BLM did not issue  regulations implementing the 1990 act. Forest Service and BLM Found No Violations of the Export and Substitution Ban from 2007 through 2017, and Officials and Stakeholders Said the Likelihood of Violations is Low

According to Forest Service and BLM officials, the agencies found no  violations of the ban on federal timber export and substitution from 2007  through 2017. All agency officials and stakeholders we interviewed  said that the likelihood of illegal timber export and substitution is low. All Forest Service and BLM officials and stakeholders we interviewed said  the likelihood of timber export and substitution violations is low due to a  combination of several factors, including economic factors associated  with log markets and changes in the organizational structure of timber  companies. Several agency officials and  stakeholders said smaller trees of a lower quality are being harvested  from federal lands compared to the trees harvested in the 1990s. The Forest Service and BLM Did Not Issue New Regulations Required by Law and Some Policies are Outdated or Unclear

The Forest Service and BLM neither issued new regulations as required  by the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1997  nor obtained legislative relief from the requirement. The agencies have  policies and practices to help prevent, detect, and respond to illegal  timber export and substitution. Without issuing new  coordinated and consistent regulations as required by the 1997 act, or  obtaining legislative relief, the agencies will continue to be out of  compliance with this provision of the act. Some Agency Policies Related to Illegal Export and Substitution are Outdated or Unclear, and the Agencies Have Not Reviewed Their Policies for Relevance and Effectiveness

We identified several areas in which either the Forest Service or BLM or  both have policies to help prevent, detect, and respond to illegal federal  timber export and substitution. Marking of unprocessed logs. According to the agencies’ policies, marking the logs  is intended to help identify them as being prohibited from export. The agencies also have not reviewed their policies for  continued relevance and effectiveness as called for by federal internal  control standards. Both agencies’ policies direct the  agencies to collect certification forms to help them determine whether  timber purchasers are engaged in export or substitution. Forest  Service officials said the agency has not reviewed its policies specific to  export and substitution since the enactment of the 1997 act, largely  because of competing priorities and the officials’ view that the likelihood  of illegal export or substitution is low. BLM officials said they reviewed the  agency’s export regulations in 2010, but this effort did not include a  review of log export policies. Conclusions

For 50 years, Congress has restricted the export and substitution of  federal timber from the western United States. For example,  Forest Service policy calls for collecting a certification form that expired in  1999, and BLM policy does not clearly define what constitutes a violation  of the export ban. By reviewing agency policies and making  changes to them as necessary, the Forest Service and BLM will have  better assurance that their policies are relevant and effective for  addressing the risk of illegal timber export and substitution. Otherwise, the agency should seek legislative relief from the  act’s requirement. (Recommendation 4)

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, the federal government sells millions of dollars of timber from federal forests. Federal law generally prohibits the export of unprocessed logs harvested from federal lands in the western United States. It also prohibits substitution of federal logs for privately sourced timber in domestic mills when the privately sourced timber is exported without processing.
GAO was asked to examine the issue of illegal federal timber export and substitution. This report (1) describes the extent to which the Forest Service and BLM identified violations of the timber export and substitution ban that occurred from 2007 through 2017 and the likelihood of violations and (2) examines the agencies' regulations, policies, and practices to help prevent, detect, and respond to illegal timber export and substitution.
GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies regarding illegal timber export and substitution; compared agency regulations with laws, and agency policies with federal internal control standards; and interviewed agency officials and stakeholders—such as trade groups and state officials— selected to provide a range of perspectives.

What GAO Found

The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the Department of the Interior, found no violations of the ban on federal timber export and substitution from 2007 through 2017, according to agency documents and officials. All agency officials and stakeholders GAO interviewed said the likelihood of illegal timber export and substitution is low, citing several reasons, including economic factors associated with log markets, which have changed over the years. For example, many officials and stakeholders said the timber harvested from federal lands is smaller and of lower quality compared to what was harvested in the 1990s, making it less likely to be exported.
The Forest Service and BLM did not issue new regulations related to illegal federal timber export and substitution, and some agency policies related to export and substitution are outdated or unclear. The agencies did not issue regulations to implement the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1997, as required by the act. Without issuing new regulations or obtaining legislative relief from this requirement, the agencies will continue to be out of compliance with the act. The agencies have policies to help prevent, detect, and respond to illegal timber export and substitution, such as policies that require the marking of logs to identify them as coming from federal lands. However, the agencies have not reviewed their policies for continued relevance and effectiveness as called for by federal standards for internal control, and some policies are outdated or unclear. For example, Forest Service policy calls for the collection of a certification form to help determine whether timber purchasers are engaged in export or substitution, but the form expired in 1999. Also, it is unclear what BLM considers a violation of the export ban because agency policy does not define what constitutes a violation. Forest Service officials said the agency has not reviewed its policies since 1997, largely due to competing priorities, but agreed it would be beneficial to do so. BLM officials said they reviewed the agency's export regulations in 2010, but this effort did not include a review of timber export policies. By reviewing agency policies and making changes as necessary, the agencies will have better assurance that their policies are relevant and effective for addressing the risk of illegal timber export and substitution.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Forest Service and BLM issue new regulations or seek legislative relief from the requirement to do so, and review their policies for relevance and effectiveness and issue new policies as necessary. The agencies generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.