FOREST SERVICE:

Report to Congressional Addressees

June 2026

GAO-26-107993

United States Government Accountability Office

A report to congressional addressees

Contact: Cardell Johnson at JohnsonCD1@gao.gov

What GAO Found

As GAO reported in December 2024, the Forest Service did not meet its annual targets for amount of timber sold in fiscal years 2014 through 2023, averaging about 90 percent of its targets during this time frame. During interviews with GAO for this review, agency officials identified factors that limited their ability to attain these targets, including staffing and legal challenges. For example, officials said staff capacity limited their ability to complete work needed to manage timber sales. Officials said staff reductions in 2025 further strained their capacity. The agency’s workforce decreased by about 20 percent in response to a February 2025 executive order for large-scale workforce reductions. Given these reductions, officials said increasing timber sales in response to a March 2025 executive order on expanding timber production would be challenging.

Agency officials and stakeholders identified opportunities to improve the Forest Service’s management of timber sales, such as the following:

·         Expanding practices to more effectively use staff and conduct strategic workforce planning. Officials and several stakeholders said that increasing the use of partners and contractors and newer tools and technologies could help the agency address its staffing challenges. Officials and industry, conservation, and nonfederal government stakeholders also said the Forest Service needs more staff and staff with the right expertise to manage timber sales. The agency has not assessed how recent and ongoing changes to its workforce and organizational structure will affect its capacity. By conducting strategic workforce planning, the Forest Service could better understand how to recruit and retain the critical staff it needs to effectively manage timber sales.

·         Improving communication. Officials and several stakeholders said that improving the frequency and consistency of communication with stakeholders and the public could improve the Forest Service’s management of planned timber sales. For example, an industry stakeholder said the agency could provide more current, comprehensive information on timber sales on its website. By more frequently and consistently communicating information about planned timber sales to stakeholders and the public, the Forest Service could better manage its timber sales.

Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Forest Service sells billions of board feet of timber each year as part of its mission to manage the National Forest System for multiple uses and to provide sustained yields of various resources, including timber. Some congressional members, industry and conservation groups, and others have raised concerns, including about the amount of timber sold or negative effects of timber sales on wildlife habitat and recreation.

A congressional committee report includes a provision for GAO to review Forest Service timber harvest levels. GAO was also asked by multiple congressional requesters to review this topic. This report, the second in a two-part series, (1) describes factors Forest Service officials identify as limiting the agency’s ability to meet its targets for annual timber sales and (2) examines agency officials’ and stakeholders’ views on how to improve management of Forest Service timber sales.

GAO reviewed relevant agency documents and data; conducted in-person site visits to seven national forests in three regions, selected based on variation in volume of timber sold and geography; and interviewed officials from Forest Service headquarters, officials from all nine regions, and nonfederal stakeholders, such as industry and conservation groups.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that the Forest Service conduct strategic workforce planning and take steps to improve communication with stakeholders and the public. The Forest Service’s audit liaison stated in an email that the agency agreed with GAO’s findings and recommendations.

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations
ESA	Endangered Species Act of 1973
EXPLORE Act	Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act
FSH	Forest Service Handbook
FSM	Forest Service Manual
FY	Fiscal year
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NHPA	National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
USDA	U.S. Department of Agriculture

June 4, 2026

Congressional Addressees

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service sells billions of board feet of timber each year as part of its mission to manage the National Forest System for multiple uses and to provide sustained yields of various resources.[1] The agency sells timber for several reasons, including to provide a supply of timber to the American people and to help achieve land management objectives such as reducing the risk of wildfire or improving wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service typically sets an annual target for the amount of timber the agency aims to sell. We reported in December 2024 that the Forest Service did not sell as much timber as it aimed to sell in fiscal years (FY) 2014 through 2023, averaging about 90 percent of its targets during this time frame.[2]

On March 1, 2025, the President issued an executive order entitled Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production.[3] The order included several directives aimed at facilitating increased timber production from the National Forest System, among other things.

Some congressional members, industry groups, and others have raised concerns about the volume of timber the Forest Service sells, stating that the agency should harvest more in light of declining forest health and increasing wildfire risk. In contrast, other congressional members, conservation groups, and others have cited concerns about timber sales negatively affecting wildlife habitat, watershed health, or recreation, among other issues.

A congressional committee report accompanying a bill for the Forest Service’s appropriations for FY 2024 includes a provision for us to study timber harvest levels.[4] We also received multiple congressional requests asking us to review this topic. This report, the second in a two-part series, (1) describes factors Forest Service officials identified as limiting the agency’s ability to meet its targets for timber sales, and (2) examines agency officials’ and stakeholders’ views on how to improve management of Forest Service timber sales.[5]

To determine factors Forest Service officials identified as limiting the agency’s ability to meet its timber targets, we interviewed officials who oversee timber sales or who are involved in the timber sales process from headquarters and all nine Forest Service regions.[6] We also analyzed Forest Service data and documentation on planning, preparing, and implementing timber sales.

We conducted site visits to seven national forests in three regions and met with officials involved in timber sales at the forest level.[7] During our site visits, we interviewed officials about timber sales and factors limiting the agency’s ability to meet timber targets. We selected Regions 6, 8, and 9 because these regions had the highest sales on average in FYs 2014 through 2023.[8] Within each of those regions, we selected the following forests to visit based on variation in volume of timber sold and geography:[9]

·         Region 6: Gifford Pinchot National Forest in southwest Washington State, Willamette National Forest in western Oregon, Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon, and Olympic National Forest in northwest Washington State.

·         Region 8: Ouachita National Forest in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma and Ozark–St. Francis National Forest in western Arkansas.

·         Region 9: Superior National Forest in northeast Minnesota.

To examine views on improving management of Forest Service timber sales, we interviewed agency officials and a nongeneralizable sample of 17 nonfederal stakeholders.[10] We identified stakeholders through a review of documents and websites related to Forest Service timber sales and interviews with agency officials. Of the 17 stakeholders we interviewed, five were industry groups, six were conservation groups, three were nonfederal government groups,[11] and three were nonfederal entities that have a master stewardship agreement with the Forest Service.[12] We also reviewed agency and stakeholder documents from FYs 2013 through 2026 on Forest Service timber sales and areas for improvement, including Forest Service reports, strategies, and guidance for managing timber sales.

