NORTH CAROLINA—Timber sales are part of the USDA Forest Service land management strategy. But in recent years, almost 15% of timber sales have not gotten a single bid when first offered for sale. No-bid timber sales, as they are known, cost the agency. Modifying and re-advertising sucks up staff time, while forest management is delayed and the National Forest System potentially misses mandated targets. 

A team of Forest Service researchers is working with the National Forest System to understand the causes of no-bid sales and identify potential solutions. The team, led by Greg Frey of the Southern Research Station, recently surveyed National Forest System employees involved in timber sales, receiving responses from 784 employees, an estimated response rate of about 38%. 

Many employees who responded to the survey agreed that they had good communication on their team and with industry, that they were adequately involved in the sale process and that bidders had the ability to do the work. 

The researchers formulated the survey around two categories: the proximate factors, such as road or timber conditions, immediately driving potential bidders not to bid on specific sales, and the broader underlying conditions that shape how sales are put together, such as policies, organization and markets. Both categories can be factors in no-bid sales, reported employees. 

Employees identified planning timelines, pressure to meet targets, and low staffing and training as problematic underlying conditions. They called for engineers to be more involved in early planning, more training, and for more communication between line officers (district rangers and forest supervisors) and the timber harvesting industry. 

“The survey captures a small portion of the cumulative wisdom of staff in the National Forest System who work closely with timber sales,” says Frey. “The issues they identify are interrelated. Focusing on individual factors without a holistic view is unlikely to fully resolve the no-bid issue. Focusing on proximate factors can help individual sales receive bids, whereas focusing on underlying conditions can help make no-bids less likely overall.” 

The report also explores differences among regions. It was published as a general technical report, and a companion volume in development will examine open-ended survey responses.

“The agency is working internally to address some of these factors,” says David Lytle, national director of Forest and Rangeland Management and Vegetation Ecology. “For example, we’ve begun to advertise sales earlier in the fiscal year. We’re trying to make sure sale values and products are aligned with local industry needs. We’re looking forward to the next volume of the report, for more insight on how no-bids could be reduced in the future.”