Emergency Salvage Sale Program: Forest Service Met Its Target, but More
Timber Could Have Been Offered for Sale (Letter Report, 02/24/97,
GAO/RCED-97-53).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Forest Service's
emergency salvage timber program, commonly referred to as the salvage
rider, focusing on: (1) the volume of salvage timber offered by the
Forest Service under the salvage rider from fiscal year (FY) 1995
through December 1996 compared with the volume that it had planned to
offer for the same period prior to passage of the rider; (2) the effect
of the Secretary of Agriculture's July 2, 1996, memorandum, which placed
more restrictions on salvage sales; (3) whether four specific provisions
of the salvage rider helped the Forest Service to offer salvage timber
for sale more timely; and (4) whether certain salvage sales that were of
concern to environmental organizations met the definition of salvage
timber as specified in the salvage rider and Forest Service's
guidelines.
GAO found that: (1) under the emergency salvage program, the Forest
Service offered for sale a total of 4.6 billion board feet of salvage
timber, which was 1.2 billion board feet more than the Forest Service
had planned to offer before the rider; (2) the total volume offered
under the rider was about 2 percent more than the target of 4.5 billion
board feet specified in the Secretary of Agriculture's letter to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives; (3) the volume of salvage
timber offered for sale under the salvage rider could have been
significantly greater; (4) four selected provisions of the rider had
little effect on either expediting the preparation and award of salvage
sales or increasing the volume of the salvage timber offered for sale
for the four forests GAO visited; (5) two of the provisions, eliminating
the appeals process and expediting judicial review, were of little help
because, traditionally, the Forest Service experiences few appeals or
legal challenges when selling salvage timber; (6) the rider required
that for each salvage sale, the national forest shall prepare a document
that combines an environmental assessment and a biological evaluation;
(7) this provision was implemented by simply attaching the documents
together; (8) Forest Service officials believed that by continuing to
prepare separate documents, they could plan and prepare their salvage
sales faster and that combining the two documents resulted in an
excessive amount of detailed information that was not needed for
decisionmaking activities; (9) at the four forests GAO visited, only one
retired employee was rehired and a few contractors were used; (10)
nationwide, 10 retired employees were rehired and no statistics are
available on how may contractors were used: (11) GAO reviewed 14 salvage
sales for which the Forest Service had received complaints from
environmental organizations that the sales contained excessive volumes
of green timber, live and healthy trees, and thus did not comply with
the definition of a salvage sale under the salvage rider; (12) GAO's
analysis of the contract files for all of the 14 salvage sales showed
that they contained sufficient documentation to support the Forest
Service's conclusions that these sales met the salvage rider's
definition of a salvage sale and the Forest Service's guidelines for
implementing the rider; and (13) however, the Forest Service delayed of*
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-53
TITLE: Emergency Salvage Sale Program: Forest Service Met Its
Target, but More Timber Could Have Been Offered for
Sale
DATE: 02/24/97
SUBJECT: Timber sales
Sales contracts
National forests
Forest management
Eligibility criteria
Administrative remedies
Judicial remedies
Environmental impact statements
IDENTIFIER: Forest Service Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program
Clearwater National Forest (ID)
Boise National Forest (ID)
Stanislaus National Forest (CA)
Deschutes National Forest (OR)
******************************************************************
** 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. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate
February 1997
EMERGENCY SALVAGE SALE PROGRAM -
FOREST SERVICE MET ITS TARGET, BUT
MORE TIMBER COULD HAVE BEEN
OFFERED FOR SALE
GAO/RCED-97-53
Emergency Salvage Sale Program
(140540)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-275987
February 24, 1997
Frank H. Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In July 1995, the Congress established the emergency salvage timber
sale program.\1 The program, commonly referred to as the salvage
rider, was intended to increase the amount of salvage timber offered
for sale and sold by instituting an expedited sale process that,
among other things, eased environmental procedures, eliminated the
administrative appeals process, and expedited judicial reviews. You
expressed concern about how well the rider has worked because the
Committee may consider either renewing the salvage rider, which
expired on December 31, 1996, or including the provisions of the
rider in a proposed forest health bill.
As agreed with your office, we (1) compared the volume of salvage
timber offered by the Forest Service under the salvage rider from
fiscal year 1995 through December 1996 with the volume that it had
planned to offer for the same period prior to passage of the rider,
and determined the effect of the Secretary of Agriculture's July 2,
1996, memorandum, which placed more restrictions on salvage sales;
(2) determined whether four specific provisions of the salvage rider
helped the Forest Service to offer salvage timber for sale more
timely; and (3) determined if certain salvage sales that were of
concern to environmental organizations met the definition of salvage
timber as specified in the salvage rider and Forest Service's
guidelines.
--------------------
\1 This program was part of the Title II, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism
Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery From the Tragedy That
Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19,
July 27, 1995). The act also relates to the Bureau of Land
Management's salvage sales; however, our work was limited to those
sales by the Forest Service.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Under the emergency salvage program, the Forest Service offered for
sale a total of 4.6 billion board feet of salvage timber, which was
1.2 billion board feet more than the Forest Service had planned to
offer before the rider. The total volume offered under the rider was
about 2 percent more than the target of 4.5 billion board feet
specified in the Secretary of Agriculture's June 29, 1995, letter to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. However, the volume of
salvage timber offered for sale under the salvage rider could have
been significantly greater. For example, on July 2, 1996, the
Secretary of Agriculture placed more restrictions on the criteria to
classify sales as salvage sales under the rider, which resulted in
the delay of 224 sales containing 722 million board feet that the
Forest Service had planned to offer for sale. In addition, on
December 13, 1996, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment directed the Forest Service not
to advertise any salvage sales under the rider after that date. This
resulted in delaying 27 additional sales involving 29.7 million board
feet.
Four selected provisions of the rider--eliminating the administrative
appeals process, expediting judicial reviews, combining environmental
documents, and hiring retired employees and contractors--had little
effect on either expediting the preparation and award of salvage
sales or increasing the volume of the salvage timber offered for sale
for the four forests we visited. Two of the provisions--eliminating
the appeals process and expediting judicial review--were of little
help because, traditionally, the Forest Service experiences few
appeals or legal challenges when selling salvage timber. The rider
required that for each salvage sale, the national forest shall
prepare a document that combines an environmental assessment and a
biological evaluation. This provision was implemented by simply
attaching the documents together. Forest service officials believed
that by continuing to prepare separate documents, they could plan and
prepare their salvage sales faster and that combining the two
documents resulted in an excessive amount of detailed information
that was not needed for the decision-making activities pertaining to
the forests' salvage sales. Finally, at the four forests visited,
only one retired employee was rehired and a few contractors were
used. Nationwide, 10 retired employees were rehired; no statistics
are available on how many contractors were used.
