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. ***