GAO Shows Biscuit Logging Lost Money

Rolf Skar, 04.10.2006 13:18

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today shows the Bush administration lost taxpayer dollars by logging remote, sensitive forests after the 2002 Biscuit fire. This definitive report by the government's own watchdog group deals another serious blow to Congressman Greg Walden's post-fire logging bill now pending in Congress.

Biscuit fire logging - like this on the Babyfoot Lake Trail - lost money

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) today confirmed that logging after the Biscuit fire in southern Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest lost money. The report released by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee revealed that the Biscuit logging project cost taxpayers nearly $2 million dollars.

Logging generated $8.8 million in receipts but expenses were $10.7 million. Most of the receipts generated were from low-cost hazard tree removal ($5.1 million) - meaning that the losses from the controversial salvage sale portion of the Biscuit project were approximately $7 million.

The GAO's findings prompted a strong response from Senator Bingaman who issued the following public statement:

"This effort appears to be one of many instances where the Forest Service promised restoration and fuels reduction in conjunction with timber sales, did the logging at a cost of millions of tax dollars, and still has not started most of the restoration and other work. Taxpayers are going to have to spend millions more just cleaning up the damage from the logging than the government made from the timber sales. Meanwhile, as another recent study concluded, the logging killed 70 percent of the natural tree regeneration and elevated wildfire fuel loads. At the same time, promises of community fire protection, habitat restoration and scientific analyses remain unscheduled and unfulfilled."

Conservation groups, long critical of the Biscuit fire logging project and the flawed economics used to justify it, agree with the Senator. "The GAO report shows that the Forest Service, busy with controversial backcountry logging, failed to invest in fire safety projects that would have benefited local communities," said Rolf Skar, campaign director of the Cave Junction based Siskiyou Project. "Playing politics with our public lands comes at a high cost."

The GAO released its study as the White House and as logging proponents are trying to pass legislation that would aggressively promote logging after natural disturbances under the guise of needing to restore forests. H.R. 4200, the Walden logging bill would further weaken environmental safeguards and opportunities for public involvement. The bill waives the National Environmental Policy Act, leaves roadless areas, old growth forests, and other special areas unprotected to many logging projects, threatens endangered species habitat, and could increase the risk of wildfire.

"This report debunks supporters of H.R. 4200 who claim we need to scrap our environmental laws to speed logging," said Michael Francis, The Wilderness Society. "Staff cuts, an overly large project targeting sensitive areas, and agency mistakes delayed logging at Biscuit - not litigation."

The GAO report confirms what conservation groups earlier had claimed -- that Biscuit logging was losing millions in below-cost timber sales. According to Dominick DellaSala, Executive Director of the National Center for Conservation Science & Policy and an author of an earlier study on Biscuit logging, the Forest Service claimed that the purpose of the Biscuit logging project was to generate moderate to high levels of economic return but the agency lost millions when it accepted bid values far below what was anticipated due to low demand for burned trees and high cost of getting them in remote areas.

"The Forest Service continues to treat post-fire logging sales as if the laws of economics are suspended using flawed accounting methods to justify below-cost sales," said DellaSala. "This is precisely why we don't need sweeping legislation to authorize more below-cost logging projects that set back recovery when forests are most vulnerable to logging after wildfires."

Other studies by the GAO during the 1990s found that most timber sales on the National Forests lose money. From 1992-1997 the GAO estimated the Forest Service timber sale program lost over $300 million each year. A more recent independent analysis estimates losses from the timber sale program are now much higher -- $860 million in 2004.

"This study confirms what many have known all along; that logging after fires is a lose-lose proposition," said Randi Spivak, Executive Director for American Lands Alliance. "Not only is the sale a money loser, but roadless areas and old growth forests have been damaged and the Forest Service doesn't have the money to complete promised restoration work."

The Report found:

-- Delays in the project were caused by an extreme downsizing of Forest Service staff that saw one-third of the forest's personnel eliminated - dropping from 619 staff in 2002 to 400 staff in 2005.

-- The size of the proposed logging and changes in roadless area management authorities contributed to delays in producing alternatives and a final decision.

-- Litigation played no role in delaying implementation of the logging project.

-- Other recovery worked promised under the Biscuit project to reduce hazardous fuels, and rehabilitate wildlife habitat is unlikely to occur unless additional funds are appropriated.

The full report is available for free at:
 http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/GAO_BiscuitFireRecoveryProject.pdf