We reviewed 14 salvage sales for which the Forest Service had
received complaints from environmental organizations that the sales
contained excessive volumes of green timber--live and healthy
trees--and thus did not comply with the definition of a salvage sale
under the salvage rider. Our analysis of the contract files for all
of the 14 salvage sales showed that they contained sufficient
documentation to support the Forest Service's conclusions that these
sales met the salvage rider's definition of a salvage sale and the
Forest Service's guidelines for implementing the rider. However, the
Forest Service delayed offering 6 of the 14 timber sales until after
the salvage rider had expired because of the more restrictive
eligibility criteria for salvage sales set forth in the Secretary of
Agriculture's July 2, 1996, memorandum.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Forest Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
manages the 192 million-acre national forest system with its 155
national forests. During the past 12 years, such phenomena as insect
infestations, droughts, and wildfires have increased on the national
forest system's lands--particularly for western national
forests--which have been altered over several decades by
timber-harvesting practices and the control of wildfires. In 1996,
for example, almost 50,000 wildfires on national forest lands burned
over 1.1 million acres. The aforementioned phenomena have
contributed to the amount of salvage timber on the national forest
system's lands.
Since fiscal year 1977, the Forest Service has annually offered for
sale about 1.6 billion board feet of salvage timber. Over this same
20-year period, however, the range of salvage timber offered varied
from a low of 762 million board feet in fiscal year 1977, when the
Forest Service first funded salvage sales, to a high of almost 2.9
billion board feet in fiscal year 1990 (see app. I). However,
notwithstanding these efforts over the last 20 years, the Forest
Service estimates that the national forests still contain about 13
billion board feet of salvage timber. While some of the salvage
timber is inaccessible or too deteriorated to be of commercial value,
much of it is marketable. Selling such timber can lessen the danger
from future fires, improve the health of forests, and provide mills
with a supply of timber. However, time is critical when selling
salvage timber because it can deteriorate rapidly, thus making the
harvest of such timber economically unfeasible.
To reduce the amount of salvage timber on national forest lands, the
Congress established the emergency salvage program--referred to as
the salvage rider--as part of the rescissions act of July 27, 1995.
The salvage rider contained a number of provisions that were intended
to increase the volume of salvage timber that the Forest Service
offered for sale during the emergency period--July 27, 1995, to
December 31, 1996. To increase the volume of salvage timber offered,
the provisions in the salvage rider, among other things, exempted
salvage sales from administrative appeals, limited the time available
for the judicial review of salvage sales, eased the environmental
procedures for planning and preparing salvage sales, and allowed
rehiring retired employees without penalty. The salvage rider, which
expired on December 31, 1996, also required the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide congressional committees with periodic
progress reports.
PROJECTED SALVAGE VOLUMES WERE
ACHIEVED, BUT MORE COULD HAVE
BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
For fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and the first quarter of fiscal 1997,
the Forest Service offered for sale a total of 4.6 billion board feet
of salvage timber, which was 1.2 billion board feet above the
programmed levels for this period before the salvage rider.\2 In
addition, the total volume offered was about 2 percent more than the
projected target of 4.5 billion board feet specified in the Secretary
of Agriculture's June 29, 1995, letter to the Speaker of the House.
However, significantly greater volumes could have been offered
because the Forest Service, at the Department of Agriculture's
direction, delayed 251 salvage sales involving about 752 million
board feet that the Forest Service had planned to offer for sale
under the emergency salvage program.
--------------------
\2 The Forest Service traditionally uses the term "offered" to
reflect those sales formally advertised for sale rather than the
definition in contract law that a timber sale is considered offered
only when the Forest Service receives bids on the advertised timber.
The Forest Service, in its required reports to the Congress under the
rider, as well as in its requests for appropriations, used the
traditional definition of offered. Therefore, because the Forest
Service developed its initial targets using this definition, it seems
to be a reasonable measure of achievement under the rider, and we are
also using it throughout this report.
SALVAGE VOLUMES OFFERED
UNDER THE RIDER EXCEEDED
PRIOR PROGRAM LEVELS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
In enacting the emergency salvage program, the Congress did not
establish a specific level of increased salvage offerings that would
achieve the purposes of the legislation. However, the Congress
indicated that the Secretary of Agriculture was to achieve, to the
maximum extent feasible, a sale volume of salvage timber above the
previously programmed levels to reduce the backlogged volume of
salvage timber.
By letter dated June 29, 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture advised
the Speaker of the House that the Forest Service projected that its
target was to offer about 4.5 billion board feet of salvage timber,
plus or minus 25 percent, for sale under the emergency salvage
program in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and the first quarter of fiscal
year 1997.\3 The Secretary said that the actual amount offered would
depend on resource conditions, markets, and changes in resource
capability. As can be seen from table 1, the Forest Service offered
1.2 billion board feet more than the amount that had been programmed
before the salvage rider.
Table 1
Original Planned Target and Actual
Salvage Timber Volumes Offered in Fiscal
Years 1995 and 1996 and the First
Quarter of Fiscal 1997
(Board feet in millions)
Fiscal year
----------------------------
1995 1996 1997\a Total
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Original planned target 1,587 1,449 357\b 3,393
Actual volume offered 1,852 1,936 818 4,606
Increase over original planned 265 487 461 1,213
target
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a First quarter of the fiscal year.
\b The Forest Service did not have quarterly records on planned
salvage volumes. Therefore, we used 25 percent of the planned annual
volume.
In the Department's first and second required reports, the Secretary
of Agriculture informed the Congress on September 1, 1995, and
February 29, 1996, that the Forest Service intended to offer 4.5
billion board feet of salvage timber for sale, or an increase of
about 1.1 billion board feet over the planned level of about 3.4
billion board feet. However, the Secretary emphasized that this
target was an estimate and that final volumes could vary as much as
plus or minus 25 percent--that is, from 3.4 billion to 5.6 billion
board feet. As can be seen in table 2, the Forest Service exceeded
the target specified by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Table 2
Initial Target and Actual Salvage Timber
Volumes Offered in Fiscal Years 1995 and
1996 and the First Quarter of Fiscal
1997
(Board feet in millions)
Fiscal year
----------------------------
1995 1996 1997\a Total
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Initial target under the 1,714 2,065 683 4,462
salvage rider
Actual volume offered 1,852 1,936 818 4,606\b
Increase or decrease over 138 (129) 135 144
initial target
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a First quarter of the fiscal year.
\b The total volume actually sold was less than the total volume
offered for sale because about 265 million board feet that has been
offered had not been awarded to the high bidder by December 31, 1996,
and will be awarded in the second quarter of fiscal 1997, and about
470 million board feet received no bids due to deterioration of the
timber and a reduction in the chip market.
