Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving  
Fuels Reduction Activities (24-OCT-03, GAO-04-52).		 
                                                                 
The federal fire community's decades old policy of suppressing	 
wildland fires as soon as possible has caused a dangerous	 
increase in vegetation density in our nation's forests. This	 
density increase combined with severe drought over much of the	 
United States has created a significant threat of catastrophic	 
wildfires. In response to this threat, the Forest Service	 
performs activities to reduce the buildup of brush, small trees, 
and other vegetation on national forest land. With the increased 
threat of catastrophic wildland fires, there have been concerns  
about delays in implementing activities to reduce these "forest  
fuels." Essentially, these concerns focus on the extent to which 
public appeals and litigation of Forest Service decisions to	 
implement forest fuels reduction activities unnecessarily delay  
efforts to reduce fuels. The Forest Service does not keep a	 
national database on the number of forest fuels reduction	 
activities that are appealed or litigated. Accordingly, GAO was  
asked to develop this information for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
Among other things, GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of 
decisions involving fuels reduction activities and the number of 
acres affected, (2) the number of decisions that were appealed	 
and/or litigated and the number of acres affected, (3) the	 
outcomes of appealed and/or litigated decisions, and (4) the	 
number of appeals that were processed within prescribed time	 
frames. 							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-52						        
    ACCNO:   A08771						        
  TITLE:     Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation    
Involving Fuels Reduction Activities				 
     DATE:   10/24/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Decision making					 
	     Forest conservation				 
	     Forest management					 
	     Litigation 					 
	     National forests					 
	     Timeliness 					 
	     Wildland fires					 
	     Healthy Forest Initiative				 
	     National Fire Plan 				 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-52

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2003

FOREST SERVICE

Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuels Reduction Activities

                                       a

04-52

Highlights of GAO-04-52, a report to congressional requesters

The federal fire community's decades old policy of suppressing wildland
fires as soon as possible has caused a dangerous increase in vegetation
density in our nation's forests. This density increase combined with
severe drought over much of the United States has created a significant
threat of catastrophic wildfires. In response to this threat, the Forest
Service performs activities to reduce the buildup of brush, small trees,
and other vegetation on national forest land. With the increased threat of
catastrophic wildland fires, there have been concerns about delays in
implementing activities to reduce these "forest fuels." Essentially, these
concerns focus on the extent to which public appeals and litigation of
Forest Service decisions to implement forest fuels reduction activities
unnecessarily delay efforts to reduce fuels.

The Forest Service does not keep a national database on the number of
forest fuels reduction activities that are appealed or litigated.
Accordingly, GAO was asked to develop this information for fiscal years
2001 and 2002. Among other things, GAO was asked to determine (1) the
number of decisions involving fuels reduction activities and the number of
acres affected, (2) the number of decisions that were appealed and/or
litigated and the number of acres affected, (3) the outcomes of appealed
and/or litigated decisions, and (4) the number of appeals that

October 2003

FOREST SERVICE

Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuels Reduction Activities

In a GAO survey of all national forests, forest managers reported the
following:

o  	In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 818 decisions involved fuels reduction
activities covering 4.8 million acres.

o  	Of the 818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities, about 24
percent were appealed-affecting 954,000 acres. However, of the 818
decisions, more than half, 486 decisions, could not be appealed because
they involved activities with little or no environmental impact. Of the
332 appealable decisions, 194 (about 58 percent) were appealed. There can
be multiple appeals per decision. In addition, 25 decisions (3 percent)
affecting about 111,000 acres were litigated.

o  	For 73 percent of the appealed decisions, the Forest Service allowed
the fuels reduction activities to be implemented without changes; 8
percent required some changes before being implemented; and about 19
percent could not be implemented. Of the 25 litigated decisions, 19 have
been resolved.

o  	About 79 percent of appeals were processed within the prescribed
90-day time frame. Of the remaining 21 percent, the processing times
ranged from 91 days to 240 days.

The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this report, generally
agreed with the report's contents. Their specific comments and our
evaluation of them are provided in the report.

Summary of Forest Service Decisions and Appeals Information for Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2002

                                         Impacts initially  
                            Little or no    uncertain or    
                              impact/Not       significant/ Total for all 
       Decisions/Appeals      appealable         Appealable     decisions 
      Number of decisions            486                332           818 

         Number of appealed decisions        3         194            197 
           Percentage of decisions                             
                   appealed                  <1         58             24 
            Acreage (in thousands)         2,989      1,804         4,793 
             Acreage appealed (in                              
                  thousands)                 4         950            954 

were processed within prescribed Percentage of acreage
time frames. appealed <1 53 20

Source: GAO data and analysis. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-52.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202)
512-9775 or [email protected].

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief

Background

The Number of Decisions Involving Forest Fuels Reduction
Activities and the Number of Acres Affected

The Number of Decisions Involving Forest Fuels Reduction
Activities Appealed and Litigated and the Amount of Acreage
Affected

Outcomes of Appealed and Litigated Decisions and the Identities of
Appellants and Plaintiffs
The Number of Decisions That Were Processed Within Prescribed
Time Frames

The Types of Fuels Reduction Treatment Methods Identified in the
Decisions, the Acreage Affected, and How Frequently These
Decisions Were Appealed

Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities and How Frequently Decisions Involving the Contract
Types Were Appealed

Number of Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities in the
Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas and
How Frequently the Decisions Were Appealed

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 4 5

10

13

17

21

24

32

35 39

Appendixes

                                                                  Appendix I:
                                                                 Appendix II:
                                                                Appendix III:

Appendix IV:

Appendix V:

Appendix VI:

Appendix VII:

Scope and Methodology 42

Decisions and Acres, by Forest Service Region 46

Forest Service Appeals and Litigation of Decisions with
Fuels Reduction Activities, by Forest Service Region 48

Appeal Outcomes for Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities, by Forest Service Region 50

Litigation Outcomes for Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities, by Forest Service Region 52

List of Appellants and Litigants for Each Forest Service
Region 53
Appellants, by Region 53
Litigants, by Region 56

Appeal Processing Time Frames for Decisions with Fuels
Reduction Activities, by Region 58

                                    Contents

Appendix VIII:	Fuels Reduction Methods and Appeals, by Forest Service
Region 60

Appendix IX:	Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities and How Frequently They Were Appealed, by Region 64

Appendix X:	Decisions in Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried Roadless
Areas 68

Appendix XI: Survey Questions to National Forests 72

Appendix XII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 94

Tables	Table 1: Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4: Table 5:

Table 6: Table 7:

Table 8: Table 9:

Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and Acreage
Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities That Were
Appealed and Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2002
Litigated Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and
Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002
Summary of Possible Decision Outcomes and Factors That
Can Lead to the Outcomes
Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and the Acreage
Affected, by Treatment Methods, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002
Analysis of Appeal Rates, by Type of Fuels Reduction
Treatment Method, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Analysis of Acreage Affected by Appeals for Each Type of
Fuels Reduction Treatment Method, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002
Analysis of Appeal Rates by Each Type of Contracting
Mechanism, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Litigation Outcomes, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2002

                                       12

                                       14

                                     16 18

                                     30 31

32 35 52 53 56

Table 10: List of Appellants, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2001
and 2002

Table 11: Interest Groups and Private Individuals Appearing as Litigants,
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

Figures Figure 1: Lands Managed by the Forest Service, by Region 7 Figure
2: National Environmental Policy Act Process 8 Figure 3: Frequency of
Appeal Outcomes and Dispositions 19

Contents

Figure 4: Forest Service Appeals Process, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 22
Figure 5: Members of Fire Crew Igniting a Prescribed Burn with

Drip Torches 25 Figure 6: Prescribed Fire Being Used for Fuels Reduction
26 Figure 7: Bulldozer Piling Thinned Trees (Machine Piling) 27 Figure 8:
Use of Chain Saw to Mechanically Thin Trees 28 Figure 9: Frequency of
Service, Timber Sale, and Stewardship

Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction

Activities, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 34 Figure 10: Wildland-Urban
Interface Area 36 Figure 11: Inventoried Roadless Area 38 Figure 12: Total
Decisions and Acres, by Forest Service Region,

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 46 Figure 13: Appeal Rates and Litigation, by
Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 48

Figure 14: Outcomes of Appeals of Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 50

Figure 15: Appeal Processing Time Frames for Decisions with Fuels
Reduction Activities, by Region 58 Figure 16: Treatment Methods and
Appeals, by Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 61

Figure 17: Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction
Activities and How Frequently Decisions Involving the Contract Types Were
Appealed, by Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 65

Figure 18: Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban
Interface and Frequency of Appeals, by Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
68

Figure 19: Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities in Inventoried
Roadless Areas and Frequency of Appeals, by Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002 70

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.

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

October 24, 2003

Congressional Requesters

Human activities-especially the federal government's decades-old policy of
suppressing all wildland fires-have resulted in dangerous accumulations of
brush, small trees, and other vegetation on federal lands. This vegetation
has increasingly provided fuel for large, intense wildland fires,
particularly in the dry, interior western United States.

The scale and intensity of the fires in the 2000 wildland fire season made
it one of the worst in 50 years. That season capped a decade characterized
by dramatic increases in the number of wildland fires and the costs of
suppressing them. These fires have also posed special risks to communities
in the wildland-urban interface-where human development meets or
intermingles with undeveloped wildland-as well as to watersheds and other
resources, such as threatened and endangered species, clean water, and
clean air.

