Forest Service: Management of Reforestation Program Has Improved, but
Problems Continue (Letter Report, 09/15/94, GAO/RCED-94-257).
In the 1930 Knutson-Vandenberg Act, Congress attempted to sustain the
nation's forests by establishing a fund--today totaling more than $800
million--to reforest, improve timber stands, and improve other renewable
resources in timber sale areas that have been harvested. The Forest
Service annually collects about $230 million from timber purchasers for
reforestation and other activities and deposits it in the fund. In
response to congressional concerns over the adequacy of Forest Service
control of these funds and their use for appropriate projects, GAO
reviewed the Forest Service's management of the fund. This report
describes (1) how the Forest Service plans, implements, and manages
Knutson-Vandenberg projects and (2) what changes the Forest Service has
made since 1990 in response to previous internal and Office of Inspector
General reviews of the program and what additional changes may be
necessary.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-257
TITLE: Forest Service: Management of Reforestation Program Has
Improved, but Problems Continue
DATE: 09/15/94
SUBJECT: Funds management
Timber sales
Government collections
National forests
Internal controls
Forest management
Federal agency accounting systems
Trust funds
Records management
Human resources training
IDENTIFIER: Knutson-Vandenberg Trust Fund
**************************************************************************
* 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
September 1994
FOREST SERVICE - MANAGEMENT OF
REFORESTATION PROGRAM HAS
IMPROVED, BUT PROBLEMS CONTINUE
GAO/RCED-94-257
Knutson-Vandenberg Program
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
GAO - General Accounting Office
GIS - Geographic Information System
K-V - Knutson-Vandenberg
MBF - thousand board feet
SAI - Sale Area Improvement and K-V Collection Plan
TSI - timber stand improvement
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-257709
September 15, 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 the 1930 Knutson-Vandenberg Act, the Congress attempted to sustain
the nation's forests by establishing the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust
Fund, which today totals more than $800 million. This fund finances
reforestation, improvement of timber stands, and improvement of other
renewable resources in timber sale areas that have been harvested.
The Forest Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
annually collects about $230 million from timber purchasers for
reforestation and other activities and deposits it in the fund.
Concerned about the adequacy of the Forest Service's controls over
the collection of and accounting for these funds and their use for
appropriate projects, you asked us to review the Forest Service's
management of the Knutson-Vandenberg fund. As agreed with your
office, we will address this issue in two reports. This report
describes (1) how the Forest Service plans, implements, and manages
Knutson-Vandenberg projects and (2) what changes the Forest Service
has made since 1990 in response to previous internal and Office of
Inspector General reviews of the program and what additional changes
may be necessary. We will report separately on the Forest Service's
accounting and budgeting processes for reforestation, timber stand
improvement, and other forest activities.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Revenues from timber sales provide the funds for the Forest Service
to reforest harvested lands, improve timber stands, and improve
renewable resources--such as wildlife habitat, watersheds, and
soils--in timber sale areas. The process of planning and
implementing reforestation is lengthy and complex, and its management
and oversight are decentralized. This process, which can span 15
years or more, is an integral part of timber sales, but it continues
long after the timber is harvested. Over the past 5 fiscal years,
the Forest Service's regions have spent about $1.1 billion on
Knutson-Vandenberg projects and have reforested over 1.6 million
acres using Knutson-Vandenberg funds.
Previous reports by Agriculture's Office of Inspector General and
internal reports by the Forest Service identified problems with
management of the Knutson-Vandenberg program involving, for example,
(1) failing to provide the required documentation for selected
projects funded by the Knutson-Vandenberg fund, (2) failing to ensure
that projects were appropriate for Knutson-Vandenberg funding, or (3)
failing to provide adequate training to staff on the
Knutson-Vandenberg program. Since 1990, the Forest Service has taken
several positive actions to correct these problems in program
management. For example, in 1992 the Forest Service issued a
consolidated Knutson-Vandenberg handbook that provides comprehensive
guidance on managing the program and clarifies the types of projects
that may be funded. This action appears to have significantly
reduced the number of inappropriate projects being funded by the
program. However, some problems, such as inadequate documentation in
files and insufficient training of staff, remain.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576-576b)
established a constant source of funding for the Forest Service to
reforest harvested lands. The act allows portions of receipts from
timber sales to be put in the K-V Trust Fund. In 1976, the Congress,
in enacting the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.), expanded the approved use of K-V funds to include the
protection and improvement of nontimber resources, such as fish,
wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation.
Reforestation is needed where timber harvests or natural disasters
have depleted existing timber stands. Reforestation projects
eligible for K-V funding include growing trees for planting, planting
trees, sowing seeds, removing weeds and other competing vegetation,
and preventing animals from damaging new trees. On average, since
fiscal year 1989, the Forest Service has annually reforested about
480,000 acres. Over the past 5 fiscal years, the number of acres
reforested ranged from a low of about 452,000 acres in 1993 to a high
of about 498,000 acres in 1990.
The K-V fund is one of three sources of funds for reforestation; the
other two are appropriations and the Reforestation Trust Fund. The
K-V fund is also one of several trust funds that the Forest Service
uses in managing national forests, and some of these trust funds may
receive a portion of the receipts collected from timber sales. In
fiscal year 1993, the Forest Service received over $864 million in
timber sale receipts and awarded over 255,000 timber sales contracts.
Of the $864 million, over $269 million was deposited in the K-V fund.
The K-V fund supplied 66 percent of the money used in fiscal year
1993 to reforest Forest Service lands.
In fiscal years 1989-93, the Forest Service awarded over 1.3 million
timber sales contracts, selling over 33 billion board feet of
timber.\1 Over the 5-year period, receipts from timber sales totaled
approximately $5.5 billion, and almost $1.2 billion was deposited in
the K-V fund. Figure 1 shows, for fiscal years 1989-93, the total
receipts and amounts deposited in the K-V fund (K-V receipts) from
the timber sales.