Because the Forest Service does not maintain an inventory of salvage
timber, we were unable to determine the extent to which the Forest
Service's salvage timber sales during the emergency period had
actually reduced the estimated 13 billion board feet of salvage
timber capable of being harvested from the national forests.\4 The
Forest Service does not know whether the volume of available salvage
timber increased or decreased during the emergency period, because
additional insect and fire damage continued to destroy green timber,
while other timber was being lost to deterioration. The Forest
Service does not know whether the current estimate of salvage timber
capable of being harvested is more or less than the 13 billion board
feet estimated at the time of the legislation.
--------------------
\3 It should be noted that this initial projection and the subsequent
reports to the Congress dealing with the volumes of salvage timber
offered used time periods different from the "emergency period" cited
in the legislation. We could not reconcile this difference because
the Forest Service did not maintain information on the volumes
planned for sale during August and September 1995--the first 2 months
of the emergency period. Therefore, we elected to use the same
period used by the Forest Service in its reports to the Congress
under the salvage rider--fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and the first
quarter of fiscal 1997.
\4 The Forest Service estimated that a volume of 13 billion board
feet of salvage timber was capable of being harvested as of April
1995. According to Forest Service officials, the volume of 13
billion board feet does not meet the substantive requirements of all
of the applicable environmental laws, forest plan standards and
guidelines, or Endangered Species Act consultations. Furthermore,
these officials said that if all of these requirements were applied,
the available volume estimated by the agency would be about 5 billion
board feet.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S
ACTIONS DELAYED THE SALE OF
SIGNIFICANT VOLUMES OF
SALVAGE TIMBER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
The Secretary of Agriculture's July 2, 1996, memorandum to the Forest
Service provided revised direction for the emergency salvage sale
program.\5 According to the memorandum, the Secretary wanted to
ensure that, pursuant to the President's direction, the sales
prepared under the program (1) met the same environmental standards
that they would have if they were prepared absent the enabling
legislation and (2) would withstand normal review and appeal. The
Secretary prescribed the criteria for all proposed sales for which
bids had not yet been opened but allowed the sales not meeting these
criteria to be prepared under authorities other than the emergency
salvage program.\6
In accordance with these more stringent criteria, the Forest Service
reviewed its proposed salvage offerings and identified a total of 224
salvage sales, with an associated volume of 722 million board feet,
that did not qualify for emergency sale status under the program.
According to Forest Service officials, these sales were delayed until
after the salvage rider expired on December 31, 1996. Appendix II
shows, by national forest, the number of sales, associated volumes,
and reason why the sales were delayed as a result of the Secretary's
July 2, 1996, memorandum.
The third required report to the Congress, dated August 30, 1996,
reflected the more stringent criteria in the Secretary's memorandum.
The projected volume of salvage timber to be offered was reduced from
4.5 billion to 3.8 billion board feet, which the report said was
within the 4.5-billion board foot (plus or minus 25 percent) target
in the Secretary's letter to the Speaker of the House.
On December 6, 1996, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment issued a memorandum to the
Forest Service that provided the results of the Department's review
of the deferred sales submitted for exemption from the Secretary's
July memorandum by Members of Congress or the public. In total, the
Under Secretary exempted 10 sales from the Secretary's memorandum and
allowed these sales to proceed. Eight of the 10 sales, comprising a
total volume of 6.93 million board feet, were offered before the
expiration of the rider on December 31, 1996. According to Forest
Service officials, the remaining two sales, comprising a total volume
of 0.6 million board feet, were not offered because there was not
sufficient time to prepare the sales.
Finally, on December 13, 1996, the Under Secretary issued a second
memorandum to the Forest Service that provided the final direction
for the remainder of the emergency salvage program. The Under
Secretary stated that the Forest Service should begin a steady
transition to the expiration of the salvage rider and the return to
full public participation in and legal review of the sale of salvage
timber. He further stated that"[t]o reenforce the Department's
commitment to implement the salvage rider in an evenhanded manner
according to established time periods and procedures, the Forest
Service should withhold all further advertisements" of salvage sales
under the rider effective at the close of business on December 13,
1996. As a result, the Forest Service delayed an additional 27 sales
with a volume of 29.7 million board feet. Appendix III shows, by
Forest Service region, the number of sales and associated volumes
affected.
--------------------
\5 On September 16, 1996, we issued a legal opinion (B-274505) to the
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We stated that the
Secretary's memorandum constituted a "rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(3). As a consequence, the Secretary of Agriculture was required
by 5 U.S.C. 801 (a)(1)(A) to submit a report to both the House and
the Senate and to us in order for the rule to become effective. The
Secretary of Agriculture disagreed with the GAO opinion and thus did
not file the required report with either the Congress or us.
\6 The criteria were supplemented by the Department of Agriculture's
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment's October 18,
1996, memorandum to the Chief of the Forest Service, which stated
that the presence of mistletoe--a slow-moving parasite that rarely
kills trees--should not be considered an emergency unless the
mistletoe threatens to change the structure of the timber stand
within 3 years.
SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE
SALVAGE RIDER HAD LITTLE EFFECT
ON TIMBER VOLUMES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The salvage rider contained numerous provisions designed to help the
Forest Service expedite the preparation and award of salvage sales,
thus increasing the volume of salvage timber offered for sale. We
examined the Forest Service's implementation of and the effect of
four of these provisions dealing with the elimination of the appeals
process, expedited judicial review, preparation of combined
environmental documents, and use of retired Forest Service employees
and contractors at four national forests located in four different
Forest Service regions. As discussed below, however, we found that
at each of the forests we visited, the four provisions had little
effect on expediting the sales or increasing the volume of the
salvage timber offered for sale.
ELIMINATION OF APPEALS HAD
LITTLE EFFECT BECAUSE
SALVAGE SALES TRADITIONALLY
EXPERIENCE FEW APPEALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
The salvage rider exempted the salvage timber sales from the Forest
Service's normal appeal regulations and exempted the salvage sales
from the automatic 45-day stay during which an appeal could be filed
after the issuance of a decision by the Forest Service to offer
timber for sale. Before the salvage rider went into effect, the
amount of time required for an appeal to be filed and resolved could
have delayed a timber sale by as much as 105 days.
Exempting the salvage sales from appeal had little effect on the
number of sales or the actual volume of salvage timber offered for
sale because few salvage sales had been appealed in the past. For
example, in fiscal year 1994, of the 3,699 salvage sales offered for
sale nationwide, only 53, or 1.4 percent, were appealed.\7 \, \8 Of
the 47 salvage sales offered in fiscal year 1994 at the four forests
we visited, only 5 sales were appealed. However, according to Forest
Service officials, the salvage sales offered under the emergency
program were more controversial than prior salvage sales and
therefore may have been appealed more frequently had the right to
appeal been permitted.
