquarters, including the
Deputy Director, Budget Analyst, Staff Assistant, and
Interdisciplinary Forester (Forest Plans) within the Timber
Management Staff; the Planning Specialist within the Land Management
Planning Staff; and the Interdisciplinary Analyst within the Program
Planning and Development Staff. We also discussed the facts and
observations with senior regional and forest officials from the two
regions that we visited. In general, these officials agreed that the
information was accurate, and we have incorporated changes that they
suggested where appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
To determine why timber sales often fall short of ASQs, we met with
Timber Management, Program Development and Budget, and Land
Management Planning officials from Forest Service headquarters; the
Pacific Northwest Regional Office in Portland, Oregon; and the
Southern Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. We also met with
Forest Service officials from the Chattahoochee-Oconee, Deschutes,
Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood, and Ouachita National Forests. We
selected these two regions because they had the largest timber sales
for fiscal year 1993. We judgmentally selected the specific forests
because of their geographical proximity to the regional offices. In
addition, we selected the Ouachita National Forest because it had
begun to practice ecosystem management before the Forest Service
decided to implement this land management approach agencywide.
We reviewed documentation provided by these officials, including
forest plans, budget requests, and monitoring reports. We did not,
however, evaluate the ASQ calculations made for the five forests but
used the figures cited in the forest plans as a starting point for
discussing how the figures were determined.
We also discussed the budgeting process with officials from the
Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Agriculture in
Washington, D.C. We discussed forest planning procedures with
representatives of the Congressional Research Service and reviewed
additional documents on forest planning from the Office of Technology
Assessment. In addition, to determine the role the Congress plays in
the budget deliberations, we met with staff from both the House and
Senate appropriations subcommittees who review the Forest Service's
budget requests.
We conducted our review between August 1993 and August 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest
Service. We will make copies available to others upon request.
This work was done under the direction of James K. Meissner,
Associate Director for Timber Management Issues, who may be reached
at (206) 287-4810. Other major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
James Duffus III
Director, Natural Resources
Management Issues
LEGISLATION RELATED TO MANAGEMENT
OF NATIONAL FORESTS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Year Title of legislation Purpose
------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
1891 Creative Act To provide the President
with the authority to
create forest reserves out
of forested public domain
lands.
1897 Forest Service Organic To identify purposes for
Act creating forest reserves,
including improving and
protecting forests within
reservations, protecting
water supplies, and
providing the public with
a continuous supply of
timber.
1930 Knutson-Vandenberg Act To provide a constant
source of funding for the
reforestation of harvested
lands and to protect and
improve nontimber
resources in timber sale
areas.
1960 Multiple Use-Sustained To ensure the management
Yield Act of national forest
resources and products for
multiple uses and
sustained yield.
1964 Wilderness Act To preserve natural areas
of national forests for
recreation and other uses.
Prohibits timber
harvesting in these areas.
1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers To preserve certain rivers
Act and surrounding areas.
Limits timber harvesting
in the surrounding areas.
1969 National Environmental To require federal
Policy Act (NEPA) agencies to evaluate and
document the impact on the
environment of significant
land management
activities.
1973 Endangered Species Act To protect plant and
animal species whose
survival is in jeopardy.
1974 Forest and Rangeland To provide guidance for
Renewable Resources establishing long-range
Planning Act (RPA) resource planning goals
for the national forests.
1976 National Forest To provide guidance for
Management Act (NFMA) developing forest plans,
regulating activities, and
allowing public
participation in planning.
1977 Clean Water Act To place limits on
activities that would
exceed federal or state
water quality standards in
order to enhance water
quality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL AND REGULATORY GUIDES FOR
NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT
========================================================== Appendix II
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of
1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of
1976, provides the basic legislative guidance to the Forest Service
for planning and managing resources in the national forests. RPA
requires the Forest Service to develop long-range planning goals for
activities on rangelands and in national forests, and NFMA directs
the Forest Service to develop detailed management plans for national
forests and to regulate timber harvests to ensure the protection of
other resources. NFMA also required the Forest Service to develop
regulations for implementing the planning goals established in RPA
and NFMA.
REQUIRED FOREST-LEVEL PLANNING
UNDER RPA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
RPA makes resource management unit plans a statutory requirement
through which the Forest Service will provide comprehensive
information on the forest's abilities to produce resources, such as
fish and wildlife habitat, and goods and services, such as wood for
lumber and opportunities for recreation. RPA directs the Forest
Service to establish long-term resource planning goals for rangelands
and forests. It requires the Forest Service to (1) assess the
renewable resources on all lands every 10 years, (2) recommend a
program for renewable resource activities on Forest Service lands
every 5 years, and (3) annually report on the implementation of the
recommended program and the accomplishments of the program relative
to the assessment. RPA also requires the President to submit to the
Congress, together with the assessment and the recommended program, a
statement of policy that will guide the Forest Service's budget
requests for implementing the 5-year recommended program.
STRENGTHENED FOREST PLANNING
UNDER NFMA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
In 1975, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
a 1973 district court decision constraining the Monongahela National
Forest in West Virginia to sell only individually marked "dead,
physiologically mature, and large growth" trees. The Forest Service
decided to extend this decision to all nine national forests under
the circuit court's jurisdiction. The Forest Service estimated that
the decision, which was based on the circuit court's interpretation
of the Organic Act of 1897, would reduce national forest timber
harvests by 50 percent if applied nationwide. To preclude this
reduction and to ensure the use of scientifically accepted forestry
measures to sustain the yield of natural resources, the Congress
enacted NFMA.
All but 1 of the first 12 sections of NFMA amend RPA. For example,
NFMA provides more specific guidance to the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Forest Service for developing and implementing long-range
planning goals for national forests.
NFMA goals include improving the management of national forests and
facilitating the public's involvement in and congressional oversight
of the process. Specifically, NFMA requires that the Forest Service
(1) develop integrated land and resource management plans (forest
plans) for national forests using interdisciplinary teams, (2)
regulate timber management activities in order to protect other
resources, and (3) allow the public to participate in the
development, review, and revision of the forest plans. In addition,
NFMA requires that the Forest Service limit the sale of timber from
each national forest to no more than an amount that could be
harvested annually on a long-term sustained-yield basis.
FOREST SERVICE REGULATIONS
DEVELOPED TO IMPLEMENT NFMA
PLANNING GOALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
NFMA also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and issue
planning regulations to assist Forest Service regions and national
forests in developing and maintaining forest plans. The
regulations--completed in 1979 and revised in 1982--establish a
process for developing, adopting, and revising forest plans. The
regulations also provide guidance on the type of information to be
included in the plans, such as multiple-use goals and objectives. In
addition, they establish 14 principles to guide planning, including
the following:
Recognize that the national forests are ecosystems and their
management for goods and services requires an awareness and
consideration of the interrelationships among plants, animals,
soil, water, air, and other environmental elements within such
ecosystems.
Protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of renewable
resources.
Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
national heritage.
Provide for the safe use and enjoyment of the forest resources by
the public.
Use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure coordination
and integration of planning activities for multiple-use
management.
Encourage early and frequent public participation.
Respond to changing conditions of the land and other resources and
to changing social and economic demands of the American people.
The regulations also define the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) as the
amount of timber that could be planned for sale from the area of
suitable land during the first period of the forest plan--one decade.
Essentially, the ASQ is the amount of timber that could be sold and
harvested during the first decade without exceeding the amount of
timber that could be harvested on a long-term sustained-yield basis.
The Forest Service developed and included guidance in its manual and
handbooks to provide national forest personnel with further direction
for implementing RPA and NFMA. The manual contains general policy
rules for forest planning, while the handbooks provide detailed
instructions for developing and implementing forest plan activities.
For example, the Forest Service manual requires that national forests
use FORPLAN, a Forest Service analytical model, as the primary
analytical tool for assessing management activities during forest
planning, while the resource inventory handbook provides standards,
definitions, and specifications for conducting timber inventories.
Each Forest Service region provides additional guidance to the
forests under its jurisdiction to clarify general guidance from
headquarters and to suggest ways of incorporating factors that are
unique to the region and its forests. For example, the Pacific
Northwest Region provides the forests with guidance on identifying
spotted owl habitat within their boundaries and on ensuring that
Columbia Basin forests have a consistent approach in developing
habitat capability indicators for smolt (young salmon migrating to
the sea).
NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING,
BUDGETING, AND TIMBER SALE
PROCESSES
========================================================= Appendix III
National forest management can be divided into three main processes:
(1) planning, (2) budgeting, and (3) for timber resources, preparing
timber sales. In addition, forest managers monitor and evaluate the
results of their activities and use this information to determine
whether changes in their management plans are needed.
THE FOREST PLANNING PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
Timber is one of many resources assessed in a forest's land and
resource management plan (forest plan). Besides timber, a forest
plan includes such other resources as (1) outdoor recreational
facilities (for example, campgrounds and hiking trails), (2)
rangelands for providing forage to livestock and wildlife, and (3)
wildlife and fish habitat for the various species dependent on the
forest environment. The plan specifies how these multiple resources
are to be managed so to maximize net public benefits in an
environmentally sound manner.
To develop forest plans, the Forest Service follows a complicated
process set forth in the laws, regulations, and policies discussed in
appendixes I and II. A plan's development rests mainly with an
interdisciplinary team of biologists, foresters, soil specialists,
and others. The forest supervisor--the person in direct charge of a
forest--also provides considerable direction in determining what
issues and concerns the team will address. In addition, public
participation is sought at various stages throughout the process.
For planning purposes, the ASQ is the maximum amount of timber that
can be sold from the forest for the next 10 years on a
sustained-yield basis. However, in day-to-day usage, the ASQ is
usually expressed as an average annual ASQ--that is, as one-tenth of
the total. Actual timber sales, however, can fluctuate above or
below this average annual amount as long as the sales for the 10-year
period do not exceed the total ASQ.
To develop the ASQ, the interdisciplinary team determines such
information as the species, age, size, number, and location of the
trees in the forest. This information helps the team identify land
capable of producing trees of commercial value within the period
covered by the plan. Because Forest Service regulations require the
team to have access to the best available inventory data in preparing
the ASQ, the Forest Service may have to conduct special inventories
or studies to assemble adequate information.
Identifying land suitable for timber production is part of an overall
analysis that considers timber production in relation to other forest
resources. This analysis responds to the legal requirement to
maximize net public benefits--that is, the long-term value to the
nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) minus the
associated inputs and negative effects (costs). As specified in
Forest Service planning regulations, lands are not considered
suitable for timber production if (1) less than 10 percent of the
area has trees, (2) the area cannot begin regrowing trees within 5
years of the harvest, (3) irreversible damage will occur to the land
or other resources if the trees are harvested, or (4) land has been
withdrawn from timber production by an Act of Congress, the Secretary
of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service.
Because maximizing net public benefits often involves making choices
between various goals, the initial outcome of this overall analysis
is a broad range of alternatives describing the different ways the
forest can be managed to address and respond to major public issues,
management concerns, and resource opportunities. The primary purpose
in developing alternatives is to provide an adequate basis for
identifying the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing net
public benefits. Under these criteria, the alternatives list (1) the
multiple-use goals and objectives that describe the desired future
condition of the forest, (2) the goods and services expected to be
produced, (3) the standards and guidelines for managing resources,
and (4) the conditions and uses that result from the planned
activities, such as timber sales. As part of its discussion of land
management objectives, each alternative includes an ASQ.
Each alternative specifies a particular emphasis, such as protecting
wildlife habitat or promoting recreation, and each alternative may
have a different ASQ. For example, an alternative that emphasizes
wilderness protection will have a lower ASQ than an alternative that
emphasizes timber production. The ASQ for each alternative is
calculated using a forest planning model called FORPLAN. The model
will help analyze such factors as the forest's ability to supply
goods and services in response to society's demands, as well as each
land management alternative's effects, such as present net value,
social and economic impacts, and outputs of goods and services. The
team supplements the FORPLAN results, as needed, with input from
forestry experts and from the public.
The planning process culminates in the selection of an alternative
for implementation. The team estimates and compares the physical,
biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each
alternative. The team looks at such things as the expected outputs
for the planning periods, the direct and indirect benefits and costs,
and the resource trade-offs and opportunity costs associated with
achieving the objectives. The team then makes recommendations to the
forest supervisor, who reviews the recommendations and forwards a
preferred alternative to the regional forester, who is in charge of
all of the forest supervisors in the Forest Service region. Once the
regional forester approves the preferred alternative, the forest plan
is completed, and the ASQ is established for the next 10 years.
Although this process has clearly defined requirements, it is also
open-ended in that the ASQ as well as other elements of the forest
plan can be changed at any time during the 10-year period if the
forest supervisor determines that a change is necessary. Changes are
made through amendments or revisions to the forest plan to
accommodate such things as shifts in land management policy or other
significant changes.
THE BUDGETING PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
Before forest officials develop their budget requests, they receive
written instructions from Forest Service headquarters on what to
include in their requests. These instructions communicate the
agency's priorities in light of such factors as the administration's
guidance on the agency's budget targets. The administration's
guidance can be as specific as a letter from the President or as
general as a forecasted budget total for the agency. The
instructions are also formulated with input from regional foresters,
who recommend to the Chief of the Forest Service which program goals
should be emphasized--for example, ecosystem management or the
operation and maintenance of recreational facilities. Regional
foresters also identify levels of data to be collected and (until
fiscal year 1996) specific resource targets. For fiscal year 1996,
specific resource targets were eliminated.
After receiving these instructions, forest officials develop their
budget requests. The budget process actually begins 2 to 3 years
before the fiscal year in which the funds will be spent. For
example, the process for developing a forest's fiscal year 1995
budget request probably began in fiscal year 1993 or earlier.
Forest officials also develop their requests as a range of funding
alternatives in accordance with headquarters guidance. For example,
fiscal year 1995 budget submissions from Pacific Northwest forests
included three funding levels: (1) a base level equal to the fiscal
year 1992 appropriation, adjusted for inflation; (2) a reduced level,
5 percent lower than the base level; and (3) an increased level, 20
percent higher than the base level. Budgets prepared for fiscal
years up to 1995 also included a funding level based on the amount
the forest supervisor believed would be necessary to implement the
forest plan's objectives.
The budget request for each forest is subject to levels of internal
Forest Service review. The request is first forwarded to the
regional office, where it is reviewed for conformity with budget
instructions and regional priorities. The regional office makes any
changes it deems necessary, consolidates the request for the forest
with those for other forests in the region, and adds the regional
office's own estimated costs for supporting the forests and
implementing the regional office's own actions and program
initiatives. The completed request, which displays the request for
each forest as well as the aggregated numbers, is forwarded to
headquarters. There, a similar review of regional requests is
conducted. The regional budgets approved by headquarters are
aggregated, and headquarters adds the costs it expects to incur in
carrying out its administrative and monitoring activities and in
initiating any national programs. This process results in an overall
Forest Service request.
This request may be changed by the Department of Agriculture (the
Forest Service's parent agency), the Office of Management and Budget,
or the Congress through the appropriations process. However, budget
reviewers at these levels do not have forest-level data to determine
the funds needed to attain the goals for the individual forests;
instead they review overall agency goals. For example, according to
an official from the Department of Agriculture, the agency considers
such things as the number of Forest Service employees, the agency's
programs, and national goals like implementing ecosystem management
in the Pacific Northwest. According to an official from the Office
of Management and Budget, the agency considers whether, in areas such
as timber production, the budget reflects policies that are
consistent with the administration's broader policies and objectives.
The Office of Management and Budget also reviews the
cost-effectiveness of the Forest Service's production of timber for
sale by comparing projected cost estimates with the most recent
actual costs. At the congressional level, the administration's
request is subject to change in the committee process and in floor
debate.
Once a funding level for the Forest Service is approved, the
appropriations information is then passed in reverse, from the
Congress down to headquarters, along with congressional directives
specifying how some of the funds will be spent. Headquarters divides
and allocates the funds to the regions, and, in turn, each region
allocates funds to each forest, usually well into the fiscal year.
Until the actual funding is received, forests will use the region's
estimated appropriation level as a base, as well as the forest plan's
priorities and historical trends.
Before fiscal year 1993, in providing funds for preparing and
administering timber sales, the Congress also specified the volume of
timber it expected the Forest Service to offer for sale. Now, the
expected volume is based on each forest's ability to sell and harvest
timber.
THE TIMBER SALE PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
Regulations require that each forest plan contain a 10-year timber
sale schedule identifying the quantity of timber planned for sale
from an area of suitable forest land in order to attain the ASQ.
Individual timber sales are prepared using a six-step process,
referred to as the timber sale gate system. Table III.1 summarizes
the six gates.
Table III.1
The Timber Sale Gate System
Gate number Gate name Description
------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
1 Position statement The timber the forest
intends to sell is
identified, and a position
statement is developed
setting forth the purpose
and reasons for the timber
sale.
2 Decision For continuing sales,
timber sale design
alternatives are
developed, a site-
specific environmental and
economic analysis is
completed for the proposed
sale, and the approving
official decides whether
to proceed with the
proposed sale.
3 Timber sale preparation The sale area is
report physically marked, and
data are collected to help
prepare the timber
appraisal, contract,
offering, and sale area
improvement plan.
4 Advertisement or notice The timber is appraised
and advertised, and a
sample contract is
prepared.
5 Bid opening date Bids by potential buyers
are reviewed, and an
auction is held if
required.
6 Sale award The contract is signed by
both the timber purchaser
and the Forest Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire gate process for selling timber normally takes 3 to 8
years, depending on the size, location, and complexity of the sale;
access to the area; and the design of the transportation system.
Basic decisions about whether to continue the sale occur both at gate
1 and gate 2. Gate 1 generally occurs in the first year; gate 2
usually occurs between the second and fifth year of sales that
continue beyond gate 1. Public comments are actively sought by the
Forest Service throughout gates 1 and 2. Comment after a decision
has been made comes through the administrative appeal system, once a
decision notice has been signed by the approving official at gate 2.
According to a forest official, administrative appeals or lawsuits
can add 4 months to 4 years to the entire process. Gate 3 usually
occurs during the third to eighth year of the sale, depending on the
complexity of the sale. The remaining gates generally take place
during the last year of the sale process. Once the timber contract
is awarded in gate 6, the timber purchaser prepares the site to
harvest the timber--a process that can take 3 to 5 years to complete.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4
Timber management is not completed when the timber is sold. Forest
officials track the results of their planning and timber management
activities so that the effects of implementing the plan can be
measured, the measurements can be analyzed, and necessary changes can
be made.
Within the Forest Service, forest supervisors use monitoring
information--as well as Forest Service reports and special studies or
litigation and appeal results--to evaluate whether the implementation
process has achieved the forest plan's objectives. If the evaluation
indicates that the implementation process has failed to achieve the
plan's objectives or if new information--such as a decrease in
wildlife habitat--indicates that the plan's objectives should be
revised, then the forest supervisor may amend or revise the forest
plan. If the forest supervisor decides that an event--such as a
decrease in the forest's ability to produce the ASQ--is significant,
then forest officials must follow the same procedure as is required
to develop and approve a forest plan. If the event is
insignificant--such as the acquisition of additional forest
land--then such an extensive effort is not required and the amendment
can be implemented after the public has been properly notified and
NEPA procedures have been satisfactorily completed.
NFMA requires that a forest plan be revised at least every 15 years;
however, the plan can be revised at any time. A forest supervisor
can request a plan's revision when forest conditions or demands have
changed significantly or when changes in RPA policies, goals, and
objectives significantly affect the forest's programs. Revisions
have to be in accordance with the requirements for developing and
approving a forest plan, through the completion of the entire forest
plan process, and must be approved by the regional and headquarters
offices.
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL ASQ
AND ASQ-RELATED TIMBER SALE
VOLUMES FOR FORESTS IN GAO'S
REVIEW
========================================================== Appendix IV
Table IV.1 shows the volume of timber sold (not including sales of
forest products such as Christmas trees and firewood) and the average
annual ASQ for the two Southern Region forests we reviewed. These
two forests implemented their ASQs in 1986 and 1987. Timber sales
were below average annual ASQs in all years since the ASQs were
implemented except (for the Ouachita National Forest) in fiscal years
1987 and 1988.
Table IV.1
Comparison of Average Annual ASQ and
ASQ-Related Timber Sale Volumes for
Southern Region Forests in GAO's Review
(Volume in millions of board feet)
Averag
e
annual
Forest ASQ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
---------------------- ------ ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Chattahoochee-Oconee 101.5\ 66.1 52.9 66.9 73.5 46.4 63.3 54.1 49.2
(1986\a) b
Ouachita (1987\a) 146.7\ \d 210. 188. 118. 98.8 39.8 95.8 131.
c 4 0 7 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Fiscal year in which the ASQ was implemented.
