a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2003 WILDLAND FIRE 

MANAGEMENT

Additional Actions 

Required to Better 

Identify and Prioritize 

Lands Needing Fuels 

Reduction

GAO-03-805
The Forest Service and Interior have identified three categories of land for 

fuels reduction: (1) lands with excess fuels buildup, (2) lands in the 

wildland-urban interface where federal lands surround or are adjacent to 

urban development and communities, and (3) lands where vegetation grows 

rapidly and requires regular maintenance treatments to prevent excess fuels 

buildup. However, the agencies have not yet reliably estimated the amount 

or identified the location of these lands. Without identifying these lands 

there is no baseline against which to assess progress under the fuels 

reduction program. 

Local land management units prioritize lands for fuels reduction using a 

variety of methods, including professional judgment and ranking systems. 

Prioritization methods vary, in part, because the Forest Service and Interior 

have not issued specific national guidance on prioritization. Without specific 

national guidance on prioritization, it is difficult for the Forest Service and 

Interior to ensure that the highest priority fuels reduction projects 

nationwide are being implemented. 

A number of factors, including weather and diversion of resources to fire 

suppression have hindered the Forest Service’s and Interior’s ability to 

complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. While agency officials are 

addressing some of these factors, others, such as weather, are beyond 

human control. As a result, agency officials are uncertain whether increased 

funding would necessarily result in a proportional increase in acres treated. 

The Forest Service and Interior are developing results-oriented performance 

measures to assess the effectiveness of treatments in reducing the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires. However, since the agencies have not identified the 

amount or location of lands with excess fuels buildup, there is currently no 

baseline from which to assess program performance. In addition, annual 

performance reports provide misleading information on the overall progress 

being achieved under the fuels reduction program because the agencies are 

reporting all acres treated annually without separately reporting on acres 

that are treated to maintain a low level of wildfire risk and other acres that 

require several years of treatments to reduce risk. 

Fuels Reduction on Forest Service and Interior Lands 

The density of the nation’s forests, 

along with drought and other 

weather conditions, has fueled 

wildland fires that have required 

billions of dollars to suppress and 

has forced thousands of people to 

evacuate their homes. The 

Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Forest Service and the 

Department of the Interior 

(Interior) are collaborating on a 

long-term effort to reduce the risk 

these fires pose. GAO was asked, 

among other things, to (1) assess 

the agencies’ efforts to determine 

which federal lands require fuels 

reduction treatments, (2) 

determine how lands are prioritized 

for treatment, and (3) assess how 

progress is measured and reported. 

To enhance fuels reduction efforts, 

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that the Forest Service and 

Interior (1) collect detailed 

nationwide data to identify and 

prioritize which federal lands need 

fuels reduction and (2) report acres 

treated to reduce wildfire risk, 

acres requiring multiyear 

treatments to reduce wildfire risk, 

and maintenance acres separately 

in annual performance reports. 

Commenting on the draft report, 

Interior and USDA agreed that 

prioritization is essential to 

program effectiveness, but had 

concerns about our 

recommendations on identifying 

lands and reporting 

accomplishments. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-805.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-805, a report to 

congressional requesters 

August 2003 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Additional Actions Required to Better 

Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing 

Fuels Reduction 
Page i GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Agencies Are Focusing Fuels Reduction on Lands in Three 

Categories, but More Efforts Are Needed to Estimate the Amount 

and Location of These Lands 11

Local Land Units Prioritize Projects Using a Variety of Methods 

Because of a Lack of Specific National Guidance 18

Fuels Reduction Efforts Hindered by a Number of Factors 23

Agencies Recognize Need to Better Measure the Effect of Fuels 

Reduction Treatments, but Annual Reporting Practices Need 

Improvement 29

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 36

Appendix II: Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for the 

Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001-2003 39

Appendix III: Summary of Fuels Treatment Accomplishments in the 

Southeast for the Forest Service and Interior, FY 

2001-2003 45

Appendix IV: Summary of Information Related to the 17 Forest Service 

and BLM Local Units Visited by GAO 48

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

Interior 56

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 60

GAO Contacts 60

Staff Acknowledgments 60

Tables Table 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO 37

Table 2: Summary of FY 2001 Goals and Accomplishments 39

Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments 41

Table 4: Summary of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments 43

Table 5: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2001 45

Table 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002 46

Table 7: Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003 47
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Units 48

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

Local Land Units 50

Table 10: Cost and Accomplishments by Fuels Reduction Treatment 

Methods Used by 17 Local Land Units, 2002 51

Table 11: Reasons Cited for Incomplete Fuels Reduction Work by 17 

Local Land Units, 2002 52

Table 12: Acres Treated in FY 2002 or Planned in FY 2003 That Were 

Treated in the Previous Fiscal Year 53

Figures Figure 1: Movement of U.S. Population Toward the Interior West 7

Figure 2: A Mechanical Thinning Project Being Used for Fuels 

Reduction on a Western National Forest 10

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

Western National Forest 11

Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels 13

Figure 5: Various Types of Wildland-Urban Interface 16

Figure 6: Methods Used to Prioritize Projects at 17 Local Units 20

Figure 7: Reasons Why Fuels Reduction Treatments Were Not 

Implemented by 17 Local Units, FY 2002 23

Figure 8: Number of Acres Burned by Wildfires, 1993-2002 25

Figure 9: Percentage of Acres Treated or Planned for Treatment in 

the Southeast by the Forest Service and Interior, FY 

2001-2003 31

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

Distribution 40

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

Distribution 40

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

Distribution 42

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

Distribution 42

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

Distribution 43

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

Distribution 44

Figure 16: Elements of Local Land Units’ Project Prioritization 

Methods 54
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 15, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Charles Taylor

Chairman

The Honorable Norman Dicks

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Scott McInnis

Chairman

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

Nearly 100 years of fire suppression have left the nation’s forests dense 

with small, tightly spaced trees and thick brush. This density, along with 

weather conditions, such as wind, high temperatures and drought, has 

fueled wildland fires that in certain cases have spread rapidly and become 

catastrophic. These fires and the resulting damage not only compromise 

the forests’ ability to provide timber, outdoor recreation, clean water, and 

other resources, but also pose increasingly grave risks to health, safety, and 

property. Two of the more devastating fire seasons on record have 

occurred in the last 3 years. In 2000, wildland fires burned more than 8 

million acres; and in 2002, almost 7 million acres were burnedabout 

twice the 10-year annual average. These fires required billions of dollars to 

suppress and forced thousands of people to evacuate their homes. 

In the aftermath of the wildland fires of 2000, the federal agencies 

responsible for wildland fire managementthe Forest Service in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Park Service in the Department of the Interior (Interior)—developed the 

National Fire Plan, a long-term multibillion-dollar plan to address the 

nation’s risk of such fires. A major component of the plan is a hazardous 

fuels reduction program that requires the agencies to thin forests and 

rangelands, thereby reducing the risk of catastrophic fires caused by 

excessive buildup of vegetation. Local land management units, such as 

national forests and parks, are generally responsible for carrying out 

projects to reduce the buildup of vegetation that fuels catastrophic fires. 

Techniques used for managing vegetation generally include setting fires 
Page 2 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

under controlled conditions (prescribed burns) and mechanical thinning. 

Another important component of the plan is for the agencies to establish 

effective performance measures to assess the results of their fuels 

reduction treatments. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the agencies have 

received approximately $400 million annually for fuels reduction under the 

plan. 

According to the Forest Service and Interior, about 650 million acres, or 

over 85 percent of the approximately 750 million acres of federal land that 

they manage, are susceptible to wildland fire. These susceptible lands, 

according to a recent government estimate, include (1) millions of acres in 

the dense forests of the West that have excess buildup of fuels and are at 

risk of catastrophic fires, (2) millions of acres nationwide that either 

surround or are adjacent to urban development and communities 

(commonly referred to as the wildland-urban interface) that are at risk to 

wildland fire, and (3) still other acres that need regular and frequent 

treatments to prevent rapid fuels buildup. While fire plays a role in 

maintaining the health of certain ecosystems, the overall growth of 

vegetation in the nation’s forests and rangelands has created unnatural 

hazardous fire conditions. Under the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service 

and Interior are attempting to identify and prioritize the lands most in need 

of fuels reduction while dealing with a number of challenges that hinder the 

agencies’ implementation of fuels reduction efforts. The House of 

Representatives has recently passed legislation intended to, among other 

things, reduce the risk of damage to communities, municipal watersheds, 

and certain federal lands from catastrophic wildfires. However, there is 

controversy over whether conducting fuels reduction treatments outside 

the wildland urban interface—as the House bill would authorize—is 

appropriate, especially if the treatments involve clear cutting trees in 

remote forest areas. 

In this context, you asked us to (1) assess the Forest Service’s and Interior’s 

efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels reduction treatments, 

(2) determine how local land units within the Forest Service and Interior 

prioritize land for fuels reduction treatments, (3) identify factors that have 

hindered fuels reduction efforts, and (4) assess how the Forest Service and 

Interior measure and report progress under the fuels reduction program. 

In conducting our review, we met with Forest Service and Interior officials 

in headquarters, and visited five states, where we met with officials in 

selected regional and state offices, as well as 17 Forest Service and BLM 

local land units, such as national forests and BLM field offices. While the 
Page 3 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

results of our visits cannot be projected nationwide, the visits represent a 

mix of local fuels reduction efforts based on geographic diversity and level 

of funding. (See app. I for details on the scope and methodology of our 

review.)

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

lands that require fuels reduction, but they have not yet reliably estimated 

the amount and identified the location of these lands. Given the potentially 

vast amounts of federal land at risk of catastrophic wildfire, the agencies 

have stressed the importance of treating lands that have excess fuels 

buildup and lands in the wildland-urban interface. In addition, the agencies 

acknowledge a third categorylands that require regular maintenance to 

prevent excess fuels buildup because vegetation grows rapidly—but they 

have not decided whether these lands are as important to treat as are lands 

in the first two categories. Government scientists have collected 

nationwide data on lands with excess fuels buildup, but because the data 

were not detailed, there was a large margin of error in the resulting 

estimates. Recognizing the need for more accurate estimates, the agencies 

are currently considering whether to fund a project to assess in more detail 

the fuels buildup on federal land nationwide. If funded, they do not expect 

to complete the effort until 2008 at the earliest. For the second 

categorylands in the wildland-urban interfacethe agencies have not 

specifically defined the wildland-urban interface so they have been unable 

to collect data that are relevant nationwide. For example, the agencies have 

not decided if it includes only land near residences and commercial 

development or also land near public resources, such as power lines and 

watersheds. Without a clear national definition, there is no basis for a 

consistent determination about which lands are part of the wildland-urban 

interface. Finally, for the third category—lands that require regular 

maintenance treatments because the vegetation grows rapidly—the 

agencies have not estimated the total amount and location of such lands, 

although they have been reducing fuels on such lands in the Southeast for 

decades. Without a nationwide estimate of the amount and location of land 

in each category of land that is important to treat, it will be difficult for the 

agencies to assess their progress in reducing the total amount of federal 

land that requires fuels reduction.

Local land units prioritize lands within the three categories for fuels 

reduction using a variety of methods including professional judgment and 

ranking systems. For example, at one local unit an agency official uses his 

professional judgment, local knowledge, and field observations of 
Page 4 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

vegetative conditions to prioritize projects. At another unit, officials collect 

detailed data on factors such as vegetative condition, proximity to recent 

fires, and proximity to communities; then they assign points to potential 

fuels reduction projects, based on the factors, and rank the projects in 

priority order. Still other units—particularly in the Southeast—select lands 

for fuels reduction according to a recurring schedule. Moreover, even units 

that use the same prioritization method may not emphasis the same criteria 

in prioritization decisions. For example, among units that rely on 

professional judgment, some place far greater weight on community 

preferences than others. This variation in prioritization methods occurs, in 

part, because the Forest Service and Interior have not issued specific 

national guidance on how to prioritize projects; rather, they have issued 

broad guidance allowing local units wide discretion. Without specific 

guidance on how to prioritize locations for fuels reduction within the three 

categories of federal land identified nationally, it is difficult for the Forest 

Service and Interior to ensure that there is any consistent, systematic rigor 

to how projects are being prioritized or that the highest priority fuels 

reduction projects nationwide are being implemented. 

Several factors including weather and diversion of resources to fire 

suppression have hindered the Forest Service’s and Interior’s ability to 

complete their annual fuels reduction workloads. Given these factors, in 

2002, the Forest Service and Interior reduced fuels on 56 percent of the 

approximately 4 million acres they could have treated. In discussions with 

officials from 17 Forest Service and Interior local land units we visited, 

they stated that the most prominent factor was the weather, which 

accounted for 40 percent of all fuels reduction project delays at these units 

in 2002. In some cases, land managers could not ignite prescribed burns 

because weather conditions, such as wind, temperature, and drought, made 

doing so unsafe; and they could not use mechanical thinning equipment 

because of the risk that a spark would accidentally ignite a wildfire. For 

example, at one local unit, over 34,000 acres, or 72 percent of the 

approximately 47,000 acres planned for fuels reduction, were not treated 

because of drought conditions. A related factor hindering agencies’ 

completion of fuels reduction projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency 

resources from fuels reduction to fire suppression efforts during the severe 

fire season. This factor accounted for about 30 percent of all project delays 

at the local units we visited. For example, one national forest shifted about 

22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels reduction budget to support 

fire suppression efforts. Even in the Southeast, where the drought and the 

fire season were less severe, nationwide policy restrictions prohibited local 

units from implementing fuels reduction projects because the units’ staff 
Page 5 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

were required to be immediately available for suppression efforts 

elsewhere. In addition, local land unit officials cited other factors, such as 

administrative regulatory requirements and public resistance, that affected 

fuels reduction projects. Although local land units are working to address 

some of these factors, others, such as weather, are beyond human control. 

Given these factors, some local officials were uncertain whether increased 

funding would result in a proportional increase in acres treated under the 

fuels reduction program.

To measure progress under the fuels reduction program, the Forest Service 

and Interior are currently tracking and reporting the total number of acres 

treated nationwide. This practice, however, measures only the number of 

acres that receive fuels reduction treatmentsnot necessarily whether 

progress is being made in reducing the overall risk of wildfire. Recognizing 

this shortcoming, the Forest Service and Interior are currently developing 

results-oriented performance measures that assess the effect of these 

treatments in reducing the risk of wildfires. However, because the Forest 

Service and Interior have not yet established baseline data by identifying 

the acres that are at different levels of risk to wildfire, any assessment of 

the change in wildfire risk level will be subjective, and it will be difficult to 

determine the actual progress being made in reducing the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire nationwide. In addition, the current method of 

reporting annual performance is resulting in misleading information on 

what is actually being accomplished with respect to reducing the total 

amount of land at risk nationwide. Currently, the data give the indication 

that all the acres treated are reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. This 

is not the situation. In some cases, acres are being treated that will not 

change the risk and in other cases multiple treatments need to be made 

over several years to reduce the risk. Unless treatments in these cases are 

reported separately in annual performance reports, it is, and likely will 

continue to be, difficult to assess the progress being made under the fuels 

reduction program in terms of reducing the overall risk of wildfires 

nationwide. 

In the context of vast, yet unknown acres of federal land at risk to wildfire 

and major factors hindering fuels reduction on that land, mitigating the risk 

of catastrophic wildfires through fuels reduction will require a sustained, 

long-term effort. However, without a nationwide estimate of the amount 

and location of lands that need fuels reduction, it will be difficult to ensure 

that the highest priority fuels reduction projects nationwide are being 

implemented and to assess progress in reducing fuels buildup in forests 

and rangelands across the nation. Accordingly, we are recommending that 
Page 6 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

the Forest Service and Interior identify which federal lands need fuels 

reduction so that detailed, comparable data can be collected on the amount 

and location of these lands, to facilitate prioritization decisions. In 

addition, we are recommending that in annual performance reports the 

Forest Service and Interior report acres treated that reduce the level of 

wildfire risk separately from other acres treated, to better reflect the longterm progress of the fuels reduction program. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, the Forest Service and Interior stated that the report aptly 

described the nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both its scope 

and severity. They agreed that prioritization is essential to program 

effectiveness, but they had some concerns about our recommendations 

related to identifying lands that need fuels reduction and reporting 

accomplishments in separate categories.

Background Nearly all forests and grasslands in North America evolved with fire as a 

natural part of the ecosystem. Fire contributes to ecological health in 

forests and rangelands by maintaining plant species diversity, preventing 

the spread of invasive species, limiting the spread of insects and disease, 

and promoting new growth. Historically, fires occurred at a variety of 

frequencies ranging from 1- to 2-year cycles in some southeastern forests, 

to 200- to 500-year cycles in northwestern rain forests. These historical 

cycles changed in part because the federal government began a policy of 

suppressing all wildland fires as quickly as possible. Over the years, brush, 

small trees, and other vegetation accumulated that can fuel fires and cause 

them to spread more rapidly with catastrophic results. Weather phenomena 

have also contributed to dangerous fire conditions. The weather 

phenomenon known as La Niña, characterized by unusually cold Pacific 

Ocean temperatures, changed weather patterns when it formed in 1998. It 

caused severe, long-lasting drought across much of the country, drying out 

forests and rangelands. 

The Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, 

and Fish and Wildlife Service manage about 750 million acres of federal 

land across the United States. Most federal lands in the 48 contiguous 

states are located in 11 western states, which have seen a dramatic surge in 

population over the last 2 decades, complicating the management of 

wildland fires. As shown in figure 1, the population is moving toward the 

Interior West, contributing to new development in fire-prone areas, often 

adjacent to federal land, and creating a wildland-urban interface. This 

relatively new phenomenon means that more communities and structures 
Page 7 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

are at risk of wildland fire and of potential post-fire effects, including 

increased erosion and flooding.

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

a

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

b

People moving to the Interior West minus people leaving.

Following the 2000 fire season, which was one of the most challenging on 

record, the Bush Administration asked USDA and Interior to recommend 

how best to respond and how to reduce the impacts of such fires in the 

future. Their report, called the National Fire Plan, recommended increased 

funding for several key activities, such as suppressing wildland fires and 

reducing the buildup of unwanted hazardous fuels. To fund the activities 

recommended in the National Fire Plan, Congress appropriated $2.9 billion 

to the Forest Service and the Interior agencies for their fiscal year 2001 

wildland fire needsan increase of over $1 billion from the prior year 
Page 8 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

funding of $1.5 billion. Of the $2.9 billion, $400 million was for reducing 

hazardous fuels. For fiscal year 2002 wildland fire needs, Congress 

authorized $2.3 billion for the Forest Service and Interior agencies of which 

$395 million was for reducing hazardous fuels. Of the agencies involved 

with the fuels reduction program, the Forest Service and Interior’s BLM 

spend the most money to reduce hazardous fuels.

A key component of the National Fire Plan is the development and 

implementation of a cohesive strategy aimed at lowering the risks from 

catastrophic wildfires by reducing the excess buildup of hazardous fuels in 

the nation’s forests and rangelands.1

 Since beginning implementation of the 

National Fire Plan, the Forest Service and Interior have treated hazardous 

fuels on about 4.4 million acres of federal land in 2001 and 2002. Most of the 

treatments to date have been in the southeastern region of the United 

States, where the vegetation in the forests tends to grow rapidly, causing 

fuels to accumulate over a short period. (See app. II and III for detailed 

information on program results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and planned 

work for fiscal year 2003.)

Local land units within the Forest Service and Interior’s wildland fire 

management agencies largely carry out fuels reduction treatments. The 

Forest Service’s local land units consist of national forests and grasslands. 

These local land units are overseen by the Forest Service’s regional offices. 

Within Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ local land units consist of 

agencies; BLM’s local land units consist of districts, field offices, or 

resource areas; and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s and the National Park 

Service’s local land units consist of facilities, refuges, or parks. BLM’s state 

offices oversee its local land units, while the regional offices of the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service 

oversee their local land units.

These agencies plan and implement fuels reduction projects that are 

required to conform to agency specific land management statutes as well as 

requirements under legislation such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, and often involve 

other federal and nonfederal regulatory agencies. In addition, as directed 

by the community assistance goal of the National Fire Plan, the agencies 

work with and grant funds to local communities for fuels reduction. 

1

At the time of our review, the Forest Service and Interior had not finalized the cohesive 

strategy. As a result, local land units are continuing to operate under draft guidance.
Page 9 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

At the national level, the Forest Service and Interior agencies are directed 

to allocate fuels reduction funding to their regional or state offices that 

have the greatest fire management workload, risk to communities, and 

fuels buildup. However, because it has been difficult for the agencies to 

allocate funding according to these criteria, in practice, funding allocations 

are primarily influenced by historical workload and funding levels, and 

proportional allocations tend to be similar from year to year. Consequently, 

it is left to the local land units to identify the highest priority locations for 

fuels reduction treatments.

