U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

November 24, 2021 R46976

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management:
November 24, 2021
Background and Issues for Congress
Katie Hoover
The 765 million acres of forests across the United States provide many social, economic, and
Specialist in Natural
ecological resources and uses. A forest’s health—generally, the status of its ecological integrity
Resources Policy
and functioning—influences its ability to provide resources and uses, including air and water

resources, fish and wildlife habitat, opportunities for recreation and cultural use, timber
Anne A. Riddle
resources, and more. As a result, Congress may be interested in the health and management of the
Analyst in Natural
nation’s forest resources. The potential scope of congressional involvement in U.S. forest
Resources Policy
resources varies, based primarily on ownership; Congress has a direct role in the management of

forests owned by the federal government but a more indirect role regarding forests in nonfederal
ownership.

As of 2017, the federal government managed 238 million acres (31%) of U.S. forests; the rest were in nonfederal (private,
state, or local) ownership. Private forest owners can be classified as corporate or noncorporate, and noncorporate forest
owners can be further classified as family, tribal, and other. Private noncorporate forests account for approximately 38% of
U.S. forest area (272 million acres), and corporate forests account for 20% (156 million acres). State and local governments
manage 84 million acres (11%) of U.S. forestland. The distribution of forest ownership varies regionally: most of the forests
in the eastern United States are privately owned, whereas most forests in the western regions are publicly owned.
Nationwide, more privately owned forests than publicly owned forests contain timberlands, a subset of forestland capable of
producing crops of industrial wood.
The resources and uses that a forest provides can be complementary or competing. As such, forest management and use are
perennially complex, often contentious issues. Forest owners may manage forests—intervene in their processes and
composition—to promote desired objectives, which vary; there is no single management objective across all U.S. forests or
ownerships. Private forest owners have nearly complete discretion over which management objectives to pursue. Conversely,
public forest management decisions are stipulated by laws and regulations, including requirements for transparency in the
decisionmaking process and opportunities for the public to comment on and challenge decisions. Most forest owners manage
their lands for multiple objectives, often with a primary objective. For example, some owners manage their forests principally
for timber production, undertaking specific management activities to promote productivity and timber growth. Most federal
forests are managed for a balance of multiple of uses, with no single or primary use as a principal management objective.
Because forests may be managed for different objectives, methods for measuring and assessing forest outcomes vary
considerably.
U.S. forest resources are heterogeneous, as are the biophysical conditions in forests and the management objectives,
constraints, and capabilities of forest owners. Biophysical characteristics (e.g., climate) determine a forest’s baseline potential
to support different tree species, growth, and productivity. Other factors, such as exposure to disturbances (e.g., hurricanes,
wildfires, pest infestations), can further affect forest conditions. Management choices can influence or mediate the effects of
some—but not all—biophysical factors and disturbances (e.g., by choosing which species to grow or whether to treat pest
infestations). The measurable outcomes for any given forest—such as timber production, forest health, or other metrics—
result from the merging of biophysical factors, disturbances, and management decisions. However, forest conditions may
produce resources and outcomes in ways that specific management activities, regardless of ownership, cannot mitigate or
overcome. For example, though forest management activities may focus on preventing, treating, or facilitating recovery from
various forest health stressors, the extent to which management practices can demonstrably improve health conditions is
difficult to assess. Although it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding forest outcomes by ownership class,
some distinct ownership trends exist. For example, the South produces the most timber of any region; because most forests in
the South are privately owned, little of that timber production originates from public forests.
Congress’s interest in the nation’s forest resources is multifold. Across all ownerships, Congress may be interested in the
capacity of the nation’s forests to survive and recover from disturbance events and to adapt to changing climatic conditions.
Congress also may be interested in mitigating risks associated with adverse health conditions and otherwise ensuring forests
continue to provide benefits to surrounding communities. Issues for Congress may include whether and how to address those
interests and concerns, regardless of ownership. Congress also may have ownership-specific interests, such as federal forest
management or the federal government’s role in providing assistance for nonfederal forests. In addition, Congress has
expressed interest in understanding the extent, if any, to which nonfederal forests have better forest management and forest
health outcomes relative to federally managed forests.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
One-third of U.S. land area is forested, and forests provide many public benefits. As such,
Congress is broadly interested in the health and management of the nation’s forest resources. The
potential scope of congressional involvement varies, in part based on ownership; Congress has a
direct role in the management of forests owned by the federal government but a more indirect role
regarding forests in nonfederal ownership. Congress also has expressed interest in the extent, if
any, to which nonfederal forests have better forest management—human intervention into forest
processes and composition—and forest outcomes relative to federal forests.
To inform congressional deliberations regarding U.S. forest resources, this report examines
nationwide and regional trends in forest ownership, health, and management.1 Forest management
outcomes generally, and forest health outcomes specifically, are difficult to measure, compare, or
attribute to any specific factor. As a result, it is not possible to definitively assess the specific
influence of individual forest attributes (e.g., forest ownership) on forest management outcomes.
Instead, this report analyzes forest outcomes that arise from the confluence of regional
biophysical, ownership, and management trends.
The report begins with an overview of the methodological approach for presenting the data and
analysis contained herein and an introduction to Congress’s roles with regard to the nation’s
forests. It then provides background on forestry concepts such as types, uses, health, and
management. The background section also introduces forest management principles specific to
timber production, a topic of congressional interest. The report then describes the extent,
distribution, uses, and management of federal and nonfederal forests and timber resources across
the United States, by ownership, and includes separate discussions of forest health and timber
production by ownership. Next, the report summarizes and highlights management and ownership
trends and their implications, to the extent possible, and discusses the challenges associated with
comparing forest management across ownership classes. The report concludes with a discussion
of some general, crosscutting issues related to U.S. forests that may be of interest to Congress.
Methods for Analyzing U.S. Forests
The nationwide overview of forests in this report generally examines forest characteristics across
four regions within the United States: North, South, Rocky Mountains (or Rockies), and Pacific
Coast (or Pacific). (See Figure 1.) These regions correspond to those in the Forest Resources of
the United States report (hereinafter, FRUS), a decennial assessment of forest resources prepared
by the U.S. Forest Service (FS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture) pursuant to the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act.2 In a few cases, the report combines the four
regions or presents data at different regional scales. For example, some of the CRS analysis
compares forests in the eastern United States, which generally encompasses the North and South

1 This report primarily includes forest data and issues relevant to U.S. forests a whole. In-depth discussion of issues
specific to certain forests (e.g., federal forests) or concerns that may not be unique to forests (e.g., wildlife, outdoor
recreation, water) are beyond the scope of this report.
2 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, P.L. 93-378, 16 U.S.C. §1601. Sonja Oswalt et al., Forest
Resources of the United States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment,
Forest Service (FS), GTR-WO-97, 2019, at https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/57903 (hereinafter cited as Oswalt et al.,
FRUS 2017). Unless specifically noted, the report and data herein reflect forest resources in the conterminous United
States, Alaska, and Hawaii but do not reflect forest resources in U.S. territories. Some of the figures in the report do not
include Alaska and Hawaii due to data availability issues.
Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

regions, with forests in the western United States, which generally encompasses the Rocky
Mountain and Pacific Coast regions. The national and regional trends discussed in this report are
general and may mask site-specific differences or deviations from such trends. Most data in this
report derive from the decennial FRUS reports.3
Figure 1. U.S. Forest Regions in the Forest Resources of the United States Report

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), adapted from Sonja Oswalt et al., Forest Resources of the United
States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment, Forest Service (FS), GTR-
WO-97, 2019 (hereinafter, Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017), Figure I-1.
Notes: U.S. territories are not included. The conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Alaska are represented at
different scales. The Rocky Mountain region is the largest region in terms of land area, consisting of 759 mil ion
acres, fol owed by the Pacific Coast region at 575 mil ion acres. The South region consists of 552 mil ion acres,
and the North region is the smallest, at 414 mil ion acres.
The report compares forest management across different ownership classes. At the broadest level,
forest ownership is classified as either public (e.g., governmental) or private.4 There is
considerable variation within both classes. Public ownership is further classified into federal and
other public (e.g., state and local) ownership, and private ownership is further classified into
private corporate and private noncorporate, consistent with FRUS classes. This classification
system does not fully represent the heterogeneity within the private corporate, private
noncorporate, and other public forest ownership classes. This report primarily focuses on
comparing federal and nonfederal (private and other public) forests, due to the different

3 Because of this report’s reliance on decennial Forest Resources of the United States (FRUS) data, it is not intended to
be updated until, at minimum, new FRUS data are published.
4 For purposes of this report, an owner of a public forest generally refers to the governmental agency charged with
managing the forest resources.
Congressional Research Service

2

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

congressional roles in relation to forests in these ownership classes. It includes other comparisons
(e.g., between public and private forests) when circumstances warrant.
Role of Congress
Congress’s role with regard to the nation’s forests varies based on numerous factors, including
forest ownership. Congress has a direct role in the management of forests owned by the federal
government, for example, but may have a more general interest in nonfederally owned forests.
Congress also supports forestry research, which applies across all ownerships.
The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, §3, clause 2) authorizes Congress to
acquire, dispose of, and manage federal property. As such, Congress has the authority to enact
laws that address all aspects of managing federal forests and their resources. Much of Congress’s
legislative activity regarding federal forests primarily has focused on the four federal land
management agencies: the FS, in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the
Department of the Interior (see “Federal Forests” for more information).5 Other federal agencies
also own land containing forest resources, however. To fulfill its role under the Property Clause,
Congress has passed numerous laws regarding federal forest management, from authorizing the
federal land management agencies’ general management missions to authorizing federal forests to
be managed and used for specific purposes.6 Congress also appropriates funding for managing
federal forests.7 Some of these laws directly relate to federal forest management, whereas others
relate indirectly to federal forests (e.g., laws concerning wildlife or air and water resources).8
Congress’s role in nonfederal forest management is less direct and generally relates to authorizing
(and appropriating funding for) federal programs to provide assistance for nonfederal forest
management, ownership, and use.9 Such programs may provide federal assistance in the form of
financial, technical, or other resources to a nonfederal entity, such as a state or individual. Often,
federal assistance is for a specified purpose, such as to promote forest health, prevent conversion
of forest to non-forest use, protect wildlife habitat, and meet other objectives. Congress has
authorized such programs in several USDA agencies, including the FS, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and Farm Services Agency. Other federal agencies may administer
assistance programs focused on other topics—such as watersheds, energy, or wildlife—that also
may relate to nonfederal forest management.10 In addition, Congress has authorized assistance

5 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10585, The Federal Land Management Agencies, coordinated by Katie
Hoover.
6 For example, Congress established general management missions for specified federal lands through the Multiple-Use
Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (national forests; Act of June 12, 1960; P.L. 86-517, 16 U.S.C. §§528-531), the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (BLM public lands; P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.), the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Improvement Act of 1997 (NWRS, P.L. 105-57, 16 U.S.C. §§668dd et seq.), and the
National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (National Park System, 39 Stat. 535).
7 For more information, see CRS Report R46557, Forest Service Appropriations: Ten-Year Data and Trends (FY2011-
FY2020), by Katie Hoover.
8 For example, Congress addressed federal forest health directly in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148,
16 U.S.C. §§6501 et seq.). In contrast, the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) may impact
federal forest management but does not address it directly.
9 For example, Congress authorized the USDA to provide nonfederal forest assistance through the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act (P.L. 95-313, 16 U.S.C. §§2101 et seq.). For more information, see CRS Report R45219, Forest Service
Assistance Programs, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover, and CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A
Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs.
10 For example, federal assistance for Great Lakes water quality (P.L. 100-4, 33 U.S.C §1268) or federal outdoor
Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

programs to address forest issues internationally, largely in the FS and the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
Congress also authorizes and funds research related to forestry that can involve both federal and
nonfederal lands. In particular, Congress directed the FS to “conduct, support, and cooperate” in
forest and rangeland research, including basic and applied science, outreach, and cooperation
with nonfederal researchers.11 The FS also conducts and reports on the United States’
comprehensive forest inventory, the results of which form the basis of the FRUS (among other
products). Other agencies with research authorities also conduct research related to forests,
sometimes due to indirect relationships with other topics (e.g., energy, the environment).12 The
FS, other USDA agencies (e.g., the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture), and other federal
agencies (e.g., the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) also provide funding for
extramural research on forestry topics.
Background
The FRUS defines forests as lands dominated by trees.13 Forests also are ecosystems: groups of
living things (in this case, dominated by trees), the physical resources with which they interact,
and the resulting biotic and abiotic processes and cycles.14 Forests provide many ecological,
economic, and social resources (physical materials available in the environment) and uses
(human activities using forest resources or forest settings), many of which are listed below. A
forest’s health—generally, the status of its ecological integrity and ecosystem functioning—
influences its ability to provide these resources and uses. Forests are further influenced by forest
management—intentional, planned actions in forests to promote desired objectives.
This section discusses forest types, resources and uses, health, and management and introduces
concepts relevant to timber production. The forest health subsection includes a discussion on
wildfire but does not explore at length other factors influencing forest health (e.g., drought, insect
or diseases, weather events). Broad-scale regional variations are noted throughout these
background sections.
Forest Types
Forest ecosystems comprise physical characteristics (attributes of forest sites driven by nonliving
phenomena such as climate, latitude, and elevation) and biological characteristics (attributes of
the mix of species present on the site).15 This report focuses on an ecosystem’s physical
characteristics and the biological characteristics of a forest’s dominant tree species, although

recreation grants to states (P.L. 88-578, 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.) may relate to nonfederal forests.
11 Forests and Rangelands Renewable Resources Research Act, P.L. 95-307, 16 U.S.C. §1642.
12 For example, see the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation
mission, at https://gedi.umd.edu/ or the U.S. Geological Survey’s Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center,
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/fresc.
13 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, defines forests or forestland as parcels of land at least 120 feet wide and at least 1 acre in
size, with at least 10% cover by live trees, including land that formerly had such trees where the trees will regrow (such
as land where timber was recently harvested). Forestland does not include urban land or agricultural land that is
covered with trees (such as an orchard). Lands with less than 10% cover by live trees are known as woodlands.
14 David Perry, Ram Oren, and Stephen Hart, Forest Ecosystems (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,
2008). Hereinafter referred to as Perry, Oren, and Hart, Forest Ecosystems.
15 Perry, Oren, and Hart, Forest Ecosystems.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

other forest organisms also have biological characteristics. To describe a forest ecosystem as a
whole, physical and biological characteristics are jointly termed biophysical characteristics.
Physical characteristics vary according to both broad regional conditions and site-specific local
conditions and may influence which species can grow on a given site. On broad scales, regional
climate and latitude may determine factors such as average annual temperature, average annual
precipitation, and growing season length. These regional characteristics may vary further as they
interact with site-specific characteristics, such as elevation, soils, slope, and aspect; for example,
a site on top of a ridge is likely to be drier than one in a valley, although the two sites may receive
the same annual precipitation. Forests generally comprise species adapted to similar physical
conditions or similar frequencies of ecosystem phenomena that cause tree damage or death.
Although there are thousands of different tree species in the United States, trees can be divided
into two general types based on their biology. These biological differences influence their growth
characteristics and ranges:
 Softwoods are coniferous trees such as pine (Pinus sp.), fir (Abies sp.), Douglas
fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and spruce (Picea sp.). Softwood species grow
throughout the United States and dominate forests in the Rocky Mountain and
Pacific Coast regions and in some parts of the South.
 Hardwoods are non-coniferous, broadleaved trees such as oak (Quercus sp.),
maple (Acer sp.), walnut (Juglans sp.), and ash (Fraxinus sp.). Hardwood-
dominated forests grow almost exclusively in the North and South regions, with a
few commercially important species growing in California, Oregon, and
Washington.16
Hardwoods and softwoods may grow together in mixed forests, but one type grows exclusively in
many parts of the United States. (See Figure 2 for a map of forest types in the United States.)
Within the two types, forests come in groups of varying complexity, from forests dominated by
one or two species to forests with dozens of species. Trees’ biological characteristics also give
rise to different properties of growth—such as annual rates of growth or properties of strength or
stiffness—that influence their commercial desirability.

