This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-805 
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to 
Better Identify and Priorities Lands Needing Fuels Reduction' which was 
released on September 15, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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. 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.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

August 2003:

Wildland Fire Management:

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

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-805] GAO-03-805:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-805, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The density of the nations forests, along with drought and other 
weather conditions, has fueled wildland fires that have required 
billions of dollars to suppress and has forced thousands of people to 
evacuate their homes. The Department of Agricultures (USDA) Forest 
Service and the Department of the Interior (Interior) are 
collaborating on a long-term effort to reduce the risk these fires 
pose. GAO was asked, among other things, to (1) assess the agencies 
efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels reduction 
treatments, (2) determine how lands are prioritized for treatment, and 
(3) assess how progress is measured and reported. 

What GAO Found:

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

Local land management units prioritize lands for fuels reduction using 
a variety of methods, including professional judgment and ranking 
systems. Prioritization methods vary, in part, because the Forest 
Service and Interior have not issued specific national guidance on 
prioritization. Without specific national guidance on prioritization, 
it is difficult for the Forest Service and Interior to ensure that the 
highest priority fuels reduction projects nationwide are being 
implemented. 

A number of factors, including weather and diversion of resources to 
fire suppression have hindered the Forest Services and Interiors 
ability to complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. While 
agency officials are addressing some of these factors, others, such as 
weather, are beyond human control. As a result, agency officials are 
uncertain whether increased funding would necessarily result in a 
proportional increase in acres treated.

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

What GAO Recommends:

To enhance fuels reduction efforts, GAO recommends, among other 
things, that the Forest Service and Interior (1) collect detailed 
nationwide data to identify and prioritize which federal lands need 
fuels reduction and (2) report acres treated to reduce wildfire risk, 
acres requiring multiyear treatments to reduce wildfire risk, and 
maintenance acres separately in annual performance reports. 

Commenting on the draft report, Interior and USDA agreed that 
prioritization is essential to program effectiveness, but had concerns 
about our recommendations on identifying lands and reporting 
accomplishments.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Agencies Are Focusing Fuels Reduction on Lands in Three Categories, but 
More Efforts Are Needed to Estimate the Amount and Location of These 
Lands: 

Local Land Units Prioritize Projects Using a Variety of Methods Because 
of a Lack of Specific National Guidance: 

Fuels Reduction Efforts Hindered by a Number of Factors: 

Agencies Recognize Need to Better Measure the Effect of Fuels Reduction 
Treatments, but Annual Reporting Practices Need Improvement: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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

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

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

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

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables Tables: 

Table 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO: 

Table 2: Summary of FY 2001 Goals and Accomplishments: 

Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments: 

Table 4: Summary of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments: 

Table 5: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2001: 

Table 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002: 

Table 7: Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003: 

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

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

Table 10: Cost and Accomplishments by Fuels Reduction Treatment Methods 
Used by 17 Local Land Units, 2002: 

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

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

Figures:

Figure 1: Movement of U.S. Population Toward the Interior West: 

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

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

Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels: 

Figure 5: Various Types of Wildland-Urban Interface: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management:

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Letter August 15, 2003:

The Honorable Charles Taylor 
Chairman 
The Honorable Norman Dicks 
Ranking Minority Member 
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies 
Committee on Appropriations 
House of Representatives:

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

Nearly 100 years of fire suppression have left the nation's forests 
dense with small, tightly spaced trees and thick brush. This density, 
along with weather conditions, such as wind, high temperatures and 
drought, has fueled wildland fires that in certain cases have spread 
rapidly and become catastrophic. These fires and the resulting damage 
not only compromise the forests' ability to provide timber, outdoor 
recreation, clean water, and other resources, but also pose 
increasingly grave risks to health, safety, and property. Two of the 
more devastating fire seasons on record have occurred in the last 3 
years. In 2000, wildland fires burned more than 8 million acres; and in 
2002, almost 7 million acres were burnedabout twice the 10-year annual 
average. These fires required billions of dollars to suppress and 
forced thousands of people to evacuate their homes.

In the aftermath of the wildland fires of 2000, the federal agencies 
responsible for wildland fire managementthe Forest Service in the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service and National 
Park Service in the Department of the Interior (Interior)--developed 
the National Fire Plan, a long-term multibillion-dollar plan to address 
the nation's risk of such fires. A major component of the plan is a 
hazardous fuels reduction program that requires the agencies to thin 
forests and rangelands, thereby reducing the risk of catastrophic fires 
caused by excessive buildup of vegetation. Local land management units, 
such as national forests and parks, are generally responsible for 
carrying out projects to reduce the buildup of vegetation that fuels 
catastrophic fires. Techniques used for managing vegetation generally 
include setting fires under controlled conditions (prescribed burns) 
and mechanical thinning. Another important component of the plan is for 
the agencies to establish effective performance measures to assess the 
results of their fuels reduction treatments. Beginning in fiscal year 
2001, the agencies have received approximately $400 million annually 
for fuels reduction under the plan.

According to the Forest Service and Interior, about 650 million acres, 
or over 85 percent of the approximately 750 million acres of federal 
land that they manage, are susceptible to wildland fire. These 
susceptible lands, according to a recent government estimate, include 
(1) millions of acres in the dense forests of the West that have excess 
buildup of fuels and are at risk of catastrophic fires, (2) millions of 
acres nationwide that either surround or are adjacent to urban 
development and communities (commonly referred to as the wildland-urban 
interface) that are at risk to wildland fire, and (3) still other acres 
that need regular and frequent treatments to prevent rapid fuels 
buildup. While fire plays a role in maintaining the health of certain 
ecosystems, the overall growth of vegetation in the nation's forests 
and rangelands has created unnatural hazardous fire conditions. Under 
the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service and Interior are attempting 
to identify and prioritize the lands most in need of fuels reduction 
while dealing with a number of challenges that hinder the agencies' 
implementation of fuels reduction efforts. The House of Representatives 
has recently passed legislation intended to, among other things, reduce 
the risk of damage to communities, municipal watersheds, and certain 
federal lands from catastrophic wildfires. However, there is 
controversy over whether conducting fuels reduction treatments outside 
the wildland urban interface--as the House bill would authorize--is 
appropriate, especially if the treatments involve clear cutting trees 
in remote forest areas.

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

In conducting our review, we met with Forest Service and Interior 
officials in headquarters, and visited five states, where we met with 
officials in selected regional and state offices, as well as 17 Forest 
Service and BLM local land units, such as national forests and BLM 
field offices. While the results of our visits cannot be projected 
nationwide, the visits represent a mix of local fuels reduction efforts 
based on geographic diversity and level of funding. (See app. I for 
details on the scope and methodology of our review.):

Results in Brief:

The Forest Service and Interior have identified three categories of 
federal lands that require fuels reduction, but they have not yet 
reliably estimated the amount and identified the location of these 
lands. Given the potentially vast amounts of federal land at risk of 
catastrophic wildfire, the agencies have stressed the importance of 
treating lands that have excess fuels buildup and lands in the 
wildland-urban interface. In addition, the agencies acknowledge a third 
categorylands that require regular maintenance to prevent excess fuels 
buildup because vegetation grows rapidly--but they have not decided 
whether these lands are as important to treat as are lands in the first 
two categories. Government scientists have collected nationwide data on 
lands with excess fuels buildup, but because the data were not 
detailed, there was a large margin of error in the resulting estimates. 
Recognizing the need for more accurate estimates, the agencies are 
currently considering whether to fund a project to assess in more 
detail the fuels buildup on federal land nationwide. If funded, they do 
not expect to complete the effort until 2008 at the earliest. For the 
second categorylands in the wildland-urban interfacethe agencies have 
not specifically defined the wildland-urban interface so they have been 
unable to collect data that are relevant nationwide. For example, the 
agencies have not decided if it includes only land near residences and 
commercial development or also land near public resources, such as 
power lines and watersheds. Without a clear national definition, there 
is no basis for a consistent determination about which lands are part 
of the wildland-urban interface. Finally, for the third category--lands 
that require regular maintenance treatments because the vegetation 
grows rapidly--the agencies have not estimated the total amount and 
location of such lands, although they have been reducing fuels on such 
lands in the Southeast for decades. Without a nationwide estimate of 
the amount and location of land in each category of land that is 
important to treat, it will be difficult for the agencies to assess 
their progress in reducing the total amount of federal land that 
requires fuels reduction.

Local land units prioritize lands within the three categories for fuels 
reduction using a variety of methods including professional judgment 
and ranking systems. For example, at one local unit an agency official 
uses his professional judgment, local knowledge, and field observations 
of vegetative conditions to prioritize projects. At another unit, 
officials collect detailed data on factors such as vegetative 
condition, proximity to recent fires, and proximity to communities; 
then they assign points to potential fuels reduction projects, based on 
the factors, and rank the projects in priority order. Still other 
units--particularly in the Southeast--select lands for fuels reduction 
according to a recurring schedule. Moreover, even units that use the 
same prioritization method may not emphasis the same criteria in 
prioritization decisions. For example, among units that rely on 
professional judgment, some place far greater weight on community 
preferences than others. This variation in prioritization methods 
occurs, in part, because the Forest Service and Interior have not 
issued specific national guidance on how to prioritize projects; 
rather, they have issued broad guidance allowing local units wide 
discretion. Without specific guidance on how to prioritize locations 
for fuels reduction within the three categories of federal land 
identified nationally, it is difficult for the Forest Service and 
Interior to ensure that there is any consistent, systematic rigor to 
how projects are being prioritized or that the highest priority fuels 
reduction projects nationwide are being implemented.

Several factors including weather and diversion of resources to fire 
suppression have hindered the Forest Service's and Interior's ability 
to complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. Given these 
factors, in 2002, the Forest Service and Interior reduced fuels on 56 
percent of the approximately 4 million acres they could have treated. 
In discussions with officials from 17 Forest Service and Interior local 
land units we visited, they stated that the most prominent factor was 
the weather, which accounted for 40 percent of all fuels reduction 
project delays at these units in 2002. In some cases, land managers 
could not ignite prescribed burns because weather conditions, such as 
wind, temperature, and drought, made doing so unsafe; and they could 
not use mechanical thinning equipment because of the risk that a spark 
would accidentally ignite a wildfire. For example, at one local unit, 
over 34,000 acres, or 72 percent of the approximately 47,000 acres 
planned for fuels reduction, were not treated because of drought 
conditions. A related factor hindering agencies' completion of fuels 
reduction projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency resources from 
fuels reduction to fire suppression efforts during the severe fire 
season. This factor accounted for about 30 percent of all project 
delays at the local units we visited. For example, one national forest 
shifted about 22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels reduction 
budget to support fire suppression efforts. Even in the Southeast, 
where the drought and the fire season were less severe, nationwide 
policy restrictions prohibited local units from implementing fuels 
reduction projects because the units' staff were required to be 
immediately available for suppression efforts elsewhere. In addition, 
local land unit officials cited other factors, such as administrative 
regulatory requirements and public resistance, that affected fuels 
reduction projects. Although local land units are working to address 
some of these factors, others, such as weather, are beyond human 
control. Given these factors, some local officials were uncertain 
whether increased funding would result in a proportional increase in 
acres treated under the fuels reduction program.

To measure progress under the fuels reduction program, the Forest 
Service and Interior are currently tracking and reporting the total 
number of acres treated nationwide. This practice, however, measures 
only the number of acres that receive fuels reduction treatmentsnot 
necessarily whether progress is being made in reducing the overall risk 
of wildfire. Recognizing this shortcoming, the Forest Service and 
Interior are currently developing results-oriented performance 
measures that assess the effect of these treatments in reducing the 
risk of wildfires. However, because the Forest Service and Interior 
have not yet established baseline data by identifying the acres that 
are at different levels of risk to wildfire, any assessment of the 
change in wildfire risk level will be subjective, and it will be 
difficult to determine the actual progress being made in reducing the 
risk of catastrophic wildfire nationwide. In addition, the current 
method of reporting annual performance is resulting in misleading 
information on what is actually being accomplished with respect to 
reducing the total amount of land at risk nationwide. Currently, the 
data give the indication that all the acres treated are reducing the 
risk of catastrophic wildfire. This is not the situation. In some 
cases, acres are being treated that will not change the risk and in 
other cases multiple treatments need to be made over several years to 
reduce the risk. Unless treatments in these cases are reported 
separately in annual performance reports, it is, and likely will 
continue to be, difficult to assess the progress being made under the 
fuels reduction program in terms of reducing the overall risk of 
wildfires nationwide.

In the context of vast, yet unknown acres of federal land at risk to 
wildfire and major factors hindering fuels reduction on that land, 
mitigating the risk of catastrophic wildfires through fuels reduction 
will require a sustained, long-term effort. However, without a 
nationwide estimate of the amount and location of lands that need fuels 
reduction, it will be difficult to ensure that the highest priority 
fuels reduction projects nationwide are being implemented and to assess 
progress in reducing fuels buildup in forests and rangelands across the 
nation. Accordingly, we are recommending that the Forest Service and 
Interior identify which federal lands need fuels reduction so that 
detailed, comparable data can be collected on the amount and location 
of these lands, to facilitate prioritization decisions. In addition, we 
are recommending that in annual performance reports the Forest Service 
and Interior report acres treated that reduce the level of wildfire 
risk separately from other acres treated, to better reflect the long-
term progress of the fuels reduction program. In commenting on a draft 
of this report, the Forest Service and Interior stated that the report 
aptly described the nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both 
its scope and severity. They agreed that prioritization is essential to 
program effectiveness, but they had some concerns about our 
recommendations related to identifying lands that need fuels reduction 
and reporting accomplishments in separate categories.

Background:

Nearly all forests and grasslands in North America evolved with fire as 
a natural part of the ecosystem. Fire contributes to ecological health 
in forests and rangelands by maintaining plant species diversity, 
preventing the spread of invasive species, limiting the spread of 
insects and disease, and promoting new growth. Historically, fires 
occurred at a variety of frequencies ranging from 1-to 2-year cycles in 
some southeastern forests, to 200-to 500-year cycles in northwestern 
rain forests. These historical cycles changed in part because the 
federal government began a policy of suppressing all wildland fires as 
quickly as possible. Over the years, brush, small trees, and other 
vegetation accumulated that can fuel fires and cause them to spread 
more rapidly with catastrophic results. Weather phenomena have also 
contributed to dangerous fire conditions. The weather phenomenon known 
as La Nia, characterized by unusually cold Pacific Ocean temperatures, 
changed weather patterns when it formed in 1998. It caused severe, 
long-lasting drought across much of the country, drying out forests and 
rangelands.

The Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park 
Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service manage about 750 million acres 
of federal land across the United States. Most federal lands in the 48 
contiguous states are located in 11 western states, which have seen a 
dramatic surge in population over the last 2 decades, complicating the 
management of wildland fires. As shown in figure 1, the population is 
moving toward the Interior West, contributing to new development in 
fire-prone areas, often adjacent to federal land, and creating a 
wildland-urban interface. This relatively new phenomenon means that 
more communities and structures are at risk of wildland fire and of 
potential post-fire effects, including increased erosion and flooding.

Figure 1: Movement of U.S. Population Toward the Interior West:

[See PDF for image]

[A] The five fastest growing states through 1999 include Arizona, 
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.

[B] People moving to the Interior West minus people leaving.

[End of figure]

Following the 2000 fire season, which was one of the most challenging 
on record, the Bush Administration asked USDA and Interior to recommend 
how best to respond and how to reduce the impacts of such fires in the 
future. Their report, called the National Fire Plan, recommended 
increased funding for several key activities, such as suppressing 
wildland fires and reducing the buildup of unwanted hazardous fuels. To 
fund the activities recommended in the National Fire Plan, Congress 
appropriated $2.9 billion to the Forest Service and the Interior 
agencies for their fiscal year 2001 wildland fire needsan increase of 
over $1 billion from the prior year funding of $1.5 billion. Of the 
$2.9 billion, $400 million was for reducing hazardous fuels. For fiscal 
year 2002 wildland fire needs, Congress authorized $2.3 billion for the 
Forest Service and Interior agencies of which $395 million was for 
reducing hazardous fuels. Of the agencies involved with the fuels 
reduction program, the Forest Service and Interior's BLM spend the most 
money to reduce hazardous fuels.

A key component of the National Fire Plan is the development and 
implementation of a cohesive strategy aimed at lowering the risks from 
catastrophic wildfires by reducing the excess buildup of hazardous 
fuels in the nation's forests and rangelands.[Footnote 1] Since 
beginning implementation of the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service 
and Interior have treated hazardous fuels on about 4.4 million acres of 
federal land in 2001 and 2002. Most of the treatments to date have been 
in the southeastern region of the United States, where the vegetation 
in the forests tends to grow rapidly, causing fuels to accumulate over 
a short period. (See app. II and III for detailed information on 
program results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and planned work for 
fiscal year 2003.):

Local land units within the Forest Service and Interior's wildland fire 
management agencies largely carry out fuels reduction treatments. The 
Forest Service's local land units consist of national forests and 
grasslands. These local land units are overseen by the Forest Service's 
regional offices. Within Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' local 
land units consist of agencies; BLM's local land units consist of 
districts, field offices, or resource areas; and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's and the National Park Service's local land units consist of 
facilities, refuges, or parks. BLM's state offices oversee its local 
land units, while the regional offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service oversee their 
local land units.

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Agencies Are Focusing Fuels Reduction on Lands in Three Categories, but 
More Efforts Are Needed to Estimate the Amount and Location of These 
Lands:

The Forest Service and Interior have determined that three categories 
of federal lands require fuels reduction treatment, but they have not 
yet reliably estimated the amount or identified the location of these 
lands. The agencies' draft cohesive strategy emphasizes the importance 
of treating lands that have excess fuels buildup and lands in the 
wildland-urban interface with fuels reduction. In addition, the draft 
cohesive strategy mentions that a third category should be considered 
as welllands that require regular maintenance to prevent excess fuels 
buildup because vegetation grows rapidly--but the strategy is unclear 
about whether lands in this category are as important to treat as lands 
in the first two categories. Forest Service scientists have collected 
nationwide data on lands with excess fuels buildup, but because the 
data were not detailed, scientists could make only rough estimates of 
the amount; and they could not identify 
the specific locations of these lands.[Footnote 2] Recognizing the need 
for more accurate estimates, the agencies are currently deciding 
whether to fund a project that would collect more detailed data on land 
with excess fuels buildup nationwide. They have not yet clearly defined 
the parameters of the wildland-urban interface, and consequently have 
been unable to collect data that is relevant at the national level. In 
addition, the agencies have not decided whether lands requiring regular 
maintenance treatments are among the lands most at risk nationally and 
therefore most in need of fuels reduction treatments. As a result, they 
have neither estimated the total amount nor identified the location of 
such lands.

More Data Needed to Identify Land with Excess Fuels Buildup:

Although one of the categories of land targeted for fuels reduction in 
the draft cohesive strategy is land with excess fuels buildup, the 
agencies have not yet accurately estimated the amount or identified the 
location of these lands. In an attempt to gather nationwide data on 
these lands, in April 2001, Forest Service scientists completed a 
national assessment of fuels buildup, resulting in a map that 
classified all land in the contiguous 48 states as high, moderate, or 
low risk for catastrophic wildfires. As figure 4 shows, the risk 
depends on how much the vegetation has changed relative to historical 
conditions, with the highest levels of fuels buildup corresponding to 
the highest wildfire risk ranking.

Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

While the initial assessment provided a rough approximation of national 
risk level, it could not be used to accurately discern the total amount 
of land at high risk, or to identify specific locations of such land 
because it was based on data that were not detailed and therefore was 
subject to a considerable margin of error. The scientists estimated 
that about 75 million acres of federal land were at high risk of 
wildfire, but because of the lack of detail, the estimate was rough. 
The lack of detail was particularly limiting on rangelands, where 
flammable nonnative weeds such as cheatgrass have replaced native 
plants in many areas, leaving the land vulnerable to fast-moving, high-
intensity fires. According to Forest Service scientists, the initial 
data did not sufficiently depict nonforested lands including 
rangelands. In many cases, nonnative and native plants grow in a 
scattered patchwork pattern, and it is difficult to distinguish small 
patches of nonnative plants without detailed data. To partially address 
this limitation, in 2002 scientists studied vegetative conditions on 
some rangelands and found that they had underestimated the amount of 
rangeland at high risk. Adding this land to the 75 million acres in the 
initial assessment, they concluded that about 90 million acres of 
federal land were at high risk to wildfire. Aware that the lack of 
detail in the initial assessment also affected forests, in 2003 
scientists collected samples of more detailed data in several forests 
in the West. The detailed data revealed that the initial assessment had 
also underestimated the amount of land with excess fuels buildup in 
forests, and consequently, the amount of land at high risk. 
Extrapolating their findings to adjust the nationwide estimate, the 
scientists concluded that about 190 million acres of federal land were 
at high risk, but they acknowledged that the correct number could be 
anywhere from 90 to 200 million acres, considering the margin of error.

Recognizing the need for more accurate nationwide data about land with 
excess fuels buildup, and aware of the limitations of existing 
assessments, the Forest Service and Interior are taking actions to more 
accurately estimate the amount and identify the location of such land 
with excess fuels buildup. Over the long term, the agencies are 
considering a proposal to collect more detailed nationwide data through 
a project called LANDFIRE, but they have not yet decided whether to 
fund the project. They have, however, begun to test a prototype in two 
areas, which will serve as a model for applying the same methods 
nationwide.[Footnote 3] If implemented, LANDFIRE is expected to provide 
accurate maps showing specific locations of lands with excess fuels 
buildup and computer models that can predict which areas are at highest 
risk of wildfire based on vegetation type and condition, historical 
fire frequency, weather, and other factors. Nevertheless, while the 
agencies have been considering the project for years, they still have 
not fully funded it. We first examined LANDFIRE in 1998, at which time 
agency officials initially showed us one of the 
prototype areas.[Footnote 4] We later reported on LANDFIRE in 2002, and 
found that it had the potential to provide data critical for use in 
project prioritization, but we had concerns that the project was no 
closer to being funded than it was in 1998.[Footnote 5] Now, according 
to agency officials, data collection efforts in the test areas has 
provided sufficient information to make a decision about whether to 
fund and implement LANDFIRE, which is estimated to cost $33 million. 
Currently the agencies are contemplating funding the project as soon as 
2003, but they have not yet made a decision; and if it is implemented, 
it is not scheduled to be complete until 2008 at the earliest.

In an effort to provide usable data in the interim, the Forest Service 
and Interior have proposed completing by 2005 a nationwide rapid 
assessment which would use information from a variety of sources, such 
as expert opinion, statistical analysis, and data previously collected 
by state agencies, local governments, and federal agencies. However, 
the agencies have not funded this effort either. Furthermore, because 
the data used in the rapid assessment would come from a mixture of 
sources, they would vary in accuracy, reliability, and level of detail, 
among other things. Consequently, the results of the rapid assessment 
would not be as accurate as what is expected from LANDFIRE, bringing 
into question the value of funding the rapid assessment in addition to 
LANDFIRE.

Consistent Definition Needed before Land in the Wildland-Urban 
Interface Can Be Identified:

The President and Congress, as well as the Forest Service and Interior 
have stressed the importance of reducing fuels in the wildland-urban 
interface, but the agencies have not developed a specific definition of 
wildland-urban interface and therefore are unable to identify the 
amount and location of lands in the interface nationwide. In January 
2001, a definition of wildland-urban interface was published in the 
Federal Register, but it is very general and consequently, it has been 
interpreted inconsistently.[Footnote 6] The definition classifies 
wildland-urban interface into two primary categories: (1) lands where 
structures are directly adjacent to wildlands and (2) lands where 
structures are scattered throughout a wildland area.[Footnote 7] The 
definition further specifies that wildland-urban interface includes 
communities ranging from suburban and urban neighborhoods (3 or more 
structures per acre) to widely dispersed rural dwellings (1 structure 
per 40 acres). The breadth of this definition allows for diverse 
interpretations--including, for example, subdivisions lining forest 
boundaries, remote summer cabins in the wilderness, or land surrounding 
powerlines crossing federal lands. On the basis of this definition of 
wildland-urban interface, the Forest Service and Interior allowed each 
state to identify a list of communities at risk from wildfire to be 
published in the Federal Register in August 2001. However, given the 
lack of specificity in the published definition of wildland-urban 
interface, each state used criteria it believed appropriate for 
selecting communities at risk. For example, figure 5 shows diverse 
types of land that states could include based on different definitions 
of wildland-urban interface.

Figure 5: Various Types of Wildland-Urban Interface:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As a result, some states provided much longer lists of communities at 
risk than other states, and there was no consistent standard for 
inclusion on the list. To resolve this inconsistency, the draft 
cohesive strategy calls for the states to develop a common definition 
of communities at risk by June 
2003.[Footnote 8] Toward this end, the Forest Service and Interior have 
tasked the National Association of State Foresters--an organization 
representing state forestry departments--with developing uniform 
guidance for states to use in identifying wildland-urban interface 
communities at risk, but this process is no more likely to result in a 
consistently-applied definition of wildland-urban interface than the 
former one. The guidance, now in draft, sets out four criteria and 
recommends that states assign an adjective rating such as high, medium, 
or low risk to each community or wildland-urban interface area 
identified. If implemented, the guidance would provide a methodology 
for states to generally assess relative risk; but because each state 
would interpret and apply high, medium, and low risk independently, the 
risk rankings would not be comparable on a nationwide basis. In 
addition, the guidance does not define wildland-urban interface, 
instead allowing each state to develop its own definition. For example, 
some states may develop a very narrow definition that includes only 
land immediately surrounding housing subdivisions, while other states 
may develop a definition that includes remote ranches and cabins used 
only seasonally, as well as land surrounding public resources, such as 
power lines or communications equipment. The Forest Service and 
Interior will again be left with multiple, inconsistent definitions 
developed independently by each state, and because of this 
inconsistency the lands identified through the process will not be 
comparable. As a result, the process will not enable national decision-
makers to accurately determine how much land is in the wildland-urban 
interface nationwide, or where it is located. While the task of 
developing a specific, consistently used definition of wildland-urban 
interface is a challenging one requiring difficult decisions to be 
made, if the Forest Service and Interior do not develop such a 
definition, not only will they be unable to accurately identify which 
lands are in the wildland-urban interface nationwide, but they will 
also be unable to identify the highest priority lands for fuels 
reduction treatments.

Agencies Unclear About Importance of Maintenance Treatments in Fuels 
Reduction Program:

Although the agencies have been using regular maintenance treatments as 
part of their risk prevention strategy in the Southeast for decades, 
and almost half of the annual acres treated under the fuels reduction 
program have been in this category, the Forest Service and Interior 
have not clarified whether the treatment of these acres is as important 
as the treatment of lands with excess fuels buildup and lands in the 
wildland-urban interface. Rather, the draft cohesive strategy 
separately acknowledges the value of continuing maintenance treatments 
in some areas to prevent them from becoming quickly overloaded with 
fuels, especially in the Southeast where vegetation grows rapidly. 
Because the agencies have not determined whether the maintenance acres 
are as important as lands with excess fuels buildup and lands in the 
wildland-urban interface, they do not plan to assess the total amount 
of maintenance acres that need to be treated nationwide.

The vegetation in southeastern forests builds up more quickly than it 
does in the West because it grows rapidly. Consequently, agency 
officials in the Southeast conduct fuels reduction treatments 
frequently in an attempt to prevent the forests from developing excess 
fuels buildup and increasing the risk that a wildfire there would grow 
into a catastrophic one. For example, on some national forests in the 
Southeast, fuels reduction treatments are scheduled on various acres of 
the forest annually, such that the entire forest is treated every 3 to 
5 years. According to agency officials, this approach maintains forests 
at the low wildfire risk level, and prevents them from growing into a 
condition that would put them at a higher wildfire risk level. The 
agencies have been reducing fuels in the Southeast this way for 
decades. In contrast, fuels reduction in most of the West has increased 
significantly since the beginning of the National Fire Plan in 2001. 
With these increased efforts--and needs--in other parts of the country, 
the agencies must now determine whether maintenance efforts in the 
Southeast should have the same priority as fuels reduction efforts 
elsewhere, and if so, assess the total amount and location of lands in 
need of maintenance treatments nationwide.

Local Land Units Prioritize Projects Using a Variety of Methods Because 
of a Lack of Specific National Guidance:

Local land units use a variety of methods to prioritize lands within 
the three categories identified by the Forest Service and Interior as 
needing fuels reduction. In large part, local units use different 
methods because the Forest Service and Interior give them wide latitude 
to do so through broad national guidance. Prioritization decisions are 
particularly significant given that the three categories of land 
identified by the agencies--land with excess fuels buildup, land in the 
wildland-urban interface, and land that requires maintenance to prevent 
excess fuels buildup--could collectively include nearly all federal 
land. Nevertheless, prioritization decisions are deferred to the local 
level because there is not sufficient data at the national level to 
guide prioritization decisions.

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

The national guidance in the draft cohesive strategy sets out a long 
list of criteria to be considered by local units in prioritizing 
projects, including selecting projects that protect wildlife habitat, 
contracting for work outside of federal agencies, and offsetting costs 
through the sale of firewood. Furthermore, the guidance also offers 
local officials the discretion to make exceptions to the national 
criteria. The result is that nearly any method of project selection--
and nearly any project--is allowable. As shown in figure 6, we grouped 
the various prioritization methods used by the local land units that we 
visited into three general types: (1) professional judgment and staff 
discussions, (2) scoring systems, and (3) schedules of recurring 
treatments. In addition to these three methods, local units consider a 
wide variety of criteria when prioritizing projects; and as discussed 
below, even units that use the same method may not emphasize the same 
criteria in prioritization decisions. A complete record of the methods 
used and the criteria considered at all 17 units is shown in figure 16, 
in appendix IV.

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The most common method used by the local units we visited to prioritize 
projects for 2002 is professional judgment or staff discussions. 
Specifically, under this method, agency officials make decisions either 
individually or in groups through discussions among staff members, but 
they do not assign numeric scores to potential projects or use a 
quantitative process. In some cases, however, they consider scientific 
data and other systematically documented criteria, while in other 
cases, the process is informal and undocumented. For example, at BLM's 
San Juan Field Office in Colorado, the fuels manager identifies and 
prioritizes projects based on his knowledge of fuels buildup, location 
of nearby communities, and accessibility to the project area. He also 
consults with county fire chiefs and reviews community fire plans to 
identify additional projects, and he aims to distribute projects evenly 
across various counties. He does not, however, refer to scientific 
data, or follow a formal process of ranking potential projects. At the 
Klamath National Forest in northern California, the staff rely on 
informal discussions to prioritize projects, in part, because they do 
not have accurate, recent data to use in assessing vegetative type or 
condition and scoring projects. According to an agency official, the 
most recent vegetation data for this forest were collected during the 
1970s. In contrast, at the Deschutes and the Ochoco National Forests in 
Oregon staff discussions to determine prioritization are guided by a 
documented list of prioritization criteria. They consider local data on 
type of vegetation, amount of fuels buildup, and predicted fire 
behavior, as well as other criteriaincluding but not limited to the 
number of acres the potential project will cover and whether the 
project is (1) coordinated with other agencies, (2) will benefit other 
resources, (3) will cost less than $50 per acre, and (4) has completed 
planning documents. Agency officials at these forests said they want to 
retain the subjective quality of the process and have therefore not put 
the criteria in order or developed a numeric scoring system.

Among local units that prioritize projects through professional 
judgment or staff discussions, there is considerable diversity in the 
extent to which they involve nearby communities. For example, at the 
San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado, agency officials 
rely on a list of potential projects identified in local community 
planning documents to initially select all mechanical fuels reduction 
projects. Forest Service officials then conduct on-the-ground surveys 
to verify that the projects are feasible and suitable. Typically, 
however, they do not consult additional data on vegetative type and 
condition, fire history, or other characteristics. Instead, they choose 
to give priority to community preferences. Most other local land units 
we visited do not emphasize community involvement in the project 
prioritization process to this extent; but some consider community 
acceptance as one of several factors when selecting projects. For 
example, at the Stanislaus National Forest in California, projects are 
given higher priority when adjacent landowners are willing to 
coordinate implementation of fuels reduction projects and given lower 
priority when agency officials believe it is likely that informal 
resistance or formal legal challenges from the community will impede 
the project.

Some local units we visited use a scoring system to prioritize 
projects. For example, at the Los Padres National Forest in California, 
agency officials have developed a detailed scheme for assigning points 
to potential projects based on a set of weighted criteria. Each project 
is assigned points for, among other factors, type and age of vegetation 
proximity to recent fires and proximity to communities. Managers refer 
to detailed Geographic Information System maps with data on vegetation 
type and age, and locations of historical fires to determine the number 
of points to assign. Once potential projects have been assigned points, 
they are ranked; and those with the most points are selected for 
implementation.

Some local units in the Southeast rely on schedules of recurring 
treatments to select projects for maintenance treatments. Under such a 
schedule, each year fuels reduction projects are implemented in areas 
where more time has elapsed since the last treatment because these 
areas generally have the greatest fuels buildup. For example, at the 
Bienville National Forest in Mississippi, agency officials schedule 
prescribed burns on each parcel of land in the forest every 3 to 5 
years. To schedule specific parcels for treatment, agency officials 
rely on two primary resources. First, they use a prescribed burn atlas, 
in which local officials have documented the location of every 
prescribed burn completed each year. Second, agency officials also 
record the locations of wildfires because fuels reduction may be 
unnecessary in areas where wildfires have recently occurred.

In addition to the variation among local units in the methods used and 
criteria considered for prioritizing projects, there is variation in 
how they apply the criteria. For example, all of the local land units 
that we visited attempt to give priority to projects in the wildland-
urban interface, but they do so to varying degrees. Specifically, some 
units implement only projects that are in the interface, others 
complete projects both inside and outside of the interface; and two 
units that we visited did not implement any projects in the interface 
in 2002, but planned to do so in 2003. Further, because there is no 
specific national definition of wildland-urban interface and states 
have not yet developed their own definitions, it is left to local units 
to define it; and they do so differently. For example, the Apalachicola 
National Forest in Florida defines wildland-urban interface to include 
all land within 5 miles of a populated area, while several units 
include land within 1.5 miles of a populated area; and some units do 
not use a uniform definition, instead relying on case-by-case 
determinations. At the White River National Forest near Vail, Colorado, 
much of the wildland-urban interface is in areas where the views are 
critical to the economic health of the resort town according to an 
agency official. Consequently, land managers use an expansive 
definition of wildland-urban interface that includes land that is part 
of the view from the town, as well as the populated areas. BLM's 
Surprise Field Office in rural California classifies scattered ranches 
as wildland-urban interface. Also, some local units consider land 
around features such as municipal watersheds or power lines to be 
wildland-urban interface, while others include only land surrounding 
residential and commercial buildings.

Although we did not find that local units had implemented projects that 
were unimportant according to agency guidance, this guidance is so 
broad that nearly any project could be considered a priority. In 
addition, as more projects are completed, there will be fewer priority 
projects left in some localities, and it will become increasingly 
difficult to ensure that fuels reduction efforts are focused in areas 
that are a priority nationwide. To provide such assurance, in the 
future the agencies may need to redistribute funding according to where 
the highest concentrations of priority projects are located nationwide. 
However, without more specific national guidance on systematically 
prioritizing projects, and more consistent application of the guidance 
at local units, nearly any project may continue to qualify as a 
priority. In this context, it is difficult for the Forest Service and 
Interior to ensure that the highest priority projects nationwide are 
being implemented.

Fuels Reduction Efforts Hindered by a Number of Factors:

Several factors have hindered local land units in completing their 
annual fuels reduction workloads. As shown in figure 7, weather was the 
predominant factor in preventing fuels reduction projects from being 
implemented at the 17 local land units we visited, according to agency 
officials. This factor was followed by diversion of resources from 
fuels reduction efforts to fire suppression, then by other factors 
related to planning and funding issues. (See app. III for additional 
details.) In 2002, largely as a result of these factors, the agencies 
treated only about 2.3 million acres, or 56 percent of the 
approximately 4 million acres they were ready to treat. Given these 
factors, some local officials were uncertain whether increased funding 
would result in a proportional increase in acres treated under the 
fuels reduction program.

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Weather Was the Most Prominent Factor Hindering Fuels Reduction 
Program:

Based on our discussions with officials at the 17 local land units we 
visited, weather was the most prominent factor that hindered the 
implementation of fuels reduction projects in 2002, which accounted for 
over 40 percent of all fuels reduction project delays at these units. 
For example, of the 10,259 acres planned for treatment in 2002 at the 
San Juan National Forest in Colorado, 6,757 acres, or 66 percent were 
not treated because of severe drought conditions. In addition, of the 
2,248 acres planned for treatment at the BLM Alturas Field Office in 
California, consisting of primarily rangelands and juniper trees, 1,195 
acres, or 53 percent, were not treated because of a variety of weather-
related factors. According to local land unit officials, very specific 
weather conditions are required for every prescribed burn, which often 
leaves a small window of opportunity to complete fuels reduction 
treatments. The officials explained that it is dangerous to ignite 
prescribed burns under high temperatures, drought conditions, high 
winds, or unfavorable wind directions, because these conditions can 
cause a prescribed fire to spread out of control or emit excessive 
smoke over nearby urban areas and thoroughfares. It can also be 
dangerous to thin vegetation using mechanical means during drought 
conditions because many of the machines used for thinning can cause 
sparks that officials fear could ignite excessively dry vegetation. On 
the other hand, it can be difficult to ignite prescribed burns if the 
vegetation is too wet, which makes treatments difficult to complete in 
the fall and winter months in some areas. For these reasons, the number 
of days per year when the weather will allow local units to administer 
fuels reduction treatments can be quite small. For example, in 2002, 
officials at the Osceola National Forest in Florida said that because 
of weather-related factors they had about 60 days to conduct fuels 
reduction treatments. As a result, out of the 47,000 acres planned for 
treatment in 2002 at the Osceola National Forest, 34,000 acres, or 72 
percent, were not treated because a prescribed burn within the forest's 
swamplands during drought conditions could have emitted heavy smoke 
onto a major interstate. If acres are not treated within a specific 
window of opportunity, their treatments are generally delayed until the 
next fiscal year or later.

Fuels Reduction Was Hindered by Diversion of Resources to Fire 
Suppression:

Another factor that hindered the agencies' completion of fuels 
reduction projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency resources--
funding and staff--from fuels reduction to fire suppression during the 
severe fire 
season.[Footnote 9] This factor accounted for 30 percent of all project 
delays at the local units we visited. In 2002, the nation endured the 
second most severe fire season in half a century. In all, wildland 
fires burned 6.9 million acres, far above the 10-year annual average of 
4.2 million acres; Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon recorded their largest 
timber fires in the last century. In fact, in the last 10-year period 
(1993-2002) the number of years with severe fire seasons has been 
extremely high, as shown in figure 8. Over this period, the number of 
federal acres burned by wildfires has steadily increased.

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Because suppression costs are budgeted based on the 10-year average of 
actual suppression costs and have not been fully funded in recent 
years, the Forest Service and Interior have, in some cases, diverted 
funds from the fuels reduction program to cover the costs of fire 
suppression. According to Forest Service regional officials, although 
the fuels reduction program generally gets reimbursed the next fiscal 
year, the uncertainty and the timing of the reimbursement makes 
planning projects difficult, especially given the sometimes small 
window of opportunity for conducting treatments. As such, diverting 
funds from fuels reduction can delay fuels reduction projects. For 
example, in 2002, the Klamath National Forest in California shifted 
about 22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels reduction budget 
to support national fire suppression efforts. As a result, the forest 
was unable to treat over 500 acres or about 15 percent of its annual 
target.

In addition to funds, staff were also diverted from the fuels reduction 
program to fire suppression. In some cases, fuels reduction staff were 
deployed locally or nationally to fight wildfires. In other cases, 
local units had the staff available to complete the fuels reduction 
work but were prevented from doing so because of national fire fighting 
preparedness restrictions put into place by the Forest Service and 
Interior. These restrictions, dictated by burning conditions, fire 
activity, and resource availability, limit or cancel fuels reduction 
work to ensure that the necessary personnel are prepared and 
immediately available for local or national fire suppression duties. 
During 2002, the national preparedness restrictions rose to the highest 
level possible, 5 weeks earlier than ever before; and they remained at 
that level for a record-setting 62 days. According to local officials, 
at the highest preparedness level, the Forest Service and Interior 
generally cancel all fuels reduction work across the country, no matter 
what the local weather conditions are or the number of staff on hand to 
do the work. As a result, some local units were not able to complete 
their 2002 fuels reduction workloads. For example, the BLM Prineville 
District in Oregon, which primarily consists of juniper trees and 
rangelands, was unable to treat over 3,500 acres because of the 
national restrictions. Staffing obligations for fire suppression even 
affected the fuels reduction efforts of the local units in the 
Southeast. For example, out of the 145,208 acres scheduled for 
treatment in 2002 at the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, 
31,518 acres, or 22 percent were not treated owing, in part, to the 
national fire restrictions. In addition, nearly 20 percent of the 
54,634 acres planned at the Bienville National Forest in Mississippi 
were not treated because local staff were deployed to fight western 
wildfires. If the trend illustrated in figure 8 continues, more 
instances of funds and staff being diverted to fire suppression could 
take place in the future.

Agency Officials Cited Additional Factors That Affected Fuels 
Reduction:

In addition to the weather and the diversion of resources, local land 
unit officials also cited, to a lesser degree, other factors that 
affected the fuels reduction program. These factors included such 
things as public resistance to fuels reduction projects, administrative 
work to fulfill regulatory requirements, and the uncertainty of annual 
funding. Citizens may generally challenge a local unit's decision to 
proceed with a fuels reduction project. This allows greater citizen 
involvement in the fuels reduction program. While the issue of formal 
public resistance, such as appeals and litigation, has recently been 
contentious, only a few local land unit officials we visited indicated 
that this type of resistance had delayed particular fuels reduction 
treatments. Local unit officials noted that more informal methods of 
public resistance to fuels reduction have prevented them from 
completing treatments and can even dissuade them from planning projects 
in some areas. For example, agency officials from a national forest in 
Oregon told us that they terminated a prescribed burning project that 
was in progress because they received numerous complaints from local 
residents about the smoke. Since that incident, officials have been 
hesitant to initiate prescribed burns in the area, they said. Other 
local unit officials stated that, because of the possibility of public 
resistance over fuels reduction work and the necessity to comply with 
regulatory requirements, their staff has to spend more time researching 
and analyzing the possible impacts of fuels reduction treatments. For 
example, according to officials at the Los Padres National Forest in 
California, many of their projects are delayed for months while waiting 
for the mandatory external consultations to comply with the Endangered 
Species Act. In another example, a recent Forest Service report noted 
that to avert legal challenges at the Santa Fe watershed project, 
Forest Service officials spent almost 5 years and $1 million on 
planning and public involvement.[Footnote 10]

Another factor that affects fuels reduction projects at the local level 
is the uncertainty of annual funding. Some local officials stated that 
it is difficult to plan projects, especially multiyear projects, 
without consistent and sustained funding over a period of years. 
Officials also said that the timing of the budget cycle makes planning 
difficult because the annual budget process and fuels reduction 
planning cycle often overlap with the fire season. According to one 
local unit, officials often do not know how much funding they will 
receive until April--well past the fall and winter months, which are 
ideal for planning. Other officials explained that it is difficult to 
hire people, identify targets, and write contracts when they do not 
know the amount of funding they will receive. Because of this 
uncertainty, officials pointed out, it is often necessary to fund fuels 
reduction projects piece by piece. When projects are funded piecemeal 
and the following years' funding is not guaranteed, projects may remain 
incomplete for several years. Under these circumstances, costly and 
time-consuming regulatory paperwork may have to be redone, because much 
of the necessary environmental analysis needs to be updated after 3 to 
5 years. In addition, projects that are only partially complete can 
leave areas more susceptible to wildfire risk than they were before 
their initial treatments because vegetation that is cut but left on the 
ground or stacked in piles creates a dry, dense concentration of fuels 
that can be highly flammable. While local units were generally more 
concerned about the timing of the budget cycle, officials at five of 
the local land units we visited indicated that inadequate funding 
itself was a factor that hindered the implementation of fuels reduction 
treatments. The most notable example was the Los Padres National 
Forest, where officials claimed that they were not able to complete 
over 44,000 acres, or approximately 96 percent, of their fuels 
reduction workload in part because of limited funding. In addition to 
these factors, local officials also mentioned staffing and contractor 
shortages as sometimes limiting their ability to plan and implement 
fuels reduction projects.

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

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

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

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

* To help streamline the planning process, officials at the Klamath 
National Forest in California prepare a "programmatic biological 
assessment" which can accommodate the necessary regulatory compliance 
paperwork for several fuels reduction projects.

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

Agencies Recognize Need to Better Measure the Effect of Fuels Reduction 
Treatments, but Annual Reporting Practices Need Improvement:

The Forest Service and Interior currently measure the performance of 
the fuels reduction program by counting the actual number of acres 
treated. Assessing the performance of the fuels reduction program by 
counting the number of acres treated is problematic, however, because 
it does not provide information on how or if the level of risk to 
catastrophic wildfire has been reduced. To address this weakness, the 
Forest Service and Interior are currently developing results-oriented 
performance measures to better assess the effects of fuels reduction 
treatments. The new performance measures are intended to assess how 
well the treatments are reducing the risk of wildfire by counting the 
number of acres where the vegetative condition of the land has been 
converted to a lower level of wildfire risk. However, because the 
Forest Service and Interior do not currently have detailed nationwide 
baseline data on wildfire risk and vegetative condition, the assessment 
of risk level is generally left up to the judgment of local land 
officials. As such, it will be difficult to ensure that any change in 
wildfire risk as reported in annual performance reports is consistent 
and accurate.

The current method of reporting annual performance under the fuels 
reduction program is resulting in misleading data on what is actually 
being accomplished. For example, reporting on the total number of acres 
actually treated during the year provides an inaccurate assessment on 
what is being accomplished to reduce the overall risk of catastrophic 
wildfire because maintenance acres are being reported together with 
other acres that are treated primarily to reduce the level of wildfire 
risk. Maintenance acres, currently located primarily in the Southeast, 
receive regular and frequent treatments to control their rapid 
vegetation growth and maintain them at a low risk to wildfire. 
According to agency officials, failure to regularly treat these acres 
could quickly result in a higher risk to catastrophic wildfire. All 
four local land units we visited in the Southeast treat the same acres 
at each of their units about every 3 to 5 years to keep the vegetation 
from growing and maintain them at a low level of wildfire risk. While 
the treatment of these types of acres is important to maintain a low 
risk of wildfire, reporting the treatment of these acres annually 
together with nonmaintenance acres--those acres treated primarily to 
reduce the overall risk of catastrophic wildfire--in annual performance 
reports is misleading the Congress and the public over exactly what the 
agencies are accomplishing with the fuels reduction program.

For example, if the Forest Service and Interior were to treat a total 
of 2 million acres per year for the next 10 years, of which 1 million 
acres per year were maintenance acres, and the other 1 million acres 
per year were treated to reduce the level of wildfire risk, the 
performance reports as currently structured would indicate that the 
agencies had treated 20 million acres toward the total number of acres 
nationwide that are at risk to wildfire. However, this assessment would 
be incorrect in two ways. First, the 1 million maintenance acres 
treated and reported were most likely treated 2 to 3 times, thus 
reported 2 to 3 times during the 10-year period, making the number of 
new acres actually treated one third or one half of the 20 million 
reported. Second, because maintenance acres will continue to require 
additional treatments beyond the 10-year period, it is misleading to 
link these treatments to any long-term progress in further reducing the 
total lands at risk to wildfire. This reporting practice can be 
especially misleading under the fuels reduction program because of the 
large proportion of maintenance acres treated each year, compared with 
the other acres treated. For example, as shown in figure 9, for the 3-
year period for which the agencies have been counting the number of 
acres treated for fuels reduction under the National Fire Plan (2001-
2003), between 40 to 50 percent of the total acres treated, or were 
planned to be treated, each year have been maintenance acres in the 
Southeast.

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Furthermore, as the fuels reduction program progresses in the future 
and an increasing amount of acres are reduced to a low level of 
catastrophic wildfire risk, treatments to maintain these acres may 
become an even greater proportion of the agencies' annual fuels 
reduction nationwide workload. For example, the BLM Medford District in 
Oregon stated that most of their lands would require maintenance 
treatments in 7 or 8 years. As a result, because maintenance acres are 
counted together with nonmaintenance acres, it will continue to be 
difficult to accurately assess how annual fuels reduction 
accomplishments are reducing the total number of acres at risk to 
wildfire over time.

Also under the current reporting system, the way acres are reported 
when multiple treatments are necessary to reduce the risk of wildfire 
is also resulting in misleading data on what is actually being 
accomplished for that year. By reporting multiple treatments on the 
same acres as separate accomplishments, the agencies are creating the 
impression that more acres are receiving treatments than what is 
actually occurring. Specifically, not all of the acres reported as 
treated in annual performance reports reflect "new" accomplishments--
some of the same acres may have been reported as treated in the 
previous fiscal year. For example, on one national forest in Oregon, 
13,000 acres were treated in 2002 and reported as accomplishments. 
However, about 5,600 acres of the 13,000 acres, or 43 percent, were 
also treated in 2001 and reported as accomplishments in 2001. As such, 
only about 7,400 "new" acres were actually treated in fiscal year 2002. 
In addition, over 500 of the 5,600 acres treated in 2001 were also 
treated and reported a third time in 2002. While reporting acres in 
this manner is an appropriate workload measure, it is nonetheless 
difficult to assess the progress of the fuels reduction program beyond 
a single fiscal year if some of the same acres are reported year after 
year in annual performance reports.

Conclusions:

The Forest Service and Interior are working collaboratively to reduce 
the buildup of underbrush and other vegetative fuels that has 
accumulated to dangerous levels over the past several decades. Because 
this task is an enormous undertaking, it will be nearly impossible for 
the agencies to treat all of this land. Instead, they must first treat 
the areas where the threat of wildfire presents the greatest risk. As 
such, the agencies will have to make difficult decisions about which 
locations should be treated first, and allocate funding accordingly. 
Before the Forest Service and Interior can accurately identify which 
lands need fuels reduction, they will have to collect detailed data on 
lands with excess fuels buildup. Recognizing this need, they are 
considering funding the LANDFIRE project as well as an interim rapid 
assessment to collect these data. However, given that the rapid 
assessment is unlikely to provide results that are as accurate and 
consistent nationwide as those from LANDFIRE, we believe the agencies 
should concentrate their efforts on LANDFIRE. In addition, the agencies 
will have to define which lands are part of the wildland-urban 
interface and determine whether lands that require regular maintenance 
are as important to treat as other lands. Without doing so, they will 
be constrained in their ability to prioritize locations for fuels 
reduction treatments and allocate funding accordingly. In the future, 
as more projects are completed, it will be increasingly important to 
ensure that high-risk areas are identified systematically so the 
agencies can identify the highest priority locations nationwide and 
allocate funding accordingly. Also, because fuels reduction will 
require a long-term sustained effort, it will be essential to report 
accurate data concerning what is actually being accomplished so that 
the progress made each year through these efforts may be monitored. To 
this end, the agencies need to report accomplishments so that the 
number of acres on which the level of wildfire risk is reduced in a 
given year can be distinguished from other acres on which fuels 
reduction work was accomplished.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To better ensure that federal lands most in need of fuels reduction are 
treated, and provide the Congress and the relevant agencies with better 
information for making fuels reduction funding decisions, we recommend 
that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior direct the 
agencies to:

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

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

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

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture 
and of the Interior for review and comment. The departments provided a 
consolidated, written response to our report, which is included in 
appendix V of this report. The departments stated that the report aptly 
described the nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both its 
scope and severity. The departments agreed that prioritization is 
essential to program effectiveness and acknowledged that it may be 
possible to create broad categories of high, medium, and low priority 
for fuel treatments. They further indicated that they are nearing a 
decision on whether to fund and implement LANDFIRE. Regarding our 
recommendation that they decide whether lands requiring regular 
maintenance are an important part of the fuels reduction program, the 
departments said they had decided that these lands are an integral part 
of the program. However, they expressed concerns related to our 
recommendations that they develop a specific definition of the 
wildland-urban interface and that they distinguish among categories of 
fuels treatments when reporting accomplishments.

The departments commented that it has been difficult to reach consensus 
on a specific definition of the wildland-urban interface and they 
believe that (1) landscape differences preclude the application of a 
single geographic definition and (2) a too-detailed definition would 
compromise the effectiveness of local collaboration and community 
participation in this process. We recognize that reaching consensus on 
a specific definition is difficult. We are not advocating an inflexible 
geographic definition such as one based on a uniform radius around 
communities. On the contrary, we agree that landscape differences 
should be considered when defining the wildland-urban interface. We do, 
however, believe that a more specific definition than currently exists 
is needed to provide greater consistency among local units when 
selecting projects in the wildland-urban interface; and we believe that 
such a definition could be compatible with landscape differences. We 
also continue to believe that without narrowing the definition of what 
constitutes wildland-urban interface, a wide variety and large quantity 
of land will continue to fit within the broad definition; and it will 
be difficult for the departments to identify the highest priority areas 
for fuels reduction nationwide.

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

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the 
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 
30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send 
copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House 
Committee on Resources; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on 
Forests and Forest Health, House Committee on Resources; and other 
interested congressional committees. We will also send copies of this 
report to the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of the Interior; 
the Chief of the Forest Service; the Directors of BLM, the National 
Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service; the Deputy 
Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Director, Office of 
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's web site at [Hyperlink, http://
www.gao.gov/] http://www.gao.gov/.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in app. VI.

Signed by:

Barry T. Hill 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To assess the Forest Service's and the Department of the Interior's 
(Interior) efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels 
reduction treatments, we obtained interagency strategy and planning 
documents that described the mission of the fuels reduction program and 
an approach for achieving that mission. We interviewed department and 
agency officials in national, regional, and state offices, as well as 
at local land units. We obtained scientific studies about nationwide 
fuels buildup in forests and other vegetated areas from the Rocky 
Mountain Research Station and the Washington Office of Fire and 
Aviation Management, and we interviewed some of the authors. We 
reviewed a Forest Service proposal for a rapid assessment that will 
collect data on nationwide fuels buildup in the near-term and 
interviewed officials about LANDFIRE, a long-term plan to collect more 
detailed data on nationwide fuels buildup. We also interviewed regional 
and local unit officials from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the National Park Service, as well as officials 
representing state departments of forestry, nonprofit organizations, 
and research institutions.

To determine how local land units within the Forest Service and 
Interior prioritize land for fuels reduction treatments, we obtained 
interagency strategy documents and memorandums describing 
prioritization criteria and process requirements. We also obtained 
guidance from regional, state, and local offices where available. We 
interviewed Forest Service and BLM officials representing state and 
regional offices. We visited Forest Service and BLM fire and fuels 
specialists representing 11 national forests and 6 BLM field offices 
located in California, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon. (See 
table 1.) We selected these two agencies because they received the 
largest funding allocations for fuels reduction and treated the most 
acres. We selected these states because they received the largest 
funding allocations and treated the most acres under the fuels 
reduction program. We included states in the Southeast as well as in 
the West to ensure that diverse vegetation, climate, and treatment 
strategies were represented. Through consultation with regional and 
state agency officials we selected local land units to visit that 
received the largest funding allocations, treated the most acres, and 
represented diversity, with respect to predominant vegetative type, 
treatment strategies used, and proximity to communities and urban 
development. In addition, we verified that some of the units we 
selected had faced challenges that prevented them from completing all 
of the fuels reduction projects they had planned to implement in 2002. 
Finally, we considered cost-effective logistics and travel for our 
staff in selecting the 17 local land units to visit. At each local land 
unit, we collected fiscal year 2002 and 2003 data about implemented and 
planned fuels reduction projects; and in some cases, we observed field 
locations where projects were proposed, had begun implementation, or 
had been completed. While the results of our visits cannot be projected 
nationwide, the locations represent a mix of local fuels reduction 
efforts based on geographic diversity and level of funding.

Table 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO:

Agency and local land unit: Forest Service: 

Agency and local land unit: Apalachicola National Forest; State: 
Florida.

Agency and local land unit: Bienville National Forest; State: 
Mississippi.

Agency and local land unit: Deschutes National Forest; State: Oregon.

Agency and local land unit: DeSoto National Forest; State: Mississippi.

Agency and local land unit: Klamath National Forest; State: California.

Agency and local land unit: Los Padres National Forest; State: 
California.

Agency and local land unit: Ochoco National Forest; State: Oregon.

Agency and local land unit: Osceola National Forest; State: Florida.

Agency and local land unit: San Juan National Forest; State: Colorado.

Agency and local land unit: Stanislaus National Forest; State: 
California.

Agency and local land unit: White River National Forest; State: 
Colorado.

Agency and local land unit: BLM: 

Agency and local land unit: Alturas Field Office; State: California.

Agency and local land unit: Grand Junction Resource Area; State: 
Colorado.

Agency and local land unit: Medford District, Ashland Resource Area; 
StateService: Oregon.

Agency and local land unit: Prineville District; State: Oregon.

Agency and local land unit: San Juan Field Office; State: Colorado.

Agency and local land unit: Surprise Field Office; State: California.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

To identify factors that have hindered recent fuels reduction efforts, 
we interviewed Forest Service and Interior officials in headquarters, 
regional, and state offices, and collected data about the percentage of 
federal land ready for fuels reduction treatments in 2002 that was 
treated. We interviewed agency officials from the 17 Forest Service and 
BLM local land units we visited and collected information about fuels 
reduction treatments planned and completed for fiscal year 2002, and 
treatments planned for fiscal year 2003. Specifically, for each 
treatment, officials provided the number of acres covered, whether the 
treatment was in the wildland-urban interface, the type of treatment 
used (e.g., prescribed burn or mechanical treatment), whether the same 
area had been treated the previous year, whether the treatment was 
completed as scheduled, and if not, the reasons why the treatment was 
not completed.

To assess how the Forest Service and Interior measure progress under 
the fuels reduction program, we reviewed interagency strategy and 
planning documents that specified performance measures for the fuels 
reduction program. We also collected nationwide accomplishment data for 
the fuels reduction program in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 from the 
Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and National Park Service, and analyzed the data to detect 
patterns across fuels reduction projects. These data were obtained from 
annual performance reports from the Forest Service and Interior for 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that summarized annual performance and 
provided quantitative data about fuels reduction accomplishments and 
program costs nationwide. In addition, we received planned 
accomplishment and projected cost data for fiscal year 2003 directly 
from the agencies. We also reviewed the agency files we received to 
ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data required for our 
assessment. Finally, we interviewed agency officials in headquarters, 
in the National Interagency Fire Center, and at local units to obtain 
information about reporting systems and databases currently in use and 
those planned for future use.

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

[End of section]

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

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

Table 2: Summary of FY 2001 Goals and Accomplishments:

Agency: Forest Service; Acre targets: 1,800,000; Treated acres: 
1,323,705; Percentage treated of planned acres: 74%; Total costs: 
$145,473,000; WUI acres: 611,551; WUI costs: $87,967,000; Non-
WUI acres: 712,154; Non-WUI costs: $57,506,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: $81; WUI: cost/acre: $144.

Agency: Bureau of Land Management; Acre targets: unavailable; Treated 
acres: 313,978; Percentage treated of planned acres: N/A; Total costs: 
58,784,000; WUI acres: 98,590; WUI costs: 40,823,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 215,388; Non-WUI costs: 17,961,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: 
83; WUI: cost/acre: 414.

Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Acre targets: unavailable; Treated 
acres: 74,010; Percentage treated of planned acres: N/A; Total costs: 
25,544,000; WUI acres: 8,415; WUI costs: 18,212,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 65,595; Non-WUI costs: 7,332,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: 
112; WUI: cost/acre: 2,164.

Agency: National Park Service; Acre targets: unavailable; Treated 
acres: 97,691; Percentage treated of planned acres: N/A; Total costs: 
12,204,000; WUI acres: 2,843; WUI costs: 1,640,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 94,848; Non-WUI costs: 10,564,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: 
111; WUI: cost/acre: 577.

Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; Acre targets: unavailable; Treated 
acres: 242,433; Percentage treated of planned acres: N/A; Total costs: 
18,263,000; WUI acres: 54,489; WUI costs: 8,795,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 187,944; Non-WUI costs: 9,468,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: 
50; WUI: cost/acre: 161.

Agency: Department of Interior; Acre targets: 1,400,000; Treated acres: 
728,112; Percentage treated of planned acres: 52%; Total costs: 
114,795,000; WUI acres: 164,337; WUI costs: 69,470,000; Non-
WUI acres: 563,775; Non-WUI costs: 45,325,000; Non-WUI cost/acre: 80; 
WUI: cost/acre: 423.

Total for FS and Interior; Acre targets: 3,200,000; Treated 
acres: 2,051,817; Percentage treated of planned acres: 64%; Total 
costs: $260,268,000; WUI acres: 775,888; WUI costs: 
$157,437,000; Non-WUI acres: 1,275,929; Non-WUI costs: 
102,831,000.

Agency: Averages for FS and Interior; Acre targets: 1,600,000; Treated 
acres: 410,363; Percentage treated of planned acres: 63%; Total costs: 
52,053,600; WUI acres: 155,178; WUI costs: 31,487,400; Non-WUI 
acres: 255,186; Non-WUI costs: 20,566,200; Non-WUI cost/acre: 
81; WUI: cost/acre: 203.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Notes: Totals do not include 197,148 acres of Wildland Fire Use 
including 37,992 acres for Forest Service and 159,156 acres for 
Interior. Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited 
wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives.

Forest Service cost data are project totals and do not reflect 
administrative costs.

[End of table]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments:

Agency: Forest Service; Planned acres: 2,101,234; Treated: acres: 
1,198,518; Percentage treated of planned acres: 57%; Total costs: 
$127,379,000; WUI acres: 764,367; WUI costs: $73,524,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 434,151; Non-WUI costs: $53,855,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: $124; 
WUI cost/acre: $96.

Agency: Bureau of Land Management; Planned acres: 862,321; Treated: 
acres: 321,087; Percentage treated of planned acres: 37%; Total costs: 
80,850,000; WUI acres: 118,275; WUI costs: 54,979,000; Non-WUI acres: 
202,812; Non-WUI costs: 25,871,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: 128; WUI cost/ 
acre: 465.

Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Planned acres: 246,634; Treated: 
acres: 120,761; Percentage treated of planned acres: 49%; Total costs: 
25,731,000; WUI acres: 24,501; WUI costs: 14,911,000; Non-WUI acres: 
96,260; Non-WUI costs: 10,820,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: 112; WUI cost/ 
acre: 609.

Agency: National Park Service; Planned acres: 212,166; Treated: acres: 
163,511; Percentage treated of planned acres: 77%; Total costs: 
27,485,000; WUI acres: 15,030; WUI costs: 10,559,000; Non-WUI acres: 
148,481; Non-WUI costs: 16,926,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: 114; WUI cost/ 
acre: 703.

Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; Planned acres: 578,694; Treated: 
acres: 453,605; Percentage treated of planned acres: 78%; Total costs: 
25,314,000; WUI acres: 51,514; WUI costs: 10,210,000; Non-WUI acres: 
402,091; Non-WUI costs: 15,104,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: 38; WUI cost/ 
acre: 198.

Agency: Department of Interior; Planned acres: 1,899,815; Treated: 
acres: 1,058,964; Percentage treated of planned acres: 56%; Total 
costs: 159,380,000; WUI acres: 209,320; WUI costs: 90,659,000; Non-WUI 
acres: 849,644; Non-WUI costs: 68,721,000; Non-WUI costs/acre: 81; WUI 
cost/acre: 433.

Total for FS and Interior; Planned acres: 4,001,049; Treated: 
acres: 2,257,482; Percentage treated of planned acres: 56%; Total 
costs: $286,759,000; WUI acres: 973,687; WUI costs: 164,183,000; Non-
WUI acres: 1,283,795; Non-WUI costs: $122,576,000.

Agency: Averages for FS and Interior; Planned acres: 800,210; Treated: 
acres: 451,496; Percentage treated of planned acres: 60%; Total costs: 
57,351,800; WUI acres: 194,737; WUI costs: 32,836,600; Non-WUI acres: 
256,759; Non-WUI costs: 24,515,200; Non-WUI costs/acre: 95; WUI cost/ 
acre: 169.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

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

Forest Service dollar amounts are project totals and do not reflect 
administrative costs.

In addition to above accomplishments, 1,024,846 acres (59,385 for 
Forest Service and 965,441 for Interior) were "treated" through 
Wildland Fire Use. Also, an additional 458,456 acres were treated 
through the Forest Service's Forest Health Program. The total for all 
of these acres is 1,483,300.

[End of table]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Table 4: Summary of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments:

Agency: Forest Service; Planned acres: 1,944,453; Total costs: 
$205,008,413; WUI acres: 1,047,200; WUI costs: $104,575,084; Non-WUI 
acres: 897,253; Non-WUI costs: $100,433,328; Non-WUI cost/acre: $112; 
WUI cost/acre: $100.

Agency: Bureau of Land Management; Planned acres: 415,861; Total costs: 
65,185,014; WUI acres: 153,292; WUI costs: 37,601,168; Non-WUI acres: 
262,569; Non-WUI costs: 27,583,846; Non-WUI cost/acre: 105; WUI cost/
acre: 245.

Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Planned acres: 188,114; Total costs: 
16,416,775; WUI acres: 14,425; WUI costs: 8,446,191; Non-WUI acres: 
155,170; Non-WUI costs: 7,970,584; Non-WUI cost/acre: 51; WUI cost/
acre: 586.

Agency: National Park Service; Planned acres: 131,010; Total costs: 
8,779,231; WUI acres: 18,935; WUI costs: 5,154,304; Non-WUI acres: 
112,075; Non-WUI costs: 3,624,927; Non-WUI cost/acre: 32; WUI cost/
acre: 272.

Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; Planned acres: 325,440; Total costs: 
15,851,449; WUI acres: 99,541; WUI costs: 10,387,148; Non-WUI acres: 
225,899; Non-WUI costs: 5,464,301; Non-WUI cost/acre: 24; WUI cost/
acre: 104.

Agency: Department of Interior; Planned acres: 1,060,425; Total costs: 
106,232,469; WUI acres: 286,193; WUI costs: 61,588,811; Non-WUI acres: 
755,713; Non-WUI costs: 44,643,658; Non-WUI cost/acre: 59; WUI cost/
acre: 215.

Total for FS and Interior; Planned acres: 3,004,878; Total 
costs: $311,240,882; WUI acres: 1,333,393; WUI costs: $166,163,895; 
Non-WUI acres: 1,652,966; Non-WUI costs: 145,076,986.

Agency: Averages for FS and Interior; Planned acres: 600,976; Total 
costs: 62,248,176; WUI acres: 266,679; WUI costs: $ 33,232,779; Non-WUI 
acres: 330,593; Non-WUI costs: 29,015,397; Non-WUI cost/acre: 88; WUI 
cost/acre: 125.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

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

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

[End of table]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

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

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

Table 5: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2001:

State: AL; Acres treated: Forest Service: 83,232; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 548; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
$83,780; Total costs: $1,710,000; Cost/acre: $ 20.

State: AR; Acres treated: Forest Service: 55,044; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 2,521; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 1,940; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
59,505; Total costs: 3,174,000; Cost/acre: 53.

State: FL; Acres treated: Forest Service: 108,282; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 72,172; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 19,589; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 5; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 3,430; Acres treated: Total: 
203,478; Total costs: 5,110,000; Cost/acre: 25.

State: GA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 25,863; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 2,293; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Total: 28,156; Total costs: 933,000; Cost/acre: 33.

State: KY; Acres treated: Forest Service: 7,065; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Total: 7,065; Total costs: 1,018,000; Cost/acre: 144.

State: LA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 116,397; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 8,672; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Total: 125,069; Total costs: 2,836,000; Cost/acre: 
23.

State: MS; Acres treated: Forest Service: 177,794; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 5,335; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Total: 183,129; Total costs: 3,907,000; Cost/acre: 
21.

State: NC; Acres treated: Forest Service: 25,702; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 8,962; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 16; Acres treated: 
Total: 34,680; Total costs: 1,826,000; Cost/acre: 53.

State: OK; Acres treated: Forest Service: 14,550; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 378; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 7,739; Acres treated: 
Total: 22,667; Total costs: 747,000; Cost/acre: 33.

State: SC; Acres treated: Forest Service: 52,676; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 463; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 7,195; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
60,334; Total costs: 2,414,000; Cost/acre: 40.

State: TN; Acres treated: Forest Service: 17,275; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 1,707; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
18,982; Total costs: 1,036,000; Cost/acre: 55.

State: TX; Acres treated: Forest Service: 60,426; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 3,854; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 27,029; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 300; Acres treated: Total: 
91,609; Total costs: 3,727,000; Cost/acre: 41.

State: VA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 3,623; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 139; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 88; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 3,850; 
[Empty]; Total costs: 318,000; Cost/acre: 83.

State: Total; Acres treated: Forest Service: 747,929; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 81,404; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 81,481; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 5; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 11,485; Acres treated: Total: 
$922,304; Total costs: $28,756,000; Cost/acre: [Empty].

State: Averages; Acres treated: Forest Service: 57,533; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 6,262; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 6,268; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 0; Acres 
treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 883; Acres treated: Total: 70,946; 
[Empty]; Total costs: 2,212,000; Cost/acre: 31.

Percent of treated acres; Acres treated: Forest 
Service: 55%; Acres treated: National Park Service: 83%; Acres treated: 
Fish and Wildlife Service: 34%; Acres treated: Bureau of Land 
Management: 0%; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 16%.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[End of table]

Table 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002:

State: AL; Acres treated: Forest Service: 64,688; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 863; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 89; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
$65,640; Total costs: $1,085,000; Cost/acre: $17.

State: AR; Acres treated: Forest Service: 84,558; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 6,501; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 1,467; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
92,526; Total costs: 2,725,000; Cost/acre: 29.

State: FL; Acres treated: Forest Service: 148,922; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 100,005; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 46,572; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 6,667; Acres treated: 
Total: 302,166; Total costs: 4,746,000; Cost/acre: 16.

State: GA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 17,167; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 22; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 64,865; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
82,054; Total costs: 4,899,000; Cost/acre: 60.

State: KY; Acres treated: Forest Service: 9,191; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 130; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
9,321; Total costs: 572,000; Cost/acre: 61.

State: LA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 88,384; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 29,384; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: 
[Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Total: 117,768; Total costs: 2,100,000; Cost/acre: 
18.

State: MS; Acres treated: Forest Service: 214,326; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 1,056; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 13,271; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
228,653; Total costs: 4,060,000; Cost/acre: 18.

State: NC; Acres treated: Forest Service: 14,268; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 48; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 17,865; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
32,181; Total costs: 1,693,000; Cost/acre: 53.

State: OK; Acres treated: Forest Service: 14,348; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 722; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 5,042; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 10,521; Acres treated: Total: 
30,633; Total costs: 1,672,000; Cost/acre: 55.

State: SC; Acres treated: Forest Service: 44,324; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 1,739; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 16,205; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
62,268; Total costs: 371,000; Cost/acre: 6.

State: TN; Acres treated: Forest Service: 10,053; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 1,553; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: [Empty]; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
11,606; Total costs: 1,259,000; Cost/acre: 108.

State: TX; Acres treated: Forest Service: 50,950; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 3,711; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 55,066; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
109,727; Total costs: 3,184,000; Cost/acre: 29.

State: VA; Acres treated: Forest Service: 4,463; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 348; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 193; Acres treated: Bureau of Land Management: [Empty]; Acres 
treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Acres treated: Total: 
5,004; Total costs: 528,000; Cost/acre: 106.

Total; Acres treated: Forest Service: 765,642; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 116,698; Acres treated: Fish and 
Wildlife Service: 250,019; 
Acres treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 17,188; Acres treated: Total: 
$1,149,547; Total costs: $28,894,000.

Averages; Acres treated: Forest Service: 58,896; Acres 
treated: National Park Service: 8,977; Acres treated: Fish and Wildlife 
Service: 19,232; Acres 
treated: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1,322; Acres treated: Total: 88,427; 
Total costs: 2,222,615; Cost/acre: 44.

Percent of treated acres; Acres treated: Forest 
Service: 62%; Acres treated: National Park Service: 71%; Acres treated: 
Fish and Wildlife Service: 55%; Acres treated: Bureau of Indian 
Affairs: 16%.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[End of table]

Table 7: Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003:

State: AL; Forest Service: 60,702; National Park Service: 
1,083; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 1,098; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
$62,883.

State: AR; Forest Service: 137,188; National Park Service: 
15,658; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 2,180; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
155,026.

State: FL; Forest Service: 214,236; National Park Service: 
52,260; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 27,716; Bureau of 
Land Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 34,367; 
Total: 328,579.

State: GA; Forest Service: 17,604; National Park Service: 4; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 8,430; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
26,038.

State: KY; Forest Service: 8,580; National Park Service: 424; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: [Empty]; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
9,004.

State: LA; Forest Service: 134,583; National Park Service: 
[Empty]; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 19,700; Bureau of 
Land Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; 
Total: 154,283.

State: MS; Forest Service: 218,733; National Park Service: 
562; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 6,160; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1,850; Total: 
227,305.

State: NC; Forest Service: 54,971; National Park Service: 45; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 10,048; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 51; Total: 
65,115.

State: OK; Forest Service: 27,264; National Park Service: 833; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 2,230; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 5,887; Total: 
36,214.

State: SC; Forest Service: 38,550; National Park Service: 841; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 14,461; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
53,852.

State: TN; Forest Service: 20,132; National Park Service: 
2,100; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 220; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
22,452.

State: TX; Forest Service: 88,427; National Park Service: 
11,897; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 29,608; Bureau of 
Land Management: 91; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 
130,023.

State: VA; Forest Service: 14,387; National Park Service: 47; 
Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 317; Bureau of Land 
Management: [Empty]; Bureau of Indian Affairs: [Empty]; Total: 14,751.

State: Total; Forest Service: 1,035,357; National Park 
Service: 85,754; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 122,168; 
Bureau of Land Management: 91; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 42,155; 
[Empty]; Total: $1,285,525.

State: Averages; Forest Service: 79,643; National Park 
Service: 6,596; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 9,398; Bureau 
of Land Management: 7; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 3,243; Total: 
98,887.

State: Percent of treated acres; Forest Service: 53%; National 
Park Service: 65%; Acres planned: Fish and Wildlife Service: 38%; 
Bureau of Land Management: 0%; Bureau of Indian Affairs: 0%.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

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

[End of table]

[End of section]

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

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

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

Local land units: California: 

Local land units: Alturas BLM; 2002 planned acres[A]: 2,248; Acres 
completed: 653; Percentage of planned acres completed: 29%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: $190,000; Estimated cost per acre[B]: $291; Estimated 
WUI cost per acre[B]: $2,069.

Local land units: Klamath NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 5,642; Acres 
completed: 3,348; Percentage of planned acres completed: 59%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 539,760; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 161; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 184.

Local land units: Los Padres NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 46,124; Acres 
completed: 6,704; Percentage of planned acres completed: 15%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 269,000; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 40; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 40.

Local land units: Stanislaus NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 11,321; Acres 
completed: 4,892; Percentage of planned acres completed: 43%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 445,570; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 91; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 114.

Local land units: Surprise BLM; 2002 planned acres[A]: 753; Acres 
completed: 448; Percentage of planned acres completed: 59%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 165,178; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 369; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 440.

Local land units: Colorado: 

Local land units: Grand Junction BLM; 2002 planned acres[A]: 8,186; 
Acres completed: 3,073; Percentage of planned acres completed: 38%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 150,951; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 49; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 56.

Local land units: San Juan BLM; 2002 planned acres[A]: 2,013; Acres 
completed: 1,573; Percentage of planned acres completed: 78%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 216,435; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 138; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 138.

Local land units: San Juan NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 10,259; Acres 
completed: 3,113; Percentage of planned acres completed: 30%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 167,139; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 54; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 101.

Local land units: White River NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 4,470; Acres 
completed: 520; Percentage of planned acres completed: 12%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 34,000; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 65; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: [Empty].

Local land units: Florida: 

Local land units: Apalachicola NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 145,208; 
Acres completed: 94,661; Percentage of planned acres completed: 65%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 1,893,220; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 20; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 20.

Local land units: Osceola NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 46,935; Acres 
completed: 12,960; Percentage of planned acres completed: 28%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 233,280; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 18; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: [Empty].

Local land units: Mississippi: 

Local land units: Bienville NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 54,694; Acres 
completed: 43,497; Percentage of planned acres completed: 80%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 483,604; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 11; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 11.

Local land units: DeSoto NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 96,392; Acres 
completed: 80,407; Percentage of planned acres completed: 83%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 1,179,405; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 15; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 15.

Local land units: Oregon: 

Local land units: Deschutes NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 13,655; Acres 
completed: 13,470; Percentage of planned acres completed: 99%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 2,365,562; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 176; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 281.

Local land units: Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM[C]; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 8,888; Acres completed: 8,113; Percentage of planned acres 
completed: 91%; Estimated total costs[B]: 3,475,132; Estimated cost per 
acre[B]: 428; Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 428.

Local land units: Ochoco NF; 2002 planned acres[A]: 12,847; Acres 
completed: 4,701; Percentage of planned acres completed: 37%; Estimated 
total costs[B]: 380,443; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 81; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre[B]: 98.

Local land units: Prineville BLM[D]; 2002 planned acres[A]: 28,221; 
Acres completed: 18,749; Percentage of planned acres completed: 66%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: 451,963; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 24; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: 35.

Local land units: Total; 2002 planned acres[A]: 497,856; Acres 
completed: 300,882; Percentage of planned acres completed: 60%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: $12,640,642; Estimated cost per acre[B]: 
[Empty]; Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: [Empty].

Local land units: Average Per Unit; 2002 planned acres[A]: 29,286; 
Acres completed: 17,699; Percentage of planned acres completed: 60%; 
Estimated total costs[B]: $743,567; Estimated cost per acre[B]: $119; 
Estimated WUI cost per acre[B]: $269.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[A] Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units 
have completed preliminary documentation. It does not refer to local 
units' formal acreage targets that they expect to complete in a given 
year.

[B] Because we were unable to estimate costs for a small number of 
fuels projects that were not fully completed, their costs are not 
included in these calculations.

[C] A portion of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area's fuels 
reduction work was paid for by funds outside of the fuels program, but 
all acres were reported as accomplishments under the fuels reduction 
program.

[D] BLM's Prineville District reduced fuels on 1,200 acres of Park 
Service land as a joint effort between the two agencies. These 1,200 
acres and BLM costs associated with them are included here in order to 
more accurately measure accomplishments and unit costs.

[End of table]

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

Local land units: California: 

Local land units: Alturas BLM; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
746; Estimated cost: $200,000; Estimated cost per acre: 
$268; Estimated WUI cost per acre: $268.

Local land units: Klamath NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
5,903; Estimated cost: 875,560; Estimated cost per acre: 
148; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 149.

Local land units: Los Padres NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
10,192; Estimated cost: 809,625; Estimated cost per acre: 
79; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 79.

Local land units: Stanislaus NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
14,134; Estimated cost: 2,767,584; Estimated cost per 
acre: 196; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 
175.

Local land units: Surprise BLM; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
540; Estimated cost: 212,000; Estimated cost per acre: 
393; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 947.

Local land units: Colorado: 

Local land units: Grand Junction BLM; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
11,395; Estimated cost: 760,661; Estimated 
cost per acre: 67; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 
86.

Local land units: San Juan BLM; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
2,280; Estimated cost: 386,000; Estimated cost per acre: 
169; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 169.

Local land units: San Juan NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
16,900; Estimated cost: 2,137,200; Estimated cost per 
acre: 126; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 
163.

Local land units: White River NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
3,960; Estimated cost: 447,500; Estimated cost per acre: 
113; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 347.

Local land units: Florida: 

Local land units: Apalachicola NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
155,027; Estimated cost: 3,410,594; Estimated cost per 
acre: 22; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 22.

Local land units: Osceola NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
27,890; Estimated cost: 502,020; Estimated cost per acre: 
18; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 18.

Local land units: Mississippi: 

Local land units: Bienville NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
55,370; Estimated cost: 595,529; Estimated cost per acre: 
11; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 11.

Local land units: DeSoto NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
101,656; Estimated cost: 1,524,840; Estimated cost per 
acre: 15; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 15.

Local land units: Oregon: 

Local land units: Deschutes NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
44,469; Estimated cost: 2,601,882; Estimated cost per 
acre: 59; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 48.

Local land units: Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM; 2003 acres 
planned[A]: 7,856; Estimated cost: 
3,223,784; Estimated cost per acre: 410; Estimated WUI 
cost per acre: 410.

Local land units: Ochoco NF; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
17,000; Estimated cost: 1,268,000; Estimated cost per 
acre: 75; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 116.

Local land units: Prineville BLM; 2003 acres planned[A]: 
17,810; Estimated cost: 540,500; Estimated cost per acre: 
30; Estimated WUI cost per acre: 42.

Local land units: Total; 2003 acres planned[A]: 493,128; 
Estimated cost: $22,263,279; Estimated cost per acre: 
$45; Estimated WUI cost per acre: $42.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[A] Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units 
have completed preliminary documentation. It does not refer to local 
units' formal acreage targets that they expect to complete in a given 
year.

[End of table]

Table 10: Cost and Accomplishments by Fuels Reduction Treatment Methods 
Used by 17 Local Land Units, 2002:

Local land units: California: 

Local land units: Alturas BLM; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 460; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
$86; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 193; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: $780; Total: 
Acres treated: 653; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: $291.

Local land units: Klamath NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 2,403; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
119; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 945; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 269; Total: 
Acres treated: 3,348; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 161.

Local land units: Los Padres NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 6,343; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
38; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 361; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 82; Total: Acres 
treated: 6,704; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 40.

Local land units: Stanislaus NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 1,029; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
44; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 3,863; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 104; Total: 
Acres treated: 4,892; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 91.

Local land units: Surprise BLM; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: [Empty]; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; 
[Empty]; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 448; Mechanical thinning: 
Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 369; Total: Acres treated: 
448; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 369.

Local land units: Colorado: 

Local land units: Grand Junction BLM; Prescribed burning: 
Acres treated: 532; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 7; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 2,541; 
Mechanical thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 58; 
Total: Acres treated: 3,073; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
49.

Local land units: San Juan BLM; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: [Empty]; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; 
[Empty]; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 1,573; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 138; Total: 
Acres treated: 1,573; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 138.

Local land units: San Juan NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 2,556; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
36; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 557; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 136; Total: 
Acres treated: 3,113; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 54.

Local land units: White River NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 520; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
65; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: [Empty]; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; Total: Acres 
treated: 520; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 65.

Local land units: Florida: 

Local land units: Apalachicola NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 94,661; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 20; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: [Empty]; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; Total: Acres 
treated: 94,661; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 20.

Local land units: Osceola NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 12,960; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 18; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: [Empty]; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; Total: Acres 
treated: 12,960; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 18.

Local land units: Mississippi: 

Local land units: Bienville NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 43,497; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 11; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: [Empty]; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; Total: Acres 
treated: 43,497; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 11.

Local land units: DeSoto NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 80,407; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 15; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: [Empty]; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; Total: Acres 
treated: 80,407; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 15.

Local land units: Oregon: 

Local land units: Deschutes NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 4,615; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
93; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 8,855; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 219; Total: 
Acres treated: 13,470; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 176.

Local land units: Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM[B]; 
Prescribed burning: Acres treated: 3,936; Prescribed burning: Estimated 
average cost per acre[A]: 115; Mechanical thinning: Acres 
treated: 4,177; Mechanical thinning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 723; Total: Acres treated: 8,113; Total: Estimated 
average cost per acre[A]: 428.

Local land units: Ochoco NF; Prescribed burning: Acres 
treated: 4,201; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
79; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 500; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 100; Total: 
Acres treated: 4,701; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 81.

Local land units: Prineville BLM[C]; Prescribed burning: 
Acres treated: 14,294; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 17; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 4,455; 
Mechanical thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 46; 
Total: Acres treated: 18,749; Total: Estimated average cost per 
acre[A]: 24.

Local land units: Total; Prescribed burning: Acres treated: 
272,414; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: $51; 
[Empty]; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 28,468; Mechanical 
thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: $252; Total: 
Acres treated: 300,882; Total: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: 
$119.

Local land units: Percentage of treated acres; Prescribed 
burning: Acres treated: 91%; Prescribed burning: Estimated average cost 
per acre[A]: [Empty]; Mechanical thinning: Acres treated: 9%; 
Mechanical thinning: Estimated average cost per acre[A]: [Empty]; 
Total: Acres treated: 100%.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[A] Because we were unable to estimate costs for a small number of 
fuels projects that were not fully completed, their costs are not 
included in these calculations.

[B] A portion of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area's fuels 
reduction work was paid for by funds outside of the fuels program, but 
all acres were reported as accomplishments under the fuels reduction 
program.: 

[C] BLM's Prineville District reduced fuels on 1,200 acres of Park 
Service land as a joint effort between the two agencies. These 1,200 
acres and BLM costs associated with them are included here in order to 
more accurately measure accomplishments and unit costs.

[End of table]

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

Local land units: California.

Local land units: Alturas BLM; Projects planned: 8; Projects not 
completed: 4; Percentage projects not completed: 50%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 2,248; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 3; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: 1; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: All other reasons: 1.

Local land units: Klamath NF; Projects planned: 19; Projects not 
completed: 8; Percentage projects not completed: 42%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 5,642; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 2; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: 4; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Los Padres NF; Projects planned: 15; Projects not 
completed: 8; Percentage projects not completed: 53%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 46,124; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: 8; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: 2; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Stanislaus NF; Projects planned: 41; Projects not 
completed: 19; Percentage projects not completed: 46%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 11,321; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 4; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 1; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: 11; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: Administrative requirements: 1; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: All other reasons: 2.

Local land units: Surprise BLM; Projects planned: 11; Projects not 
completed: 7; Percentage projects not completed: 64%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 753; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 3; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 2; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: 1; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: All other reasons: 5.

Local land units: Colorado: 

Local land units: Grand Junction BLM; Projects planned: 14; Projects 
not completed: 11; Percentage projects not completed: 79%; 2002 
planned acres[A]: 8,186; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: 
Weather: 4; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 3; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: 1; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: All other reasons: 4.

Local land units: San Juan BLM; Projects planned: 7; Projects not 
completed: 2; Percentage projects not completed: 29%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 2,013; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 
[Empty]; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: San Juan NF; Projects planned: 16; Projects not 
completed: 11; Percentage projects not completed: 69%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 10,259; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 9; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: 2.

Local land units: White River NF; Projects planned: 10; Projects not 
completed: 9; Percentage projects not completed: 90%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 4,470; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 7; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Florida: 

Local land units: Apalachicola NF; Projects planned: 117; Projects not 
completed: 42; Percentage projects not completed: 36%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 145,208; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 42; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 24; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Osceola NF; Projects planned: 47; Projects not 
completed: 35; Percentage projects not completed: 74%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 46,935; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 35; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Mississippi: 

Local land units: Bienville NF; Projects planned: 29; Projects not 
completed: 5; Percentage projects not completed: 17%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 54,694; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 4; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 4; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: 1.

Local land units: DeSoto NF; Projects planned: 61; Projects not 
completed: 12; Percentage projects not completed: 20%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 96,392; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 11; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 11; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: 1.

Local land units: Oregon: 

Local land units: Deschutes NF; Projects planned: 369; Projects not 
completed: 6; Percentage projects not completed: 2%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 13,655; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 6; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM; Projects 
planned: 222; Projects not completed: 18; Percentage projects not 
completed: 8%; 2002 planned acres[A]: 8,888; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Weather: [Empty]; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: Fire season: 18; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: 
Funding: [Empty]; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: 
Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: All other reasons: [Empty].

Local land units: Ochoco NF; Projects planned: 23; Projects not 
completed: 20; Percentage projects not completed: 87%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 12,847; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 18; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: 18; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: Administrative requirements: [Empty]; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: All other reasons: 18.

Local land units: Prineville BLM; Projects planned: 35; Projects not 
completed: 16; Percentage projects not completed: 46%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 28,221; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 2; 
Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 4; Reasons cited 
for incomplete projects: Funding: 1; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: Administrative requirements: 3; Reasons cited for incomplete 
projects: All other reasons: 8.

Local land units: Total; Projects planned: 1,044; Projects not 
completed: 233; Percentage projects not completed: 22%; 2002 planned 
acres[A]: 497,856; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Weather: 
131; Reasons cited for incomplete projects: Fire season: 96; Reasons 
cited for incomplete projects: Funding: 42; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: Administrative requirements: 9; Reasons cited for 
incomplete projects: All other reasons: 42.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

[A] Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units 
have completed preliminary documentation. It does not refer to local 
units' formal acreage targets that they expect to complete in a given 
year.: 

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

[End of table]

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

Local land units: California: 

Local land units: Alturas BLM; FY 2002 acres completed: 653; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 746; Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 2003 
acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Klamath NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 3,348; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 5,903; Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 2003 
acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Los Padres NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 6,704; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: 82; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: 1%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 10,192; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Stanislaus NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 4,892; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: 1,264; Percentage of FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: 26%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 14,134; 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 420; Percentage of 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 3%.

Local land units: Surprise BLM; FY 2002 acres completed: 448; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: 5; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: 1%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 540; Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 2003 
acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Colorado: 

Local land units: Grand Junction BLM; FY 2002 acres completed: 3,073; 
FY 2002 acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 11,395; 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: San Juan BLM; FY 2002 acres completed: 1,573; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: 37; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: 2%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 2,280; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: San Juan NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 3,113; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 16,900; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 600; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 4%.

Local land units: White River NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 520; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 3,960; Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 2003 
acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Florida: 

Local land units: Apalachicola NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 94,661; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 155,027; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Osceola NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 12,960; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 27,890; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 2,200; Percentage of Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 8%.

Local land units: Mississippi: 

Local land units: Bienville NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 43,497; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 55,370; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: DeSoto NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 80,407; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 101,656; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Oregon: 

Local land units: Deschutes NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 13,470; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: 5,592; Percentage of FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: 42%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 44,469; 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 33,968; Percentage of 
Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 76%.

Local land units: Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM; FY 2002 acres 
completed: 8,113; FY 2002 acres previously treated in 2001: 2,662; 
Percentage of FY 2002 acres previously treated in 2001: 33%; Planned FY 
2003 acres: 7,856; Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 
3,363; Percentage of Planned FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 
43%.

Local land units: Ochoco NF; FY 2002 acres completed: 4,701; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 17,000; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Prineville BLM; FY 2002 acres completed: 18,749; FY 
2002 acres previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: [Empty]; Planned FY 2003 acres: 17,810; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty]; Percentage of Planned FY 
2003 acres previously treated in 2002: [Empty].

Local land units: Total; FY 2002 acres completed: 300,882; FY 2002 
acres previously treated in 2001: 9,642; Percentage of FY 2002 acres 
previously treated in 2001: 3%; Planned FY 2003 acres: 493,128; Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 40,551; Percentage of Planned 
FY 2003 acres previously treated in 2002: 8%.

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.: 

Note: In 6 of the 17 local land units that we visited, some acres of 
land that were treated for fuels reduction and counted as acres 
accomplished during fiscal year 2001 were treated and counted again as 
acres accomplished in 2002. Treating an acre of land more than once is 
sometimes necessary. For example, some areas with hazardous fuels 
buildup are too dense to be treated with a prescribed burn because fire 
would possibly burn too intensely and destroy valued resources, 
defeating the original objective. In these cases, a series of 
treatments, such as hand chopping and piling of fuels and small 
prescribed burns, are performed on the same land over a period of time, 
ranging from several months to several years. Forest Service and 
Interior's internal reporting guidelines direct local land units to 
report accomplishments on the same acres in separate fiscal years as a 
workload measure showing the results from their annual funding 
allotments. Overall, we found that, for the 17 local land units, 3 
percent of the acres treated and counted as accomplishment for fiscal 
year 2002 had been treated and counted in fiscal year 2001.

[End of table]

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

[See PDF for image]

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

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

[End of figure]

[End of section]

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

WASHINGTON:

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE	THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR:

June 26, 2003:

Barry T. Hill, Director:

Natural Resources and Environment United States General Accounting 
Office 441 G Street, N. W.

Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Director Hill:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the draft report, 
Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better 
Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction (GAO-03-805). The 
report is a well-prepared document that appropriately focuses on 
strategic issues.

The report aptly describes the nature of the fuel problem on public 
lands in both its scope and severity. Likewise, it accurately portrays 
the range of issues that may have impacts on hazardous fuels reduction 
treatments as they are actually accomplished on the landscape.

We agree with the fundamental premise that prioritization is essential 
to program effectiveness. We note, however, that the nation's enormous 
diversity in settlement patterns, land use, topography, vegetation, and 
other geographic factors all influence wildland fire risk. These same 
factors also impact how people in various parts of the country view the 
landscape, identify and evaluate features at risk, and thus prioritize 
fuels reduction treatments.

The Congress recognized the importance of regional differences when it 
instructed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to engage in a 
collaborative process in the fuels program. It declared that State and 
local governments were to be full partners and that "key decisions be 
made at local levels.":

Regional differences impact the fuel program in two areas of concern to 
GAO. First, these differences frustrate efforts to devise a systematic 
method to rank order the thousands of annual individual treatments. It 
may be possible, however, to develop techniques that create broad 
landscape categories of high, medium, and low priority for fuel 
treatments. Second, landscape differences preclude the application of 
any single geographically useful definition of the wildland urban 
interface (WUI).

The House of Representatives recently passed the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (H.R. 1904) that adopted a flexible January 4, 2001 
Federal Register WUI definition cited by GAO. The States, charged with 
the responsibility of developing a definition of the WUI for the 
Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) created at Congressional 
behest, also endorse the Federal Register definition. Likewise, the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, Western Governors Association, 
National Association of Counties, National Association of State 
Foresters, Intertribal Timber Council, and other stakeholders adopted a 
pliant definition of the WUI in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing 
Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year 
Comprehensive Strategy.

Prioritization based on a too detailed and prescriptive national 
definition for the WUI, combined with overly rigid prioritization 
guidelines, would severely limit the effectiveness of local 
collaboration and community participation that lies at the heart of the 
fuels treatment program.

Nonetheless, we are sensitive to GAO's concern for the need for 
national guidelines in order to reach national goals of reducing the 
risks abnormal wildland fire poses to people, communities, and natural 
resources and doing so in an effective and efficient manner. Hence, we 
agree that local collaboration should operate within nationally 
determined guidelines. We are persuaded, however, that such guidance is 
exemplified by the January 14, 2003 FY 2004 project prioritization 
letter from the Secretary of the Interior and a similar letter from 
Chief of the Forest Service (copies attached). The nearly completed 
"Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuel Treatment 
Strategy," amplifies on that direction.

We offer the following comments regarding GAO's four specific 
recommendations for executive action to ensure that federal lands most 
in need of fuels reduction are treated.

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

The Departments are nearing a decision on the funding of LANDFIRE. The 
first prototype will be completed in the spring of 2004 and the second 
in the fall of 2004. Since development of LANDFIRE began, other methods 
for identifying and prioritizing fuel treatments have emerged (e.g. 
those adopted by the State of Florida and since expanded to include 
thirteen southern States). We are considering these alternatives as 
part of our LANDFIRE evaluation process.

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

Since the development and implementation of the National Fire Plan, a 
marked increase in attention to fuels treatment in the WUI has 
occurred. In fiscal year 2001, for example, the agencies treated 
775,000 WUI acres while they expect to treat 1,075,000 acres in FY 
2004, an increase of nearly 40 percent.

While we understand the desire for geographic specificity, for the 
reasons noted previously, it has been difficult to reach consensus on a 
precise definition that adequately reflects the spatial complexity of 
human settlement across diverse landscapes.

However, we are working to resolve this and have made significant 
progress. As part of the collaborative process in identifying fuel 
treatments projects, the States, through the National Association of 
State Foresters (NASF), have the lead in developing a more nationally 
consistent WUI definition for the WFLC. On June 20th, NASF proposed, 
and the WFLC approved, using the January 4, 2001 Federal Register 
definition of the wildland urban interface. Through the collaborative 
process we will continue to refine this WUI definition and its 
application as we prioritize fuels reduction treatments.

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

What GAO refers to as maintenance treatments remove fuel from lands 
that are in fire regime condition class 1, meaning they have not missed 
normally occurring fire return intervals. Such treatments most often 
occur in the Southeast where vegetation grows quickly and are required 
to prevent increased risk of wildland fire in such heavily vegetated 
areas.

We have already determined that maintenance treatments (perhaps better 
thought of as prevention treatments) are an integral part of the fuels 
treatment program. In FY 2003 we expect to treat some 700,000 condition 
class 1 acres. Without these treatments fuels conditions in the 
Southeast could quickly spiral into dangerous situations that would 
require much more costly treatments as it is more cost effective to 
keep lands in condition class 1 than it is to return them to that 
status after allowing them to slip into condition classes 2 or 3.

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

The report argues that maintenance acres and non-maintenance acres are 
fundamentally different (e.g., treatments done to maintain land in fire 
condition class 1 - maintenance acres or maintenance treatments - do 
not lower risk, while treatments done in areas within fire condition 
classes 2 and 3 do lower risk). Consequently, it recommends that these 
acres should be reported separately to give Congress and the public a 
more accurate description of program accomplishments. GAO also argues 
that annual reporting of these incremental treatments is misleading 
when a series of treatments to complete risk reduction are needed on 
the same area over several years, and that reporting multiple 
treatments on the same area exaggerates the total risk reduction 
accomplished.

We can report treatments by condition class.

Starting this fiscal year, we are requiring field units to report acres 
treated by condition class, indeed one performance measure in the FY 
2004 budget justification calls for the agencies to treat a specified 
number of condition class 2 and 3 acres. To support this requirement, 
we have developed a standard field procedure to evaluate changes in 
condition class resulting from treatments. These procedures are new to 
field practitioners. As the field offices become more experienced in 
applying them, more complete information on risk reduction will become 
available at a finer scale of resolution.

We are concerned, however, about the apparent assumptions that 
maintenance treatments or the first of multiple treatments on the same 
acreage do not lower fire risk. Removal of fuel means risk reduction 
irrespective of the fire condition class of the land at the time of 
removal and irrespective of the fact that multiple treatments may have 
to be applied to the same acreage to lower its fire regime condition 
class. In the Southeast, where 
maintenance treatments are most common, fuel reduction in priority 
condition class 1 areas not only immediately lessens the ever-
increasing risk of fire, but also keeps these areas from deteriorating 
into condition class 2 and 3 lands that would require multiple, 
expensive treatments over a period of years in order to reduce risk 
back to acceptable levels. Similarly, when the full prescription for 
lowering the fire regime condition class of an area includes thinning 
and slash removal followed by prescribed burning, carrying out the 
first part of the program will lower risk independent of subsequent 
actions.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Wildland Fire 
Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and 
Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction report (GAO-03-805) and look 
forward to working with GAO on future reports.

Mark Rey
Under Secretary
Natural Resources and the Environment
U.S. Department of Agriculture	

P. Lynn Scarlett
Assistant Secretary
Policy, Management and Budget
U.S. Department of the Interior: 

Signed by Mark Rey and P. Lynn Scarlett: 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841 Chester F. Janik (202) 512-6508:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, Paul Bollea, Ridge Bowman, Lee 
Carroll, Christine Colburn, Richard Johnson, and Cynthia Norris made 
key contributions to this report.

(360168):

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

[4] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Western National Forests: A 
Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, 
GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999).

[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Severe Wildland Fires: 
Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and 
Resources, GAO-02-259 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

[6] 66 Fed. Reg. 753 (2001).

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

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

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

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

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: