Forest Service: Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects, Calendar Years 2003 through 2005
Released: 2006-11-09T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres of public lands—about 30 percent of all federal lands in the United States. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Forest Service traditionally has administered its programs through 9 regional offices, 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and several hundred ranger districts. Figure 1 shows a map of the Forest Service regions and national forests.

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests, the Forest Service can propose land management projects that may change the existing condition of vegetation—projects referred to as vegetation management. Vegetation management projects may include, but are not limited to, activities such as using prescribed burning, timber harvests, or herbicides; or thinning trees, grass, weeds, or brush. Projects that include these types of activities are intended to, among other things, maintain healthy ecosystems, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire, and manage the nation’s forests for multiple uses, such as timber, recreation, and watershed management.

Under NEPA, agencies such as the Forest Service generally evaluate the likely environmental effects of projects they propose using an EA or, if the projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more detailed EIS. However, an agency generally need not prepare an EA or EIS if it determines that activities of a proposed project fall within a category of activities the agency has already determined have no significant environmental impact—called categorical exclusions. The agency may then approve projects fitting within the relevant categories using these predetermined categorical exclusions rather than carrying out a project- specific EA or EIS. For a project to be approved using a categorical exclusion, the Forest Service must determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist in which a normally excluded action or project may have a significant effect.4, 5 To establish categorical exclusions, the Forest Service must determine that the categories of activities proposed for exclusion do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the environment. In doing so, the public is to be provided an opportunity to review and comment on proposed categorical exclusions.

Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist include, among other things, the existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat; congressionally designated wilderness areas; inventoried roadless areas; and archaeological sites or historic properties. The mere presence of one or more of these conditions does not preclude the use of a categorical exclusion. Rather, it is the degree of the potential effect of the proposed action on these conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.

The Forest Service may decide to prepare an environmental assessment for a project that could qualify for approval using a categorical exclusion.

Figure 2 shows the NEPA process the Forest Service generally follows for assessing the likely environmental impacts of land management activities.

As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical exclusion for use in approving projects involving certain vegetation management activities— timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement—that, still today, has no acreage limitation. In 2003, after reviewing and evaluating data on the environmental effects of vegetation management projects that had been carried out by the national forests, the Forest Service added four new vegetation management categorical exclusions, each of which has acreage limitations: (1) hazardous fuels reduction, (2) limited timber harvests of live trees, (3) salvage of dead or dying trees, and (4) removal of trees to control insects and disease. Table 1 summarizes the Forest Service’s five vegetation management categorical exclusions, including the four approved in 2003, along with any corresponding acreage limitations. (App. II provides a complete list of the Forest Service’s categorical exclusions.)

The Forest Service requires agency officials responsible for making vegetation management project decisions to prepare and retain a file and decision memo for each vegetation management project approved using a categorical exclusion. Decision memos are to include, among other information, the title of each proposed action, an outline of the decision being made, a description of the public’s involvement in the decision- making process, and the date for implementing the project.

Controversy has surrounded the Forest Service’s use of vegetation management categorical exclusions because, on the one hand, critics assert that the use of categorical exclusions is an attempt to circumvent NEPA by precluding the need to perform an EA or EIS. Supporters, on the other hand, have responded that current analysis and documentation requirements for an EA or EIS under NEPA are too burdensome and that the new categorical exclusions allow the Forest Service to more efficiently undertake routine vegetation management activities. Adding to this controversy, the Forest Service initially did not subject projects being approved using the five vegetation management categorical exclusions to a formal notice, comment, and appeal process as it did to projects being approved using an EA or EIS. As a result of litigation, the Forest Service now requires that vegetation management projects being approved using these categorical exclusions be subject to formal notice, comment, and appeal. Critics argue that such public involvement is essential for responsive decision making, while others argue the formal appeal process is unnecessarily burdensome and prevents the Forest Service from undertaking routine vegetation management activities in a timely manner. The debate surrounding the use of categorical exclusions centers on the types of vegetation management projects approved using categorical exclusions, how often the categorical exclusions are used, and how many acres are treated when using them.