Of the five appealed salvage sales at the four forests we visited,
the Forest Service dismissed two--the first because the appeal did
not contain the proper information and the second because an
emergency condition existed and, as a result. the regional forester
exempted it from appeal. Of the three remaining appealed salvage
sales, the appellants withdrew their appeal of two of the sales
because the issues in the appeal were either adequately covered or
mitigated by the Forest Service subsequent to the filing of the
appeals. For the final appealed salvage sale, the Forest Service's
reviewing officer affirmed the district ranger's decision that this
sale conformed to the applicable laws and regulations and thus denied
the appeal.
Although our analysis indicated that the salvage rider provision
exempting salvage sales from appeal had little effect on the number
of sales or the volume of salvage timber offered for sale under the
emergency salvage program, officials from three of the four national
forests we visited told us that the provision should be made a
permanent part of the Forest Service's policies and guidelines
because it has the potential to expedite the efforts at the national
forests to offer salvage timber for sale after the expiration of the
salvage rider. For example, officials at the Clearwater National
Forest said that exempting salvage sales from appeal could speed up
the forest's preparation for a salvage timber sale in two ways.
First, the time between making the decision to proceed with a salvage
sale and offering the sale would be reduced. Second, the salvage
sale would not be submitted to a rigorous appeals resolution process
that requires that national forest staff respond to comments, prepare
transmittal letters, coordinate with forest management, and meet with
the appellant.
On the other hand, officials from three of the four national forests
said they found the appeals process to be beneficial to them in that
it provided them with a forum for resolving environmental issues,
thereby reducing the potential for legal challenges and costly delays
in awarding the salvage sales.
--------------------
\7 Fiscal year 1994 was the last complete fiscal year before the
enactment of the salvage rider, and hence was the last fiscal year
that portrayed the conditions before the rider.
\8 These figures do not include salvage permits. In fiscal year
1994, the Forest Service did not distinguish between green and
salvage permits; however, most permits, such as personal firewood
permits, are for relatively low volumes.
FEW LEGAL CHALLENGES MADE TO
SALVAGE SALES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The salvage rider provided an expedited judicial review process for
those salvage sales for which legal challenges were received. The
provision contained a number of elements for expediting the judicial
review process, including the following: (1) salvage sales shall be
subject to review only in the United States district court for the
district in which the federal lands are located, (2) any challenge to
salvage sales must be filed in the district court within 15 days
after the date of the initial advertisement of the challenged sale,
and (3) the district court shall render its final decision relative
to any challenge within 45 days from the date that such challenge is
brought, unless the court determines that a longer period of time is
required to satisfy the requirement of the United States
Constitution.
Our review showed that the 45-day time limit provision of the
expedited judicial review process had minimal effect on the number of
sales or volume of salvage timber offered for sale under the
emergency salvage program because few legal challenges were brought
against salvage sales offered for sale in fiscal year 1996. Of the
11,435 salvage sales nationwide, only 16, or 0.1 percent, had legal
challenges. In 13 of the 16 challenges, however, the court did not
render its decision within the 45-day requirement specified in the
salvage rider.
The Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel was unable
to provide us with the number of legal challenges attributable to
salvage sales for fiscal years 1994 or 1995 because its statistics
for those years do not distinguish between salvage and green sales;
therefore, we were unable to determine whether the number of law
suits increased or decreased. However, none of the four forests we
visited had any legal challenges in fiscal years 1994 or 1995, nor
did three of the four forests have legal challenges during fiscal
year 1996. Of the 49 salvage sales offered by the four forests in
fiscal year 1996, only 4 sales had legal challenges. Three of the
four sales were at the Payette National Forest. The remaining sale
was on both the Payette and the Boise National Forest. The Boise
National Forest assumed the responsibility for resolving the legal
challenge on this sale.
The district court judge reviewing the legal challenges upheld the
Forest Service's salvage sale decisions on each of the four salvage
sales. However, the judge exceeded the 45-day resolution period set
forth in the salvage rider for three of the challenges.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS WERE
NOT COMBINED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
The salvage rider required that for each salvage sale, the national
forests shall prepare a document that combines an environmental
assessment required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the biological evaluation required by the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. This provision was intended to reduce the amount of time
needed to prepare separate documents and thus expedite the
preparation of salvage timber to be offered for sale under the
emergency salvage program. The rider also allowed the Forest Service
to use existing data prepared before the rider's enactment to avoid
preparing new documentation.
None of the four national forests we visited prepared a single
document that combined the environmental assessment and biological
evaluation. However, the forests continued to prepare separate
documents and then combined them with a staple or clip. Officials
from the four national forests said that preparing separate
environmental assessments and biological evaluations was more
efficient because it required less work, saved time, and resulted in
less information to read and comprehend. In addition, Payette
National Forest officials said that by keeping the environmental
assessments and biological evaluations separate, they could plan and
prepare their salvage sales faster. In fact, officials from the Fish
and Wildlife Service, one of the regulatory agencies that assesses
the environmental impacts of salvage sales, told Payette National
Forest officials that they preferred separate documents. Forest
Service officials said that combining the two documents resulted in
an excessive amount of detailed information that was not needed for
the decision-making activities associated with national forest
salvage sales.
HIRING OF FORMER EMPLOYEES
WAS LIMITED, AND SOME
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WERE
USED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
The salvage rider provided that the Forest Service could (1) hire
former employees who had received a voluntary separation incentive
(buyout) without requiring the repayment of the incentive payment and
(2) hire private contractors to help expedite the sale of salvage
timber. Since 1992, the Forest Service made a concerted effort to
reduce its work force because of the drastic reduction in the volume
of green timber that was to be offered for sale. As a result, a
significant number of employees with the skills needed to plan and
prepare timber sales left the Forest Service. Consequently, when the
salvage rider was enacted, the Forest Service needed people with the
specialized skills to plan and prepare the environmental documents
and contracts for the sale, mark the salvage timber to be sold, lay
out the roads to the harvest sites, and administer the sales
contracts.
In a memorandum to the regional foresters, a headquarters official
stated that between 300 and 350 former staff who had the specialized
skills to plan and prepare salvage sales would be needed to implement
the emergency salvage program but that it would be unlikely to find
contract personnel with the required skills as quickly as needed. In
response, national forest officials identified the number of skilled
people needed to plan and prepare their salvage sales and surveyed
retired Forest Service employees to determine their interest in
returning to Forest Service employment. However, the response from
retired employees was generally negative because they did not want to
return to work or had taken other employment. Nationwide, only a
total of 10 former employees were hired.
