GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

FOREST SERVICE March 2010 

Information on 

Appeals, Objections, 

and Litigation 

Involving Fuel 

Reduction Activities, 

Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2008 

GAO-10-337 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2010

FOREST SERVICE

Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation 

Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 

Highlights of GAO-10-337, a report to through 2008 

congressional requesters 

Increases in the number and 

intensity of wildland fires have led 

the Department of Agriculture’s 

Forest Service to place greater 

emphasis on thinning forests and 

rangelands to reduce the buildup of 

potentially hazardous vegetation 

that can fuel wildland fires. The 

public generally has an opportunity 

to challenge agency hazardous fuel 

reduction decisions with which it 

disagrees. Depending on the type of 

project being undertaken, the 

public can file a formal objection to 

a proposed decision, or can appeal 

a decision the agency has already 

made. Appeals and objections must 

be reviewed by the Forest Service 

within prescribed time frames. 

Final decisions may also generally 

be challenged in federal court. 

GAO was asked, among other 

things, to determine, for fiscal 

years 2006-2008, (1) the number of 

Forest Service fuel reduction 

decisions and the associated 

acreage; (2) the number of 

decisions subject to appeal and 

objection, the number appealed, 

objected to, and litigated, and the 

associated acreage; and (3) the 

outcomes of appeals, objections, 

and litigation, and the extent to 

which appeals and objections were 

processed within prescribed time 

frames. In doing so, GAO 

conducted a nationwide survey of 

forest managers and staff, 

interviewed officials in the Forest 

Service’s regional offices, and 

reviewed documentation to 

corroborate agency responses. 

GAO requested, but did not receive, 

comments from the Forest Service 

on a draft of this report. 

Through a GAO-administered survey and interviews, Forest Service officials 

reported the following information: 

• In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Forest Service issued 1,415 

decisions involving fuel reduction activities, covering 10.5 million acres. 

• Of this total, 1,191 decisions, covering about 9 million acres, were subject 

to appeal and 217—about 18 percent—were appealed. Another 121 

decisions, covering about 1.2 million acres, were subject to objection and 

49—about 40 percent—were objected to. The remaining 103 decisions 

were exempt from both objection and appeal. Finally, 29 decisions—about 

2 percent of all decisions—were litigated, involving about 124,000 acres. 

• For 54 percent of the appeals filed, the Forest Service allowed the project 

to proceed without changes; 7 percent required some changes before 

being implemented; and 8 percent were not allowed to be implemented. 

The remaining appeals were generally dismissed for procedural reasons or 

withdrawn before they could be resolved. Regarding objections, 37 

percent of objections resulted in no change to a final decision; 35 percent 

resulted in a change to a final decision or additional analysis on the part of 

the Forest Service; and the remaining 28 percent were set aside from 

review for procedural reasons or addressed in some other way. And 

finally, of the 29 decisions that were litigated, lawsuits on 21 decisions 

have been resolved, and 8 are ongoing. Of the lawsuits that have been 

resolved, the parties settled 3 decisions, 8 were decided in favor of the 

plaintiffs, and 10 were decided in favor of the Forest Service. All appeals 

and objections were processed within prescribed time frames—generally, 

within 90 days of a decision (for appeals), or within 60 days of the legal 

notice of a proposed decision (for objections). 

Summary of Appeals of and Objections to Forest Service Fuel Reduction Decisions and 

Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006-2008 

Subject 

to appeal 

Subject to 

objection 

Exempt from 

appeal and 

objection Total 

Number of decisions 1,191 121 103 1,415 

Number of decisions 

appealed or objected to 217 49 Not applicable 266 

Percentage of decisions 

appealed or objected to 18 40 Not applicable 19 

Acreage (in thousands) 9,143 1,215 188 10,545 

Acreage appealed or 

objected to (in thousands) 839 225 Not applicable 1,064 

Percentage of acreage 

appealed or objected to 9 19 Not applicable 10 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

View GAO-10-337 or key components.

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-337 Forest Service 

Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4 

Background 7 

Number and Type of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction Activities in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 and the 

Associated Acreage 13 

Number of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Activities That Were Subject to Appeal or Objection; Number of 

Decisions Appealed, Objected to, or Litigated; and Associated 

Acreage 14 

Outcomes of Appeals, Objections, and Litigation of Decisions with 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities; Associated Time Frames; 

and Identities of Appellants, Objectors, and Plaintiffs 18 

Treatment Methods and Contract Types Associated with Fuel 

Reduction Decisions; the Number of Appeals, Objections, and 

Lawsuits by Treatment Method and Contract Type; and the 

Associated Acreage 23 

Decisions Involving Fuel Reduction Activities in the WildlandUrban Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas; the Number of 

Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits on Those Decisions; and the 

Associated Acreage 26 

Concluding Observations 28 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30 

Appendix II Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated 

Acreage, by Forest Service Region 34 

Appendix III Number of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits of Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Region 37 

Appendix IV Appeal Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 41 
Appendix V Litigation Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, 

by Forest Service Region 44 

Appendix VI List of Appellants, Objectors and Litigants, by 

Forest Service Region 47 

Appendix VII Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods and Number of 

Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest 

Service Region 53 

Appendix VIII Contract Types and Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region 56 

Appendix IX Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas, by Forest 

Service Region 59 

Appendix X Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized by the 

Forest Service and Represented in the GAO Survey 67 

Appendix XI Major Litigation Affecting Appeal Procedures for 

Categorical Exclusions 69 

Appendix XII Survey Questions to National Forests 71 

Appendix XIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 91 

Page ii GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Tables 

Table 1: Traditional Project Appeals Process Compared with 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project Objection Process 12 

Table 2: Forest Service Decisions with Fuel Reduction Activities 

and Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2008 13 

Table 3: Forest Service Decisions with Hazardous Fuel Reduction 

Activities That Were Appealed, Objected to, Exempt, or 

Litigated, by Decision Type, and Associated Acreage, 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 14 

Table 4: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation 

Associated with Various Treatment Methods, and 

Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 23 

Table 5: Number and Percentage of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation Associated with Various 

Contracting Types, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 25 

Table 6: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation of 

Decisions with Fuel Reduction Activities in the WildlandUrban Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas, and 

Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 27 

Table 7: Appellants and Number of Appeals Filed, by Forest 

Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 47 

Table 8: Objectors and Number of Objections Filed, by Forest 

Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 50 

Table 9: Plaintiffs and Number of Lawsuits Filed, by Forest Service 

Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 51 

Table 10: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized for Use by 

the Forest Service and Represented in the GAO Survey 67 

Table 11: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning Regulation 

Exempting Decisions That Have Been Categorically 

Excluded from Appeals 69 

Table 12: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning the Validity of the 

Fuels CE 70 

Figures 

Figure 1: Lands Managed by the Forest Service, by Region 8 

Figure 2: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated 

Acreage, by Forest Service Region 35 

Page iii GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Figure 3: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, 

and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region 38 

Figure 4: Outcomes of Appeals of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 42 

Figure 5: Outcomes of Litigation of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 45 

Figure 6: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, 

and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Treatment Method and 

Forest Service Region 54 

Figure 7: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, 

and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Contract Type and Forest 

Service Region 57 

Figure 8: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildlandurban Interface (WUI), and the Number and Frequency of 

Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation, by 

Forest Service Region 60 

Figure 9: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRA), and the Number and Frequency of 

Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation, by 

Forest Service Region 64 

Page iv GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Abbreviations 

CE categorical exclusion 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

IRA inventoried roadless area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

PALS Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System 

RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

WUI wildland-urban interface 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page v GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Page 1 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

March 4, 2010 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

Much attention has been paid in recent years to the condition of our 

nation’s forests, in large part because of increases in the number and 

intensity of wildland fires. In an effort to reduce the risk of fire, federal 

land management agencies—including the Forest Service in the 

Department of Agriculture—are placing greater emphasis on thinning 

forests and rangelands to help reduce the buildup of potentially hazardous 

fuels. The agencies have placed particular emphasis on fuel reduction in 

areas where human development meets or intermixes with undeveloped 

wildland, known as the wildland-urban interface. 

Like many other land management activities, hazardous fuel reduction 

activities are typically subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA).1

 Under NEPA, federal agencies are to evaluate the likely 

environmental effects of proposed projects through an environmental 

assessment or, if projects are likely to significantly affect the environment, 

a more detailed environmental impact statement. If, however, the agency 

determines that activities of a proposed project fall within a category of 

activities the agency has already determined have no significant 

environmental impact—called a categorical exclusion—then the agency 

generally need not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 

impact statement. The Forest Service then generally issues a final decision 

for each project in the form of a Record of Decision, a Decision Notice, or 

a Decision Memo, depending on whether the decision stems from an 

environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or 

1

Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), as amended. 
 

categorical exclusion, respectively.2 During the early planning stage of 

these environmental reviews, the public has opportunities to get involved 

by, for example, submitting written comments on the proposed project. 

Depending on the type of project, the public can generally challenge either 

the proposed action or the final decision by filing an objection or an 

appeal, respectively, with the Forest Service. These objections or appeals 

must be reviewed by the Forest Service within prescribed time frames. 

Final decisions may also generally be challenged in federal court.3

Much debate has focused on the extent and frequency of appeals and 

litigation of fuel reduction activities and their effect on agency activities. 

On the one hand, critics have asserted that such challenges to agency 

activities are stopping or unnecessarily slowing the decision-making 

processes of the Forest Service and its efforts to reduce fuels on federal 

lands. This opposition to fuel reduction activities is sometimes viewed as 

“frivolous” and alleged to be greatly increasing the costs of managing the 

national forests. Supporters of the administrative appeals process, on the 

other hand, have indicated that appeals have not been excessive or 

unwarranted and that few appeals are frivolous. Supporters further assert 

that Congress intended the federal land management process to include 

administrative reviews of agency decisions to (1) ensure public 

participation in the decision-making process and (2) ensure that agency 

managers adequately consider the various factors and policies affecting 

the environmental health of the nation’s lands. 

In 2003, we issued a report on appeals and litigation of Forest Service fuel 

reduction projects during fiscal years 2001 and 2002.4

 Since that time, 

however, the legal and procedural landscape has changed considerably. 

For example, at the time of our 2003 report, fuel reduction decisions 

stemming from categorical exclusions were generally not subject to 

appeal; however, as the result of subsequent litigation, the Forest Service 

 

2

For some categorical exclusions, decision memos are not required. For example, a 

decision memo is not required for repair and maintenance of Forest Service administrative 

sites, roads, and recreation sites. 

3

It is the position of the Department of Agriculture that any filing for federal judicial review 

of a decision subject to appeal is premature and inappropriate under 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) 

unless the plaintiff has first sought to invoke and exhaust the appeal procedures. 36 C.F.R. 

§ 215.21. See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 579 F.3d 1114, 1121-24 (10th Cir. 

2009) (discussing exhaustion requirement). 

4

GAO, Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuels Reduction 

Activities, GAO-04-52 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24, 2003). 

Page 2 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

was required to allow appeals of these types of decisions. In addition, 

since the time period covered by that report, the Forest Service has 

introduced new categorical exclusions, including one specific to fuel 

reduction. And finally, in 2003, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA) exempted certain fuel reduction projects from appeal, instead 

subjecting them to objection before the decision is final.5

In the context of these legal and procedural changes, you asked us to 

gather and report data on appeals, objections, and litigation related to 

Forest Service fuel reduction activities. This report provides information 

on (1) the number and type of Forest Service decisions involving 

hazardous fuel reduction activities signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 

and the acreage associated with those decisions; (2) the number of these 

decisions that were subject to the appeal or objection process; the number 

that were appealed, objected to, or litigated; and the acreage associated 

with those decisions; (3) the outcomes of these appeals, objections, and 

lawsuits, including whether they were processed within prescribed time 

frames, and the identities of the appellants, objectors, and plaintiffs; 

(4) the treatment methods and contract types associated with fuel 

reduction decisions, the associated acreage, and how frequently each 

treatment method and contract type was appealed, objected to, or 

litigated; and (5) the number of decisions involving hazardous fuel 

reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface6

 and inventoried 

roadless areas,7

 the associated acreage, and how frequently these 

decisions were appealed, objected to, or litigated. This letter provides 

national data on these issues, while appendixes II through IX provide 

information by Forest Service region. Appendixes X and XI provide more 

 

5

Pub. L. No. 108-148, Title I, § 105 (2003). 

6

It should be noted that the Forest Service does not use a single, specific definition of 

wildland-urban interface, and that different definitions can be used depending on the 

authority under which fuel reduction projects are carried out. GAO has previously 

recommended that the Forest Service develop a consistent, specific definition of the 

wildland-urban interface. See GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions 

Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction, GAO-03-805

(Washington, D.C.; Aug. 15, 2003). 

7

In this report, we use the term “inventoried roadless areas” to describe undeveloped areas 

with few or no roads that are identified as such in the applicable forest’s Land and 

Resource Management Plan or in 2001 Inventoried Roadless Area maps. These areas may 

also be identified as such in the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

(RARE) studies completed in the 1970s, excluding areas that have since been designated as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System by Congress. 