Figure 1: Comparison of
National Timber Sale Receipts
With K-V Receipts, Fiscal Years
1989-93
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Forest Service.
A more detailed schedule of receipts, by Forest Service region, is
presented in appendix I.
--------------------
\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.
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING K-V
PROJECTS IS LENGTHY AND
COMPLEX, AND ITS MANAGEMENT AND
OVERSIGHT ARE DECENTRALIZED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Reforestation starts with a lengthy planning phase closely linked to
the timber sale process, followed by years of implementation. The
entire process may take more than 15 years. In implementing K-V
projects, the Forest Service's district officials are guided by
numerous policies and procedures developed and monitored by
successively higher organizational levels.
K-V MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
ARE DECENTRALIZED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
The Forest Service's oversight and management of the K-V fund and
program are decentralized. Forest Service headquarters (Washington
Office) and nine regional offices primarily establish policy and
provide technical direction to the 122 forest offices\2 on various
aspects of the K-V program. The forest offices, in turn, provide
general oversight to 632 district offices and help the districts plan
K-V projects. The district ranger is ultimately responsible for
overseeing the planning and implementing of K-V projects. Thus, the
district offices implement K-V projects in the field.
Overall oversight and responsibility for the K-V program rest with
the deputy chief of the National Forest System, and the regional
foresters and forest supervisors. However, at each level, individual
managers of resource programs have some responsibility for the K-V
program. For example, at the Washington Office, there are separate
resource program managers for cultural resources, range, recreation,
timber, watershed and air, and wildlife and fisheries. All managers
are responsible for their share of the K-V program, and according to
Forest Service policy, all these functional managers are to
coordinate the management of the K-V program. Similar lines of
resource management exist at the regional, forest, and district
office levels. However, because of resource constraints, management
of some functions may be combined.
--------------------
\2 The Forest Service has 156 "proclaimed" national forests, which
are the original forests designated by the Congress. The proclaimed
forests are administered by 122 national forest administrative
offices.
K-V PLANNING IS CLOSELY TIED
TO THE TIMBER SALE PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Planning for K-V projects generally coincides with the multiyear
timber sale process. In simple terms, the timber sale process can be
described as consisting of six key steps: (1) identifying an
individual sale area, (2) performing an environmental analysis, (3)
determining a minimum sale price for the timber, (4) administering
the bid process, (5) administering the timber harvest, and (6)
closing out the sale. Beginning with the environmental analysis, K-V
planning coincides with the sale activities. Appendix II provides
more details on each of the six steps in the timber sale process and
the K-V planning involved.
Once a preliminary timber sale area has been identified, an
interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists (e.g., timber
specialists, wildlife biologists, fish specialists, range staff,
recreation staff, and soil scientists) prepares an environmental
analysis of the preliminary sale area. The analysis, required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
and Forest Service policy, addresses (1) the anticipated effects of
timber harvesting on area resources such as wildlife, fish, and water
and (2) the need to mitigate such effects. While the environmental
analysis discusses the need for mitigation, it generally does not
specify how mitigation will be accomplished.
During the environmental analysis, the interdisciplinary team gathers
information for a sale area improvement plan, which is prepared for
the timber sale contract. (See app. III for a sample sale area
improvement plan.) This plan lists, in order of priority, all the
projects needed to reforest the area; mitigate damage; and protect,
improve, or otherwise enhance resources. Certain projects included
in the plan are designated as "required": These projects include
reforestation and the activities necessary to ensure the survival of
the new stand of trees. Such projects include controlling damage to
seedlings caused by animals, eliminating weeds and other noxious
growth that compete with tree seedlings for light and soil,
monitoring tree growth, and certifying that tree stands are "free to
grow."
According to Forest Service policy, K-V projects must be discussed in
the environmental analysis and must be appropriate; that is, they
must reestablish, protect, and improve renewable resources in
harvested areas. The K-V handbook lists numerous examples of
projects that are appropriate for K-V funding, including preparing
sites for planting and seeding, improving fish habitat, stabilizing
stream banks, enhancing soil productivity, and constructing nest
boxes for birds.
After completing the environmental analysis, Forest Service officials
establish a minimum acceptable price for the timber. In doing so,
they prepare two estimates for the timber's price: (1) an appraisal
of the timber's value and (2) the estimated cost of completing the
required K-V projects plus $0.50 per thousand board feet of timber to
be cut. The higher of the two prices becomes the minimum acceptable
price for which the timber will be sold.
Once the Forest Service solicits bids, evaluates them, and awards the
contract to the highest bidder, the timber harvest begins; it
generally lasts from 1 to 5 years. Under Forest Service policy, as
the harvest proceeds, the sale area improvement plan--listing all
required and proposed projects--must be reviewed annually. The
review determines whether the plan needs revision to reflect changes
in the cost estimates, reordered priorities, or additions or
deletions to the numbers of projects.
Finally, once the timber has been fully harvested, the Forest Service
administratively closes the timber sale. The closeout is important
to the K-V process because it is the last time that K-V projects and
cost estimates may be revised. Once the sale has been closed, no
more K-V funds may be collected.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE K-V
PLAN MAY BEGIN DURING TIMBER
HARVESTING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Work on K-V projects other than reforestation may begin before the
timber sale is closed. Generally, reforestation work begins after
the timber is harvested. According to Forest Service policy, K-V
projects should be completed within 5 years after the timber sale's
closure, and required K-V projects must be funded from K-V
collections. However, if the final collections from the sale are
greater than what is needed to pay for the required projects, other
projects listed in the sale area improvement plan may be funded from
K-V collections. The projects selected are generally those that will
rehabilitate the timber sale area or protect or improve nontimber
resources, such as wildlife, in the area.