At the four forests we visited, only one former employee was
hired--at the Stanislaus National Forest. Three of the four forests
hired a total of seven private contractors--four at the Stanislaus,
two at the Clearwater, and one at the Deschutes. The Forest Service
did not have information on the number of private contractors used to
help plan, prepare, and offer the salvage sales nationwide.
Officials from two of the three national forests that had hired
private contractors told us that the use of contractors helped their
forests to expedite the sale of salvage timber under the emergency
salvage program. The officials said that the use of contractors
permitted Forest Service employees to perform other duties and
accomplish other tasks and that the contractors filled skill
positions for which the forests had limited in-house expertise.
According to these officials, the contractors performed such tasks as
preparing fuel treatment plans, marking and measuring salvage timber
sale units, and helping prepare environmental assessment documents
and cultural resource studies. Officials from the Stanislaus
National Forest were so pleased with the quality of work done by
their contractors that they planned to continue using private
contractors to help plan and prepare salvage sales after the salvage
rider expired.
FOREST SERVICE HAD ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION ON SALVAGE SALES
TO JUSTIFY DECISIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
At three of the forests we visited, we reviewed 14 salvage sales for
which the Forest Service had received complaints from environmental
organizations that the salvage sales contained excessive volumes of
green timber and therefore did not comply with the definition of
salvage sales under the salvage rider. These organizations were
concerned that because of the definition's breadth, the Forest
Service had offered for sale large volumes of green timber in some
salvage sales.
According to the salvage rider and the Forest Service's guidelines
for implementing the rider,\9
"The term 'salvage timber sale' means a timber sale for which an
important reason for entry includes the removal of disease- or
insect-infested trees, dead, damaged or down trees, or trees affected
by fire or imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack. Such
term also includes the removal of associated trees or trees lacking
the characteristics of a healthy and viable ecosystem for the purpose
of ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation, except that any such sale
must include an identifiable salvage component of trees described in
the first sentence."
The four forests we visited had established procedures for
determining when timber sales qualified as salvage sales. The files
for all 14 salvage sales that we reviewed contained documentation
supporting the Forest Service's conclusion that these sales met the
definition. We also found that as a result of the Secretary of
Agriculture's July 1996 memorandum, 6 of the 14 salvage sales had
been delayed until after the salvage rider expired.
--------------------
\9 The definition of "salvage" used to implement the rider is
different from the definition used by the Forest Service in its
manuals that existed before the salvage rider was enacted. The rider
expanded the Forest Service's definition to include trees that are
imminently susceptible to fire and imminently susceptible to insect
attack. According to the Department of Agriculture, some of the
sales that met the rider's legislative definition did not meet the
Forest Service Manual's definition of salvage. The Forest Service,
however, revised the manual's definition of salvage in February 1996
to include trees that are imminently susceptible to insect attack.
SALVAGE SALE CRITERIA
ESTABLISHED AT FOREST LEVEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
In an August 1995 memorandum to the regional foresters, the Chief of
the Forest Service stated that a salvage sale under the salvage rider
was a timber sale in which at least a portion of the timber met the
definition of salvage and was one of the important reasons for
offering the salvage timber for sale. However, the Chief did not
prescribe a specific percentage of the salvage volume compared to the
total volume that would be needed to qualify a timber sale as a
salvage sale. He left that decision to the professional judgment of
those on the national forests to determine, on the basis of local
conditions, such as those resulting from wildfires or insect
infestation, what qualified as a salvage sale. Thus, the Chief
encouraged each national forest to establish a systematic process to
determine when a timber sale qualified as a salvage timber sale.
Efforts to identify and document the portion of the timber qualifying
as salvage, as well as to determine when a stand of timber was
"imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack," varied. However,
we found that the four forests we visited had established the
following procedures to help their ranger districts identify when a
timber sale included an identifiable portion of salvage:
-- To ensure consistency at each ranger district, the Deschutes
National Forest's science team prepared a written definition,
together with a set of procedures, to classify timber stands as
imminently susceptible or not to insect attack and/or wildfire.
The definition and procedures provided a basis for a consistent,
forestwide interpretation.
-- The Payette National Forest, in conjunction with the Boise and
Sawtooth National Forests, developed five criteria to determine
what constituted a salvage timber sale. The three forests used
the criteria--such as whether dead, diseased, or insect-infested
trees are present within the project area--to determine whether
a particular proposed timber sale qualified as a salvage sale.
To qualify, at least two of the five criteria had to be met.
-- The Stanislaus National Forest developed an incident activity
plan to help ranger districts determine when a timber sale
qualified as a salvage sale. The plan specified what timber
qualified as salvage timber and provided procedures to determine
whether the timber stands were imminently susceptible to fire or
insect attack.
-- The Clearwater National Forest prepared a salvage implementation
plan to help ranger districts prepare and offer for sale salvage
timber that fell under the emergency salvage program. An
interdisciplinary team in either the forest supervisor's or
ranger district's office reviewed and approved each proposed
salvage timber sale.
SALVAGE SALES WITH LARGE
GREEN VOLUMES COMPLIED WITH
THE DEFINITION OF SALVAGE
TIMBER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
Subsequent to the salvage rider's implementation, several
environmental organizations identified 86 planned Forest Service
timber sales which they believed should not have been offered as
salvage sales under the emergency salvage program. The environmental
organizations were concerned that including excessive volumes of
green timber in 46 of the 86 salvage sales would violate the Forest
Service's rules and environmental laws and threaten watersheds,
fisheries, and wildlife and recreational opportunities.
Twenty-two of the 46 identified salvage sales were at three of the
forests we visited. None of the salvage sales under the emergency
salvage program on the Deschutes National Forest were identified as
including excessive volumes of green timber. We reviewed and
analyzed the contract files for 14 of the 22 sales to determine the
reasons why the three forests included green timber in the salvage
sales and to verify that the timber sales complied with the
definition of salvage timber in the salvage rider and the Forest
Service's guidelines. We did not review the remaining eight salvage
sales because the volume of timber or the number of acres involved
was very small.
The contract files for all of the 14 salvage sales contained
sufficient documentation to support the Forest Services's conclusion
that these sales met the definition of a salvage sale in the salvage
rider and the Forest Service's guidelines. Nevertheless, as a result
of the Secretary of Agriculture's July 1996 memorandum, two of the
forests delayed offering 6 of the 14 salvage sales that complied with
the definition until after the salvage rider expired. Specifically,
the documentation for these salvage sales showed the following:
-- The four salvage sales at the Clearwater National Forest
complied with the definition because the timber was either
diseased, insect-infested, damaged and downed, or imminently
susceptible to fire and insect attack. However, because of the
more stringent criteria imposed by the Secretary's memorandum,
the Clearwater National Forest delayed offering the four salvage
sales until after the salvage rider expired because (1) three of
the sales had initially been planned as green timber sales prior
to the salvage rider's implementation and (2) in the fourth
sale, the green timber comprised over 25 percent of the
offering.