Homepage:: http://www.siskiyou.org

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

The GAO Report SUPPORTS Salvage 04.10.2006 - 15:49 If you read the actual GAO report (and not the AP spin), you'll see that the FS has spent $5 million administering the sales, while salvage logging has generated $8.8 million in revenues. If you do the math, the project is $3.8 million in the black. Only by including the $5.7 million projected cost of burning ground fuels, treating brush, and planting trees within the salvage areas was the AP able to conclude that the project will cost taxpayers $3 million. Planting seedlings and burning fuels left over after the fire are restoration activities. Applying the cost of these activities to the cost of salvage logging is inappropriate. Without the revenues generated by salvage logging, taxpayers would be faced with the full $5.7 million price tag for these restorative measures. The AP reports have also omitted several key facts which counter the idea that salvage is a burden to taxpayers. I’ll address three of these factors specifically. First, most of the $5 million in administration costs are fixed, and could not have been avoided if the FS hadn’t salvaged any of the Biscuit. The FS has to pay its employees whether they sell any wood or not. Second, salvage contracts have so far resulted in 307 miles of roads receiving much needed maintenance. This is an added benefit to the taxpayer, in that they are saved the cost of maintaining those roads and/or the costs of mitigating environmental damage incurred from not maintaining them. Finally, the GAO report contains persuasive evidence that salvage legislation would reduce the burden on taxpayers in rehabilitating burned areas. The Biscuit’s administrative costs were exacerbated by policy changes that occurred during creation of the EIS, and also by the strict and time consuming requirements of NEPA. These same factors also delayed salvage activities for several years, reducing the value of the salvageable material and therefore returns to the taxpayer. By laying out a clear policy on post fire restoration, and by streamlining NEPA to allow for speedy salvage, congress could greatly reduce the costs of rehabilitation. Moon Muffin> i say this so rarely... 05.10.2006 - 07:14 moonie, your 'spin' is more of a pretzel. it contains enough 'ifs', 'coulds' and 'woulds' to make any defense lawyer proud. the report is much more straight forward, and spells: failure. to reach your conclusions only proves to us all you have no interest in seeking any truth and that, quite frankly, you're stupid. edgar_friendly e_f> As Usual.. 05.10.2006 - 09:21 EF, which I doubt is really friendly, again you miss the point and as the AP you try to put a spin on the report, but that is fine. Again as the folks that really deal with the costs and the need to keep a healthy forest react to the report, the changes will come. These changes "should" include a stream lining of surveys, "could" reduce the chance of litigation and "if" some of these changes "would" be made the costs of having a healthy forest and rehabing catastrophic fires "will" be reduced. In case you haven't notice the would of, should of, could of's, are slowly coming around. Unlike some we never have expected sudden reversals or changes, but the pendulum is swinging. Please don't get to dizzy and stay focused and the actual facts of the reports, we can all benefit. Chane Sau> Try Again, Muffin 05.10.2006 - 11:25 Nice try, muffin. If you actually read the GAO report, which I doubt, you would know that it evaluated the "Biscuit Fire Recovery Project," not just Biscuit logging. Any reasonable person understands that road repair work, slash treatment and replanting is part of the package. You make a mess, you have to clean it up. Reality Check> I wonder 06.10.2006 - 10:12 I wonder how the Forest Service could spend so much money doing so little. stump> Biscuit Fire Restoration without logging?!? 06.10.2006 - 10:28 Imagine a project without the logging aspect and total up all the costs associated with such a project. Certainly there would have been a hazard tree removal project and an associated fuels reduction project to deal with the slash from felled (but not removed) trees. There would also be an extensive fuels reduction project in areas away from roads that would involve machine piling and burning. There would also be planting costs in areas that didn't have good natural regeneration. This would cost millions of dollars without the offsetting monies from KV Funds generated from the timber sales. Or, imagine if nothing at all were done to the Biscuit. How much would it cost the ecosystem to have roads catastrophically fail when culverts become plugged? How much would it cost the ecosystem when jack-strawed, log-choked lands burn up the precious natural regeneration?? How much would it cost the ecosystem when the brush comes up and chokes off that very same natural regeneration?? Finally, how much more money would have been generated had the salvage sales been planned and prepared in the most timely fashion (including both eco-footdragging and litigation AND Forest Service ineptitude)?? How come the American public and Congress aren't doing something about Baird's Salvage and Restoration Bill in Congress?!? After a new all-time record in acres burned, no one seems to care that our forests are becoming "natural clearcuts". BTW, that's 14,218 square miles!!! How many more will be charred before we all look at the big picture, including climate change and carbon sequestration. If you won't listen to me, then listen to Patrick Moore, of Greenpeace fame. Hotfeet> Maybe 06.10.2006 - 20:07 Just maybe the authors of the original post should read the report, the whole report and look at the conclusions as well as the individual instances referenced. It really is very interesting reading..... Chane Sau> Moon 07.10.2006 - 15:49 good job of putting some meat on the bone. What does the GAO say about the revenue stream to the government from the taxes on income generated by the salvage. The real question is what would the return back to the treasury be if opperations had not been delayed to the point that much of the wood was less than worthless. If (big if) there was a loss and you want to point fingers then look in the mirror. You folks that make a living by litigating the Federal Ageencies and delaying and stopping harvest projects are what I'd like to see a GAO report on. Curious> pirdmufai 29.05.2008 - 04:31 Ots7ZR zrcbhkkkthgz, [url= http://glowlrlftoed.com/]glowlrlftoed[/url], [link= http://pbpsjkuubffp.com/]pbpsjkuubffp[/link],  http://dzsruumotomp.com/ pirdmufai> e-mail:: kwiybn@vmzgvh.com Homepage:: http://njrjnfjrlfut.com/