Over the past 5 fiscal years, the Forest Service has spent over $1.1
billion on K-V projects. Of this amount, over $485 million was spent
on reforestation projects, and the remainder was spent on projects
for improving existing timber stands, constructing or repairing
wildlife habitat, or rebuilding recreation trails.
FOREST SERVICE'S ACTIONS
GENERALLY CORRECTED PREVIOUS
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS,
BUT ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ARE
NEEDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Since 1990, the Forest Service has taken several positive actions to
resolve the problems with K-V program management reported by the
Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Agriculture or
by Forest Service headquarters. These problems ranged from not
identifying K-V projects in the environmental analysis document to
not establishing project priorities in the sale area improvement
plan. Accordingly, corrective actions included providing staff with
additional training, issuing guidance that clarified program
policies, and increasing oversight and review activities. For the
most part, the actions taken by the Forest Service have improved the
management of the K-V program, but some problems remain.
PRIOR STUDIES IDENTIFIED
MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE
PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We reviewed the reports issued since 1990 by the Office of the
Inspector General and the Forest Service on the K-V program, and in
the eight districts visited, we reviewed files for all 50 timber
sales identified by district officials as having been closed or
substantially closed in fiscal year 1993 to determine if corrective
actions had been implemented.
A 1990 report by the Inspector General,\3 for example, found that the
Forest Service's review and monitoring of the K-V program were
insufficient. Among the problems cited were including inappropriate
projects in sale area improvement plans and not scheduling timely or
periodic program reviews by the Washington Office or a regional
office.
In response to the Inspector General's report, the Forest Service
increased its internal review process at two organizational levels.
First, Washington Office officials now conduct a management review of
different regions each year, with the goal of reviewing each of the
nine regions every 3 years. Second, the regions have increased the
frequency and the intensity of their reviews of the forest offices'
activities.
Since 1990, Washington Office officials have conducted 11 internal
reviews of K-V program management: Each region has been reviewed
once and two regions have been reviewed twice. The reviewers
examined the program activities of selected forest and district
offices. The types of problems identified in the reviews generally
were the following: (1) inappropriate projects were included in the
sale area improvement plan, (2) K-V projects were not identified in
the environmental analysis document, (3) the interdisciplinary team
did not work together effectively, (4) required documentation was
lacking in the sale area improvement plan, (5) project priorities
were not established and identified in the sale area improvement
plan, and (6) the sale area improvement plan was not reviewed
annually or revised as necessary. Although the types and severity of
the problems varied from region to region, problems in each category
were found in five or more regions. All regions had inappropriate
projects, such as reconstructing recreation trails, drilling wells to
provide water for livestock, or fencing a horse pasture that belonged
to the Forest Service.
According to the Forest Service, these problems resulted from a
combination of unclear guidance and direction and a lack of general
knowledge about the K-V program. Accordingly, the Forest Service
issued a revised K-V handbook in September 1992 that clarified the
types of projects that are appropriate, included an example of a
sale area improvement plan, clarified what information must be
included in the plan, and revised and strengthened the process
for reviewing the sale area improvement plan at the forest
office level and
provided additional training in regional, forest, and district
offices on the purpose and the legal limitations of the K-V
program, the appropriate uses of K-V funds, and the way to
document and support K-V projects.
Also, in October 1992 the Forest Service established a headquarters
steering committee to recommend policy revisions and respond to
questions from the field offices about K-V policy. This informal
committee, which meets as needed, includes representatives from
resource programs (e.g., those for timber management, range, wildlife
and fisheries, recreation, and cultural resources) and from
administrative programs (e.g., program development and budget, and
fiscal and accounting services). The committee has recently
discussed clarifying the use of K-V funds for construction and the
appropriateness of using K-V funds to monitor the effects of timber
sale activities on various resources.
--------------------
\3 Forest Service Analysis of Knutson-Vandenberg Act Fund Balances,
Audit Report No. 08600-3-At (Mar. 1990).
PROBLEMS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN
CORRECTED, BUT A FEW REMAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
In the districts we visited and in our review of the files of the 50
timber sales closed or substantially closed in fiscal year 1993, we
found that the Forest Service's corrective actions generally improved
the management of the K-V program, but a few problems remain
unresolved.
Management improvements were apparent in several areas. For example,
for each of the 50 timber sales that we reviewed, an environmental
analysis had been prepared. Additionally, each of the 567 K-V
projects connected with the 50 sales that we reviewed appeared to be
appropriate for K-V funding. Furthermore, 293 of the projects were
required and were given top priority for K-V funding.
In a few areas, however, problems with documentation remained. Of
the 50 sale area improvement plans we reviewed, 15 plans listed
projects that were not addressed in the environmental analysis of the
sale, 21 plans lacked the required narrative support for the K-V
projects, and 21 plans lacked documentation in the files showing that
the sale area improvement plans had been reviewed annually as
required by Forest Service policy. (Some plans were lacking in more
than one of these areas.) The district ranger is ultimately
responsible for ensuring that the (1) K-V projects are consistent
with the environmental analysis, (2) sale area improvement plans are
adequately reviewed and updated, and (3) projects are appropriately
documented.
Project documentation is important not only as a management oversight
tool but also as a training and quality assurance tool. According to
the Comptroller General's Standards for Internal Controls in the
Federal Government, documentation is necessary "if pertinent
information is to maintain its relevance and value to management in
controlling operations and making decisions." Furthermore, given the
length of the process for planning and implementing K-V projects,
together with staff turnover,\4 documentation is needed to ensure
that newer staff understand why projects are necessary and when
updates were last accomplished. For example, one district official
who had recently joined the district office expressed to us her
frustration with the lack of documentation on K-V projects.
