These reports  are submitted annually to the Congress. 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. 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. 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. 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. As the acreage affected by these natural disturbances increased, so did  reforestation needs. Changing Management Practices Have Contributed to Reported Increase in Timber Stand Improvement Needs

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the ability of the Forest Service to identify its reforestation and  timber stand improvement needs and ensure funding for its most critical  projects, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief  of the Forest Service to take the following actions:  standardize collection, reporting, and review procedures for data on  reforestation and timber stand improvement needs by clarifying agency- wide guidance and developing a standard definition of need;  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;  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   require regions and forests to establish criteria for prioritizing the use of  their reforestation and timber stand improvement funds in the current  budget environment.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

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 high-density 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.