-- The three salvage sales on the Payette National Forest complied
with the definition because the timber was either dead, affected
by fire, or imminently susceptible to fire and insect attack.
None of these three salvage sales were affected by the
Secretary's memorandum.
-- The seven salvage sales at the Stanislaus National Forest
complied with the definition because the timber was imminently
susceptible to fire. However, because of the Secretary's
memorandum, the Stanislaus delayed offering two of the seven
sales until after the salvage rider expired because even though
they were judged as being imminently susceptible to fire, the
sales were not located near local communities or occupied
structures.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture
for review and comment. In its response, the Department stated that
our draft report did not fully describe the key features of the
legislation because the rider not only expedited but also limited
judicial review in that salvage sales were exempt from environmental
laws. While we recognize that the rider limited judicial review in
that the courts did not need to consider traditional questions raised
under environmental statutes, our report only focused on identifying
the number of legal challenges and determining whether the court
rendered its decision within the 45-day time frame established by the
salvage rider, and not on the overall implications of the salvage
rider on judicial review.
The Department also said that our draft did not reflect that the
salvage rider expanded the definition of salvage included in the
Forest Service manual. We clarified our statement regarding the
differences between the definition in the rider and that in the
Forest Service manual. The Department also felt, however, that our
draft implied that the Secretary's memorandum narrowed the definition
of salvage unnecessarily. Our report does not draw this conclusion.
Rather, our report reflects that the memorandum provided revised
direction for the program to ensure that the sales prepared under the
program met environmental standards and would withstand normal review
and appeal.
The Department said that our draft report claimed that its actions
canceled or delayed significant volumes of salvage timber but did not
provide an accounting of the specific disposition of the timber
volumes affected by the memorandum. It was not our intent to imply
that the memorandum summarily canceled timber salvage sales. We were
merely demonstrating that the implementation of the memorandum
affected a significant volume of timber that the Forest Service had
planned to offer during the emergency period. As to the exact volume
in each category, the Forest Service could not provide us with that
information. Because this information is not available, we have
deleted the word canceled and classified all affected sales as
delayed sales.
The full text of the Department's comments and our responses are
found in appendix IV.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To obtain the information in this report, we reviewed the relevant
laws and the Forest Service's regulations, policies, and procedures
related to the emergency salvage timber program; reviewed the
pertinent contract files for the salvage sales from four national
forests; and discussed the pertinent issues with the Department of
Agriculture's Office of General Counsel and the Forest Service's
headquarters and forest locations. A detailed description of our
scope and methodology is found in appendix V. We conducted our
review from June 1996 through January 1997 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
As we arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 7 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest
Service, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will
make copies available to others on request. If you or your staff
have any questions about this report, please call me at (206)
287-4810. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VI.
Sincerely yours,
James K. Meissner
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues
TIMBER VOLUMES OFFERED, FISCAL
YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1996
=========================================================== Appendix I
(Volumes in millions of board feet)
Timber volume
----------------------
Salvage as a
Salvag percent of
Fiscal year Green e Total total volume
------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ --------------
1977\a 9,845 762 10,607 7.18
1978 9,969 1,534 11,503 13.34
1979 10,771 1,662 12,433 13.37
1980 10,471 1,964 12,435 15.79
1981 11,017 1,142 12,159 9.39
1982 9,311 1,807 11,118 16.25
1983 9,882 1,401 11,283 12.42
1984 10,654 1,285 11,939 10.76
1985 10,574 962 11,536 8.34
1986 10,489 1,179 11,668 10.10
1987 9,357 2,118 11,475 18.46
1988 9,116 2,232 11,348 19.67
1989 8,744 1,771 10,515 16.84
1990 8,187 2,872 11,059 25.97
1991 4,471 1,709 6,180 27.65
1992 3,650 1,412 5,062 27.89
1993 2,649 1,906 4,555 41.84
1994 2,403 1,005 3,408 29.49
1995 2,155 1,852 4,007 46.22
1996 2,079 1,936 4,015 48.22
1997\b 361 818 1,179 69.38
======================================================================
Total 156,15 33,329 189,48 17.59
5 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The National Forest Management Act was passed in 1976, and the
first funding for salvage sales was in fiscal year 1977.
\b Volumes are for the first quarter of fiscal year 1997.
Source: U.S. Forest Service.
EFFECT OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE'S
JULY 2, 1996, MEMORANDUM
========================================================== Appendix II
The Secretary of Agriculture's July 2, 1996, memorandum to the Chief
of the Forest Service provided a revised direction for the emergency
salvage sales conducted under the salvage rider. The memorandum
prescribed certain criteria that must be applied to all proposed
sales for which bids had not yet been opened. Table II.1 shows the
number of salvage sales, the associated volumes, and the criteria
used by the Forest Service to delay the salvage sales until after the
expiration of the rider. Following is a brief description of the
criteria used by the Forest Service.
Roadless--No salvage sales in inventoried roadless areas may go
forward except those that qualify under the
imminently-susceptible-to-fire criterion of the memorandum.
Imminently Susceptible--This category includes both imminently
susceptible to fire and imminently susceptible to insect attack. To
quality as imminently susceptible to insect attack, trees must be
located in areas that have a high risk of incurring insect attack and
an anticipated change in stand structure or character in 3 years or
less. To qualify as imminently susceptible to fire, trees must be
located in areas with high fuel loading or where there is a high
fire-risk rating for the specific habitat type, and near local
communities or occupied structures.
Excessive Green--According to the memorandum, if there are sales that
have a component of associated green timber greater than 25 percent
after applying the other conditions of the memorandum, the sales
should be deferred.
Not Originally a Salvage--Any sale or part thereof in preparation
prior or subsequent to the enactment of the rider, which was
identified to the public as a sale other than a salvage
sale--including those sales that were withdrawn, such as for
environmental reasons-- may not go forward as a salvage sale under
the rider unless the sale complies with the memorandum.
Nonemergency Mistletoe Sales--Mistletoe sales should not be
considered an emergency unless the mistletoe truly threatens to
change the structure of the stand within 3 years.\1
Significant Public Concern--According to the memorandum, if there are
sales for which significant public concern remains after applying the
other conditions of the memorandum, the sales should be deferred.
Table II.1
Number of Salvage Sales, Associated
Volumes, and Reasons for Delay, by
National Forest
(Board feet in millions)
Sale not
imminent
ly Sale
Numb suscepti containe Sale not
er ble to d original Signific
of Sale in insect excessiv ly a Nonemergency ant
Region and sale roadless attack e green salvage mistletoe public Tota
forest s area or fire timber sale sale concern l
------------- ---- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ----
Northern Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaverhead 8 0.6 0.6 7.9 9.1
Bitterroot 6 3.7 3.7
Clearwater\a 4 1.9 36.2 38.1
Flathead 2 11.2 11.2
Gallatin 1 4.5 4.5
Helena 2 1.1 1.1
Idaho 6 15.0 5.0 3.5 23.5
Panhandle
Kootenai\b 17 30.4 4.8 22.6 57.8
Lewis and 1 0.7 0.7
Clark
Lolo 2 3.7 2.2 5.9
Nez Perce 5 13.0 9.5 10.1 32.6
=========================================================================================
Total 54 60.1 9.1 39.0 67.7 12.3 0.0 188.
2
Rocky Mountain Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre,
Gunnison\c 2 2.6 3.6 6.2
San Juan/Rio 0 0.0
Grande\d
Shoshone 2 2.9 2.9
White River\e 2 10.0 10.0
=========================================================================================
Total 6 2.6 0.0 2.9 3.6 0.0 10.0 19.1
Southwestern Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila 1 5.5 5.5
Lincoln 10 2.3 2.3
Santa Fe 1 2.0 2.0
=========================================================================================
Total 12 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 9.8
Intermountain Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley\f 1.5 6.0 6.0
Boise 6 34.5 34.5 5.0 4.6 78.6
Bridger- 3 2.0 2.0
Teton
Caribou 3 4.0 4.0
Challis/ 19 5.4 3.9 0.2 9.5
Salmon
Dixie 1 2.1 2.1
Manti-LaSal 5 11.7 11.7
Payette\g 14 12.6 18.3 30.2 61.1
Uinta 2 3.2 0.6 3.8
Wasatch- 2.5 5.0 6.6 11.6
Cache\f
=========================================================================================
Total 57 84.4 58.7 0.0 35.9 11.4 0.0 190.
4
Pacific Southwest Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado 4 8.0 8.0
Klamath 6 37.9 8.1 46.0
Lassen 2 12.5 12.5
Plumas 5 16.3 16.3
Sequoia 5 16.3 16.3
Sierra 7 13.6 13.6
Six Rivers 6 10.8 10.8
Stanislaus 3 4.8 4.8
=========================================================================================
Total 38 48.7 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.
3
Pacific Northwest Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colville 1 9.0 9.0
Malheur 12 29.0 17.2 46.2
Ochoco 1 1.5 1.5
Okanogan 10 19.3 8.0 11.8 39.1
Siskiyou 2 5.5 5.5
Umatilla 5 7.1 7.1
Wallowa- 4 8.8 8.8
Whitman
Wenatchee\h 1 12.0 12.0
Willamette 2 13.0 0.7 13.7
Winema 2 8.2 8.2
=========================================================================================
Total 40 81.9 47.7 9.7 0.0 11.8 0.0 151.
1
Southern Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFs in 1 1.0 1.0
Alabama
Chattahoochee 6 0.4 0.4
/
Oconee
George 2 0.2 0.2
Washington/
Jefferson
Ouachita\i 0 0.0
=========================================================================================
Total 9 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
Eastern Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No forests 0 0.0
affected.
Alaska Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chugach 4 10.3 10.3 20.6
Tongass 4 12.9 12.9
=========================================================================================
Total 8 23.2 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5
=========================================================================================
Grand total\j 224 308.9 205.5 50.7 107.2 37.8 10.0 722.
0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Forest Service-wide statistics show three sales for 36.2 million
board feet; however, forest-level records show four sales for 38.1
million board feet. We included the forest-level data.
\b This forest had an additional sale, involving 0.72 million board
feet, that was originally designated as roadless areas and
subsequently released. This sale was then exempted from the
Secretary's memorandum.
\c This forest had an additional two sales, involving 0.5 million
board feet, that were originally designated as roadless areas and
subsequently released. These sales were then exempted from the
Secretary's memorandum.
\d This forest had an additional two sales, involving 0.26 million
board feet, that were originally designated as roadless areas and
subsequently released. These sales were then exempted from the
Secretary's memorandum. This forest also had an additional sale
involving 0.5 million board feet that was exempted from the
Secretary's memorandum and permitted to go forward.
\e This forest had an additional sale, involving 0.4 million board
feet, that was originally designated as roadless areas and
subsequently released. This sale was then exempted from the
Secretary's memorandum.
\f The Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests shared one timber
sale.
\g Forest Service-wide statistics show one sale for 1.3 million board
feet; however, forest-level records show three sales for 1.5 million
board feet. We included the forest-level data.
\h This forest had an additional sale involving 4.5 million board
feet that was exempted from the Secretary's memorandum and permitted
to go forward.
\i This forest had an additional two sales, involving 0.65 million
board feet, that were exempted from the Secretary's memorandum and
permitted to go forward.
\j In those instances where the Forest Service cited two or more
criteria as reasons for delaying a sale, we allocated the respective
volumes among each of the criteria cited.
--------------------
\1 This criterion was added by the Department of Agriculture's Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment's memorandum to the
Chief of the Forest Service, dated October 18, 1996.
EFFECT OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1996,
MEMORANDUM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE'S UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Salvage Volumes Deferred, by Region
(Board feet in millions)
Region Number of sales Timber volume
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Northern 1 2.17
Rocky Mountain 6 0.71
Southwestern 3 8.00\a
Intermountain 3 14.5
Pacific Southwest 7 2.88
Pacific Northwest 1 0.70\b
Southern 6 0.71
Eastern 0 0.00
Alaska 0 0.00
======================================================================
Total 27 29.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a One sale for 3.7 million board feet was waived from the
requirement; however, the sale was not offered before December 31,
1996.
\b One sale for 13.38 million board feet was waived from the
requirement and was offered before December 31, 1996.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
========================================================= Appendix III
(See figure in printed edition.)
GAO COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
1. We recognize that the salvage rider limited judicial review in
that the courts did not need to consider the traditional questions
raised under environmental statutes because under the salvage rider,
the concerns of these statutes were deemed satisfied. Our report,
however, focused only on identifying the number of legal challenges
and whether the court rendered its decision within the 45-day time
frame established by the salvage rider and not on the overall
implications of the salvage rider on judicial review.
2. As stated in the draft report, the Department of Agriculture's
Office of General Counsel's data for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 on
legal challenges did not differentiate between salvage or green
timber issues. Therefore, neither we nor the Department's Office of
General Counsel could determine whether the number of legal
challenges under the salvage rider has increased or decreased.
3. We clarified our statement about the Forest Service's guidelines
for implementing the salvage rider to reflect that these guidelines
differ from the Forest Service Manual's definition of salvage.
4. Our report drew no conclusions that the Secretary's memorandum
narrowed the definition of salvage unnecessarily. Rather, our report
reflects that the Secretary's memorandum provided revised direction
for the emergency salvage sale program to ensure that sales prepared
under the program (1) met environmental standards and (2) would
withstand normal review and appeal. In addition, appendix II sets
forth the revised criteria included in the Secretary's memorandum and
the number and volumes of sales affected.
5. It was not our intent to imply that the Secretary's memorandum
summarily canceled timber salvage sales. We were merely
demonstrating that the implementation of the memorandum affected a
significant volume of timber that the Forest Service had planned to
offer during the emergency period. As a result of the memorandum,
some sales were delayed and some sales ultimately would be canceled
because they would not be marketable or would not meet the definition
of a salvage sale after the rider expired. As to the exact volume in
each category, the Forest Service could not provide us with that
information. Because this information is not available, we have
deleted the word "canceled" and classified all affected sales as
delayed sales.
6. Our report does not imply that all merchantable dead and dying
timber should be subject to salvage sales. Our report included a
Forest Service estimate of salvage timber that was capable of being
harvested as background information as to why the salvage rider was
enacted. We did say, however, that once a decision is reached to
harvest salvage timber, time is critical because the timber could
deteriorate quickly, thus losing economic value.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix V
The Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
expressed concern over how well the salvage rider had worked because
the Committee may consider either renewing the salvage rider, which
expired on December 31, 1996, or including provisions of the rider in
a proposed forest health bill.
As agreed with the requester's office, we (1) compared the volume of
salvage timber offered by the Forest Service under the salvage rider
from fiscal year 1995 through December 1996 with the volume that it
had planned to offer for the same period prior to passage of the
rider, and determined the effect of the Secretary of Agriculture's
July 2, 1996, memorandum, which placed more restrictions on salvage
sales; (2) determined whether four specific provisions of the salvage
rider helped the Forest Service to offer salvage timber for sale more
timely; and (3) determined if certain salvage sales that were of
concern to environmental organizations met the definition of salvage
timber as specified in the salvage rider's and Forest Service's
guidelines.
To obtain the information in this report, we reviewed relevant Forest
Service regulations, policies, and procedures related to the
emergency salvage timber program. We reviewed and analyzed reports
by the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, and 23
environmental organizations on various issues associated with the
emergency salvage program. We also reviewed the Department of
Agriculture's first three reports to the Congress on the program as
mandated in the salvage rider. We visited Forest Service
headquarters in Washington, D.C., as well as four of the Forest
Service's national forests located in four different Forest Service
regions--the Clearwater, in the Northern Region; the Payette, in the
Intermountain Region; the Deschutes, in the Pacific Northwest Region;
and the Stanislaus, in the Pacific Southwest Region. We visited
these four national forests because they had large volumes of salvage
timber to be offered for sale, were in different Forest Service
regions, and had 22 of the 46 salvage timber sales identified by
environmental organizations as containing excessive volumes of green
timber. We also made site visits to selected salvage sales in each
of the three national forests.
To compare the salvage timber volume programmed to be offered for
sale before the salvage rider with the salvage volume offered for
sale under the rider, we obtained data from Forest Service officials
on the salvage volume they had programmed in the Forest Service's
appropriation requests for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Because appropriation requests cover an entire fiscal year and the
Forest Service does not develop quarterly estimates, we computed the
estimated program volumes for the first quarter of the fiscal year
1997 by taking one-fourth of the estimated volume for the entire
year. While Forest Service officials indicated that actual first
quarter results are normally less than 25 percent of the annual
results and thus our calculation may be overstated, we considered 25
percent a reasonable estimate because the Forest Service used 25
percent of the annual volume for planning purposes for the first
quarter of fiscal year 1997 under the rider. We compared the
programmed volumes to the actual salvage volumes offered by the
Forest Service for the same period. We also compared the actual
salvage volume offered with the target volume established by the
Secretary of Agriculture at the inception of the salvage rider. The
Forest Service traditionally uses the term "offered" to reflect those
sales formally advertised for sale rather than the definition in
contract law that a timber sale is considered offered only when the
Forest Service receives bids on the advertised timber. The Forest
Service, in its required reports to the Congress under the rider, as
well as in its requests for appropriations, used the traditional
definition of offered. Therefore, because the Forest Service
developed its initial targets using this definition, it seems to be a
reasonable measure of achievement under the rider, and we are also
using it throughout this report.
To determine the effect of the Secretary of Agriculture's July 2,
1996, memorandum, which revised the eligibility requirements for
salvage sales under the rider, we obtained and analyzed the Forest
Service's reports that showed the number of sales, associated
volumes, and reasons why the sales were delayed until after the rider
expired on December 31, 1996. We also reviewed the effect of the
Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment's December 13, 1996, memorandum, which directed the
Forest Service not to advertise any salvage sales after December 13,
1996. To determine the effect of this memorandum, we discussed it
with Forest Service officials and obtained Forest Service reports.
To determine whether four specific provisions of the salvage rider
helped the Forest Service offer salvage timber for sale more timely,
we reviewed and analyzed the contract files for each salvage timber
sale offered for sale in fiscal years 1994 and 1996 on the four
national forests we visited. Fiscal 1994 was the last complete
fiscal year prior to the salvage rider's enactment and hence the last
fiscal year that would portray conditions before the rider and fiscal
year 1996--the only complete fiscal year during the period in which
the salvage rider was in effect and the only complete fiscal year
that would portray the conditions while the rider was in effect.
This comparison was used to provide insight into the effect of the
various provisions. In addition, we discussed the effects of the
four provisions with officials of the Forest Service's headquarters
and at each of the national forests we visited. We obtained data
from and discussed with the Department of Agriculture's Office of
General Counsel the provision dealing with expedited judicial review.
To determine if certain salvage timber sales met the definition of
salvage timber as specified in the salvage rider, we reviewed and
analyzed the Forest Service's compilation of the complaints received
from environmental organizations alleging that the specific salvage
sales contained excessive green timber and thus did not meet the
definition of salvage as stated in the rider. Twenty-two of the
sales were at three of the four national forests we visited. We
reviewed the contract files for 14 of the 22 sales. We did not
review the remaining eight salvage sales because the volume of timber
or the number of acres involved were minimal, such as the low volume
of timber in firewood sales. We also made site visits with forest
officials to 5 of the 14 salvage sales in order for the officials to
further explain and illustrate to us why the salvage sales contained
green timber.
We conducted our review from June 1996 through January 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
ENERGY, RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE
ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1
Robert B. Arthur
Araceli C. Contreras
Linda L. Harmon
John P. Murphy
Victor S. Rezendes
*** End of document. ***