According to this official, the lack of documentation hindered her
understanding of the projects' status.
According to the K-V program official in the Washington Office, the
1992 revision to the K-V handbook and the increased training provided
by regions have gone a long way toward resolving the problems with
the K-V program. Additionally, this official indicated that seven of
the nine regions (all but regions 4 and 5) have provided
comprehensive training on the K-V program to their forest office and
district staff. These regions, he noted, have not taken steps in 5
years to provide staff with comprehensive training in managing the
K-V program but have merely included the information on K-V as a
small portion of other training provided. Although the Washington
Office encourages the regions to provide comprehensive training,
Region 4 only included it as part of other Forest Service training
because, according to a regional official, he did not recognize that
the staff wanted extensive training in the program.
--------------------
\4 In the fiscal year 1994 "buyout" of government employees to
encourage them to retire or otherwise leave government service, the
Forest Service lost more than 2,300 employees. Additional buyouts
may occur in fiscal year 1995.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
While the Forest Service has taken certain positive actions over the
past few years to resolve previously identified problems with program
management, some problems remain. We believe that the Forest
Service's actions have improved the management of the program, but
more could be done. The complexity and the length of the K-V
planning and implementation process make it imperative that the need
for and the status of K-V projects be thoroughly documented in the
files and that K-V program staff be well-versed in program
requirements. In this regard, the Forest Service--through the
responsible officials in regional, forest, and district
offices--needs to ensure that sale area improvement plans are
adequately documented and that field staff are given the necessary
training to properly implement and monitor the K-V program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture, to further improve
management of the K-V program, direct the Chief of the Forest Service
to require district rangers to verify, before approving and signing
the original sale area improvement plans and their revisions, that
K-V projects listed in the sale area improvement plans are clearly
related to needs for mitigation and to enhancement measures
mentioned in the environmental analyses,
the sale area improvement plans contain the required narrative
support for planned K-V projects, and
documentation (e.g., initials and dates) shows that the sale area
improvement plans have been annually reviewed and revised as
appropriate.
We further recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the
Chief of the Forest Service to provide appropriate training to forest
and district office staff involved in the K-V program in the
Intermountain Region (Region 4) and the Pacific Southwest Region
(Region 5).
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We discussed the facts, conclusions, and recommendations in this
report with the Forest Service's Washington Office Director and other
staff, including the head of the K-V program from the Timber
Management Staff, and the Systems Accountant from the Fiscal and
Accounting Services Staff. These officials said that the report
accurately described the operations of the K-V program. They
provided some technical clarifications that we incorporated as
appropriate. Regarding the recommendations, these officials stated
that on the basis of the information developed, all the
recommendations were warranted and that they would begin taking
corrective action. In our subsequent discussions with a Region 4
representative, the official indicated that training will be
scheduled in mid-fiscal year 1995 to correct the training problem we
identified.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
In conducting our review, we examined pertinent legislation and
Forest Service policies and procedures for managing the K-V program.
We also interviewed Forest Service officials at all organizational
levels--in the Washington Office and in regional, forest, and
district offices. In the eight districts we visited, we reviewed
district offices' files on all 50 timber sales identified by district
officials as having been closed in fiscal year 1993 or being near
closure. We also reviewed reports by the Office of the Inspector
General in the Department of Agriculture and Forest Service reports
on the K-V program issued since fiscal year 1990. Appendix IV
contains details of our scope and methodology.
We performed our review from August 1993 through June 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture,
the Chief of the Forest Service, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others on request.
This work was performed under the direction of James K. Meissner,
Associate Director for Timber, 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
TIMBER RECEIPTS AND K-V RECEIPTS
AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS
1989-93
=========================================================== Appendix I
During fiscal years 1989-93, the Forest Service awarded over 1.3
million timber sales, not including sales of special forest products
such as Christmas trees. During the same period, the Forest Service
received approximately $5.5 billion for all timber sales, including
almost $1.2 billion for the K-V fund. Regional K-V expenditures over
the 5-year period totaled over $1.1 billion. In fiscal year 1993,
reforestation constituted 66 percent of the K-V expenditures.
NUMBER OF TIMBER SALES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
Of the 1.3 million timber sales awarded by the Forest Service in
fiscal years 1989-93, almost 21,500 were large sales and the rest
were small sales. Large sales are those that (1) will raise over
$2,000 or (2) contain 2 million board feet or more. Small sales, on
the other hand, generally yield $2,000 or less. Figure I.1
illustrates the change in the number of large timber sales for fiscal
years 1989-93.
Figure I.1: Number of Large
Timber Sales, Fiscal Years
1989-93
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: MBF=thousand board feet.
Note 2: The Forest Service uses two criteria to create the
smallest-size class shown on the chart: $2,001-2,000 MBF refers to
timber sales of $2,000 or more in value or timber sales of 2 million
board feet or less in volume.
Source: Forest Service.
TIMBER SALES AND K-V RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
During fiscal years 1989-93, the Forest Service's nine regional
offices received approximately $5.5 billion for all timber sales,
including almost $1.2 billion for K-V projects. Figure I.2 shows the
distribution of receipts from timber sales and the K-V fund among the
regions.
Figure I.2: Cumulative Timber
and K-V Receipts by Region,
Fiscal Years 1989-93
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The Forest Service does not have a Region 7.
Source: Forest Service.
REGIONAL K-V EXPENDITURES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
Cumulative expenditures from the K-V fund for fiscal years 1989-93
amounted to over $1.1 billion for the nine regions. Figure I.3 shows
how much each region spent in K-V funds and how much was spent solely
for reforestation. In regions 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8, reforestation
expenditures equaled approximately 40 to 60 percent of the total K-V
expenditures over the 5 years.
Figure I.3: Cumulative K-V and
K-V Reforestation Expenditures
by Region, Fiscal Years 1989-93
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: The Forest Service does not have a Region 7.
Note 2: Expenditures do not include indirect cost elements.
Source: Forest Service.
NATIONAL K-V EXPENDITURES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
Nationwide, in fiscal year 1993, expenditures for reforestation
consumed 51 percent of total K-V expenditures. Timber-related
expenditures--including reforestation and timber stand
improvement--consumed 65 percent of K-V funds. The next largest use
of K-V funds was general administration expenses (20 percent).
Figure I.4 compares the percentage of expenditures for reforestation
with total K-V expenditures for fiscal year 1993.
Figure I.4: K-V Expenditures
by Type, Fiscal Year 1993
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: TSI = timber stand improvement.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source: Forest Service's Fiscal and Accounting Services.
TIMBER MANAGEMENT AND K-V PLANNING
========================================================== Appendix II
One facet of timber management involves planning for and implementing
timber sales, of which planning for K-V projects is an integral part.
The principal guiding document for timber management is the forest
plan, which is prepared for each forest. These plans provide
long-term guidance for planning timber sales by identifying general
sale areas that may be harvested over a decade or more. Forest
Service officials use this general guidance to identify specific
timber sale areas, thus starting the timber sale process.
The timber sale process--which may take over 10 years from the time
of initial sale planning through harvest--consists of six key steps:
(1) identifying the individual sale area, (2) performing an
environmental analysis, (3) determining a minimum sale price for the
timber, (4) administering the bid process, (5) administering the
timber harvest, and (6) closing out the sale. Many Forest Service
officials at the forest and district offices are involved in this
process.
Figure II.1 illustrates these steps, adding the initial step of
preparing the forest plan. In addition, the time line shows the
point at which the K-V process is integrated with the timber sale
process and the range of years taken for planning and implementing
both processes. Individual sales may be longer or shorter by a
number of years. Each step is described in more detail below.
Figure II.1: Timber Sale
Process and K-V Planning
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FOREST PLAN PREPARED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614), as amended by the 1976 National Forest
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), each forest manages its
natural resources in accordance with a forest plan covering a period
of up to 15 years. Forest plans set standards for managing timber,
wildlife, water quality, and other forest conditions. All activities
affecting the forest must comply with the forest plan, and the plans
are subject to public comment and appeal.
Forest plans must comply with various laws, such as the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. sections 1531-1544). Forest plans
comply with this act by setting standards for protecting animals and
plants in the forest. For example, the Targhee National Forest,
adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, has set standards to provide
grizzly bears with habitat and cover. Similarly, the Siuslaw
National Forest in the Pacific Northwest must identify means of
preserving habitat for the northern spotted owl and the Oregon
silverspot butterfly. Other critical acts that must be considered in
forest plans include the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7
U.S.C. 1010-1012), the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16
U.S.C. 528-531), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321-4347), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-1782).
SALE AREA IDENTIFIED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
The first step in the timber sale process, identifying a preliminary
timber sale area, flows from the forest plan. Forest plans identify
general areas suitable for timber sales and may schedule, by year,
when timber sales on these lands may take place. From these general
areas, interdisciplinary teams of Forest Service specialists (e.g.,
timber specialists, wildlife biologists, fish specialists, and range
staff) identify more precisely defined individual sale areas. These
specialists are usually from the forest or district offices.
In identifying individual sale areas, the interdisciplinary team
evaluates factors such as terrain; road and stream locations; and the
type, maturity, and condition of the trees. The team then
establishes the type of sale to be held: either a sale of
predominantly healthy trees or a salvage sale of predominantly
damaged, diseased, or dead trees. The team defines the final
boundary of the sale area after an environmental analysis has been
prepared. The boundary is based on geographically identifiable
landmarks, such as streams, roads, and ridges.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PREPARED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Once a preliminary sale area has been identified, the
interdisciplinary team begins the second step of the process:
preparing an environmental analysis of the sale area. This analysis
addresses the anticipated effects of timber cutting on the area's
nontimber resources--such as wildlife and water--and the need to
mitigate such effects. Before preparing the environmental analysis,
the interdisciplinary team evaluates tree and soil conditions,
terrain, and other factors that may affect the sale. In addition,
the officials search for places that may provide opportunities to
improve the area's resources, by, for example, creating wildlife
habitat (e.g., meadows and fish structures) and places that may be
disturbed by cutting. Each opportunity to improve resources or
mitigate damage should be addressed in the environmental analysis for
the area.
In conjunction with preparing the environmental analysis, certain
members of the interdisciplinary team--those responsible for
renewable resources--identify and negotiate projects for a sale area
improvement plan. The plan is prepared after the environmental
analysis is completed, as part of the timber sale contract. This
plan lists, in order of priority, all the projects needed to reforest
the area, mitigate damage, and protect or improve resources. The
plan also includes the estimated cost of the projects. (See app.
III for a sample plan.)
TIMBER APPRAISED AND BASE PRICE
SET
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
In step three, the minimum acceptable price for the timber is
determined. Generally, the district's pre-sale officer prepares an
appraisal of the timber's value and compares this with a base price
that depends, in part, on the cost of the K-V projects listed on the
sale area improvement plan. The minimum acceptable price for which
the timber will be sold is the higher of the two values.
Various laws and regulations require the Forest Service to sell
timber for a fair market value. The value varies according to the
species of tree to be cut (e.g., lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine,
Douglas fir), differences in the terrain underlying the trees, the
quality of the timber and whether the trees are healthy or damaged,
and the distance from the sale area to the nearest timber mill. In
general, the timber appraisal results in a price to be paid per
thousand board feet of the timber. (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.) The timber value is based
on an estimate of the number of thousand board feet available in the
sale area multiplied by the price per thousand board feet.