To reduce hazardous fuels, agencies rely principally on mechanical or hand 

thinning of trees and brush, prescribed burning, or a combination of the 

two. Mechanical thinning includes the use of chainsaws, traditional timber 

extraction machinery, and hydromowers and slashbusters—machines that 

grind up small trees and shrubs into mulch—or other mechanized 

equipment. Figure 2 depicts a mechanical thinning project. Prescribed 

burns are fires set deliberately by land managers under weather, fuel, and 

temperature conditions that enable the fire to be controlled at a relatively 

low intensity level. Figure 3 depicts a prescribed burn project. In some 

cases, it is necessary to mechanically thin an area before igniting a 

prescribed fire, in order to achieve fuel conditions that prevent the fire 

from burning so rapidly and intensely that it becomes uncontrollable.
Page 10 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Western National Forest
Page 11 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Forest

Agencies Are Focusing 

Fuels Reduction on 

Lands in Three 

Categories, but More 

Efforts Are Needed to 

Estimate the Amount 

and Location of These 

Lands

The Forest Service and Interior have determined that three categories of 

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

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

agencies’ draft cohesive strategy emphasizes the importance of treating 

lands that have excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildland-urban 

interface with fuels reduction. In addition, the draft cohesive strategy 

mentions that a third category should be considered as welllands that 

require regular maintenance to prevent excess fuels buildup because 

vegetation grows rapidly—but the strategy is unclear about whether lands 

in this category are as important to treat as lands in the first two categories. 

Forest Service scientists have collected nationwide data on lands with 

excess fuels buildup, but because the data were not detailed, scientists 

could make only rough estimates of the amount; and they could not identify 
Page 12 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

the specific locations of these lands.2 Recognizing the need for more 

accurate estimates, the agencies are currently deciding whether to fund a 

project that would collect more detailed data on land with excess fuels 

buildup nationwide. They have not yet clearly defined the parameters of 

the wildland-urban interface, and consequently have been unable to collect 

data that is relevant at the national level. In addition, the agencies have not 

decided whether lands requiring regular maintenance treatments are 

among the lands most at risk nationally and therefore most in need of fuels 

reduction treatments. As a result, they have neither estimated the total 

amount nor identified the location of such lands. 

More Data Needed to 

Identify Land with Excess 

Fuels Buildup

Although one of the categories of land targeted for fuels reduction in the 

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

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

lands. In an attempt to gather nationwide data on these lands, in April 2001, 

Forest Service scientists completed a national assessment of fuels buildup, 

resulting in a map that classified all land in the contiguous 48 states as high, 

moderate, or low risk for catastrophic wildfires. As figure 4 shows, the risk 

depends on how much the vegetation has changed relative to historical 

conditions, with the highest levels of fuels buildup corresponding to the 

highest wildfire risk ranking. 

2

The Forest Service and Interior jointly funded the initial assessment, and subsequent 

studies were funded by the Forest Service.
Page 13 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Figure 4: Wildfire Risk Levels

While the initial assessment provided a rough approximation of national 

risk level, it could not be used to accurately discern the total amount of 

land at high risk, or to identify specific locations of such land because it 

was based on data that were not detailed and therefore was subject to a 

considerable margin of error. The scientists estimated that about 75 million 

acres of federal land were at high risk of wildfire, but because of the lack of 

detail, the estimate was rough. The lack of detail was particularly limiting 

on rangelands, where flammable nonnative weeds such as cheatgrass have 
Page 14 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

replaced native plants in many areas, leaving the land vulnerable to fastmoving, high-intensity fires. According to Forest Service scientists, the 

initial data did not sufficiently depict nonforested lands including 

rangelands. In many cases, nonnative and native plants grow in a scattered 

patchwork pattern, and it is difficult to distinguish small patches of 

nonnative plants without detailed data. To partially address this limitation, 

in 2002 scientists studied vegetative conditions on some rangelands and 

found that they had underestimated the amount of rangeland at high risk. 

Adding this land to the 75 million acres in the initial assessment, they 

concluded that about 90 million acres of federal land were at high risk to 

wildfire. Aware that the lack of detail in the initial assessment also affected 

forests, in 2003 scientists collected samples of more detailed data in several 

forests in the West. The detailed data revealed that the initial assessment 

had also underestimated the amount of land with excess fuels buildup in 

forests, and consequently, the amount of land at high risk. Extrapolating 

their findings to adjust the nationwide estimate, the scientists concluded 

that about 190 million acres of federal land were at high risk, but they 

acknowledged that the correct number could be anywhere from 90 to 200 

million acres, considering the margin of error. 

Recognizing the need for more accurate nationwide data about land with 

excess fuels buildup, and aware of the limitations of existing assessments, 

the Forest Service and Interior are taking actions to more accurately 

estimate the amount and identify the location of such land with excess 

fuels buildup. Over the long term, the agencies are considering a proposal 

to collect more detailed nationwide data through a project called 

LANDFIRE, but they have not yet decided whether to fund the project. 

They have, however, begun to test a prototype in two areas, which will 

serve as a model for applying the same methods nationwide.3

 If 

implemented, LANDFIRE is expected to provide accurate maps showing 

specific locations of lands with excess fuels buildup and computer models 

that can predict which areas are at highest risk of wildfire based on 

vegetation type and condition, historical fire frequency, weather, and other 

factors. Nevertheless, while the agencies have been considering the project 

for years, they still have not fully funded it. We first examined LANDFIRE 

in 1998, at which time agency officials initially showed us one of the 

3

Although the initial assessment covered only the 48 contiguous states, the new efforts will 

cover all 50 states.
Page 15 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

prototype areas.4 We later reported on LANDFIRE in 2002, and found that it 

had the potential to provide data critical for use in project prioritization, 

but we had concerns that the project was no closer to being funded than it 

was in 1998.5

 Now, according to agency officials, data collection efforts in 

the test areas has provided sufficient information to make a decision about 

whether to fund and implement LANDFIRE, which is estimated to cost $33 

million. Currently the agencies are contemplating funding the project as 

soon as 2003, but they have not yet made a decision; and if it is 

implemented, it is not scheduled to be complete until 2008 at the earliest. 

In an effort to provide usable data in the interim, the Forest Service and 

Interior have proposed completing by 2005 a nationwide rapid assessment 

which would use information from a variety of sources, such as expert 

opinion, statistical analysis, and data previously collected by state 

agencies, local governments, and federal agencies. However, the agencies 

have not funded this effort either. Furthermore, because the data used in 

the rapid assessment would come from a mixture of sources, they would 

vary in accuracy, reliability, and level of detail, among other things. 

Consequently, the results of the rapid assessment would not be as accurate 

as what is expected from LANDFIRE, bringing into question the value of 

funding the rapid assessment in addition to LANDFIRE. 

Consistent Definition 

Needed before Land in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface 

Can Be Identified

The President and Congress, as well as the Forest Service and Interior have 

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

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

interface and therefore are unable to identify the amount and location of 

lands in the interface nationwide. In January 2001, a definition of wildlandurban interface was published in the Federal Register, but it is very general 

and consequently, it has been interpreted inconsistently.6

 The definition 

classifies wildland-urban interface into two primary categories: (1) lands 

where structures are directly adjacent to wildlands and (2) lands where 

4

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is 

Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 2, 1999).

5

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and 

Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources, GAO-02-259

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

6

66 Fed. Reg. 753 (2001).
Page 16 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

structures are scattered throughout a wildland area.7 The definition further 

specifies that wildland-urban interface includes communities ranging from 

suburban and urban neighborhoods (3 or more structures per acre) to 

widely dispersed rural dwellings (1 structure per 40 acres). The breadth of 

this definition allows for diverse interpretations—including, for example, 

subdivisions lining forest boundaries, remote summer cabins in the 

wilderness, or land surrounding powerlines crossing federal lands. On the 

basis of this definition of wildland-urban interface, the Forest Service and 

Interior allowed each state to identify a list of communities at risk from 

wildfire to be published in the Federal Register in August 2001. However, 

given the lack of specificity in the published definition of wildland-urban 

interface, each state used criteria it believed appropriate for selecting 

communities at risk. For example, figure 5 shows diverse types of land that 

states could include based on different definitions of wildland-urban 

interface. 

Figure 5: Various Types of Wildland-Urban Interface 

As a result, some states provided much longer lists of communities at risk 

than other states, and there was no consistent standard for inclusion on the 

list. To resolve this inconsistency, the draft cohesive strategy calls for the 

states to develop a common definition of communities at risk by June 

7

A third category included the less-common situation when structures, often within a city, 

abut an island of wildland fuels (e.g., a park or open space).
Page 17 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

2003.8 Toward this end, the Forest Service and Interior have tasked the 

National Association of State Foresters—an organization representing 

state forestry departments—with developing uniform guidance for states to 

use in identifying wildland-urban interface communities at risk, but this 

process is no more likely to result in a consistently-applied definition of 

wildland-urban interface than the former one. The guidance, now in draft, 

sets out four criteria and recommends that states assign an adjective rating 

such as high, medium, or low risk to each community or wildland-urban 

interface area identified. If implemented, the guidance would provide a 

methodology for states to generally assess relative risk; but because each 

state would interpret and apply high, medium, and low risk independently, 

the risk rankings would not be comparable on a nationwide basis. In 

addition, the guidance does not define wildland-urban interface, instead 

allowing each state to develop its own definition. For example, some states 

may develop a very narrow definition that includes only land immediately 

surrounding housing subdivisions, while other states may develop a 

definition that includes remote ranches and cabins used only seasonally, as 

well as land surrounding public resources, such as power lines or 

communications equipment. The Forest Service and Interior will again be 

left with multiple, inconsistent definitions developed independently by 

each state, and because of this inconsistency the lands identified through 

the process will not be comparable. As a result, the process will not enable 

national decision-makers to accurately determine how much land is in the 

wildland-urban interface nationwide, or where it is located. While the task 

of developing a specific, consistently used definition of wildland-urban 

interface is a challenging one requiring difficult decisions to be made, if the 

Forest Service and Interior do not develop such a definition, not only will 

they be unable to accurately identify which lands are in the wildland-urban 

interface nationwide, but they will also be unable to identify the highest 

priority lands for fuels reduction treatments.

Agencies Unclear About 

Importance of Maintenance 

Treatments in Fuels 

Reduction Program

Although the agencies have been using regular maintenance treatments as 

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

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

have been in this category, the Forest Service and Interior have not 

clarified whether the treatment of these acres is as important as the 

treatment of lands with excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildland8

As of August 2003, a common definition of communities at risk had not been developed.
Page 18 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

urban interface. Rather, the draft cohesive strategy separately 

acknowledges the value of continuing maintenance treatments in some 

areas to prevent them from becoming quickly overloaded with fuels, 

especially in the Southeast where vegetation grows rapidly. Because the 

agencies have not determined whether the maintenance acres are as 

important as lands with excess fuels buildup and lands in the wildlandurban interface, they do not plan to assess the total amount of maintenance 

acres that need to be treated nationwide.

The vegetation in southeastern forests builds up more quickly than it does 

in the West because it grows rapidly. Consequently, agency officials in the 

Southeast conduct fuels reduction treatments frequently in an attempt to 

prevent the forests from developing excess fuels buildup and increasing the 

risk that a wildfire there would grow into a catastrophic one. For example, 

on some national forests in the Southeast, fuels reduction treatments are 

scheduled on various acres of the forest annually, such that the entire 

forest is treated every 3 to 5 years. According to agency officials, this 

approach maintains forests at the low wildfire risk level, and prevents them 

from growing into a condition that would put them at a higher wildfire risk 

level. The agencies have been reducing fuels in the Southeast this way for 

decades. In contrast, fuels reduction in most of the West has increased 

significantly since the beginning of the National Fire Plan in 2001. With 

these increased efforts—and needs— in other parts of the country, the 

agencies must now determine whether maintenance efforts in the 

Southeast should have the same priority as fuels reduction efforts 

elsewhere, and if so, assess the total amount and location of lands in need 

of maintenance treatments nationwide. 

Local Land Units 

Prioritize Projects 

Using a Variety of 

Methods Because of a 

Lack of Specific 

National Guidance

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

categories identified by the Forest Service and Interior as needing fuels 

reduction. In large part, local units use different methods because the 

Forest Service and Interior give them wide latitude to do so through broad 

national guidance. Prioritization decisions are particularly significant given 

that the three categories of land identified by the agencies—land with 

excess fuels buildup, land in the wildland-urban interface, and land that 

requires maintenance to prevent excess fuels buildup—could collectively 

include nearly all federal land. Nevertheless, prioritization decisions are 

deferred to the local level because there is not sufficient data at the 

national level to guide prioritization decisions. 
Page 19 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

At the national level, the Forest Service and Interior are directed to allocate 

fuels reduction funding to regional and state offices that have the greatest 

fire management workload, risk to communities, and fuels buildup. 

However, given the lack of consistent nationwide data on risk to 

communities and fuels buildup, it is difficult for the agencies to allocate 

funding according to these criteria. In practice, funding allocations are 

primarily influenced by historical workload and funding levels, and 

proportional allocations tend to be similar from year to year. Consequently, 

it is left to the local land units to identify the highest priority locations for 

fuels reduction treatments.

The national guidance in the draft cohesive strategy sets out a long list of 

criteria to be considered by local units in prioritizing projects, including 

selecting projects that protect wildlife habitat, contracting for work outside 

of federal agencies, and offsetting costs through the sale of firewood. 

Furthermore, the guidance also offers local officials the discretion to make 

exceptions to the national criteria. The result is that nearly any method of 

project selection—and nearly any project—is allowable. As shown in figure 

6, we grouped the various prioritization methods used by the local land 

units that we visited into three general types: (1) professional judgment and 

staff discussions, (2) scoring systems, and (3) schedules of recurring 

treatments. In addition to these three methods, local units consider a wide 

variety of criteria when prioritizing projects; and as discussed below, even 

units that use the same method may not emphasize the same criteria in 

prioritization decisions. A complete record of the methods used and the 

criteria considered at all 17 units is shown in figure 16, in appendix IV.
Page 20 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

The most common method used by the local units we visited to prioritize 

projects for 2002 is professional judgment or staff discussions. Specifically, 

under this method, agency officials make decisions either individually or in 

groups through discussions among staff members, but they do not assign 

numeric scores to potential projects or use a quantitative process. In some 

cases, however, they consider scientific data and other systematically 

documented criteria, while in other cases, the process is informal and 

undocumented. For example, at BLM’s San Juan Field Office in Colorado, 

the fuels manager identifies and prioritizes projects based on his 

knowledge of fuels buildup, location of nearby communities, and 

accessibility to the project area. He also consults with county fire chiefs 

and reviews community fire plans to identify additional projects, and he 

aims to distribute projects evenly across various counties. He does not, 

however, refer to scientific data, or follow a formal process of ranking 

potential projects. At the Klamath National Forest in northern California, 

the staff rely on informal discussions to prioritize projects, in part, because 

they do not have accurate, recent data to use in assessing vegetative type or 

condition and scoring projects. According to an agency official, the most 

recent vegetation data for this forest were collected during the 1970s. In 

contrast, at the Deschutes and the Ochoco National Forests in Oregon staff 

discussions to determine prioritization are guided by a documented list of 

prioritization criteria. They consider local data on type of vegetation, 
Page 21 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

amount of fuels buildup, and predicted fire behavior, as well as other 

criteriaincluding but not limited to the number of acres the potential 

project will cover and whether the project is (1) coordinated with other 

agencies, (2) will benefit other resources, (3) will cost less than $50 per 

acre, and (4) has completed planning documents. Agency officials at these 

forests said they want to retain the subjective quality of the process and 

have therefore not put the criteria in order or developed a numeric scoring 

system.

Among local units that prioritize projects through professional judgment or 

staff discussions, there is considerable diversity in the extent to which they 

involve nearby communities. For example, at the San Juan National Forest 

in southwestern Colorado, agency officials rely on a list of potential 

projects identified in local community planning documents to initially 

select all mechanical fuels reduction projects. Forest Service officials then 

conduct on-the-ground surveys to verify that the projects are feasible and 

suitable. Typically, however, they do not consult additional data on 

vegetative type and condition, fire history, or other characteristics. Instead, 

they choose to give priority to community preferences. Most other local 

land units we visited do not emphasize community involvement in the 

project prioritization process to this extent; but some consider community 

acceptance as one of several factors when selecting projects. For example, 

at the Stanislaus National Forest in California, projects are given higher 

priority when adjacent landowners are willing to coordinate 

implementation of fuels reduction projects and given lower priority when 

agency officials believe it is likely that informal resistance or formal legal 

challenges from the community will impede the project. 

Some local units we visited use a scoring system to prioritize projects. For 

example, at the Los Padres National Forest in California, agency officials 

have developed a detailed scheme for assigning points to potential projects 

based on a set of weighted criteria. Each project is assigned points for, 

among other factors, type and age of vegetation proximity to recent fires 

and proximity to communities. Managers refer to detailed Geographic 

Information System maps with data on vegetation type and age, and 

locations of historical fires to determine the number of points to assign. 

Once potential projects have been assigned points, they are ranked; and 

those with the most points are selected for implementation. 

Some local units in the Southeast rely on schedules of recurring treatments 

to select projects for maintenance treatments. Under such a schedule, each 

year fuels reduction projects are implemented in areas where more time 
Page 22 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

has elapsed since the last treatment because these areas generally have the 

greatest fuels buildup. For example, at the Bienville National Forest in 

Mississippi, agency officials schedule prescribed burns on each parcel of 

land in the forest every 3 to 5 years. To schedule specific parcels for 

treatment, agency officials rely on two primary resources. First, they use a 

prescribed burn atlas, in which local officials have documented the 

location of every prescribed burn completed each year. Second, agency 

officials also record the locations of wildfires because fuels reduction may 

be unnecessary in areas where wildfires have recently occurred. 

In addition to the variation among local units in the methods used and 

criteria considered for prioritizing projects, there is variation in how they 

apply the criteria. For example, all of the local land units that we visited 

attempt to give priority to projects in the wildland-urban interface, but they 

do so to varying degrees. Specifically, some units implement only projects 

that are in the interface, others complete projects both inside and outside 

of the interface; and two units that we visited did not implement any 

projects in the interface in 2002, but planned to do so in 2003. Further, 

because there is no specific national definition of wildland-urban interface 

and states have not yet developed their own definitions, it is left to local 

units to define it; and they do so differently. For example, the Apalachicola 

National Forest in Florida defines wildland-urban interface to include all 

land within 5 miles of a populated area, while several units include land 

within 1.5 miles of a populated area; and some units do not use a uniform 

definition, instead relying on case-by-case determinations. At the White 

River National Forest near Vail, Colorado, much of the wildland-urban 

interface is in areas where the views are critical to the economic health of 

the resort town according to an agency official. Consequently, land 

managers use an expansive definition of wildland-urban interface that 

includes land that is part of the view from the town, as well as the 

populated areas. BLM’s Surprise Field Office in rural California classifies 

scattered ranches as wildland-urban interface. Also, some local units 

consider land around features such as municipal watersheds or power lines 

to be wildland-urban interface, while others include only land surrounding 

residential and commercial buildings. 

Although we did not find that local units had implemented projects that 

were unimportant according to agency guidance, this guidance is so broad 

that nearly any project could be considered a priority. In addition, as more 

projects are completed, there will be fewer priority projects left in some 

localities, and it will become increasingly difficult to ensure that fuels 

reduction efforts are focused in areas that are a priority nationwide. To 
Page 23 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

provide such assurance, in the future the agencies may need to redistribute 

funding according to where the highest concentrations of priority projects 

are located nationwide. However, without more specific national guidance 

on systematically prioritizing projects, and more consistent application of 

the guidance at local units, nearly any project may continue to qualify as a 

priority. In this context, it is difficult for the Forest Service and Interior to 

ensure that the highest priority projects nationwide are being implemented. 

Fuels Reduction 

Efforts Hindered by a 

Number of Factors

Several factors have hindered local land units in completing their annual 

fuels reduction workloads. As shown in figure 7, weather was the 

predominant factor in preventing fuels reduction projects from being 

implemented at the 17 local land units we visited, according to agency 

officials. This factor was followed by diversion of resources from fuels 

reduction efforts to fire suppression, then by other factors related to 

planning and funding issues. (See app. III for additional details.) In 2002, 

largely as a result of these factors, the agencies treated only about 2.3 

million acres, or 56 percent of the approximately 4 million acres they were 

ready to treat. Given these factors, some local officials were uncertain 

whether increased funding would result in a proportional increase in acres 

treated under the fuels reduction program.

Figure 7: Reasons Why Fuels Reduction Treatments Were Not Implemented by 17 

Local Units, FY 2002
Page 24 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Weather Was the Most 

Prominent Factor Hindering 

Fuels Reduction Program 

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

weather was the most prominent factor that hindered the implementation 

of fuels reduction projects in 2002, which accounted for over 40 percent of 

all fuels reduction project delays at these units. For example, of the 10,259 

acres planned for treatment in 2002 at the San Juan National Forest in 

Colorado, 6,757 acres, or 66 percent were not treated because of severe 

drought conditions. In addition, of the 2,248 acres planned for treatment at 

the BLM Alturas Field Office in California, consisting of primarily 

rangelands and juniper trees, 1,195 acres, or 53 percent, were not treated 

because of a variety of weather-related factors. According to local land unit 

officials, very specific weather conditions are required for every prescribed 

burn, which often leaves a small window of opportunity to complete fuels 

reduction treatments. The officials explained that it is dangerous to ignite 

prescribed burns under high temperatures, drought conditions, high winds, 

or unfavorable wind directions, because these conditions can cause a 

prescribed fire to spread out of control or emit excessive smoke over 

nearby urban areas and thoroughfares. It can also be dangerous to thin 

vegetation using mechanical means during drought conditions because 

many of the machines used for thinning can cause sparks that officials fear 

could ignite excessively dry vegetation. On the other hand, it can be 

difficult to ignite prescribed burns if the vegetation is too wet, which makes 

treatments difficult to complete in the fall and winter months in some 

areas. For these reasons, the number of days per year when the weather 

will allow local units to administer fuels reduction treatments can be quite 

small. For example, in 2002, officials at the Osceola National Forest in 

Florida said that because of weather-related factors they had about 60 days 

to conduct fuels reduction treatments. As a result, out of the 47,000 acres 

planned for treatment in 2002 at the Osceola National Forest, 34,000 acres, 

or 72 percent, were not treated because a prescribed burn within the 

forest’s swamplands during drought conditions could have emitted heavy 

smoke onto a major interstate. If acres are not treated within a specific 

window of opportunity, their treatments are generally delayed until the 

next fiscal year or later. 

Fuels Reduction Was 

Hindered by Diversion of 

Resources to Fire 

Suppression 

Another factor that hindered the agencies’ completion of fuels reduction 

projects in 2002 was the diversion of agency resources—funding and 

staff—from fuels reduction to fire suppression during the severe fire 
Page 25 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

season.9 This factor accounted for 30 percent of all project delays at the 

local units we visited. In 2002, the nation endured the second most severe 

fire season in half a century. In all, wildland fires burned 6.9 million acres, 

far above the 10-year annual average of 4.2 million acres; Colorado, 

Arizona, and Oregon recorded their largest timber fires in the last century. 

In fact, in the last 10-year period (1993-2002) the number of years with 

severe fire seasons has been extremely high, as shown in figure 8. Over this 

period, the number of federal acres burned by wildfires has steadily 

increased.

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

Because suppression costs are budgeted based on the 10-year average of 

actual suppression costs and have not been fully funded in recent years, the 

9

In 2002, the fire season was particularly severe. Agencies may not experience the same 

resource diversions in years when the fire season is less severe. However, recent history 

suggests that agencies will continue to face severe fire seasons in the future. (See fig. 8.) 
Page 26 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Forest Service and Interior have, in some cases, diverted funds from the 

fuels reduction program to cover the costs of fire suppression. According 

to Forest Service regional officials, although the fuels reduction program 

generally gets reimbursed the next fiscal year, the uncertainty and the 

timing of the reimbursement makes planning projects difficult, especially 

given the sometimes small window of opportunity for conducting 

treatments. As such, diverting funds from fuels reduction can delay fuels 

reduction projects. For example, in 2002, the Klamath National Forest in 

California shifted about 22 percent of its approximately $570,000 fuels 

reduction budget to support national fire suppression efforts. As a result, 

the forest was unable to treat over 500 acres or about 15 percent of its 

annual target.

In addition to funds, staff were also diverted from the fuels reduction 

program to fire suppression. In some cases, fuels reduction staff were 

deployed locally or nationally to fight wildfires. In other cases, local units 

had the staff available to complete the fuels reduction work but were 

prevented from doing so because of national fire fighting preparedness 

restrictions put into place by the Forest Service and Interior. These 

restrictions, dictated by burning conditions, fire activity, and resource 

availability, limit or cancel fuels reduction work to ensure that the 

necessary personnel are prepared and immediately available for local or 

national fire suppression duties. During 2002, the national preparedness 

restrictions rose to the highest level possible, 5 weeks earlier than ever 

before; and they remained at that level for a record-setting 62 days. 

According to local officials, at the highest preparedness level, the Forest 

Service and Interior generally cancel all fuels reduction work across the 

country, no matter what the local weather conditions are or the number of 

staff on hand to do the work. As a result, some local units were not able to 

complete their 2002 fuels reduction workloads. For example, the BLM 

Prineville District in Oregon, which primarily consists of juniper trees and 

rangelands, was unable to treat over 3,500 acres because of the national 

restrictions. Staffing obligations for fire suppression even affected the fuels 

reduction efforts of the local units in the Southeast. For example, out of the 

145,208 acres scheduled for treatment in 2002 at the Apalachicola National 

Forest in Florida, 31,518 acres, or 22 percent were not treated owing, in 

part, to the national fire restrictions. In addition, nearly 20 percent of the 

54,634 acres planned at the Bienville National Forest in Mississippi were 

not treated because local staff were deployed to fight western wildfires. If 

the trend illustrated in figure 8 continues, more instances of funds and staff 

being diverted to fire suppression could take place in the future. 
Page 27 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Agency Officials Cited 

Additional Factors That 

Affected Fuels Reduction 

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

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

reduction program. These factors included such things as public resistance 

to fuels reduction projects, administrative work to fulfill regulatory 

requirements, and the uncertainty of annual funding. Citizens may 

generally challenge a local unit’s decision to proceed with a fuels reduction 

project. This allows greater citizen involvement in the fuels reduction 

program. While the issue of formal public resistance, such as appeals and 

litigation, has recently been contentious, only a few local land unit officials 

we visited indicated that this type of resistance had delayed particular fuels 

reduction treatments. Local unit officials noted that more informal 

methods of public resistance to fuels reduction have prevented them from 

completing treatments and can even dissuade them from planning projects 

in some areas. For example, agency officials from a national forest in 

Oregon told us that they terminated a prescribed burning project that was 

in progress because they received numerous complaints from local 

residents about the smoke. Since that incident, officials have been hesitant 

to initiate prescribed burns in the area, they said. Other local unit officials 

stated that, because of the possibility of public resistance over fuels 

reduction work and the necessity to comply with regulatory requirements, 

their staff has to spend more time researching and analyzing the possible 

impacts of fuels reduction treatments. For example, according to officials 

at the Los Padres National Forest in California, many of their projects are 

delayed for months while waiting for the mandatory external consultations 

to comply with the Endangered Species Act. In another example, a recent 

Forest Service report noted that to avert legal challenges at the Santa Fe 

watershed project, Forest Service officials spent almost 5 years and $1 

million on planning and public involvement.10

Another factor that affects fuels reduction projects at the local level is the 

uncertainty of annual funding. Some local officials stated that it is difficult 

to plan projects, especially multiyear projects, without consistent and 

sustained funding over a period of years. Officials also said that the timing 

of the budget cycle makes planning difficult because the annual budget 

process and fuels reduction planning cycle often overlap with the fire 

season. According to one local unit, officials often do not know how much 

funding they will receive until April—well past the fall and winter months, 

10U.S. Forest Service, The Process Predicament: How Statutory, Regulatory and 

Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management, (Washington, D.C.; June 

2002).
Page 28 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

which are ideal for planning. Other officials explained that it is difficult to 

hire people, identify targets, and write contracts when they do not know 

the amount of funding they will receive. Because of this uncertainty, 

officials pointed out, it is often necessary to fund fuels reduction projects 

piece by piece. When projects are funded piecemeal and the following 

years’ funding is not guaranteed, projects may remain incomplete for 

several years. Under these circumstances, costly and time-consuming 

regulatory paperwork may have to be redone, because much of the 

necessary environmental analysis needs to be updated after 3 to 5 years. In 

addition, projects that are only partially complete can leave areas more 

susceptible to wildfire risk than they were before their initial treatments 

because vegetation that is cut but left on the ground or stacked in piles 

creates a dry, dense concentration of fuels that can be highly flammable. 

While local units were generally more concerned about the timing of the 

budget cycle, officials at five of the local land units we visited indicated 

that inadequate funding itself was a factor that hindered the 

implementation of fuels reduction treatments. The most notable example 

was the Los Padres National Forest, where officials claimed that they were 

not able to complete over 44,000 acres, or approximately 96 percent, of 

their fuels reduction workload in part because of limited funding. In 

addition to these factors, local officials also mentioned staffing and 

contractor shortages as sometimes limiting their ability to plan and 

implement fuels reduction projects.

The Forest Service and Interior acknowledge these factors that hinder the 

fuels reduction program, and some local land units have made efforts to 

address them. 

• The BLM San Juan District in Colorado and other local land units 

sponsor public education programs and citizen meetings to help curb 

public resistance to fuels reduction work. 

• Officials at the Bienville National Forest in Mississippi said they 

regularly have more acres ready for treatment than they expect to treat, 

as part of their annual workload. This gives them the flexibility to treat 

other acres if adverse factors prevent them from treating the acres 

originally scheduled. 

• Officials at the Osceola National Forest in Florida said that they borrow 

resources from other local area forests and adjust workforce schedules 

to take advantage of ideal weather conditions. 
Page 29 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

• To help streamline the planning process, officials at the Klamath 

National Forest in California prepare a “programmatic biological 

assessment” which can accommodate the necessary regulatory 

compliance paperwork for several fuels reduction projects. 

While these efforts are encouraging, some factors hindering the fuels 

reduction program, such as the weather, are beyond human control; and it 

is uncertain whether increased funding would result in a proportional 

increase in acres treated under the fuels reduction program.

Agencies Recognize 

Need to Better 

Measure the Effect of 

Fuels Reduction 

Treatments, but Annual 

Reporting Practices 

Need Improvement

The Forest Service and Interior currently measure the performance of the 

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

Assessing the performance of the fuels reduction program by counting the 

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

provide information on how or if the level of risk to catastrophic wildfire 

has been reduced. To address this weakness, the Forest Service and 

Interior are currently developing results-oriented performance measures to 

better assess the effects of fuels reduction treatments. The new 

performance measures are intended to assess how well the treatments are 

reducing the risk of wildfire by counting the number of acres where the 

vegetative condition of the land has been converted to a lower level of 

wildfire risk. However, because the Forest Service and Interior do not 

currently have detailed nationwide baseline data on wildfire risk and 

vegetative condition, the assessment of risk level is generally left up to the 

judgment of local land officials. As such, it will be difficult to ensure that 

any change in wildfire risk as reported in annual performance reports is 

consistent and accurate. 

The current method of reporting annual performance under the fuels 

reduction program is resulting in misleading data on what is actually being 

accomplished. For example, reporting on the total number of acres actually 

treated during the year provides an inaccurate assessment on what is being 

accomplished to reduce the overall risk of catastrophic wildfire because 

maintenance acres are being reported together with other acres that are 

treated primarily to reduce the level of wildfire risk. Maintenance acres, 

currently located primarily in the Southeast, receive regular and frequent 

treatments to control their rapid vegetation growth and maintain them at a 

low risk to wildfire. According to agency officials, failure to regularly treat 

these acres could quickly result in a higher risk to catastrophic wildfire. All 

four local land units we visited in the Southeast treat the same acres at 

each of their units about every 3 to 5 years to keep the vegetation from 
Page 30 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

growing and maintain them at a low level of wildfire risk. While the 

treatment of these types of acres is important to maintain a low risk of 

wildfire, reporting the treatment of these acres annually together with 

nonmaintenance acres—those acres treated primarily to reduce the overall 

risk of catastrophic wildfire—in annual performance reports is misleading 

the Congress and the public over exactly what the agencies are 

accomplishing with the fuels reduction program. 

For example, if the Forest Service and Interior were to treat a total of 2 

million acres per year for the next 10 years, of which 1 million acres per 

year were maintenance acres, and the other 1 million acres per year were 

treated to reduce the level of wildfire risk, the performance reports as 

currently structured would indicate that the agencies had treated 20 million 

acres toward the total number of acres nationwide that are at risk to 

wildfire. However, this assessment would be incorrect in two ways. First, 

the 1 million maintenance acres treated and reported were most likely 

treated 2 to 3 times, thus reported 2 to 3 times during the 10-year period, 

making the number of new acres actually treated one third or one half of 

the 20 million reported. Second, because maintenance acres will continue 

to require additional treatments beyond the 10-year period, it is misleading 

to link these treatments to any long-term progress in further reducing the 

total lands at risk to wildfire. This reporting practice can be especially 

misleading under the fuels reduction program because of the large 

proportion of maintenance acres treated each year, compared with the 

other acres treated. For example, as shown in figure 9, for the 3-year period 

for which the agencies have been counting the number of acres treated for 

fuels reduction under the National Fire Plan (2001-2003), between 40 to 50 

percent of the total acres treated, or were planned to be treated, each year 

have been maintenance acres in the Southeast. 
Page 31 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Figure 9: Percentage of Acres Treated or Planned for Treatment in the Southeast by 

the Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001-2003

Furthermore, as the fuels reduction program progresses in the future and 

an increasing amount of acres are reduced to a low level of catastrophic 

wildfire risk, treatments to maintain these acres may become an even 

greater proportion of the agencies’ annual fuels reduction nationwide 

workload. For example, the BLM Medford District in Oregon stated that 

most of their lands would require maintenance treatments in 7 or 8 years. 

As a result, because maintenance acres are counted together with 

nonmaintenance acres, it will continue to be difficult to accurately assess 

how annual fuels reduction accomplishments are reducing the total 

number of acres at risk to wildfire over time.

Also under the current reporting system, the way acres are reported when 

multiple treatments are necessary to reduce the risk of wildfire is also 

resulting in misleading data on what is actually being accomplished for that 

year. By reporting multiple treatments on the same acres as separate 

accomplishments, the agencies are creating the impression that more acres 
Page 32 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

are receiving treatments than what is actually occurring. Specifically, not 

all of the acres reported as treated in annual performance reports reflect 

“new” accomplishments—some of the same acres may have been reported 

as treated in the previous fiscal year. For example, on one national forest in 

Oregon, 13,000 acres were treated in 2002 and reported as 

accomplishments. However, about 5,600 acres of the 13,000 acres, or 43 

percent, were also treated in 2001 and reported as accomplishments in 

2001. As such, only about 7,400 “new” acres were actually treated in fiscal 

year 2002. In addition, over 500 of the 5,600 acres treated in 2001 were also 

treated and reported a third time in 2002. While reporting acres in this 

manner is an appropriate workload measure, it is nonetheless difficult to 

assess the progress of the fuels reduction program beyond a single fiscal 

year if some of the same acres are reported year after year in annual 

performance reports. 

Conclusions The Forest Service and Interior are working collaboratively to reduce the 

buildup of underbrush and other vegetative fuels that has accumulated to 

dangerous levels over the past several decades. Because this task is an 

enormous undertaking, it will be nearly impossible for the agencies to treat 

all of this land. Instead, they must first treat the areas where the threat of 

wildfire presents the greatest risk. As such, the agencies will have to make 

difficult decisions about which locations should be treated first, and 

allocate funding accordingly. Before the Forest Service and Interior can 

accurately identify which lands need fuels reduction, they will have to 

collect detailed data on lands with excess fuels buildup. Recognizing this 

need, they are considering funding the LANDFIRE project as well as an 

interim rapid assessment to collect these data. However, given that the 

rapid assessment is unlikely to provide results that are as accurate and 

consistent nationwide as those from LANDFIRE, we believe the agencies 

should concentrate their efforts on LANDFIRE. In addition, the agencies 

will have to define which lands are part of the wildland-urban interface and 

determine whether lands that require regular maintenance are as important 

to treat as other lands. Without doing so, they will be constrained in their 

ability to prioritize locations for fuels reduction treatments and allocate 

funding accordingly. In the future, as more projects are completed, it will 

be increasingly important to ensure that high-risk areas are identified 

systematically so the agencies can identify the highest priority locations 

nationwide and allocate funding accordingly. Also, because fuels reduction 

will require a long-term sustained effort, it will be essential to report 

accurate data concerning what is actually being accomplished so that the 

progress made each year through these efforts may be monitored. To this 
Page 33 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

end, the agencies need to report accomplishments so that the number of 

acres on which the level of wildfire risk is reduced in a given year can be 

distinguished from other acres on which fuels reduction work was 

accomplished.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

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

treated, and provide the Congress and the relevant agencies with better 

information for making fuels reduction funding decisions, we recommend 

that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior direct the agencies to 

• fund and implement LANDFIRE so they can more accurately identify 

the amount and location of lands with excess fuels buildup and facilitate 

the prioritization of fuels reduction treatments;

• develop a consistent, specific definition of the wildland-urban interface 

so that detailed, comparable nationwide data can be collected to 

identify the amount and location of lands in the wildland-urban interface 

which will facilitate the prioritization of fuels reduction treatments; 

• decide whether lands that require regular maintenance treatments are 

an important area needing continuous fuels reduction treatments and, if 

so, identify the amount and location of these lands nationwide to 

facilitate the prioritization of fuels reduction treatments; and 

• distinguish in annual performance reports (1) acres that are treated to 

reduce the level of risk of wildfire from high or moderate to low; (2) 

acres that require multiple treatments over several years to reduce their 

risk of wildfire; and (3) acres being treated to maintain their low risk to 

wildfire, to more accurately reflect the actual progress being made 

under the fuels reduction program. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

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

the Interior for review and comment. The departments provided a 

consolidated, written response to our report, which is included in appendix 

V of this report. The departments stated that the report aptly described the 

nature of the fuels problem on public lands in both its scope and severity. 

The departments agreed that prioritization is essential to program 

effectiveness and acknowledged that it may be possible to create broad 

categories of high, medium, and low priority for fuel treatments. They 
Page 34 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

further indicated that they are nearing a decision on whether to fund and 

implement LANDFIRE. Regarding our recommendation that they decide 

whether lands requiring regular maintenance are an important part of the 

fuels reduction program, the departments said they had decided that these 

lands are an integral part of the program. However, they expressed 

concerns related to our recommendations that they develop a specific 

definition of the wildland-urban interface and that they distinguish among 

categories of fuels treatments when reporting accomplishments. 

The departments commented that it has been difficult to reach consensus 

on a specific definition of the wildland-urban interface and they believe 

that (1) landscape differences preclude the application of a single 

geographic definition and (2) a too-detailed definition would compromise 

the effectiveness of local collaboration and community participation in this 

process. We recognize that reaching consensus on a specific definition is 

difficult. We are not advocating an inflexible geographic definition such as 

one based on a uniform radius around communities. On the contrary, we 

agree that landscape differences should be considered when defining the 

wildland-urban interface. We do, however, believe that a more specific 

definition than currently exists is needed to provide greater consistency 

among local units when selecting projects in the wildland-urban interface; 

and we believe that such a definition could be compatible with landscape 

differences. We also continue to believe that without narrowing the 

definition of what constitutes wildland-urban interface, a wide variety and 

large quantity of land will continue to fit within the broad definition; and it 

will be difficult for the departments to identify the highest priority areas for 

fuels reduction nationwide. 

In commenting on our recommendation that the agencies distinguish 

among the types of acres treated in annual performance reports for the 

fuels reduction program, the departments expressed concerns that our 

report apparently assumes maintenance treatments and the first of multiple 

treatments on the same acreage do not lower fire risk. We agree that 

maintenance treatments do lower fire risk, but as noted in the report, we 

believe that without separately reporting these treatments, it will be 

difficult to accurately measure the progress that fuels reduction treatments 

are having in reducing the total number of acres at the highest level of risk 

to wildfire. To clarify this point, we have changed our recommendation to 

more specifically focus on distinguishing treatments done in high or 

moderate risk areas from treatments done in low-risk areas.
Page 35 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands 

and Forests, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Resources; 

the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 

Health, House Committee on Resources; and other interested 

congressional committees. We will also send copies of this report to the 

Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of the Interior; the Chief of the 

Forest Service; the Directors of BLM, the National Park Service, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service; the Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other 

interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in app. VI.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 36 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To assess the Forest Service’s and the Department of the Interior’s 

(Interior) efforts to determine which federal lands require fuels reduction 

treatments, we obtained interagency strategy and planning documents that 

described the mission of the fuels reduction program and an approach for 

achieving that mission. We interviewed department and agency officials in 

national, regional, and state offices, as well as at local land units. We 

obtained scientific studies about nationwide fuels buildup in forests and 

other vegetated areas from the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the 

Washington Office of Fire and Aviation Management, and we interviewed 

some of the authors. We reviewed a Forest Service proposal for a rapid 

assessment that will collect data on nationwide fuels buildup in the nearterm and interviewed officials about LANDFIRE, a long-term plan to collect 

more detailed data on nationwide fuels buildup. We also interviewed 

regional and local unit officials from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Park Service, as well as officials representing 

state departments of forestry, nonprofit organizations, and research 

institutions.

To determine how local land units within the Forest Service and Interior 

prioritize land for fuels reduction treatments, we obtained interagency 

strategy documents and memorandums describing prioritization criteria 

and process requirements. We also obtained guidance from regional, state, 

and local offices where available. We interviewed Forest Service and BLM 

officials representing state and regional offices. We visited Forest Service 

and BLM fire and fuels specialists representing 11 national forests and 6 

BLM field offices located in California, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and 

Oregon. (See table 1.) We selected these two agencies because they 

received the largest funding allocations for fuels reduction and treated the 

most acres. We selected these states because they received the largest 

funding allocations and treated the most acres under the fuels reduction 

program. We included states in the Southeast as well as in the West to 

ensure that diverse vegetation, climate, and treatment strategies were 

represented. Through consultation with regional and state agency officials 

we selected local land units to visit that received the largest funding 

allocations, treated the most acres, and represented diversity, with respect 

to predominant vegetative type, treatment strategies used, and proximity to 

communities and urban development. In addition, we verified that some of 

the units we selected had faced challenges that prevented them from 

completing all of the fuels reduction projects they had planned to 

implement in 2002. Finally, we considered cost-effective logistics and travel 

for our staff in selecting the 17 local land units to visit. At each local land 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

unit, we collected fiscal year 2002 and 2003 data about implemented and 

planned fuels reduction projects; and in some cases, we observed field 

locations where projects were proposed, had begun implementation, or 

had been completed. While the results of our visits cannot be projected 

nationwide, the locations represent a mix of local fuels reduction efforts 

based on geographic diversity and level of funding. 

Table 1: Local Land Units Visited by GAO

Source: GAO.

To identify factors that have hindered recent fuels reduction efforts, we 

interviewed Forest Service and Interior officials in headquarters, regional, 

and state offices, and collected data about the percentage of federal land 

ready for fuels reduction treatments in 2002 that was treated. We 

interviewed agency officials from the 17 Forest Service and BLM local land 

units we visited and collected information about fuels reduction treatments 

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

Agency and local land unit State

Forest Service

Apalachicola National Forest Florida

Bienville National Forest Mississippi

Deschutes National Forest Oregon 

DeSoto National Forest Mississippi

Klamath National Forest California

Los Padres National Forest California

Ochoco National Forest Oregon

Osceola National Forest Florida

San Juan National Forest Colorado

Stanislaus National Forest California

White River National Forest Colorado

BLM

Alturas Field Office California

Grand Junction Resource Area Colorado

Medford District, Ashland Resource Area Oregon

Prineville District Oregon

San Juan Field Office Colorado

Surprise Field Office California
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

fiscal year 2003. Specifically, for each treatment, officials provided the 

number of acres covered, whether the treatment was in the wildland-urban 

interface, the type of treatment used (e.g., prescribed burn or mechanical 

treatment), whether the same area had been treated the previous year, 

whether the treatment was completed as scheduled, and if not, the reasons 

why the treatment was not completed. 

To assess how the Forest Service and Interior measure progress under the 

fuels reduction program, we reviewed interagency strategy and planning 

documents that specified performance measures for the fuels reduction 

program. We also collected nationwide accomplishment data for the fuels 

reduction program in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 from the Forest Service, 

BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park 

Service, and analyzed the data to detect patterns across fuels reduction 

projects. These data were obtained from annual performance reports from 

the Forest Service and Interior for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that 

summarized annual performance and provided quantitative data about 

fuels reduction accomplishments and program costs nationwide. In 

addition, we received planned accomplishment and projected cost data for 

fiscal year 2003 directly from the agencies. We also reviewed the agency 

files we received to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data 

required for our assessment. Finally, we interviewed agency officials in 

headquarters, in the National Interagency Fire Center, and at local units to 

obtain information about reporting systems and databases currently in use 

and those planned for future use. 

We conducted our work from June 2002 through May 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 39 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix II

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003 ApendxiI

The following tables summarize the hazardous fuels reduction 

accomplishments of the Forest Service and Interior for fiscal years 2001 

and 2002 and planned accomplishments for 2003. The 2001 and 2002 tables 

summarize the number of acres treated and total obligated costs for lands 

both in and outside of the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The 2003 table 

summarizes the number of acres the agencies plan to treat and the 

projected costs of those treatments. Except where noted, the information 

was taken from the annual National Fire Plan performance reports and was 

further analyzed by GAO. 

Table 2: Summary of FY 2001 Goals and Accomplishments

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Notes: Totals do not include 197,148 acres of Wildland Fire Use including 37,992 acres for Forest 

Service and 159,156 acres for Interior. Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited 

wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives.

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

Agency

Acre 

targets

Treated 

acres

Percentage 

treated of 

planned 

acres Total costs

WUI 

acres WUI costs

NonWUI 

acres

Non-WUI 

costs

NonWUI 

cost/

acre

WUI 

cost/

acre

Forest 

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

Bureau of 

Land 

Management unavailable 313,978 58,784,000 98,590 40,823,000 215,388 17,961,000 83 414 

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs unavailable 74,010 25,544,000 8,415 18,212,000 65,595 7,332,000 112 2,164 

National Park 

Service unavailable 97,691 12,204,000 2,843 1,640,000 94,848 10,564,000 111 577 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

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

Department 

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

Total for FS 

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

Averages for 

FS and 

Interior 1,600,000 410,363 63% 52,053,600 155,178 31,487,400 255,186 20,566,200 81 203 
Appendix II

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 40 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

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

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 41 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Table 3: Summary of FY 2002 Goals and Accomplishments

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Notes: Planned acres refer to the total amount of land that the agency would like to treat in the fiscal 

year. These acres do not refer to formal targets or goals, and agencies do not use them for 

accountability purposes. Formal targets are established when the agencies receive their final 

appropriations and are further adjusted as additional challenges arise.

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

In addition to above accomplishments, 1,024,846 acres (59,385 for Forest Service and 965,441 for 

Interior) were "treated" through Wildland Fire Use. Also, an additional 458,456 acres were treated 

through the Forest Service’s Forest Health Program. The total for all of these acres is 1,483,300.

Agency

Planned 

acres

Treated

acres

Percentage 

treated of 

planned 

acres Total costs

WUI 

acres WUI costs

Non-WUI 

acres

Non-WUI 

costs

NonWUI 

costs/

acre

WUI 

cost/

acre

Forest 

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

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 862,321 321,087 37% 80,850,000 118,275 54,979,000 202,812 25,871,000 128 465

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 246,634 120,761 49% 25,731,000 24,501 14,911,000 96,260 10,820,000 112 609

National Park 

Service 212,166 163,511 77% 27,485,000 15,030 10,559,000 148,481 16,926,000 114 703

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 578,694 453,605 78% 25,314,000 51,514 10,210,000 402,091 15,104,000 38 198

Department of 

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

Total for FS 

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

Averages for 

FS and 

Interior 800,210 451,496 60% 57,351,800 194,737 32,836,600 256,759 24,515,200 95 169
Appendix II

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 42 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

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

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 43 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Table 4: Summary of FY 2003 Planned Accomplishments

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Notes: Planned acres refer to the total amount of land that the agency would like to treat in the fiscal 

year. These acres do not refer to formal targets or goals, and the agencies do not use them for 

accountability purposes. Formal targets are established when the agencies receive their final 

appropriations and are further adjusted as additional challenges arise. 

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

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

Agency 

Planned 

acres Total costs 

WUI 

acres WUI costs 

Non-WUI 

acres 

Non-WUI 

costs

Non-WUI 

cost/acre

WUI 

cost/acre

Forest Service 1,944,453 $205,008,413 1,047,200 $104,575,084 897,253 $100,433,328 $112 $100

Bureau of Land 

Management 415,861 65,185,014 153,292 37,601,168 262,569 27,583,846 105 245

Bureau of Indian Affairs 188,114 16,416,775 14,425 8,446,191 155,170 7,970,584 51 586

National Park Service 131,010 8,779,231 18,935 5,154,304 112,075 3,624,927 32 272

Fish and Wildlife Service 325,440 15,851,449 99,541 10,387,148 225,899 5,464,301 24 104 

Department of Interior 1,060,425 106,232,469 286,193 61,588,811 755,713 44,643,658 59 215

Total for FS and 

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

Averages for FS and 

Interior 600,976 62,248,176 266,679 $ 33,232,779 330,593 29,015,397 88 125
Appendix II

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments for the Forest Service and 

Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 44 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Figure 15: Fiscal Year 2003 Fuels Reduction WUI and Non-WUI Cost Distribution
Page 45 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix III

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments in the Southeast for the 

Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001-2003 ApendxiI

These tables summarize the hazardous fuels reduction accomplishments in 

the southeastern portion of the United States for the Forest Service and 

Interior for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and planned accomplishments for 

2003. The 2001 and 2002 tables summarize the number of acres treated and 

total obligated costs of the hazardous fuels program in the Southeast. The 

2003 table summarizes the number of acres the agencies plan to treat and 

the projected costs of those treatments. Except where noted, the 

information was taken from the annual National Fire Plan performance 

reports and further analyzed by GAO. To ensure consistency among 

agencies, states were selected based on their inclusion in the Forest 

Service’s Southeastern Region. 

Table 5: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2001

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Acres treated

State

Forest 

Service

National 

Park 

Service

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

Bureau of 

Land 

Management

Bureau of 

Indian 

Affairs Total Total costs Cost/acre

AL 83,232 548 $83,780 $1,710,000 $ 20

AR 55,044 2,521 1,940 59,505 3,174,000 53

FL 108,282 72,172 19,589 5 3,430 203,478 5,110,000 25

GA 25,863 2,293 28,156 933,000 33

KY 7,065 7,065 1,018,000 144

LA 116,397 8,672 125,069 2,836,000 23

MS 177,794 5,335 183,129 3,907,000 21

NC 25,702 8,962 16 34,680 1,826,000 53

OK 14,550 378 7,739 22,667 747,000 33

SC 52,676 463 7,195 60,334 2,414,000 40

TN 17,275 1,707 18,982 1,036,000 55

TX 60,426 3,854 27,029 300 91,609 3,727,000 41

VA 3,623 139 88 3,850 318,000 83

Total 747,929 81,404 81,481 5 11,485 $922,304 $28,756,000 

Averages 57,533 6,262 6,268 0 883 70,946 2,212,000 31

Percent of 

treated 

acres 55% 83% 34% 0% 16%
Appendix III

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments in the Southeast for the 

Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 46 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Table 6: Southeast Accomplishments for FY 2002

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Acres treated

State

Forest 

Service

National 

Park 

Service

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

Bureau of 

Land 

Management

Bureau of 

Indian 

Affairs Total Total costs Cost/acre

AL 64,688 863 89 $65,640 $1,085,000 $17 

AR 84,558 6,501 1,467 92,526 2,725,000 29 

FL 148,922 100,005 46,572 6,667 302,166 4,746,000 16 

GA 17,167 22 64,865 82,054 4,899,000 60 

KY 9,191 130 9,321 572,000 61 

LA 88,384 29,384 117,768 2,100,000 18 

MS 214,326 1,056 13,271 228,653 4,060,000 18 

NC 14,268 48 17,865 32,181 1,693,000 53 

OK 14,348 722 5,042 10,521 30,633 1,672,000 55 

SC 44,324 1,739 16,205 62,268 371,000 6 

TN 10,053 1,553 11,606 1,259,000 108 

TX 50,950 3,711 55,066 109,727 3,184,000 29 

VA 4,463 348 193 5,004 528,000 106 

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

Averages 58,896 8,977 19,232 1,322 88,427 2,222,615 44 

Percent of 

treated acres 62% 71% 55% 16%
Appendix III

Summary of Fuels Treatment 

Accomplishments in the Southeast for the 

Forest Service and Interior, FY 2001-2003

Page 47 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Table 7: Southeast Accomplishments Planned for FY 2003

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

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

Acres planned

State

Forest 

Service

National Park 

Service

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Bureau of Land 

Management

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs Total

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

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

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

GA 17,604 4 8,430 26,038 

KY 8,580 424 9,004 

LA 134,583 19,700 154,283

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

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

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

SC 38,550 841 14,461 53,852

TN 20,132 2,100 220 22,452

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

VA 14,387 47 317 14,751

Total 1,035,357 85,754 122,168 91 42,155 $1,285,525

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

Percent of treated 

acres

53% 65% 38% 0% 0%
Page 48 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix IV

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited by 

GAO ApendxiIV

Tables 8 through 12 and figure 16 summarize the hazardous fuels reduction 

accomplishments, reasons for incomplete treatments, and prioritization 

methods for the local Forest Service and BLM units that we visited. Table 8 

summarizes the number of acres actually treated and total obligated costs 

of the hazardous fuels program for the local units. Table 9 summarizes the 

number of acres the agencies plan to treat. Except where noted, the 

information was taken from data provided by the local units. 

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

Local land units

2002 planned 

acresa

Acres 

completed

Percentage of 

planned acres 

completed

Estimated total 

costsb

Estimated cost 

per acreb

Estimated WUI 

cost per acreb

California

Alturas BLM 2,248 653 29% $190,000 $291 $2,069 

Klamath NF 5,642 3,348 59% 539,760 161 184

Los Padres NF 46,124 6,704 15% 269,000 40 40

Stanislaus NF 11,321 4,892 43% 445,570 91 114

Surprise BLM 753 448 59% 165,178 369 440

Colorado

Grand Junction BLM 8,186 3,073 38% 150,951 49 56

San Juan BLM 2,013 1,573 78% 216,435 138 138

San Juan NF 10,259 3,113 30% 167,139 54 101

White River NF 4,470 520 12% 34,000 65

Florida

Apalachicola NF 145,208 94,661 65% 1,893,220 20 20

Osceola NF 46,935 12,960 28% 233,280 18

Mississippi

Bienville NF 54,694 43,497 80% 483,604 11 11

DeSoto NF 96,392 80,407 83% 1,179,405 15 15

Oregon

Deschutes NF 13,655 13,470 99% 2,365,562 176 281

Ashland Resource Area, 

Medford BLMc 8,888 8,113 91% 3,475,132 428 428

Ochoco NF 12,847 4,701 37% 380,443 81 98

Prineville BLMd 28,221 18,749 66% 451,963 24 35

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

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

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 49 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

a

Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed preliminary 

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

given year.

b

Because we were unable to estimate costs for a small number of fuels projects that were not fully 

completed, their costs are not included in these calculations.

c

A portion of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area’s fuels reduction work was paid for by funds 

outside of the fuels program, but all acres were reported as accomplishments under the fuels reduction 

program.

d

BLM’s Prineville District reduced fuels on 1,200 acres of Park Service land as a joint effort between 

the two agencies. These 1,200 acres and BLM costs associated with them are included here in order 

to more accurately measure accomplishments and unit costs.
Appendix IV

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 50 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

a

Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed preliminary 

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

given year. 

Local land units

2003 acres 

planneda Estimated cost

Estimated cost

per acre

Estimated WUI 

cost per acre

California

Alturas BLM 746 $200,000 $268 $268

Klamath NF 5,903 875,560 148 149

Los Padres NF 10,192 809,625 79 79

Stanislaus NF 14,134 2,767,584 196 175

Surprise BLM 540 212,000 393 947

Colorado

Grand Junction BLM 11,395 760,661 67 86

San Juan BLM 2,280 386,000 169 169

San Juan NF 16,900 2,137,200 126 163

White River NF 3,960 447,500 113 347

Florida

Apalachicola NF 155,027 3,410,594 22 22

Osceola NF 27,890 502,020 18 18

Mississippi

Bienville NF 55,370 595,529 11 11

DeSoto NF 101,656 1,524,840 15 15

Oregon

Deschutes NF 44,469 2,601,882 59 48

Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM 7,856 3,223,784 410 410

Ochoco NF 17,000 1,268,000 75 116

Prineville BLM 17,810 540,500 30 42

Total 493,128 $22,263,279 $45 $42
Appendix IV

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 51 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

a

Because we were unable to estimate costs for a small number of fuels projects that were not fully 

completed, their costs are not included in these calculations.

b

A portion of Medford District, Ashland Resource Area’s fuels reduction work was paid for by funds 

outside of the fuels program, but all acres were reported as accomplishments under the fuels reduction 

program.

c

BLM’s Prineville District reduced fuels on 1,200 acres of Park Service land as a joint effort between 

the two agencies. These 1,200 acres and BLM costs associated with them are included here in order 

to more accurately measure accomplishments and unit costs.

Prescribed burning Mechanical thinning Total

Local land units

Acres 

treated

Estimated 

average cost 

per acrea

Acres 

treated

Estimated 

average cost 

per acrea

Acres 

treated

Estimated 

average cost 

per acrea

California

Alturas BLM 460 $86 193 $780 653 $291

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

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

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

Surprise BLM 448 369 448 369

Colorado

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

San Juan BLM 1,573 138 1,573 138

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

White River NF 520 65 520 65

Florida

Apalachicola NF 94,661 20 94,661 20

Osceola NF 12,960 18 12,960 18

Mississippi

Bienville NF 43,497 11 43,497 11

DeSoto NF 80,407 15 80,407 15

Oregon

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

Ashland Resource Area, 

Medford BLMb 3,936 115 4,177 723 8,113 428

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

Prineville BLMc 14,294 17 4,455 46 18,749 24

Total 272,414 $51 28,468 $252 300,882 $119 

Percentage of treated acres 91% 9% 100%
Appendix IV

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 52 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

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

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

a

Planned acres refers to acres for which officials at local units have completed preliminary 

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

given year. 

Reasons cited for incomplete projects

Local land 

units

Projects 

planned

Projects not 

completed

Percentage 

projects not 

completed

2002 

planned 

acresa Weather

Fire 

season Funding

Administrative 

requirements

All other 

reasons

California

Alturas BLM 8 4 50% 2,248 3 1 1

Klamath NF 19 8 42% 5,642 2 2 4

Los Padres NF 15 8 53% 46,124 2 8 2

Stanislaus NF 41 19 46% 11,321 4 1 11 1 2

Surprise BLM 11 7 64% 753 3 2 1 5

Colorado

Grand 

Junction BLM 14 11 79% 8,186 4 3 1 4

San Juan BLM 7 2 29% 2,013 2

San Juan NF 16 11 69% 10,259 9 2

White River 

NF 10 9 90% 4,470 2 7

Florida

Apalachicola 

NF 117 42 36% 145,208 42 24

Osceola NF 47 35 74% 46,935 35

Mississippi

Bienville NF 29 5 17% 54,694 4 4 1

DeSoto NF 61 12 20% 96,392 11 11 1

Oregon

Deschutes NF 369 6 2% 13,655 6

Ashland 

Resource 

Area, Medford 

BLM 222 18 8% 8,888 18

Ochoco NF 23 20 87% 12,847 2 18 18 18

Prineville BLM 35 16 46% 28,221 2 4 1 3 8

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

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 53 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Note: Because several factors can delay fuels work, some local units cited more than one reason for 

incomplete fuels reduction projects. The 17 local units visited during our review cited 320 reasons to 

explain 233 incomplete projects. 

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

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service and Interior data.

Note: In 6 of the 17 local land units that we visited, some acres of land that were treated for fuels 

reduction and counted as acres accomplished during fiscal year 2001 were treated and counted again 

as acres accomplished in 2002. Treating an acre of land more than once is sometimes necessary. For 

example, some areas with hazardous fuels buildup are too dense to be treated with a prescribed burn 

because fire would possibly burn too intensely and destroy valued resources, defeating the original 

Local land units

FY 2002 acres 

completed

FY 2002 acres 

previously 

treated in 

2001

Percentage of 

FY 2002 acres 

previously 

treated in 2001

Planned FY 

2003 acres

Planned FY 

2003 acres 

previously 

treated in 2002

Percentage of 

Planned FY 

2003 acres 

previously 

treated in 2002

California

Alturas BLM 653 746

Klamath NF 3,348 5,903

Los Padres NF 6,704 82 1% 10,192

Stanislaus NF 4,892 1,264 26% 14,134 420 3%

Surprise BLM 448 5 1% 540

Colorado

Grand Junction BLM 3,073 11,395

San Juan BLM 1,573 37 2% 2,280

San Juan NF 3,113 16,900 600 4%

White River NF 520 3,960

Florida

Apalachicola NF 94,661 155,027

Osceola NF 12,960 27,890 2,200 8%

Mississippi

Bienville NF 43,497 55,370

DeSoto NF 80,407 101,656

Oregon

Deschutes NF 13,470 5,592 42% 44,469 33,968 76%

Ashland Resource Area, Medford 

BLM 8,113 2,662 33% 7,856 3,363 43%

Ochoco NF 4,701 17,000

Prineville BLM 18,749 17,810

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

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 54 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

objective. In these cases, a series of treatments, such as hand chopping and piling of fuels and small 

prescribed burns, are performed on the same land over a period of time, ranging from several months 

to several years. Forest Service and Interior’s internal reporting guidelines direct local land units to 

report accomplishments on the same acres in separate fiscal years as a workload measure showing 

the results from their annual funding allotments. Overall, we found that, for the 17 local land units, 3 

percent of the acres treated and counted as accomplishment for fiscal year 2002 had been treated and 

counted in fiscal year 2001.

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

a

Access includes physical as well as legal access to potential locations for fuels reduction projects. For 

example, in some cases, the terrain is too steep for fuels reduction equipment to operate, and in other 

cases snowy or muddy conditions can make a road impassable. Also, in cases where private or other 

nonfederal land must be traversed in order to reach a parcel of federal land, legal access becomes 

relevant and agency officials must obtain formal permission to cross the nonfederal land.
Appendix IV

Summary of Information Related to the 17 

Forest Service and BLM Local Units Visited 

by GAO

Page 55 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

b

In addition to a schedule of recurring treatments, the Apalachicola National Forest uses a scoring 

system to prioritize projects.
Page 56 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix V

Comments from the Departments of 

Agriculture and of the Interior ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Departments of 

Agriculture and of the Interior

Page 57 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction
Appendix V

Comments from the Departments of 

Agriculture and of the Interior

Page 58 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction
Appendix V

Comments from the Departments of 

Agriculture and of the Interior

Page 59 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction
Page 60 GAO-03-805 Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841

Chester F. Janik (202) 512-6508

Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

Christine Colburn, Richard Johnson, and Cynthia Norris made key 

contributions to this report.

(360168)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00