Major Differences Between Federal and State Timber Programs

Federal and state timber programs differ in their legislative and regulatory guidance, in the types of timberlands managed, and in their sources of funding. State lands generally have second-growth forests, whereas federal timberlands contain a mixture of second-growth and old-growth forests with portions set aside for wilderness and roadless areas. The Forest Service’s regulations require that these lands be managed to produce the greatest “net public benefit.” Subsequent legislation required the Forest Service to develop detailed management plans for the national forests; regulate timber harvests to ensure the protection of other resources; and allow the public to participate in the development, review, and revision of the forest plans. Funding of Federal and State Timber Programs Differs

The timber programs on Washington’s and Oregon’s timberlands are funded by a legislatively specified percentage of gross timber sale receipts—generally from 25 to 36 percent. The federal agencies’ individual timber sales are based on a timber sale schedule—covering 5 years for BLM and 10 years for the Forest Service—developed from the agencies’ long-term land management plans. The States’ Timber Sales Have Fewer Legal Challenges Than Federal Sales

Regardless of the level of the public’s participation in the long- and short-term planning processes, both federal and state timber sales can be subject to legal challenges. While the states’ planning processes are fairly straightforward, the federal agencies’ processes are more lengthy and expensive. Modifying these differences, however, would require changes in how the federal programs are currently structured—a complex and intricate task, involving stakeholders with varying views on how to best balance the goals of multiple resource uses.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO compared the timber sale programs of the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service with those of Washington and Oregon, focusing on: (1) the major differences between the programs; and (2) how these differences affect agency and state planning processes.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the states' timber sale programs are tailored to generate timber production revenues for funding of schools and counties; (2) federal legislation requires agencies to manage their lands for the public benefit, regulate timber harvests and protect other resources, and develop detailed management plans; (3) the states adjust the amount of timber they sell to take advantage of market prices; (4) the agencies sell a steady amount of timber regardless of market forces; (5) the states' timberlands are generally available for timber production, contain only second-growth forests, and have road systems; (6) national forests are not exclusively available for timber production, contain old-growth and second-growth forests, and have road networks and exclusive wilderness areas; (7) the states' timber sales are funded by a legislatively specified percentage of gross timber sale receipts; (8) federal timber sale programs are funded by annual appropriations; (9) the states' long- and short-term planning processes are relatively short and involve generally fewer people than the federal agencies'; (10) federal agencies must develop various alternative plans, satisfy conflicting interests, incorporate the public's input, redevelop or review their plans on a regular basis, and face legal obstacles; and (11) modifying the agencies' timber sales programs to resemble the states' programs would require significant program structural changes and consideration of how to best balance the goals of multiple resource uses.