We analyzed information obtained through our interviews with agency officials and stakeholders and grouped it into categories pertaining to factors that limit timber sales and opportunities for improving Forest Service management of timber sales.[13] We refined the categorizations and related descriptions based on our document reviews and analysis of agency data on timber sale planning, preparation, and implementation. Specifically, we analyzed data on the Forest Service’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, from the agency’s Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System.[14] This system includes project-level data on the type of NEPA review the Forest Service used and project decisions. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for understanding the Forest Service’s NEPA compliance trends.[15]

We assessed the Forest Service’s timber sale process and potential improvements identified by agency officials and stakeholders against applicable criteria identified in our prior work, including strategic workforce planning principles and selected key practices for evidence-based policymaking and performance management.[16] We also compared the Forest Service’s communication efforts against federal standards for internal control.[17]

We conducted this performance audit from January 2025 to June 2026 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.[18] Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Forest Service Structure

The Forest Service manages the 193-million-acre National Forest System through its headquarters in Washington, D.C., nine regional offices, and 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands (see fig. 1).[19] The Chief of the Forest Service heads the agency, a regional forester heads each regional office, and a forest supervisor heads each forest. Timber sales are primarily planned, prepared, and implemented at the forest level. Regional officials facilitate communication between forests, across regions, and with headquarters. These officials also provide training and guidance to regional and forest-level staff about timber sale planning, preparation, and implementation. Forest Service headquarters is responsible for developing policies and procedures for planning and implementing timber sales—primarily through its Natural Resources Office—and provides agencywide training and guidance.[20]

Note: On March 31, 2026, the Forest Service announced that it would move its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah. It also announced that it would eliminate its nine regional offices and create 15 state offices located throughout the United States.

Purpose of Timber Sales

Providing a supply of timber to the American people was one of the original purposes for which federal law authorized the establishment of national forests in 1897.[21] The Forest Service conducts timber sales as part of its mission to manage the National Forest System for multiple uses and to provide a sustained yield of renewable resources.[22]

·         The multiple uses are defined in law to include outdoor recreation, range (i.e., livestock grazing), timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife purposes.[23] The statute does not specify that the Forest Service should prioritize one use over any other use. Rather, it defines multiple use as, among other things, the combination of uses that will best meet the needs of the American people, and not necessarily the combination that will give the greatest dollar return or output.[24]

·         Sustained yield is defined in law as the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the national forests’ renewable resources—such as timber—without impairment of the productivity of the land.[25]

The Forest Service thus may conduct a timber sale to provide a supply of timber, achieve land management objectives, and promote other forest uses. For example, a timber sale may be used to reduce the number of trees in an area to create openings to improve habitat for some types of wildlife or to reduce the risk of insects, diseases, or wildfires. The agency may also use a timber sale to reduce hazards from or to capture some of the economic value of trees damaged by wildfires or other events; these are often referred to as salvage harvests.

Mechanisms for Forest Service Timber Sales

The Forest Service offers timber for sale to prospective purchasers, such as timber companies or lumber mills, through four mechanisms:[26]

·         Timber sale contracts. The agency sells the right to harvest timber to a purchaser.[27]

·         Stewardship contracts and agreements. The agency exchanges timber for restoration services, such as habitat restoration work.[28]

·         Good Neighbor Authority agreements. The agency enters into agreements with states, counties, or Tribes to implement timber sales.[29]

·         Permits. The agency permits the removal of timber for a nominal fee or free of charge when removal is expected to have limited resource impacts.[30]

According to agency guidance, the Forest Service’s policy is to use a mix of these mechanisms at the national forest level, considering factors such as staff capacity, cost effectiveness, and the needs of the local forest industry.[31] Agency officials base decisions about which mechanism to use on the site-specific objectives and requirements of each individual timber sale.[32] Our December 2024 report provides more detail on these mechanisms.[33]

Forest Service Process for Timber Sales

The Forest Service follows a multistep process for planning, preparing, and implementing timber sales.

Planning. The planning process begins by consulting the national forest’s land and resource management plan, often referred to as a forest plan, which establishes the forest’s long-term land management objectives and desired forest conditions. Forest plans also specify where activities such as timber harvests may or may not occur.[34] Based on the objectives outlined in these plans, as well as budgetary and other factors, agency officials identify individual projects (such as timber sales) needed to meet the desired forest conditions, such as reducing overall density to create openings for wildlife habitat or to mitigate wildfire risk.

Once a need for a timber harvest has been identified, agency officials engage in project-level planning to further inform the decision-making process. This includes analyzing the proposed project’s likely environmental effects pursuant to NEPA. The level of environmental analysis required by NEPA and the time the analysis takes to complete vary depending on the size, complexity, potential effects, and the authority under which the Forest Service is proposing to conduct the project.[35] There are three levels of NEPA review:

·         A categorical exclusion is used if the project is within a category of actions that the agency has already determined to have no significant environmental effect normally.[36]

·         An environmental assessment is used when the proposed project does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the environment or the significance of the effects is unknown.

·         An environmental impact statement is used if the project has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the environment.[37]

As part of this process, the Forest Service must also comply with other laws, including by analyzing the project’s impacts on certain species and historic properties. For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires the Forest Service to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for those species.[38] Moreover, under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and its implementing regulations, the Forest Service must assess the effects of its undertakings on historic properties.[39] In addition, the Forest Service must seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties in consultation with state agencies, Tribes, and interested parties.[40] The Forest Service often undertakes these additional analyses and required consultation during its NEPA review and incorporates the analyses into its NEPA review documents.

Preparation. Once the NEPA review for the proposed project is complete and has been approved, the Forest Service may begin preparing individual timber sales.[41] At this stage, the agency surveys and appraises the value of the timber being offered in the sale.[42] The Forest Service generally must obtain appraised fair market value for timber it sells.[43] Agency officials also estimate the sale’s operational needs and costs, such as the equipment needed to conduct the harvest and the transportation costs to haul the timber to the closest lumber mill.

Agency officials then incorporate any operational restrictions identified during the NEPA review, including seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife habitat or mitigate wildfire risk. They also estimate the costs of any other work required as part of the sale (e.g., road or bridge construction, any restoration work required by a stewardship contract or agreement).[44]

Implementation. To implement a sale, agency officials determine which sale mechanism to use and develop a written contract or agreement. For some of the sale mechanisms, the Forest Service advertises the contract and the timber is offered through an open, competitive bidding process with a starting bid based on the timber’s appraised value.[45] If the Forest Service receives a successful bid, the contract is signed and executed.[46] The purchaser then conducts harvest operations, and forest-level staff monitor the operations.

When a contract is signed, the Forest Service reports the volume sold and applies the amount toward the agency’s public performance reporting for that year’s timber target. However, most timber sale mechanisms provide timber purchasers with several years to complete the harvest.[47]

Legal Challenges

The public can challenge the Forest Service’s decision-making at certain points in the timber sale process. The first step for challenging most projects is through a predecisional administrative review referred to as an objection process.[48] A specified Forest Service official must respond to objections in writing before the project’s NEPA review can be approved.[49] The objection process for eligible proposed projects must be exhausted before a decision can be challenged in federal court.[50] Litigation may be filed in federal court before the timber sale occurs or after the contract has been executed.

Officials Identified Factors That Limited the Forest Service’s Ability to Meet Its Timber Targets

Agency officials we interviewed identified a variety of factors that they said limited the Forest Service’s ability to meet its annual timber targets in FYs 2014 through 2024, including (1) staffing challenges, (2) timber sale planning and preparation, (3) legal challenges, (4) timber not purchased when offered for sale, and (5) wildfires and other disturbances. Although the Forest Service as a whole did not meet its timber targets in any of the years from FY 2014 through FY 2024 (attaining an average of about 90 percent of its targets in those years), some regions and national forests met or exceeded their targets over this time frame.[51]

Staffing Challenges

Officials in headquarters, all nine regions, and the seven national forests we visited said that staffing challenges limited their ability to complete work needed to plan, prepare, and implement timber sales, which contributed to the agency not meeting its timber targets. For example:

·         Officials from one region said that they had struggled to complete survey work needed for timber sales. According to agency documents and officials, surveys are generally necessary any time the agency needs to analyze on-the-ground conditions, such as identifying potential environmental effects as part of a NEPA review, identifying the presence of wildlife or historic properties for ESA and section 106 of the NHPA analysis, or determining land ownership and rights-of-way boundaries.

·         Officials from three regions said that the low number of forestry specialists and technicians had limited their ability to design, mark, or monitor timber sales.

·         Officials from two other regions said that they had struggled to hire and retain enough staff to conduct engineering work required for timber sales.

Officials identified several factors that contributed to staffing challenges.

Recruitment and retention. Regional and forest officials said that they had not been able to recruit and retain enough staff to complete work needed to manage timber sales. Officials also identified staff turnover (e.g., staff leaving the agency or moving from one national forest to another) as a factor limiting the Forest Service’s ability to meet timber targets. Examples of positions they have struggled to recruit and retain include those responsible for preparing and administering timber sales, such as timber markers, as well as silviculturists, contracting officers, engineers, and staff that help conduct NEPA and other required reviews (e.g., biologists, archaeologists).[52] Figure 2 shows a Forest Service timber-marking crew determining which trees to leave for a timber sale.

Some forests have had vacancy rates of 40 percent or higher in timber-related positions, according to agency officials. For example, one forest we visited had a 50 percent vacancy rate in part of its timber program as of June 2024, according to officials. Officials in another forest reported a vacancy rate of 41 percent at the time of our visit in May 2025.[53] This forest’s officials anticipated selling 20 percent less timber volume than the previous year because of vacancies.

Officials from both forests said that high housing costs in their respective areas had contributed to vacancies, and officials from one forest said that they had also struggled to recruit staff because some found the area undesirable to live in. Officials from other forests and regions identified expensive, remote, or otherwise undesirable duty locations as a barrier to recruiting and retaining staff; they also cited low pay, career advancement challenges, and hiring process challenges.[54]

Staffing challenges related to the amount and timing of agency appropriations. Officials noted that the amount of the Forest Service’s appropriation affected staffing levels, including the number of employees and contractors the agency could hire to plan, prepare, and implement timber sales. In addition, officials from three regions said that continuing resolutions had restricted the Forest Service’s spending and thus affected timber sales.[55] For example, officials said the agency has had to hold off on issuing new timber sale contracts when it was not able to cover costs to prepare sales because the agency was operating under a continuing resolution. They said that when an appropriations bill was enacted, the Forest Service staff responsible for developing contracts and agreements were then flooded with work, which created a bottleneck and limited the number of timber contracts the agency could issue.

Reductions in staff. In May 2025, headquarters officials said that achieving the higher timber targets directed by the March 2025 executive order on expanding timber production would be challenging, given that the agency reduced its workforce by about 20 percent in FY 2025.[56] The Forest Service implemented the workforce reductions in response to a February 2025 executive order that directed agency heads to prepare to initiate large-scale reductions in staff.[57] Between January 12, 2025, and June 14, 2025, 5,860 of the Forest Service’s approximately 35,500 staff departed the agency, according to USDA’s Office of Inspector General.[58] Agency officials said that nearly 1,000 additional staff departed between June and September 2025. Officials said that these staff reductions further strained workforce capacity. Headquarters officials told us in September 2025 that the Forest Service was transferring staff from other parts of the agency to cover priority positions. In addition, the Forest Service was hiring seasonal forestry technicians and other staff as of March 2026.

Timber Sale Planning and Preparation

Forest Service officials from headquarters, seven of the nine regions, and six of the seven national forests we visited identified points in the timber sale planning and preparation process—including NEPA, ESA, and NHPA section 106 requirements—that delayed or otherwise affected sale implementation and target attainment. Officials from one region said they usually have about 50 percent of the region’s planned timber sale volume ready to implement at the beginning of the fiscal year. However, any delay in completing the required steps for the remaining sales could affect their ability to meet the region’s timber targets.[59] For example:

·         Surveys. Officials from all levels said that completing surveys prevented them from offering a timber sale in the planned fiscal year. As noted, surveys are generally necessary any time the agency needs to analyze on-the-ground conditions, including appraising and marking timber. Officials said this work can be expensive and time intensive.[60] For example, one regional official noted that they are sometimes required to survey over a 2-year period when working near habitat protected for certain threatened or endangered species. Officials said that staffing constraints, such as those described above, contributed to their challenges with completing surveys.

·         Consultations. Officials also said that challenges with scheduling and coordinating consultations with other federal and state agencies and Tribes affected the Forest Service’s ability to meet its timber targets in FYs 2014 through 2024.[61] Because consultations are often required, the Forest Service relies on the timelines of these entities to continue planning and preparing sales. Officials also said that scheduling issues were at times exacerbated by staffing challenges at the Forest Service as well as at the agencies with which it consults.

Legal Challenges

Officials in some of the regions and national forests we interviewed said that legal challenges—administrative objections from the public and litigation in federal court by those interested in preventing timber sales on national forest land—or the fear of potential legal challenges limited the Forest Service’s ability to meet timber targets in FYs 2014 through 2024. However, officials from other regions and forests either said that they did not think there were any effects or that they were mixed on the extent to which such challenges affected timber sales. Potential effects include the following:

·         Time spent to plan and prepare sales. Concern that a timber sale might result in an objection or lawsuit can influence planning decisions and timelines. For example, staff may invest more time preparing a project’s NEPA review in an attempt to reduce the chances of the project being challenged and improve the agency’s success in court if it is litigated.[62]

·         Court-ordered work stoppages. Litigation can lead to court-imposed injunctions that can stop work and delay timber sale implementation.[63] The extent to which such stoppages occur varies by region and forest, according to regional officials. For example, officials in one region said an injunction delayed timber sales on six forests for about 11 months and affected the region’s target attainment in FY 2020. In contrast, officials from a different region indicated that injunctions or temporary restraining orders were relatively rare.

·         Redirection of staff and resources. Legal challenges can divert staff and resources away from managing timber sales. For example, regional officials said that when a project was challenged in court, forest officials shifted staff away from planning and implementing other timber sales to activities related to the litigation, such as preparing documents and briefing attorneys. Agency officials also said that if the agency was unsuccessful in court, staff might then have to address requirements in the court decision, such as redoing certain analyses.

While litigation may delay or otherwise affect some timber sales, it does not affect many Forest Service timber sales overall. Specifically, around 4 percent of the agency’s timber sale-related projects were litigated on average from FY 2015 through FY 2024, according to our analysis of Forest Service data.[64] However, certain regions accounted for higher proportions of the court cases.[65] Region 1 had the highest proportion, which regional officials attributed primarily to forests in the region containing habitat for many high-profile endangered and threatened species (e.g., grizzly bears and lynx), which increased the level of interest in and scrutiny of the agency’s activities.[66] Officials from headquarters and the region also acknowledged that they consider litigation delays when setting timber targets.

Timber Not Purchased When Offered for Sale

Some Forest Service officials said that timber sales that were not purchased in the same fiscal year in which the agency first offered them contributed to the agency’s inability to meet annual timber targets. These sales, referred to as “no-bid sales,” occur when the Forest Service does not receive any bids on an advertised timber sale. However, other officials said that because the agency usually offers the sale again and the timber eventually gets purchased, no-bid sales did not significantly affect their ability to meet the agency’s timber target, overall timber sales, or land management objectives.

Purchasers may choose to not bid on an offered timber sale for a variety of reasons, generally related to their assessment of the economic viability of the sale, according to agency officials and industry stakeholders.[67] For example:

·         Sale price too high. Purchasers may believe that the Forest Service’s advertised price of the timber is too high, or they may not like the mix of product types included in the sale.

·         Operational costs too high. Purchasers may estimate that the sale’s operational costs (e.g., equipment or construction costs) will be too high. For example, costs can increase if timber has to be hauled to mills that are located farther away from national forests or equipment has to be moved to multiple sites because of how the sale was designed.[68]

·         Lack of competition for sales. In areas with less competition, purchasers may strategically choose not to bid on a sale and wait for more favorable terms (e.g., a lower price) when the Forest Service reoffers the sale.

According to agency officials, no-bid sales do not occur regularly because of the investment timber staff put into designing sales that are desirable to industry. Further, no-bid sales have minimal long-term effects because the agency usually offers the sale again, with or without changes to the contract terms, and the timber sale eventually gets purchased.[69] For example, officials from multiple regions said that their no-bid sales are generally reoffered for sale and eventually purchased. Further, a research paper found that from 2007 through 2020, about 12 percent of Forest Service timber sales received no bids when they were first offered, but less than 3 percent of offered sales were never purchased.[70] However, even when no-bid sales do not affect target attainment, they may have other effects. For example, forest officials noted that the time it took to redesign and reoffer the sales created additional work and diverted staff and other resources from planning future timber sales.[71]

Wildfires and Other Disturbances

Officials in headquarters and five of nine regions said that wildfires and other disturbances, such as extreme weather or infestations, affected the Forest Service’s ability to meet timber targets by damaging areas planned for timber sales or shifting the agency’s focus to responding to the disturbance rather than managing timber sales. For example:

Effects of Wildfire on Timber Sales in the Willamette National Forest In 2020, three wildfires—the Beachie Creek, Holiday Farm, and Lionshead Fires—burned more than 176,000 acres in the Willamette National Forest in western Oregon. These wildfires damaged a large volume of Forest Service timber that was sold and under contract at the time, affecting at least 20 of the forest’s timber sales, according to officials. As a result, the Willamette National Forest had to modify and, in some cases, cancel timber sale contracts. Officials also had to redo some of the environmental planning and resurvey some of the sale areas. The wildfires and additional workload limited the Willamette National Forest’s timber sales in 2020 and subsequent years. For example, the volume for one timber sale had to be reduced by 5 million board feet as a result of the wildfires, according to officials. The figure below shows the site of a timber sale that was modified after these wildfires. Source: GAO analysis of information provided by the Forest Service. Image: GAO. |  GAO‑26‑107993

·         Contracts modified or canceled. Some national forests modified or canceled contracts for timber sales because the contracts included areas burned by wildfires or damaged by hurricanes or other disturbances, according to officials. For example, one forest we visited had to modify or cancel more than 20 timber sale contracts after three wildfires in 2020 (see sidebar).

·         Staff and resources redirected. Some forests redirected staff from timber-related work to respond to or address the effects of wildfires and other disturbances, according to headquarters and regional officials. For example, during and after wildfires, staff at forests had to shift their focus to wildfire response and post-fire recovery activities, such as reopening roads that were closed because of a wildfire or conducting reforestation activities. Officials said the agency also had to redo NEPA analyses or surveys to account for the effects of wildfires.