The member of the interdisciplinary team primarily responsible for
preparing the sale area improvement plan, usually a district timber
official, determines a base price for a sale area. The base price is
the cost of the required K-V projects added to a standard price of
$0.50 per thousand board feet for the timber harvested. According to
Forest Service policy, the timber sale price must be sufficient to
cover the estimated costs of required reforestation projects listed
on the sale area improvement plan. Required projects include
reforestation of cutover areas and other activities necessary to
ensure the survival of the young trees, including controlling animal
damage to young trees and destroying competing vegetation. To
determine the base price, the timber official calculates the total
cost of accomplishing the required projects, then adds $0.50 per
thousand board feet of timber cut. The $0.50 per thousand board feet
is standard for all types of tree and is intended to provide revenue
to support other Forest Service activities.
TIMBER SOLD
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
The fourth step, administering the bid process, consists of
advertising the sale, accepting and evaluating bids, and awarding the
contract to the highest bidder. The minimum acceptable price becomes
the advertised price for the sale. A member of the forest or
district office's Resource Group (which carries out an administrative
function) prepares and places a sale advertisement with local
newspapers.
Either the forest office's timber sale contracting officer or a
forest or district office timber management official manages the
bidding process. Bidding is designated as either sealed or oral. In
sealed bidding, interested parties submit bids in writing, and the
responsible bidder with the highest bid will be awarded the contract.
The highest bid must be equal to or greater than the advertised
price. In oral bidding, interested parties first submit bids in
writing. Any party with an acceptable bid--that is, a bid equal to
or greater than the advertised price--is allowed to make oral bids
against those of other accepted bidders. The party that makes the
highest oral bid is awarded the contract. Under the terms of federal
timber sale contracts, purchasers agree to harvest the timber within
a specific period and to take other actions, such as building roads
and clearing debris after the harvest.
TIMBER HARVEST ADMINISTERED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6
The fifth step, harvesting the timber, begins once the sale contract
is in effect. For individual sales, timber harvesting generally
lasts for 1 to 5 years or longer. During the harvest, the district's
timber sale administrator regularly inspects the sale area to verify
that the timber purchaser is carrying out the contract terms. For
example, the purchaser should cut only designated trees and must take
appropriate precautions to prevent fire.
Throughout the harvest, the purchaser makes payments for the timber.
A portion of these payments is allocated to the K-V fund to pay for
the sale area improvement projects. These projects may start as soon
as timber is harvested.
TIMBER SALE CLOSED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7
Finally, as the sixth step, the sale is administratively closed. The
closeout is important to the K-V process because it is the last time
that K-V projects and cost estimates may be revised.
Closing the sale involves (1) making a final inspection of the timber
sale area, (2) verifying that the timber volume is updated and
complete and that payment for the timber has been made, (3) ensuring
that the appropriate paperwork is accurate and complete, and (4)
notifying the purchaser that the purchaser's liability for the area
is finished. Once the sale is closed, no more K-V funds may be
collected and no more K-V projects may be added to the final sale
area improvement plan.
SALE AREA IMPROVEMENT AND K-V
COLLECTION PLAN
========================================================= Appendix III
The Forest Service uses the Sale Area Improvement and K-V Collection
Plan (SAI plan) to document the projects necessary to reforest a
harvested sale area and to protect and improve renewable resources.
Forest Service policy requires that a SAI plan be completed for any
sale area. This appendix provides a sample sale area improvement
plan, explains the information that must be included, and describes
how district officials use the plan to document financing for K-V
projects.
SAMPLE SAI PLAN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
Figure III.1 is a sample of the standard Sale Area Improvement and
K-V Collection Plan, containing the 20 items that Forest Service
officials use when planning the timber sale and related sale area
improvement projects. Table III.1, following the figure, describes
each item on the plan.
Figure III.1: Sample Sale Area
Improvement and K-V Collection
Plan
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Table III.1
Description of Items on the Sample SAI
Plan
Field Title Purpose
-------- ---------------- --------------------------------
1 Forest The name of the proclaimed
national forest in which the
timber sale is located.
2 District/unit The name of the district or unit
in which the timber sale is
located.
3 Sale name The name of the timber sale.
4 Contract date The date that the timber sale
contract is signed and that the
timber is considered "sold."
5 Compartments or A geographic reference for the
GIS [Geographic timber sale. For example, a
Information compartment is a geographic area
System] composed of many tree stands and
reference specifically numbered in the
forest plan.
6 Type of plan An indication of whether the SAI
plan is the original plan or a
revision.
7 Purchaser The name of the timber
purchaser.
8 Contract number The timber sale contract number.
9 List of eligible A list, by priority, of the
projects projects that the
interdisciplinary team
recommends and the district
ranger approves as eligible for
K-V funding. According to Forest
Service policy, required
projects (e.g., reforestation or
animal damage control) should
always be listed as the highest
priorities.
10 Work activity An accounting code used to
register expenses for Forest
Service work. For example,
accounting code ET24 is the
Forest Service's work activity
code for reforestation. Another
example is ET25, the work
activity code for timber stand
improvement.
11 Units of work A description of how the work
will be measured; for example,
the relevant unit for
reforestation work is an acre
(AC), fish enhancement is listed
by structure (ST), and road
inactivation is measured by mile
(Mi).
12 Cost per unit The estimated cost per project
unit (e.g., acre, mile, or
structure), as projected by the
district responsible for the
project.
13a Cost of eligible The total units of work needed
projects--no. of to complete the project listed
units in field 9.
13b Cost of eligible The estimated total cost of the
projects--cost indicated project. The cost is
derived by multiplying the
project's unit costs in field 12
by the eligible acres of work in
field 13a.