16 Michael Wiemann, “Characteristics and Availability of Commercially Important Wood,” in Wood Handbook: Wood
as an Engineering Material, FS, Forest Products Laboratory, FPL-GTR-282, 2021, p. 2-1.
Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 2. Forest Type Groups of the Contiguous United States, 2008

Source: CRS, using data from FS, “National Forest Type Dataset,” at https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/
rastergateway/forest_type/. This dataset does not include Alaska and Hawaii.
Forest Resources and Uses
Many factors influence the particular resources and uses a given forest provides. These factors
include the forest’s physical setting, its plant and animal species, and its ecological processes, as
well as the activities humans undertake in the forest. Forest resources and uses may be
complementary or in opposition to one another. As such, the management and use of forests are
perennially complex and often contentious issues. Some forest resources and uses include the
following:17
 Air. Through their growth processes, forests influence air, including carbon
dioxide, oxygen, and pollutants. Forests reduce air pollution, create oxygen
through photosynthesis, and consume carbon dioxide, ultimately sequestering
carbon in trees and soils. For example, in 2019, U.S. forests were a net sink of
greenhouse gases, meaning they sequestered more carbon from the atmosphere
than they released.18
 Animal Products. Due to the animal species that make up, reside in, and rely on
forests as part of their lifecycle, forests contribute to economically valuable
animal products, such as subsistence wildlife species or commercial anadromous
fish populations (e.g., salmon).

17 This report does not detail all of the possible ways forests are used and valued.
18 For more information, see CRS Report R46313, U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief, by Katie Hoover and Anne A.
Riddle.
Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

 Biodiversity. For the purposes of this report, biodiversity refers to the mix of
plant and animal species present in the forest.19 These species—either as a mix or
as individuals—may contribute to other resources and uses, such as recreational
experiences (e.g., hunting, fishing, leaf peeping) or animal products. In addition,
the biodiversity of plants and animals may, in and of itself, be valued.
 Forest Products. The economically valuable tissues of trees and plants are a
prominent use of forests. Forests provide timber (unprocessed cut trees), a critical
material for construction, paper products, and many other uses. Forests also
produce fuelwood and non-timber forest products, such as food, fiber, medicines,
decorative products, and others.
 Recreational and Cultural Uses. Forests may be used for recreational,
educational, scientific, and spiritual purposes. Various forest resources—for
example, plant and animal resources, water, and physical setting—may combine
to determine each site’s desirability for such uses.
 Water. Water cycles through forests, which influences its flow and quality. As
such, forests play an important role in providing water, improving its quality, and
mediating the risk of water-related disasters (e.g., floods, landslides). About 80%
of the nation’s fresh water originates from forests.20
 Other Resources and Land Uses. Additional uses for forests include grazing,
energy and mineral development, and infrastructure and building siting.
Forests’ various uses and values may inform forest owners’ management choices or approaches.21
Owners may find a number of resources or uses to be significant or may be required or
constrained by law in how they treat certain forest resources or uses (or mixes of the two).
Forest Ecological Health
Forest health is not easily defined.22 One definition of forest health relates to a forest’s capacity to
provide ecological and economic goods; another definition generally refers to ecological integrity
and functioning, or a forest ecosystem’s ability to respond to forest health stressors, or
disturbances (e.g., wildfires, ice or wind storms, insect and disease infestations, timber
harvests).23 Forest ecosystems have inherent characteristics that enhance their capability to
survive such events (resistance) or facilitate recovery after disturbance (resilience). Some tree
species are adapted to specific disturbances occurring at regular intervals. Forest health stressors

19 Biodiversity can also refer to biological variation at other scales, such as the genetic or ecosystem scales.
20 James Sedell et al., Water and the Forest Service, FS-660, 2000.
21 For purposes of this report, an owner of a public forest generally refers to the governmental agency charged with
managing the forest resources.
22 For a discussion of forest health concepts, see T. E. Kolb, M. R. Wagner, and W. W. Covington, Forest Health from
Different Perspectives, FS, RMR-GTR-267, 1995, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/23480; for a discussion
of ecosystem health generally, see Robert Costanza, “Toward an Operational Definition of Ecosystem Health,” in
Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, eds. Robert Costanza, Bryan Norton, and Benjamin
Haskell (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992).
23 Disturbance is defined as “any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystems, community, or population
structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment.” Steward T. A. Pickett and P. S.
White, The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics (Orlando: Academic Press, 1985). Disturbance events
may be unplanned (e.g., precipitation events) or planned (e.g., harvest, prescribed fire).
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 23 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

may be biotic or abiotic, natural or anthropogenic, and may vary among biophysical regions and
local environments.
Forest health is also difficult to measure.24 Often, variables related to biophysical or ecological
characteristics are used to indicate measures of forest health, such as tree damage or mortality.
These indicator variables may be measured individually—or, more often, in combination—as a
proxy for measuring ecosystem function. In some cases, ecosystem function is assessed by the
degree of departure from a baseline or reference condition. For example, the FS uses watershed
function as one method of evaluating the condition of national forests; to do so, the FS uses a
combination of 12 different indicator variables to measure watershed function relative to a
baseline condition.25
The following sections discuss tree mortality and describe three interrelated forest health issues:
insect and disease infestations, adverse weather events, and wildfire-related issues.26
Tree Mortality
Some level of tree damage or mortality is expected in a forest, but high levels at large scales may
indicate declining or degraded forest health. Degraded forest ecosystems, for example, may take
longer to recover from or may be more susceptible to mortality in response to disturbances or
other health stressors. Different disturbances also may interact and exacerbate the effects of other
events in a feedback loop. For example, a prolonged drought may impair a tree’s resistance to an
insect or disease infestation or may make a tree more susceptible to damage during a wildfire.
Some research indicates that climate variability is reshaping forest landscapes by altering the
frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance events in ways that may exceed many forests’
resistance and resilience capacities.27
Nationwide, FS reported that about 10 billion cubic feet of tree mortality was observed in 2016.28
In many cases, mortality can be attributed to multiple, sometimes interrelated, causes. This figure
includes mortality related to disturbances such as insect and disease infestations, adverse weather
events (e.g., drought; excessive moisture, wind, or ice), and wildfires. Each cause’s relative
contribution can be difficult to determine.
In the eastern United States (which most closely coincides with the North and South regions in
this report), tree mortality is low relative to tree growth, meaning new tree growth can replace
tree mortality relatively quickly.29 In many parts of the western United States (which most closely
coincides with the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions in this report), tree mortality can be

24 See, for example, D. J. Rapport, R. Costanza, and A. J. McMichael, “Assessing Ecosystem Health,” Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, vol. 13, no. 10 (October 1998), pp. 397-402.
25 For more information, see the FS, “Watershed Condition Framework,” at https://www.fs.fed.us/naturalresources/
watershed/condition_framework.shtml.
26 Other issues affecting forest health (e.g., potential impacts from climate change) are beyond the scope of this report.
27 James M. Vose, David L. Peterson, and Toral Patel-Weynard, Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest
Ecosystems: a Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S., FS, PNW-GTR-870, 2012, at
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42610.
28 This figure reflects mortality as reported on U.S. timberlands. Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 33. For
more on timberlands, see “Forest Ownership Overview and Data.”
29 Kevin M. Potter and Barbara L. Conkling, Forest Health Monitoring: National Status, Trends, and Analysis 2020,
FS, GTR-SRS-261, July 2021, p. 27, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62839 (hereinafter cited as Potter and
Conkling, FHM 2020). The regions in the FHM 2020 report differ from the regions used in this report, which are
derived from regions in the FRUS. For a map of the FHM 2020 regions, see FS, “Forest Health Highlights,” at
https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/protecting-forest/forest-health-monitoring/monitoring-forest-highlights.shtml.
Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

very high as a percentage of live volume or growth. In 2019, regions in the West experienced the
greatest extent of certain individual disturbances relative to the rest of the country, such as insect
and disease infestations, particularly in the Interior West (i.e., the Rockies).
Insect and Disease Infestations
According to some forest scientists, insects and diseases “represent the most serious threats to the
Nation’s forests” and have the potential for widespread ecological and economic impacts.30 Both
native and non-native invasive species present these threats. Insect and disease infestations vary
in their impact on forest ecosystems. Some insects are defoliators and damage trees by eating
their leaves and needles, disrupting the photosynthesis process (e.g., western spruce budworm).
Other insects, diseases, and pathogens damage trees internally (e.g., mountain pine beetles). Both
defoliation and internal damage can lead to tree mortality, though tree species vary in their
tolerance of different pests. For example, some hardwood species generally may be more resilient
to short-term defoliation events than some coniferous species, because they can refoliate in the
same year.
The FS’s Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program annually reports the status of and trends in
forest insect and disease conditions nationally and regionally.31 The FHM program primarily
conducts these reports from a landscape perspective and not by ownership class, given the
regional extent of many infestations. In 2019, the FHM report included a retrospective on forest
health conditions from 1997 through 2016, by FRUS region.32 Across the 20-year period, insect-
and disease-related mortality was highest nationwide from 2002 to 2006 and highest in the
Rockies, relative to the other regions. These data reflect the significant impacts of the mountain
pine beetle in the Rockies, specifically from 2002 to 2011. Over the 20-year period, insects were
more widespread agents of mortality than diseases, and bark beetles were consistently the most
important mortality agent across regions and over time, especially in the West. During this period,
the North saw a larger proportion of tree mortality attributed to non-native invasive species than
the other regions. More recently, from 2012 to 2016, insect- and disease-related mortality was
highest in the Pacific Coast region.
Adverse Weather Events
Certain weather events adversely affect forest health. These events include discrete weather
events, such as hurricanes, and events that occur over longer periods, such as droughts.
Hurricanes, for example, can result in excessive precipitation and soil moisture, which deprive
tree roots of oxygen for a prolonged period. Hurricanes and other weather events also can include
high winds that break or uproot individual trees or groups of trees, an occurrence sometimes
referred to as windthrow or blowdown. Winter storms that result in large accumulations of ice on
tree branches also can result in damage or mortality to individual trees or groups of trees.
Drought occurs when there is a deficiency of moisture.33 Although a lack of precipitation is often
central to drought, high temperatures, high winds, lack of clouds, and low humidity also can
contribute. Droughts may be seasonal, multiyear, or multi-decadal in duration. Variable

30 Potter and Conkling, FHM 2020.
31 Potter and Conkling, FHM 2020.
32 Kevin M. Potter et al., Forest Health Monitoring: National Status, Trends, and Analysis 2019, FS, GTR-SRS-250,
2020, pp. 125-150, at https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/60380.
33 Text in this paragraph is drawn from CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and
Selected Federal Authorities, coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 15 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

precipitation levels and rising temperatures are intensifying droughts, particularly in some
regions. Further, drought may affect certain regions of the United States on a short- or longer-
term basis, with varying intensity over time. For example, the North has rarely experienced
extreme or exceptional drought levels since 2000;34 in contrast, periods of extreme and
exceptional drought have been relatively common in the West since 2000.35
Trees absorb water from precipitation through their leaves or from the soil through their roots,
and they use that water to fuel growth and many other internal processes. Droughts can alter the
pattern, frequency, and total amount of water available to trees, which can disrupt those
processes. Drought-stressed trees are more susceptible to disease infections and insect invasions
than comparable trees not affected by drought. Because droughts reduce the overall moisture in a
tree, drought-stressed trees are also more susceptible to ignition during a wildfire event. In
addition, drought-stressed trees may take longer to recover from adverse events, such as impacts
from wildfires or insect infestations. Further, the detrimental impacts of drought may continue for
many years after the adverse event has concluded.
Wildfires
Wildfires are unplanned fires occurring in vegetated ecosystems. Wildfires are sometimes caused
by lightning strikes but are more frequently caused by human activities (deliberate or accidental),
such as sparks from equipment or campfires or loss of control over a prescribed burn. Weather
conditions (e.g., heat, humidity, and wind) and fuel conditions (e.g., the moisture content and
distribution of vegetation) affect wildfire spread and intensity. Wildfires can have some beneficial
impacts on an ecosystem, but they often threaten homes, communities, and other valuable
resources.
Different forest ecosystems have adapted to different wildfire frequencies and intensities,
sometimes referred to as fire regimes. Some ecosystems are adapted to relatively frequent, low-
intensity fires that burn the surface fuels (e.g., grasses, needles, leaves). Others are adapted to
periodic, high-intensity fires that spread across the forest canopy and kill much of the vegetation,
known as stand-replacing fires. Still other ecosystems are adapted to a mix of fire frequencies and
severities. (See Figure 3.)