\b As a result of an administrative appeal, forest officials agreed
in 1986 to limit average annual timber sales to 87 million board
feet.
\c When the forest plan was amended in 1990, the ASQ was lowered from
159.0 million board feet to 146.7 million board feet.
\d Not applicable because the ASQ was not implemented until 1987.
Table IV.2 shows the volume of timber sold (not including sales of
forest products such as Christmas trees and firewood) and the average
annual ASQ for the three Pacific Northwest Region forests we
reviewed. These forests implemented their ASQs in 1991. Timber
sales were below average annual ASQs in all years since the ASQs were
implemented.
Table IV.2
Comparison of Average Annual ASQ and
ASQ-Related Timber Sale Volumes for
Pacific Northwest Region Forests in
GAO's Review
(Volume in millions of board feet)
Average
annual
Forest ASQ 1991 1992 1993
-------------------------------- -------- ---- ---- ----
Deschutes (1991\a) 97.8 18.3 26.7 12.7
Gifford Pinchot (1991\a) 334.0 110. 19.8 14.8
2
Mt. Hood (1991\a) 189.0 50.6 28.2 38.1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Fiscal year in which the ASQ was implemented.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Linda L. Harmon
Timothy J. Guinane
SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Araceli C. Contreras
Stanley G. Stenersen
GLOSSARY
=========================================================== Appendix 0
ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY
(ASQ)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.1
The maximum volume of timber that may be sold on a sustained-yield
basis from the area of suitable land covered by the forest plan for a
time period specified by the plan. This volume is usually expressed
on an annual basis as the "average annual allowable sale quantity."
BOARD FOOT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.2
A board foot, a standard measure of timber, equals the amount of wood
in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches
wide.
CLEARCUTTING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.3
Clearcutting is a harvesting method that involves removing all trees
from a timber harvest site at one time.
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.4
Ecosystem management is a new, broader approach to managing the
nation's lands and natural resources. Ecosystem management
recognizes that plant and animal communities are interdependent and
interact with their physical environment (soil, water, and air) to
form distinct ecological units called ecosystems that span federal
and nonfederal lands.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.5
Any species of animal or plant as defined by the Endangered Species
Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
FOREST LAND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.6
Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or
formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for
nonforest use.
FOREST PLAN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.7
A land management plan designed and adopted to guide forest
management activities on a national forest.
GROUP SELECTION HARVEST
METHOD
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.8
A method of harvesting timber in which small groups of trees are
removed from an area annually or periodically.
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.9
A group of people trained in different scientific disciplines
assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is
assembled out of recognition that no one discipline can provide the
broad background needed to adequately solve the complex problem.
MULTIPLE USE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.10
The management of the various renewable resources of the national
forest system to ensure their use in a combination that will best
meet the needs of the public.
PROBABLE SALE QUANTITY (PSQ)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.11
A best assessment of the average amount of timber likely to be
available for sale annually in a planning area over the next 10
years.
RENEWABLE RESOURCE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.12
A resource that may be used indefinitely if the rate of use does not
exceed the resource's ability to renew the supply.
SALE SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.13
The quantity of timber planned for sale, by time period, from an area
of suitable land covered by a forest plan. The first period, usually
a decade, provides the allowable sale quantity.
SINGLE-TREE HARVEST METHOD
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.14
The harvesting of selected individual trees of all sizes.
SUITABILITY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.15
The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices
to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the
economic and environmental consequences and of the alternative uses
forgone.
SUSTAINED YIELD
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.16
The volume of timber that a forest can produce continuously from a
given intensity of management.
THREATENED SPECIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.17
Any species of animal or plant as defined by the Endangered Species
Act that is likely to become an endangered species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
TIMBER HARVEST
ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.18
Administering sale or use conditions, monitoring effects, and
harvesting and removing forest products.
TIMBER INVENTORY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.19
A listing of the location, quantity, condition, and growth of trees
on forest lands.
TIMBER SALE PREPARATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.20
Preparing and offering timber for sale and awarding a sale.
TIMBER YIELD ESTIMATE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.21
The volume of timber expected to be produced under a certain set of
conditions.