14a K-V funded The number of units for the
projects--no. of indicated project that may be
units funded with K-V dollars
collected from the sale. This
section is filled in after the
timber sale is awarded; the
amount that will be available
for K-V funding is known from
field 16. The units of work in
field 14a may be less than those
shown in field 13a.
14b K-V funded The amount that K-V dollars will
projects--cost fund for each project. The cost
is derived by multiplying the
unit cost in field 12 by the
number of units that may be
funded with K-V funds in field
14a. The total cost of work in
field 14b may be less than that
shown in field 13b. This would
happen if not enough K-V funds
were available from the sale to
completely fund every project.
15 Total eligible The sum of all project costs in
work funded column 14b; this amount equals
the total cost of all K-V-
funded SAI projects.
16 Stumpage The estimated amount of cash
available for K- deposits, to be paid by the
V financing purchaser, that is available to
fund K-V projects. This value is
the adjusted contract sale
price. This field must be
completed before fields 14a and
14b are completed.
17 Remarks Space for any further
information.
18 Prepared by The name and the signature of
the person who prepared the SAI
plan.
19 Recommended by The name and the signature of
the district ranger or the
leader of the interdisciplinary
team for the sale.
20 Approved by The signature of the official
authorized to approve the
environmental analysis documents
for the timber sale. This may be
the forest supervisor or the
district ranger, for example.
------------------------------------------------------------
USE OF THE SAI PLAN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
The districts use the SAI form to list individual projects for
improving the timber sale area and K-V project funding. The
following describes how the district staff use the form to document
improvement projects for the sale area; the estimated project costs;
and, finally, the level of K-V funding for the projects in the plan.
Sale area improvement projects and K-V project funding are documented
on individual forms like the sample in figure III.1 (regional
variations are allowed). On the form, the Forest Service provides
information on each timber sale and purchaser according to the
contract and the geographic location (fields 1-5, 7 and 8). If
changes occur in the timber sale, the SAI plan may be revised to
document such changes (field 6).
The SAI plan records the types of projects (field 9) and the sizes of
the projects (field 13a) that a district expects to accomplish. For
example, the sample SAI plan lists two required reforestation
projects (artificial regen[eration] and natural regen[eration]) and
seven nonrequired projects (fish enhancement, riparian planting, thin
and clean, water developments, noxious weed management, wildlife tree
sign, and road inactivation).
The districts are not limited in the number of projects that may be
listed on the document as eligible for K-V funding, although all
listed projects must be appropriate for K-V funding. Forest Service
guidance provides a list of projects appropriate for K-V funding.
Districts may plan for projects that are not on this list but should
first verify with staff in the Washington Office or the forest or
regional offices that such projects are eligible for K-V funding.
The following list is a sample of appropriate projects:
construct birds' nest boxes or tree cavities, guzzlers, and water
catchments;
thin trees to enhance growth;
prescribe burn to enhance wildlife habitat and rangeland
ecosystems;
install gates, signs, and traffic control barriers;
conduct administrative studies;
plant riparian (along rivers and streams) vegetation;
respread top soil;
incorporate organic matter into soils to maintain fertility;
pull back side cast from old roads to reduce landslide potential
within the sale area;
remove barriers to fish passage and stabilize stream banks;
provide interpretive signs or other media to help the public
understand management activities;
manipulate vegetation to improve diversity;
restore barriers to livestock;
construct waterbars and/or close roads associated with a K-V
project;
set up free firewood-gathering areas;
rip or till compacted soils;
control stream temperature and provide cover with large woody
debris;
increase effectiveness of filter strips with woody obstructions
using logging slash;
control public, wildlife, and livestock use that threatens
plantations or other resources;
obliterate and restore productivity on unneeded roads and
travelways not used by the purchaser;
landscape gullies that threaten long-term productivity at the site;
improve the visual quality along roads and trails;
use burning and other techniques to enhance production of wild
berries;
establish dispersed camping sites within the boundary of the sale
area; and
remove preexisting slash, such as root wads, to enhance recreation
and aesthetics.
The district uses the SAI plan to indicate which of the eligible
projects received K-V funding. Merely listing a project as eligible
for K-V funding on the sale area document does not guarantee that K-V
funding will be received for the project. K-V funding for a project
in a sale area hinges on the amount of money available from the sale
to fund improvement projects (field 16) and the cost estimates for
the projects (fields 13a and b). If the total amount of sale money
available to fund projects is greater than the proposed project costs
in the sale area improvement plan, all the projects in that plan may
be funded with K-V money. However, if the money available is less
than the proposed project costs in the plan, projects are funded by
priority until the money runs out.
For example, the sample SAI plan shows two projects that did not
receive K-V funding (wildlife tree sign and road inactivation) and
one project that received only partial funding (noxious weed
management) because the amount of K-V money available from the sale
was not enough to fund all the eligible projects. In the sample
plan, the amount of eligible work funded was $97,159 (field 15), and
the amount of money available to fund K-V work was $97,500 (field
16). Thus, the amount of K-V money remaining to fund projects was
$341. Given the individual project costs, this was not enough to
fund the last acre of noxious weed management--which costs $1,132 per
acre to complete. Nor was the amount sufficient to entirely fund the
last two projects.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV
The Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and
Forests, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, requested
that we review the Forest Service's management of the
Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) fund. We agreed to focus on determining (1)
how the Forest Service plans for and implements K-V projects and (2)
what changes the Forest Service has made in response to previous
reviews of the K-V program.
Although some of our work was conducted at the Forest Service's
Washington Office (headquarters), most of our work was performed at
three regional offices, five forest offices, and eight district
offices. We chose the regional offices--the Rocky Mountain Region
(Region 2), the Intermountain Region (Region 4), and the Pacific
Northwest Region (Region 6)--on the basis of the size of each
region's timber receipts for fiscal year 1991; Region 6 (Portland,
Oregon) had the highest level of receipts, and Regions 2 (Lakewood,
Colorado) and 4 (Ogden, Utah) had low levels of receipts.