Page 3 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

information on the nature and use of categorical exclusions related to fuel 

reduction decisions. 

In conducting our review, we administered a Web-based survey to all 108 

national forests that issued decisions that involved hazardous fuel 

reduction activities in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The survey was used 

to gather information about each of the decisions, including the type of 

environmental analysis used, acres involved, treatment methods and 

contract types used, the extent to which the decisions included activities 

in the wildland-urban interface and inventoried roadless areas, and 

specific information about decisions subject to the predecisional objection 

process. We obtained a 100 percent response rate from the national 

forests. To gather specific details about appeals and litigation of decisions 

with hazardous fuel reduction activities, we conducted semistructured 

interviews with officials in each of the Forest Service’s nine regions. For 

both the Web-based survey and the semistructured interviews, to test the 

accuracy and reliability of the responses provided by officials, we verified 

the accuracy of a random sample of responses by comparing them with 

decision documents and found that the information was sufficiently 

reliable for our reporting purposes. Appendix I provides details on the 

scope and methodology of our review. Appendix XII includes a copy of the 

survey sent to national forests. 

We conducted our work from October 2008 through February 2010, in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in 

this product. 

In response to our survey and interviews, national forest and regional 

officials reported the following: Results in Brief 

• In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 1,415 Forest Service land management 

decisions involved hazardous fuel reduction activities. These decisions 

involved 10.5 million acres. Of these decisions, 71––5 percent––were based 

on environmental impact statements, 433––31 percent––were based on 

environmental assessments, and 910––64 percent––were based on 

categorical exclusions. (The remaining decision was a continuation of a 

previously authorized project and, according to the respondent, did not 

Page 4 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

require an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or 

categorical exclusion.) Decisions based on environmental assessments 

covered the greatest acreage in our review—over 6.3 million acres—

representing 61 percent of all acres. 

• Of the 1,415 decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities, 1,191 

decisions, involving approximately 9 million acres, were subject to appeal, 

with 217—about 18 percent–– appealed. An additional 121 decisions, 

involving approximately 1.2 million acres, were subject to objection, with 

49––40 percent––objected to. The remaining 103 decisions, involving 

approximately 188,000 acres, were exempt from appeal and objection. And 

finally, of the 1,415 total decisions, 29––about 2 percent of all decisions––

were litigated, involving approximately 124,000 acres. 

• The 217 decisions that were appealed received a total of 298 appeals.8 Of 

these, the Forest Service ruled against the appellant in 160 instances 

(about 54 percent of all appeals), meaning that the project could be 

implemented without changes, and in another 22 instances (7 percent) 

ruled that the project could be implemented with specific changes. In 

contrast, the agency reversed its initial decision (in whole or in part) in 

response to 24 appeals (8 percent). It dismissed 91 appeals (about 30 

percent) for various reasons, including failure on the part of the appellant 

to meet procedural requirements, and instances in which the appellant 

withdrew the appeal or the Forest Service withdrew the decision before 

the appeal could be decided. According to regional officials, the outcome 

of 1 appeal could not be determined based on documentation in their files. 

Of the 101 objections filed on 49 proposed decisions, 38 objections 

resulted in no change to a final decision. Another 31 objections resulted in 

a change to a final decision. An additional 4 objections resulted in the 

forest having to conduct additional analysis, and 13 were addressed in 

some other way, such as the objector agreeing to withdraw the objection if 

the Forest Service agreed to make changes to the final decision. The 

remaining 15 objections were removed from administrative review for a 

variety of reasons (also known as “set aside” from review). According to 

time frame information provided by survey respondents, the Forest 

Service processed all appeals and objections within prescribed time 

frames. Finally, of the 29 decisions that were litigated, lawsuits on 21 

decisions have been resolved; the parties settled 3 decisions, 8 were 

 

8

Because multiple appeals can be filed on a single decision, the number of appeals filed is 

greater than the number of decisions appealed. Similarly, proposed decisions can be the 

subject of multiple objections, and the number of objections filed is greater than the 

number of proposed decisions objected to. 

Page 5 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and 10 were decided in favor of the 

Forest Service. Most of the appellants, objectors, and plaintiffs were 

environmental organizations. 

• With respect to treatment methods, prescribed burning—where fires are 

deliberately set by land managers to reduce the buildup of potentially 

hazardous fuel—was the treatment most frequently associated with fuel 

reduction decisions, and was included in 1,076 of the 1,415 decisions. 

Mechanical treatment—in which equipment such as chain saws, chippers, 

bulldozers, and mowers is used to cut vegetation—was included in 973 

decisions; and commercial logging—where trees are harvested for 

commercial use such as lumber—was included in 661 decisions.9

 Although 

decisions involving prescribed burning received the greatest number of 

challenges, decisions that used commercial logging were challenged at a 

higher rate than the other treatment methods, considering both appeals 

and objections. Regarding contract type, timber sale contracts were the 

most frequently used, and were included in 606 of the 1,415 decisions. 

Service contracts—where contractors are hired to perform specific tasks 

such as thinning—were included in 536 decisions, and stewardship 

contracts were included in 218 decisions.10 In addition to issuing contracts 

for the work, the Forest Service also issued forest products permits (for 

activities such as collecting firewood) in 236 decisions.11 Decisions that 

included commercial timber sale contracts were the most frequently 

appealed, objected to, and litigated. However the rate at which decisions 

were challenged was highest for decisions that included stewardship 

contracts. 

• There were 954 decisions involving fuel reduction activities in the 

wildland-urban interface, involving about 4 million acres. Of these 

decisions, 140 were appealed, 45 were objected to, and 13 were litigated. 

 

9

Because each decision can be implemented using more than one treatment method, the 

sum of decisions by treatment method is greater than the total number of decisions. 

10Stewardship contracts include those under which the agency uses the value of 

commercial products, such as timber, to offset the cost of services received, such as 

thinning, stream improvement, and other activities. For more information about 

stewardship contracting, see GAO, Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on 

Community Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting, GAO04-652 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004), and Federal Land Management: Use of 

Stewardship Contracting Is Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and 

Contracting Strategies, GAO-09-23 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2008). 

11Because each decision can be implemented using more than one contract type, the sum of 

decisions by contract type is greater than the total number of decisions. 

Page 6 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

There were 169 decisions involving fuel reduction activities in inventoried 

roadless areas, involving about 750,000 roadless acres. Of these decisions, 

26 were appealed, 11 were objected to, and 4 were litigated. These figures 

represent a similar rate of appeals for both types of decision, with about 18 

to 19 percent of appealable decisions appealed; however, decisions 

involving inventoried roadless areas were objected to at a higher rate (50 

percent) than those involving the wildland-urban interface (40 percent). 

The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres of 

public lands—nearly 9 percent of the nation’s total surface area and about 

30 percent of all federal lands in the United States. In carrying out its 

responsibilities, the Forest Service traditionally has administered its 

programs through nine regional offices, 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, 

and over 600 ranger districts (each forest has several districts). The Forest 

Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of fuel reduction 

activities tend to be decentralized and vary by region, although all 

activities must be carried out under applicable laws.12 Figure 1 shows a 

map of the national forests and Forest Service regions. 

Background 

 

12For example, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, one of the major laws 

governing the Forest Service, requires the Forest Service to, among other things, (1) 

develop a plan to manage the lands and resources of each national forest in coordination 

with the land management planning process of other federal agencies, states, and localities 

and (2) revise each plan at least every 15 years. Each forest plan—called a Land and 

Resource Management Plan—establishes how land areas within a forest may be used and 

governs individual projects or activities that occur within the forest. Individual projects or 

activities, such as reducing fuels, may take place only if they are consistent with the plan 

and after site-specific environmental review, which often includes public notice, comment, 

and administrative appeal. 

Page 7 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

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

Source: Forest Service.

Region 5

Pacific Southwest

Region 6

Pacific Northwest

Region 4

Intermountain

Region 1

Northern

Region 2

Rocky Mountain Region 9

Eastern

Region 8

Southern

Region 3

Southwestern

Region 10

Alaska Puerto Rico

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

Forest Service projects intended to reduce fuels and restore or maintain 

desired vegetation conditions generally use prescribed burning, in which 

fires are deliberately set by land managers, and/or mechanical treatments, 

in which equipment such as chain saws, chippers, bulldozers, or mowers is 

used to cut vegetation. Such mechanical treatment may include logging to 

remove commercial timber. Other approaches include applying chemical 

herbicides, using grazing animals such as cattle and goats, and allowing 

the public to remove firewood by hand. To carry out its fuel reduction 

work, the Forest Service may use agency staff but more commonly 

contracts it out. The agency generally uses three types of contracts—

Page 8 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

timber sale contracts, service contracts, and stewardship contracts—to 

accomplish fuel reduction work. Timber sale contracts are awarded to 

individuals or companies to harvest and remove trees from federal lands 

under its jurisdiction. Service contracts are awarded to contractors to 

perform specific tasks, such as thinning trees or clearing underbrush. 

Stewardship contracts are generally awarded to contractors who perform 

both timber harvesting and service activities, and include contracts under 

which the agency uses the value of commercial products, such as timber, 

to offset the cost of services received, such as thinning, stream 

improvement, and other activities. 

Controversy has surrounded the issue of fuel reduction for some time, 

particularly in areas where federal lands surround or are adjacent to 

human development and communities—the wildland-urban interface—and 

in inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas have received special 

attention for decades, as some argue that these areas should be available 

for appropriate development and timber harvesting, while others believe 

that the areas should remain roadless to preserve the special values that 

their condition provides, such as clean water and undeveloped wildlife 

habitats.13

Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction activities are typically subject to 

one of two different internal administrative review processes, each of 

which has a specific procedure through which the public can challenge the 

agency’s decisions or proposed decisions to conduct the activities. 

Specifically: 

• Postdecisional administrative appeals process. The Forest Service has 

provided an administrative appeals system for review of agency decisions, 

under certain circumstances, for over 100 years. Although the specific 

requirements of the appeals system have changed over the years, the 

Appeals Reform Act of 1993 established the appeals process pertinent to 

fiscal years 2006 through 2008––the time period covered by our review.14

When the Forest Service issues a public notice in a newspaper of record of 

a proposed action, the public has either 30 or 45 days to comment, 

 

13Regulations governing roadless areas have been extensively litigated, and Congress is 

considering legislation addressing these areas. For a full discussion of these issues, see 

Congressional Research Service, National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives, 

RL30647 (Washington, D.C.: October 9, 2008). 

1416 U.S.C. § 1612 nt; see 36 C.F.R. part 215, Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for 

National Forest System Projects. 

Page 9 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

depending on the type of NEPA analysis document prepared. Once the 

agency issues a decision, the public has 45 days to file appeals; however, 

only those individuals who were involved in the public comment process 

through submission of written or oral comments or by otherwise notifying 

the Forest Service of their interest in the proposed action may file an 

appeal.15 Once the 45-day time frame for filing appeals has expired, the 

Forest Service must review all appeals and issue a response to each within 

an additional 45 days. Appeals can result in decisions being affirmed, in 

which case the Forest Service can proceed with the project as planned, or 

in decisions being reversed in whole or in part, in which case the agency 

may revise or even cancel the affected activities. The official (known as 

the Appeal Deciding Officer) who determines the outcome of the appeal 

must be, at least, the next higher level supervisor of the individual who 

made the original decision. There is no further administrative review of 

the Appeal Deciding Officer’s decision by any other Forest Service or 

Department of Agriculture official. 

The types of decisions that can be appealed have changed since GAO last 

reported on this issue in 2003. In 2003, the Forest Service added several 

new categorical exclusions related to vegetation management (including 

one specific to hazardous fuel reduction) that it exempted from appeal. 

However, as the result of subsequent litigation challenging these 

exemptions, the Forest Service ultimately was required to allow the public 

to appeal many (though not all) of these decisions during fiscal years 2006 

through 2008, the time period covered by our current review.16

• Predecisional administrative objection process. In 2003, HFRA required 

the Forest Service to establish an alternative process for authorizing 

certain hazardous fuel reduction projects, including an alternative 

predecisional objection process in lieu of the appeals process for certain 

 

15The Forest Service appeals regulations contain a provision stating that only a person who 

files “substantive” comments may file an appeal. 36 C.F.R. § 215.13(a). A federal district 

court has held that this requirement is invalid under the Appeal Reform Act. Wilderness 

Society v. Rey, D. Mont., Civ. No. 03-00119, April 24, 2006. The case is on appeal in the 

Ninth Circuit. See Wilderness Society v. Rey, 06-35565, filed June 23, 2006. 

16See appendix XI for more information. 

Page 10 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

projects.17 HFRA authorizes the public to file objections to a proposed 

project before the agency issues a final decision on the project, instead of 

the traditional appeals process where the administrative review occurs 

after the agency’s final decision has been made. According to the Forest 

Service, this objection process was intended to expedite the 

implementation of fuel reduction projects and to encourage early public 

input during the planning process. Only those parties who have previously 

submitted written comments specific to the proposed project may file 

objections. (The public has an opportunity to provide these written 

comments during scoping or other public comment periods.) The public 

must file objections with the reviewing officer—the next higher level 

supervisor of the person responsible for the proposed action—within 30 

days following the publication date of the legal notice of the proposed 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. (Decisions 

that are subject to objection cannot use categorical exclusions as the basis 

for the decision.) If no objection is filed within the 30-day time period, the 

decision may be finalized on, but not before, the fifth business day 

following the end of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, the 

Forest Service must issue a written response to the objector addressing 

the objection within 30 days following the end of the objection-filing 

period. The reviewing officer may hold a meeting to discuss issues raised 

in the objection and any potential resolution. There are several ways the 

Forest Service addresses an objection. The objection can (1) be set aside 

from review, (2) be reviewed by the Forest Service resulting in a change to 

the final decision, (3) be reviewed by the Forest Service resulting in no 

change to the final decision, or (4) result in the reviewing officer directing 

the appropriate Forest Service official to complete additional analysis 

prior to issuing a final decision. An objection may be set aside from review 

for procedural reasons—if, for example, the objection is not received 

within the allowed 30-day time period, or the objecting individual or 

organization did not submit written comments during scoping or other 

 

17The agency’s objection process appears at 36 C.F.R. part 218. Fuel reduction projects 

authorized under HFRA include those occurring on federal land in the following areas: the 

wildland-urban interface; certain municipal watersheds; areas where wind throw, 

blowdown, ice storm damage, or the existence or imminent risk of an insect or disease 

epidemic significantly threatens ecosystem components or resource values; and areas 

where wildland fire poses a threat to, and where the natural fire regimes are important for 

threatened and endangered species or their habitat. Actions implemented under HFRA are 

prohibited in wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and federal lands where an act of 

Congress or presidential proclamation prohibits or restricts removal of vegetation. 

Page 11 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

public comment opportunities.18 There is no further administrative review 

by any other Forest Service or Department of Agriculture official of the 

reviewing officer’s written response to an objection. 

Table 1 compares the appeals and objection processes. 

Table 1: Traditional Project Appeals Process Compared with Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project Objection Process 

Appeals process Objection process 

Authority for review process 

and corresponding 

regulation 

Appeals Reform Act 

36 C.F.R. part 215 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

36 C.F.R. part 218 

Timing of process Appeal is filed after the project decision is made Objection filed before the project 

decision is made 

Eligibility to appeal/object Those who were involved in the public comment process 

for the project through submission of written or oral 

comments or by otherwise notifying the Forest Service of 

their interest in the proposed action 

Those who submitted specific written 

comments related to the project during 

the project comment period, the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

comment period (if applicable), or any 

other public comment periods 

Filing period 45 days after legal notice of the decision is published in 

newspaper of record 

30 days after legal notice of the 

Environmental Assessment or Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

published in newspaper of record 

Response/resolution period Resolution of appeal within 45 days after end of appeal 

filing period 

Response to objection within 30 days 

after end of objection filing period 

Source: GAO summary of Forest Service information. 

Some decisions, however, were subject to neither the appeal nor the 

objection process during the time of our review. As noted, the Forest 

Service was required to allow appeals of many fuel reduction decisions 

based on categorical exclusions, but was not required to allow appeals 

on all such decisions—meaning that certain decisions based on 

categorical exclusions remained exempt from appeal. These decisions 

were also exempt from the objection process because HFRA requires 

that fuel reduction decisions subject to objection use environmental 

assessments or environmental impact statements rather than 

categorical exclusions. 

 

18Other reasons include the following: The decision is not subject to objection procedures; 

there is not enough information included in the objection for the reviewing officer to 

review; the objector withdraws the objection; an objector’s identity is not provided or 

cannot be determined from the signature or a reasonable means of contact is not provided; 

or the objection is illegible for any reason, including submissions in an electronic format 

different from that specified in the legal notice of the proposed decision. 

Page 12 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

For fiscal years 2006 through 2008, national forest managers reported 

1,415 decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities, affecting 

10.5 million acres of national forest land.19 Most of these decisions 

were based on categorical exclusions, although decisions base

environmental assessments represented the most acreage of all 

decision types. Table 2 shows the number of decisions and associated 

acreage, by decision type. 

d on 

Number and Type of 

Decisions Involving 

Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction Activities 

in Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2008 and the 

Associated Acreage 

Table 2: Forest Service Decisions with Fuel Reduction Activities and Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2008

Decisions/acres 

Categorical 

exclusions 

 Environmental 

assessments

 Environmental 

impact statements Other Total

Number of decisions 910 433 71 1a1,415

Percentage of total decisions 64 31 5 <1 100

Number of acres (in thousands) 3,559 6,397 586 3 10,545

Percentage of total acres 34 61 6 0 100

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding. Acreage data are not complete because 

some respondents did not report this information. In addition, depending on the status of the 

projects, some respondents reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others 

reported the actual number of treated acres. 

a

In one case, the survey respondent indicated that the decision was a continuation of a 

previously authorized project. According to this respondent, chapter 18 of the Forest Service 

Handbook allows such a decision to be made without the use of a categorical exclusion, 

environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. 

Appendix II provides greater detail on the number of decisions and 

associated acreage for each Forest Service region. 

 

19The Forest Service does not have a uniform definition of a hazardous fuel reduction 

activity, and many agency projects may involve fuel reduction activities that provide an 

ancillary benefit to a project conducted for another purpose—potentially affecting the 

information that forest managers reported to us. See appendix I for more information 

about our data collection methodology. 

Page 13 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

Of the 1,415 decisions in our review, 1,191—about 84 percent—were 

subject to the appeals process. In contrast, only 121 decisions—8.5 

percent—were subject to the objection process. However, the rate at 

which decisions subject to the objection process were challenged was 

higher than for decisions under the appeals process. Specifically, 40 

percent of decisions subject to objection were objected to, compared 

with the 18 percent appeal rate for decisions subject to appeal. Table 3 

shows, for all decisions covered by our review for fiscal years 2006 

through 2008, the number of appeals, objections, and litigation 

associated with each decision type. 

Number of Decisions 

Involving Hazardous 

Fuel Reduction 

Activities That Were 

Subject to Appeal or 

Objection; Number of 

Decisions Appealed, 

Objected to, or 

Litigated; and 

Associated Acreage 

Table 3: Forest Service Decisions with Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities That Were Appealed, Objected to, Exempt, or 

Litigated, by Decision Type, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

(Acres in thousands) 

Decisions/acres 

Categorical 

exclusions 

Environmental 

assessments

Environmental 

impact statements Othera Total

Total number of decisions 910 433 71 1 1,415

Total acreage 3,559 6,397 586 3 10,545

Decisions subject to appeal 

Number of decisions subject to appealb 808 321 62 0 1,191

Number of decisions appealed 80 90 47 0 217c

Percentage of appealable decisions 

appealed 10 28 76 n/a 18

Acreage subject to appeal 3,375 5,285 483 0 9,143

Acreage appealed 116 429 294 0 839

Percentage of appealable acreage appealed 3 8 61 n/a 9

Decisions subject to objectiond

Number of decisions subject to objection 

process n/a 112 9 0 121

Number of decisions objected to n/a 43 6 0 49e

Percentage of decisions objected to n/a 38 67 0 40

Acreage subject to objection n/a 1,112 103 0 1,215

Acreage objected to n/a 184 41 0 225

Percentage of acreage objected to n/a 17 40 0 19

Page 14 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

(Acres in thousands) 

Decisions/acres 

Categorical 

exclusions 

Environmental 

assessments

Environmental 

impact statements OtheraTotal

Exempt decisions 

Number of decisions exempt from appeal 

and objection 102 0 0 1 103

Percentage of all decisions exempt from 

appeal and objection 11 0 0 100 7

Acreage exempt from appeal and objection 185 0 0 3 188

Percentage of all acreage exempt from 

appeal and objection 5 0 0 100 2

Litigation 

Number of decisions litigated 4 14 11 0 29

Percentage of all decisions litigated <1 3 15 n/a 2

Acreage litigated 2 70 52 0 124

Percentage of acreage litigated <1 1 9 n/a 1

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Notes: n/a = not applicable. Numbers may not total because of rounding. Acreage data are not 

complete because some respondents did not report this information. In addition, depending on 

the status of the projects, some respondents reported the number of acres they planned to treat, 

while others reported the actual number of treated acres. 

a

In one case, the survey respondent indicated that the decision was a continuation of a 

previously authorized project. According to this respondent, Chapter 18 of the Forest Service 

Handbook allows such a decision to be made without the use of a categorical exclusion, 

environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. 

b

One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a fuel reduction activity, but 

did not qualify as an “authorized hazardous fuel reduction project” under HFRA and therefore 

was not subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent for this decision, it 

implemented HFRA provisions related to insect and disease infestation, and was subject to the 

notice, comment, and appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a timber 

sale activity. As a result, it is included in our count of decisions subject to appeal. 

c

These 217 decisions received a total of 298 appeals. The greatest number of appeals on a 

single decision was 9. 

d

Only authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects under HFRA that are analyzed in an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement are subject to the predecisional 

objection process. 

e

These 49 decisions received a total of 101 objections. The greatest number of objections to a 

single decision was 22. 

Appendix III provides greater detail on the number of appeals, 

objections, and litigation for each Forest Service region. 

In addition to the introduction of the objection process, our survey data 

reflect two important changes that have occurred since our 2003 

report: (1) the extent to which activities associated with categorical 

Page 15 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

exclusions are subject to the appeals process and (2) the decrease in 

the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction to 

authorize hazardous fuel reduction activities. Specifically: 

• Extent to which categorical exclusions were subject to appeal. At the time 

of our 2003 report, decisions using categorical exclusions were generally 

not subject to appeal, and in that report we noted that 99 percent of fuel 

reduction decisions using categorical exclusions in fiscal years 2001 and 

2002 were exempt from appeal. Also in 2003, the Forest Service introduced 

several new categorical exclusions that were exempt from appeal, 

including one categorical exclusion specific to fuel reduction activities. 

Beginning later that year, however, the agency’s ability to exempt 

decisions using categorical exclusions from appeal was challenged in 

court.20 As a result of this litigation, the Forest Service was required to 

allow the public to appeal decisions containing any of 11 types of 

categorically excluded activities, including fuel reduction—and thus, most 

fuel reduction decisions in our survey that were made using categorical 

exclusions were appealable by the public. Specifically, 89 percent of the 

categorical exclusions identified in our survey were subject to appeal in 

fiscal years 2006 through 2008, in contrast to the 1 percent that were 

subject to appeal during our 2003 review. The remaining 11 percent of 

categorical exclusions in our current review—a total of 103 decisions—

were identified by survey respondents as exempt from appeal because 

they did not contain the activities covered by the litigation. Subsequently, 

in 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling on 

procedural grounds, allowing the Forest Service to utilize the provisions of 

its regulations that exempt categorically excluded decisions from appeal.21

Appendix X contains data on the type and frequency of the categorical 

exclusions represented in our survey. 

• Decrease in the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel 

reduction. Although Forest Service regulations contain a specific 

categorical exclusion under which hazardous fuel reduction activities can 

be authorized, this was not the most commonly reported categorical 

exclusion in our survey of decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction 

activities. Instead, the most commonly reported categorical exclusion was 

 

20See appendix XI for a summary of the major litigation affecting the exemptions for 

categorical exclusions. 

21The Forest Service is considering amending this regulation in light of the litigation that 

challenged it, the agency’s experience in implementing it, and possible changes in policy 

direction. 

Page 16 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

one intended for timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement. Our 

survey data show that the total number of decisions authorized under the 

categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction decreased greatly over 

the period covered by our survey, while at the same time, the use of the 

categorical exclusion for timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement 

increased. Specifically, use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel 

reduction decreased from 214 in fiscal year 2006 to 28 in fiscal year 2008, 

while the use of the categorical exclusion for timber stand and/or wildlife 

habitat improvement increased from 145 in fiscal year 2006 to 167 in fiscal 

year 2008. 

This decrease in the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel 

reduction may have resulted in large part from the chief of the Forest 

Service’s response to a court order in 2007. In this response the chief 

directed that no new decisions should be made under the categorical 

exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction after December 2007. Furthermore, 

he directed that no additional contracts be initiated to implement projects 

authorized under this authority—meaning that projects that were not 

under way did not start, even if a final decision had already been issued. 

Under the chief’s direction, projects that were near completion could 

proceed. Of the 379 decisions in our survey originally authorized under the 

categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction, respondents reported 

that 207—or about 55 percent—were affected by the chief’s directive. 

Although we did not systematically gather information on what happened 

to projects subject to the court decision, respondents indicated that they 

took a variety of approaches, including the following: 

• using a different categorical exclusion, such as the categorical exclusion 

for timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement, to authorize the 

project; 

• preparing an environmental assessment subject to the appeals process; 

• stopping or slowing project implementation; and 

• preparing an environmental assessment subject to the predecisional 

objection process, under HFRA. 

Additionally, the rate at which decisions were litigated was about the 

same—2 percent—for decisions that were subject to the Forest Service’s 

traditional appeals process as for decisions authorized under HFRA—even 

though the agency’s expectation was that HFRA would reduce the 

likelihood of litigation. Of the 29 litigated decisions in our study, 26 had 

Page 17 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

been subject to appeal, representing 2 percent of the 1,191 decisions 

subject to appeal; the remaining 3 litigated decisions had been subject to 

objection, likewise representing 2 percent of the 121 decisions subject to 

objection. 

In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, of the 298 appeals filed, the Forest 

Service upheld its earlier decision in the majority of the cases without 

requiring any changes to the decision. Of the 101 objections submitted, the 

outcome was more evenly divided between those objections resulting in a 

change to the decision and those that did not. According to time frame 

information provided by survey respondents, all appeals and objections 

were processed within the prescribed time frames. For litigated decisions 

resolved at the time of our review, the Forest Service prevailed slightly 

more often than the plaintiffs. 

Outcomes of Appeals, 

Objections, and 

Litigation of 

Decisions with 

Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction Activities; 

Associated Time 

Frames; and Identities 

of Appellants, 

Objectors, and 

Plaintiffs 

Outcomes of Appeals, 

Time Frames, and 

Identities of Appellants 

Of the 298 appeals filed on appealable decisions from fiscal years 2006 

through 2008, 

• For 160 appeals, the decisions were affirmed—that is, allowed to 

proceed—with no changes. 

• For 22 appeals, the decisions were affirmed with specified changes. 

• For 24 appeals, the decisions were reversed —that is, not allowed to 

proceed—based on issues raised by the appellants. 

• A total of 91 appeals were dismissed for various reasons, including 

• 38 appeals that were resolved informally, of which 30 appeals were 

withdrawn by the appellant and 8 decisions were withdrawn by the 

agency (when an appeal is resolved informally, changes may or may 

not be made to the decision); 

Page 18 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

• 53 appeals that were dismissed without review, mostly for failing to 

meet procedural requirements, such as timeliness—however, 23 of 

these appeals were dismissed without review because, subsequent to 

receiving the appeal, the agency official who made the decision 

decided to withdraw the decision;22

• For 1 appeal, the outcome could not be determined based on 

documentation in the agency’s regional files, according to an agency 

official. 

According to time frame information provided by Forest Service officials, 

all appeals of fiscal year 2006 through 2008 decisions were processed 

within the time frames prescribed in applicable laws and regulations.23 See 

appendix IV for detailed information on appeal outcomes for each Forest 

Service region. 

The 298 appeals were filed by 217 appellants. This total includes appeals 

by 88 different interest groups, mostly environmental groups, and 129 

individuals.24 Of the 88 interest groups, 10—Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, John Muir Project of the Earth Island 

Institute, Native Ecosystems Council, Oregon Wild, Ouachita Watch 

League, Sierra Club, The Lands Council, Utah Environmental Congress, 

and the WildWest Institute—each appealed 10 or more decisions. 

Appendix VI lists each interest group that appeared as an appellant in 

fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the number of decisions for which each 

appellant filed appeals in each region. To protect the privacy of individual 

appellants, we do not list their names, but in appendix VI we provide 

information on the number of decisions appealed by individuals in each 

region. 

 

22Decisions withdrawn in this manner are considered different from decisions the agency 

withdraws as a result of informal resolution. According to a regional official, withdrawn 

decisions that fall within the “Dismissed without Review” category avoid having to 

“daylight” to appellants what the flaws were in the decision. 

23To verify these responses, we collected and reviewed agency documentation for a 

randomly selected sample of appealed decisions. Our review of this documentation 

confirmed that, for each such decision, the agency had processed appeals within 

prescribed time frames. See appendix I for additional information on our survey and data 

verification methodologies. 

24Some of the individuals may have submitted an appeal on more than 1 decision. 

Consequently, there may have been some double counting of specific individuals. 

Page 19 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

Of the 101 objections filed for 49 decisions from fiscal years 2006 through 

2008, 

• 38 objections resulted in no change to the final decision. 

Outcomes of Objections, 

Time Frames, and 

Identities of Objectors 

• 31 objections resulted in a change to the final decision.25

• 4 objections resulted in the Forest Service having to conduct additional 

analysis. 

• 15 objections were set aside from review. 

• 13 objections were addressed some other way; for example, several 

agency respondents explained that they addressed objector’s concerns by 

both agreeing to make a change to the final decision and by setting the 

objection aside from review. Rather than setting it aside from review for 

procedural reasons, however, the decisions were set aside because the 

objector withdrew the objection after the Forest Service agreed to make 

changes to the final decisions. 

For objections that the Forest Service does not set aside, the Forest 

Service reviewing officer is required to respond in writing. Prior to issuing 

a written response, the objector or reviewing officer may request a 

meeting to discuss the issues that were raised in the objection and a 

possible resolution. According to some Forest Service officials we spoke 

with, these meetings have been used to further satisfy public concerns; 

however, because meetings are at the discretion of the reviewer, objectors 

with whom the reviewer decides not to meet may feel that their concerns 

were not adequately addressed, regardless of the outcome. For example, 

the Forest Service received 22 objections to the Middle East Fork 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction decision on the Bitterroot National Forest in 

west central Montana and east central Idaho, one of the first and, 

according to Forest Service officials, most contentious decisions 

authorized under HFRA authority in the Northern Region. One objector 

requested a meeting with the Forest Service and others expressed a 

willingness to meet, but the reviewing officer chose not to hold meetings, 

stating that their objections did not require additional clarification and 

that a private consultant with whom the forest contracted had determined 

 

25As a result of one objection to one decision, a change was made and no written response 

was provided to the objector. 

Page 20 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

that additional discussions would not resolve the objector’s concerns. The 

decision was ultimately litigated. In other cases, however, respondents 

reported that such meetings successfully addressed objectors’ concerns, 

sometimes resulting in objectors withdrawing their objections. 

However, we also determined that different regions follow different 

approaches in addressing objectors’ concerns. For example, an official in 

the Pacific Southwest Region told us that officials generally meet with the 

objectors associated with valid objections (those that are not set aside for 

procedural reasons), with the goal of informally resolving the objections 

and having them subsequently withdrawn by the objectors. In contrast, an 

official in the Northern Region told us that while the region seeks to 

resolve objections informally, unlike the Pacific Southwest Region, it does 

not seek to have objectors subsequently withdraw their objections, and 

none have done so. Seeking to have objectors withdraw their objections, 

as the Pacific Southwest Region has done, may have important 

implications for subsequent litigation because, according to Forest Service 

officials, under HFRA and its implementing regulations, an objector that 

withdraws an objection has no standing to obtain judicial review of the 

Forest Service’s final decision. 

According to time frame information provided by survey respondents, the 

final decisions for all proposals subject to the objection process from 

fiscal year 2006 through 2008 were signed in accordance with the time 

frames set forth by applicable laws and regulations.26 However, while 

officials are required to respond to objections within certain time frames, 

there is no limitation on the amount of time allowed to make a final 

decision. Of the 49 decisions for which objections were filed, 25 were 

signed between 35 days and 3 months of legal publication date of the 

proposed action. The remaining 24 were signed more than 3 months after 

the legal publication date, including 3 cases in which the final decision was 

signed more than a year after the legal publication date of the proposed 

action. 

The 101 objections were filed by 37 organizations and 41 individuals. Of 

the 37 organizations, 3—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Idaho 

Conservation League, and the WildWest Institute27— each objected to 5 or 

 

2636 C.F.R. part 218.12. 

27Our data for the WildWest Institute include objections made by the Native Forest 

Network and Ecology Center. These two groups merged to form the WildWest Institute in 

April 2006. 

Page 21 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

more decisions. Appendix VI lists each group that filed objections in fiscal 

years 2006 through 2008 and the number of decisions for which objections 

were filed in each region. As with appeals, in appendix VI we do not list 

the names of individual objectors, but do show the number of proposed 

decisions objected to by individuals in each region. 

Outcomes of Litigation and 

Identities of Plaintiffs 

Of the 29 decisions that were litigated from fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 

we are able to report the outcome for 21 of the lawsuits because they had 

been resolved at the time of our review. According to regional officials, 

lawsuits for 3 of these 21 decisions were dismissed because the plaintiffs 

and the Forest Service agreed to settle their claims. District courts reached 

an outcome on the 18 additional decisions, with 8 decided favorably to the 

plaintiffs and 10 decided favorably to the Forest Service.28 Lawsuits on the 

remaining 8 decisions were continuing at the time of our review. 

In the 29 litigated decisions, 24 interest groups and 11 individuals were 

plaintiffs. The interest groups were primarily environmental groups, with 

three groups—Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, 

and the WildWest Institute—each acting as plaintiff in 5 or more decisions. 

Of the 29 litigated decisions, plaintiff groups and individuals had 

previously submitted appeals on 24 of the decisions and objections on 3 of 

the decisions during the administrative process. The remaining 2 litigated 

decisions were subject to appeal, but the plaintiffs did not submit an 

appeal during the administrative process. Appendix VI lists each group 

that acted as a plaintiff in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the number of 

decisions for which lawsuits were filed by each group within each Forest 

Service region. To protect the privacy of individual plaintiffs, we do not 

list their names, but in appendix VI provide information on the number of 

decisions litigated by individuals in each region. 

 

28Both plaintiffs and the Forest Service have the option of appealing the decisions of the 

district court to the relevant federal court of appeals. We did not collect information on 

whether the decisions were appealed to a higher court. 

Page 22 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

Prescribed burning was the most frequently used treatment method 

associated with the fuel reduction decisions included in our study, 

followed by mechanical treatment and commercial logging. Of these three 

methods, prescribed burning was the method most often challenged 

through appeals and objections; however, commercial logging was 

challenged at the highest rate, considering both appeals and objections. 

Table 4 shows, for all treatment methods in our study, the number and 

percentage of, and acreage associated with, appeals, objections, and 

litigation. 

Treatment Methods 

and Contract Types 

Associated with Fuel 

Reduction Decisions; 

the Number of 

Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits by 

Treatment Method 

and Contract Type; 

and the Associated 

Acreage 

Table 4: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation Associated with Various Treatment Methods, and Associated 

Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

(Acres in thousands) 

Decisions/acres 

Prescribed 

burning

Mechanical 

treatment

Commercial 

logging

Construction/ 

maintenance of 

fuel breaks 

Chemical/ 

herbicide 

treatment

Livestock 

grazing

Total number of decisionsa1,076 973 661 279 57 12

Total acreageb 5,099 1,109 1,283 111 336 297

Decisions subject to appeal 

Number of decisions subject to appealc940 804 546 225 50 7

Number of decisions appealed 187 167 162 64 18 2

Percentage of appealable decisions appealed 20 21 30 28 36 29

Acreage subject to appeal 4,344 787 704 85 328 229

Acreage appealed 512 266 315 59 12 42

Percentage of appealable acreage appealed 12 34 45 69 4 18

Decisions subject to objection 

Number of decisions subject to objection 87 101 96 41 7 3

Number of decisions objected to 41 46 41 16 1 2

Percentage of decisions objected to 47 46 43 39 14 67

Acreage subject to objection 588 306 577 26 7 64

Acreage objected to 123 114 89 11 1 20

Percentage of acreage objected to 21 37 15 42 14 31

Page 23 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

(Acres in thousands) 

Decisions/acres 

Prescribed 

burning

Mechanical 

treatment

Commercial 

logging

Construction/ 

maintenance of 

fuel breaks 

Chemical/ 

herbicide 

treatment

Livestock 

grazing

Exempt decisions 

Number of decisions exempt from appeal and 

objection 49 68 19 13 0 2

Percentage of decisions exempt from appeal 

and objection 5 7 3 5 0 17

Acreage exempt from appeal and objection 168 16 2 1 0 4

Percentage of acreage exempt from appeal 

and objection 3 1 <1 <1 0 1

Litigation 

Number of decisions litigated 27 24 25 7 3 0

Percentage of decisions litigated 3 2 4 3 5 0

Acreage litigated 78 37 58 8 <1 0

Percentage of acreage litigated 2 3 5 7 <1 0

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding. Acreage data are not complete because some 

respondents did not report this information. In addition, depending on the status of the projects, some 

respondents reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others reported the actual 

number of treated acres. 

a

Because land management projects may involve multiple treatment methods, the sum of decisions 

involving each treatment method exceeds the total of 1,415 decisions in our review. In addition to the 

treatment methods listed in the table, survey respondents selected “other” as a treatment method 

used for 95 decisions. 

b

Land management projects may treat the same acreage more than once using different treatment 

methods. 

c

One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a fuel reduction activity, but did 

not qualify as an “authorized hazardous fuel reduction project” under HFRA and therefore was not 

subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent for this decision, it implemented 

HFRA provisions related to insect and disease infestation, and was subject to the notice, comment, 

and appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a timber sale activity. As a 

result, it is included in our count of decisions subject to appeal. 

Appendix VII provides additional information on fuel reduction methods 

used and the number of appeals, objections and lawsuits by treatment 

method, for each Forest Service region. 

Commercial timber sale contracts were the most frequent contract type 

used to implement the decisions included in our study, and were the type 

most often challenged through appeals and objections. Decisions using 

stewardship contracting, however, were challenged at a higher rate than 

the other contract types, considering both appeals and objections. Table 5 

shows, for all the decisions included in our study, the number and 

Page 24 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

percentage of contract types, and acreage associated with, appeals, 

objections, and litigation.29

Table 5: Number and Percentage of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and 

Litigation Associated with Various Contracting Types, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2008

Decisions 

Timber 

sale 

contract

Service 

contract 

Stewardship 

contract

Forest 

products 

permitsa

Total number of decisionsb606 536 218 236

Decisions subject to appeal 

Number of decisions subject to 

appealc

503 446 166 196

Number of decisions appealed 151 86 55 49

Percentage of appealable decisions 

appealed 30 19 33 25

Decisions subject to objection 

Number of decisions subject to 

objection 82 59 48 29

Number of decisions objected to 32 22 24 11

Percentage of decisions objected to 39 37 50 38

Exempt decisions 

Number of decisions exempt from 

appeal and objection 21 31 4 11

Percentage of decisions exempt 

from appeal and objection 3 6 2 5

Litigation 

Number of decisions litigated 22 13 5 9

Percentage of decisions litigated 4 2 2 4

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Note: We did not collect acreage information by contract type. 

a

Forest products permits are often issued for such purposes as Christmas tree cutting and firewood 

gathering. 

 

29For 32 of the decisions included in our study, the survey respondents did not provide 

information on the contract type. 

Page 25 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

b

A total of 1,085 decisions also included the use of Forest Service personnel to carry out fuel 

reduction activities. In addition to the contract types listed in the table, survey respondents selected 

“other” as a contract method used for 75 decisions. Because land management projects may involve 

multiple contracts and may also use agency personnel in addition to contracts, the sum of decisions 

involving each contracting type exceeds the total of 1,415 decisions in our review. 

c

One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a fuel reduction activity, but did 

not qualify as an “authorized hazardous fuel reduction project” under HFRA and therefore was not 

subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent for this decision, it implemented 

HFRA provisions related to insect and disease infestation, and was subject to the notice, comment, 

and appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a timber sale activity. As a 

result, it is included in our count of decisions subject to appeal. 

Appendix VIII provides additional information on the contracting methods 

used for decisions included in our study and the appeal, objection, and 

litigation rates for each Forest Service region. 

Of the 1,415 decisions in our review, respondents identified 954 decisions 

that included activities in the wildland-urban interface and 169 decisions 

that included activities in inventoried roadless areas. Both types of 

decision were appealed at about the same rate, while decisions involving 

inventoried roadless areas were objected to at a slightly higher rate than 

those involving the wildland-urban interface. Table 6 shows, for both 

wildland-urban interface and inventoried roadless areas, the number and 

percentage of, and acreage associated with, appeals, objections, and 

litigation. 

Decisions Involving 

Fuel Reduction 

Activities in the 

Wildland-Urban 

Interface and 

Inventoried Roadless 

Areas; the Number of 

Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits on 

Those Decisions; and 

the Associated 

Acreage 

Page 26 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

Table 6: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation of Decisions with Fuel 

Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

(Acres in thousands) 

Decisions 

Wildland-urban 

interface 

Inventoried 

roadless areas

Total number of decisions 954 169

Total acreage 4,062 748

Appeals 

Decisions subject to appeal 772 138

Number of decisions appealed 140 26

Percentage of appealable decisions 

appealed 

18 19

Acreage subject to appeal 2,764 709

Acreage appealed 335 26

Percentage of appealable acreage 

appealed 

12 4

Objections 

Decisions subject to objection 113 22

Number of decisions objected to 45 11

Percentage of decisions objected to 40 50

Acreage subject to objection 1,249 36

Acreage objected to 159 14

Percentage of acreage objected to 13 39

Exempt decisions 

Number of decisions exempt from appeal 

and objection 

69 6

Percentage of decisions exempt from 

appeal and objection 

7 4

Acreage exempt from appeal and objection 50 5

Percentage of acreage exempt from appeal 

and objection 

1 1

Litigation 

Number of decisions litigated 13 4

Percentage of decisions litigated 1 2

Acreage litigated 48 1

Percentage of acreage litigated 1 <1

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Page 27 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. Acreage data are not complete because some 

respondents did not report this information. In addition, depending on the status of the projects, some 

respondents reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others reported the actual 

number of treated acres. 

Appendix IX provides information on the number of decisions with fuel 

reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface and the number of 

appeals, objections, and lawsuits for such decisions in each Forest Service 

region; this appendix also contains information on the various definitions 

used by field managers in responding to our survey. 

Regarding fuel reduction activities in inventoried roadless areas, the 

majority of decisions in our study involved no road construction in the 

roadless area––which is a primary concern related to hazardous fuel 

reduction activities in roadless areas. About 10 percent included 

temporary road construction or other road construction activity, with one 

decision involving the construction of a permanent road in an inventoried 

roadless area. Appendix IX provides information on the number of 

decisions with fuel reduction activities in inventoried roadless areas and 

the number of appeals, objections, and lawsuits for such decisions in each 

Forest Service region. 

Much has changed since we last reported on appeals and litigation of fuel 

reduction activities 7 years ago. One of the most significant changes to the 

process has been the passage of HFRA, which has provided a new 

approach for public challenges of fuel reduction projects by allowing the 

opportunity to formally object to decisions before they become final, 

rather than waiting to file appeals until after the decisions are made. 

Although the passage of HFRA was seen as an important new tool for 

streamlining fuel reduction decisions, our review indicates that the impact 

of the act appears to be limited. Most notably, fuel reduction decisions that 

used HFRA authority represented less than 10 percent of decisions signed 

during fiscal years 2006 through 2008. As a result, despite the 

opportunities HFRA introduced for a new approach to the administrative 

review process, in practice most decisions remained subject to the Forest 

Service’s traditional postdecisional appeals process. In addition, although 

the agency’s expectation was that HFRA would reduce litigation of fuel 

reduction decisions, our review shows that HFRA and non-HFRA 

decisions were litigated at about the same rate of 2 percent. 

Concluding 

Observations 

Another area of ongoing change is the dispute over the Forest Service’s 

ability to exempt categorically excluded decisions from appeal. Although 

most of these decisions were subject to appeal during the years we 

Page 28 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
 

examined, the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling means that the regulation 

exempting categorically excluded decisions from appeal is once again in 

effect. However, two factors suggest ongoing uncertainty about this issue. 

First, the Supreme Court’s ruling was made on procedural grounds rather 

than on the merits of the case—meaning that the court did not rule on 

whether the regulation is consistent with the Appeals Reform Act, 

allowing for the possibility of future challenges to the regulation. Second, 

even though the regulation survived the recent lawsuit, the Forest Service 

is considering changes to it in light of, among other things, the litigation it 

has engendered. Thus, the ultimate fate of the regulation—and the public’s 

ability to appeal categorically excluded decisions—remains uncertain. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for comment. The 

Forest Service did not provide comments, although it did provide technical 

corrections which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture; the 

Chief of the Forest Service; appropriate congressional committees; and 

other interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix XIII. 

nu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

A

Page 29 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We examined (1) the number and type of Forest Service decisions 

involving hazardous fuel reduction activities signed in fiscal years 2006 

through 2008; (2) the number of these decisions that were objected to, 

appealed, or litigated, and the acreage associated with those decisions; 

(3) the outcomes of these objections, appeals, and lawsuits, including 

whether they were processed within prescribed time frames, and the 

identities of the objectors, appellants, and plaintiffs; (4) the treatment 

methods and contract types associated with fuel reduction decisions, and 

how frequently the different methods and types were objected to, 

appealed, and litigated; and (5) the number of decisions involving 

hazardous fuel reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) 

and inventoried roadless areas (IRA), and how frequently these decisions 

were objected to, appealed, and litigated. To address our objectives, we 

implemented a nationwide, Web-based survey of Forest Service officials, 

to collect information about all fuel reduction decisions signed in fiscal 

years 2006 through 2008 (See appendix XII for a copy of the survey). We 

supplemented the survey with a semistructured interview of officials in all 

nine Forest Service regions to gather additional details about time frames, 

outcomes and identities related to appeals and litigation of fuel reduction 

decisions. Details about this process are described below. 

To identify Forest Service decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction 

activities signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, we asked the agency’s 

Ecosystem Management Coordinator to query a Forest Service database 

designed to track decision planning, appeals, and litigation for all Forest 

Service decisions—-the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS). 

This official queried the PALS database using the following criteria: 

(1) decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, and (2) decisions 

that included fuels management as a purpose and/or one or more fuel 

treatment activities. This initial query identified 1,437 decisions in 108 

national forest system units. 

Because PALS was not designed to include all information we sought as 

part of our review—including information on the number of acres treated, 

treatment methods and contract types used, and decisions involving 

activities in the wildland-urban interface or in inventoried roadless areas—

we determined that a nationwide survey would be necessary. We began 

our survey effort by ensuring that we had identified the correct universe of 

fuel reduction decisions. After reviewing the list of fuel reduction 

decisions from PALS and correcting for any obvious duplication and other 

errors, we sent a list of each national forest’s fuel reduction decisions to 

the corresponding forest supervisor’s office. We asked the supervisor or 

cognizant official to verify the accuracy of our list, removing any decisions 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

that did not meet our criteria (i.e, that were not signed in fiscal years 2006 

through 2008, or that did not involve any hazardous fuel reduction 

activities), and adding decisions that met our criteria but did not appear in 

PALS. At this time, we also asked the supervisor or cognizant official to 

identify Forest Service employees most knowledgeable about these 

decisions. A total of 1,415 decisions, issued by 108 national forests, were 

determined to fit our criteria. We gave recipients 3 weeks to respond to 

our request for information and granted extensions as needed. We 

obtained a 100 percent response rate from the national forests. 

To determine the characteristics of each fuel reduction decision, we 

subsequently administered a Web-based survey to those Forest Service 

employees identified by each forest supervisor or cognizant official as 

most knowledgeable about the decisions at all 108 national forests that 

issued decisions with hazardous fuel reduction activities in fiscal years 

2006 through 2008. Appendix XII contains a copy of the survey used to 

gather these data. The survey asked respondents to provide information 

about each of the decisions, including the type of environmental analysis 

used, acres involved, treatment methods and contract types used, the 

extent to which the decisions included activities in the wildland-urban 

interface and inventoried roadless areas, and detailed information about 

the outcomes of those decisions subject to the predecisional objection 

process. 

The Forest Service does not have a uniform definition of a hazardous fuel 

reduction activity, a fact that could affect the information that forest 

managers reported to us. Many activities have the practical effect of 

reducing fuels, but their stated purpose may be for something other than, 

or in addition to, fuel reduction. For example, the cutting and gathering of 

firewood or forest products to provide a product to the public may have 

the additional benefit of reducing hazardous fuels. Some forest managers 

may have included such projects among the decisions they reported in 

their responses to our survey, while other forest managers with similar 

decisions may not have included them. 

Similarly, there are a number of limitations to the acreage data. The data 

reported by forest managers include a mixture of planned, estimated, and 

actual treatment acres for decisions included in our review. In our survey, 

we did not limit responses to acres actually treated because once a 

decision is made and documented, there are many reasons that activities 

covered by the decision may be delayed or not implemented, including 

availability of funding or personnel, weather conditions, and 

administrative appeals or litigation. In addition, national forests may have 

Page 31 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

submitted more than one decision with activities on the same area of land, 

or may have planned to use a series of different treatments on the same 

land. Therefore, the 10.5 million acres covered by decisions in our review 

may include overlapping acreage. 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, 

differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of 

information that are available to respondents, or in how the data are 

entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted 

variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the 

survey, the data collection, and data analysis to minimize these 

nonsampling errors. For example, prior to developing the data collection 

instruments, we met with Forest Service personnel at the headquarters, 

regional, and national forest levels to discuss the Forest Service decisionmaking, appeal, objection, and litigation processes. We also reviewed 

current policies, legislation, and court cases that are relevant to our 

questions and the analysis of the survey responses. Survey specialists 

designed the questionnaire in conjunction with GAO staff with subject 

matter expertise. The draft survey was then pretested with officials from 

four national forests in four different regions to ensure that the questions 

were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. 

Upon receiving survey responses, we verified the accuracy of 5 percent of 

the surveys by comparing the responses to three survey questions against 

the decision documents used to complete the surveys, which were 

provided by respondents at our request. Using this approach, we verified 

70 randomly selected decisions. Discrepancies between the survey 

responses and our data verification were discussed and resolved with the 

responsible forest official. In addition, we conducted follow-up to clarify 

ambiguous or incomplete responses that were identified through an 

internal logic test of all submitted responses. Through our data verification 

process, we determined that the data submitted were generally reliable. 

To gather specific details about the outcomes of appeals and litigation, we 

conducted semistructured interviews with regional appeals and litigation 

officials in each of the Forest Service’s nine regions. The semistructured 

interviews were used to gather information about each of the decisions 

that were appealed or litigated, including related dates, status and 

outcomes of administrative and court decisions, and the identities of the 

appellants and litigants. Information collected through these 

semistructured interviews was also verified for a randomly selected 

Page 32 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

sample of decisions. We verified the accuracy of about 10 percent of the 

appealed decisions and about 50 percent of the litigated decisions by 

comparing the information provided in response to several interview 

questions against the administrative and court decision documents 

provided to us by interviewees at our request. Any discrepancies between 

the interview responses and the documents provided were discussed and 

resolved with the responsible regional official. Through our data 

verification process, we determined that the data gathered during the 

semistructured interviews were generally reliable. 

There are some limitations to the data we gathered. As with any survey, 

the information obtained from the national forests was self-reported, and 

we were not able to ensure that all decisions meeting our criteria were 

identified. In particular, we had no way to determine whether forests were 

fully reporting their hazardous fuel reduction activities. To get some 

indication of the completeness and accuracy of the data provided by 

Forest Service, we contacted several interest groups that, according to our 

data collection efforts, often appealed and objected to decisions or 

determinations. We asked these groups to verify the data pertaining to 

their appeals, objections, and litigation of Forest Service fiscal year 2006 

through 2008 fuel reduction decisions and to identify any missing data. 

The groups generally agreed that the data provided by the agency were 

complete and accurate. In addition, during these interviews, we asked the 

groups for their perspectives on the administrative process for challenging 

decisions, including the objection process authorized under the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act. The interviewees’ comments and perspectives are 

incorporated in this report. 

We conducted our work from October 2008 through February 2010, in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in 

this product. 

Page 33 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction 

Decisions and Associated Acreage, by Forest Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction Service Region 

Decisions and Associated Acreage, by Forest 

Service Region 

Figure 2 shows, for each of the Forest Service’s nine regions, the number 

of fuel reduction decisions and the total associated acreage. As shown, the 

Southern Region (Region 8) had the largest number of decisions and the 

largest acreage, while the Alaska Region (Region 10) had the fewest 

decisions and the smallest acreage. 

Page 34 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction 

Decisions and Associated Acreage, by Forest 

Service Region 

Figure 2: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated Acreage, by Forest Service Region 

Decisions Acres

Number of decisions

17

132

79

3

33

0 80 160 240 320 400

14

151

85

2

50

0 80 160 240 320 400

1

79

60

1

17

0 80 160 240 320 400

8

157

117

0

32

0 80 160 240 320 400

15

251

161

8

67

0 80 160 240 320 400

8

180

107

2

63

0 80 160 240 320 400

78

1,195

1,045

0

72

Region 5

Region 4

Region 6

Regions

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Acres (in thousands)

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

211

751

100

0

440

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

5

3,114

726

1

2,382

0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500

19

251

168

0

63

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

72

316

107

3

134

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

58

578

200

1

319

Page 35 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction 

Decisions and Associated Acreage, by Forest 

Service Region 

Decisions Acres

Regions Number of decisions Acres (in thousands)

1

344

226

1

115

0 80 160 240 320 400

7

116

55

0

54

0 80 160 240 320 400

0

5

3

0

2

0 80 160 240 320 400

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

Categorical exclusions (decision memo required)

Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required)

Environmental assessments

Environmental impact statements

Total

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

117

4,056

1,130

0

2,806

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

26

284

79

0

179

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

0

2

1

0

1

0 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500

Note: In Region 8, the decisions by decision type and acres do not match the sum for the total 

because for one decision, the respondent indicated that the decision did not fall within any of our 

survey selection categories. Also, acreage data are not complete because some respondents did not 

report this information. In addition, depending on the status of the projects, some respondents 

reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others reported the actual number of treated 

acres. 

Page 36 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, Forest Service Region 

and Lawsuits of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 

Figure 3 shows, for each of the Forest Service’s regions, information on 

appeals, objections, and litigation of fuel reduction decisions, including 

the total number of appeals, objections, and litigation and the percentage 

of decisions appealed, objected to, and litigated. The Southern Region 

(Region 8) had the highest combined total of decisions subject to appeal 

and objection; however, decisions in the Northern Region (Region 1) were 

challenged at the highest rate, considering both appeals and objections. 

Page 37 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 

Figure 3: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region 

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Exempt

Litigated

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

137

37

27

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

15

7

47

5

3

6

4

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

66

7

11

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

8

3

38

5

6

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

122

22

18

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

21

6

29

8

5

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Region 4

Regions

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Total number of decisions 132

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of decisions

25

25

25

25

Total number of decisions 151

Total number of decisions 79

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

112

40

36

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

15

13

87

5

4

11

8

Total number of decisions 157

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Page 38 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Exempt

Litigated

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regions

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of decisions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

100

24

24

9

1

11

7

6

3

3

301

31

10

16

1

6

27

8

1

0

22

139

21

15

19

10

53

12

3

2

23

9

212

35

17

16

8

50

5

2

Region 9

Region 5

Region 6

Region 8

Total number of decisions 251

Total number of decisions 180

Total number of decisions 344

Total number of decisions 116

Page 39 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by 

Forest Service Region 

Source: GAO analysis of survey and interview results.

Regions

Region 10

Total number of decisions 5

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of decisions

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

2

0

0

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

2

0

0

1

20

0

0

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Page 40 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel Region 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Figure 4 shows, for each Forest Service region, the outcomes of appeals 

filed on fuel reduction decisions within the region. While six of the eight 

regions reporting appeal activity allowed the majority of appealed 

decisions to proceed without changes, the Southwestern Region (Region 

3) had no appealed decisions that were allowed to proceed without 

changes and the highest rate of reversed decisions. 

Page 41 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Figure 4: Outcomes of Appeals of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Region 

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Regions Percent Dismissed 

 without review

Resolved informally, 

 appeal 

 withdrawn

Resolved informally, 

 decision withdrawn

Affirmed with

 no change

Affirmed with

 instructions

Reversed

Number of appeal outcomes

52%

52% Affirmed with no change

12% Affirmed with instructions

13% Reversed

15% Dismissed without review

8% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

0% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

31

7

8

9

5

0

14%

14%

57%

57% Affirmed with no change

11% Affirmed with instructions

4% Reversed

14% Dismissed without review

14% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

0% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

16

3

1

4

4

0

50% 42%

0% Affirmed with no change

50% Affirmed with instructions

42% Reversed

8% Dismissed without review

0% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

0% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

0

6

5

1

0

0

43% 38%

43% Affirmed with no change

0% Affirmed with instructions

6% Reversed

38% Dismissed without review

6% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

4% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

2% Unknown/no answer

20

0

3

18

3

2

61%

61% Affirmed with no change

12% Affirmed with instructions

8% Reversed

2% Dismissed without review

6% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

10% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

30

6

4

1

3

5

54%

17%

54% Affirmed with no change

0% Affirmed with instructions

0% Reversed

17% Dismissed without review

25% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

4% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

13

0

0

4

6

1

25%

Total number of appeals 60

Total number of appeals 28

Total number of appeals 12

Total number of appeals 47

Total number of appeals 49

Total number of appeals 24

Page 42 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Total number of appeals 0

Total number of appeals 33

Total number of appeals 45

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

Regions Percent Dismissed 

 without review

Resolved informally, 

 appeal 

 withdrawn

Resolved informally, 

 decision

 withdrawn

Affirmed with

 no change

Affirmed with

 instructions

Reversed

Number of appeal outcomes

64%

64% Affirmed with no change

0% Affirmed with instructions

3% Reversed

12% Dismissed without review

21% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

0% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

21

0

1

4

7

0

21%

64%

64% Affirmed with no change

0% Affirmed with instructions

4% Reversed

27% Dismissed without review

4% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

0% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

29

0

2

12

2

0

 -% Affirmed with no change

 -% Affirmed with instructions

 -% Reversed

 -% Dismissed without review

 -% Resolved informally/decision withdrawn

 -% Resolved informally/appeal withdrawn

0

0

0

0

0

0

27%

Source: GAO analysis of interview results.

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding. 

Page 43 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel Region 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Figure 5 shows, for each Forest Service region, the outcomes of litigation 

filed on fuel reduction decisions within the region. Six of the nine regions 

experienced litigation during the period covered by our survey. The 

Northern Region (Region 1) had the highest number of decisions judicially 

challenged as well as the greatest number of ongoing lawsuits. 

Page 44 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Figure 5: Outcomes of Litigation of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Regions

Number of litigation outcomes

3

4

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

1

1

1

3

0

1

1

0

1

1

Settled Continuing

Won

by plaintiff

Won by

Forest

Service

Total number of litigated decisions 11

Total number of litigated decisions 0

Total number of litigated decisions 0

Total number of litigated decisions 6

Total number of litigated decisions 5

Total number of litigated decisions 3

Page 45 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel 

Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service 

Region 

Page 46 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 

Source: GAO rce: GAO analysis of interview results.

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

Regions

Number of litigation outcomes

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

Total number of litigated decisions 1

Total number of litigated decisions 3

Total number of litigated decisions 0

Settled Continuing

Won

by plaintiff

Won by

Forest

Service

Page 46 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

Tables 7, 8, and 9 list, by Forest Service region, the appellants, objectors, 

and litigants of fuel reduction decisions. We list the identities of 

organizations filing appeals, objections, and litigation, but summarize data 

on individuals to protect their privacy. As shown, organizations were most 

active in the Northern Region (Region 1) for appeals, objections, and 

litigation. Individuals were likewise most active in the Northern Region for 

objections, but were most active in the Eastern Region (Region 9) for 

appeals and litigation. 

Table 7: Appellants and Number of Appeals Filed, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 

Number of appeals by region 

Organization filing appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

1 Alliance for the Wild Rockies 32 10 42

2 American Forest Resource Council 1 1 2

3 Attorney General, State of California 1 1

4 Bark 1 1

5 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 11 11

6 California Forest Association 1 1

7 California Native Plants Society 1 1

8 Carson Forest Watch 1 1

9 Cascadia Wildlands Project 1 1

10 Center for Biological Diversity 1 3 1 1 6

11 Cherokee Forest Voices 3 3

12 Citizens Assisted Monitoring 1 1

13 Citizens for Better Forestry 2 2

14 Clinch Coalition 1 1

15 Colorado Wild 3 3

16 Conservation Congress 4 4

17 Defenders of Wildlife 1 1

18 Environmental Law & Policy Center 3 3

19 Environmental Protection Information Center 5 5

20 Ferry County Natural Resources Board 1 1

21 Forest Guardians 4 4

22 Forest Issues Group 4 4

23 Forest Legacy 1 1

24 Forest Service Employees for Environmental 

Ethics 1 1

25 Forests Forever 1 1

Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

Page 47 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

 Number of appeals by region 

Organization filing appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

26 Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness 1 1

27 Friends of the Clearwater 8 1 9

28 Friends of the Wild Swan 1 1

29 Greater Yellowstone Coalition 2 2

30 Habitat Education Center 3 3

31 Heartwood 9 9

32 Heartwood, Inc. 1 1

33 Hells Canyon Preservation Council 4 4

34 Idaho Conservation League 5 1 6

35 Idaho Sporting Congress 2 3 5

36 Indiana Forest Alliance 1 1

37 Institute for Regeneration Agro Forestry 1 1

38 John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute 12 12

39 Keep the Sespe Wild Committee 1 1

40 Kentucky Heartwood 1 1

41 Kerncrest Audubon Society 1 1

42 Klamath Forest Alliance 3 3

43 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 5 1 6

44 Kootenai Environmental Alliance 4 4

45 Lassen Forest Preservation Group 1 1

46 League of Wilderness Defenders BMBP 6 6

47 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 1 1

48 Los Padres Forest Watch 2 2

49 Minnesota Forest Industries, Inc. 1 1

50 Montanans for Multiple Use 1 1

51 Native Ecosystems Council 12 1 13

52 Native Forest Network 1 1

53 New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 1 1

54 Newton County Wildlife Association 1 1

55 Northwoods Wilderness Recovery 1 1

56 not documented, unknown 1 1 2

57 Oregon Natural Resources Council 2 2

58 Oregon Wild 10 10

59 Ouachita Watch League 10 10

60 Plumas Forest Project 5 5

61 Prairie Hills Audubon Society 4 4

Page 48 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

 Number of appeals by region 

Organization filing appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

62 Protect Our Woods 1 1

63 Red Rock Forests 1 1

64 Santa Fe Forest Watch 2 2

65 Selkirk Conservation Alliance 4 4

66 Sequoia Forest Alliance 1 1

67 Sequoia Forest Keeper 1 1

68 Sierra Club 13 6 6 3 28

69 Sierra Forest Legacy 7 7

70 Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign 4 4

71 Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project 3 3

72 Swan View Coalition 1 1

73 The Clinch Coalition 1 1

74 The Ecology Center 6 6

75 The Lands Council 22 1 23

76 The Wilderness Society 1 1

77 Tree of Life Alliance 1 1

78 Tule River Conservancy 1 1

79 Utah Environmental Congress 19 19

80 Virginia Forest Watch 5 5

81 Western Watersheds Project 1 1

82 Wild Connections 1 1

83 Wild South 5 5

84 Wild Virginia 1 1

85 Wild Watershed 5 5

86 WildSouth 1 1

87 WildWest Institute 23 12 35

Total for organizational appellants 123 20 16 51 81 36 40 27 0 394

Total for individual appellants 6 13 7 6 5 1 8 33 0 79

Total for all appellants 129 33 23 57 86 37 48 60 0 473

Source: GAO analysis of interview results. 

Note: A decision can be appealed multiple times, and multiple appellants can be parties to an 

appeal. This table provides a list of the appellants who appeared in the 298 appeals of the 217 

appealed decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

Page 49 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

Table 8: Objectors and Number of Objections Filed, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

Number of objections by region 

Organization filing objections 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

1 Alliance For the Wild Rockies 3 3

2 American Forest Resource Council 1 1

3 Bark 1 1

4 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 2 2

5 Center for Biological Diversity 3 1 3 7

6 Colorado Wild 2 2

7 Environmental Protection Information 

Center 1 1

8 Friends of the Bitterroot , Inc 1 1

9 Friends of the Wild Swan 1 1

10 Great Old Broads for Wilderness 1 1

11 Idaho Conservation League 5 3 8

12 Idaho Sporting Congress 1 1

13 Idaho Transportation Department 1 1

14 John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute 1 3 4

15 Klamath Forest Alliance 2 2

16 Klamath Riverkeeper 1 1

17 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 2 2 4

18 Kootenai Environmental Alliance 3 3

19 League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue 

Mountains Biodiversity Project 1 1

20 Montana Logging Association 1 1

21 Montana Wood Products Association 1 1

22 Native Ecosystems Council 1 1

23 Oregon Natural Resources Council 4 4

24 Oregon Wild 3 3

25 Pacific Rivers Council and American 

Wildlands 1 1

26 Rocky Mountain Log Homes 1 1

27 Selkirk Conservation Alliance 1 1

28 Sierra Club 1 3 4

29 Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign 1 1

30 Sinapu 1 1

31 South Carolina Native Plant Society 1 1

32 Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project 1 1

Page 50 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

 Number of objections by region 

Organization filing objections 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

33 The Lands Council 3 3

34 The Wilderness Society 2 2

35 Utah Environmental Congress 1 1

36 WildWest Institute 3 1 4

 Native Forest Network 1 1

 The Ecology Center 2 2

37 Wilderness Workshop 1 1

Total for organizational objectors 30 8 3 10 13 14 2 0 0 80

Total for individual objectors 28 3 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 41

Total for all identified objectors 58 11 3 13 15 18 2 1 0 121

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

Note: Proposed decisions can be the subject of multiple objections, and multiple objectors can be 

parties to an objection. This table provides a list of the objectors who appeared in the 101 objections 

filed on 49 proposed decisions that were signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

Table 9: Plaintiffs and Number of Lawsuits Filed, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 

Number of lawsuits by region 

 Plaintiff 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Total

1 Alliance for the Wild Rockies 8 1 9

2 Bark 1 1

3 California Native Plant Society 1 1

4 Cascadia Wildlands 1 1

5 Citizens for Better Forestry 1 1

6 Conservation Congress 2 2

7 Earth Island Institute 3 3

8 Environmental Law & Policy Center 2 2

9 Friends of the Bitterroot, Inc 1 1

10 Friends of the Boundary Waters 

Wilderness 1 1

11 Habitat Education Center 2 2

12 Hell's Canyon Preservation Council 1 1

13 Klamath Forest Alliance 1 1

14 League of Wilderness Defenders - 

BMBP 1 1

15 Native Ecosystems Council 7 7

Page 51 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors 

and Litigants, by Forest Service Region 

 Number of lawsuits by region 

 Plaintiff 1 2 3 456 8 9 10 Total

16 Northeastern Minnesotans for 

Wilderness 1 1

17 Oregon Wild 1 1

18 Sequoia Forest Keeper 1 1

19 Sierra Club 1 1 1 3

20 Sierra Forest Legacy 1 1

21 The Lands Council 1 1

22 The Wilderness Society 1 1

23 Utah Environmental Congress 1 1

24 WildWest Institute 3 4 7

 Total for organizational plaintiffs 20 0 0 6 11 6 0 8 0 51

 Total for individual plaintiffs 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 5

 Total for all plaintiffs 21 0 0 6 12 6 1 10 0 56

Source: GAO analysis of interview results. 

Note: Multiple parties may serve as plaintiffs on a single lawsuit. This table provides a list of the 

plaintiffs who appeared in the 29 lawsuits filed on decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

Page 52 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment 

Methods and Number of Appeals, Objections, Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region 

Methods and Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region 

Figure 6 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of decisions 

using various fuel reduction treatment methods and the number and 

frequency of appeals, objections, and litigation by fuel reduction method. 

The rate at which treatment methods were used varied by region. For 

example, the Southern Region (Region 8) and the Eastern Region (Region 

9) used prescribed burning more than any other treatment method, 

whereas the remaining regions used mechanical treatment the most. In 

addition, the Northern Region (Region 1) used commercial logging at a 

higher rate than any other region. 

Page 53 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment 

Methods and Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region 

Figure 6: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Treatment Method and Forest Service Region 

Construction

 of fuel breaks

Chemical/

 herbicide

Commercial

 logging

Livestock grazing

Other

Pre

 method

scribed burning

Mechanical

 treatment

Regions

Region 1

132

Region 2

151

Region 3

79

Region 4

157

Region 5

251

Treatment method

11

18

8

16

3

4

2

4

1

5

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

1

2

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

27

22

25

25

25

0

50

8

7

3

5

3

3

1

2

3

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

38

43

33

40

-

-

-

11

14

5

13

7

7

2

7

0

2

0

0

4

3

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

64

50

40

54

-

0

-

14

16

9

8

7

8

6

4

3

8

1

1

2

2

1

2

Subject to

 appeal

86

89

6

79

4

12

0

87

109

32

64

3

6

2

54

54

13

10

1

8

0

104

104

13

57

1

8

0

173

191

50

96

6 

21

2

Appealed

30

32

3

34

3

5

0

17

22

10

16

2

1

1

7

7

4

4

0

2

0

31

25

7

27

0

4

0

31

34

21

30

5

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exempt

2

8

0

2

0

0

0

2

4

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

7

20

3

2

0

0

0

<1

0

0

Litigated

13

15

3

15

11

13

3

13

2

2

0

2

8

8

1

8

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

85

87

100

87

-

100

-

3

3

0

3

0

1

0

11

11

1

10

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

4

0

4

0

1

0

5

5

2

5

1

0

0

50

50

67

50

-

-

-

Percent

 appealed

35

36

50

43

75

42

-

20

20

31

25

67

17

50

13

13

31

40

0

25

-

30

24

54

47

0

50

-

18

18

42

31

83

10

0

Subject to

 objection

Objected

 to

Percent

 objected to

Percent

 exempt

Percent

 litigated

Number of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Page 54 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment 

Methods and Number of Appeals, Objections, 

and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

Construction

 of fuel breaks

Chemical/

 herbicide

Commercial

 logging

Livestock grazing

Other

Pre

 method

scribed burning

Mechanical

 treatment

Regions

Region 6

180 Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Region 8

344

Region 9

116

Region 10

5

17

18

6

18

9

9

2

9

6

11

3

3

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

4

0

0

1

0

Treatment method

53

50

33

50

-

100

100

7

3

4

13

1

1

0

1

6

1

1

<1

<1

0

<1

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

<1

0

0

0

0

14

33

0

8

0

-

-

5

8

3

8

0

1

0

1

3

4

2

3

2

2

1

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

13

0

13

0

0

-

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

0

-

Subject to

 appeal

105

122

22

84

2

11

0

251

67

58

94

28

0

0

80

65

31

62

5

11

3

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

Appealed

20

20

4

21

1

1

0

30

12

9

15

6

0

0

21

15

6

15

1

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exempt

10

19

5

6

0

7

0

21

5

3

2

0

1

0

4

5

2

4

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Litigated

2

2

2

3

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Percent

 appealed

19

16

18

25

50

9

-

12

18

16

16

21

-

-

26

23

19

24

20

27

33

-

0

-

-

-

0

-

Subject to

 objection

Objected

 to

Percent

 objected to

Percent

 exempt

Percent

 litigated

Number of decisions

Notes: Hyphens represent zero divided by zero. Because decisions may involve multiple treatment 

methods, the sum of decisions involving each treatment method may exceed the total number of 

decisions for each region. 

Page 55 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number of 

Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number Service Region 

of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits, by 

Forest Service Region 

Figure 7 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of decisions 

using various contract types and the number and frequency of appeals, 

objections, and litigation by contract type. The use of different contract 

types varies among regions. The Eastern Region (Region 9) has the highest 

rate of commercial timber sale contract use compared with other regions, 

while the Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) has the highest rate of 

stewardship contracting use. 

Page 56 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number of 

Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest 

Service Region 

Figure 7: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, 

Exemptions, and Litigation, by Contract Type and Forest Service Region 

Forest service

 personnel/ 

 force account

Forest product

 permits

Stewardship contract

Other

 mechanism

Commercial

 timber sale contract

Service

 contract

Regions

Region 1

132

Region 2

151

Region 3

79

Region 4

157

Region 5

251

Contract type

17

15

12

12

4

4

3

4

1

2

3

1

0

0

0

0

12

3

4

1

1

1

0

0

24

27

25

33

33

33

3

3

6

5

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

1

0

0

0

0

4

1

1

0

3

1

0

0

67

67

33

40

25

0

11

5

14

3

5

3

7

2

0

0

2

0

3

1

4

0

3

2

1

0

0

2

1

0

45

60

50

67

33

0

10

10

13

4

4

4

5

2

2

4

7

<1

2

2

2

<1

Subject to

 appeal

59

70

94

25

36

11

14

25

52

3

24

11

54

45

116

9

23

10

87

117

167

46

41

5

Appealed

15

14

17

8

11

4

5

3

5

2

5

3

28

9

30

5

6

2

27

25

24

17

10

0

5

2

3

2

1

<1

Exempt

1

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

0

0

3

0

0

3

4

10

18

1

2

1

1

0

Litigated

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

2

6

0

2

0

5

4

4

1

3

0

40

40

38

50

60

100

Percent

 appealed

10

4

8

8

9

2

6

7

2

1

3

0

5

3

7

3

2

1

1

1

0

0

2

0

90

50

75

88

50

100

63

24

68

23

7

5

28

8

21

13

4

1

3

1

4

0

0

0

7

4

9

4

2

0

44

33

31

57

57

20

25

20

18

32

31

36

36

12

10

67

21

27

52

20

26

56

26

20

31

21

14

37

24

0

Subject to

 objection

Objected

 to

Percent

 objected to

Percent

 exempt

Percent

 litigated

Number of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Page 57 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number of 

Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest 

Service Region 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

Forest service

 personnel/ force account

Forest product

 permits

Stewardship contract

Other

 mechanism

Commercial

 timber sale contract

Service

 contract

Regions

180

344

Region 8

Region 9

116

Region 10

5

Contract type

12

5

8

4

1

0

1

1

1

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

<1

<1

0

0

8

0

13

25

-

-

7

2

8

2

1

0

1

0

3

1

6

0

2

1

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

14

0

13

0

-

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

-

-

-

Subject to

 appeal

97

51

236

9

20

2

59

26

79

19

14

4

0

2

1

0

0

0

Appealed

15

5

29

1

3

0

13

8

21

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exempt

2

3

22

0

1

1

4

1

7

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Litigated

0

0

1

0

0

1

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Region 6

Percent

 appealed

12

14

14

10

6

7

7

6

3

6

10

1

2

1

1

0

3

0

1

0

2

2

1

0

50

50

50

60

33

-

70

86

109

32

31

6

20

14

16

6

7

0

6

11

18

1

4

3

3

2

2

0

2

0

29

16

15

19

23

0

15

10

12

11

15

0

22

31

27

16

21

0

-

0

0

-

-

-

Subject to

 objection

Objected

 to

Percent

 objected to

Percent

 exempt

Percent

 litigated

Number of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Total number

of decisions

Notes: Hyphens represent zero divided by zero. Because decisions may involve multiple contract 

types, the sum of decisions involving each type may exceed the total number of decisions for each 

region. 

Page 58 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

In this appendix, Figures 8 and 9 provide information about appeals, 

objections, and litigation of fuel reduction activities in the wildland-urban 

interface and in inventoried roadless areas. Figure 8 shows, for each 

Forest Service region, the number of decisions with fuel reduction 

activities in the wildland-urban interface and the number and frequency of 

appeals, objections, and litigation of such decisions by region. The 

Southern Region (Region 8) had the most decisions in the wildland-urban 

interface, while the Northern Region (Region 1) had the highest number of 

appeals and objections of such decisions, and the highest rate at which 

decisions were challenged, considering both appeals and objections. 

Page 59 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Figure 8: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and the Number and Frequency of 

Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region 

Region 1

Regions

Total number of decisions 103

Region 2

Region 3

Total number of decisions 108

Total number of decisions 60

Region 4

Total number of decisions 104

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

84

22

26

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

15

7

47

5

5

2

2

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

49

5

10

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

8

3

38

3

5

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

87

17

20

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

18

4

22

3

3

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of WUI decisions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

85

31

36

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

14

12

86

4

4

8

8

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

WUI decisions nationwide

11%

11%

6%

11%

Page 60 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Regions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

65

13

20

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

9

1

11

7

9

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

189

22

12

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

15

1

7

22

10

1

<1

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

68

9

13

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

18

9

50

11

11

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of WUI decisions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

145

21

14

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

14

8

57

13

8

2

2

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

WUI decisions nationwide

Region 5

Total number of decisions 172

18%

Region 6

Total number of decisions 97

Region 8

Region 9

Total number of decisions 226

Total number of decisions 81

10%

24%

8%

Page 61 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Source: GAO rce: GAO analysis of survey results.

Regions

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of WUI decisions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

0

0

0

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

2

0

0

1

33

0

0

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

WUI decisions nationwide

Region 10

Total number of decisions 3

<1%

According to survey respondents, over half of these decisions (696) 

contained definitions of wildland-urban interface that were based on the 

definition provided in the January 4, 2001, Federal Register as refined by 

HFRA. HFRA Section 101 (16) defines wildland-urban interface as an area 

within or adjacent to a community that is identified as at risk in a 

community wildfire protection plan.1

 In addition, for areas for which a 

community wildfire protection plan is not in effect, the definition in HFRA 

includes areas (1) extending 1/2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk 

community, or (2) within 1 1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk 

community, including any land that has for example, a sustained steep 

slope, a geographic feature that could help when creating an effective 

 

1

Under HFRA Section 101(1), an at-risk community is one that is an interface community as 

defined in the Federal Register notice of January 4, 2001 (66 FR 753), or a group of homes 

and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and 

collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to federal land; has conditions 

conducive to a large-scale wildland fire; and faces a significant threat to human life or 

property as a result of a wildland fire. HFRA defines a community wildfire protection plan 

as a plan that is developed primarily by state and local agencies in consultation with 

interested parties and federal land management agencies, and that identifies and prioritizes 

areas in and near a community for fuel reduction treatments and recommends the types of 

treatments to be used. 

Page 62 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

firebreak, or Condition Class 3 land,2 or (3) is adjacent to an evacuation 

route.3

 Further, while many additional survey respondents who did not 

select this definition provided their own definition of wildland-urban 

interface, we found that 36 such respondents had definitions very similar 

to that contained in HFRA. 

Other respondents said they defined wildland-urban interface as it is 

referenced in their forests’ National Forest Land Management Plans. Others 

said they used a combination of definitions from multiple sources. For 

example, in the Pacific Southwest Region, several wildland-urban interface 

definitions were based on both the Federal Register and their forests’ 

National Forest Land Management Plans. Still others defined wildland-urban 

interface as an area within some distance from private land, or private lands 

with structures. The remaining respondents either said they did not have a 

definition for wildland-urban interface (14) or did not know the definition 

they used to identify the wildland-urban interface (49). 

Figure 9 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of decisions 

with fuel reduction activities in inventoried roadless areas and the number 

and frequency of appeals, objections, and litigation of such decisions by 

region. The Intermountain Region (Region 4) had the most decisions with 

activities occurring in inventoried roadless areas and also the highest 

number of appeals, objections, and cases litigated. However, the Pacific 

Northwest Region (Region 6) had the highest rate at which decisions were 

challenged, considering both appeals and objections. 

 

2

The term “condition class 3” with respect to an area of federal land refers to the condition 

class description developed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station in the report 

Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management, GTR 

RMRS-87 (Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: April 2002). 

3

There is no distance limitation for evacuation routes. 

Page 63 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Figure 9: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), and the Number and Frequency of 

Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region 

Region 1

Regions

Total number of decisions 17

Region 2

Region 3

Total number of decisions 30

Total number of decisions 12

Region 4

Total number of decisions 71

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Exempt

Litigated

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

61

10

16

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

8

5

63

2

3

3

4

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

11

2

18

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

24

5

21

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

6

1

17

0

0

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of IRA decisions

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

13

3

23

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

4

3

75

0

0

1

6

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

IRA decisions nationwide

10%

18%

7%

42%

Page 64 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Regions

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Exempt

Litigated

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

4

0

0

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

12

2

17

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

0

0

0

1

8

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

3

1

33

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

2

2

100

5

30

0

0

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of IRA decisions

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

9

3

33

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

IRA decisions nationwide

Region 5

Total number of decisions 9

Region 6

Total number of decisions 10

Region 8

Region 9

Total number of decisions 13

Total number of decisions 4

5%

6%

8%

2%

Page 65 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region 

Source: GAO rce: GAO analysis of survey results.

Regions

25

25

25

Subject to objection

Objected to

Number of IRA decisions

25

25

25

25

Subject to appeal

Appealed

Percent appealed

1

0

0

Subject to objection

Objected to

Percent objected to

1

0

0

1

33

0

0

Appeals Objections Exempt/Litigated

Exempt

Percent exempt

Litigated

Percent litigated

Regional percentage of total

IRA decisions nationwide

Region 10

Total number of decisions 3

2%

Page 66 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix X: Types of Categorical Exclusions 

Authorized by the Forest Service and Appendix X: Types of Categorical Exclusions Represented in the GAO Survey 

Authorized by the Forest Service and 

Represented in the GAO Survey 

A categorical exclusion (CE) is a category of actions for which neither an 

environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 

required because the agency has determined that it does not individually 

or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human 

environment.1

 Agencies develop a list of categorical exclusions specific to 

their operations when they develop or revise their implementing 

procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in 

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

regulations. 

When the Forest Service determines that activities of a proposed decision 

fall within a category of activities the agency has already determined have 

no significant environmental impact, it approves it using one of the 

predetermined categorical exclusions established by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service.2

 Table 10 shows the types 

and frequency of categorical exclusions reported in our survey. They are 

divided into two types: those that require the agency to prepare a decision 

memo for each action approved using a categorical exclusion, and those 

that do not require such documentation.3

Table 10: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized for Use by the Forest Service and Represented in the GAO Survey 

CE number CE description 

Total number

 in GAO survey 

Categorical exclusions established by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, not requiring a decision memo 

1 Policy development 0

2 Program funding 0

3 Inventories, research activities, and studies 1

4 Educational and Informational Programs 0

5 Law enforcement 0

 

1

40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. 

2

HFRA, Title IV—Insect Infestations and Related Diseases—also authorizes categorical 

exclusions for applied silvicultural assessments and research treatments provided the total 

number of acres does not exceed 250,000. Decisions authorized under Title IV are not 

subject to the predecisional administrative review process, but are subject to the notice, 

comment, and appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. 215. 

3

While a decision memo is not required for certain categories, one may be prepared at the 

discretion of the responsible Forest Service official. For more information, see GAO, Forest 

Service: Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects, Calendar 

Years 2003 through 2005, GAO-07-99 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2006). 

Page 67 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix X: Types of Categorical Exclusions 

Authorized by the Forest Service and 

Represented in the GAO Survey 

CE number CE description 

Total number

 in GAO survey 

6 Legal counsel and representation 0

7 Trade and market development abroad 0

Categorical exclusions established by the Chief of the Forest Service not requiring a decision memo 

1 Short-term resource protection, public health, and safety 1

2 Agencywide administrative rules, regulations, and policies 0

3 Repair and maintenance of administrative sites 11

4 Repair and maintenance of road, trails, and landline boundaries 6

5 Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities 9

6 Acquisition of land or a land interest 2

7 Land or resource sales or exchanges 0

8 Approving, modifying or continuing minor, short-term special 

uses of Forest Service lands 

3

9 Issuance of a ski area permit 0

10 Amending or replacing an existing special-use authorization 0

Categorical exclusions established by the Chief of the Forest Service requiring a decision memo 

1 Construction and reconstruction of trails 1

2 Construction and reconstruction of utilities 0

3 Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses 0

4 Reserved N/A

5 Regeneration of native tree species 21

6 Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement 454

7 Modification or maintenance of stream or aquatic habitat 

improvement structures 

2

8 Short-term mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations 0

9 Allotment improvements 0

10 Hazardous fuel reduction activities 379

11 Postfire rehabilitation activities 4

12 Harvest of live trees 38

13 Salvage of dead and/or dying trees 64

14 Harvest of trees to control insects or disease 18

15 Issuance of a new special use authorization 0

16 Land management plans, amendments, and revisions 0

17 Approval of oil and gas exploration plans 0

Categorical exclusion established by HFRA not requiring a decision memo 

No number Applied silvicultural assessments and research treatments 1

Sources: (1) Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Chapter 30–Categorical Exclusion from Documentation. April 

15, 2009; (2) 16 U.S.C. § 6554(d)(1); and (3) GAO data (see citations above). 

Page 68 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XI: Major Litigation Affecting Appendix XI: Major Litigation Affecting Appeal Procedures for Categorical Exclusions 

Appeal Procedures for Categorical 

Exclusions 

A summary of the major litigation that affected the exemption of 

categorical exclusions from the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process is shown in table 11. Starting in late 

2003, these exemptions were challenged in court and were the subject of a 

Supreme Court ruling. Table 12 summarizes the litigation centered 

specifically on the validity of the Hazardous Fuel Reduction categorical 

exclusion, or Fuels CE, also known as CE #10. 

Table 11: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning Regulation Exempting Decisions That Have Been Categorically Excluded 

from Appeals 

Date Major events 

June 4, 2003 Forest Service published a final rule revising appeal procedures that, among other things, exempted 

decisions using categorical exclusions from appeal (CE appeals exemption). 

June 5, 2003 Forest Service action created a new categorical exclusion for certain fuel reduction activities (Fuels CE). 

September 8, 2003 Forest Service issued its Burnt Ridge Project decision memo approving a timber sale and treatment of 238 

acres of postfire forest area, using the Fuels CE and the CE appeals exemption. 

December 1, 2003 Earth Island filed a complaint against the Forest Service that, among other things, challenged the CE 

appeals exemption nationwide and as applied to the Burnt Ridge Project, arguing that the exemption 

violated the Appeal Reform Act. The Forest Service later withdrew the Burnt Ridge Project. 

July 7, 2005 Federal district court invalidated the CE appeals exemption. Earth Island v. Pengilly, 376 F.Supp.2d 994 

(E.D.Cal.2005). 

September 16, 2005 District court clarified that the scope of the injunction was nationwide, precluding any enforcement and 

implementation of the invalidated regulations. The district court further clarified that the injunction would 

apply only prospectively, to decisions made after the July 7, 2005 order date. 

August 10, 2006 Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the CE appeals exemption and the nationwide 

injunction against its enforcement. Earth Island v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2006), amended 490 

F.3d 687 (2007). 

March 3, 2009 In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that because the Forest Service 

had withdrawn the Burnt Ridge Project, the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge portions of the 36 C.F.R. 

appeal regulations that exempted categorical exclusions from notice, comment, and appeal. Summers v. 

Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1142-50 (2009). 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant court cases. 

Page 69 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XI: Major Litigation Affecting 

Appeal Procedures for Categorical Exclusions 

Table 12: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning the Validity of the Fuels CE 

Date Major events 

June 5, 2003 Forest Service action created a new categorical exclusion for certain fuel reduction activities (Fuels CE). 

October 8, 2004 Sierra Club challenged the Fuels CE as applied to several projects in the Eldorado and Lassen National 

Forests, arguing, among other things, that the CE inappropriately included activities that have significant 

effects. 

September 16, 2005 Federal district court rejected the Sierra Club’s challenge, holding that the Forest Service provided 

reasoned explanations for its conclusion that the category of actions covered by the Fuels CE would not 

normally have a significant impact on the environment. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 2005 WL 2281074 

(E.D.Cal.). 

December 5, 2007 Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service failed to assess properly the significance of the hazardous fuels 

reduction categorical exclusion and thus it failed to demonstrate that it made a reasoned decision to 

promulgate the Fuels CE based on relevant factors and information. Accordingly, the court held that the 

agency’s promulgation of the Fuels CE was arbitrary and capricious. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 

1016 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant court cases. 

Page 70 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National Forests 

Forests 

Page 71 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 72 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 73 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 74 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 75 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 76 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 77 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 78 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 79 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 80 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 81 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 82 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 83 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 84 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 85 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 86 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 87 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 88 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 89 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National 

Forests 

Page 90 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 
Appendix XIII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 91 GAO-10-337 Forest Service 

Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Anu K. Mittal, 202-512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant Director), 

Ulana Bihun, Sandra Davis, Justin Fisher, Cathy Hurley, Richard P. 

Johnson, Stuart Kaufman, Armetha Liles, Diane Lund, Robin Nazzaro, 

Alison O’Neill, and Shana Wallace made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361012) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper