Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

You requested that we review the Forest Service’s implementation of certain contract modifications and other provisions of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. More specifically, we determined whether credits that timber harvesters receive for building harvest-related roads are used consistently between long-term and short-term timber sale contracts and whether buffers of standing timber have been left along designated streams as the act requires, and how the Forest Service monitors the buffers’ effectiveness. (See table 2.1.) Contracts Not Modified to Comply With Road Credit Requirement

The Forest Service did not revise the provision on the use of road credits in its long-term contracts to make them similar to the provision in its short-term contracts, as required by the reform act. Our concern about the Forest Service’s argument is that although ineffective credits are canceled at the end of both types of contracts, long-term contractors continue to hold a competitive advantage. The Forest Service has since taken sufficient steps to ensure greater compliance with this requirement. We found that before 1994, the Forest Service did not have a regional program to monitor the buffers’ effectiveness. The Forest Service’s policy does not allow this authority to be delegated to district rangers and in all cases requires documentation of the environmental significance. Recommendation

To ensure full consideration and disclosure of the environmental impacts of boundary changes to harvest units, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to require Alaska Regional Office officials to periodially check to ensure that forest supervisors are properly documenting the environmental significance of boundary changes to timber harvest units made after EIS’s have been issued in the Tongass National Forest.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Forest Service's implementation of certain unilateral modifications to long-term contracts in Alaska and other requirements of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, focusing on whether: (1) road credits are used consistently between long-term contracts and short-term contracts; (2) buffers of standing timber have been left along designated streams as required; and (3) the Forest Service is requiring full documentation of environmental effects whenever changes are made to timber harvest area boundaries.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the Forest Service believes it treats road credits consistently across all contracts, since unused road credits are cancelled at the end of all timber sales contracts; (2) the long-term contractors' ability to carry unused road credits forward for longer periods than short-term contractors gives them an unfair competitive advantage; (3) some streamside buffers did not meet the 100-foot minimum width during the first years immediately following the act's passage, but the Forest Service has since taken steps to enforce this requirement; (4) in 1994, the Forest Service issued guidance and initiated a new monitoring program to ensure the buffers' effectiveness; (5) the Forest Service often does not document the environmental effects of timber harvest boundary changes; (6) in some instances, the forest supervisor has inappropriately delegated his documenting authority to district rangers and waived documentation where he believed boundary changes were insignificant; and (7) the forest supervisor has since withdrawn the authority delegation and established a detailed process for assessing boundary changes.