The forest offices reviewed were chosen for (1) the size of the
fiscal year 1991 K-V receipts within their regions, (2) their
geographic dispersion, and (3) whether the forests had been subject
to management reviews by the Washington Office. On the basis of
these criteria, we reviewed K-V programs for the following forests:
the Boise Forest (Boise, Idaho); the Medicine Bow Forest (Laramie,
Wyoming); the Ochoco Forest (Prineville, Oregon); the Siuslaw Forest
(Corvalis, Oregon); and the Targhee Forest (St. Anthony, Idaho).
We reviewed district offices that had closed sales in fiscal year
1993 or had sales ready for closure. The district offices selected
were the Ashton District Office (Ashton, Idaho); the Big Summit
District Office (Prineville, Oregon); the Emmett District Office
(Emmett, Idaho); the Hebo District Office (Hebo, Oregon); the Idaho
City District Office (Idaho City, Idaho); the Island Park District
Office (Island Park, Idaho); the Mapleton District Office (Mapleton,
Oregon); and the Prineville District Office (Prineville, Oregon).
At all levels of the Forest Service's organization--Washington Office
and regional, forest, and district offices--we interviewed officials
familiar with the K-V program. These included resource program
managers (e.g., recreation, timber, and wildlife managers); finance
and budget officials; and officials responsible for maintaining
information related to the K-V program in various automated systems.
We also reviewed documents concerning management of the K-V fund,
such as Forest Service management reviews, K-V program policy and
guidance, and timber sale accounting reports. Additionally, we
reviewed the legislation that had established the K-V fund and
reports by the Department of Agriculture's Office of the Inspector
General assessing the K-V program.
Finally, at each district office, we reviewed files for a total of 50
timber sales for documentation related to the K-V program, such as
environmental analyses and sale area improvement plans. The sales
reviewed either were closed in fiscal year 1993 or were ready for
closure. We chose to review these sales because the related sale
area improvement plans should have been prepared using criteria in
the Forest Service's most recent K-V handbook, which became effective
a week before the beginning of fiscal year 1993.
For each sale, we collected the sale area improvement plan and
subsequent revisions and evaluated them to determine (1) whether the
need for the listed K-V projects was discussed in the environmental
analysis for the sale; (2) whether the listed K-V projects were
appropriate for K-V funding; (3) whether the required K-V projects
were listed first; (4) whether the plan included a narrative
attachment describing the K-V projects and their cost; and (5)
whether the plan had been reviewed within a year of the sale's
closure or, for sales not closed, whether the plan had been reviewed
in the last year. When we noted discrepancies during our file
review, we clarified the issues with responsible officials.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Linda L. Harmon
John P. Murphy, Jr.
Bernice H. Dawson
DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
Cheryl L. Pilatzke
Susan E. Iott
Pamela K. Tumler
GLOSSARY
=========================================================== Appendix 0
ANIMAL DAMAGE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.1
Physical damage to forest tree seed, seedlings, and young trees as a
result of seed foraging, browsing, cutting, rubbing, or trampling by
mammals and birds.
BASE PRICE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.2
The cost of the sale's required K-V projects added to a standard
price of $0.50 per thousand board feet for timber harvested. In
sales with a low timber value, the sale's base price may become the
minimum acceptable price for the timber.
BOARD FOOT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.3
A standard timber measurement that equals the amount of wood in an
unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide.
CULTURAL RESOURCE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.4
Any definite location of past human activity identifiable through a
field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. This
includes archaeological or architectural sites, structures, or
places, and places of traditional cultural or religious importance to
specified groups whether or not represented by physical remains.
FREE TO GROW
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.5
The time when trees no longer have growth restraints.
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.6
A computer system capable of storing and manipulating mapped data.
HABITAT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.7
The place where a plant or an animal naturally lives and grows.
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.8
A group of persons with varying areas of specialty assembled to solve
a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled when no one
scientific discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve
complex resource problems.
MATURE STAND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.9
A mappable group of trees for which the annual net rate of growth has
peaked. Mature stands are generally more than 80 years old and less
than 200 years old.
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE PRICE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.10
The minimum acceptable price for a timber sale is the greater of the
sale's base price or the timber's appraised value.
MITIGATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.11
Practices intended to reduce the impact of certain management
activities, including (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action; (2) minimizing the impact by limiting the
degree or magnitude of the action; (3) rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4)
reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5)
compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
REFORESTATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.12
The renewal of forest cover by natural regeneration or by planting or
seeding new trees where timber harvests or natural disasters have
removed or destroyed existing stands.
REGENERATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.13
The act of establishing young trees naturally or artificially.
RENEWABLE RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.14
Resources that can be used indefinitely if the use rate does not
exceed the ability to renew the supply. Examples of such resources
are timber, outdoor recreation, and wildlife.
STUMPAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.15
The value of standing timber. When stumpage is recorded on a sale
area improvement plan, it is the amount of timber sale proceeds
available for funding K-V projects.
TIMBER STAND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.16
A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is sufficiently
uniform in species, age, and condition as to be distinguishable from
the forest or other nearby growth.
TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.17
Various measures aimed at improving the growing conditions for a
timber stand, such as thinning, pruning, burning, weeding, or
poisoning unwanted trees.
WATERSHED
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.18
A land area from which all surface water drains to a common point,
such as a stream. Watersheds can range from a few tens of acres to
many thousands of acres.
WILDLIFE COVER
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.19
Any vegetation used by wildlife for security or for escaping from
danger. This cover is also known as hiding cover.