The centerpiece of the federal response to the growing threat of wildland
fires has been the development of the National Fire Plan. This plan,
jointly developed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
the Interior, advocates a new approach to wildland fires by shifting
emphasis from the reactive to the proactive-from attempting to suppress
wildland fires to reducing the buildup of hazardous vegetation that fuels
fires. The plan recognizes that unless these fuels are reduced, the number
of severe wildland fires and the costs associated with suppressing them
will continue to increase. Implementation of the National Fire Plan began
in fiscal year 2001; full implementation of the plan is expected to be a
long-term, multibillion-dollar effort.

Reducing the buildup of hazardous forest fuels is typically accomplished
through a number of treatment methods. Most often, federal land managers
use controlled fires (prescribed burns) or mechanical treatments such as
chainsaws, chippers, mulchers, and bulldozers. Other means of reducing
fuels buildup include using livestock grazing and herbicides. On federal
lands, these activities are managed by five agencies-the National Park
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs-all within Interior, and the Forest Service
within Agriculture.

The first year that the National Fire Plan was in effect, the Congress
substantially increased funding for hazardous forest fuels reduction for
both the Forest Service and Interior agencies-from $117 million in fiscal
year 2000 to $400 million in fiscal year 2001. The Congress continued this
increased funding level for 2002 and 2003. Since the National Fire Plan
began emphasizing the need to reduce forest fuels buildup and the Congress
began to support this initiative with substantially increased funding,
questions have been raised about whether the agencies' ability to
implement forest fuels reduction activities is being unnecessarily delayed
by administrative appeals and litigation of its land management decisions.
Concerns have focused on the Forest Service, which, among the federal
agencies involved in implementing the National Fire Plan, receives, by
far, the largest portion of the funding-over 50 percent in fiscal years
2001 and 2002. Further, the scope of the Forest Service fuels reduction
needs is much broader than those of the other federal agencies. Under
current rules, members of the public are permitted to appeal and/or
litigate the implementation of Forest Service decisions within certain
prescribed time frames and under certain circumstances.

In this context, you asked us to develop national data on Forest Service
fuels reduction activities. Specifically, for fiscal years 2001 and 2002,
you asked us to determine (1) the number of decisions involving fuels
reduction activities and the number of acres affected; (2) the number of
decisions that were appealed and/or litigated and the number of acres
affected; (3) the outcomes of the appealed and/or litigated decisions and
the identities of the appellants and plaintiffs; (4) the number of appeals
that were processed within the prescribed time frames; (5) the types of
fuels reduction treatment methods identified in the decisions, the acreage
affected, and how frequently these decisions were appealed; (6) the types
of contracts used for implementing fuels reduction activities and how
frequently decisions, including each type of contract, were appealed; and
(7) the number of decisions involving fuels reduction activities in the
wildland-urban interface and inventoried roadless areas1 and how
frequently these decisions were appealed. In addition to providing the
national data in response to each objective, you also asked us to provide

1The definition of an "inventoried roadless area" was provided in
rulemaking on January 12, 2001. Litigants are currently challenging the
rule's validity in court. The rule defines inventoried roadless areas as
those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps
contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.

regional data. This letter provides the national data. The regional
breakdown for the seven objectives is shown in appendixes II through X.

In conducting our review, we used a Web-based survey of all 155 national
forests2. The survey focused on all Forest Service decisions with fuels
reduction activities that were issued in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We
obtained a 100 percent response rate from the national forests. We also
tested the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in the
responses and found that the information was generally reliable. Appendix
I provides details on the scope and methodology of our review.

When we provided you with preliminary information on the results of our
survey on May 14, 2003, we had not yet completed our data reliability
checks.3 Accordingly, we noted in that interim report that some of the
information could change in our final report. In fact, now that our
reliability checks have been completed, some of the information provided
in our interim report has changed slightly. However, the relationships
among the numbers have not materially changed. In our interim report, we
also noted certain other limitations that still apply. Specifically, the
survey information is self-reported. Accordingly, we were not able to
independently ensure that all decisions were reported. In addition, the
Forest Service does not have a common definition of "fuels reduction
activities." As a result, if the Forest Service documentation explicitly
stated that the purpose of an activity was fuels reduction, we included
it; if the documentation did not include an explicit discussion of fuels
reduction activities, we did not include the decision in our analysis.
Finally, the Forest Service does not have a uniformly applied definition
of the "wildland-urban interface." Consequently, individual forests may
have their own definition or no definition at all, which could result in
inconsistent data.

2Our work focused only on national forests; we did not include national
grasslands in our survey and analysis.

3U.S. General Accounting Office, Forest Service: Information on Decisions
Involving Fuels Reduction Activities, GAO-03-689R (Washington, D.C.: May
14, 2003).

Results in Brief

In brief, the national forest managers reported the following:

o 	In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 818 Forest Service land management
decisions involved fuels reduction activities. These decisions covered 4.8
million acres. Most decisions involved routine activities that had little
or no environmental impact.

o 	Of the 818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities, about 24
percent were appealed-affecting over 954,000 acres of fuels treatments.
However, of the 818 decisions, more than half (486 decisions) are excluded
from the appeals process because they involved activities with little or
no environmental impact. Of the 332 appealable decisions, 194 were
appealed-about 58 percent of the appealable decisions. A decision can be
appealed multiple times. In addition, 25 decisions (about 3 percent)
affecting about 111,000 acres were litigated.

o 	For 73 percent of the appealed decisions, the Forest Service allowed
the activities to be implemented without changes; 8 percent were allowed
to be implemented with some changes; and about 19 percent were not allowed
to be implemented. Of the 25 decisions that were litigated, 19 have been
resolved and 6 are ongoing. The parties settled 5 decisions, 9 were
decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and 5 were decided in favor of the
Forest Service. Most of the appellants and plaintiffs were interest
groups.

o 	About 79 percent of all appeals were processed within the prescribed
90-day time frame. Of the remaining 21 percent, the processing times
ranged from 91 days to 240 days.

o 	Of the 4.8 million acres that were treated or planned to be treated,
prescribed burning was used on 3.2 million acres, and mechanical
treatments were to be used on 0.8 million acres. The forest managers also
reported using other methods, mostly firewood removal, on 1 million acres.
Because the same acreage can be treated by more than one method, the sum
is greater than the total acreage treated or planned for treatment.
Decisions involving prescribed burning and mechanical treatment activities
were appealed at about the same rate.

o 	The Forest Service generally used three types of contracts to carry out
fuels reduction activities-service contracts, timber sale contracts, and
stewardship contracts. Service contracts are awarded to contractors by

the Forest Service to perform specific tasks to reduce forest fuels, such
as thinning trees or clearing underbrush. The Forest Service awards timber
sale contracts to individuals or companies to harvest and remove trees
from federal lands under its jurisdiction. Stewardship contracts are
essentially a combination of service and timber sale contracts aimed at
conducting on-the-ground restoration and enhancement of landscapes with
public and private entities. Service contracts are the most frequent
contracting mechanisms used-356 of the 818 decisions. Decisions using
timber sale contracts and stewardship contracts are the most frequently
appealed.

o 	There were 462 decisions involving fuels reduction activities in the
wildland-urban interface. Of these, 169 decisions were appealable and 89
decisions were appealed-53 percent of the appealable decisions and 19
percent of all decisions. Seventy-six decisions involved fuels reduction
activities in inventoried roadless areas. Of these 76 decisions, 41 were
appealable and 26 were appealed-63 percent of the appealable decisions and
34 percent of all decisions.

We received comments from the Forest Service on a draft of this report.
The Forest Service generally agreed with the report's contents. The agency
provided us with clarifying and technical comments that we incorporated
into the report as appropriate. Comments from the Forest Service are
reproduced in appendix XII.

Background	The 2000 and 2002 wildland fire seasons proved to be two of the
worst in over 50 years. During the 2000 fire season, almost 123,000 fires
burned more than 8.4 million acres and cost the federal government over
$1.3 billion. In 2002, almost 89,000 fires burned about 7 million acres,
an area larger than the states of Maryland and Rhode Island combined. For
decades, the federal wildland fire community pursued a policy of
suppressing all fires as soon as possible. Over the years, suppressing
fire in areas where it naturally occurred has caused an increase in the
volume of brush, small trees, and other vegetation. The increase in such
"forest fuels," combined with a severe drought in much of the nation over
the past few years, has increased the severity of wildland fires. The
result in some instances has been catastrophic. In 2002, the
Rodeo-Chediski fire in Arizona, the Hayman fire in Colorado, and the
Biscuit fire in Oregon and California became the largest fires in those
states in more than a century.

To deal with this threat, the administration asked the Forest Service and
Interior to recommend how best to respond and how to reduce the impacts of
such fires in the future. The resulting report and the associated
implementation documents became known as the National Fire Plan. This
blueprint recommended that the Congress substantially increase funding for
several key activities, such as suppressing wildland fires and reducing
the buildup of unwanted hazardous forest fuels. Of the federal agencies
involved with helping to reduce the threat posed by wildland fires, the
Forest Service is by far the most significant in terms of the broad range
of forest activities that it is responsible for and the public attention
it receives. Compared with the other federal land management agencies in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Forest Service received more than half of
all funding provided for forest fuels reduction activities. For these
fiscal years, the Congress provided the Forest Service with $414 million
for reducing hazardous fuels-the other land management agencies received
$381 million combined.

The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres of
public lands-nearly 9 percent of the nation's total surface area and about
30 percent of all federal lands in the United States. In carrying out its
responsibilities, the Forest Service traditionally has administered its
programs through nine regional offices, 155 national forests, 20
grasslands, and over 600 ranger districts (each forest has several
districts). Figure 1 shows a map of the national forests and Forest
Service regions.

Figure 1: Lands Managed by the Forest Service, by Region

Note: The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Forest Service, and all
other federal agencies, to assess and report on the likely environmental
impacts of any land management activities they propose that significantly
impact environmental quality. For example, certain proposed Forest Service
activities, such as fuels reduction projects, timber sales, and grazing
allotments, may require such environmental analysis and reporting. More
specifically, if a proposed activity is expected to significantly impact
the environment, the Forest Service is required to prepare an

environmental impact statement. If, however, a proposed activity is
unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment, the Forest
Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement-such
activities are classified as categorical exclusions. When the Forest
Service is not sure whether an activity will have a significant impact on
the environment, the agency prepares an intermediate-level analysis called
an environmental assessment. If an environmental assessment determines
that the activity will significantly affect the environment, the Forest
Service prepares an environmental impact statement. (See fig. 2).

Figure 2: National Environmental Policy Act Process

Note: See U.S. General Accounting Office, Forest Service Decision-Making:
A Framework for Improving Performance, GAO/RCED-97-71 (Washington, D.C.:
April 1997).

Under certain circumstances, the public has a right to administratively
appeal Forest Service decisions.4 These appeals must be evaluated by the
Forest Service within prescribed time frames and could result in decisions
being reversed and the associated land management activities being
substantially revised or even cancelled. Generally, the public can appeal
decisions associated with environmental impact statements or environmental
assessments. Decisions associated with categorical exclusions are
generally not appealable. Further, as a general rule, once the
administrative appeals process is complete, the public can litigate any
decision, including categorical exclusions, in federal court.

Controversy has surrounded this issue for some time. On the one hand,
critics have asserted that administrative appeals and litigation are
stopping or unnecessarily slowing the decision-making processes of the
Forest Service and their efforts to reduce forest fuels on federal lands.
They expressed the view that many appeals are "frivolous" and brought for
the purpose of frustrating, rather than improving, land management
actions, and that they greatly increase the costs of managing the national
forests. Supporters of the current process, on the other hand, have
responded that appeals have not been excessive or unwarranted, that few
appeals are frivolous, and that the current process for handling appeals
is adequate. Supporters further assert that the Congress intended the
federal land management process to include administrative reviews of
agency decisions to (1) ensure public participation in the decision-making
process and (2) ensure that agency managers adequately consider the
various factors and policies impacting the environmental health of the
nation's lands.

Recent administrative rule changes and legislative proposals modify or
would modify the current appeals process and exempt certain projects from
the process. In August 2002, the administration announced the Healthy
Forest Initiative, which has been controversial as well; some regarding it
as an effort to reduce unnecessary red tape and needless delays and others
considering it a tool to increase logging activity. The initiative is
intended to help reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires and improve
the health of the national forests by, among other things, streamlining
the planning and appeals processes. In particular, recent administrative
rule

4The Forest Service has had an administrative appeals system in place for
almost all of its nearly 100-year existence. The specific requirements of
the appeals system have changed over the years. The appeal procedures that
apply to fiscal years 2001 and 2002 appeals implement the Appeals Reform
Act of 1993. Discussion of appeals procedures in this report is based on
the regulations in effect in 2001 and 2002, unless otherwise specified.

changes modify the appeal procedures and establish new categorical
exclusions for certain fuels reduction projects. The Congress is also
considering legislation to, among other things, exempt certain fuels
reduction activities from the existing appeal requirements. The bill would
require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations establishing a
separate administrative process to address disputes concerning these
projects.

The debate surrounding the Healthy Forest Initiative centers on the extent
and frequency of appeals and litigation of fuels reduction activities.
However, because the Forest Service does not have a national database to
track both its decisions involving forest fuels reduction activities and
the extent to which they were appealed or litigated, we were asked to
develop this information. The information in this report provides these
data for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

The Number of Decisions Involving Forest Fuels Reduction Activities and
the Number of Acres Affected

For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the national forest managers reported that
there were 818 decisions involving forest fuels reduction activities.
These decisions affected almost 4.8 million acres of national forest land.
Most of these decisions were excluded from detailed environmental impact
analysis because the Forest Service determined that they had little or no
significant impact on the land.

Number of Decisions	Of the 818 decisions involving forest fuels reduction
activities, the forest managers reported that 52 of the decisions (about 6
percent) were expected to have significant environmental impacts, thus
requiring the preparation of environmental impact statements. About 280 of
the decisions (about 34 percent) initially had the potential for some
environmental impact and required the preparation of environmental
assessments. All of the remaining decisions (486 or about 59 percent)
involved activities that had no or only minor environmental impacts and,
as such, were categorically excluded from documentation in an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

In reporting these data, it is important to emphasize that the Forest
Service does not have a uniform definition of a fuels reduction activity.
The lack of a uniform definition is an important limitation because it
could affect the

consistency of the data reported to us by the national forests in terms of
which activities are identified as fuels reduction projects. Accordingly,
if the supporting Forest Service decision documents explicitly stated that
the purpose of the activities was fuels reduction, we accepted the
decision. However, if the decision documents did not include an explicit
discussion of fuels reduction, we did not accept the decision. Many
activities have the practical effect of reducing forest fuels, but the
purpose may be for something other than fuels reduction. For example, a
tree thinning activity may reduce fuels, but the stated purpose of the
project may be to treat an insect infestation. If so, fuels reduction
would not be a designated purpose of the activity, and the decision was
not included in our analysis. In addition, a commercial timber harvest
will reduce fuels by removing trees, but the stated purpose may be
commodity production. If so, the decision was not included in our
analysis. If the commercial timber sale or thinning activities included a
stated purpose of reducing fuels, the decision was included in our
analysis.

Amount of Acreage Affected	The forest fuels reduction decisions for fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 covered almost 4.8 million acres of national forest
land. Of the 4.8 million acres, the forest managers reported that 0.3
million acres (about 7 percent) involved activities that were expected to
have significant environmental impacts, thus requiring the preparation of
environmental impact statements. About 1.5 million acres (about 31
percent) involved activities that initially had the potential for some
environmental impact and required the preparation of environmental
assessments. All of the remaining acreage (3.0 million or about 62
percent) involved activities that had no or only minor environmental
impacts and, as such, were categorically excluded from preparation of a
detailed environmental impact analysis.

There are a few limitations to the acreage data. The 4.8 million acres
does not correspond to the number of acres actually treated in fiscal
years 2001 and 2002. Once a decision is made and documented, there are
many reasons that activities covered by decision may be delayed or not
implemented, including funding availability, personnel availability,
weather conditions, and administrative appeals or litigation. In addition,
the national forests may have submitted more than one decision with
activities on the same area of land. Therefore, the 4.8 million acres may
include overlapping acreage. Further, the national forest managers
reported decisions involving personal firewood activities, including one
large project from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona that could
potentially skew the acreage data. Under the personal firewood program,
forest

managers designate areas where the public can obtain a wood cutting permit
and gather firewood for personal use. Forest managers can identify all of
the acreage available for firewood removal under this program as fuels
reduction activities. However, it is possible that the public may collect
only firewood that is easily accessible, such as near roads and trails,
rather than covering the entire designated area. One decision from the
Tonto National Forest in Arizona designates 1 million acres as eligible
for firewood removal. These 1 million acres are 21 percent of the total
acreage reported as treated or planned to be treated for fuels reduction
activities for all national forests. According to Forest Service
officials, it is unlikely that the public will remove fuels from all 1
million acres.

Table 1 shows the number of decisions with forest fuels reduction
activities, the amount of acreage affected, and their environmental impact
significance.

Table 1: Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and Acreage Affected,
by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                                         Significant   
                            Little or no      Uncertain environmental  
                           environmental environmental          impact 
                                  impact         impact (environmental 
                            (categorical (environmental         impact 
           Decisions/Acres  exclusions)a assessments)b   statements)   Totalc 
                 Number of                                             
                 decisions           486            280             52    818 
             Percentage of                                             
                     total                                             
                 decisions            59             34              6 
           Number of acres                                             
                       (in                                             
                thousands)         2,989          1,489            315  4,793 
             Percentage of                                             
                     total                                             
                     acres            62             31              7    100 

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aOne activity covered by a categorical exclusion treats approximately 1
million acres under an annual program to allow private individuals to
collect firewood.

bAlthough the forest managers analyzed the proposed activities in an
environmental assessment because the expected environmental impacts were
uncertain or potentially significant, in every case, the result of the
environmental assessment was a determination that the proposed activities
had no significant impact on the environment.

cPercentage totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix II provides a summary of the number of decisions and the acreage
affected for each of the nine Forest Service regions.

The Number of Decisions Involving Forest Fuels Reduction Activities
Appealed and Litigated and the Amount of Acreage Affected

Of the 818 decisions involving forest fuels reduction activities, 24
percent were appealed. However, more than half were not subject to appeal
because they were categorically excluded from documentation in an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Overall, of
the 818 total decisions, 332 were appealable because they had
environmental impacts that were either uncertain or significant and
required the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement. Of these 194 (58 percent) were appealed. These appealed
decisions affected about 950,000 acres. In addition, 25 decisions (about 3
percent of all decisions) were litigated. The litigated decisions affected
about 111,000 acres.

Number of Decisions and Amount of Acreage Appealed

In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 486 (59 percent) of all decision involving
fuels reduction activities were not subject to appeal.5 The remaining 332
decisions involved forest fuels reduction activities that were generally
more controversial because they were expected to have significant
environmental impact or initially had the potential for significant
environmental impacts. Of the 332 appealable decisions, 194 were appealed
affecting over 950,000 acres. Table 2 summarizes the number of decisions
appealed by decision type and the number of acres affected.

5The 486 decisions that were exempt from the Forest Service appeals
process affected about 3.0 million acres or about 62 percent of the
acreage involving forest fuels reduction activities in fiscal years 2001
and 2002. Generally, categorical exclusions are not appealable. However,
three categorical exclusions were reported as appealed due to a settlement
agreement in a lawsuit.

Table 2: Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities That Were Appealed and
Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                 Little or no      Uncertain    Significant           
                environmental  environmental environmental            
                       impact         impact         impact            Total for 
                                                            Total for            
                (categorical  (environmental (environmental    all    appealable
Decisions/Acres exclusions)a   assessments)b     impact     decisions decisionsa 
                                              statements)             
Number of              486            280             52       818 
decisions                                                          
Number of                                                          
appealed                                                           
decisions                3            146             48       197 
 Percentage of                                                        
decisions               <1             52             92        24 
appealed                                                           
  Acreage (in                                                         
  thousands)            2,989          1,489            315     4,793      1,804 
    Acreage                                                           
 appealed (in                                                         
  thousands)                4            670            280       954 
 Percentage of                                                        
    acreage                <1             45             89        20 
appealed                                                           

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aGenerally, only environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements are appealable. Categorical exclusions are generally not
appealable. However, there were three categorical exclusions reported to
us that were appealed under a settlement agreement in a lawsuit.

bAlthough the forest managers analyzed the proposed activities in an
environmental assessment because the expected environmental impacts were
uncertain or potentially significant, in every case, the result of the
environmental assessment was a determination that the proposed activities
had no significant impact on the environment.

In reviewing the appeals data in table 2, it is important to point out
that many types of land management activities may be analyzed and included
as part of one decision. A single decision may include activities such as
timber sales, road construction, grazing permits, and habitat improvement
in addition to fuels reduction activities. As a result, when an appeal is
pursued, it may or may not be based on concerns about fuels reduction
activities. Under the Forest Service appeal regulations, the entire
decision is appealed, not the individual activities. Therefore, the public
may object to only one activity in a decision but all land management
activities covered by the decision will be affected by an appeal. For
example, a single decision may contain activities involving commercial
thinning, prescribed burning, stream improvements, road construction, and
a trail closure. An appellant may object to the road construction activity
but not the forest thinning activities. However, all of the activities
covered by a decision will be affected until the appeal is resolved.

There is no limit to the number of appeals that can be filed on an
individual decision. In total, appellants filed 285 appeals on the 197
appealed decisions. One hundred and thirty-four decisions had 1 appeal, 48
decisions had 2 appeals, 10 decisions had 3 appeals, 3 decisions had 4
appeals, 1 decision had 5 appeals, and 1 decision had 8 appeals.

Appendix III provides information on appeal rates for each Forest Service
region.

Number of Litigated Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and Acreage
Affected

All decisions can be litigated. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 25
decisions (about 3 percent) were litigated.6 These litigated decisions
affected about 111,000 acres (about 2 percent). Not surprisingly,
decisions with significant environmental impacts were litigated more
often. Of the 52 decisions where the Forest Service was required to
prepare environmental impact statements, 15 (29 percent) were litigated.
Table 3 provides a summary of the decisions litigated and the acres
affected by the litigation.

6More than one decision can be litigated in one court case. The 25
decisions correspond to 21 court cases.

Table 3: Litigated Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and Acreage
Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                                            Significant 
                             Little or no      Uncertain environmental  
                            environmental environmental          impact 
                                   impact         impact (environmental 
                             (categorical (environmental         impact 
            Decisions/Acres   exclusions) assessments)a     statements) Total 
                  Number of                                             
                  decisions           486            280             52   818 
                  Number of                                             
        decisions litigated             0             10             15 
                 Percentage                                             
                  litigated             0              4             29 
                    Acreage                                             
             (in thousands)         2,989          1,489            315 4,793 
          Acreage litigated                                             
             (in thousands)             0             23             88   111 
              Percentage of                                             
            acres litigated             0              2             28 

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aAlthough the forest managers analyzed the proposed activities in an
environmental assessment because the expected environmental impacts were
uncertain or potentially significant, in every case, the result of the
environmental assessment was a determination that the proposed activities
had no significant impact on the environment.

Appendix III provides information on the number of litigated decisions, by
Forest Service region.

Outcomes of Appealed and Litigated Decisions and the Identities of
Appellants and Plaintiffs

Of the 197 appealed decisions the Forest Service reviewed, 144 (about 73
percent) were allowed to be implemented without any changes. However, the
Forest Service did not allow 38 decisions (about 19 percent) to be
implemented. The Forest Service required the remaining 15 decisions (about
8 percent) to be changed prior to implementation. Of the 25 litigated
decisions, 19 have been resolved and 6 were still ongoing at the time of
our review. Most of the appellants and plaintiffs were interest groups.

Outcomes of the Appeals and the Identities of Appellants

Generally, appealed decisions have one of three outcomes. First, the
Forest Service can allow a decision to be implemented without any changes.
Second, the Forest Service can allow a decision to be implemented, but
only if certain, specified changes are made. Third, the Forest Service can
prevent a decision from being implemented. There are a variety of factors
that can affect the disposition of an appeal and lead to these outcomes.
Each of these factors is specified in Forest Service regulations. Some of
these factors are procedural and have little or nothing to do with the
merit of an appeal, and some are based on the merit of the appeal. Table 4
provides a brief summary of the three basic decision outcomes and an
explanation of the factors that can lead to various appeal outcomes.

Table 4: Summary of Possible Decision Outcomes and Factors That Can Lead
to the Outcomes

Possible Forest Service
decision disposition of Explanation of Forest Service disposition
outcomes appeal terminology

Can be Decision affirmed Forest Service reviews the appeal and implemented
determines that the decision documents without changes adequately address
all legal requirements.

Appeals dismissed	Forest Service dismisses the appeal without review for
procedural reasons, such as if the appeal was not filed within the allowed
appeal period.

Resolved informally, Forest Service contacts appellants and offers

appeal withdraw	to discuss resolution of the appeal. If resolved, the
appellant withdraws the appeal.

Can be Affirmed with Forest Service reviews appeal and requires
implemented with instructions certain changes to the decision on the basis
of changes the appeal points. The decision can be

implemented with specified changes.

Cannot be Reversed Forest Service reviews the appeal and

implemented	determines that the decision documents did not consider
comments previously provided or comply with applicable law, regulation, or
policy. Forest Service returns the decision to the national forest for
further analysis or documentation.

Resolved informally, Forest Service contacts appellants and offers
decision withdrawn to discuss resolution of the appeal. If resolved, the
Forest Service withdraws the decision.

Decision withdrawn	Forest Service withdraws the decision prior to the
agency concluding the appeal review.

Source: GAO data and analysis.

Figure 3 shows the disposition of each of the 197 appealed decisions for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

            Figure 3: Frequency of Appeal Outcomes and Dispositions

Total of 197 appealed decisions

                       Decisions proceed unchanged (144)

Affirmed

Appeals dismissed

Resolved informally, appeal withdrawn

                                      130

                      Decisions proceed with changes (15)

Affirmed with instructions

                             15 0 30 60 90 120 150

                         Decisions do not proceed (38)

Resolved informally, decision withdrawn

Reversed

Withdrawn

                                       22

                         Source: GAO data and analysis.

Appendix IV provides a summary of the appeal outcomes, by region.

Under certain circumstances, members of the public, including private
individuals and interest groups, can appeal decisions of Forest Service
officers.7 A decision can be appealed multiple times and multiple
appellants can be parties to an appeal. For example, the Little Blacktail
Ecosystem Restoration Project Record of Decision issued in the Kaniksu
National Forest in Idaho had three appeals; the Ecology Center, Lands

7The Appeals Reform Act of 1993 (S: 322 of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993) states that
any person who was involved in the public comment process through
submission of written or oral comments or by otherwise notifying the
agency of their interest in the proposed action may file an appeal.

Council, Kootenai Environmental Alliance, and Friends of the Pond joined
in one appeal; the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed another appeal; and
a private individual filed the third appeal. In these instances, each
interest group and the private individual counted as appellants-6 total
appellants-even though they were appealing 1 decision and had filed 3
appeals. Due to these situations, there were 285 appeals on the 197
appealed decisions. The 285 appeals had 559 appellants. The 559 appellants
included 482 appeals by 85 different interest groups, mostly environmental
groups, and 77 appeals by 53 private individuals. Table 10 of appendix V
lists each interest group that appeared as an appellant in fiscal years
2001 and 2002 and the number times they appeared. Of the interest groups,
7 appeared as appellants 20 or more times. These groups include the
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Ecology Center, Forest Conservation
Council, Lands Council, National Forest Protection Alliance, Oregon
Natural Resources Council, and Sierra Club.

Outcomes of Litigated Decisions and the Identities of Plaintiffs

Following a final decision by the Forest Service on an appeal, members of
the public, can file a lawsuit and seek a review of the decision from a
federal district court. Plaintiffs are usually the same parties who
previously appealed the decisions with the Forest Service. It may take
weeks to years to resolve a case once a decision is litigated. Of the 25
litigated decisions, 6 were continuing at the time of our analysis. For
the remaining 19 cases, lawsuits for 5 decisions were dismissed because
the plaintiffs and the Forest Service agreed to settle their claims.
District courts reached an outcome on the 14 remaining decisions-9
decisions were decided favorably to the plaintiffs, and 5 decisions were
decided favorably to the Forest Service. Both plaintiffs and the Forest
Service have the option of appealing the decisions of the district court
to the relevant federal court of appeals. We did not collect information
on whether the decisions were appealed to a higher court.

Appendix V provides information on the outcomes of litigated decisions, by
region.

Multiple plaintiffs can be parties to a lawsuit. Of the 25 litigated
decisions, 26 different interest groups and one private individual were
plaintiffs. The interest groups were primarily environmental groups. Five
groups were plaintiffs in 4 or more decisions: the Ecology Center, Sierra
Club, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Hell's Canyon Preservation
Council, and Native Ecosystems Council.

Appendix VI provides a summary of the litigants, by Forest Service region.

The Number of Decisions That Were Processed Within Prescribed Time Frames

Most of the appeals that occurred in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were
processed within the prescribed time frames. Specifically, of the 285
appeals that were filed, about 79 percent were processed within the
prescribed 90 days.

The applicable laws and regulations establish procedures for public notice
of a decision and the time frames for appeal.8 Once the public is given
notice of a decision, appellants have 45 days to file an appeal. If an
appeal is filed, the Forest Service has 45 days from the close of the
appeal period to determine the outcome of the appeal. In total, the Forest
Service has up to 90 days to resolve an appeal once the agency notifies
the public of a decision. While the agency is determining the disposition
of an appeal, a Forest Service official is required to contact an
appellant and offer to meet informally to dispose of the appeal. Figure 4
provides a flowchart showing the appeals process that applied during
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.9

8The Appeals Reform Act of 1993 established the specific time frames.
Pending legislation (H.R. 1904) would exempt fuels reduction projects from
the Appeals Reform Act and require the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish separate appeals procedures for these projects. The Forest
Service recently amended its appeals regulations to, among other things,
extend the comment period for projects with environmental impact
statements to 45 days. The amendment did not affect either the filing
period or the formal disposition period-each remains 45 days.

9On June 4, 2003, the Forest Service issued a final rule modifying certain
provisions of the appeals process.

      Figure 4: Forest Service Appeals Process, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                  Source: GAO.

Of the 285 appeals filed in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 226 (79 percent)
were processed within 90 days of the date that the decisions were made and
published. In contrast, 59 appeals (about 21 percent) were not processed
within 90 days. For those appeals that were not processed within the
90-day limit, the appeal processing times ranged from 91 to 240 days, with
a median processing time of 119 days.10 The Forest Service offered several
reasons for not processing the 59 appeals within the 45-day formal
disposition period. These reasons included inadequate staffing, the
unavailability of staff around the holiday season, and appeal backlog. We
did not verify or analyze the support for the reasons that the Forest
Service provided.

Further, to fully understand the appeals process, it is important to
understand that under certain circumstances, appellants may have more than
one opportunity to appeal a decision. Once a decision is reversed or
withdrawn by the Forest Service as a result of an appeal, the agency can
revise and reissue the decision. This is usually done to accommodate
concerns that have been raised during an initial appeal. Moreover, the
Forest Service also has the option of not reissuing the decision. In our
analysis, 32 decisions had been reissued. Of those reissuances, 30 were
appealed again and 2 were implemented without appeal. Once a decision is
reissued, the permitted processing times for handling appeals begin again.

Appendix VII provides a summary of the appeals processing times for each
Forest Service region.

10If an appeal is filed, a decision may not be implemented until 15 days
after the outcome of the appeal is determined. However, an "emergency
mechanism" permits the Forest Service Chief to implement a decision even
if an appeal was filed. This mechanism was not used in fiscal year 2001 or
2002.

The Types of Fuels Reduction Treatment Methods Identified in the
Decisions, the Acreage Affected, and How Frequently These Decisions Were
Appealed

Reducing the buildup of vegetation that fuels severe fires requires
vegetation management, or fuels reduction. There are four basic fuels
treatment methods. These are prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, the
application of chemicals/herbicides, and grazing. Prescribed burning is
the most frequently used method to reduce the accumulation of dangerous
fuels on forested acres. Decisions involving the two main types of fuels
treatment methods, prescribed burning and mechanical treatment, were
appealed at about the same rate.

Frequency of Use and Scope of Treatment Methods

A prescribed fire is one that is intentionally ignited to meet specific
land management objectives. In addition to reducing the risk of wildfires,
prescribed fires also are used to prepare areas for reforestation or to
improve wildlife habitat. How and when a prescribed fire can be
successfully conducted is influenced by many conditions, such as the type
and moisture levels of vegetation, topography, temperature, wind speed,
and humidity. All of these factors are to be considered and documented by
fire management personnel prior to initiating a prescribed burn. Figures 5
and 6 show examples of a prescribed burn.

Figure 5: Members of Fire Crew Igniting a Prescribed Burn with Drip
Torches

Figure 6: Prescribed Fire Being Used for Fuels Reduction

Prescribed burning was the most frequently used fuels treatment method
during fiscal years 2001 and 2002-in terms of both the number of decisions
that included prescribed burning activities and the number of acres
affected. Of the 818 decisions with fuels reduction activities, 570 (about
70 percent) included prescribed burns. Of the total 4.8 million acres
covered by all decisions, 3.2 million acres (about 67 percent) had been or
were to be treated using this method.

There is a range of mechanical treatments that can be used to reduce
forest fuels. Harvesting timber and removing smaller noncommercial trees
and brush can accomplish fuels reduction. In addition, thinning stands of
trees to reduce competition for light, moisture, and nutrients may improve
forest health. Mechanical thinning is typically done using power
equipment, such as bulldozers, chain saws, chippers, and mulchers. Figures
7 and 8 show examples of mechanical thinning projects.

Figure 7: Bulldozer Piling Thinned Trees (Machine Piling)

Figure 8: Use of Chain Saw to Mechanically Thin Trees

Mechanical thinning is the second most utilized method for reducing forest
fuels. Of the 818 decisions with fuels reduction activities, 491 (about 60
percent) included mechanical treatment methods. These treatments involved
0.8 million acres-about 17 percent of all the acreage treated or planned
for treatment in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Chemical treatments are herbicides used to control and remove the
hazardous buildup of forest vegetation. Herbicides are usually applied as
liquids mixed with water or oil and then sprayed on the soil surface to be
absorbed by the plant roots. Generally, there are four methods of applying
herbicides: (1) aerial application, using helicopters or other aircraft;
(2) mechanical equipment, using truck-mounted or truck-towed wand or broom
sprayers; (3) backpack equipment, generally a pressurized container with
an agitation device; and (4) hand application by injection, daubing cut
surfaces, or application of granular formulations to the soil.

Grazing animals, such as cattle and goats, can also be used to reduce the
buildup of hazardous forest fuels. However, grazing is less utilized
because it is increasingly competing with other uses of public lands, such
as

recreation, wildlife habitat, riparian management, endangered species
management, mining, hunting, cultural resource protection, wilderness, and
a wide variety of other uses.

Chemical treatments and grazing are the least utilized treatment methods.
Of the 818 fuels reduction decisions reported, 3 (less than 1 percent)
included chemical/herbicide treatments, and 2 (less than 1 percent)
included grazing. These two types of treatment methods affected about 700
acres-less than 1 percent of the total acres treated or planned for
treatment in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.11

In addition to the four basic hazardous fuels treatment methods, there are
other methods that are sometimes used. These other methods include
activities such as cutting underbrush by hand or the public's removal of
firewood by hand. One hundred and twelve (14 percent) of all fuels
reduction decisions in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 included these other
kinds of treatments. However, while the use of the other methods was
relatively infrequent, the amount of acreage affected was
considerable-mostly due to the 1 million acre personal fire wood removal
program from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona. There are two important
points that need to be highlighted regarding this fire wood removal
program. First, while the project covers 1 million acres, it does not
necessarily mean that firewood will be removed from all of these acres. It
simply means that these acres are available for the removal of firewood.
Accordingly, the extent of fuels reduction on these acres is not clear. It
is possible that the number of acres actually reported for the project can
be significantly overstated. Second, even though officials at the Tonto
National Forest reported this as part of the forest fuels reduction
program, Forest Service headquarters officials questioned the merit of
including it in our report because they believed it skewed the data by
increasing the amount of acreage having fuels reduction activities. In the
final analysis, we reported this project as a fuels reduction activity
because the Tonto forest officials identified it as such in their decision
documents. Table 5 summarizes the fuels reduction methods used by the
Forest Service in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

11Four of these 5 decisions reported affecting the 700 acres. One decision
did not report any associated acreage.

Table 5: Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and the Acreage
Affected, by Treatment Methods, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                                         Number of Percentage
                                      Number of acresa Percentage of of total
              Treatment method decisions (in thousands) total decisions acres

               Prescribed burning    570        3,189        70     
                       Mechanical    491         808         60     
               Chemical/Herbicide     3          0.4         <1            <1 
                         Grazingb     2          0.3         <1            <1 
                            Other    112        1,021        14     

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aOne million acres in the other category is due to one decision involving
an annual firewood removal program.

bOne of the 2 decisions using grazing as a fuels treatment method did not
report any associated acreage.

The columns in the table 5 do not add to the total number of decisions
(818) or the total amount of acreage affected (4.8 million). This occurs
for two reasons. First, a decision can include prescribed burning on some
acreage and another treatment method on other acreage. Second, the same
acreage can be treated by more than one method. For example, an area can
be thinned using prescribed burning and then be further thinned using
mechanical means. Forest managers reported that 280 decisions with fuels
reduction activities included acres treated or planned for treatment by
both prescribed burning and mechanical methods.

Rate of Appeals for Each Type of Fuels Treatment Method

Appeal rates for the two main types of treatments, prescribed burning and
mechanical, were about the same. Appealable decisions with a mechanical
treatment component were appealed about 64 percent of the time. Appealable
decisions with prescribed burning activities were appealed at about the
same rate-63 percent of the time. Similarly, 34 percent of all decisions
with mechanical treatment methods were appealed, and 29 percent of all
decisions with prescribed burning activities were appealed. Table 6
provides a summary of the appeal rates for decisions with the different
treatment methods.

Table 6: Analysis of Appeal Rates, by Type of Fuels Reduction Treatment
Method, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                                                  Appeal rate
                                                                   Appeal for
                                  Number of Number of rate for all appealable
                            Number of appealable appealed decisions decisions
                     Treatment method decisionsa decisionsb decisions (%) (%)

              Prescribed burning    570      258      163      29    
                      Mechanical    491      265      169      34    
              Chemical/Herbicide     3        3        2       67    
                         Grazing     2        0        0        0         N/A 
                           Other    112       51       26      23    

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aBecause more than one treatment method can be used on the same decision,
the numbers add to more than the total decisions (818).

bThis column shows the number of decisions involving environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements. Since categorical
exclusions generally cannot be appealed, they are not included in this
column.

An analysis of the data shown in table 7, on the basis of the amount of
acreage affected, shows that decisions with prescribed burning covered the
most acreage appealed.

Table 7: Analysis of Acreage Affected by Appeals for Each Type of Fuels
Reduction Treatment Method, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

Acreage Acreage

                          Acreage covered by covered by Percentage Percentage
                            for all appealable appealed of acreage of acreage
                    decisionsa decisionsb decisions affected for affected for
                                                   (in (in (in all appealable
        Treatment method thousands) thousands) thousands) decisions decisions

               Prescribed burning    3,189        1,484       758          24 
                       Mechanical     808          651        336          42 
               Chemical/Herbicide     0.4          0.4        0.3          64 
                         Grazingc     0.3           0          0        0     
                            Other    1,021         18         11        1     

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aBecause more than one treatment method can be used on the same acreage,
the numbers add to more than the total amount of acreage treated or
planned for treatment (4.8 million).

bThis column shows the number of acres involving environmental assessments
and environmental impact statements. Since categorical exclusions cannot
be appealed, the acreage for these is not included in this column.

cOne of the 2 decisions using grazing as a fuels treatment method did not
report any associated acreage.

Appendix VIII provides data on treatment methods and appeal rates, by
Forest Service region.

Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and
How Frequently Decisions Involving the Contract Types Were Appealed

Typically, the Forest Service contracts with other organizations to carry
out fuels reduction activities in the national forests. In doing this, the
agency generally uses three types of contracting mechanisms-timber sale
contracts, service contracts, and stewardship contracts. A decision can
use more than one type of contract to carry out fuels reduction
activities. The Forest Service awards timber sale contracts to individuals
or companies to harvest and remove trees from federal lands under its
jurisdiction. Service contracts are awarded to contractors by the Forest
Service to perform specific tasks to reduce forest fuels, such as thinning
trees or clearing underbrush. Stewardship contracts are used by the Forest
Service to conduct on-the-ground restoration and enhancement of landscapes
with public and private entities. Service contracts are the most frequent
contracting method used. Decisions using timber sale contracts and
stewardship contracts are the most frequently appealed.

Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities

Forest Service timber sale contracts set forth specific terms and
provisions of a sale, including the estimated volume of timber to be
removed, the time period of the removal, the price to be paid to the
government, and the environmental protection measures to be taken. Of the
818 total fuels reduction decisions, 278 (34 percent) involved timber sale
contracts.

The Forest Service also uses traditional service contracts to reduce the
accumulation of fuel loads. Typically, a service contract identifies the
tasks to be performed, such as removing and treating the unmarketable, cut
materials. The cut materials affect the fuel loads and can be left as is,
piled and burned, lopped and scattered to accelerate rotting, or removed
from the site. Of the 818 total fuels reduction projects, 356 (44 percent)
of the decisions involved service contracts.

Stewardship contracts use a combination of service contracts and timber
sale contracts to care for national forest system land. In 1998, the
Forest Service was given stewardship contracting authority so that the
agency could work with private and public entities to achieve federal
management goals. For example, this authority provided the Forest Service
with the ability to trade goods for services (such as timber in exchange
for road maintenance). A stewardship contract might include prescribed
burning to improve wildlife habitat or reduce forest fuels in conjunction
with the sale of forest products off the same piece of land. Of the 818
total fuels reduction decisions, 41 (5 percent) of the decisions involved
stewardship contracts.12

Figure 9 shows the frequency of service, timber sale, and stewardship
contracts used in decisions with fuels reduction activities.

12In 2003, the Congress significantly expanded the scope of the
stewardship contracting program. See section 323 of Public Law 108-7, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. None of the projects we
examined were subject to the new legislation.

Figure 9: Frequency of Service, Timber Sale, and Stewardship Contracts
Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002

Note: More than one contract type can be used in one decision.

The total number of decisions in figure 9 does not total 818 because there
are also other means used to implement fuels reduction activities. Forest
Service personnel are frequently used to perform the needed work.
Typically, Forest Service personnel are used in conjunction with different
contract types. Of the 818 decisions, 673 (82 percent) involved some work
by Forest Service personnel. Further, other means, such as contracts that
utilize prison labor and contracts that collaborate with other federal
agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, are also used to help reduce
forest fuels. Eighty-three (10 percent) of all 818 decisions with fuels
reduction activities used these other mechanisms.

Appeal Rates for Decisions Decisions that are implemented through the use
of timber sale contracts with Each Contracting and stewardship contracts
were the most frequently appealed. Because of Mechanism the controversy
that surrounds timber harvesting activities and their

impact on the environment, it is not surprising that contracts for this
type

of activity would be scrutinized and challenged by the forest interest
groups or other stakeholders.

Table 8: Analysis of Appeal Rates by Each Type of Contracting Mechanism,
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

                                                                   Percentage 
                                                        Percentage   appealed 
                                 Number of  Number of appealed for        for 
                      Number of  appealable           appealed all appealable 
        Contract type decisionsa decisionsb    decisions decisions  decisions 
          Timber sale        278        244                 155 56 
              Service        356        205                 123 35 
          Stewardship         41         31                  23 56 

Source: GAO data and analysis.

aThe total number of decisions is less than the 818 decisions reported
because the other methods used for implementation are not included. In
addition, more than one contact type can be used in one decision.

bThese are the number of decisions involving environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements. Since categorical exclusions generally
cannot be appealed, they are not included in this column.

Appendix IX summarizes the contracting methods used and appeal rates, by
Forest Service region.

Number of Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban
Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas and How Frequently the Decisions
Were Appealed

Two areas of particular interest on national forest land where fuels
reduction activities can occur are in the wildland-urban interface and
inventoried roadless areas. The wildland-urban interface areas are those
areas where federal lands surround or are adjacent to human development
and communities. In contrast, inventoried roadless areas are undeveloped
areas with no or few roads. Fuels reduction activities occur more on
wildland-urban interface areas than in inventoried roadless areas. Of the
818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities, 462 decisions had
activities in the wildland-urban interface and 76 decisions had activities
in inventoried roadless areas. Decisions with fuels reduction activities
in the inventoried roadless areas are appealed more frequently.

Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface
and Appeal Rates

The Forest Service broadly defines the wildland-urban interface as areas
where humans and their development meet or intermix with wildland forest
fuels. There are three categories of communities that meet its definition:
(1) an interface community exists where structures directly abut wildland
fuels; (2) an intermix community exists where structures are scattered
throughout a wildland area; and (3) an occluded community exists, often
within a city, where structures abut an island of wildland fuels, such as
a park or open space. 13 Figure 10 shows an example of a community in the
wildland-urban interface.

Individual forest managers may or may not use the definition of
wildland-urban interface that the Forest Service provides. According to
the information provided by the national forests in response to our
survey, most forest managers reported that they used the Forest Service's

13Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal
Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire, 66 Fed. Reg. 752-753 (2001).

definition or they developed their own definition. Other managers reported
that they either did not have a definition or did not know if they had a
definition. The inconsistent application of these definitions by forest
managers should be considered when using the information reported about
whether fuels reduction activities were in the wildland-urban interface.
An August 2003 GAO report highlighted the fact that agencies need to
define which lands are part of the wildland-urban interface.14 Without
doing so, the Forest Service will be constrained in its ability to
prioritize locations for fuels reduction treatments and to allocate
funding accordingly. We recommended in the August report that the Forest
Service develop a consistent, specific definition of the wildland-urban
interface so that detailed, comparable nationwide data could be collected
to identify the amount and location of lands in the wildland-urban
interface. Development of a consistent definition will facilitate the
prioritization of fuels reduction treatments.

Of the 818 decisions with fuels reduction activities, the national forest
managers reported 462 decisions (57 percent) had fuels reduction
activities in the wildland-urban interface. Of these 462 decisions, 169
were appealeable-that is, they were decisions analyzed in conjunction with
environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. Of the 169
appealable decisions, 89 were appealed-that is, 53 percent of appealable
decisions and 19 percent of all decisions with fuels reduction activities
in the wildland-urban interface.

The 462 decisions covered 1.5 million acres-that is, 31 percent of the
total acreage (4.8 million) for all reported fuels reduction activities.

14See U.S. General Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Additional
Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels
Reduction, GAO-03-805 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003).

Decisions with Fuels Inventoried roadless areas, as the name implies, are
undeveloped areas Reduction Activities in generally without roads, which
the Forest Service has specifically Inventoried Roadless Areas defined.15
The intent of the roadless designation is to conserve these

natural areas by limiting road building and logging activities. Figure
11and Appeal Rates shows an example of an inventoried roadless area on
national forest land.

In contrast to the wildland-urban interface areas, roadless areas have
specific boundaries, which make it much easier for forest managers to
report on decisions with treatments in these areas. Of the 818 decisions,
the national forests reported 76 decisions-about 9 percent of all
decisions-with fuels reduction activities in roadless areas. Of these 76

15The definition of an inventoried roadless area was provided in
rulemaking on January 12, 2001. Litigants are currently challenging the
rule's validity in court. The rule defines inventoried roadless areas as
those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps
contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.

decisions, 41 were appealable and 26 were appealed-that is, 34 percent of
all decisions with treatments in roadless areas and 63 percent of
appealable decisions.

The 76 decisions covered 240,000 acres-about 5 percent of all acreage
treated or planned for treatment in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Appendix X provides information on the number of decisions involving fuels
reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface and inventoried
roadless areas and the frequency of appeals for each Forest Service
region.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for review and
comment. The agency generally agreed with the information presented in the
report. However, the agency did offer a few comments that it believed
would help clarify some of this information. Specifically, the Forest
Service believes that we should not have included information on a 1
million acre personal use firewood program at one forest because, in their
opinion, doing so unnecessarily skews the data by increasing the amount of
acreage with fuels reduction activities. We did not change the report to
omit this information because, as the Forest Service agrees, it was
reported and documented as a fuels reduction project by the agency.
Nonetheless, to ensure clarity, we highlighted in the report the unique
nature of the project, where appropriate.

The agency suggested that we highlight the fact that a single decision can
be appealed multiple times, and that the Forest Service's workload
increases accordingly. In its comments, the agency commented that we
should provide additional information on that point in the body of the
report to emphasize the impact of multiple appeals on the workload of the
agency. We believe this point was already addressed in the body where we
noted that there were 285 appeals on the 197 appealed decisions. In
addition, we also provided a breakdown of the number of appeals per
decision. Nonetheless, we did add language to the Results in Brief section
of the report and the Highlights section, noting that decisions can be
appealed multiple times.

The Forest Service also commented that because appeal rates vary widely
throughout the nation, we should add language in the narrative regarding
local perceptions of appeal rates and how they can differ from the
national data. The agency noted that when local groups or individuals
state that many projects are held up by appeals, they are more likely
referring to their

experience at the local level. We believe the information needed to
discern regional differences was already presented in the report;
therefore, we did not make changes to the report.

The Forest Service's written comments are presented in appendix XII.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its 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 to the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service, and other interested
parties.
We will make copies available to others upon request. This report will
also
be available on the GAO 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 were Cliff Fowler,
Curtis
Groves, Richard Johnson, Roy Judy, Nicole Shivers, Patrick Sigl, and Shana
Wallace.

Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

List of Requesters

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources United States Senate

The Honorable Larry E. Craig
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Scott McInnis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Gordon Smith
United States Senate

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

The Forest Service does not maintain its own database on the number of
decisions or appeals throughout the national forest system. Accordingly,
to address each of the objectives, we had to develop a national database.
To do this, we used a Web-based survey of all 155 national forests. The
survey focused on all Forest Service decisions in fiscal years 2001 and
2002 with a forest fuels reduction component, including those that were
categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental impact
statement, that were issued in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.1 The specific
information we needed to satisfy our objectives was located at several
organizational levels-headquarters, regional offices, individual forests,
and district offices within each forest. For instance, information on the
individual decisions, particularly the environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments, was located at the forest-level. Information on
categorical exclusions was primarily located only at the district offices.
Our survey was addressed to forest supervisors. We asked forest
supervisors to gather the necessary information from the other
organizational units within the Forest Service, as needed, to complete the
survey. We also asked each forest supervisor for a contact person at the
forest who was familiar with the National Environmental Policy Act process
requirements, since it guides land management decision-making and planning
activities. This contact person served as our focal point at each forest
and was responsible for providing us with survey responses and addressing
the follow-up questions and documents that we requested.

We developed a data collection instrument to obtain the relevant
information. Appendix XI contains a copy of the instrument used to gather
these data. To help us understand the decision-making and appeals and
litigation processes and to help us formulate the questions for our survey
instrument, we met with Forest Service personnel at headquarters in
Washington, D.C.; the region 5 office in Vallejo, California; the
Stanislaus and Tahoe National Forests in California; and the George
Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Once we developed
the questions, we pretested the instrument at the Kootenai National Forest
in Montana, the Payette and Boise National Forests in Idaho, and the
Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia.

We gave the forests 3 weeks to respond to the survey and granted
extensions as needed. We obtained a 100 percent response rate from the

1Our work focused only on national forests, we did not include national
grasslands in our survey.

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

forest managers. We verified the accuracy of about 10 percent of the
survey responses submitted. We used a random number to identify the first
decision to be verified and then selected every 10th decision submitted by
the forests. After selecting a decision, we obtained the supporting
decision documents, National Environmental Policy Act documents, and
appeals information from the forests and verified the information
submitted for the randomly selected decisions. Using this approach, we
verified 85 total decisions. Any discrepancies between the survey
responses and our data verification were discussed and resolved with the
responsible forest official. Through our data verification process, we
determined that the data submitted were generally reliable.

In addition to our verification of the information supporting the 85
randomly selected decisions, we also reviewed the data to determine
whether there were any aberrations in the submitted data (e.g., illogical
dates or inconsistent responses). We contacted the appropriate forest
officials and corrected many aberrations in the data. As a result of our
review and verification, we identified 42 decisions that were eliminated
from the information provided by the forest managers. These decisions were
eliminated for a variety of reasons. For example, the decisions (1) were
not issued within fiscal years 2001 and 2002 or (2) lacked clear
documentation that the activities had a fuels reduction purpose.

There are some limitations to the data we gathered. As with any survey,
the information obtained from the national forests was self-reported, and
we were not able to independently ensure that all decisions were reported.
In particular, we had no way to determine if forests were underreporting
their activities. To get some indication of whether this might be
occurring, we contacted eight environmental groups to review the decisions
submitted by selected forests in order to determine if there was any
indication that the forests were underreporting decisions.2 These groups
did not identify any instances of underreporting.

2We selected environmental groups that had some appeal activity in a given
forest. The eight environmental organizations and the corresponding
forests include: Alliance for Wild Rockies (St. Joe, Flat Head, and Lolo
National Forests); Biodiversity Association (Black Hills and Routt
National Forests); Center for Biological Diversity (Apache and Kaibab
National Forests); Utah Environmental Congress (Dixie, Manti-La Sal, and
Cache National Forests); Forest Conversation Council (Lassen, Plumas, and
Tahoe National Forests); Oregon National Resource Council (Fremont,
Umatilla, and Wallowa National Forests); Texas Committee on Natural
Resources (Angelina and Sabine National Forests); and Heartwood (Huron and
Hiawatha National Forests).

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

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

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

                    [This page is intentionally left blank]

Appendix V

                  Litigation Outcomes for Decisions with Fuels
                 Reduction Activities, by Forest Service Region

Table 9 summarizes the number of litigated decisions and the outcomes for
each Forest Service region. The Northern Region (region 1) had 8 litigated
decisions and 3 were settled or continuing. Of those decided, 3 were in
favor of plaintiffs and 2 were in favor of the Forest Service. The Pacific
Northwest Region (region 6) had all 5 of its litigated decisions
resolved-4 in favor of plaintiffs and 1 in favor of the Forest Service.
Three regions- Southwestern (region 3), Southern (region 8), and Alaska
(region 10)-had no decisions litigated.

 Table 9: Litigation Outcomes, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and
                                      2002

                                Number of 
                                litigated 
                         Region decisions                            Outcomes 
                                        8 2 were continuing, 1 was settled, 3 
            Northern - Region 1                                          were 
                                           decided in favor the plaintiffs, 2 
                                                                         were 
                                          decided in favor of the Forest      
                                          Service                             
               Rocky Mountain -         1                             Settled 
                       Region 2           
                 Southwestern -      None                                 N/A 
                       Region 3           
                Intermountain -         5 1 was continuing, 2 were settled, 1 
                                                                          was 
                       Region 4           decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 
                                          1 was                               
                                          decided in favor of the Forest      
                                          Service                             
            Pacific Southwest -         5 2 were continuing, 1 was settled, 1 
                                                                          was 
                       Region 5           decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 
                                          1 was                               
                                          decided in favor of the Forest      
                                          Service                             

Pacific Northwest -Region 6

5	4 were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 1 was decided in favor of the
Forest Service

Southern - Region 8 None N/A

                        Eastern - Region 9 1 Continuing

Alaska - Region 10 None N/A

Source: GAO data and analysis.

Note: Decisions may be subject to appeal to the applicable federal court
of appeals.

Appendix VI

List of Appellants and Litigants for Each Forest Service Region

Appellants, by Region	Table 10 provides a list of appellants by Forest
Service region. Interest groups were most active in the Forest Service's
Northern (region 1), Pacific Southwest (region 5), and Pacific Northwest
(region 6) Regions. Private individuals were most active in the Rocky
Mountain (region 2) and Pacific Southwest (region 5) Regions. Interest
groups were the least active in the Alaska (region 10), Southern (region
8), and the Southwestern (region 3) Regions.

 Table 10: List of Appellants, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2001 and
        2002 Interest groups R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 Total

1. Alliance for the Wild Rockies 30 4 2

2. Ambiance Project 1

3. American Lands Alliance 2 1

4. American Wildlands 7

5. Ancient Forest International 1

6. Aspen Wilderness Workshop 3

7. Biodiversity Associates 9

8. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 1

9. Breckenridge Ski Resort 1

10. California Wilderness Coalition 1

11. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics 6

12. Capitol Trail Vehicle Association 1

13. Carson Forest Watch 1

14. Cascadia Wildlands Project 3

15. Center for Biological Diversity 1 3 1 5

16. Center for Native Ecosystems 3 3

17. Christians Caring for Creation 2 2

18. Citizens for Better Forestry 1 1

19. Colorado Wild 7 7

20. Ecology Center 41 8 2 51

21.	Environmental Protection Information Center 6 6

22. Forest Conservation Council 8 3 2 3 25 6 4 51

23. Forest Guardians 1 2 1 4

24. Forest Issues Group 3 3

25. Friends of Mississippi Public Lands 1 1

                                  Appendix VI
                   List of Appellants and Litigants for Each
                             Forest Service Region

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

           Interest groups R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 Total

26. Friends of the Bitteroot 1 1

27. Friends of the Bow 1

28. Friends of the Clearwater 6

29. Friends of the Pond 1

30. Heartwood Forestwatch 2 5

31. Hells Canyon Preservation Council 5

32. High Country Citizens' Alliance 2

33. Idaho Conservation League 3

34. Idaho Sporting Congress 1 7 1

35. Intermountain Forest Association-RMD 1 2

36.	John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute 1 12

37. Kerncrest Audubon Society 2

38. Kettle Range Conservation Group 4

39. Klamath Forest Alliance 4

40. Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 2

41. Kootenai Environmental Alliance 7

42. Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 2 2

43. Lands Council 23 6 29

44. Lassen Forest Preservation Group 3 3

45.	League of Wilderness Defenders - Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project 7
7

46. LSK2 Incorporated 1 1

47. Minnesota Forest Industries, Inc. 5 5

48. Montana 4x4 Association 1 1

49. Montana Ecosystem Defense Council 1 1

50. Montanans for Multiple Use 1 1

51. Montanans for Property Rights 1 1

52. National Audobon Society 1 1

53. National Forest Protection Alliance 8 1 3 10 5 27

54. Native Ecosystems Council 6 3 1 10

55. Native Forest Network 1 1

56.	Northwest Environmental Defense Center 4 4

57. Northwoods Wilderness Recovery 4 4

58. Oregon Natural Resources Council 24 24

59. Pacific Rivers Council 1 1

                                  Appendix VI
                   List of Appellants and Litigants for Each
                             Forest Service Region

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

           Interest groups R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 Total

60. Payette Forest Watch 4 4

61. Plumas Forest Project 2

62. Potlatch Corporation 3

63. Rajala Companies 4

64. Ruffed Grouse Society 3

65. Santa Fe Forest Watch 2

66.	Seagull-Sag Property Owners Association 1

67. Sequoia Forest Alliance 2

68.Sierra Club 8 3 1 4 5 1

69. Sky Island Alliance 1

70.	Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project 2

71. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 1

72. Southwest Forest Alliance 1

73. Superior Wilderness Action Network 3

74. Texas Committee on Natural Resources 2

75. Tule River Conservancy 2

76. Upper Arkansas & South Platte Project 2 2

77. Utah Environmental Congress 7 7

78. Vallecitos Stables 1 1

79. Washington Wilderness Coalition 1 1

80. Western Watersheds Project 4 4

81. White Mountain Conservation League 1 1

82. Wild Watershed 3 3

83. Wilderness Society 1 2 3

84. Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads 2 2

85. Wildlaw 1 1 2

    Total for interest group appellants, by                               
                     region                   163 47 18 43 90  77 8  36 0 482 
    Total private individual appellants, by                               
region - 53 different private individuals   10 17 0  8  17  7  4  14 0  77 
      Total for all identified appellants     173 64 18 51 107 84 12 50 0 559 
         Source: GAO data and analysis.                                   

Note: A decision can be appealed multiple times and multiple appellants
can be parties to an appeal. This table provides a list of the appellants
who appeared in the 285 appeals of the 197 appealed decisions in fiscal
years 2001 and 2002.

                                  Appendix VI
                   List of Appellants and Litigants for Each
                             Forest Service Region

Litigants, by Region	Table 11 provides a list of litigants by Forest
Service region. Interest groups were most active in the Forest Service's
Northern (region 1), Intermountain (region 4), Pacific Southwest (region
5), and Pacific Northwest (region 6) Regions. The Southwestern (region 3),
Southern (region 8), and Alaska (region 10) Regions did not have any
decisions litigated.

Table 11: Interest Groups and Private Individuals Appearing as Litigants,
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

           Interest groups R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 Total

1. Alliance for the Wild Rockies 1

2. Aspen Wilderness Workshop 1

3. Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project 1

4. California Wilderness Coalition 1

5. Center for Biological Diversity 1 1

6. Center for Native Ecosystems 1

7. Colorado Wild 1

8. Ecology Center 6 3 1

9. Environmental Protection Information Center 2

10. Forest Conservation Council 2

11. Friends of the Bitterroots 1

12. Heartwood 1

13. Hell's Canyon Preservation Council 4

14. Idaho Sporting Congress 2 1

15. John Muir Project 1

16. Klamath Forest Alliance 2 2

17. Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 2 2

18. Kootenai Environmental Alliance 1 1

19. Lands Council 2 1 3

20. Native Ecosystems Council 3 1 4

21. Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain 1 1

22. Northwest Environmental Defense Center 1 1

23. Oregon Natural Resources Council 4 4

24. Plumas Forest Project 1 1

25. Sierra Club 3 1 1 5

26. Utah Environmental Congress 2 2 Regional total for interest groups 17
3 0 9 17 11 0 1 0 58

Appendix VI
List of Appellants and Litigants for Each
Forest Service Region

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

           Interest groups         R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-9 R-10 Total 
     Regional total for private                                         
       individuals - 1 private                                          
             individual                              1                  
       Total for all litigants      17   3   0   9 18  11    0   1    0 
Source: GAO data and analysis.                                       

Appendix VIII

Fuels Reduction Methods and Appeals, by Forest Service Region

Figure 16 summarizes the fuels reduction methods used and how frequently
decisions with those methods were appealed by Forest Service region. The
Southern Region (region 8) had the most decisions (166) with prescribed
burn activities. The Pacific Southwest Region (region 5) had the most
decisions (126) with mechanical treatments. The Northern Region (region 1)
experienced the highest appeal rates for decisions with prescribed burning
and mechanical treatment activities-95 percent of appealable decisions and
55 percent of all decisions for prescribed burning; and 93 percent of
appealable decisions and 63 percent of all decisions for mechanical
treatment.

Appendix VIII
Fuels Reduction Methods and Appeals, by
Forest Service Region

Source: GAO data and analysis.

Appendix IX

Types of Contracts Used in Decisions with Fuels Reduction Activities and How
Frequently They Were Appealed, by Region

Figure 17 shows a summary of the types of contracts used for implementing
fuels reduction activities and how frequently decisions involving the
contract types were appealed by region. The Pacific Northwest Region
(region 6) had the most decisions (75) that included service contracts.
The Pacific Southwest Region (region 5) issued the most decisions (65)
with timber sale contracts. The Northern Region (region 1) had the most
decisions (14) with stewardship contracts. The Intermountain (region 4),
Pacific Southwest (region 5), and Eastern (region

9) Regions had all of their decisions with stewardship contracts appealed-
totaling 4 decisions for all three regions.

                                  Appendix XI

                      Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XI
Survey Questions to National Forests

Appendix XII

Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Appendix XII
Comments from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture

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 GAO Reports and Testimony

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 full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older 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: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***