34 Drought conditions impacting broad-scale areas are classified as ranging from abnormally dry to exceptionally dry,
according to a scale developed by the U.S. Drought Monitor, a federal and nonfederal partnership that researches,
monitors, and reports drought conditions. For more information on drought, see U.S. Drought Monitor, “Current Map,”
at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ and CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and
Selected Federal Authorities, coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec.
35 For example, most of the western United States experienced widespread drought conditions in 2021, and California
experienced severe droughts from 2012 to 2016.
Congressional Research Service

10

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 3. U.S. Historical Fire Regime Groups

Sources: CRS, from FS and Department of the Interior, Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning
Tools (LANDFIRE) Program, “Fire Regime Group Dataset,” at https://www.landfire.gov/frg.php, and FS, Fire
Effects Information System: Synthesis About Fire Ecology and Fire Regimes in the United States, 2012, at
https://www.feis-crs.org/feis/.
Notes: White areas on the map reflect lakes or rivers, landscapes with indeterminate fire regime characteristics,
or landscapes classified as barren, snow/ice, or sparsely vegetated. Alaska contains a mix predominantly of Fire
Regime Group IV, and Fire Regime Group V, with a few areas classified as Fire Regime Group III and other
landscapes that are snow or ice or of indeterminate fire regime characteristics. Hawaii contains a mix of
predominantly Fire Regime Group I and Fire Regime Group V, with a few areas classified as Fire Regime Group
III and other landscapes that are barren or of indeterminate fire regime characteristics. Severity is characterized
by the percentage of the forest overstory that is damaged or replaced. Low-severity fires replace less than 25%
of the dominant overstory, mixed-severity fires replace up to 75% of the overstory, and high-severity fires
replace more than than 75% of the overstory.
Fire patterns are driven, in part, by an ecosystem’s biophysical characteristics. Southern
ecosystems are adapted to relatively frequent wildfires, whereas northern ecosystems are adapted
to relatively infrequent wildfires. Ecosystems in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast region are
adapted to a variety of fire patterns.
Other factors also influence fire behavior and patterns, including management (related in part to
the accumulation or removal of biomass) and patterns of development near or within the
ecosystem. The area where structures (usually homes) are intermingled with—or adjacent to—
vegetated wildlands (e.g., forests or rangelands) is the wildland-urban interface.36 The proximity

36 V. C. Radeloff et al., “The Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States,” Ecological Applications, vol. 15, no. 3
(2005), pp. 799-805.
Congressional Research Service

11

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

to vegetated landscapes may put these areas at an increased risk of experiencing wildfires and
associated damage (and may increase the complexity and cost of wildfire suppression efforts in
and near the wildland-urban interface).
In many forest ecosystems in the United States, historic fire patterns have been disrupted,
primarily by prevention and suppression efforts aimed at minimizing fire and undesirable fire
impacts. The wide-scale exclusion of fire across many different ecosystems had unintended
effects, such as an accumulation of vegetation.37 The increased vegetation, or biomass, can serve
as fuel that increases the intensity and spread of wildfires, making them more difficult to contain
or suppress, or otherwise impacting the existing forest’s resistance and resiliency. The increased
biomass also can facilitate the transmission of insects and diseases into forests or may alter the
species composition of a forest, potentially diminishing desirable species. Nearly all forest
ecosystems in the United States have exhibited fire-exclusion impacts, though the effects may be
most pronounced on forests historically adapted to frequent, low-severity fire regimes (e.g., Fire
Regime Group I).
Mitigating Wildfire Risk
Wildfire is an ecological process, and wildfires wil occur in forests regardless of their ecological conditions.
Severe wildfires cannot be prevented or mitigated in certain ecosystems. For example, some ecosystems (e.g.,
lodgepole pines in the Rocky Mountain region) are adapted to high-severity, stand-replacing fires, and these fires
are crucial to ecosystem functions (e.g., the high temperatures from fires release the seeds to facilitate
propagation). In forests adapted to low-severity fires, however, a high-severity fire could have damaging ecological
impacts. Degraded forest ecosystems may contribute to and benefit from fire, whereas some functioning
ecosystems may be severely damaged by fires. Because of this, the overarching forest health concern related to
wildfire is the extent to which the pattern of fire frequency and severity deviates from the historical fire regime.
Therefore, a forest health objective of many forest managers and scientists is to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic
fire rather than to reduce the risk of fire generally. Relatedly, another forest health objective is to facilitate the
return of historic fire patterns specific to the forest type.
Measuring or assessing the effects of wildfire is complex. Most wildfire statistics—such as
number of fires or acres impacted—are indicators of wildfire activity but do not convey a
wildfire’s ecological impact (or the degree of impacts to humans or communities). Acreage
impacted is also an imperfect metric, as in many cases it is influenced by specific management
decisions, most notably decisions regarding whether a fire is aggressively suppressed or allowed
to burn without significant intervention.
Nonetheless, nationwide data indicate that the number of annual wildfires is variable but
decreased slightly over the last 30 years. Data also show that the number of acres burned or
impacted annually, while also variable, generally increased over the same period. More wildfires
occur in the eastern United States (e.g., North and South regions), but wildfires are much larger in
the western regions (e.g., Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions). In 2020, nearly 59,000
wildfires affected 10.1 million acres nationwide, the second-most acreage impacted in any year
since record keeping began.38 In 2020, 93% of the acreage impacted was in the western regions of
the country, but that accounted for only 43% of the fires.

37 See for example, Robert E. Keane et al., Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion in Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: A
Literature Review, FS, RMRS-GTR-91, 2002; or Charles W. Lafon, Fire History of the Appalachian Region: A Review
and Synthesis, FS, SRS-GTR-219, 2017.
38 Historical fire statistics were first reported in 1960, but data collected prior to 1983 were reported using different
methodologies and may not be considered official records. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), Total Wildland
Fires and Acres (1983-2020), at https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires (hereinafter cited as NIFC,
Total Wildland Fires and Acres). For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10244, Wildfire Statistics, by Katie
Hoover and Laura A. Hanson.
Congressional Research Service

12

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Most wildfires are caused by human activities, but lightning-caused fires tend to be much larger
than human-caused fires. For example, in 2020, lightning caused 9% of the fires but those fires
accounted for 41% of the acreage impacted that year.
Forest Management
Forest management occurs for various reasons, which typically are chosen by the manager—the
person or group of people with the authority to take action on the land (often, the owner). Forest
management is characterized by the application of silviculture—the process of controlling the
establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of trees.39 Because trees dominate forest
ecosystems, silviculture is used to manage for many forest resources, including recreation, timber,
water resources, and wildlife. This section focuses on silvicultural activities, because the practice
of these activities is unique to forests. Some forest management practices may not involve
manipulation of trees (e.g., activities related to roads, developed sites, or others) and are not
described in depth here.
Individual forest management activities can serve a range of purposes, including multiple,
simultaneous purposes. For example, thinning—or systematically removing part of—tree stands
can reduce both the risk of insect and disease infestations and resource competition, meaning a
manager may choose to thin tree stands to increase timber production, improve forest health, or
both. Other activities may serve a single purpose; for example, fertilizer treatments are used
almost exclusively to increase timber production. Some silvicultural treatments and their purposes
include the following:
 Prescribed fire, the intentional use of fire, may reduce fuels, restore fire-adapted
species, or otherwise promote desirable ecological conditions (particularly in
areas where fire has been excluded).
 Thinning is the process of systematically removing part of a stand to improve
the remaining trees’ overall quality. Thinning can be pre-commercial, if the
removed trees have no saleable value, or commercial, if the trees can be sold.
Thinning differs from timber harvesting in that its main purposes are to reduce
stand density and decrease resource competition for the trees remaining on-site.
 Timber stand improvement is a term that typically applies to managing a forest
for timber production. It includes any activities not otherwise listed that improve
stand quality and productivity, such as weeding; pruning; using chemical
treatments, such as fertilizing or applying herbicides; and culling individual
unwanted trees, such as those that are damaged, diseased, or poorly formed.
 Timber harvesting includes any practice where many trees are removed from a
forest. Managers can perform tree harvesting with a range of intensity, from a so-
called clearcut or regeneration harvest (removal of all trees) to selective
harvesting (removal of trees of a specific size, age, species, or condition). Timber
harvesting can include salvage: harvest of dead, diseased, fallen, or damaged
trees. Timber harvesting differs from thinning in that regeneration—growth of
new trees—is a primary goal.
 Tree planting and site preparation activities may increase productivity in
various ways. Compared with forests that regenerate naturally, planting trees
offers greater control over species and genetic mix, tree spacing, and other
factors that increase productivity. Managers can conduct site preparation

39 FS, “Silviculture,” at https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/vegetation-management/silviculture/index.shtml.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 22 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

activities that enhance productivity, such as control of other vegetation, in
concert with planting. Planting is a relatively costly management activity and is
most commonly performed to establish plantations for timber production
purposes. However, managers may perform planting for other purposes, such as
post-wildfire revegetation or reestablishment of desirable species.
This list is not exhaustive; in particular, it primarily relates to silvicultural management of forests
that will remain forests and excludes non-silvicultural actions. In addition, forest management can
involve intentionally not taking action. For example, some wildlife species rely on standing dead
trees, so excluding harvesting or allowing certain pest and disease conditions may be part of
managing for these species.
The management activities performed on U.S. forests vary widely, although trends exist within
ownership classes. Management can range from no active management by the landowner to
frequent management for one or more values in practically endless combinations of activities. As
one example, to restore habitat for a fire-adapted songbird species, managers may apply
prescribed fire repeatedly, harvest selected undesirable trees, plant trees and understory plants for
food and cover, and reroute trails and roads.
Some forest management activities may focus on responding to health stressors to reduce risk to
people or timber resources or to promote other forest values. The extent to which various forest
management practices can prevent, treat, or facilitate recovery from disturbances varies by the
specific disturbance agent. Further, the extent to which forest management practices can
demonstrably improve forest health conditions is difficult to assess. Attributing forest health
outcomes to any specific forest management activity is difficult, in part due to challenges in
measuring such outcomes. It is likewise difficult to compare forest health conditions or outcomes
across different forests. However, there is some debate regarding the extent to which certain
forest management activities—particularly related to timber production—exacerbate or improve
degraded forest health conditions (see “Timber Production and Forest Health,” below).
Active and Intensive Management
The terms active management and intensive management are frequently used to describe forest management
regimes with certain characteristics (although definitions and usage may vary). The descriptions below define the
terms for the purposes of this report and il ustrate some of the more common usages.

Active management generally refers to management regimes consisting of planned activities to promote
desired objectives. Active management can employ a wide variety of activities in pursuit of an equally wide
variety of forest management goals. For example, a landowner could actively manage a forest for timber
production, water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, scenery, or a combination of all of these
resources and uses. Active management primarily contrasts with passive management—little to no planned
intervention—rather than referring to specific objectives or actions.

Intensive Management generally refers to management regimes consisting of many planned activities to
optimize tree growth for timber production. For example, managers may plant genetically improved trees,
use herbicides to exclude other vegetation, apply fertilizer, thin frequently, and clear-cut the forest at the
desired age, while establishing and maintaining a road network for equipment access. Tree planting is often
part of an intensive management regime and occurs primarily for growing important commercial softwood
species. These sites are often managed as plantations, where the sites are intentionally planted in uniform
rows of one selected, commercially valuable species.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Timber Production
The United States is the world’s largest producer and consumer of wood for industrial
manufacturing.40 Thus, production of timber—cut trees, the raw material from which wood
products are made—from U.S. forests is often of interest to Congress. This section discusses how
certain biophysical factors and forest management activities influence timber productivity (the
amount of biomass that a forest produces over a given time) and decisions regarding timber
harvesting. This section also discusses the relationship between timber production and forest
health and notes broad-scale regional variations.
Biophysical Factors
The physical characteristics of forests drive their productivity potential. Regional and local
physical factors appear to set upper limits on vegetation productivity.41 The FS categorizes land’s
potential for growing trees through productivity classes, or ranges of potential volume growth per
acre per year (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Forest Acres in Productivity Classes, 2017, by Region
(by potential cubic feet of growth per acre per year)

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 4.
Notes: Productivity classes are broad ranges of potential annual tree growth on a given parcel of land. Productivity
classes are determined by physical factors, such as precipitation, temperature, and soils. Data are from 2017.
Trends in productivity classes generally are driven by common broad-scale factors within regions,
such as similar temperature or moisture regimes. For example, the Rocky Mountain region, which
is the most arid of the four regions, has the least land in the most productive classes. By contrast,
the South has the most land in the most productive classes, perhaps due to the region’s abundant
precipitation and long growing seasons. Although the North receives abundant precipitation, its
relatively shorter growing seasons and lower average temperatures may limit the amount of land
in the highest productivity classes. The Pacific Coast region, which includes forests with very

40 Consuelo Brandeis et al., “Status and Trends for the U.S. Forest Products Sector: A Technical Document Supporting
the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment,” FS, GTR- SRS-25855, 2021. Wood is also used for purposes other than
industrial manufacturing, such as personal fuelwood use.
41 Thomas Crow, Daniel Dey, and Don Reimenschneider, “Forest Productivity: Producing Goods and Services for
People,” FS, FS-GTR-NC246, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 21 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

different temperature and moisture regimes, has both the most land in the lowest productivity
classes and the second-most land in the highest productivity class.
A forest’s productivity and desirability for timber production also depend on the tree species
present—particularly, the mix of hardwoods and softwoods.42 In broad terms, the commercial
softwoods in the United States grow faster than the commercial hardwoods, making softwoods
the prevailing species in U.S. timber markets. In 2017, the United States produced about 10.7
million cubic feet of softwood roundwood equivalents, compared with 5.3 million cubic feet of
hardwoods.43 Important U.S. timber producing regions, and the prevalence of certain management
practices, often center on softwood silviculture.
Examples of Productivity Differences in Commercial Tree Species
Selected examples il ustrate the broad differences between some significant commercial softwood and hardwood
species. For example, forestry researchers in Georgia specify that the softwood loblol y pine, one of the most
commercially important species of the South, is generally harvested before 35 years of age. In the specific case of
harvest at the age of 33, loblol y pine may yield up to 55 tons of sawtimber per acre. Conversely, at 30 years of
age, mixed upland hardwoods in Georgia are not expected to yield any merchantable sawtimber; these trees only
have yields of 40 tons per acre or more beginning in year 50. In other states, foresters suggest rotation ages that
may exceed 100 years for certain hardwoods. By contrast, the most commercially important timber species in the
Pacific Coast region, Douglas fir, may be grown in periods of approximately 30-50 years.
Sources: Dickens et al., “Natural and Artificial Loblol y Pine Regeneration and Upland Mixed Hardwoods Natural
Regeneration Economic Comparisons Using Three Stumpage Price Sets,” Warnell School of Forestry, University
of Georgia, 2014; Eini Lowell et al., “Effect of Rotation Age and Thinning Regime on Visual and Structural Grades
of Douglas Fir Logs,” Forests, vol. 9 (2018), pp. 576-593; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Chapter
52: Central Hardwood Cover Type,” in Silviculture Handbook, 2009.
Management and Productivity
Over regional scales, the combination of biophysical factors and management trends determines
forest productivity. Biophysical factors, such as a site’s productivity class, form the underlying
basis for forest productivity. The choice of forest management further influences productivity by
impacting species mix, growth rate, and other factors.
Management is often regionally distributed and may significantly influence productivity. For
example, in 2017, most plantations existed in five states in the South and two states in the Pacific
Coast regions.44 In the South, plantations accounted for nearly half of all softwood volume, two-
thirds of annual softwood growth, and four-fifths of annual softwood removals but less than one-
fifth of overall forest area, suggesting significant impacts of management on productivity.45
Forest productivity can be measured by the net volume of trees on the landscape at a given point
in time (in Figure 5, the amount of timber on timberland) in conjunction with the annual growth,