Categorical Exclusions Were Used to Approve Most Vegetation Management Projects and about Half of the Total Treatment Acres

For calendar years 2003 through 2005, as shown in table 2, the Forest Service approved about 3,000 vegetation management projects to treat about 6.3 million acres. Of these projects, the Forest Service approved about 70 percent using categorical exclusions and the remaining projects using an EA or EIS. Although a majority of projects were approved using categorical exclusions, these projects accounted for slightly less than half of the total treatment acres because the size of these projects was much smaller than those approved using an EA or EIS.

Our analysis of the project data also revealed that the total number of vegetation management projects approved, including those approved using categorical exclusions, varied over the 3-year period, while the number of treatment acres was relatively constant. As can be seen in figure 3, the number of projects approved using an EA or EIS varied little over the 3- year period; however, the number of projects approved using categorical exclusions increased from January 2003 through December 2004— primarily because of increased use of the four new categorical exclusions—and then decreased from January through December 2005. Forest Service officials said that any number of factors could have influenced the increase and subsequent decrease in the use of categorical exclusions over the 3-year period. However, given the relatively short period of time during which the four new categorical exclusions were in use, these officials said that it was not possible to speculate why the decrease had occurred.

In contrast, as can be seen in figure 4, an analysis of the total treatment acres included in projects approved using an EA, EIS, or categorical exclusion did not reveal any notable change over the 3-year period.

Additional analyses of the project data also revealed that the number of vegetation management projects approved, including those approved using categorical exclusions, varied by Forest Service region and forest. For example, of all vegetation management projects nationwide, Region 8—the Southern Region—accounted for about 29 percent, of which just over two- thirds were approved using categorical exclusions. In contrast, Region 10— Alaska—accounted for about 2 percent of all vegetation management projects, about 60 percent of which were approved using categorical exclusions. According to several Forest Service officials, the number of vegetation management projects approved and the type of environmental analysis used in approving them depended on the forest’s size, ecology, and location, as can be seen in the following examples: At the 2 million-acre Superior National Forest, a pine, fir, and spruce forest, in rural northeastern Minnesota, forest officials relied more on environmental assessments and environmental impact statements in approving projects because most of the projects were larger in terms of geographic coverage and more inherently complex; they used categorical exclusions only for a few smaller scale projects or projects undertaken in response to unanticipated events such as a wind storm that blew down trees on several hundred thousands of acres and that subsequently needed to be removed to reduce the risk of wildland fire. Of the 13 projects approved, forest officials used either environmental impact statements or environmental assessments in approving 8 and categorical exclusions in approving 5.

At the 1.8 million-acre Ouachita National Forest, a pine and hickory forest in western Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma, 163 projects were approved—of which 119 were approved using categorical exclusions. Forest officials said the forest has a very active vegetation management program because, among other things, the types of trees located on the forest tend to regenerate quickly and are an excellent product for milling. In addition, a large timber harvest infrastructure is located nearby, which helps ensure that timber-sale contracts can be readily competed and awarded.

At the 440,000-acre Cleveland National Forest, a mixed conifer and hardwood forest in Southern California, Forest Service officials said they prepared an EA or EIS infrequently for managing vegetation because the projects were necessarily small, given the forest’s limited size. Cleveland forest officials approved all of its 18 projects using categorical exclusions for calendar years 2003 through 2005.

At the 28,000-acre Caribbean National Forest, a humid tropical forest in Puerto Rico, no vegetation management projects were approved. According to forest officials, the forest does not have an active vegetation management program because the forest focuses more on developing recreational sites and wildlife habitat and because the island does not have a commercial infrastructure to support harvesting or milling timber.

Appendixes III and IV provide detailed information on the number of vegetation management projects and acres approved using different types of environmental analyses for calendar years 2003 through 2005.

Categorical Exclusion for Improving Timber Stands or Wildlife Habitat Was Used the Most Frequently to Treat the Most Acreage

Of the almost 2,200 projects approved using categorical exclusions over the 3-year period, the Forest Service most frequently used the vegetation management categorical exclusion for improving timber stands or wildlife habitat; this categorical exclusion was used on half of the projects to treat about 2.4 million acres. As can be seen in table 3, for the remaining projects, the Forest Service primarily used the categorical exclusion for reducing hazardous fuels, followed by salvaging dead or dying trees, conducting limited timber harvests of live trees, and removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease; in all, these categorical exclusions were used to approve treatments on about a half-million acres. In addition, the size of approved projects varied depending on the categorical exclusion and any associated acreage limitation.

According to Forest Service officials, a number of factors influenced why the categorical exclusion for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement was the most frequently used for the most treatment acreage. For example, Santa Fe National Forest officials said that the forest has relied heavily on this exclusion because it does not have an acreage limitation. Also, officials at the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and the Monongahela National Forest said they relied on this categorical exclusion more than others because the use of this category was consistent with their forest management plans, which dictate the types of activities that may take place on their forests. Further, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests officials said they rely primarily on the timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement categorical exclusion because of its long-standing use and the beneficial nature of projects being undertaken, which enhances their public acceptability.

We also analyzed the categorical exclusion for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement to determine whether its lack of size limitation resulted in projects that are larger than those undertaken using the other four exclusions. As can be seen in table 4, we found that almost 92 percent of the projects approved using the categorical exclusion for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement were smaller than 5,000 acres—which is the approximate size limitation of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuels reduction, the largest size limitation of the four more recent categorical exclusions.

Appendixes V and VI provide detailed information on the number of vegetation management projects and acres approved using different categorical exclusions for calendar years 2003 through 2005.

Primary Reasons for Not Using Categorical Exclusions Varied Depending on the Ranger District and Type of Categorical Exclusion Used

Of the 509 ranger districts, 11 percent had not used any of the five vegetation management categorical exclusions during the 3-year period. As can be seen in table 5, the percentage of ranger districts that did not use specific categorical exclusions ranged widely, from 91 percent not using the category for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease, to 32 percent not using the category for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement. Reasons cited by the ranger districts also varied: The primary reasons cited for not using the category for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease were the lack of insect- or disease- infested trees and that projects that could have fit the category had already been or were to be included in an EA or EIS. Similarly, the primary reasons cited for not using the category for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement were that projects that could have fit the category had already been or were to be included in an EA or EIS and no projects were undertaken to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat.

Ranger district officials we interviewed offered some reasons why vegetation management categorical exclusions may not be used: The Laurentian Ranger District, located in northern Minnesota in the Superior National Forest, did not use the categorical exclusion for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease because, according to district officials, it had no insect- or disease-infested trees suitable for harvest.

The Tonasket Ranger District, located in north-central Washington in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, had not used the categorical exclusion for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease because, according to district officials, the 250-acre size limitation of the categorical exclusion constrains its use because the district has huge areas infested with beetles and mistletoe. To be effective, any salvage would have to cover a much larger area.

The Canyon Lakes Ranger District, located in north-central Colorado in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests, had not used the categorical exclusion for timber stand or wildland habitat improvement. According to ranger district officials, this categorical exclusion was not used because project planning typically consists of conducting an EA or EIS. These types of environmental analysis allow the district to better evaluate multiple activities over larger geographic areas using a single analysis—which is more efficient than approving different projects using several vegetation management categorical exclusions.

The Mountainair Ranger District, located in central New Mexico in the Cibola National Forest, had not used the categorical exclusion for limited timber harvests of live trees primarily because, according to district officials, the state lacked a commercial timber industry that is capable of harvesting and milling timber. District officials also said that timber harvests would have to be much larger than 70 acres and include much larger diameter trees, to be profitable and attract timber companies from out of state.

Appendix VII provides more detailed information on the primary reasons cited by the ranger districts for not using vegetation management categorical exclusions for calendar years 2003 through 2005.

Observations

Because four of the five categorical exclusions have been available only for the past 3 years, it is premature to draw any conclusions about trends in their use. More information, over a longer period of time, is necessary to better determine how the agency is using categorical exclusions, what types of projects are being approved, and which forests are using them. More importantly, such information will be useful in addressing some of the controversial issues surrounding the use of categorical exclusions in approving projects, such as whether these projects, individually or cumulatively, have any significant effect on the environment or whether their use is enabling more timely Forest Service vegetation management.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Forest Service. The Forest Service generally agreed with our findings and observations, and specifically that it is premature to extrapolate trends given the studied categorical exclusions’ limited period of use. The agency provided us with technical comments that we have incorporated, as appropriate. The Forest Service’s letter is reprinted in appendix VIII.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Scope and Methodology

We were asked to determine how many vegetation management projects the Forest Service approved for calendar years 2003 through 2005, including those approved using categorical exclusions, and the number of associated acres proposed for treatment. To obtain this information, we developed a questionnaire addressed to forest supervisors. A questionnaire was used because the Forest Service has no centralized data on the (1) number of vegetation management projects that were undertaken for calendar years 2003 through 2005, or how many acres were proposed for treatment under these projects; (2) projects that were approved using categorical exclusions, which categorical exclusions were used and the associated acres being treated; or (3) reasons why categorical exclusions were not used. While the Forest Service has a national database—the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System—that provides some information on projects and the types of environmental analysis used in approving the projects, the system does not generally include data prior to January 2005 or the number of treatment acres. Because information about individual vegetation management projects is located primarily at the district offices, we asked forest supervisors to coordinate the completion of the questionnaire through each forest’s environmental planning coordinator, who is familiar with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. We also asked that the environmental planning coordinator work with other forest officials, such as ranger district officials, to respond to the questionnaire. After developing the questionnaire, we pretested it at the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico, Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forests in Nevada, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia, Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, and Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas.

For this report, we defined a vegetation management project as any project that may include, but is not limited to, activities such as timber sales; salvage sales; and the lopping, dropping, chipping, shredding, burning, masticating, or otherwise thinning of trees, scrub, shrub, grass, weeds, other understory, or brush for multiple purposes. We defined activities as discrete actions or tasks that are intended to accomplish decision objectives. Activities included, for example, stream improvements, precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, slash piling and burning harvest units, timber harvests, and underburning outside harvest units. For each vegetation management project approved, we asked forest officials to identify what type of decision document was used. Decision documents include records of decision for environmental impact statements, decision notices for environmental assessments, and decision memos in the case of categorical exclusions. We also asked Forest Service officials to provide data on the total number of acres proposed for vegetation management or to indicate if the acreage was unknown. We asked forest officials not to double-count acreage when multiple treatments were to occur on the same acreage. In reporting acreage data, the number of acres proposed for treatment may not necessarily correspond to the number of acres treated.

For projects approved using categorical exclusions, we asked Forest Service officials to identify the associated acreage proposed for treatment and which of the following five Forest Service Handbook categorical exclusions were used: timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement activities, hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire not to exceed 4,500 acres and mechanical treatments not to exceed 1,000 acres, harvest of live trees not to exceed 70 acres, salvage of dead or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, or commercial and noncommercial harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to exceed 250 acres.

We asked only for information on the use of these five categorical exclusions. Thus, our evaluation does not include projects that the Forest Service approved using other categorical exclusions which may have included vegetation management activities. For example, the Forest Service has a categorical exclusion for the repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and land-line boundaries that could include vegetation management activities but the primary purpose of the projects is not vegetation management. We also did not include categorical exclusions for regeneration and postfire rehabilitation—both of which could include vegetation management in the form of planting seedlings or trees. These types of activities, however, may have been included in projects that were approved using the five categorical exclusions we evaluated.

To determine which Forest Service ranger districts were not using categorical exclusions for managing vegetation and the primary reasons for not doing so, we asked Forest Service officials whether ranger districts within national forests used any of the five categorical exclusions for calendar years 2003 through 2005. If a ranger district had not used one of the five exclusions, we asked the forests to select a primary reason from among a list of reasons that we provided. (If the primary reasons were not included on our list, we also asked the forests to provide other reasons.) In developing our list of reasons, we reviewed the conditions established by the Forest Service that prevented the use of the categorical exclusions. We also pretested the list with Forest Service officials at six national forest units and ranger districts at those locations. While some ranger districts may have had multiple reasons for not using a particular categorical exclusion, we asked Forest Service officials to select the primary reason.

We verified the accuracy of the survey responses by randomly selecting about 3 percent of the projects identified by the Forest Service on completed questionnaires. After selecting a project, we requested supporting decision documents—for example, the record of decision for environmental impact statements, decision notices for environmental assessments, or decision memos for projects approved using categorical exclusions—and verified the documents’ information submitted on the questionnaire. In total, we verified information for 84 projects and determined that the data submitted were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also examined the data for aberrations such as blank entries and inconsistent responses and, as necessary, contacted the appropriate forest officials for clarification.

The data we gathered have some limitations. The information obtained from the national forests was self-reported, and we were unable to independently ensure whether all vegetation management projects approved during the 3-year period were reported. To gauge the accuracy of the number of projects reported, we compared information on Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions reports with information submitted on our questionnaire. The action reports, which are prepared quarterly by each of the national forests, summarize activities the forests plan to undertake during the quarter, including proposed activities that have approved decision documents, such as records of decision, decision notices, or decision memos. These reports are available on individual national forest Web sites and generally span at least two quarters. We identified 113 projects that were listed on available quarterly proposed action reports as projects the Forest Service approved using an environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, or a categorical exclusion and that appeared to be for vegetation management but which were not included on the questionnaires. We randomly selected 12 of these projects for follow up with Forest Service officials to determine why. We found that (1) six of the projects were not for vegetation management and thus correctly should not have been included on the questionnaires or in our data, (2) three of the projects were initially excluded but were subsequently added to revised questionnaires and our data as a result of our previous follow-up to clarify other issues, and (3) three of the projects were erroneously omitted from the questionnaires and should have been included in our data but were not. Forest Service officials said the three projects were erroneously omitted because paperwork was misfiled due to an administrative oversight or district office consolidation or because of confusion over whether the project had been approved. Based on this analysis, we found that the data are sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.

Table 6 lists the 12 national forest units and 23 ranger districts we selected for interviews, using a nonprobability sample, to better determine why categorical exclusions may or may not have been used in approving vegetation management projects. The table also lists the Forest Service regions in which the forests and ranger districts are located, and their geographic location.

We conducted our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Forest Service Categorical Exclusions

As shown in table 7, the Forest Service has two types of categorical exclusions: those that require the agency to prepare a decision memo for each project approved using a categorical exclusion, and those that do not require such documentation. The Forest Service Handbook provides information on these categorical exclusions, as well as guidelines for preparing decision memos.

Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Environmental Analysis and Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)

Acre (in thousand)

Acre (in thousand)

Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Categorical Exclusion and Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)

Acre (in thousand)

4 2 Acre (in thousand)

Fewer than 500 acres.

Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

GAO Comments

1. We have added language further explaining the Council on Environmental Quality’s role in overseeing agencies’ actions to implement the National Environmental Policy Act. 2. We have added language clarifying that, while decision memos may not include all of the analyses performed by the Forest Service in support of its decisions to use categorical exclusions, agency project files are to include such information. 3. We have added language expanding on the court’s ruling on the nature of projects subject to public notice, comment, and appeal under the Appeals Reform Act. 4. We have added language further clarifying when the Forest Service can use the hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion. 5. We have added language specifically identifying the categorical exclusions for regeneration and postfire rehabilitation as ones that were not included in our scope and methodology.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, David Bixler (Assistant Director), Nancy Bowser, Rich Johnson, Marcia Brouns McWreath, Matthew Reinhart, Jerry Sandau, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Walter Vance made major contributions to this report.