    Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better
    Identify and Priorities Lands Needing Fuels Reduction (15-AUG-03,
    GAO-03-805).

    The density of the nation's forests, along with drought and other
    weather conditions, has fueled wildland fires that have required
    billions of dollars to suppress and has forced thousands of
    people to evacuate their homes. The Department of Agriculture's
    (USDA) Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
    (Interior) are collaborating on a long-term effort to reduce the
    risk these fires pose. GAO was asked, among other things, to (1)
    assess the agencies' efforts to determine which federal lands
    require fuels reduction treatments, (2) determine how lands are
    prioritized for treatment, and (3) assess how progress is
    measured and reported.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-805
        ACCNO:   A08056
      TITLE:     Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to
    Better Identify and Priorities Lands Needing Fuels Reduction
         DATE:   08/15/2003
      SUBJECT:   Forest conservation
    	     Forest management
    	     Land management
    	     National forests
    	     Performance measures

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-805

                                           A

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    August 2003 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT Additional Actions Required to Better
    Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction

    GAO- 03- 805

    Contents Letter 1

    Results in Brief 3 Background 6 Agencies Are Focusing Fuels Reduction on
    Lands in Three

    Categories, but More Efforts Are Needed to Estimate the Amount and
    Location of These Lands 11 Local Land Units Prioritize Projects Using a
    Variety of Methods

    Because of a Lack of Specific National Guidance 18 Fuels Reduction Efforts
    Hindered by a Number of Factors 23 Agencies Recognize Need to Better
    Measure the Effect of Fuels

    Reduction Treatments, but Annual Reporting Practices Need Improvement 29
    Conclusions 32 Recommendations for Executive Action 33 Agency Comments and
    Our Evaluation 33

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 36

    Appendix II: Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003 39

    Appendix III: Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments in the Southeast
    for the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003 45

    Appendix IV: Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited by GAO 48

    Appendix V: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
    Interior 56

    Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 60 GAO Contacts 60
    Staff Acknowledgments 60

    Tables Table 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO 37 Table 2: Summary of FY
    2001 Goals and Accomplishments 39

    Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments 41 Table 4: Summary
    of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments 43 Table 5: Southeast Accomplishments
    for FY 2001 45 Table 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002 46 Table 7:
    Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003 47

    Table 8: 2002 Fuels Reduction Acres and Costs for 17 Local Land Units 48
    Table 9: 2003 Planned Fuels Reduction Acres and Costs for 17

    Local Land Units 50 Table 10: Cost and Accomplishments by Fuels Reduction
    Treatment

    Methods Used by 17 Local Land Units, 2002 51 Table 11: Reasons Cited for
    Incomplete Fuels Reduction Work by 17 Local Land Units, 2002 52

    Table 12: Acres Treated in FY 2002 or Planned in FY 2003 That Were Treated
    in the Previous Fiscal Year 53

    Figures Figure 1: Movement of U. S. Population Toward the Interior West 7
    Figure 2: A Mechanical Thinning Project Being Used for Fuels

    Reduction on a Western National Forest 10 Figure 3: Prescribed Fire Being
    Used for Fuels Reduction on a

    Western National Forest 11 Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels 13 Figure 5:
    Various Types of Wildland- Urban Interface 16 Figure 6: Methods Used to
    Prioritize Projects at 17 Local Units 20 Figure 7: Reasons Why Fuels
    Reduction Treatments Were Not

    Implemented by 17 Local Units, FY 2002 23 Figure 8: Number of Acres Burned
    by Wildfires, 1993- 2002 25 Figure 9: Percentage of Acres Treated or
    Planned for Treatment in

    the Southeast by the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003 31 Figure
    10: Fiscal Year 2001 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI Acre

    Distribution 40 Figure 11: Fiscal Year 2001 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-
    WUI Cost

    Distribution 40 Figure 12: Fiscal Year 2002 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-
    WUI Acre

    Distribution 42 Figure 13: Fiscal Year 2002 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-
    WUI Cost

    Distribution 42 Figure 14: Fiscal Year 2003 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-
    WUI Acre

    Distribution 43 Figure 15: Fiscal Year 2003 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-
    WUI Cost

    Distribution 44 Figure 16: Elements of Local Land Units* Project
    Prioritization

    Methods 54

    Abbreviations

    BLM Bureau of Land Management USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

    This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    Letter

    August 15, 2003 The Honorable Charles Taylor Chairman The Honorable Norman
    Dicks Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The
    Honorable Scott McInnis Chairman Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
    Committee on Resources House of Representatives Nearly 100 years of fire
    suppression have left the nation*s forests dense with small, tightly
    spaced trees and thick brush. This density, along with weather conditions,
    such as wind, high temperatures and drought, has

    fueled wildland fires that in certain cases have spread rapidly and become
    catastrophic. These fires and the resulting damage not only compromise the
    forests* ability to provide timber, outdoor recreation, clean water, and
    other resources, but also pose increasingly grave risks to health, safety,
    and property. Two of the more devastating fire seasons on record have
    occurred in the last 3 years. In 2000, wildland fires burned more than 8
    million acres; and in 2002, almost 7 million acres were burned about twice
    the 10- year annual average. These fires required billions of dollars to
    suppress and forced thousands of people to evacuate their homes.

    In the aftermath of the wildland fires of 2000, the federal agencies
    responsible for wildland fire management the Forest Service in the U. S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau
    of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park
    Service in the Department of the Interior (Interior)* developed the
    National Fire Plan, a long- term multibillion- dollar plan to address the
    nation*s risk of such fires. A major component of the plan is a hazardous
    fuels reduction program that requires the agencies to thin forests and
    rangelands, thereby reducing the risk of catastrophic fires caused by
    excessive buildup of vegetation. Local land management units, such as

    national forests and parks, are generally responsible for carrying out
    projects to reduce the buildup of vegetation that fuels catastrophic
    fires. Techniques used for managing vegetation generally include setting
    fires

    under controlled conditions (prescribed burns) and mechanical thinning.
    Another important component of the plan is for the agencies to establish
    effective performance measures to assess the results of their fuels
    reduction treatments. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the agencies have
    received approximately $400 million annually for fuels reduction under the

    plan. According to the Forest Service and Interior, about 650 million
    acres, or over 85 percent of the approximately 750 million acres of
    federal land that they manage, are susceptible to wildland fire. These
    susceptible lands, according to a recent government estimate, include (1)
    millions of acres in the dense forests of the West that have excess
    buildup of fuels and are at risk of catastrophic fires, (2) millions of
    acres nationwide that either surround or are adjacent to urban development
    and communities (commonly referred to as the wildland- urban interface)
    that are at risk to wildland fire, and (3) still other acres that need
    regular and frequent treatments to prevent rapid fuels buildup. While fire
    plays a role in maintaining the health of certain ecosystems, the overall
    growth of vegetation in the nation*s forests and rangelands has created
    unnatural

    hazardous fire conditions. Under the National Fire Plan, the Forest
    Service and Interior are attempting to identify and prioritize the lands
    most in need of fuels reduction while dealing with a number of challenges
    that hinder the

    agencies* implementation of fuels reduction efforts. The House of
    Representatives has recently passed legislation intended to, among other
    things, reduce the risk of damage to communities, municipal watersheds,
    and certain federal lands from catastrophic wildfires. However, there is
    controversy over whether conducting fuels reduction treatments outside the
    wildland urban interface* as the House bill would authorize* is
    appropriate, especially if the treatments involve clear cutting trees in
    remote forest areas.

    In this context, you asked us to (1) assess the Forest Service*s and
    Interior*s efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels
    reduction treatments, (2) determine how local land units within the Forest
    Service and Interior prioritize land for fuels reduction treatments, (3)
    identify factors that have hindered fuels reduction efforts, and (4)
    assess how the Forest Service and Interior measure and report progress
    under the fuels reduction program.

    In conducting our review, we met with Forest Service and Interior
    officials in headquarters, and visited five states, where we met with
    officials in selected regional and state offices, as well as 17 Forest
    Service and BLM local land units, such as national forests and BLM field
    offices. While the

    results of our visits cannot be projected nationwide, the visits represent
    a mix of local fuels reduction efforts based on geographic diversity and
    level of funding. (See app. I for details on the scope and methodology of
    our

    review.) Results in Brief The Forest Service and Interior have identified
    three categories of federal

    lands that require fuels reduction, but they have not yet reliably
    estimated the amount and identified the location of these lands. Given the
    potentially vast amounts of federal land at risk of catastrophic wildfire,
    the agencies have stressed the importance of treating lands that have
    excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildland- urban interface. In
    addition, the agencies acknowledge a third category lands that require
    regular maintenance to prevent excess fuels buildup because vegetation
    grows rapidly* but they have not decided whether these lands are as
    important to treat as are lands

    in the first two categories. Government scientists have collected
    nationwide data on lands with excess fuels buildup, but because the data
    were not detailed, there was a large margin of error in the resulting
    estimates. Recognizing the need for more accurate estimates, the agencies
    are currently considering whether to fund a project to assess in more
    detail the fuels buildup on federal land nationwide. If funded, they do
    not expect to complete the effort until 2008 at the earliest. For the
    second category lands in the wildland- urban interface the agencies have
    not

    specifically defined the wildland- urban interface so they have been
    unable to collect data that are relevant nationwide. For example, the
    agencies have not decided if it includes only land near residences and
    commercial development or also land near public resources, such as power
    lines and watersheds. Without a clear national definition, there is no
    basis for a consistent determination about which lands are part of the
    wildland- urban interface. Finally, for the third category* lands that
    require regular maintenance treatments because the vegetation grows
    rapidly* the agencies have not estimated the total amount and location of
    such lands, although they have been reducing fuels on such lands in the
    Southeast for decades. Without a nationwide estimate of the amount and
    location of land in each category of land that is important to treat, it
    will be difficult for the agencies to assess their progress in reducing
    the total amount of federal land that requires fuels reduction.

    Local land units prioritize lands within the three categories for fuels
    reduction using a variety of methods including professional judgment and
    ranking systems. For example, at one local unit an agency official uses
    his

    professional judgment, local knowledge, and field observations of

    vegetative conditions to prioritize projects. At another unit, officials
    collect detailed data on factors such as vegetative condition, proximity
    to recent fires, and proximity to communities; then they assign points to
    potential fuels reduction projects, based on the factors, and rank the
    projects in priority order. Still other units* particularly in the
    Southeast* select lands

    for fuels reduction according to a recurring schedule. Moreover, even
    units that use the same prioritization method may not emphasis the same
    criteria in prioritization decisions. For example, among units that rely
    on professional judgment, some place far greater weight on community

    preferences than others. This variation in prioritization methods occurs,
    in part, because the Forest Service and Interior have not issued specific
    national guidance on how to prioritize projects; rather, they have issued
    broad guidance allowing local units wide discretion. Without specific

    guidance on how to prioritize locations for fuels reduction within the
    three categories of federal land identified nationally, it is difficult
    for the Forest Service and Interior to ensure that there is any
    consistent, systematic rigor to how projects are being prioritized or that
    the highest priority fuels reduction projects nationwide are being
    implemented.

    Several factors including weather and diversion of resources to fire
    suppression have hindered the Forest Service*s and Interior*s ability to
    complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. Given these factors, in
    2002, the Forest Service and Interior reduced fuels on 56 percent of the
    approximately 4 million acres they could have treated. In discussions with

    officials from 17 Forest Service and Interior local land units we visited,
    they stated that the most prominent factor was the weather, which
    accounted for 40 percent of all fuels reduction project delays at these
    units in 2002. In some cases, land managers could not ignite prescribed
    burns because weather conditions, such as wind, temperature, and drought,
    made doing so unsafe; and they could not use mechanical thinning equipment
    because of the risk that a spark would accidentally ignite a wildfire. For
    example, at one local unit, over 34, 000 acres, or 72 percent of the
    approximately 47,000 acres planned for fuels reduction, were not treated
    because of drought conditions. A related factor hindering agencies*
    completion of fuels reduction projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency
    resources from fuels reduction to fire suppression efforts during the
    severe fire season. This factor accounted for about 30 percent of all
    project delays at the local units we visited. For example, one national
    forest shifted about 22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels
    reduction budget to support fire suppression efforts. Even in the
    Southeast, where the drought and the fire season were less severe,
    nationwide policy restrictions prohibited local units from implementing
    fuels reduction projects because the units* staff

    were required to be immediately available for suppression efforts
    elsewhere. In addition, local land unit officials cited other factors,
    such as administrative regulatory requirements and public resistance, that
    affected fuels reduction projects. Although local land units are working
    to address some of these factors, others, such as weather, are beyond
    human control. Given these factors, some local officials were uncertain
    whether increased funding would result in a proportional increase in acres
    treated under the fuels reduction program.

    To measure progress under the fuels reduction program, the Forest Service
    and Interior are currently tracking and reporting the total number of
    acres treated nationwide. This practice, however, measures only the number
    of acres that receive fuels reduction treatments not necessarily whether
    progress is being made in reducing the overall risk of wildfire.
    Recognizing this shortcoming, the Forest Service and Interior are
    currently developing results- oriented performance measures that assess
    the effect of these

    treatments in reducing the risk of wildfires. However, because the Forest
    Service and Interior have not yet established baseline data by identifying
    the acres that are at different levels of risk to wildfire, any assessment
    of the change in wildfire risk level will be subjective, and it will be
    difficult to determine the actual progress being made in reducing the risk
    of catastrophic wildfire nationwide. In addition, the current method of
    reporting annual performance is resulting in misleading information on
    what is actually being accomplished with respect to reducing the total
    amount of land at risk nationwide. Currently, the data give the indication
    that all the acres treated are reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
    This is not the situation. In some cases, acres are being treated that
    will not change the risk and in other cases multiple treatments need to be
    made over several years to reduce the risk. Unless treatments in these
    cases are reported separately in annual performance reports, it is, and
    likely will continue to be, difficult to assess the progress being made
    under the fuels reduction program in terms of reducing the overall risk of
    wildfires nationwide. In the context of vast, yet unknown acres of federal
    land at risk to wildfire

    and major factors hindering fuels reduction on that land, mitigating the
    risk of catastrophic wildfires through fuels reduction will require a
    sustained, long- term effort. However, without a nationwide estimate of
    the amount and location of lands that need fuels reduction, it will be
    difficult to ensure

    that the highest priority fuels reduction projects nationwide are being
    implemented and to assess progress in reducing fuels buildup in forests
    and rangelands across the nation. Accordingly, we are recommending that

    the Forest Service and Interior identify which federal lands need fuels
    reduction so that detailed, comparable data can be collected on the amount
    and location of these lands, to facilitate prioritization decisions. In
    addition, we are recommending that in annual performance reports the
    Forest Service and Interior report acres treated that reduce the level of
    wildfire risk separately from other acres treated, to better reflect the
    longterm progress of the fuels reduction program. In commenting on a draft
    of this report, the Forest Service and Interior stated that the report
    aptly

    described the nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both its
    scope and severity. They agreed that prioritization is essential to
    program effectiveness, but they had some concerns about our
    recommendations related to identifying lands that need fuels reduction and
    reporting accomplishments in separate categories.

    Background Nearly all forests and grasslands in North America evolved with
    fire as a natural part of the ecosystem. Fire contributes to ecological
    health in forests and rangelands by maintaining plant species diversity,
    preventing the spread of invasive species, limiting the spread of insects
    and disease, and promoting new growth. Historically, fires occurred at a
    variety of

    frequencies ranging from 1- to 2- year cycles in some southeastern
    forests, to 200- to 500- year cycles in northwestern rain forests. These
    historical cycles changed in part because the federal government began a
    policy of

    suppressing all wildland fires as quickly as possible. Over the years,
    brush, small trees, and other vegetation accumulated that can fuel fires
    and cause them to spread more rapidly with catastrophic results. Weather
    phenomena have also contributed to dangerous fire conditions. The weather
    phenomenon known as La Nina, characterized by unusually cold Pacific Ocean
    temperatures, changed weather patterns when it formed in 1998. It caused
    severe, long- lasting drought across much of the country, drying out
    forests and rangelands.

    The Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service,
    and Fish and Wildlife Service manage about 750 million acres of federal
    land across the United States. Most federal lands in the 48 contiguous

    states are located in 11 western states, which have seen a dramatic surge
    in population over the last 2 decades, complicating the management of
    wildland fires. As shown in figure 1, the population is moving toward the
    Interior West, contributing to new development in fire- prone areas, often
    adjacent to federal land, and creating a wildland- urban interface. This
    relatively new phenomenon means that more communities and structures

    are at risk of wildland fire and of potential post- fire effects,
    including increased erosion and flooding.

    Figure 1: Movement of U. S. Population Toward the Interior West a The five
    fastest growing states through 1999 include Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
    Nevada, and Utah. b People moving to the Interior West minus people
    leaving.

    Following the 2000 fire season, which was one of the most challenging on
    record, the Bush Administration asked USDA and Interior to recommend how
    best to respond and how to reduce the impacts of such fires in the future.
    Their report, called the National Fire Plan, recommended increased funding
    for several key activities, such as suppressing wildland fires and

    reducing the buildup of unwanted hazardous fuels. To fund the activities
    recommended in the National Fire Plan, Congress appropriated $2.9 billion
    to the Forest Service and the Interior agencies for their fiscal year 2001
    wildland fire needs an increase of over $1 billion from the prior year

    funding of $1.5 billion. Of the $2.9 billion, $400 million was for
    reducing hazardous fuels. For fiscal year 2002 wildland fire needs,
    Congress authorized $2.3 billion for the Forest Service and Interior
    agencies of which $395 million was for reducing hazardous fuels. Of the
    agencies involved with the fuels reduction program, the Forest Service and
    Interior*s BLM spend the most money to reduce hazardous fuels.

    A key component of the National Fire Plan is the development and
    implementation of a cohesive strategy aimed at lowering the risks from
    catastrophic wildfires by reducing the excess buildup of hazardous fuels
    in the nation*s forests and rangelands. 1 Since beginning implementation
    of the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service and Interior have treated
    hazardous fuels on about 4.4 million acres of federal land in 2001 and
    2002. Most of the treatments to date have been in the southeastern region
    of the United States, where the vegetation in the forests tends to grow
    rapidly, causing

    fuels to accumulate over a short period. (See app. II and III for detailed
    information on program results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and planned
    work for fiscal year 2003.)

    Local land units within the Forest Service and Interior*s wildland fire
    management agencies largely carry out fuels reduction treatments. The
    Forest Service*s local land units consist of national forests and
    grasslands. These local land units are overseen by the Forest Service*s
    regional offices. Within Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs* local
    land units consist of

    agencies; BLM*s local land units consist of districts, field offices, or
    resource areas; and the Fish and Wildlife Service*s and the National Park
    Service*s local land units consist of facilities, refuges, or parks. BLM*s
    state offices oversee its local land units, while the regional offices of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
    Service oversee their local land units.

    These agencies plan and implement fuels reduction projects that are
    required to conform to agency specific land management statutes as well as
    requirements under legislation such as the National Environmental Policy
    Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, and often involve
    other federal and nonfederal regulatory agencies. In addition, as directed
    by the community assistance goal of the National Fire Plan, the agencies
    work with and grant funds to local communities for fuels reduction.

    1 At the time of our review, the Forest Service and Interior had not
    finalized the cohesive strategy. As a result, local land units are
    continuing to operate under draft guidance.

    At the national level, the Forest Service and Interior agencies are
    directed to allocate fuels reduction funding to their regional or state
    offices that have the greatest fire management workload, risk to
    communities, and fuels buildup. However, because it has been difficult for
    the agencies to allocate funding according to these criteria, in practice,
    funding allocations are primarily influenced by historical workload and
    funding levels, and proportional allocations tend to be similar from year
    to year. Consequently, it is left to the local land units to identify the
    highest priority locations for fuels reduction treatments.

    To reduce hazardous fuels, agencies rely principally on mechanical or hand
    thinning of trees and brush, prescribed burning, or a combination of the
    two. Mechanical thinning includes the use of chainsaws, traditional timber
    extraction machinery, and hydromowers and slashbusters* machines that
    grind up small trees and shrubs into mulch* or other mechanized equipment.
    Figure 2 depicts a mechanical thinning project. Prescribed burns are fires
    set deliberately by land managers under weather, fuel, and temperature
    conditions that enable the fire to be controlled at a relatively low
    intensity level. Figure 3 depicts a prescribed burn project. In some
    cases, it is necessary to mechanically thin an area before igniting a

    prescribed fire, in order to achieve fuel conditions that prevent the fire
    from burning so rapidly and intensely that it becomes uncontrollable.

    Figure 2: A Mechanical Thinning Project Being Used for Fuels Reduction on
    a Western National Forest

    Figure 3: Prescribed Fire Being Used for Fuels Reduction on a Western
    National Forest

    Agencies Are Focusing The Forest Service and Interior have determined that
    three categories of

    Fuels Reduction on federal lands require fuels reduction treatment, but
    they have not yet

    reliably estimated the amount or identified the location of these lands.
    The Lands in Three

    agencies* draft cohesive strategy emphasizes the importance of treating
    Categories, but More lands that have excess fuels buildup and lands in the
    wildland- urban

    Efforts Are Needed to interface with fuels reduction. In addition, the
    draft cohesive strategy

    mentions that a third category should be considered as well lands that
    Estimate the Amount

    require regular maintenance to prevent excess fuels buildup because and
    Location of These vegetation grows rapidly* but the strategy is unclear
    about whether lands in this category are as important to treat as lands in
    the first two categories. Lands

    Forest Service scientists have collected nationwide data on lands with
    excess fuels buildup, but because the data were not detailed, scientists
    could make only rough estimates of the amount; and they could not identify

    the specific locations of these lands. 2 Recognizing the need for more
    accurate estimates, the agencies are currently deciding whether to fund a
    project that would collect more detailed data on land with excess fuels
    buildup nationwide. They have not yet clearly defined the parameters of
    the wildland- urban interface, and consequently have been unable to
    collect data that is relevant at the national level. In addition, the
    agencies have not decided whether lands requiring regular maintenance
    treatments are among the lands most at risk nationally and therefore most
    in need of fuels reduction treatments. As a result, they have neither
    estimated the total amount nor identified the location of such lands.

    More Data Needed to Although one of the categories of land targeted for
    fuels reduction in the

    Identify Land with Excess draft cohesive strategy is land with excess
    fuels buildup, the agencies have

    Fuels Buildup not yet accurately estimated the amount or identified the
    location of these

    lands. In an attempt to gather nationwide data on these lands, in April
    2001, Forest Service scientists completed a national assessment of fuels
    buildup, resulting in a map that classified all land in the contiguous 48
    states as high, moderate, or low risk for catastrophic wildfires. As
    figure 4 shows, the risk depends on how much the vegetation has changed
    relative to historical conditions, with the highest levels of fuels
    buildup corresponding to the highest wildfire risk ranking.

    2 The Forest Service and Interior jointly funded the initial assessment,
    and subsequent studies were funded by the Forest Service.

    Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels While the initial assessment provided a
    rough approximation of national risk level, it could not be used to
    accurately discern the total amount of land at high risk, or to identify
    specific locations of such land because it was based on data that were not
    detailed and therefore was subject to a considerable margin of error. The
    scientists estimated that about 75 million acres of federal land were at
    high risk of wildfire, but because of the lack of detail, the estimate was
    rough. The lack of detail was particularly limiting on rangelands, where
    flammable nonnative weeds such as cheatgrass have

    replaced native plants in many areas, leaving the land vulnerable to
    fastmoving, high- intensity fires. According to Forest Service scientists,
    the initial data did not sufficiently depict nonforested lands including
    rangelands. In many cases, nonnative and native plants grow in a scattered
    patchwork pattern, and it is difficult to distinguish small patches of

    nonnative plants without detailed data. To partially address this
    limitation, in 2002 scientists studied vegetative conditions on some
    rangelands and found that they had underestimated the amount of rangeland
    at high risk. Adding this land to the 75 million acres in the initial
    assessment, they concluded that about 90 million acres of federal land
    were at high risk to wildfire. Aware that the lack of detail in the
    initial assessment also affected forests, in 2003 scientists collected
    samples of more detailed data in several

    forests in the West. The detailed data revealed that the initial
    assessment had also underestimated the amount of land with excess fuels
    buildup in forests, and consequently, the amount of land at high risk.
    Extrapolating their findings to adjust the nationwide estimate, the
    scientists concluded that about 190 million acres of federal land were at
    high risk, but they acknowledged that the correct number could be anywhere
    from 90 to 200 million acres, considering the margin of error. Recognizing
    the need for more accurate nationwide data about land with excess fuels
    buildup, and aware of the limitations of existing assessments,

    the Forest Service and Interior are taking actions to more accurately
    estimate the amount and identify the location of such land with excess
    fuels buildup. Over the long term, the agencies are considering a proposal
    to collect more detailed nationwide data through a project called
    LANDFIRE, but they have not yet decided whether to fund the project. They
    have, however, begun to test a prototype in two areas, which will serve as
    a model for applying the same methods nationwide. 3 If implemented,
    LANDFIRE is expected to provide accurate maps showing specific locations
    of lands with excess fuels buildup and computer models that can predict
    which areas are at highest risk of wildfire based on vegetation type and
    condition, historical fire frequency, weather, and other

    factors. Nevertheless, while the agencies have been considering the
    project for years, they still have not fully funded it. We first examined
    LANDFIRE in 1998, at which time agency officials initially showed us one
    of the

    3 Although the initial assessment covered only the 48 contiguous states,
    the new efforts will cover all 50 states.

    prototype areas. 4 We later reported on LANDFIRE in 2002, and found that
    it had the potential to provide data critical for use in project
    prioritization, but we had concerns that the project was no closer to
    being funded than it

    was in 1998. 5 Now, according to agency officials, data collection efforts
    in the test areas has provided sufficient information to make a decision
    about whether to fund and implement LANDFIRE, which is estimated to cost
    $33 million. Currently the agencies are contemplating funding the project
    as soon as 2003, but they have not yet made a decision; and if it is
    implemented, it is not scheduled to be complete until 2008 at the
    earliest.

    In an effort to provide usable data in the interim, the Forest Service and
    Interior have proposed completing by 2005 a nationwide rapid assessment
    which would use information from a variety of sources, such as expert
    opinion, statistical analysis, and data previously collected by state
    agencies, local governments, and federal agencies. However, the agencies
    have not funded this effort either. Furthermore, because the data used in

    the rapid assessment would come from a mixture of sources, they would vary
    in accuracy, reliability, and level of detail, among other things.
    Consequently, the results of the rapid assessment would not be as accurate
    as what is expected from LANDFIRE, bringing into question the value of
    funding the rapid assessment in addition to LANDFIRE.

    Consistent Definition The President and Congress, as well as the Forest
    Service and Interior have Needed before Land in the

    stressed the importance of reducing fuels in the wildland- urban
    interface, Wildland- Urban Interface

    but the agencies have not developed a specific definition of wildland-
    urban Can Be Identified

    interface and therefore are unable to identify the amount and location of
    lands in the interface nationwide. In January 2001, a definition of
    wildlandurban interface was published in the Federal Register, but it is
    very general and consequently, it has been interpreted inconsistently. 6
    The definition classifies wildland- urban interface into two primary
    categories: (1) lands where structures are directly adjacent to wildlands
    and (2) lands where

    4 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Western National Forests: A
    Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/
    RCED- 99- 65 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 2, 1999). 5 See U. S. General
    Accounting Office, Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability
    Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources, GAO- 02- 259
    (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

    6 66 Fed. Reg. 753 (2001).

    structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. 7 The definition
    further specifies that wildland- urban interface includes communities
    ranging from suburban and urban neighborhoods (3 or more structures per
    acre) to widely dispersed rural dwellings (1 structure per 40 acres). The
    breadth of

    this definition allows for diverse interpretations* including, for
    example, subdivisions lining forest boundaries, remote summer cabins in
    the wilderness, or land surrounding powerlines crossing federal lands. On
    the basis of this definition of wildland- urban interface, the Forest
    Service and Interior allowed each state to identify a list of communities
    at risk from wildfire to be published in the Federal Register in August
    2001. However, given the lack of specificity in the published definition
    of wildland- urban interface, each state used criteria it believed
    appropriate for selecting

    communities at risk. For example, figure 5 shows diverse types of land
    that states could include based on different definitions of wildland-
    urban interface.

    Figure 5: Various Types of Wildland- Urban Interface

    As a result, some states provided much longer lists of communities at risk
    than other states, and there was no consistent standard for inclusion on
    the list. To resolve this inconsistency, the draft cohesive strategy calls
    for the states to develop a common definition of communities at risk by
    June

    7 A third category included the less- common situation when structures,
    often within a city, abut an island of wildland fuels (e. g., a park or
    open space).

    2003. 8 Toward this end, the Forest Service and Interior have tasked the
    National Association of State Foresters* an organization representing
    state forestry departments* with developing uniform guidance for states to

    use in identifying wildland- urban interface communities at risk, but this
    process is no more likely to result in a consistently- applied definition
    of wildland- urban interface than the former one. The guidance, now in
    draft,

    sets out four criteria and recommends that states assign an adjective
    rating such as high, medium, or low risk to each community or wildland-
    urban interface area identified. If implemented, the guidance would
    provide a methodology for states to generally assess relative risk; but
    because each state would interpret and apply high, medium, and low risk
    independently, the risk rankings would not be comparable on a nationwide
    basis. In addition, the guidance does not define wildland- urban
    interface, instead

    allowing each state to develop its own definition. For example, some
    states may develop a very narrow definition that includes only land
    immediately surrounding housing subdivisions, while other states may
    develop a definition that includes remote ranches and cabins used only
    seasonally, as well as land surrounding public resources, such as power
    lines or communications equipment. The Forest Service and Interior will
    again be left with multiple, inconsistent definitions developed
    independently by each state, and because of this inconsistency the lands
    identified through the process will not be comparable. As a result, the
    process will not enable national decision- makers to accurately determine
    how much land is in the

    wildland- urban interface nationwide, or where it is located. While the
    task of developing a specific, consistently used definition of wildland-
    urban interface is a challenging one requiring difficult decisions to be
    made, if the Forest Service and Interior do not develop such a definition,
    not only will they be unable to accurately identify which lands are in the
    wildland- urban interface nationwide, but they will also be unable to
    identify the highest priority lands for fuels reduction treatments.

    Agencies Unclear About Although the agencies have been using regular
    maintenance treatments as Importance of Maintenance

    part of their risk prevention strategy in the Southeast for decades, and
    Treatments in Fuels

    almost half of the annual acres treated under the fuels reduction program
    Reduction Program

    have been in this category, the Forest Service and Interior have not
    clarified whether the treatment of these acres is as important as the
    treatment of lands with excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildland8

    As of August 2003, a common definition of communities at risk had not been
    developed.

    urban interface. Rather, the draft cohesive strategy separately
    acknowledges the value of continuing maintenance treatments in some areas
    to prevent them from becoming quickly overloaded with fuels, especially in
    the Southeast where vegetation grows rapidly. Because the agencies have
    not determined whether the maintenance acres are as important as lands
    with excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildlandurban interface, they
    do not plan to assess the total amount of maintenance acres that need to
    be treated nationwide.

    The vegetation in southeastern forests builds up more quickly than it does
    in the West because it grows rapidly. Consequently, agency officials in
    the Southeast conduct fuels reduction treatments frequently in an attempt
    to prevent the forests from developing excess fuels buildup and increasing
    the risk that a wildfire there would grow into a catastrophic one. For
    example, on some national forests in the Southeast, fuels reduction
    treatments are scheduled on various acres of the forest annually, such
    that the entire forest is treated every 3 to 5 years. According to agency
    officials, this approach maintains forests at the low wildfire risk level,
    and prevents them

    from growing into a condition that would put them at a higher wildfire
    risk level. The agencies have been reducing fuels in the Southeast this
    way for decades. In contrast, fuels reduction in most of the West has
    increased significantly since the beginning of the National Fire Plan in
    2001. With these increased efforts* and needs* in other parts of the
    country, the

    agencies must now determine whether maintenance efforts in the Southeast
    should have the same priority as fuels reduction efforts elsewhere, and if
    so, assess the total amount and location of lands in need of maintenance
    treatments nationwide.

    Local Land Units Local land units use a variety of methods to prioritize
    lands within the three

    Prioritize Projects categories identified by the Forest Service and
    Interior as needing fuels reduction. In large part, local units use
    different methods because the

    Using a Variety of Forest Service and Interior give them wide latitude to
    do so through broad

    Methods Because of a national guidance. Prioritization decisions are
    particularly significant given

    Lack of Specific that the three categories of land identified by the
    agencies* land with excess fuels buildup, land in the wildland- urban
    interface, and land that

    National Guidance requires maintenance to prevent excess fuels buildup*
    could collectively

    include nearly all federal land. Nevertheless, prioritization decisions
    are deferred to the local level because there is not sufficient data at
    the national level to guide prioritization decisions.

    At the national level, the Forest Service and Interior are directed to
    allocate fuels reduction funding to regional and state offices that have
    the greatest fire management workload, risk to communities, and fuels
    buildup. However, given the lack of consistent nationwide data on risk to

    communities and fuels buildup, it is difficult for the agencies to
    allocate funding according to these criteria. In practice, funding
    allocations are primarily influenced by historical workload and funding
    levels, and proportional allocations tend to be similar from year to year.
    Consequently, it is left to the local land units to identify the highest
    priority locations for fuels reduction treatments.

    The national guidance in the draft cohesive strategy sets out a long list
    of criteria to be considered by local units in prioritizing projects,
    including selecting projects that protect wildlife habitat, contracting
    for work outside of federal agencies, and offsetting costs through the
    sale of firewood. Furthermore, the guidance also offers local officials
    the discretion to make

    exceptions to the national criteria. The result is that nearly any method
    of project selection* and nearly any project* is allowable. As shown in
    figure 6, we grouped the various prioritization methods used by the local
    land units that we visited into three general types: (1) professional
    judgment and staff discussions, (2) scoring systems, and (3) schedules of
    recurring treatments. In addition to these three methods, local units
    consider a wide variety of criteria when prioritizing projects; and as
    discussed below, even units that use the same method may not emphasize the
    same criteria in prioritization decisions. A complete record of the
    methods used and the criteria considered at all 17 units is shown in
    figure 16, in appendix IV.

    Figure 6: Methods Used to Prioritize Projects at 17 Local Units

    The most common method used by the local units we visited to prioritize
    projects for 2002 is professional judgment or staff discussions.
    Specifically, under this method, agency officials make decisions either
    individually or in groups through discussions among staff members, but
    they do not assign

    numeric scores to potential projects or use a quantitative process. In
    some cases, however, they consider scientific data and other
    systematically documented criteria, while in other cases, the process is
    informal and undocumented. For example, at BLM*s San Juan Field Office in
    Colorado,

    the fuels manager identifies and prioritizes projects based on his
    knowledge of fuels buildup, location of nearby communities, and
    accessibility to the project area. He also consults with county fire
    chiefs and reviews community fire plans to identify additional projects,
    and he aims to distribute projects evenly across various counties. He does
    not, however, refer to scientific data, or follow a formal process of
    ranking potential projects. At the Klamath National Forest in northern
    California, the staff rely on informal discussions to prioritize projects,
    in part, because they do not have accurate, recent data to use in
    assessing vegetative type or condition and scoring projects. According to
    an agency official, the most recent vegetation data for this forest were
    collected during the 1970s. In contrast, at the Deschutes and the Ochoco
    National Forests in Oregon staff discussions to determine prioritization
    are guided by a documented list of prioritization criteria. They consider
    local data on type of vegetation,

    amount of fuels buildup, and predicted fire behavior, as well as other
    criteria including but not limited to the number of acres the potential
    project will cover and whether the project is (1) coordinated with other
    agencies, (2) will benefit other resources, (3) will cost less than $50
    per acre, and (4) has completed planning documents. Agency officials at
    these forests said they want to retain the subjective quality of the
    process and have therefore not put the criteria in order or developed a
    numeric scoring system.

    Among local units that prioritize projects through professional judgment
    or staff discussions, there is considerable diversity in the extent to
    which they involve nearby communities. For example, at the San Juan
    National Forest in southwestern Colorado, agency officials rely on a list
    of potential projects identified in local community planning documents to
    initially select all mechanical fuels reduction projects. Forest Service
    officials then conduct on- the- ground surveys to verify that the projects
    are feasible and suitable. Typically, however, they do not consult
    additional data on vegetative type and condition, fire history, or other
    characteristics. Instead, they choose to give priority to community
    preferences. Most other local

    land units we visited do not emphasize community involvement in the
    project prioritization process to this extent; but some consider community
    acceptance as one of several factors when selecting projects. For example,
    at the Stanislaus National Forest in California, projects are given higher
    priority when adjacent landowners are willing to coordinate implementation
    of fuels reduction projects and given lower priority when agency officials
    believe it is likely that informal resistance or formal legal challenges
    from the community will impede the project.

    Some local units we visited use a scoring system to prioritize projects.
    For example, at the Los Padres National Forest in California, agency
    officials have developed a detailed scheme for assigning points to
    potential projects based on a set of weighted criteria. Each project is
    assigned points for, among other factors, type and age of vegetation
    proximity to recent fires

    and proximity to communities. Managers refer to detailed Geographic
    Information System maps with data on vegetation type and age, and
    locations of historical fires to determine the number of points to assign.
    Once potential projects have been assigned points, they are ranked; and
    those with the most points are selected for implementation. Some local
    units in the Southeast rely on schedules of recurring treatments

    to select projects for maintenance treatments. Under such a schedule, each
    year fuels reduction projects are implemented in areas where more time

    has elapsed since the last treatment because these areas generally have
    the greatest fuels buildup. For example, at the Bienville National Forest
    in Mississippi, agency officials schedule prescribed burns on each parcel
    of

    land in the forest every 3 to 5 years. To schedule specific parcels for
    treatment, agency officials rely on two primary resources. First, they use
    a prescribed burn atlas, in which local officials have documented the
    location of every prescribed burn completed each year. Second, agency
    officials also record the locations of wildfires because fuels reduction
    may be unnecessary in areas where wildfires have recently occurred.

    In addition to the variation among local units in the methods used and
    criteria considered for prioritizing projects, there is variation in how
    they apply the criteria. For example, all of the local land units that we
    visited attempt to give priority to projects in the wildland- urban
    interface, but they do so to varying degrees. Specifically, some units
    implement only projects that are in the interface, others complete
    projects both inside and outside of the interface; and two units that we
    visited did not implement any projects in the interface in 2002, but
    planned to do so in 2003. Further, because there is no specific national
    definition of wildland- urban interface

    and states have not yet developed their own definitions, it is left to
    local units to define it; and they do so differently. For example, the
    Apalachicola National Forest in Florida defines wildland- urban interface
    to include all land within 5 miles of a populated area, while several
    units include land within 1.5 miles of a populated area; and some units do
    not use a uniform definition, instead relying on case- by- case
    determinations. At the White River National Forest near Vail, Colorado,
    much of the wildland- urban interface is in areas where the views are
    critical to the economic health of the resort town according to an agency
    official. Consequently, land managers use an expansive definition of
    wildland- urban interface that

    includes land that is part of the view from the town, as well as the
    populated areas. BLM*s Surprise Field Office in rural California
    classifies scattered ranches as wildland- urban interface. Also, some
    local units consider land around features such as municipal watersheds or
    power lines to be wildland- urban interface, while others include only
    land surrounding residential and commercial buildings.

    Although we did not find that local units had implemented projects that
    were unimportant according to agency guidance, this guidance is so broad
    that nearly any project could be considered a priority. In addition, as
    more

    projects are completed, there will be fewer priority projects left in some
    localities, and it will become increasingly difficult to ensure that fuels
    reduction efforts are focused in areas that are a priority nationwide. To

    provide such assurance, in the future the agencies may need to
    redistribute funding according to where the highest concentrations of
    priority projects are located nationwide. However, without more specific
    national guidance on systematically prioritizing projects, and more
    consistent application of the guidance at local units, nearly any project
    may continue to qualify as a priority. In this context, it is difficult
    for the Forest Service and Interior to ensure that the highest priority
    projects nationwide are being implemented. Fuels Reduction

    Several factors have hindered local land units in completing their annual
    Efforts Hindered by a

    fuels reduction workloads. As shown in figure 7, weather was the
    predominant factor in preventing fuels reduction projects from being
    Number of Factors

    implemented at the 17 local land units we visited, according to agency
    officials. This factor was followed by diversion of resources from fuels
    reduction efforts to fire suppression, then by other factors related to
    planning and funding issues. (See app. III for additional details.) In
    2002, largely as a result of these factors, the agencies treated only
    about 2.3 million acres, or 56 percent of the approximately 4 million
    acres they were

    ready to treat. Given these factors, some local officials were uncertain
    whether increased funding would result in a proportional increase in acres
    treated under the fuels reduction program.

    Figure 7: Reasons Why Fuels Reduction Treatments Were Not Implemented by
    17 Local Units, FY 2002

    Weather Was the Most Based on our discussions with officials at the 17
    local land units we visited,

    Prominent Factor Hindering weather was the most prominent factor that
    hindered the implementation

    Fuels Reduction Program of fuels reduction projects in 2002, which
    accounted for over 40 percent of all fuels reduction project delays at
    these units. For example, of the 10, 259

    acres planned for treatment in 2002 at the San Juan National Forest in
    Colorado, 6,757 acres, or 66 percent were not treated because of severe
    drought conditions. In addition, of the 2,248 acres planned for treatment
    at the BLM Alturas Field Office in California, consisting of primarily
    rangelands and juniper trees, 1,195 acres, or 53 percent, were not treated
    because of a variety of weather- related factors. According to local land
    unit officials, very specific weather conditions are required for every
    prescribed burn, which often leaves a small window of opportunity to
    complete fuels reduction treatments. The officials explained that it is
    dangerous to ignite prescribed burns under high temperatures, drought
    conditions, high winds, or unfavorable wind directions, because these
    conditions can cause a

    prescribed fire to spread out of control or emit excessive smoke over
    nearby urban areas and thoroughfares. It can also be dangerous to thin
    vegetation using mechanical means during drought conditions because many
    of the machines used for thinning can cause sparks that officials fear
    could ignite excessively dry vegetation. On the other hand, it can be
    difficult to ignite prescribed burns if the vegetation is too wet, which
    makes treatments difficult to complete in the fall and winter months in
    some areas. For these reasons, the number of days per year when the
    weather will allow local units to administer fuels reduction treatments
    can be quite small. For example, in 2002, officials at the Osceola
    National Forest in Florida said that because of weather- related factors
    they had about 60 days to conduct fuels reduction treatments. As a result,
    out of the 47, 000 acres planned for treatment in 2002 at the Osceola
    National Forest, 34, 000 acres, or 72 percent, were not treated because a
    prescribed burn within the

    forest*s swamplands during drought conditions could have emitted heavy
    smoke onto a major interstate. If acres are not treated within a specific
    window of opportunity, their treatments are generally delayed until the
    next fiscal year or later. Fuels Reduction Was

    Another factor that hindered the agencies* completion of fuels reduction
    Hindered by Diversion of projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency
    resources* funding and

    Resources to Fire staff* from fuels reduction to fire suppression during
    the severe fire

    Suppression

    season. 9 This factor accounted for 30 percent of all project delays at
    the local units we visited. In 2002, the nation endured the second most
    severe fire season in half a century. In all, wildland fires burned 6.9
    million acres, far above the 10- year annual average of 4.2 million acres;
    Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon recorded their largest timber fires in the
    last century. In fact, in the last 10- year period (1993- 2002) the number
    of years with

    severe fire seasons has been extremely high, as shown in figure 8. Over
    this period, the number of federal acres burned by wildfires has steadily
    increased.

    Figure 8: Number of Acres Burned by Wildfires, 1993- 2002

    Because suppression costs are budgeted based on the 10- year average of
    actual suppression costs and have not been fully funded in recent years,
    the

    9 In 2002, the fire season was particularly severe. Agencies may not
    experience the same resource diversions in years when the fire season is
    less severe. However, recent history suggests that agencies will continue
    to face severe fire seasons in the future. (See fig. 8.)

    Forest Service and Interior have, in some cases, diverted funds from the
    fuels reduction program to cover the costs of fire suppression. According
    to Forest Service regional officials, although the fuels reduction program
    generally gets reimbursed the next fiscal year, the uncertainty and the
    timing of the reimbursement makes planning projects difficult, especially
    given the sometimes small window of opportunity for conducting

    treatments. As such, diverting funds from fuels reduction can delay fuels
    reduction projects. For example, in 2002, the Klamath National Forest in
    California shifted about 22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels

    reduction budget to support national fire suppression efforts. As a
    result, the forest was unable to treat over 500 acres or about 15 percent
    of its annual target.

    In addition to funds, staff were also diverted from the fuels reduction
    program to fire suppression. In some cases, fuels reduction staff were
    deployed locally or nationally to fight wildfires. In other cases, local
    units had the staff available to complete the fuels reduction work but
    were prevented from doing so because of national fire fighting
    preparedness restrictions put into place by the Forest Service and
    Interior. These restrictions, dictated by burning conditions, fire
    activity, and resource availability, limit or cancel fuels reduction work
    to ensure that the necessary personnel are prepared and immediately
    available for local or national fire suppression duties. During 2002, the
    national preparedness restrictions rose to the highest level possible, 5
    weeks earlier than ever before; and they remained at that level for a
    record- setting 62 days. According to local officials, at the highest
    preparedness level, the Forest Service and Interior generally cancel all
    fuels reduction work across the country, no matter what the local weather
    conditions are or the number of staff on hand to do the work. As a result,
    some local units were not able to complete their 2002 fuels reduction
    workloads. For example, the BLM Prineville District in Oregon, which
    primarily consists of juniper trees and

    rangelands, was unable to treat over 3,500 acres because of the national
    restrictions. Staffing obligations for fire suppression even affected the
    fuels reduction efforts of the local units in the Southeast. For example,
    out of the 145,208 acres scheduled for treatment in 2002 at the
    Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, 31,518 acres, or 22 percent were
    not treated owing, in part, to the national fire restrictions. In
    addition, nearly 20 percent of the 54, 634 acres planned at the Bienville
    National Forest in Mississippi were not treated because local staff were
    deployed to fight western wildfires. If the trend illustrated in figure 8
    continues, more instances of funds and staff being diverted to fire
    suppression could take place in the future.

    Agency Officials Cited In addition to the weather and the diversion of
    resources, local land unit

    Additional Factors That officials also cited, to a lesser degree, other
    factors that affected the fuels

    Affected Fuels Reduction reduction program. These factors included such
    things as public resistance to fuels reduction projects, administrative
    work to fulfill regulatory

    requirements, and the uncertainty of annual funding. Citizens may
    generally challenge a local unit*s decision to proceed with a fuels
    reduction project. This allows greater citizen involvement in the fuels
    reduction program. While the issue of formal public resistance, such as
    appeals and litigation, has recently been contentious, only a few local
    land unit officials we visited indicated that this type of resistance had
    delayed particular fuels reduction treatments. Local unit officials noted
    that more informal methods of public resistance to fuels reduction have
    prevented them from completing treatments and can even dissuade them from
    planning projects in some areas. For example, agency officials from a
    national forest in Oregon told us that they terminated a prescribed
    burning project that was

    in progress because they received numerous complaints from local residents
    about the smoke. Since that incident, officials have been hesitant to
    initiate prescribed burns in the area, they said. Other local unit
    officials stated that, because of the possibility of public resistance
    over fuels reduction work and the necessity to comply with regulatory
    requirements, their staff has to spend more time researching and analyzing
    the possible impacts of fuels reduction treatments. For example, according
    to officials at the Los Padres National Forest in California, many of
    their projects are delayed for months while waiting for the mandatory
    external consultations to comply with the Endangered Species Act. In
    another example, a recent Forest Service report noted that to avert legal
    challenges at the Santa Fe watershed project, Forest Service officials
    spent almost 5 years and $1 million on planning and public involvement. 10
    Another factor that affects fuels reduction projects at the local level is
    the

    uncertainty of annual funding. Some local officials stated that it is
    difficult to plan projects, especially multiyear projects, without
    consistent and sustained funding over a period of years. Officials also
    said that the timing

    of the budget cycle makes planning difficult because the annual budget
    process and fuels reduction planning cycle often overlap with the fire
    season. According to one local unit, officials often do not know how much
    funding they will receive until April* well past the fall and winter
    months,

    10 U. S. Forest Service, The Process Predicament: How Statutory,
    Regulatory and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management,
    (Washington, D. C.; June 2002).

    which are ideal for planning. Other officials explained that it is
    difficult to hire people, identify targets, and write contracts when they
    do not know the amount of funding they will receive. Because of this
    uncertainty, officials pointed out, it is often necessary to fund fuels
    reduction projects piece by piece. When projects are funded piecemeal and
    the following years* funding is not guaranteed, projects may remain
    incomplete for

    several years. Under these circumstances, costly and time- consuming
    regulatory paperwork may have to be redone, because much of the necessary
    environmental analysis needs to be updated after 3 to 5 years. In
    addition, projects that are only partially complete can leave areas more
    susceptible to wildfire risk than they were before their initial
    treatments

    because vegetation that is cut but left on the ground or stacked in piles
    creates a dry, dense concentration of fuels that can be highly flammable.
    While local units were generally more concerned about the timing of the
    budget cycle, officials at five of the local land units we visited
    indicated that inadequate funding itself was a factor that hindered the
    implementation of fuels reduction treatments. The most notable example was
    the Los Padres National Forest, where officials claimed that they were not
    able to complete over 44,000 acres, or approximately 96 percent, of their
    fuels reduction workload in part because of limited funding. In addition
    to these factors, local officials also mentioned staffing and contractor
    shortages as sometimes limiting their ability to plan and implement fuels
    reduction projects.

    The Forest Service and Interior acknowledge these factors that hinder the
    fuels reduction program, and some local land units have made efforts to
    address them.

     The BLM San Juan District in Colorado and other local land units sponsor
    public education programs and citizen meetings to help curb public
    resistance to fuels reduction work.

     Officials at the Bienville National Forest in Mississippi said they
    regularly have more acres ready for treatment than they expect to treat,
    as part of their annual workload. This gives them the flexibility to treat
    other acres if adverse factors prevent them from treating the acres
    originally scheduled.

     Officials at the Osceola National Forest in Florida said that they
    borrow resources from other local area forests and adjust workforce
    schedules to take advantage of ideal weather conditions.

     To help streamline the planning process, officials at the Klamath
    National Forest in California prepare a *programmatic biological
    assessment* which can accommodate the necessary regulatory compliance
    paperwork for several fuels reduction projects. While these efforts are
    encouraging, some factors hindering the fuels

    reduction program, such as the weather, are beyond human control; and it
    is uncertain whether increased funding would result in a proportional
    increase in acres treated under the fuels reduction program.

    Agencies Recognize The Forest Service and Interior currently measure the
    performance of the

    Need to Better fuels reduction program by counting the actual number of
    acres treated.

    Assessing the performance of the fuels reduction program by counting the
    Measure the Effect of

    number of acres treated is problematic, however, because it does not Fuels
    Reduction

    provide information on how or if the level of risk to catastrophic
    wildfire Treatments, but Annual

    has been reduced. To address this weakness, the Forest Service and
    Interior are currently developing results- oriented performance measures
    to Reporting Practices

    better assess the effects of fuels reduction treatments. The new Need
    Improvement

    performance measures are intended to assess how well the treatments are
    reducing the risk of wildfire by counting the number of acres where the
    vegetative condition of the land has been converted to a lower level of
    wildfire risk. However, because the Forest Service and Interior do not

    currently have detailed nationwide baseline data on wildfire risk and
    vegetative condition, the assessment of risk level is generally left up to
    the judgment of local land officials. As such, it will be difficult to
    ensure that any change in wildfire risk as reported in annual performance
    reports is consistent and accurate.

    The current method of reporting annual performance under the fuels
    reduction program is resulting in misleading data on what is actually
    being accomplished. For example, reporting on the total number of acres
    actually treated during the year provides an inaccurate assessment on what
    is being accomplished to reduce the overall risk of catastrophic wildfire
    because maintenance acres are being reported together with other acres
    that are treated primarily to reduce the level of wildfire risk.
    Maintenance acres, currently located primarily in the Southeast, receive
    regular and frequent

    treatments to control their rapid vegetation growth and maintain them at a
    low risk to wildfire. According to agency officials, failure to regularly
    treat these acres could quickly result in a higher risk to catastrophic
    wildfire. All four local land units we visited in the Southeast treat the
    same acres at each of their units about every 3 to 5 years to keep the
    vegetation from

    growing and maintain them at a low level of wildfire risk. While the
    treatment of these types of acres is important to maintain a low risk of
    wildfire, reporting the treatment of these acres annually together with
    nonmaintenance acres* those acres treated primarily to reduce the overall
    risk of catastrophic wildfire* in annual performance reports is misleading
    the Congress and the public over exactly what the agencies are
    accomplishing with the fuels reduction program.

    For example, if the Forest Service and Interior were to treat a total of 2
    million acres per year for the next 10 years, of which 1 million acres per
    year were maintenance acres, and the other 1 million acres per year were
    treated to reduce the level of wildfire risk, the performance reports as
    currently structured would indicate that the agencies had treated 20
    million acres toward the total number of acres nationwide that are at risk
    to wildfire. However, this assessment would be incorrect in two ways.
    First,

    the 1 million maintenance acres treated and reported were most likely
    treated 2 to 3 times, thus reported 2 to 3 times during the 10- year
    period, making the number of new acres actually treated one third or one
    half of the 20 million reported. Second, because maintenance acres will
    continue to require additional treatments beyond the 10- year period, it
    is misleading to link these treatments to any long- term progress in
    further reducing the total lands at risk to wildfire. This reporting
    practice can be especially misleading under the fuels reduction program
    because of the large

    proportion of maintenance acres treated each year, compared with the other
    acres treated. For example, as shown in figure 9, for the 3- year period
    for which the agencies have been counting the number of acres treated for
    fuels reduction under the National Fire Plan (2001- 2003), between 40 to
    50 percent of the total acres treated, or were planned to be treated, each
    year have been maintenance acres in the Southeast.

    Figure 9: Percentage of Acres Treated or Planned for Treatment in the
    Southeast by the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Furthermore, as the fuels reduction program progresses in the future and
    an increasing amount of acres are reduced to a low level of catastrophic
    wildfire risk, treatments to maintain these acres may become an even
    greater proportion of the agencies* annual fuels reduction nationwide

    workload. For example, the BLM Medford District in Oregon stated that most
    of their lands would require maintenance treatments in 7 or 8 years. As a
    result, because maintenance acres are counted together with nonmaintenance
    acres, it will continue to be difficult to accurately assess how annual
    fuels reduction accomplishments are reducing the total number of acres at
    risk to wildfire over time.

    Also under the current reporting system, the way acres are reported when
    multiple treatments are necessary to reduce the risk of wildfire is also
    resulting in misleading data on what is actually being accomplished for
    that year. By reporting multiple treatments on the same acres as separate
    accomplishments, the agencies are creating the impression that more acres

    are receiving treatments than what is actually occurring. Specifically,
    not all of the acres reported as treated in annual performance reports
    reflect *new* accomplishments* some of the same acres may have been
    reported as treated in the previous fiscal year. For example, on one
    national forest in Oregon, 13,000 acres were treated in 2002 and reported
    as accomplishments. However, about 5,600 acres of the 13,000 acres, or 43
    percent, were also treated in 2001 and reported as accomplishments in

    2001. As such, only about 7,400 *new* acres were actually treated in
    fiscal year 2002. In addition, over 500 of the 5,600 acres treated in 2001
    were also treated and reported a third time in 2002. While reporting acres
    in this manner is an appropriate workload measure, it is nonetheless
    difficult to assess the progress of the fuels reduction program beyond a
    single fiscal year if some of the same acres are reported year after year
    in annual performance reports.

    Conclusions The Forest Service and Interior are working collaboratively to
    reduce the buildup of underbrush and other vegetative fuels that has
    accumulated to

    dangerous levels over the past several decades. Because this task is an
    enormous undertaking, it will be nearly impossible for the agencies to
    treat all of this land. Instead, they must first treat the areas where the
    threat of wildfire presents the greatest risk. As such, the agencies will
    have to make difficult decisions about which locations should be treated
    first, and

    allocate funding accordingly. Before the Forest Service and Interior can
    accurately identify which lands need fuels reduction, they will have to
    collect detailed data on lands with excess fuels buildup. Recognizing this
    need, they are considering funding the LANDFIRE project as well as an
    interim rapid assessment to collect these data. However, given that the
    rapid assessment is unlikely to provide results that are as accurate and
    consistent nationwide as those from LANDFIRE, we believe the agencies
    should concentrate their efforts on LANDFIRE. In addition, the agencies
    will have to define which lands are part of the wildland- urban interface
    and determine whether lands that require regular maintenance are as
    important to treat as other lands. Without doing so, they will be
    constrained in their ability to prioritize locations for fuels reduction
    treatments and allocate funding accordingly. In the future, as more
    projects are completed, it will be increasingly important to ensure that
    high- risk areas are identified systematically so the agencies can
    identify the highest priority locations

    nationwide and allocate funding accordingly. Also, because fuels reduction
    will require a long- term sustained effort, it will be essential to report
    accurate data concerning what is actually being accomplished so that the
    progress made each year through these efforts may be monitored. To this

    end, the agencies need to report accomplishments so that the number of
    acres on which the level of wildfire risk is reduced in a given year can
    be distinguished from other acres on which fuels reduction work was

    accomplished. Recommendations for

    To better ensure that federal lands most in need of fuels reduction are
    Executive Action

    treated, and provide the Congress and the relevant agencies with better
    information for making fuels reduction funding decisions, we recommend
    that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior direct the
    agencies to

     fund and implement LANDFIRE so they can more accurately identify the
    amount and location of lands with excess fuels buildup and facilitate the
    prioritization of fuels reduction treatments;

     develop a consistent, specific definition of the wildland- urban
    interface so that detailed, comparable nationwide data can be collected to
    identify the amount and location of lands in the wildland- urban interface
    which will facilitate the prioritization of fuels reduction treatments;

     decide whether lands that require regular maintenance treatments are an
    important area needing continuous fuels reduction treatments and, if so,
    identify the amount and location of these lands nationwide to facilitate
    the prioritization of fuels reduction treatments; and

     distinguish in annual performance reports (1) acres that are treated to
    reduce the level of risk of wildfire from high or moderate to low; (2)
    acres that require multiple treatments over several years to reduce their
    risk of wildfire; and (3) acres being treated to maintain their low risk
    to wildfire, to more accurately reflect the actual progress being made
    under the fuels reduction program.

    Agency Comments and We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries
    of Agriculture and of

    Our Evaluation the Interior for review and comment. The departments
    provided a

    consolidated, written response to our report, which is included in
    appendix V of this report. The departments stated that the report aptly
    described the nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both its
    scope and severity. The departments agreed that prioritization is
    essential to program

    effectiveness and acknowledged that it may be possible to create broad
    categories of high, medium, and low priority for fuel treatments. They

    further indicated that they are nearing a decision on whether to fund and
    implement LANDFIRE. Regarding our recommendation that they decide whether
    lands requiring regular maintenance are an important part of the fuels
    reduction program, the departments said they had decided that these lands
    are an integral part of the program. However, they expressed concerns
    related to our recommendations that they develop a specific

    definition of the wildland- urban interface and that they distinguish
    among categories of fuels treatments when reporting accomplishments.

    The departments commented that it has been difficult to reach consensus on
    a specific definition of the wildland- urban interface and they believe
    that (1) landscape differences preclude the application of a single
    geographic definition and (2) a too- detailed definition would compromise
    the effectiveness of local collaboration and community participation in
    this process. We recognize that reaching consensus on a specific
    definition is

    difficult. We are not advocating an inflexible geographic definition such
    as one based on a uniform radius around communities. On the contrary, we
    agree that landscape differences should be considered when defining the
    wildland- urban interface. We do, however, believe that a more specific
    definition than currently exists is needed to provide greater consistency
    among local units when selecting projects in the wildland- urban
    interface; and we believe that such a definition could be compatible with
    landscape differences. We also continue to believe that without narrowing
    the definition of what constitutes wildland- urban interface, a wide
    variety and large quantity of land will continue to fit within the broad
    definition; and it will be difficult for the departments to identify the
    highest priority areas for fuels reduction nationwide.

    In commenting on our recommendation that the agencies distinguish among
    the types of acres treated in annual performance reports for the fuels
    reduction program, the departments expressed concerns that our report
    apparently assumes maintenance treatments and the first of multiple
    treatments on the same acreage do not lower fire risk. We agree that
    maintenance treatments do lower fire risk, but as noted in the report, we
    believe that without separately reporting these treatments, it will be
    difficult to accurately measure the progress that fuels reduction
    treatments are having in reducing the total number of acres at the highest
    level of risk to wildfire. To clarify this point, we have changed our
    recommendation to more specifically focus on distinguishing treatments
    done in high or moderate risk areas from treatments done in low- risk
    areas.

    As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
    after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
    report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Public
    Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the
    Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Resources;

    the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
    House Committee on Resources; and other interested congressional
    committees. We will also send copies of this report to the Secretary of
    Agriculture; the Secretary of the Interior; the Chief of the Forest
    Service; the Directors of BLM, the National Park Service, and the

    Fish and Wildlife Service; the Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other
    interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request.
    In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO*s web site
    at http:// www. gao. gov/.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in app.
    VI. Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    Appendi Appendi xes x I

    Scope and Methodology To assess the Forest Service*s and the Department of
    the Interior*s (Interior) efforts to determine which federal lands require
    fuels reduction treatments, we obtained interagency strategy and planning
    documents that described the mission of the fuels reduction program and an
    approach for achieving that mission. We interviewed department and agency
    officials in national, regional, and state offices, as well as at local
    land units. We obtained scientific studies about nationwide fuels buildup
    in forests and

    other vegetated areas from the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the
    Washington Office of Fire and Aviation Management, and we interviewed some
    of the authors. We reviewed a Forest Service proposal for a rapid
    assessment that will collect data on nationwide fuels buildup in the
    nearterm and interviewed officials about LANDFIRE, a long- term plan to
    collect more detailed data on nationwide fuels buildup. We also
    interviewed regional and local unit officials from the Forest Service,
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, as well as officials
    representing state departments of forestry, nonprofit organizations, and
    research

    institutions. To determine how local land units within the Forest Service
    and Interior prioritize land for fuels reduction treatments, we obtained
    interagency strategy documents and memorandums describing prioritization
    criteria and process requirements. We also obtained guidance from
    regional, state, and local offices where available. We interviewed Forest
    Service and BLM officials representing state and regional offices. We
    visited Forest Service and BLM fire and fuels specialists representing 11
    national forests and 6 BLM field offices located in California, Colorado,
    Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon. (See table 1.) We selected these two
    agencies because they received the largest funding allocations for fuels
    reduction and treated the most acres. We selected these states because
    they received the largest funding allocations and treated the most acres
    under the fuels reduction program. We included states in the Southeast as
    well as in the West to ensure that diverse vegetation, climate, and
    treatment strategies were represented. Through consultation with regional
    and state agency officials we selected local land units to visit that
    received the largest funding allocations, treated the most acres, and
    represented diversity, with respect

    to predominant vegetative type, treatment strategies used, and proximity
    to communities and urban development. In addition, we verified that some
    of the units we selected had faced challenges that prevented them from
    completing all of the fuels reduction projects they had planned to
    implement in 2002. Finally, we considered cost- effective logistics and
    travel for our staff in selecting the 17 local land units to visit. At
    each local land

    unit, we collected fiscal year 2002 and 2003 data about implemented and
    planned fuels reduction projects; and in some cases, we observed field
    locations where projects were proposed, had begun implementation, or had
    been completed. While the results of our visits cannot be projected
    nationwide, the locations represent a mix of local fuels reduction efforts
    based on geographic diversity and level of funding.

    Tabl e 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO Agency and local land unit State
    Forest Service Apalachicola National Forest Florida

    Bienville National Forest Mississippi Deschutes National Forest Oregon
    DeSoto National Forest Mississippi Klamath National Forest California Los
    Padres National Forest California Ochoco National Forest Oregon Osceola
    National Forest Florida San Juan National Forest Colorado Stanislaus
    National Forest California White River National Forest Colorado

    BLM

    Alturas Field Office California Grand Junction Resource Area Colorado
    Medford District, Ashland Resource Area Oregon Prineville District Oregon
    San Juan Field Office Colorado Surprise Field Office California Source:
    GAO.

    To identify factors that have hindered recent fuels reduction efforts, we
    interviewed Forest Service and Interior officials in headquarters,
    regional, and state offices, and collected data about the percentage of
    federal land ready for fuels reduction treatments in 2002 that was
    treated. We interviewed agency officials from the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM local land units we visited and collected information about fuels
    reduction treatments

    planned and completed for fiscal year 2002, and treatments planned for

    fiscal year 2003. Specifically, for each treatment, officials provided the
    number of acres covered, whether the treatment was in the wildland- urban
    interface, the type of treatment used (e. g., prescribed burn or
    mechanical

    treatment), whether the same area had been treated the previous year,
    whether the treatment was completed as scheduled, and if not, the reasons
    why the treatment was not completed.

    To assess how the Forest Service and Interior measure progress under the
    fuels reduction program, we reviewed interagency strategy and planning
    documents that specified performance measures for the fuels reduction

    program. We also collected nationwide accomplishment data for the fuels
    reduction program in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 from the Forest Service,
    BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
    Park

    Service, and analyzed the data to detect patterns across fuels reduction
    projects. These data were obtained from annual performance reports from
    the Forest Service and Interior for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that

    summarized annual performance and provided quantitative data about fuels
    reduction accomplishments and program costs nationwide. In addition, we
    received planned accomplishment and projected cost data for fiscal year
    2003 directly from the agencies. We also reviewed the agency files we
    received to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data

    required for our assessment. Finally, we interviewed agency officials in
    headquarters, in the National Interagency Fire Center, and at local units
    to obtain information about reporting systems and databases currently in
    use and those planned for future use.

    We conducted our work from June 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest Service and

    Appendi x II

    Interior, FY 2001- 2003 The following tables summarize the hazardous fuels
    reduction accomplishments of the Forest Service and Interior for fiscal
    years 2001 and 2002 and planned accomplishments for 2003. The 2001 and
    2002 tables summarize the number of acres treated and total obligated
    costs for lands both in and outside of the wildland- urban interface
    (WUI). The 2003 table summarizes the number of acres the agencies plan to
    treat and the projected costs of those treatments. Except where noted, the
    information was taken from the annual National Fire Plan performance
    reports and was

    further analyzed by GAO.

    Table 2: Summary of FY 2001 Goals and Accomplishments Percentage
    Nontreated of

    NonWUI WUI WUI Acre Treated planned WUI Non- WUI

    cost/ cost/ Agency targets acres

    acres Total costs acres WUI costs acres costs

    acre acre

    Forest Service 1,800,000 1,323, 705 74% $145, 473,000 611,551 $87,967, 000
    712,154 $57, 506,000 $81 $144

    Bureau of Land Management unavailable 313, 978 58, 784,000 98,590 40,823,
    000 215,388 17, 961,000 83 414 Bureau of Indian Affairs unavailable 74,
    010 25, 544,000 8,415 18,212, 000 65, 595 7, 332,000 112 2,164 National
    Park Service unavailable 97, 691 12, 204,000 2,843 1,640, 000 94, 848 10,
    564,000 111 577

    Fish and Wildlife Service unavailable 242, 433 18, 263,000 54,489 8,795,
    000 187,944 9, 468,000 50 161

    Department of Interior 1,400,000 728, 112 52% 114, 795,000 164,337 69,470,
    000 563,775 45, 325,000 80 423

    Total for FS and Interior 3,200,000 2,051, 817 64% $260, 268,000 775,888
    $157,437, 000 1,275,929 102, 831,000

    Averages for FS and Interior 1,600,000 410, 363 63% 52, 053,600 155,178
    31,487, 400 255,186 20, 566,200 81 203

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. Notes: Totals do
    not include 197,148 acres of Wildland Fire Use including 37,992 acres for
    Forest Service and 159,156 acres for Interior. Wildland Fire Use is the
    management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific
    resource management objectives. Forest Service cost data are project
    totals and do not reflect administrative costs.