·         Sales changed to salvage harvests. Disturbances have also affected planned timber sales, according to officials. For example, officials from one region said that insect and disease infestations that began around 2014 had decreased the value of timber and changed sales in which live trees are harvested to salvage harvests. They said that the infestations had run their course and the region was beginning to shift back to harvesting live timber.

Opportunities Exist to Improve Forest Service Management of Timber Sales

Agency officials and stakeholders we interviewed identified various opportunities to improve the agency’s management of timber sales. These include (1) expanding practices to more effectively use staff and conducting workforce planning, (2) improving processes for timber sale planning and preparation, (3) improving communication with stakeholders, (4) designing timber sales to improve economic viability, (5) improving management of sales in areas affected by wildfires and other disturbances, (6) developing additional performance goals to measure the effect of timber sales on agency goals, and (7) institutionalizing opportunities to improve timber sale management.

Expand Practices to More Effectively Use Staff and Conduct Strategic Workforce Planning

Officials at all levels of the agency and many stakeholders identified opportunities related to the Forest Service’s workforce, including expanding practices to effectively use staff and conducting strategic workforce planning. However, some officials raised concerns that recent developments, including workforce reductions, limited their ability to implement identified opportunities.

Leverage Forest Service Staff

The Forest Service could better leverage its staff to help address staffing-related challenges, which some regions and forests were taking steps to do, according to officials. Specifically, four regions reported using “strike teams”—teams of Forest Service staff that move throughout and sometimes across regions to temporarily increase capacity at a particular forest—to help plan and manage timber sales. Officials in one region credited strike teams for increasing their timber output and making their region one of the top timber producers in the agency. They said that the teams added capacity and expertise to national forests to help with timber sales. In addition to using strike teams, officials said they further leveraged agency staff by using nontimber staff to help with timber sales when available (e.g., using recreation staff in off-peak seasons) and sharing timber crews with nearby forests.

Officials at one forest, however, cautioned against being too dependent on strike teams, saying that forests still need local staff and that strike teams should add overall capacity rather than replace forest staff. Moreover, many of the Forest Service’s strike teams lost staff through workforce reductions in 2025 and were not functional as of May 2025, according to headquarters officials.

Expand Use of Partners and Contractors

All nine regions have worked with state agencies, Tribes, or other partners or contractors to augment the Forest Service’s capacity to offer timber sales. Officials and several stakeholders said that expanding the use of partners and contractors could help the agency address its staffing challenges. For example, officials said that some forests had used contractors to help prepare timber sales, such as marking timber.

However, some officials identified limitations to expanding the agency’s use of partners and contractors.[72] For example, partners and contractors may have gaps in key skills or local knowledge, which officials said has resulted in Forest Service staff having to do additional work (e.g., re-marking trees). In addition, partners may not have the capacity to take on additional work without consistent, multiyear funding commitments from the Forest Service, according to officials.

The Forest Service has been working to expand its use of partners and contractors for over a decade and has continued to take steps to do so.[73] For example:

·         In May 2025, the Forest Service identified partnerships and contracting as an area of focus in its National Active Forest Management Strategy.[74] According to the strategy and officials, the agency is creating a national team focused on strengthening partnerships with states, Tribes, and other partners and is increasing the use of long-term (i.e., 10 years or more) contracts and agreements to help facilitate a consistent supply of timber.

·         In July 2025, Forest Service headquarters directed regional foresters to further coordinate and collaborate with state and stewardship partners to identify opportunities to add capacity for administering timber sales.[75]

·         In January 2026, the Forest Service and the state of Utah signed an agreement to expand opportunities for timber harvest, among other purposes. The agency signed a similar agreement in June 2025 with the state of Montana to help implement large-scale forest management projects across the state and leverage tools such as Good Neighbor Authority.[76]

Increase Use of Tools and Technologies

Officials and many stakeholders said that the Forest Service could increase its use of available tools and technologies to help staff manage timber sales more efficiently. For example, staff could do the following:

·         identify timber for sale using a detailed prescription or description of the desired outcome rather than Forest Service staff individually marking each tree to be cut;

·         designate the boundaries of a timber sale using geospatial data rather than signs or paint (known as virtual boundaries or geofences);

·         survey timber through a digital application that can be used on tablets in the field; or

·         use remote-sensing technology, such as Light Detection and Ranging, or unmanned aircraft (i.e., drones) to collect timber data or monitor timber sales (see fig. 3).[77]

Several industry stakeholders we interviewed encouraged the Forest Service’s use and expansion of newer tools and technologies. For example, some stakeholders said that it was easier for purchasers to apply digital tools such as virtual boundaries when implementing timber sales. Some purchasers, however, especially smaller businesses, have been reluctant to adopt these tools, according to officials. These officials said directing the use of certain tools, such as virtual boundaries, could lead to an increase in no-bid sales if timber sale contracts require their use.

Some officials and stakeholders said that some Forest Service staff have been slow to adopt these and other newer tools and technologies. The Forest Service’s 2025 National Active Forest Management Strategy lists steps the agency is taking to foster wider adoption of new tools and technologies, such as providing guidance to agency staff on employing them.[78] In addition, in FY 2026, the agency established a working group to explore innovative technologies for managing forests, such as the use of unmanned aircraft and digital tools for timber sale preparation and implementation.

Conduct Strategic Workforce Planning

Officials and several industry, conservation, and nonfederal government stakeholders said the Forest Service needed more staff and staff with the right expertise to manage timber sales. For example, officials in six regions said they needed more staff to plan and prepare timber sales. In addition, headquarters officials said in July 2025 that it was unclear how USDA’s proposed reorganization of the Forest Service to change or eliminate regional offices would affect staffing and support to forests, since headquarters officials said they primarily support staff in forests through the regional offices.[79]

Officials also identified opportunities to improve how the Forest Service hires staff. For example, officials from two regions and two forests said that hiring more staff locally could help address staffing shortages, especially in locations where recruitment and retention are difficult (e.g., areas with high housing costs).[80] Over the past decade, the Forest Service has hired many timber staff through national mass recruitment events.[81] Officials also said that hiring more temporary staff could help develop a pipeline of experienced staff that could help meet future needs.

As noted above, the Forest Service lost approximately 20 percent of its staff between January 2025 and September 2025. The agency has not conducted strategic workforce planning to assess how these and potential future changes to the agency’s workforce and structure could affect its capacity to manage timber sales. Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals.[82] We have previously identified key principles that can enhance the effectiveness of an agency’s strategic workforce planning, including developing strategies that are tailored to address any gaps in critical skills, knowledge, and competencies.[83] By conducting strategic workforce planning and developing tailored strategies to address any skills and knowledge gaps, the Forest Service could better understand how to recruit and retain the critical staff it needs to effectively manage timber sales and achieve program goals.

Improve Processes for Timber Sale Planning and Preparation

Officials at all levels of the agency and many stakeholders identified opportunities to improve the Forest Service’s timber sale planning and preparation processes—namely, making changes intended to streamline the NEPA review process. This would enable the agency to build and maintain a supply of implementation-ready timber sales with signed NEPA decisions, which could allow the agency to offer more timber for sale, according to officials.

Officials in some regions and forests said that having a supply of implementation-ready timber sales with signed NEPA decisions, referred to as “shelf-stock” or “shovel-ready projects,” helped them be more flexible and consistent in offering timber sales in a timely fashion. In April 2025, headquarters officials directed all regions to establish, within 24 months, at least 2 years’ shelf-stock of signed timber project NEPA decisions.[84] Some regions had previously taken steps to increase shelf-stock. An official from a forest in one of those regions said that having a shelf-stock of signed project decisions helped them continue to offer timber sales despite having to redo several planned sales because of wildfires.

The Forest Service has been working to improve its timber sale planning and preparation process for over a decade.[85] More recently, in April 2025, the Secretary of Agriculture issued an emergency situation determination covering more than 100 million acres of National Forest System land to address threats from wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, and other forest health concerns.[86] This determination authorizes and directs the Forest Service to

·         carry out certain emergency actions, such as salvage harvesting dead or dying trees or removing hazardous trees near roads or trails;

·         only analyze the proposed action and an alternative of taking no action in conducting NEPA reviews for the authorized emergency actions;[87]

·         exempt those NEPA review decisions from the public objections process;[88] and

·         use emergency consultation procedures to comply with ESA and emergency and programmatic consultation to comply with NHPA.[89]

According to agency officials, in 2025, the Forest Service directed staff to increase the use of categorical exclusions when preparing NEPA reviews for timber projects.[90] While increasing the use of categorical exclusions could reduce the time needed to complete NEPA reviews, according to officials, the effect may be limited because the Forest Service had already used categorical exclusions for most of its timber-related NEPA project decisions in FYs 2014 through 2024.[91]

In addition, some agency officials said that the decision about which level of NEPA review to use is best made by the officials working on the ground. Agency officials, as well as industry and conservation stakeholders, also cautioned that using categorical exclusions more frequently could decrease the public’s trust in the agency and result in more legal challenges. For example, several conservation stakeholders were concerned because the agency is not required to inform the public about timber sales done under categorical exclusions.

Improve Communication with Stakeholders

Officials and several stakeholders said that improving the frequency and consistency of communication with stakeholders and the public about when and where it plans to offer timber for sale could improve the Forest Service’s management of timber sales. For example:

·         One industry stakeholder said that it would be helpful for the Forest Service to provide current, comprehensive information on timber sales on its website. Forest Service guidance directs the agency to issue information on its schedule of timber sales and stewardship contracts to interested parties every 6 months.[92] However, the stakeholder said that the Forest Service often makes changes to the sale plans and that it would be helpful for the agency to update the information on a timelier basis.

·         Several industry, conservation, and nonfederal government stakeholders said the Forest Service should increase the transparency, frequency, and consistency of its communication with the public and stakeholders. For example, conservation stakeholders said that the agency should solicit feedback on planned timber sales and that the agency should be more transparent about the volume it expects to harvest. One industry stakeholder said that the Forest Service should increase the frequency and consistency of its communication, noting that in some regions and forests, the agency has regular communication (e.g., weekly) to keep industry informed about upcoming sales, making it easier for purchasers to do business with the agency. Officials from one region said that establishing expectations for communication at a regional level would increase consistency for purchasers that buy timber from multiple forests.

Agency officials said that communicating with stakeholders had improved aspects of timber sale management within certain regions and forests. For example, officials from one region said that officials who regularly meet with industry are able to solicit constructive feedback and work collaboratively to address issues, such as concerns about costs included in sale contracts or the appraisal process. In addition, some forests we visited had worked with collaborative groups representing a range of interests (e.g., industry, conservation, and recreation) to help plan timber sales and other land management activities. Officials credited these collaborations with improving relationships with industry and conservation groups and the public, increasing timber volume sold, and decreasing litigation of timber sales.

The Forest Service has some guidance directing communication with stakeholders on planned timber sales, according to agency documents and officials. Specifically, Forest Service guidance directs the agency to issue information on timber sales every 6 months, as noted. However, the agency does not have other guidance directing a certain level or frequency of communication with industry and other stakeholders about planned timber sales. Thus, the extent of communication with stakeholders is generally based on preferences and capacity of officials in each region and forest.

Federal standards for internal control state that federal organizations should externally communicate relevant and quality information with appropriate external parties, and that open two-way external reporting lines allow for this communication.[93] By more frequently and consistently communicating information about planned timber sales to industry, other stakeholders, and the public, the Forest Service could be more transparent and accountable to others about its planned sales and help develop timber sales that better reflect the needs of industry partners and the agency’s land management objectives.

Design Timber Sales to Improve Economic Viability

Forest Service officials and industry stakeholders said that designing timber sales to better reflect industry preferences and improve their economic viability could result in fewer initial no-bid timber sales and improve the agency’s overall timber sale management. The economic viability of a sale depends on the value of the timber being sold, the cost of harvesting and transporting the timber, and the costs of any other requirements in the contract, such as road or bridge construction.

When designing timber sales, industry stakeholders said the agency could do the following:

Include higher-value trees. Including large trees or trees of a species with higher value could improve the economic viability of a timber sale for purchasers. Forest Service officials said that they design their sales based on land management objectives and try to balance those objectives with purchaser preferences. However, officials also noted that achieving objectives such as reducing wildfire risk and improving wildlife habitat often entails harvesting smaller, lower-value trees.

Officials said that if the value of the trees is less than the operational costs of a sale, they can sometimes offer the sale using a stewardship contract that also includes payment for conducting restoration services—provided the agency has funding available to do so—to make the sale more attractive to purchasers. They said they can also include both higher- and lower-value trees to improve the feasibility of a sale. A few conservation stakeholders we interviewed, however, said this provides an incentive for the Forest Service to include more larger, higher-value trees in a sale to help pay for removing the lower-value trees, and that those larger trees are often the most fire-resilient and important for wildlife habitat.

Agency officials noted that some purchasers have adapted their facilities to use smaller trees. For example, Forest Service officials in two regions said that some local mills had retooled and were using smaller trees and biomass to manufacture animal bedding and similar products, which had led to more timber sales in nearby national forests.

Reduce operational costs to purchasers. Industry stakeholders said that the Forest Service should offer timber sales with lower operational costs to purchasers. For example, the Forest Service may include requirements in timber sale contracts that the purchaser must construct or repair roads or bridges to access the timber, according to agency officials and industry stakeholders. While the cost of doing this work is considered in the sale contract, industry stakeholders said that the Forest Service often includes too much of this work or does not appropriately estimate those costs. The Forest Service also may include seasonal restrictions on when a purchaser can operate (e.g., to mitigate wildfire risk or protect sensitive wildlife species), which can increase the cost or time to harvest a sale.

Improve appraisal process. Forest Service officials and industry stakeholders said the agency’s appraisal methods can lead to inaccurate appraisals and take too long to reflect fast-changing fluctuations in timber value.[94] For example, representatives from one industry group said that the market price for timber decreased so much between the time of the agency’s appraisal and the sale being offered that the sale was no longer economically viable and did not receive any bids.

As noted, Forest Service officials said they already invest resources in designing sales that are desirable to industry, and the agency is taking steps to further improve the economic viability of timber sales. For example, the agency directed its regions to establish appraisal adjustments for sales as part of implementing the 2025 National Active Forest Management Strategy.[95] Agency officials noted, however, that their ability to continue to design desirable timber sales, including by contributing more agency funds to offset purchasers’ operational costs, may be affected by reduced staffing and funding levels.

In addition, the agency provides financial grants to support development of new markets and infrastructure to increase demand for lower-value timber that the Forest Service wants removed to reduce wildfire risk and improve wildlife habitat.[96] Officials also said the Forest Service provides financial grants to support mill capital improvements or offset transportation costs to address concerns about the decreased number of timber purchasers, lumber mills, and other industry partners.[97] In addition, in 2025, the Forest Service assessed the needs and capacity of lumber mills located near national forests as part of its National Active Forest Management Strategy.[98] Figure 4 shows a logging truck bringing timber to a mill.

Improve Management of Sales in Areas Affected by Wildfires and Other Disturbances

Agency officials and several industry and nonfederal government stakeholders identified opportunities for the Forest Service to improve its management of timber sales in areas affected by wildfires, hurricanes, and other disturbances. For example, officials said that increasing salvage harvests after natural disturbances could help the agency meet its timber targets. Timber loses economic value after a disturbance, which increases the importance of the Forest Service acting quickly to offer salvage timber for sale, according to officials and a few stakeholders. Several industry and nonfederal government stakeholders said that making better use of available authorities, such as those related to salvage harvesting and hazard-tree removal, could increase the speed with which the Forest Service responds to wildfires and other disturbances.

The Forest Service is taking some steps in this area, as outlined in its National Active Forest Management Strategy and described by officials. These steps include developing a nationwide environmental assessment to facilitate consistent and efficient site-specific decisions after wildfires, such as removal of hazardous trees and timber salvage;[99] deploying teams to help forests plan for harvesting timber salvage after a wildfire or other disturbance; and creating geospatial tools to quickly identify areas available for salvage and hazard-tree removal.[100] The agency plans to complete these actions by September 2026, according to the strategy.

Develop Additional Performance Goals to Measure the Effect of Timber Sales on Agency Goals

Officials and many stakeholders said that the Forest Service should develop new performance goals to measure the effect of timber sales on land management outcomes.[101] Officials and industry stakeholders said that volume sold—currently the agency’s only performance goal related to timber sales—is easy to measure and helps industry partners with their internal planning. However, officials and other stakeholders said that the Forest Service does not measure how timber sales contribute to other parts of its multiuse mission, such as changes to wildlife habitat or watershed condition.[102]

Headquarters officials said that the agency had had “a lot of conversations” about potential additional goals related to timber sales in the past, but that they had not implemented any for various reasons. For example, headquarters and regional officials said that measuring the effects of timber sales on ecosystems is difficult.[103] However, officials and stakeholders noted that while developing new goals may present challenges, there are examples the agency could consider. For example, the Forest Service has at times had performance goals related to on-the-ground outcomes of other management activities, such as how a vegetation management project affected wildfire risk.[104] In addition, the Forest Service reports the percentage of National Forest System landscape ecosystems improved, maintained, or recovering because of management actions as a performance goal, according to agency documents. The Forest Service also reports management acreage across several goals, including acreage treated to reduce or maintain fuel conditions (i.e., hazardous fuels reduction) and acreage treated that effectively mitigated wildfire risk; these do not specifically include or report timber sale acreage.

As noted, the Forest Service’s mission is to manage the National Forest System for multiple uses and to provide a sustained yield of renewable resources. Our prior work has shown that establishing performance goals helps an organization define what it is trying to achieve, determine how well it is performing, and identify what it could do to improve results.[105] Our prior work further states that agencies should develop performance goals that cover important dimensions of a program’s performance and balance competing priorities.

The Forest Service’s performance goal for volume of timber sold measures one aspect of program performance, but the agency does not have performance goals related to other aspects, such as how timber sales affect long-term land management outcomes. By developing additional performance goals tied to long-term outcomes and measuring progress towards those goals, the Forest Service would better understand the effects of timber sales on the agency’s overall mission and could better inform Congress and other stakeholders about the effects of timber sales on land management outcomes. Officials and stakeholders also noted that doing so could lead to an increase in overall support for timber harvests.

Institutionalize Identified Opportunities to Improve Forest Service Management of Timber Sales

For over a decade, the Forest Service has taken steps to improve its management of timber sales, as described above, but implementation of these steps has been inconsistent. The Forest Service has not comprehensively institutionalized, or implemented and sustained, identified opportunities to improve timber sale management across the agency. We found that implementation may depend on informal or ad hoc efforts, initiative of individual staff, regional interpretation or direction, or temporary leadership emphasis because of challenges such as the following:

·         Limited guidance. Officials cited limited guidance and training as hindering the use of newer tools and authorities, such as stewardship and Good Neighbor Authority. For example, officials from a forest we visited said that while they have a lot of tools and flexibilities available to them, not all timber staff know how to apply them. USDA and the Forest Service have issued guidance aimed at improving timber sales management through several memoranda and other documents but have not consolidated this guidance into one place. For example, the National Active Forest Management Strategy does not include the detail needed for forests to implement the opportunities described in the strategy, such as adopting new technologies or strengthening partnerships.

·         Resistance to new ways of managing sales. Officials and several stakeholders said that some Forest Service staff resist trying new approaches, such as stewardship and other newer contracting mechanisms, or adopting newer technologies, such as virtual boundaries. Instead, staff may prefer traditional ways of managing timber sales in an effort to avoid risk. Using newer technologies or relying on partners or contractors to help manage sales has made some staff feel disconnected from the on-the-ground work they are used to performing. Moreover, some staff act as “gatekeepers” that limit flexibility in managing timber sales, according to officials. They said some agency staff add steps and restrictions beyond what is required by law, which may hinder the use of newer tools or authorities.

·         Lack of forestry backgrounds. Forest supervisors and other managers may not have forestry backgrounds and therefore may lack specific knowledge of how timber harvest can be a tool for achieving the agency’s land management goals, according to some officials. Since forest supervisors and other managers play an important role in overseeing management across the agency, this lack of knowledge can make it difficult to implement new approaches, according to these officials.

Our past work has found that successful organizations continually and systematically monitor their internal and external environment.[106] Defining strategies to mitigate challenges to program implementation is consistent with actions policymakers should take to assess the environment, including identifying internal and external factors that could affect goal achievement and addressing or mitigating these factors.

By assessing the current environment the Forest Service is working in, including taking steps to institutionalize identified opportunities—that is, embedding them into agency policies, guidance, training, and routine practices so they are consistently implemented and sustained over time, such as by creating a guidebook for agency staff—the agency could use its resources more efficiently, reduce inconsistency across forests and regions, and foster strong central leadership. If implementation of identified opportunities is not sustained or consistently applied across forests and regions, the agency may face recurring challenges in meeting timber targets. Workforce reductions and restructuring can further exacerbate inconsistency, as knowledge of newer approaches may reside with individual staff rather than within agency policy, guidance, and training. Institutionalizing opportunities can also provide a clear strategic direction for agency officials during times of staffing, organizational, and budget uncertainties.

Conclusions

The Forest Service sells billions of board feet of timber each year as part of its mission to manage the National Forest System for the long-term benefit of the American people. However, the agency fell an average of 10 percent short of meeting its timber targets in FYs 2014 through 2024, and it faces challenges in meeting executive direction to sell more timber over the next 4 years.

For more than a decade, the Forest Service has taken various steps to identify and implement opportunities to improve timber sale management. For example, in response to recent executive direction to expand timber production, the agency increased its use of emergency actions related to hiring, preparing NEPA reviews, and other timber sale-related activities. The Forest Service also issued the National Active Forest Management Strategy in 2025 to identify agencywide goals such as building capacity, streamlining processes, and strengthening partnerships.

However, taking additional steps to implement and sustain identified opportunities could help the Forest Service further improve its management of timber sales. For example:

·         Conducting strategic workforce planning and developing tailored strategies to address any skills and knowledge gaps would better position the Forest Service to recruit and retain the critical staff it needs to effectively manage timber sales and achieve program goals.

·         Communicating information about planned timber sales more frequently and consistently to industry, other stakeholders, and the public could help the Forest Service be more transparent and accountable about its planned sales and help the agency develop sales that better reflect the needs of industry partners and its land management objectives.

·         Developing additional performance goals tied to long-term outcomes and measuring progress towards those goals would help the Forest Service, Congress, and other stakeholders better understand the effects of timber sales on the agency’s overall mission.

·         Assessing the current environment the Forest Service is working in, including recent and ongoing changes to its workforce and organizational structure, and taking steps to institutionalize identified opportunities to improve management of timber sales would better position the Forest Service to use its resources more efficiently.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following four recommendations to the Forest Service:

The Chief of the Forest Service should conduct strategic workforce planning related to managing timber sales and develop tailored strategies to address any skills and knowledge gaps. (Recommendation 1)

The Chief of the Forest Service should take steps to more frequently and consistently communicate information related to timber sales to industry, other stakeholders, and the public. (Recommendation 2)

The Chief of the Forest Service should develop additional performance goals to better measure the effects of timber sales on the agency’s multiple-use mission. (Recommendation 3)

The Chief of the Forest Service should assess the agency’s current operating environment and opportunities to improve timber sales management and take steps to comprehensively implement and institutionalize the opportunities as appropriate, such as by creating a guidebook for agency staff. (Recommendation 4)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. The Forest Service’s liaison to GAO stated in an email that the agency agreed with our findings and recommendations. The Forest Service also provided a technical comment, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at JohnsonCD1@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Media Relations may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix I.

Cardell Johnson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment

List of Addressees

The Honorable Martin Heinrich
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
Chair
The Honorable Jeff Merkley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable John Barrasso, M.D.
United States Senate

The Honorable Glenn “GT” Thompson
Chairman
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives

The Honorable Mike Simpson
Chairman
The Honorable Chellie Pingree
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Jack Bergman
House of Representatives

GAO Contact

Cardell Johnson at JohnsonCD1@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Jonathan Dent (Assistant Director), Lesley Rinner (Analyst in Charge), Adrian Apodaca, Madeline Barch, Lilia Chaidez, Elizabeth Fan, Elizabeth Gooch, Katie Hoover, Nicholas Loew, Ying Long, Angie Nichols-Friedman, Barbara Lancaster, Susan Murphy, Leslie Pollock, Caitlin Scoville, Katherine Shlepr, and Jeanette Soares made contributions to this report.

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on X, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454

Media Relations

Sarah Kaczmarek, Managing Director, Media@gao.gov

Congressional Relations

David A. Powner, Acting Managing Director, CongRel@gao.gov

General Inquiries

https://www.gao.gov/about/contact-us