42 Despite this nomenclature, there is significant variation in growth and wood characteristics between and within these
classes—in particular, wood from hardwoods is not necessarily harder than wood from softwoods.
43 James Howard and Shaobo Liang, “U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics, 1965-2017,”
FS, FPL-RP-701, 2019. Roundwood refers to the main stem of the tree. Timber can be measured by volume (e.g., cubic
feet or board feet, a measure of 12 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch) or weight (e.g., tons). Timber measurement units are
a matter of choice and cannot be directly converted between one another. The FRUS primarily uses cubic feet to
measure timber, and as such, most measures in this report also use cubic feet. However, other sources may use board
feet or measures of weight.
44 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 41. The southern states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In
these states, 71% of planted acres are commercially important loblolly-shortleaf pine forests. The Pacific Coast states
are Oregon and Washington, where the majority of planted acres are Douglas fir.
45 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 42.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 22 link to page 19 link to page 21

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

or the overall amount of tree biomass that forestland accrues in a year. Together, these measures
account for both management and biophysical factors in the amount of available timber and how
quickly additional timber is added.
Figure 5. Measures of Timber Productivity, 2017

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Tables 17, 36, 39.
Common broad-scale biophysical factors and management trends within each region generally
drive standing volume and net annual growth across forests in that region. For example, in 2017,
the Rocky Mountain region had the lowest net annual growth of the four regions, which may
reflect the generally low productivity of forestlands (see Figure 4) and high rates of mortality in
the region. The South, with its generally high productivity and many intensely managed acres,
had the highest rate of net annual growth. The North had the second-most-abundant standing
timber volume but less land in high-productivity classes than the South or Pacific Coast regions
(see Figure 4). Intensive management is also less common in the North than in other regions,
which may have resulted in relatively lower net annual growth. The Pacific Coast region had less
abundant standing timber volume and lower net annual growth than the North and South regions.
The Pacific Coast region was relatively similar to the North region in annual net growth,
however, perhaps due to the relatively high proportion of Pacific Coast land in the highest
productivity class and the use of intensive forestry practices.
Harvest
As described above, the amount of timber a forest ultimately produces depends on if, when, and
how the forest is harvested. Depending on a manager’s goals, resources, and constraints, a forest
may never be harvested, regardless of productivity. Some forests may be harvested infrequently
or not at all, such as those for which the manager has non-harvest-related goals (e.g., privacy,
scenic beauty, recreational use); those that are costly to harvest (e.g., remote forests, forests in
rugged terrain; or those that are unlikely to be profitable due to species, wood quality, or
processing and transporting costs).
Ultimately, regional biophysical and management trends influence the likelihood of forests being
harvested. Forests grown for the primary purpose of timber production are more likely to be
intensively managed than forests grown for multiple purposes or for primary purposes other than
timber production (though management actions, and timber harvesting, still may occur in these
forests).
Figure 6 provides statistics on timber harvesting in the United States. As with trends in
productivity, regional trends in timber harvesting are driven by common broad-scale factors. For
example, the Rocky Mountain region, with its relatively low-productivity land, low growth rates,
and high mortality (see Figure 4 and Figure 5), had the least timber harvest in 2017. The South,
with its generally high productivity, high annual growth rates, and large timber stocks, had the
most timber harvest overall. The North, with its abundant standing timber volume and relatively
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 11 link to page 11

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

higher annual growth of hardwoods, had the second-most hardwood harvest. Similarly, although
the Pacific Coast region had less abundant standing timber volume than some regions, its
relatively high annual growth rate and abundant standing volume of softwoods made it the
second-most-significant softwood region.
Figure 6. Annual Roundwood Timber Harvest, by Region and Type, 2017

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Tables 17, 36, 39.
Notes: Roundwood refers to the main stem of the tree. Other materials created in harvesting trees are not
included, particularly logging residues, the unused portions of harvested trees left at the harvest site. Annual
hardwood roundwood harvest in the Rocky Mountain region is less than 1%.
Timber Production and Forest Health
Timber production and forest health are interrelated. Managers’ timber production choices and
other forest uses and conditions mutually influence one another (i.e., timber production can affect
forest health, and forest health conditions can affect timber production). In broad terms, timber
harvesting activities and any management actions intended to promote tree growth (e.g.,
plantation forestry, pesticide and fertilizer application) affect aspects of forest health. At the same
time, forest health affects timber production by influencing harvest choices. For example, a land
manager may harvest timber that otherwise would not have been harvested to forestall a disease
outbreak, or a manager may not be able to profitably harvest timber due to insect damage. This
mutual influence complicates any conclusion that timber harvests drive forest health outcomes;
rather, at times, forest health conditions may drive harvest decisions, because forest health and
timber production exist in a dynamic, interrelated system.
As described above, forest health is difficult to define and measure (see “Forest Ecological
Health”), and no single comprehensive measure of forest health exists. For these reasons, it is
difficult to draw broad conclusions about timber harvesting’s impact on forest health. However,
there are some known links between timber production and individual forest uses, resources, or
functions. These links may relate to certain kinds of timber harvesting or to activities commonly
undertaken to support timber production (e.g., the use of plantation forestry or pesticides).
Similarly, there are some known links between forest health and timber production decisions.
Some timber production-related activities may negatively affect aspects of forest health, whereas
others may positively impact aspects of forest health. For example, forests’ resistance and
resilience depend on biodiversity at multiple scales, and natural forests—as opposed to
plantations—are usually more suitable as habitat for a wider range of native forest species.46

46 United Nations Environment Programme, Convention on Biological Diversity, Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and
Climate Change, CBD Technical Series No. 43, 2009; and Eckehard Brockerhoff et al., “Plantation Forests and
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Certain forest management practices, such as timber harvesting or fertilizer application, can
negatively affect water quality and temperature.47 Some silvicultural activities disturb or compact
soils.48 The degree of many of these impacts depends on the specific timber production practices.
Specific management actions may mitigate negative effects; for example, use of certain practices
can allow plantation forests to provide habitat, and can lessen the water quality impacts of timber
harvesting or can reduce impacts to soils (though it is unclear if such effects can be completely
eliminated).49
In some cases, the relationship between timber production activities and forest health is less clear-
cut. For example, mortality from pests, diseases, and abiotic disturbances tends to be lower in
intensively managed, planted forests than in natural forests, but practices used to control these
disturbances may lead to other concerns.50 Similarly, it is unclear how tree planting or past timber
harvest influences the likelihood of some wildfire activity.51
Aspects of forest health, such as disturbances, also can drive timber-harvesting decisions.
Managers may choose to preemptively harvest to forestall future disturbances, or they may
salvage trees killed or damaged by disturbances. Some harvesting activities, such as thinning, can
mitigate current disturbances or reduce the likelihood of future disturbances.52 However, a
harvest’s effectiveness in addressing disturbance depends on the harvesting practices used and is
not always understood. For example, some forms of thinning can worsen infestations of some
pests and diseases, while controlling others.53 Some experts argue that timber harvests in response
to future or past disturbances can have worse ecosystem impacts than the disturbances
themselves.54 As with any timber harvesting activity, impacts likely depend on the harvest’s scale,
scope, and methods.
Forest Ownership Overview and Data
As of 2017, there were 765 million acres of forestland in the United States, the majority of which
(58%) were privately owned (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Table 1).55 The distribution of

Biodiversity: Oxymoron or Opportunity?,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 17, no. 5 (2008), pp. 925-951.
47 Dan Binkley, Heather Burnham, and H. Lee Allen, “Water Quality Impacts of Forest Fertilization with Nitrogen and
Phosphorus,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 121, no. 3 (1999), pp. 191-213.
48 Leslee Crawford et al., Soil Sustainability and Harvest Operations: A Review, FS, GTR-RMRS-421, 2021.
49 Mitschka Hartley, “Rationale and Methods for Conserving Biodiversity in Plantation Forests,” Forest Ecology and
Management, vol. 155, no. 1-3 (2002), pp. 81-95; and Richard Cristan et al., “Effectiveness of Forestry Best
Management Practices in the United States: A Literature Review,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 360 (2016),
pp. 133-151.
50 Peter Gadgil and John Bain, “Vulnerability of Planted Forests to Biotic and Abiotic Disturbances,” New Forests, vol.
17, no. 1-3 (1999), pp. 227-238.
51 Jonathan Thompson, Thomas Spies, and Lisa Ganio, “Reburn Severity in Managed and Unmanaged Vegetation in a
Large Wildfire,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 25 (2007), pp. 10743-10748.
52 Christopher Fettig et al., “Cultural Practices for Prevention and Mitigation of Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations,”
Forest Science, vol. 60, no. 3 (2014), pp. 450-463 (hereinafter cited as Fettig et al., “Mountain Pine Beetle
Infestations”); John Nowak et al., “Southern Pine Beetle Infestations in Relation to Forest Stand Conditions, Previous
Thinning, and Prescribed Burning: Evaluation of the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Program,” Journal of Forestry,
vol. 113, no. 5 (2015), pp. 454-462; and Scott Stephens et al., “The Effect of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the
United States,” BioScience, vol. 62, no. 6 (2012), pp. 549-560.
53 Fettig et al., “Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations.”
54 David Foster and David Orwig, “Preemptive and Salvage Harvesting of New England Forests: When Doing Nothing
Is a Viable Alternative,” Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 4 (2006), pp. 959-970.
55 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 2.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 link to page 27 link to page 32

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

ownership classes varied across the four major regions of the United States, with significant
differences between the eastern regions (i.e., North, South) and the western regions (i.e., Rocky
Mountain, Pacific Coast) (see Figure 8). Most forests in the eastern regions were private,
whereas most forests in the western regions were public.
Figure 7. Forest Ownership in the Conterminous United States Circa 2014

Source: CRS analysis of data from Jaketon H. Hewes, Brett J. Butler, and Greg C. Liknes, Forest Ownership in the
Conterminous United States Circa 2014: Geospatial Data Set, FS Research Data Archive, 2017, at https://doi.org/
10.2737/RDS-2017-0007.
Notes: Data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, or the U.S. territories.
Privately owned forests are further classified as corporate and noncorporate, with additional
classifications within the noncorporate ownership category. Public forests are classified as either
federal or other public, a category that includes state, county, and municipal forests. Nonfederal
forests include the private and other public FRUS ownership classes. For more detail on the
private and public ownership classes, see “Federal Forests” and “Nonfederal Forests,” below.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 8. U.S. Forest Ownership, 2017

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 2.
Notes: The regions correspond to the regions in the FRUS; see Figure 1.
In 2017, two-thirds (514 million acres) of U.S. forests were classified as timberlands.56
Timberlands are a subset of forestland, consisting of forests producing or capable of producing
crops of industrial wood that are not withdrawn from timber use by statute or regulation. Forests
classified as timberlands include areas that may not be logistically or financially available for
timber production.57
The distribution of timberland by ownership varies from that of forest ownership generally (see
Table 1). Notably, in 2017, timberlands were more common in privately owned forests than in
publicly owned forests. Specifically, whereas 58% of all U.S. forests were privately owned, 70%
of U.S. timberlands were privately owned.58 This pattern is most pronounced in the Pacific, where
a larger portion of timberlands was privately owned relative to the portion of private forests in the
region.
Table 1. Extent and Distribution of U.S. Forests and Timberlands Ownership, 2017,
by Region
(in millions of acres)
Rocky
Total

North
South
Mountain
Pacific Coast
Land Acreage
414
552
759
575
2,300
Forest Acreage
176
246
131
214
765
Private Forests
129
212
33
69
444
(73% of forest
(86% of forest
(25% of forest
(32% of forest
(58% of forest
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
Corporate
30 (17%)
69 (28%)
7 (5%)
49 (23%)
156 (20%)
Noncorporate
98 (56%)
143 (58%)
26 (20%)
20 (9%)
288 (38%)

56 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 10.
57 For example, some timberlands may be at high elevation or otherwise inaccessible, or they may be located too far
away from timber processors to financially justify the expense of harvesting and hauling timber.
58 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 10.
Congressional Research Service

21

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Rocky
Total

North
South
Mountain
Pacific Coast
Public Forests
47 (27%)
33 (14%)
97 (75%)
144 (68%)
322 (42%)
Federal
15 (8%)
22 (9%)
91 (70%)
110 (52%)
238 (31%)
Other Public
32 (18%)
11 (5%)
6 (5%)
34 (16%)
84 (11%)

Timberland
165
208
70
72
514
Acreage
(94% of forests)
(85% of
(53% of
(34% of
(67% of
forests)
forests)
forests)
forests)
Private
128
182
19
30
359
Timberlands
(78% of
(88% of
(28% of
(41% of
(70% of
timberland
timberland
timberland
timberland
timberland
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
acreage)
Corporate
30 (18%)
64 (31%)
5 (7%)
18 (26%)
117 (23%)
Noncorporate
98 (59%)
119 (57%)
14 (20%)
11 (16%)
242 (47%)
Public
37 (22%)
26 (12%)
50 (72%)
42 (59%)
155 (30%)
Timberlands
Federal
11 (7%)
16 (8%)
47 (68%)
33 (46%)
108 (21%)
Other Public
26 (16%)
10 (5%)
3 (5%)
9 (12%)
48 (9%)
Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Tables 2 and 10.
Notes: Totals may not add precisely due to rounding.
The first two sections below describe the extent, distribution, management, and uses of federal
and nonfederal forests across the United States. The nonfederal forests section includes
discussion of those attributes by private (corporate and noncorporate and, within noncorporate,
family and tribal/other) ownership and other public ownership. The following sections summarize
forest health and timber production trends by ownership class; this information is available at
different scales (e.g., public and private, federal and nonfederal), as noted.
The significant variation between and across federal and nonfederal forest owners affects the
availability of information on different forest attributes and management activities and makes
comparing and contrasting forest uses and management difficult. Information about federal forest
management is readily available, because federal forests are ultimately managed by one entity
(the federal government). By contrast, at least 98 different entities own and manage other public
forests and around 11 million entities own and manage private forests.59 Information about the
management of forests in these categories is summarized to the extent possible from available
data.
In many cases, data regarding private forest management objectives, activities, and plans are
based on self-reported surveys. Accordingly, the private forest discussion below summarizes
information about reported management objectives and activities. The section also provides
information regarding the extent to which private forests are under management plans, generally
as a proxy for active landowner participation in management and to facilitate comparison across
ownerships.