    Figure 10: Fiscal Year 2001 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI Acre
    Distribution Figure 11: Fiscal Year 2001 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI
    Cost Distribution

    Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments Percentage
    Nontreated of WUI

    WUI Planned

    Treated planned WUI Non- WUI

    Non- WUI costs/

    cost/ Agency acres acres acres Total costs acres WUI costs acres costs

    acre acre

    Forest Service 2,101,234 1,198,518 57% $127,379,000 764,367 $73,524,000
    434, 151 $53, 855,000 $124 $96 Bureau of Land

    Management 862,321 321,087 37% 80, 850,000 118,275 54, 979,000 202, 812
    25, 871,000 128 465 Bureau of Indian Affairs 246,634 120,761 49% 25,
    731,000 24,501 14, 911,000 96, 260 10, 820,000 112 609

    National Park Service 212,166 163,511 77% 27, 485,000 15,030 10, 559,000
    148, 481 16, 926,000 114 703 Fish and Wildlife Service 578,694 453,605 78%
    25, 314,000 51,514 10, 210,000 402, 091 15, 104,000 38 198

    Departmentof Interior 1,899,815 1,058,964 56% 159,380,000 209,320 90,
    659,000 849, 644 68, 721,000 81 433

    Total for FS and Interior 4,001,049 2,257,482 56% $286,759,000 973,687
    164,183,000 1,283, 795 $122, 576,000

    Averages for FS and Interior 800,210 451,496 60% 57, 351,800 194,737 32,
    836,600 256, 759 24, 515,200 95 169

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. Notes: Planned
    acres refer to the total amount of land that the agency would like to
    treat in the fiscal year. These acres do not refer to formal targets or
    goals, and agencies do not use them for accountability purposes. Formal
    targets are established when the agencies receive their final
    appropriations and are further adjusted as additional challenges arise.

    Forest Service dollar amounts are project totals and do not reflect
    administrative costs. In addition to above accomplishments, 1,024,846
    acres (59,385 for Forest Service and 965,441 for Interior) were "treated"
    through Wildland Fire Use. Also, an additional 458,456 acres were treated
    through the Forest Service*s Forest Health Program. The total for all of
    these acres is 1,483,300.

    Figure 12: Fiscal Year 2002 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI Acre
    Distribution Figure 13: Fiscal Year 2002 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI
    Cost Distribution

    Tabl e 4: Summary of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments Planned

    WUI Non- WUI Non- WUI

    Non- WUI WUI Agency acres Total costs acres WUI costs acres costs cost/
    acre cost/ acre

    Forest Service 1, 944,453 $205,008,413 1,047,200 $104,575,084 897, 253
    $100, 433,328 $112 $100 Bureau of Land Management 415,861 65, 185,014
    153,292 37, 601,168 262, 569 27, 583,846 105 245

    Bureau of Indian Affairs 188,114 16, 416,775 14, 425 8,446,191 155, 170 7,
    970,584 51 586 National Park Service 131,010 8,779,231 18, 935 5,154,304
    112, 075 3, 624,927 32 272 Fish and Wildlife Service 325,440 15, 851,449
    99, 541 10, 387,148 225, 899 5, 464,301 24 104 Department of Interior 1,
    060,425 106,232,469 286,193 61, 588,811 755, 713 44, 643,658 59 215

    Total for FS and Interior 3, 004,878 $311,240,882 1,333,393 $166,163,895
    1,652, 966 145, 076,986

    Averages for FS and Interior 600,976 62, 248,176 266,679 $ 33, 232,779
    330, 593 29, 015,397 88 125

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. Notes: Planned
    acres refer to the total amount of land that the agency would like to
    treat in the fiscal year. These acres do not refer to formal targets or
    goals, and the agencies do not use them for accountability purposes.
    Formal targets are established when the agencies receive their final
    appropriations and are further adjusted as additional challenges arise.
    Planned acres and projected cost data received directly from the Forest
    Service and Interior.

    Figure 14: Fiscal Year 2003 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI Acre
    Distribution

    Figure 15: Fiscal Year 2003 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non- WUI Cost
    Distribution

    Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments in the Southeast for the

    Appendi x III

    Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003 These tables summarize the
    hazardous fuels reduction accomplishments in the southeastern portion of
    the United States for the Forest Service and Interior for fiscal years
    2001 and 2002 and planned accomplishments for 2003. The 2001 and 2002
    tables summarize the number of acres treated and total obligated costs of
    the hazardous fuels program in the Southeast. The 2003 table summarizes
    the number of acres the agencies plan to treat and the projected costs of
    those treatments. Except where noted, the information was taken from the
    annual National Fire Plan performance reports and further analyzed by GAO.
    To ensure consistency among agencies, states were selected based on their
    inclusion in the Forest Service*s Southeastern Region.

    Tabl e 5: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2001 Acres treated National

    Fish and Bureau of Bureau of Forest Park Wildlife

    Land Indian State Service

    Service Service

    Management Affairs Tot al Tot al cost s Cost/ acre

    AL 83,232 548 $83,780 $1, 710, 000 $ 20 AR 55,044 2,521 1,940 59, 505 3,
    174,000 53 FL 108,282 72, 172 19, 589 5 3,430 203,478 5, 110,000 25 GA
    25,863 2,293 28, 156 933,000 33 KY 7,065 7,065 1, 018,000 144 LA 116,397
    8,672 125,069 2, 836,000 23 MS 177,794 5,335 183,129 3, 907,000 21 NC
    25,702 8,962 16 34, 680 1, 826,000 53 OK 14,550 378 7,739 22, 667 747,000
    33 SC 52,676 463 7,195 60, 334 2, 414,000 40 TN 17,275 1,707 18, 982 1,
    036,000 55 TX 60,426 3,854 27, 029 300 91, 609 3, 727,000 41 VA 3,623 139
    88 3,850 318,000 83

    Tot al 747,929 81, 404 81, 481 5 11,485 $922,304 $28, 756, 000 Averages
    57,533 6, 262 6,268 0 883 70, 946 2, 212,000 31 Percent of treated acres
    55% 83% 34% 0% 16% Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior
    data.

    Tabl e 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002 Acres treated National

    Fish and Bureau of Bureau of Forest

    Park Wildlife Land Indian State Service Service

    Service Management

    Affairs Tot al Total costs Cost/ acre

    AL 64, 688 863 89 $65, 640 $1,085, 000 $17 AR 84, 558 6,501 1,467 92, 526
    2,725, 000 29 FL 148,922 100,005 46, 572 6,667 302, 166 4,746, 000 16 GA
    17, 167 22 64, 865 82, 054 4,899, 000 60 KY 9,191 130 9,321 572, 000 61 LA
    88, 384 29, 384 117, 768 2,100, 000 18 MS 214,326 1,056 13, 271 228, 653
    4,060, 000 18 NC 14, 268 48 17, 865 32, 181 1,693, 000 53 OK 14, 348 722
    5,042 10,521 30, 633 1,672, 000 55 SC 44, 324 1,739 16, 205 62, 268 371,
    000 6 TN 10, 053 1,553 11, 606 1,259, 000 108 TX 50, 950 3,711 55, 066
    109, 727 3,184, 000 29 VA 4,463 348 193 5,004 528, 000 106

    Tot al 765,642 116,698 250, 019 17,188 $1,149, 547 $28,894, 000

    Averages 58, 896 8,977 19, 232 1,322 88, 427 2,222, 615 44 Percent of
    treated acres 62% 71% 55% 16%

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

    Tabl e 7: Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003 Acres planned
    Forest

    National Park Fish and Wildlife Bureau of Land Bureau of State Service
    Service Service Management Indian Affairs Tot al

    AL 60,702 1,083 1,098 $62, 883

    AR 137,188 15, 658 2,180 155, 026

    FL 214,236 52, 260 27, 716 34, 367 328, 579

    GA 17,604 4 8,430 26, 038

    KY 8,580 424 9,004 LA 134,583 19, 700 154, 283

    MS 218,733 562 6,160 1,850 227, 305

    NC 54,971 45 10, 048 51 65, 115

    OK 27,264 833 2,230 5,887 36, 214

    SC 38,550 841 14, 461 53, 852

    TN 20,132 2,100 220 22, 452

    TX 88,427 11, 897 29, 608 91 130, 023

    VA 14,387 47 317 14, 751 Tot al 1, 035,357 85, 754 122, 168 91 42, 155
    $1,285, 525

    Averages 79,643 6,596 9,398 7 3,243 98, 887

    Percent of treated 53% 65% 38% 0% 0% acres Source: GAO analysis of Forest
    Service and Interior data.

    Note: Planned acres and projected cost data received directly from the
    Forest Service and Interior.

    Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and BLM Local
    Units Visited by

    Appendi x IV

    GAO Tables 8 through 12 and figure 16 summarize the hazardous fuels
    reduction accomplishments, reasons for incomplete treatments, and
    prioritization methods for the local Forest Service and BLM units that we
    visited. Table 8 summarizes the number of acres actually treated and total
    obligated costs of the hazardous fuels program for the local units. Table
    9 summarizes the number of acres the agencies plan to treat. Except where
    noted, the

    information was taken from data provided by the local units.

    Table 8: 2002 Fuels Reduction Acres and Costs for 17 Local Land Units
    Percentage of 2002 planned

    Acres planned acres Estimated total Estimated cost Estimated WUI Local
    land units acres a completed completed costs b per acre b cost per acre b

    California

    Alturas BLM 2,248 653 29% $190,000 $291 $2, 069 Klamath NF 5,642 3,348 59%
    539,760 161 184 Los Padres NF 46, 124 6,704 15% 269,000 40 40 Stanislaus
    NF 11, 321 4,892 43% 445,570 91 114 Surprise BLM 753 448 59% 165,178 369
    440

    Colorado

    Grand Junction BLM 8,186 3,073 38% 150,951 49 56 San Juan BLM 2,013 1,573
    78% 216,435 138 138 San Juan NF 10, 259 3,113 30% 167,139 54 101 White
    River NF 4,470 520 12% 34,000 65

    Florida

    Apalachicola NF 145, 208 94, 661 65% 1,893,220 20 20 Osceola NF 46, 935
    12, 960 28% 233,280 18

    Mississippi

    Bienville NF 54, 694 43, 497 80% 483,604 11 11 DeSoto NF 96, 392 80, 407
    83% 1,179,405 15 15

    Oregon

    Deschutes NF 13, 655 13, 470 99% 2,365,562 176 281 Ashland Resource Area,
    Medford BLM c 8,888 8,113 91% 3,475,132 428 428

    Ochoco NF 12, 847 4,701 37% 380,443 81 98 Prineville BLM d 28, 221 18, 749
    66% 451,963 24 35

    Total 497, 856 300,882 60% $12,640,642

    Average Per Unit 29, 286 17, 699 60% $743,567 $119 $269

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. a Planned acres
    refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed
    preliminary

    documentation. It does not refer to local units* formal acreage targets
    that they expect to complete in a given year. b Because we were unable to
    estimate costs for a small number of fuels projects that were not fully

    completed, their costs are not included in these calculations. c A portion
    of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area*s fuels reduction work was paid
    for by funds

    outside of the fuels program, but all acres were reported as
    accomplishments under the fuels reduction program. d BLM*s Prineville
    District reduced fuels on 1,200 acres of Park Service land as a joint
    effort between the two agencies. These 1,200 acres and BLM costs
    associated with them are included here in order to more accurately measure
    accomplishments and unit costs.

    Tabl e 9: 2003 Planned Fuels Reduction Acres and Costs for 17 Local Land
    Units 2003 acres

    Estimated cost Estimated WUI Local land units planned a Estimated cost per
    acre cost per acre

    California Alturas BLM 746 $200,000 $268 $268 Klamath NF 5,903 875,560 148
    149 Los Padres NF 10, 192 809,625 79 79 Stanislaus NF 14, 134 2, 767,584
    196 175 Surprise BLM 540 212,000 393 947

    Colorado

    Grand Junction BLM 11, 395 760,661 67 86 San Juan BLM 2,280 386,000 169
    169 San Juan NF 16, 900 2, 137,200 126 163 White River NF 3,960 447,500
    113 347

    Florida

    Apalachicola NF 155,027 3, 410,594 22 22 Osceola NF 27, 890 502,020 18 18

    Mississippi

    Bienville NF 55, 370 595,529 11 11 DeSoto NF 101,656 1, 524,840 15 15

    Oregon

    Deschutes NF 44, 469 2, 601,882 59 48 Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM
    7,856 3, 223,784 410 410 Ochoco NF 17, 000 1, 268,000 75 116 Prineville
    BLM 17, 810 540,500 30 42

    Tot al 493,128 $22, 263,279 $45 $42

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. a Planned acres
    refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed
    preliminary

    documentation. It does not refer to local units* formal acreage targets
    that they expect to complete in a given year.

    Table 10: Cost and Accomplishments by Fuels Reduction Treatment Methods
    Used by 17 Local Land Units, 2002 Prescribed burning Mechanical thinning
    Total

    Estimated Estimated

    Estimated Acres

    average cost Acres

    average cost Acres

    average cost Local land units treated

    per acre a treated per acre a treated

    per acre a California

    Alturas BLM 460 $86 193 $780 653 $291

    Klamath NF 2,403 119 945 269 3,348 161

    Los Padres NF 6,343 38 361 82 6,704 40

    Stanislaus NF 1,029 44 3,863 104 4,892 91

    Surprise BLM 448 369 448 369 Colorado

    Grand Junction BLM 532 7 2,541 58 3,073 49

    San Juan BLM 1,573 138 1,573 138

    San Juan NF 2,556 36 557 136 3,113 54

    White River NF 520 65 520 65 Florida

    Apalachicola NF 94,661 20 94, 661 20

    Osceola NF 12,960 18 12, 960 18 Mississippi

    Bienville NF 43,497 11 43, 497 11

    DeSoto NF 80,407 15 80, 407 15 Oregon

    Deschutes NF 4,615 93 8,855 219 13, 470 176

    Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM b 3,936 115 4,177 723 8,113 428

    Ochoco NF 4,201 79 500 100 4,701 81

    Prineville BLM c 14,294 17 4,455 46 18, 749 24 Total 272, 414 $51 28, 468
    $252 300, 882 $119

    Percentage of treated acres 91% 9% 100%

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. a Because we
    were unable to estimate costs for a small number of fuels projects that
    were not fully

    completed, their costs are not included in these calculations. b A portion
    of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area*s fuels reduction work was paid
    for by funds

    outside of the fuels program, but all acres were reported as
    accomplishments under the fuels reduction program. c BLM*s Prineville
    District reduced fuels on 1, 200 acres of Park Service land as a joint
    effort between the two agencies. These 1,200 acres and BLM costs
    associated with them are included here in order to more accurately measure
    accomplishments and unit costs.

    Table 11: Reasons Cited for Incomplete Fuels Reduction Work by 17 Local
    Land Units, 2002 Reasons cited for incomplete projects Percentage 2002
    Local land Projects Projects not

    projects not planned Fire

    Administrative All other units planned completed

    completed acres a Weather season Funding requirements reasons California

    Alturas BLM 8 4 50% 2,248 3 1 1 Klamath NF 19 8 42% 5,642 2 2 4 Los Padres
    NF 15 8 53% 46, 124 2 8 2 Stanislaus NF 41 19 46% 11, 321 4 1 11 1 2
    Surprise BLM 11 7 64% 753 3 2 1 5

    Colorado

    Grand Junction BLM 14 11 79% 8,186 4 3 1 4 San Juan BLM 7 2 29% 2,013 2
    San Juan NF 16 11 69% 10, 259 9 2 White River NF 10 9 90% 4,470 2 7

    Florida

    Apalachicola NF 117 42 36% 145,208 42 24 Osceola NF 47 35 74% 46, 935 35

    Mississippi

    Bienville NF 29 5 17% 54, 694 4 4 1 DeSoto NF 61 12 20% 96, 392 11 11 1

    Oregon

    Deschutes NF 369 6 2% 13, 655 6 Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM 222 18
    8% 8,888 18

    Ochoco NF 23 20 87% 12, 847 2 18 18 18 Prineville BLM 35 16 46% 28, 221 2
    4 1 3 8

    Total 1,044 233 22% 497,856 131 96 42 9 42

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. a Planned acres
    refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed
    preliminary

    documentation. It does not refer to local units* formal acreage targets
    that they expect to complete in a given year.

    Note: Because several factors can delay fuels work, some local units cited
    more than one reason for incomplete fuels reduction projects. The 17 local
    units visited during our review cited 320 reasons to explain 233
    incomplete projects.

    Table 12: Acres Treated in FY 2002 or Planned in FY 2003 That Were Treated
    in the Previous Fiscal Year Percentage of FY 2002 acres Percentage of
    Planned FY

    Planned FY previously FY 2002 acres

    2003 acres 2003 acres

    FY 2002 acres treated in

    previously Planned FY previously previously Local land units completed
    2001

    treated in 2001 2003 acres treated in 2002

    treated in 2002 California

    Alturas BLM 653 746 Klamath NF 3,348 5,903 Los Padres NF 6,704 82 1% 10,
    192 Stanislaus NF 4,892 1,264 26% 14, 134 420 3% Surprise BLM 448 5 1% 540

    Colorado

    Grand Junction BLM 3,073 11, 395 San Juan BLM 1,573 37 2% 2,280 San Juan
    NF 3,113 16, 900 600 4% White River NF 520 3,960

    Florida

    Apalachicola NF 94, 661 155, 027 Osceola NF 12, 960 27, 890 2,200 8%

    Mississippi

    Bienville NF 43, 497 55, 370 DeSoto NF 80, 407 101, 656

    Oregon

    Deschutes NF 13, 470 5,592 42% 44, 469 33, 968 76% Ashland Resource Area,
    Medford BLM 8,113 2,662 33% 7,856 3,363 43%

    Ochoco NF 4,701 17, 000 Prineville BLM 18, 749 17, 810

    Total 300,882 9,642 3% 493, 128 40, 551 8%

    Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data. Note: In 6 of
    the 17 local land units that we visited, some acres of land that were
    treated for fuels reduction and counted as acres accomplished during
    fiscal year 2001 were treated and counted again as acres accomplished in
    2002. Treating an acre of land more than once is sometimes necessary. For
    example, some areas with hazardous fuels buildup are too dense to be
    treated with a prescribed burn because fire would possibly burn too
    intensely and destroy valued resources, defeating the original

    objective. In these cases, a series of treatments, such as hand chopping
    and piling of fuels and small prescribed burns, are performed on the same
    land over a period of time, ranging from several months to several years.
    Forest Service and Interior*s internal reporting guidelines direct local
    land units to report accomplishments on the same acres in separate fiscal
    years as a workload measure showing the results from their annual funding
    allotments. Overall, we found that, for the 17 local land units, 3 percent
    of the acres treated and counted as accomplishment for fiscal year 2002
    had been treated and counted in fiscal year 2001.

    Figure 16: Elements of Local Land Units* Project Prioritization Methods

    a Access includes physical as well as legal access to potential locations
    for fuels reduction projects. For example, in some cases, the terrain is
    too steep for fuels reduction equipment to operate, and in other cases
    snowy or muddy conditions can make a road impassable. Also, in cases where
    private or other nonfederal land must be traversed in order to reach a
    parcel of federal land, legal access becomes relevant and agency officials
    must obtain formal permission to cross the nonfederal land.

    b In addition to a schedule of recurring treatments, the Apalachicola
    National Forest uses a scoring system to prioritize projects.

    Comments from the Departments of

    Appendi x V Agriculture and of the Interior

    Appendi x VI

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill (202)
    512- 3841 Chester F. Janik (202) 512- 6508 Staff

    In addition to those named above, Paul Bollea, Ridge Bowman, Lee Carroll,
    Acknowledgments

    Christine Colburn, Richard Johnson, and Cynthia Norris made key
    contributions to this report.

    (360168)

    GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities

    and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
    government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
    evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
    recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
    oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
    government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
    and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents at no cost is

    through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
    and fulltext GAO Reports and

    files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
    Testimony

    products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
    documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
    their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
    To have GAO e- mail this

    list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
    e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
    Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
    $2 each. A check

    or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
    also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
    a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
    20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
    (202) 512- 6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
    mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

    Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
    Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
    4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D. C. 20548

    a

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    The Forest Service and Interior have identified three categories of land
    for fuels reduction: (1) lands with excess fuels buildup, (2) lands in the
    wildland- urban interface where federal lands surround or are adjacent to
    urban development and communities, and (3) lands where vegetation grows
    rapidly and requires regular maintenance treatments to prevent excess
    fuels buildup. However, the agencies have not yet reliably estimated the
    amount or identified the location of these lands. Without identifying
    these lands there is no baseline against which to assess progress under
    the fuels reduction program. Local land management units prioritize lands
    for fuels reduction using a

    variety of methods, including professional judgment and ranking systems.
    Prioritization methods vary, in part, because the Forest Service and
    Interior have not issued specific national guidance on prioritization.
    Without specific national guidance on prioritization, it is difficult for
    the Forest Service and Interior to ensure that the highest priority fuels
    reduction projects nationwide are being implemented. A number of factors,
    including weather and diversion of resources to fire

    suppression have hindered the Forest Service*s and Interior*s ability to
    complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. While agency officials
    are addressing some of these factors, others, such as weather, are beyond
    human control. As a result, agency officials are uncertain whether
    increased funding would necessarily result in a proportional increase in
    acres treated.

    The Forest Service and Interior are developing results- oriented
    performance measures to assess the effectiveness of treatments in reducing
    the risk of catastrophic wildfires. However, since the agencies have not
    identified the amount or location of lands with excess fuels buildup,
    there is currently no baseline from which to assess program performance.
    In addition, annual performance reports provide misleading information on
    the overall progress being achieved under the fuels reduction program
    because the agencies are reporting all acres treated annually without
    separately reporting on acres that are treated to maintain a low level of
    wildfire risk and other acres that require several years of treatments to
    reduce risk. Fuels Reduction on Forest Service and Interior Lands

    The density of the nation*s forests, along with drought and other weather
    conditions, has fueled wildland fires that have required billions of
    dollars to suppress and

    has forced thousands of people to evacuate their homes. The Department of
    Agriculture*s (USDA) Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
    (Interior) are collaborating on a long- term effort to reduce the risk
    these fires pose. GAO was asked, among other things, to (1) assess

    the agencies* efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels
    reduction treatments, (2) determine how lands are prioritized for
    treatment, and (3) assess how progress is measured and reported. To
    enhance fuels reduction efforts, GAO recommends, among other

    things, that the Forest Service and Interior (1) collect detailed
    nationwide data to identify and prioritize which federal lands need fuels
    reduction and (2) report acres

    treated to reduce wildfire risk, acres requiring multiyear treatments to
    reduce wildfire risk, and maintenance acres separately in annual
    performance reports. Commenting on the draft report, Interior and USDA
    agreed that

    prioritization is essential to program effectiveness, but had concerns
    about our recommendations on identifying lands and reporting
    accomplishments.

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 805. To view the full product,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512- 3841 or hillbt@ gao. gov.
    Highlights of GAO- 03- 805, a report to congressional requesters

    August 2003

    WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

    Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands
    Needing Fuels Reduction

    Page i GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Contents

    Page iii GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction United States General
    Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    A

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 36 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 39 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 40 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix II Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix II Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix II Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 43 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix II Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the Forest
    Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 44 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 45 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix III

    Appendix III Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments in the Southeast
    for the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 46 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix III Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments in the Southeast
    for the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001- 2003

    Page 47 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 48 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 49 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 50 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 51 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 52 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 53 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 54 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix IV Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service and
    BLM Local Units Visited

    by GAO Page 55 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 56 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix V

    Appendix V Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
    Interior Page 57 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix V Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
    Interior Page 58 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix V Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
    Interior Page 59 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Page 60 GAO- 03- 805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

    Appendix VI

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

    Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

    GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***