59 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, pp. 7-8. The estimate of 98 entities managing state and local forests reflects (1) state-
owned forestland in each of the 50 states and (2) locally owned forestlands, which are in 48 states. Some state
forestland may be managed by different entities within the same state, and there is not an estimate of the total number
of locally owned forests. The estimate of 98 different entities likely understates the actual total.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 39 link to page 27 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Similarly, the “Nonfederal Public Forests: State and Local” discussion summarizes information
about the uses and management objectives across the state and local forests. The federal forests
section, in contrast, provides an overview of the statutory missions, uses, and management
framework for federal forests.
Historic Land Settlement Patterns
The regional variation in public and private forest and timberland ownership is in large part due to the pattern of
land settlement in the United States. The 13 original states ceded lands—generally between the Appalachian
Mountains and the Mississippi River—to the federal government shortly after the establishment of the United
States. The federal government also retained a portion of the lands in each new state upon granting statehood.
Congress disposed of many of these public domain lands to raise money, pay off debts, and encourage westward
settlement and development, among other reasons. Congress also reserved some of these lands for public
purposes, such as the establishment of national parks, or authorized the President to reserve some of these lands,
such as for the establishment of national forests. Later, Congress authorized the acquisition of land for establishing
national forests in the East. Thus, nearly all of the federal forests in the original eastern states were acquired
opportunistically through purchase and nearly all of the federal forests in the rest of the United States were
established from relatively large and contiguous swaths of available public domain lands.
Congress authorized the acquisition of lands to establish national forests in the East in part due to concerns about
19th century logging practices and related impacts to watersheds, municipal water supplies, and timber supplies.
Many logging companies during that time would harvest all the trees on a site and then abandon the land, for
various reasons. For the most part, however, timber companies retained the most productive timberlands in
private ownership, while many of the less productive areas became available for federal acquisition. These patterns
explain why more timberland is in private ownership relative to public forest ownership, particularly in the East.
In the West, there are several potential explanations for the discrepancy between public forest and timberland
ownership. One potential explanation is that because one original purpose of the national forests was to protect
water supplies, many federal forests are in high-elevation headwaters regions. These areas generally contain less
productive lands than mid- or lower-elevation areas. Another potential explanation is that some of the most
productive timberlands were conveyed out of federal ownership, through land exchanges, for example, or because
timber was one of the purposes for which private companies and individuals could settle and claim public domain
land out of federal ownership.
For more background on the establishment of federal lands, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership:
Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Laura A. Hanson; or Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Public Land Statistics, 2020, Part 1, pp. 1-6, at https://www.blm.gov/about/data/public-land-statistics.
Sources: Con H. Schallau and Richard M. Alston, “The Commitment to Community Stability: A Policy or
Shibboleth?,” Environmental Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (1987), pp. 429-481, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43265802;
Wil iam E. Shands, “The Lands Nobody Wanted: The Legacy of the Eastern National Forests,” in Origins of the
National Forests: A Centennial Symposium, ed. Harold K. Steen (Durham, NC: Forest History Society), p. 1992; Jon
A. Souder and Sally K. Fairfax, State Trust Lands: History, Management, and Sustainable Use (Kansas: University Press
of Kansas, 1996), pp. 336-337.
Federal Forests60
As of 2017, there were 238 million acres of federally owned forests in the United States. Two
federal agencies, the FS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, within the Department of
the Interior [DOI]), managed the majority of these forests. Most of the federal acreage (61%) is
located within the National Forest System (NFS), managed by the FS, and 16% of federal forests
were managed by the BLM. The FRUS does not further classify the ownership of the remaining
23% of federal forests, which are managed by agencies such as the National Park Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation (all in DOI), and the Department of the
Defense, among others. Less than half of the federal forests contained timberlands (108 million
acres), and the distribution of federal timberlands varies from that of federal forests. The FS

60 Unless otherwise noted, data in the “Federal Forests” section are from Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Tables
2 and 10.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 29 link to page 29

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

managed the largest proportion of U.S. timberlands (89%); BLM managed 6% of federal
timberlands, and the other federal agencies combined managed 5% of the timberland area.
Figure 9. Management and Distribution of U.S. Federal Forests, 2017

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 2.
Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, in the Department of the Interior (DOI); NFS = National Forest
System, managed by the Forest Service (in the U.S. Department of Agriculture); “Other Federal” primarily
reflects lands managed by other bureaus within DOI or the Department of Defense.
This section focuses on forests managed by the FS and the BLM for several reasons. As noted
above, the FRUS does not classify data for other federal forests further and, in some cases, does
not report data on those forests. In addition, the FS and the BLM are managed under similar
statutory provisions for multiple use and sustained yield (see “Management Missions for FS and
BLM Forests”), under which timber harvesting is an authorized use. With some exceptions, the
other agencies’ management missions generally do not include timber harvesting. In practice,
almost all harvesting of federal timber occurs on FS and BLM lands.
 The NFS (managed by the FS) comprises nearly 193 million acres and includes
national forests; national grasslands; and other units, such as research and
experimental areas.61 National forests make up 98% of the NFS (188 million
acres). Not all of the NFS is forested; the system contains 145 million acres of
forest and woodland, of which 96 million acres (66%) are timberland.62
 The BLM manages about 246 million surface acres of federal lands, almost
entirely located in the western regions of the United States.63 About 15% (38
million acres) of BLM lands are forest; of that, 6 million acres (16%) are
timberland. A significant portion of BLM forest and timberland areas are located

61 The National Forest System (NFS) is defined at 16 U.S.C. §1609(a). See FS, Land Areas Report (LAR)—as of
September 30, 2020, Table 1, at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml.
62 For more information, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations,
and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
63 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are officially named public lands (43 U.S.C. §1702(e)) but are
referred to as BLM lands in this report to avoid confusion. The BLM also administers the federal subsurface estate,
which is not discussed in this report.
Congressional Research Service

24

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

in one state—Oregon—and are known as the Oregon and California Railroad
Grant (O&C) Lands.64 Congress revested these lands to the federal government
following a violation of grant terms and established a separate statutory mission
for these lands.
Management Missions for FS and BLM Forests
The FS and the BLM manage most of the lands under their jurisdictions under similar statutory
missions: both manage for a balance of multiple uses and a sustained yield.65
 Multiple use management means considering the relative values of the various
resources and the combination of uses that best meets the needs of the American
people. It does not necessarily mean maximizing dollar returns or outputs, nor
does it necessarily require that any one area be managed for all or even most
uses. The multiple uses to balance include livestock grazing; energy and mineral
development; recreation; timber production; watershed protection; wildlife and
fish habitat; and natural scenic, scientific and historical values.66 Congress did
not specify that managers should prioritize one use over any other use;
reportedly, Congress specifically listed the uses in alphabetical order to avoid
conferring any implied prioritization for management of the NFS.67
 Managing for a sustained yield means ensuring a high level of resource outputs
are maintained in perpetuity without impairing the land’s productivity.
Many have interpreted the management direction provided in the O&C statutes as establishing a
separate management mission, termed a dominant use mission. The O&C lands are to be
managed for a sustained yield of permanent forest production, watershed protection, recreation,
and contribution to the economic stability of local communities and industries.68 Although some
would interpret this statutory direction as managing for multiple uses, others contend it requires
management for timber production over the other uses—that is, timber production is the dominant
use. The dominant use interpretation has been controversial at times and requires equating timber
production to forest production. BLM has adopted the interpretation and the courts have affirmed
it at various times.69

64 The FS manages a small portion of the Oregon and California (O&C) lands. Although separate, the O&C lands also
commonly include the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, which consist of lands in two counties in Oregon that also were
returned to the federal government. For more information on the O&C Grant Lands, see CRS Report R42951, The
Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover.
65 The management mission for the national forests was established pursuant to the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act
of 1960 (MUSY; Act of June 12, 1960; P.L. 86-517, 16 U.S.C. §§528-531). Other laws govern the management of
some other NFS units. The management mission for BLM public lands was established pursuant to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.).
66 The uses listed include those specified for the BLM through FLPMA (43 USC §1702(c)). The uses specified for the
NFS in MUSY (16 U.S.C. §528) are more limited and do not specifically include energy and mineral or natural scenic,
scientific, or historical values, though other statutes authorized those uses for the NFS.
67 MUSY listed the multiple uses as “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes” (16
USC U.S.C. §528,). Con H. Schallau and Richard M. Alston, “The Commitment to Community Stability: A Policy or
Shibboleth?,” Environmental Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (1987), p. 469, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43265802.
68 50 Stat. 874; 43 U.S.C. §2601.
69 For more discussion on the dominant use framing, see, for example, Deborah Scott and Susan Jane M. Brown, “The
Oregon and California Lands Act: Revisiting the Concept of ‘Dominant Use,’” Journal of Environmental Law and
Litigation, vol. 21 (2007), pp. 259-316; and Michael C. Blumm and Tim Wigington, “The Oregon & California
Railroad Grant Lands’ Sordid Past, Contentious Present, and Uncertain Future: A Century of Conflict,” Boston College
Congressional Research Service

25

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Management Framework for FS and BLM Forests
Both the FS and the BLM are required to engage in long-term forestland use and resource
management planning to inform and guide their decisionmaking processes for balancing multiple
uses and ensuring a sustained yield of resources.70 (For the BLM, these requirements apply to all
lands within the agency’s jurisdiction, including the O&C lands.) The specific processes and
procedures vary between the FS and the BLM, but generally the land and resource management
plans (sometimes referred to as forest plans, particularly for the FS) are developed through an
interdisciplinary process, with opportunities for public involvement. The plans guide management
of the plan area by identifying desired resource conditions; determining the land’s suitability for
various uses; and specifying the objectives, standards, and guidelines for activities and uses in the
area. The plans provide management direction and establish a framework to guide future
decisionmaking regarding specific on-the-ground actions and resource allocation decisions, but
they do not authorize or commit the agencies to take any specific actions. The plans may
constrain future projects or activities in specific areas.71
Projects are the specific on-the-ground actions that implement the forest plan prepared for a
particular site.72 Projects may include timber harvests, trail maintenance, or issuance of special-
use authorizations for rights-of-ways across agency lands, among many other activities. Projects
also require an interdisciplinary planning and review process with opportunities for public
involvement, but the specific requirements vary based on the project type and other
characteristics.
The development of plans and projects must comply with any laws of general applicability that
govern federal action and generally is subject to various administrative and judicial review
procedures. Each agency has developed procedures to comply with applicable statutory
requirements, such as those imposed by the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act.73
Federal Forest Management: Financial Considerations
Management decisions for federal forests are not based on financial optimization for the federal government. In
the 1960s, Congress debated adding profitability as a goal for national forest management but ultimately defined
multiple use to mean considering “the relative values of the various resources, [but] not necessarily the
combination of uses that wil give the greatest dol ar return or the greatest unit output” (16 U.S.C. §531(a)).
Although the FS considers management costs and efficiencies during the development of forest plans and projects,
it considers these financial factors relative to other ecological and social factors. More specifically, FS regulations
stipulate that forest plans “guide management of [National Forest System] lands so that they are ecologically
sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability . . and have the capacity to provide people and
communities . . a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future” (36 C.F.R.
217.1(c)).

of Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 40, no. 1 (2013).
70 The planning requirements for the FS were established pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(P.L. 94-588, 16 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.). The FS planning regulations are promulgated at 36 C.F.R. Part 219. The
planning requirements for the BLM were established pursuant to FLPMA; the BLM planning regulations are
promulgated at 43 C.F.R. Part 1600.
71 36 C.F.R. 219.15.
72 36 C.F.R. 219.19.
73 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.); National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. §§4321–47); National Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665, 54 U.S.C. §§300101 et
seq.). Another relevant law of general applicability is the Administrative Procedure Act (P.L.79-404, 5 U.S.C. §§500 et
seq.).
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 43 link to page 30 link to page 30 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Further, contributing to economic sustainability or providing economic benefits generally means conferring those
benefits to communities surrounding the national forests, not necessarily to the federal government. At various
times, goals of contributing to community stability or otherwise supporting timber-dependent communities have
shaped FS policies and decisions. At times, these considerations have led the FS to make decisions that would not
be financially optimal for the federal government, such as below-cost timber sales. This decisionmaking model can
appear inefficient in comparison to the models of some private actors, especial y those that manage their lands to
optimize timber production or financial returns.
Sources: Con H. Schallau and Richard M. Alston, “The Commitment to Community Stability: A Policy or
Shibboleth?,” Environmental Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (1987), pp. 429-481, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43265802;
David Wear, “Chapter 12: Public Timber Supply Under Multiple-Use Management,” in Forests in a Market Economy,
eds. Erin Sil s and Karen Abt (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), pp. 203-220; Robert W. Wolf,
“National Forest Timber Sales and the Legacy of Gifford Pinchot: Managing a Forest and Making it Pay,” University
of Colorado Law Review, vol. 60, no. 4 (1989), pp. 1063-1064.
Uses of FS and BLM Forests
As noted above, the FS and the BLM administer the federal forests they manage for sustained
yields of multiple uses. According to the agencies’ respective statutory missions, the multiple uses
to be balanced include fish and wildlife purposes, outdoor recreation, mineral and energy
development, range (livestock grazing), timber, and watershed management (other forests also
provide many such uses, but not necessarily in the same way or to the same degree). These uses
are briefly summarized below, to the extent the provision of resources on FS and BLM lands
differs from on other forestland, particularly private forests.74
 Like private forests, BLM and FS forests contain fish and wildlife habitats,
including those for commercially significant species and botanically significant
resources. As in private forests, these resources contribute to other uses and
benefits, such as recreational and economic use. Federal forests also have
specific statutory requirements for conserving threatened and endangered
species.75 In addition, as part of their range management responsibilities, the FS
and BLM must manage and protect populations of wild horses and burros.76
 Unlike private forests, most FS and BLM forests are broadly open to the public
for recreation purposes, such as camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding,
hunting, skiing, snowboarding, wildlife viewing, and more.77
 Timber production was an original purpose of many federal forests, such as the
national forests.78 Timber harvesting occurs in FS and BLM forests for a variety
of purposes, such as to produce commercial timber or promote certain forest
conditions. A relatively small amount of U.S. timber is harvested from federal
forests (see Figure 13).79

74 The ways in which the FS and the BLM determine how to balance the multiple uses is discussed in “Management
Framework for FS and BLM Forests.”
75 Endangered Species Act of 1973. For more information, see CRS Report R46677, The Endangered Species Act:
Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.
76 16 U.S.C. §§1331 et seq. For more information on wild horses and burros, see CRS In Focus IF11060, Wild Horse
and Burro Management: Overview of Costs, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
77 See, for example, CRS Report R45103, Hunting and Fishing on Federal Lands and Waters: Overview and Issues for
Congress, by R. Eliot Crafton.
78 16 U.S.C. §475, 43 U.S.C. §2601.
79 For more information, see CRS Report R45688, Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 33 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

 Most BLM lands and many NFS lands are open to public mineral and energy
resource exploration and development.80
 Protecting watershed health was among the original purposes of the national
forests.81 It includes the management of surface and groundwater resources as
well as water uses and rights on NFS and BLM lands. As on private lands,
watersheds on federal forests support ecological services, such as flood control
and water quality. Nearly one-fifth of the nation’s water originates on NFS
lands.82
 Congress has provided management direction within BLM and FS lands by
creating special designations for certain areas, which may aim to preserve
certain conditions or resources of the land, provide for particular public uses, or
fulfill other purposes in perpetuity. Resource development and use is generally
more restricted in these specially designated areas than on general BLM or NFS
lands, and Congress typically provides specific guidance with each designation.
Examples of these designations include wilderness, national recreation areas, and
national monuments.83 Such areas generally do not have publicly accessible
analogues on private lands.84
BLM and NFS lands also are used for other purposes and services that support national policies
and federal land laws. Various authorities may permit these uses or activities on applicable lands,
allowing uses of BLM and NFS lands for purposes ranging from commercial filming to ski resort
operation to various types of water, communication, and energy infrastructure and rights-of-ways,
among others.
Nonfederal Forests
As of 2017, the majority of the 765 million acres of forests in the United States were nonfederal.
Nonfederal forests may be privately owned or publicly owned (i.e., by states, counties, or
localities). Most nonfederal forests were classified as privately owned (443 million acres, or
58%); an additional 84 million acres (11%) were classified as nonfederal public forests.
Private Forests
In the FRUS, the FS defines ownership of private forestlands as falling into two categories:
private corporate and private noncorporate, defined in Table 2. The FRUS, and other FS
resources, also refers to three additional categories of land: family, tribal, and other private. The

80 30 U.S.C. §§181 et seq. The BLM manages the subsurface rights to virtually all federal lands, including NFS lands.
81 16 U.S.C. §475.
82 FS, “Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants,” at http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/#focus.
83 For more information, see CRS Report R45340, Federal Land Designations: A Brief Guide, coordinated by Laura B.
Comay.
84 Certain mechanisms exist for creating legally binding protections on private lands. However, these mechanisms exist
at smaller scales than for federally protected lands and vary substantially in their provisions, meaning the two are not
directly comparable. For example, a conservation easement is a binding, voluntary agreement between a private
landowner and an outside party (generally, a nonprofit organization or government) that permanently constrains the
uses of a given land parcel, generally to achieve certain conservation purposes. Conservation easements generally are
applicable to present and future owners of the land. Conservation easements’ purposes and provisions vary and may
contain provisions similar to the protections afforded certain federal lands (such as restrictions on development). In
particular, most conservation easements are not open to the public. See Katherine Lieberknecht, “Public Access to U.S.
Conservation Land Trust Properties: Results from a National Survey,” Journal of the American Planning Association,
vol. 75, no. 4 (2009), pp. 479-491.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 25 link to page 25 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

correspondence between these categories and the FRUS category of private noncorporate is
difficult to determine, as the FRUS does not describe their relationship and the term private
noncorporate is not widely used in other FS analysis.
Table 2. Private Forest Ownership Categories
Category
Definition
Private Corporate
Owners that are formally incorporated, including corporations, timber investment
management organizations, real estate investment trusts, Alaska Native corporations,
and private universities that own forest or woodland.
Private
Ownership by noncorporate interests, including Native American lands,
Noncorporate
unincorporated partnerships, clubs, and lands leased by corporate interests.
Family
Ownership by families, individuals, trusts, estates, and family partnerships.
Tribal
Ownership by Native American tribes or individuals within reservation boundaries.
Other Private
Ownership by nongovernmental organizations, associations, clubs, and other
unincorporated organizations.
Sources: Private corporate and private noncorporate: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Glossary and pp. 7-8. Family,
tribal, and other private: Brett Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2018: Results from the
USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owners Survey, FS, GTR-NRS-199, February 2021 (hereinafter cited as
Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships). Tribes includes Native American and Alaska Native tribal governments and
individuals within reservation boundaries
In general, various sources agree that most U.S. forestland is privately owned, the great majority
by family and corporate owners. Due to imprecision in definitions, it is sometimes unclear how
data referring to private forest ownership can be reconciled across sources. In addition, the data in
the FRUS do not appear to be internally consistent: The FRUS specifies that family forest
ownership accounts for 38% of U.S. forests, making it the single largest U.S. forest ownership
class.85 The FRUS also estimates that other private owners and tribes—defined as forests and
woodlands owned by Native American and Alaska Native tribal governments and by individuals
within reservation boundaries—each control an estimated 2% of U.S. forests.86 These totals do
not add to the overall FRUS estimate of private noncorporate ownership (38%). The FRUS
estimates that 20% of forests are in corporate ownership. The FRUS figures for each individual
ownership class—family, corporate, other private, and tribal—are similar or identical to estimates
given elsewhere.87
Private forest ownership varies regionally throughout the United States. In 2017, most of the
private forests were located in the North and South regions (see Figure 8 and Table 1);
noncorporate ownership comprised more than half of the total private forests in these regions.
Corporate ownership accounted for a smaller portion of overall forest ownership in the North and
South regions. In the western regions, private forests made up a minority of land ownership. In
the Pacific Coast region, one-third of forests were privately owned, primarily by corporations. In
contrast, one-quarter of the forests in the Rocky Mountain region were privately owned, mostly

85 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 8.
86 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 8.
87 See for example, Brett Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2018: Results from the USDA
Forest Service National Woodland Owners Survey, FS, GTR-NRS-199, February 2021 (hereinafter cited as Butler et
al., Family Forest Ownerships), which estimated that 39% of forestland is in private family ownership, 19% is in
corporate ownership, 2% is in tribal ownership, and 2% is in other private ownership.
Congressional Research Service

29

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

by noncorporate owners. Family owners dominate private noncorporate ownership throughout the
United States.
As of 2017, most U.S. timberlands (70%) nationwide were privately owned, primarily by
noncorporate owners. In addition, private owners controlled more timberlands relative to their
forest ownership. For example, corporate owners controlled about one-quarter of U.S.
timberlands and owned one-fifth of forests. Noncorporate owners controlled 47% of U.S.
timberlands and owned 38% of forests. Of the timber removed from timberlands annually in the
United States, 89% came from private lands.88 CRS was unable to locate more precise measures
of nationwide timber harvest or removals by specific private ownership groups (e.g., family,
corporate).
Private forest owners generally manage their land according to their values and objectives. Forest
owners generally may pursue their goals for the land, including by managing to maximize any
values they wish or by not actively managing the land at all, subject to the constraints of
knowledge, financial resources, time, or wherewithal. Private forest owners generally are not
required to analyze the conditions of their forests or plan forest activities in advance, meaning
their actions may be as ad hoc or as systematic as the owners wish. The only constraints on
private forest owners are applicable state or local laws regarding forestry, which vary throughout
the United States.89 Although private forest management is sometimes controversial, there are
limited avenues for public comment or interference. In contrast to public forest owners, private
forest owners are free to exclude public use or access to their land, such as for recreational
purposes.
The following sections describe the management classes of private forests to the extent possible.
The heterogeneity of private forests makes it difficult to generalize or draw conclusions about the
management of private forests as a single ownership class. Because corporate and family forests
make up the majority of private U.S. forests, these forests are discussed under individual headings
below. Tribal and other noncorporate private ownerships are grouped into a third section.
Private Corporate Ownership
As of 2017, there were 156 million acres of forests in corporate ownership nationwide,
comprising 35% of privately owned forest area.90 Just under one-quarter of U.S. timberlands and
one-third of privately owned timberlands were in corporate ownership.91 The corporate ownership
class contains two important organizational types, which may affect the management of lands
within this class:
 Industrial: Vertically integrated companies that own both timberland and
processing facilities.
 Institutional: Companies that manage or own timberland but do not own
processing infrastructure, generally considered to include timberland investment
management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
TIMOs are organizations that acquire, manage, and sell timberland for

88 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 9.
89 CRS is generally unable to analyze nonfederal laws. However, nonfederal laws affecting private forestlands vary
throughout the United States, and CRS located some evidence suggesting these laws can influence private landowner
behavior. CRS is unable to comment on whether such instances are common or representative of all states.
90 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 2.
91 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 11.
Congressional Research Service

30

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

institutional investors, such as pension funds, foundations, or endowments.
REITs are organizations that own income-producing land and are required to
distribute a specified share of revenues to investors.
Industrial owners were historically the most common form of corporate ownership. However,
since the 1990s, ownership within this class has increasingly shifted toward institutional
ownership as industrial owners have divested of their timberlands.92 According to some estimates,
most of the corporate forest acreage remains industrial; as of 2017, just under one-third was
institutional.93
Corporate forest owners are generally profit maximizing or investment oriented. Within this
ownership class, land management generally focuses on intensive silvicultural techniques to
maximize timber production.94 Corporate forest owners generally employ professional staff to
manage forests and have formal forest management plans for their lands.95 As of 2017, about 51%
of planted forests—a hallmark of intensive forestry—were on corporate lands, although corporate
forests accounted for 20% of overall forest ownership; the proportion of planted forests on
corporate lands was even higher in the South and Pacific Coast regions.96 On FS surveys,
corporate owners reported frequently engaging in management activities related to timber
harvesting, such as applying herbicides and fertilizers; conducting road work; and reducing
insects, diseases, and invasive species.97
Among corporate owners, forest management activities related to other objectives also are
common. On FS surveys, many corporate owners report collecting money from practices other
than timber harvesting, such as hunting; mineral, oil, and gas extraction; and recreational
activities.98 CRS was unable to locate information on what proportion of corporate forests are
open or closed to the public. One study noted that institutional owners in the South had policies of
closing land to public access or charging for certain activities (e.g., hunting), often in contrast to
open-access policies of previous industrial owners.99 Many corporate owners reported that goals
of protecting wildlife, water, and nature, and wildlife habitat improvement activities are
common.100 This approach may reflect the aim of complying with best management practices

92 John Bliss et al., “Disintegration of the U. S. Industrial Forest Estate: Dynamics, Trajectories, and Questions,” Small-
Scale Forestry, vol. 9, no. 1 (December 2009), pp. 53-66.
93 Emma Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships of the United States,” Journal of Forestry,
vol. 119, no. 4 (2021). Hereinafter cited as Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships.”
94 Andrew Gunnoe, Conner Bailey, and Lord Kwayke Ameyaw, “Millions of Acres, Billions of Trees: Socioecological
Impacts of Shifting Timberland Ownership,” Rural Sociology, vol. 83, no. 3 (2018), pp. 799-822. Hereinafter cited as
Gunnoe et al., “Millions of Acres.”
95 According to Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships,” 77% of large corporate forest
owners report having management plans that cover all of their land and 92% report having management plans that
cover at least half of their land.
96 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 9 and Appendix Table 8.
97 According to Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships,” all large corporate respondents
reported engaging in timber harvesting and roadwork within the last five years and more than 75% reported using
herbicides and reducing invasive plants. Over 50% reported reducing insects and diseases, and over 25% reported
applying fertilizers. These figures vary between corporate ownerships, sometimes substantially; for example, over 75%
of timber investment management organizations and real estate investment trusts reported applying fertilizers in the last
five years, compared with approximately 25% of industry respondents.
98 For example, over half of corporate forest owners report collecting revenue from recreation-based leasing. See Sass
et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships.”
99 Gunnoe et al., “Millions of Acres.”
100 According to Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships,” over 75% of respondents reported
improving wildlife habitat in the last five years. Survey respondents reported that protecting wildlife habitat, water, and
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 28 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

(practices aimed at protecting natural resources during forest management activities), operating
hunting or recreation facilities, or certification standards. About 75% of corporate owners
reported certifying some of their land through a private certification organization, such as the
Forest Stewardship Council or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and two-thirds reported
certifying all of their land.101
CRS was unable to locate nationwide estimates of the amount of timber harvested from corporate
forests.102 However, various sources indicate that measures of timber productivity from corporate
forests may be higher than from other private forests. For example, although corporate owners
accounted for less than one-quarter of the timberlands nationwide in 2017, corporate owners
accounted for a much higher proportion of the net volume of growing stock.103 Plantations in the
South—55% of which were in corporate ownership—contain less than half of the region’s
softwood volume but had two-thirds of the region’s annual softwood growth and an even higher
percentage of the region’s annual softwood removals.104 One study of forests in the northeast
found that corporate forests were twice as likely to be harvested in any given year than public
forests of any kind and 25% more likely to be harvested than other private forests (e.g., family
forests).105
Private Noncorporate Forest Ownership: Family Ownership
In 2017, nearly 272 million acres (38%) of U.S. forests were in family ownership, and family
forests were the single largest ownership category for U.S. forests.106 Just under half of the
timberlands in the United States and two-thirds of privately owned timberlands were in family
ownership.
Family forest ownership is characterized by many relatively small parcels with many owners (the
individual or group with title to the land, which may be more than one individual person—that is,
a family would be considered one owner). The FS estimates there were over 10.6 million family
forest owners in the United States in 2017.107 There is considerable variation among those owners
and the types of forests they control. For example, data from 2018 showed that the majority of
family owners controlled forests 9 acres or less in size, and 89% of family owners controlled
forests of 49 acres or less (see Figure 9).108 However, this large number of owners controlled a
minority of the family forest acreage (27%); the majority of family forest acreage (73%) was

nature are the third-, fourth-, and fifth-most common objectives of corporate forest landowners, respectively (after
timber harvesting and land investment).
101 Sass et al., “Dynamics of Large Corporate Forestland Ownerships.”
102 CRS was unable to identify a comprehensive source of nationwide data for timber harvesting on private forests.
Some private timber harvesting data are available by certain regions or states for some years, but the data are not
comprehensive or comparable across regions or states. See, for example, the forestry research products produced by the
Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana (https://www.bber.umt.edu/FIR), which
reports timber harvesting data for many western states but not consistently across all time periods or ownerships. CRS
was unable to locate similar resources for other regions.
103 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 32.
104 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 41.
105 Jonathan Thompson et al., “Social and Biophysical Variation in Regional Timber Harvest Regimes,” Ecological
Applications, vol. 27, no. 3 (2017), pp. 942-955.
106 The exact figures for family forest ownership vary across different FS sources but are relatively similar. Oswalt et
al., FRUS 2017, p. 8, estimates 38%, and Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Appendix 1, Table US-1, estimates
39%.
107 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 7.
108 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Appendix 1, Table US-12.
Congressional Research Service

32

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

controlled by the remaining 11% of owners. In other words, most family forest owners had small
parcels, but the majority of family forest acres were controlled by relatively few owners with
large parcels.
Figure 10. Percentage of Family Forest Acres and Owners, 2018, by Size Class

Source: Table US-12 (Appendix 1) in Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships.
Notes: Owners means the individual or group with title to the forestland holding, which may be more than one
individual person (i.e., a family would be considered one owner).
Within the family forest ownership category, reasons for owning forestland and forest
management objectives vary and may include single or multiple objectives. The intensity and
frequency of management activities also vary, from little to no management to active
management for one or more values. According to one study, “one of the most important
attributes is size of forest holdings ... because it directly influences many activities and is
correlated with numerous other characteristics.”109 For example, there is some evidence from
2018 that those who owned more land may have been more likely to have a management plan or
seek professional management advice;110 overall, less than one-quarter of family forest acres were
managed under written management plans, about one-third of acres are associated with formal
management advice,111 and forest certification through private programs is rare.112 Similarly,
some evidence suggested those who own more land harvest greater amounts of commercial
timber.113 CRS was unable to locate nationwide estimates of the amount of timber harvested from
family forests. As of 2017, about 34% of family forestland was planted; the remainder was
naturally regenerated.114
According to the FS’s findings from the 2018 National Woodland Owners Survey, the most
common reasons cited by family forest owners for owning forestland were beauty or scenery,
privacy, nature protection, wildlife protection, and water protection.115 In general, family forest

109 Brett Butler et al., “One Size Does Not Fit All: Relationships Between Size of Family Forest Holdings and Owner
Attitudes and Behaviors,” Journal of Forestry, vol. 119, no. 1 (2021).
110 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Figure 21.
111 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Appendix 1, Tables US-11 and US-24.
112 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Figure 18, Appendix 1, Table US-16.
113 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Appendix 1, Table US-12.
114 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 8.
115 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Figure 17.
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 33 U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

owners reported a relatively low frequency of taking management actions on their land; about
25% of family forest owners reported taking no management action on their lands in the last five
years. Further, although timber cutting for personal use was the most frequently reported
management activity, no management action was the second-most-reported activity.116 Family
forest owners reported that the other most common management activities included managing for
wildlife, reducing invasive plants, working on trails, and harvesting non-timber forest products.
Most family forestland was associated with some recreational use, primarily for the landowners,
their families, or their friends. However, most family forestland was closed to use by the
public.117
Private Noncorporate Forest Ownership: Tribal and Other
Other private noncorporate forests include two forest types: other private and tribal forests (see
Table 2). Although the FRUS does not specify separate acreage statistics for these forests, other
sources estimated there are 11 million acres of other private forests in the United States and 17
million acres of tribal forests.118 In 2017, approximately 8 million acres of tribal forests were
timberlands.119 CRS was unable to locate estimates of the amount of timberland in other private
forests.
These two categories of forests vary across nearly all measures, including their extent,
biophysical characteristics, and the management objectives and actions of the owner (i.e., the
tribal government, individual tribal member, nonprofit organization, or club). Because of this, it is
not possible to generalize or draw conclusions about the management of these forests as
ownership classes. In particular, little information on forest management by other private forest
owners is available. Information on tribal forests is more accessible, but the heterogeneity of
tribal forests makes it challenging to generalize about their management.
According to the FRUS, as of 2017, 313 federally recognized tribes managed forests.120
Individual tribal forest holdings ranged in size from 1 acre to more than 5 million acres.
Management of tribal forests was shaped by the forests’ ownership (i.e., the tribal government or
an individual) and by legal and regulatory structures related to the owner, such as treaty law. In
many cases, tribes have retained rights under treaty law to access forests and forest resources
outside of their ownership, for purposes such as harvesting forest products, hunting and fishing,
conducting spiritual and religious ceremonies, and accessing sacred sites. Some tribal forests may
be under a forest management plan developed in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA).121 According to a 2013 BIA analysis, tribal forest management is centered on

116 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Figure 18.
117 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Appendix 1, Tables US-22 and 23. The FS estimates that, in the five years
prior to the survey response, 80% of family forest acres were associated with hunting, 57% with hiking or walking,
36% with off-road vehicle use, and 31% with fishing. About 67% of family forest acres had recreational use by the
owner or their spouse, 60% by the owner’s children, 56% by other family, and 61% by friends. Use by the public was
rare (5% of acres or less), and about 72% of family forest acres were posted with some sort of closure, most commonly
to trespassing (i.e., general access).
118 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 2.
119 Butler et al., Family Forest Ownerships, Figure 18, Appendix 1, Table US-16.
120 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, pp. 51-53. This figure does not include Alaska Native corporations or village
corporations.
121 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, p. 52. Bureau of Indian Affairs policy specifies that “Forest Management Plans ... are
required for all Indian forest lands in federal trust status.” It is unclear whether the definition of tribal used by the
Forest Service in the FRUS refers only to tribal lands in federal trust status. Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Forest
Congressional Research Service

34

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

“sustainability and long-term stewardship,” although the analysis specified that the degree to
which tribes can implement these principles depends on numerous factors.
Nonfederal Public Forests: State and Local
In 2017, there were 70 million acres of state-owned public forests in the United States, and 14
million acres of county or municipally owned public forests (referred to as local forests
throughout this report). Just over half of the state forests (51%) contained timberlands, and 84%
of the local forests contained timberlands. Nearly half of the state forests (47%) were in the
Pacific, and two-thirds (67%) of the local forests were in the North, primarily in Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Michigan. State and local forests vary across nearly all measures, including
extent, biophysical characteristics, administering agency, and management purposes. As a result,
it is not possible to generalize or draw conclusions about the management of state and local
forests as a single ownership class.
Many—though not all—of the state forests are state trust lands, particularly in the states outside
of the original 13 colonies.122 As a condition of statehood, Congress granted specific parcels of
land to states with the requirement that revenue generated from the sale or lease of the land
benefit specific public purposes, primarily education.123 State trust lands have an explicit
fiduciary responsibility to generate revenue, though states vary in how they fulfill this
responsibility. Not all state trust lands contain forest or timber resources. Many state trust lands
are leased for grazing or other resource uses, and some state trusts lands have been sold.
Figure 11. Other Public Forests and Timberlands by Region, 2017

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Tables 2 and 10.

Management Planning,” in Indian Forest Management Handbook, 53-IAM-2-H. For more information on tribal lands,
see CRS Report R46647, Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Tana
Fitzpatrick.
122 The state forests in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are not state trust lands but were established primarily
through tax foreclosures. See Jon A. Souder and Sally K. Fairfax, State Trust Lands: History, Management, and
Sustainable Use (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1996). Hereinafter cited as Souder and Fairfax, State Trust
Lands. See also Mark Haggerty and Chelsea Liddell, State Trust Lands in Transition: Understanding the Trust Model,
Headwaters Economics, 2019.
123 Granting trust land to states was first established in the Land Ordinance of 1785, as adopted by the Continental
Congress.
Congressional Research Service

35

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Uses of State Forests
Some states have multiple use mandates for their state forests—requirements to consider the
balance of multiple uses of the forest, such as timber production, recreation, fish and wildlife, and
others—a mandated shared by the federal forests (see “Federal Forests”). However, in many
cases, the balance of the uses is based explicitly on revenue production; this is particularly the
case for states with trust responsibilities and a multiple use mandate (e.g., Washington,
Oregon).124 For these multiple use trust forests in particular, fulfilling the trust obligation by
providing financial returns is distinct from providing general public benefits. In these states,
fulfilling the trust responsibility is prioritized and other uses are permitted to the extent they are
compatible with—or do not interfere with—this obligation. Some states (e.g., Montana,
Washington) also have explicit or implied sustained yield directives requiring owners to manage
forests to provide a consistent supply of resources in perpetuity, similar to federal directives for
federal forests.125
Forest Health by Forestland Ownership
Many forest health issues typically impact large areas simultaneously and do not necessarily vary
by ownership class. For example, areas experiencing drought or a discrete adverse weather event
will experience similar effects, regardless of ownership. As a result, comprehensive data and
information regarding forest health conditions by ownership class are not readily available.
Limited data are available, however, such as tree mortality observations by ownership. In
addition, some studies have examined forest health outcomes across small areas (e.g., forest
types, states). Some of this information is summarized below.
Observations on tree mortality suggest mortality is more prevalent on public timberlands than
private timberlands.126 More specifically, in 2017, public timberlands accounted for 30% of all
timberlands nationwide but accounted for 50% of tree mortality nationwide in terms of volume.
This trend was most pronounced in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions: In the
Rockies, public timberlands accounted for 72% of timberland area and 90% of mortality. In the
Pacific, public timberlands accounted for 59% of timberland area and 72% of mortality.
Some perceive forest health to be a larger problem on federal forests relative to other forests.
Although this perception may be true—particularly across some measures, such as mortality or
biomass density—it also may be an example of information availability bias: more information is
available on forest health measures across federal forests due to greater levels of public access,
availability for research, and scrutiny. Some studies have identified examples where forest health
outcomes appear to be better on federal forests relative to private forests, however, or on public
forests (federal and other public) relative to private forests. For example, watersheds with higher
concentrations of federal compared to private forests had improved watershed conditions,127 and
streams flowing through federal forests had higher water quality than streams flowing through
nonfederal forests.128 Other studies have found that public forests tend to be more structurally

124 Souder and Fairfax, State Trust Lands, p. 166.
125 Souder and Fairfax, State Trust Lands, p. 167.
126 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 33.
127 Kirsten Gallo et al., Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years: Preliminary Assessment of the Condition of
Watersheds, FS, PNW-GTR-647, 2005, https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr647.pdf.
128 Shannon Hubler, High Level Indicators of Oregon’s Forested Streams, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, DEQ09-LAB-0041-TR, 2009, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/10-LAB-003.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

36

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

complex than the more production-style forests on private lands; presumably, this complexity
provides public forests with the interrelated benefits of biodiversity and resiliency.129 However,
more research on the influence of ownership trends on various forest management objectives is
needed to draw definitive conclusions.
Wildfire Data by Ownership
Wildfire data and statistics are reported not by ownership class but by the governmental entity
responsible for handling the wildfire response. The federal government is responsible for
wildfires that begin on federal lands, and states generally are responsible for wildfires that begin
on nonfederal (state, local, and private) lands.130 Wildfires that spread across ownership
boundaries remain categorized and reported by the entity providing wildfire response and
protection, which creates challenges when reporting and interpreting wildfire data. Reported
acreage, for example, may reflect a mix of land ownership. Nonetheless, wildfire data by
protecting entity (e.g., federal, state) are a reasonable proxy for wildfire data by ownership (e.g.,
federal, nonfederal). Although outside the specific focus of this report, there is some evidence that
the public responsibility for wildfire protection is a disincentive for private landowners to reduce
wildfire risk in areas of mixed landownership and is an incentive for subsidizing wildland-urban
interface development.131
Across all ownerships, an annual average of 61,400 wildfires burned an annual average of 7.8
million acres nationwide for the five-year period from 2016 through 2020.132 Across that period,
there were nearly 3.5 times more wildfires on nonfederal lands than on federal lands, on average,
but the fires on federal lands were significantly larger. Those patterns are partly due to the
geographic distribution of fires relative to forest ownership. More fires occur on nonfederal land
in the eastern regions (i.e., North and South), where there is more nonfederal land, and larger fires
occur in the western regions (i.e., Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast), where there are larger
parcels of contiguous, mostly federal land.

129 Vivian Griffey et al., “Ownership Patterns Drive Multi-Scale Forest Structure Patterns across a Forested Region in
Southern Coastal Oregon, USA,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 1 (2021).
130 Wildfire response may be managed jointly for comingled land ownership. The federal government may handle
wildfire response on nonfederal lands pursuant to cooperative fire protection agreements.
131 For more information, see Gwenlyn Busby and Heidi J. Albers, “Wildfire Risk Management on a Landscape with
Public and Private Ownership: Who Pays for Protection?,” Environmental Management, vol. 45 (2010), pp. 296-310.
132 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10244, Wildfire Statistics, by Katie Hoover and Laura A. Hanson.
Congressional Research Service

37

link to page 43

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 12. Wildfires and Acreage Impacted, 2016-2020, by Entity Providing
Protection

Source: CRS, from the Wildland Fire Summary annual reports published by the National Interagency
Coordination Center, at https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/index.htm.
As mentioned previously, the number of fires and acreage burned are indicators of the annual
level of wildfire activity, but these statistics do not convey the degree of impacts to humans or
communities. Acreage burned also does not indicate the wildfire’s severity, the degree of impact
upon forests or soils, or other ecological effects. In addition, acreage impacted is an imprecise
indicator of wildfire activity and may be influenced by suppression strategies. Federal policy, for
example, specifically allows wildfire response to range from aggressive suppression to
monitoring while a fire burns, with no human intervention. This policy affects wildfire statistics:
Wildfires impacted 10.1 million acres in 2015, the most in one year since official recordkeeping
began.133 Half the acreage impacted that year was in Alaska (5.1 million acres), and
approximately 3.5 million of those acres were the result of a limited protection suppression
response, meaning the fires were not actively suppressed and were allowed to burn and grow in
size. State wildfire response strategies vary but often focus more on aggressive suppression than
federal strategies.134
Timber Production by Forest Land Ownership
In 2017, approximately 89% of timber removals from timberland in the United States were from
private timberlands (see Figure 13). Timber removal data reflect the volume of growing stock
trees removed from the inventory of timberlands in a given year through timber harvesting,
silvicultural treatments, or land clearing.135

133 Historical fire statistics were first reported in 1960, but data collected prior to 1983 were reported using different
methodologies and may not be considered official records. NIFC, Total Wildland Fires and Acres.
134 See, for example, Carlin Frances Starrs et al., “The Impact of Land Ownership, Firefighting, and Reserve Status on
Fire Probability in California,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 13, no. 3 (2018).
135 Removals data may approximate timber harvesting data, but the two are not precisely equivalent. For example,
removals data may capture activities other than commercial harvests and would not capture timber harvests on non-
timberland forest. CRS has identified discrepancies in timber harvesting data in regions with high amounts of non-
timberland forest, such as the Rockies and the Pacific.
Congressional Research Service

38

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 13. Timber Removals from Timberland, 2017, by Region
(in million cubic feet)

Source: Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 35.
Regional data show the proportion of timber removed from private timberlands is higher than the
proportion of privately owned timberlands in most regions. This trend is most pronounced in the
Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions but also holds true in the South.136 It is difficult to
draw definitive conclusions about this discrepancy; it may relate to the overall greater likelihood
of intensive management on private lands, particularly in the Pacific and the South. In 2017,
private ownerships had 78% of the United States’ planted timberland, and approximately 83% of
net annual growth on timberland was on private lands in 2016. These figures suggest greater
intensity of management on private lands than on public lands.137 In the Rockies, where intensive
forest management is less common, the discrepancy may relate to the relatively high proportion
of rugged or inaccessible terrain in public forests. In addition, the available information may
obscure some timber harvest dynamics, as the data exclude non-timberlands, which may be
significant in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions.
Comparing Forests: Trends and Implications
As described above, the resources and biophysical conditions of forests in the United States are
heterogeneous, as are the management objectives, constraints, and capabilities of different forest
owners. The measurable outcomes for any given forest—such as timber production, forest health,
and other metrics—result from the merging of these factors. Forest conditions may produce
resources and outcomes in ways that specific management activities, regardless of ownership,
cannot mitigate or overcome. Therefore, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions
regarding forest outcomes by ownership class.
However, some distinct trends exist regarding U.S. forests. The following sections synthesize data
and concepts provided in the report to describe trends in the nationwide distribution of forest
resources, trends across forest ownerships, and the interaction of these trends in the four FRUS
regions. This section also discusses the implications of these trends, particularly regarding the
challenges associated with comparing forest management outcomes generally and across forest
ownerships specifically.

136 In the Rockies, where about 28% of timberland is privately owned, about 54% of timber removals come from
private timberlands. Similarly, in the Pacific Coast region, about 78% of timber removals come from private
timberlands, although only 41% of timberland is privately owned.
137 Oswalt et al., FRUS 2017, Appendix A, Table 34.
Congressional Research Service

39

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Forestland, Timber Resources, and Owners Are Unevenly
Distributed
Forests distribution across the United States is uneven. Nearly one-third of U.S. forests are in the
South region; the Pacific Coast and North regions each contain around one-quarter of the nation’s
forests, and the Rocky Mountain region contains 17% of U.S. forests. The variation in forestland
distribution is driven in part by certain biophysical characteristics (e.g., climate, geography).
These factors also contribute to differences regarding forest type (e.g., species mix) and
ecological condition, or forest health, across and within the regions.
Likewise, timber resources are unevenly distributed across U.S. forests. Due to their biophysical
characteristics, the South and Pacific Coast regions (specifically, the coastal regions of Oregon
and Washington) contain the majority of forestland that is highly productive for timber; these
areas also contain preeminent commercial timber species. Other regions, such as the Rockies and
other parts of the Pacific Coast region (such as the eastern regions of Oregon and Washington),
have limited potential for timber production. The North region has a medium potential for timber
productivity. The Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions also are more impacted by mortality
than the other two regions. Thus, some regions of the United States—particularly the South and
parts of the Pacific Coast—have greater endowments of timber resources than others do.
Patterns of land settlement and development influence the uneven distribution of forest ownership
in the United States. In the North and South regions, most forests are privately owned, primarily
by families. In the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions, most forests are publicly owned,
primarily by the federal government. Corporate ownership is most common in the South and the
Pacific. Thus, private ownership is more likely to overlap with high or medium productivity (in
the South, North, and parts of the Pacific, such as coastal Oregon and Washington), whereas
public ownership is more likely to overlap with low productivity (in the Rockies and other parts
of the Pacific, such as eastern Oregon and Washington). Any comparison of forest outcomes—
particularly related to timber production—across ownerships must account for these differences.
Forests Provide Multiple Benefits and Are Managed for Many Uses
Forests provide many benefits, including air and water resources, fish and wildlife, recreation and
cultural use, timber resources, and more. In some cases, forests are the only or the primary source
for these benefits. Across all ownerships, most forests are managed for multiple objectives. In
many cases, however, an owner will manage a forest for a primary or dominant objective (e.g.,
timber production, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat).
Regardless of forest ownership, some forest benefits may accrue solely to the forest owner and
others may not be exclusive to the owner. For example, timber production and grazing may
benefit only the owner, whereas a forest’s provision of fish and wildlife habitat, scenery, and
water purification may benefit many people. For this reason, the public is often concerned with
forest outcomes, regardless of forest ownership. Debate regarding forest management is often
shaped by various stakeholders’ interest in public goods (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, scenery)
compared with private goods (e.g., timber) and may be complicated by ownership of the forests in
question.
Because forests are managed for different objectives, the extent to which forest management may
be deemed “successful” varies. There is no universal method for setting forest management
objectives or measuring forest management. Forest objectives are not shared across owners,
meaning only certain outcomes are relevant for assessing management of individual forests. For
example, the volume and value of timber harvested from a forest managed for timber production
Congressional Research Service

40

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

is a measurable outcome but would not be an appropriate measure for evaluating the management
of forests managed primarily for recreation, privacy, or other objectives. In addition, there is no
universal standard for how forests “ought” to be managed against which to measure forest
management objectives or outcomes, although stakeholder views about such issues are often
strongly held. Due to the lack of objective measures, debate and analysis often center on the
management requirements or constraints (or the lack thereof) in place for various owners.
Ownership Influences Management Objectives and Constraints
Forest management objectives vary across and within ownership classes. Among private forest
owners, families—the largest ownership share of U.S. private forestland—commonly value
scenery, privacy, wildlife, and recreation and often do not actively manage their land. However,
family forest owners’ values vary substantially, as do their management actions. Corporations
generally manage their land to optimize financial returns, which is primarily (but not solely)
achieved through timber production.
Private forest owners have nearly complete discretion over which forest management objectives
to pursue and how to achieve those objectives; any restrictions are matters of state or local law.
The extent to which private forest owners prioritize either public or private benefits depends
primarily on the landowner. Although private forest management and use is contentious, public
opportunity to comment or intervene in private forest management is rare. As such, private forest
management may be more likely to reflect the values and constraints of the forest owner than any
public concerns or wishes for the land.
Public forests generally are managed for multiple uses. Most federal forests must be managed in
such a way that the multiple uses of forests are balanced, with little guidance on what balance
means in this context. Federal law stipulates that most federal forestland be managed to provide a
sustained yield of renewable resources. Certain timber management practices (e.g., plantation
forestry) are uncommon on federal lands, perhaps due to the cost of such practices, their
incompatibility with multiple use values, or for other reasons. Some state forests also have
multiple use mandates, but many of these directives provide guidance on how to balance the uses
(e.g., through maximizing or optimizing financial returns).
Because the management objectives for public forests are matters of federal, state, or local law,
public forest owners have little discretion over which forest management objectives to pursue,
particularly compared with private forest owners. Public forest owners also must implement
forest management objectives according to the processes and procedures established by law.
Management of public forests is contentious; in particular, the appropriate balance of public and
private benefits from public forests is often a matter of debate. The extent that public forests
supply private benefits (e.g., timber) relative to public benefits (e.g., recreation, habitat
protection) is particularly controversial. For example, the appropriate role of federal timber in the
private market has been debated since the establishment of the national forests. Government and
industry stakeholders each have, at times, supported and opposed a more active contribution of
federal timber. The public generally has the ability to comment or intervene in public forest
management to assert these views. As such, public forest management may integrate public
values, to the extent compatible with the forest management objectives stipulated in law.
Summary of Regional Trends
As described above, forest resources and ownership are distributed unevenly nationwide, and
forest owners have broad management differences. In some cases, these factors interact, resulting
in noticeable trends. These trends are summarized across the four FRUS regions below. The
Congressional Research Service

41

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

following discussion is general in nature, and regional trends may mask site-specific differences
or deviations from such trends.
Because timber outcomes are of general interest, the discussion below includes timber
productivity. A particular trend is that certain timber management practices (e.g., plantation
forestry) are most common in the South and Pacific Coast regions—the most productive timber
regions—perhaps due to the underlying potential for productivity in those regions.
North Region
Forests in the North may be hardwood, softwood, or mixed types. In the North, most forests are
privately owned, primarily by families, followed by corporations. States and localities manage
most public forests, and there are few federal forests. Forests in the North are generally in a
middle range of productivity and are less widely used for timber production than forests in other
regions. Indicators of intensive timber management, such as plantation forestry, are rare in the
North, and it has the second-least timber production of the four regions. Very little of that
production originates on public forests, and any that does is generally from state- and locally
owned land. Most forests in the North have patterns of infrequent fire, though fires on federal
lands tend to be larger (as nationally), due primarily to differences in wildfire response. Because
federal forests make up such a small share of forests in the North region, it is difficult to draw
conclusions about relative forest management between federal and nonfederal forests—a common
theme for both the North and the South regions.
South Region
Forests in the South may be hardwood, softwood, or mixed types. Almost all hardwood-
dominated forests in the United States are in the North or the South. In the South, most forests are
privately owned, primarily by families, followed by corporations. The South has the most
corporate ownership in the nation. It also has the greatest amount of land in the highest
productivity classes and includes several forest types that are highly valued for commercial
timber production. The South has the most plantation forestry of any region, and intensive
management for timber is relatively common, perhaps driven by the lands’ productive capability.
The South produces the most timber of any region, and little of that production originates from
public forests. Most forests in the South have patterns of frequent, low severity fire, and
prescribed fire is a commonly used forest management practice. As in the North, because federal
forests make up such a small share of forests in the South, it is difficult to draw conclusions about
forest management on federal and nonfederal forests.
Rocky Mountain Region
Softwoods dominate forests in the Rocky Mountain region. In the Rockies, most forests are
publicly owned, primarily by the federal government. Most private ownership is by families. The
Rockies have the least productive forestland in the nation and are subject to high degrees of
mortality—so much so that mortality offsets a significant proportion of growth and may, in some
cases, be greater than growth. Plantation forestry is relatively rare. The Rockies produce the least
timber of any region in the nation. Although the available data show that most timber harvesting
in the region occurs on private lands, other information suggests these data might be incomplete,
due to how they are collected. However, the Rockies have the second-most federal timber
harvesting of any region.
Congressional Research Service

42

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Pacific Coast Region
Softwoods also dominate forests in the Pacific Coast region. In the Pacific, most forests are
publicly owned, primarily by the federal government. Most private ownership is by corporations.
Forests vary considerably within the Pacific Coast region. Although some of the nation’s least
productive forestland is in this region, the Pacific also ranks second in total area of the most
productive land. Its forests contain some highly valued commercial timber species. Plantation
forestry by corporate owners in the region is common. The Pacific Coast region produces the
second-most timber of any region in the nation, and most Pacific timber originates from private
lands. However, the Pacific has the most federal timber harvesting of any region.
Issues for Congress
Because forests provide many public benefits, Congress may have multifold interests in the
nation’s forest resources. Across all ownerships, Congress may be interested in the ecological,
economic, and social benefits that U.S. forests provide to the nation generally and to surrounding
communities specifically. To promote these benefits, Congress may be interested in maintaining
or improving the ecological health and functioning of the nation’s forests, as well as in enhancing
their capacity to survive and recover from disturbance events and adapt to changing climatic
conditions. Similarly, Congress may be interested in preventing, treating, or facilitating recovery
from various forest health stressors to reduce risk to people and timber resources or to promote
other forest values. Congress also may be interested in improving or maintaining forests’
economic and social benefits to communities and industries by enhancing certain forest resources
or supporting certain forest uses.
To address these interests, one issue for Congress may be whether the baseline understanding of
the nation’s forest resources and conditions is sufficient. Congress may want to consider whether
the level of federal investment in forest inventorying, monitoring, and research across U.S. forests
is sufficient, too high, or too low; accordingly, Congress may choose to alter the amount or type
of federal resources invested in those activities.
Another issue for Congress may be the federal government’s role in addressing forest
management and health concerns or mitigating forest risks. Congress may want to consider
whether the level of federal investment in forest management generally is appropriate and may
adjust federal resources accordingly. This could involve changes to the levels of federal funding,
staffing, or other resources for either federal or nonfederal forest management, or both. Congress
also may be interested in forest health or management issues by specific ownership class. For
example, Congress may be specifically interested in issues related to management of federal
forests. Congress also may be interested in federal authorities for assisting nonfederal forest
owners, such as whether these authorities cover desired issues or account for desired ownership
categories. These ownership-specific issues are discussed in more depth in other CRS products.138
Another issue for Congress may be whether and how to address forest risks that span multiple
ownership boundaries. For example, Congress may want to consider expanding or facilitating
cross-boundary forest management activities. This could be through authorizing and/or
incentivizing a variety of federal and nonfederal partnerships and collaborations. In contrast,

138 For more information on federal forests, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview,
Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle and CRS Report R45688, Timber
Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle. For more information on nonfederal forests, see CRS Report
R45219, Forest Service Assistance Programs, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
Congressional Research Service

43

U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress

Congress may want to restrict those activities, for example, to target more specific concerns or
areas.

Author Information

Katie Hoover
Anne A. Riddle
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46976 · VERSION 1 · NEW
44

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Nov. 24, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON