The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres of public lands—nearly 9 percent of the nation’s total surface area and about 30 percent of all federal lands in the United States. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Forest Service traditionally has administered its programs through nine regional offices, 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, and over 600 ranger districts (each forest has several districts). The Forest Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of fuel reduction activities tend to be decentralized and vary by region, although all activities must be carried out under applicable laws. Figure 1 shows a map of the national forests and Forest Service regions. Forest Service projects intended to reduce fuels and restore or maintain desired vegetation conditions generally use prescribed burning, in which fires are deliberately set by land managers, and/or mechanical treatments, in which equipment such as chain saws, chippers, bulldozers, or mowers is used to cut vegetation. Such mechanical treatment may include logging to remove commercial timber. Other approaches include applying chemical herbicides, using grazing animals such as cattle and goats, and allowing the public to remove firewood by hand. To carry out its fuel reduction work, the Forest Service may use agency staff but more commonly contracts it out. The agency generally uses three types of contracts— timber sale contracts, service contracts, and stewardship contracts—to accomplish fuel reduction work. Timber sale contracts are awarded to individuals or companies to harvest and remove trees from federal lands under its jurisdiction. Service contracts are awarded to contractors to perform specific tasks, such as thinning trees or clearing underbrush. Stewardship contracts are generally awarded to contractors who perform both timber harvesting and service activities, and include contracts under which the agency uses the value of commercial products, such as timber, to offset the cost of services received, such as thinning, stream improvement, and other activities. Controversy has surrounded the issue of fuel reduction for some time, particularly in areas where federal lands surround or are adjacent to human development and communities—the wildland-urban interface—and in inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas have received special attention for decades, as some argue that these areas should be available for appropriate development and timber harvesting, while others believe that the areas should remain roadless to preserve the special values that their condition provides, such as clean water and undeveloped wildlife habitats. Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction activities are typically subject to one of two different internal administrative review processes, each of which has a specific procedure through which the public can challenge the agency’s decisions or proposed decisions to conduct the activities. Specifically: Postdecisional administrative appeals process. The Forest Service has provided an administrative appeals system for review of agency decisions, under certain circumstances, for over 100 years. Although the specific requirements of the appeals system have changed over the years, the Appeals Reform Act of 1993 established the appeals process pertinent to fiscal years 2006 through 2008––the time period covered by our review. When the Forest Service issues a public notice in a newspaper of record of a proposed action, the public has either 30 or 45 days to comment, depending on the type of NEPA analysis document prepared. Once the agency issues a decision, the public has 45 days to file appeals; however, only those individuals who were involved in the public comment process through submission of written or oral comments or by otherwise notifying the Forest Service of their interest in the proposed action may file an appeal. Once the 45-day time frame for filing appeals has expired, the Forest Service must review all appeals and issue a response to each within an additional 45 days. Appeals can result in decisions being affirmed, in which case the Forest Service can proceed with the project as planned, or in decisions being reversed in whole or in part, in which case the agency may revise or even cancel the affected activities. The official (known as the Appeal Deciding Officer) who determines the outcome of the appeal must be, at least, the next higher level supervisor of the individual who made the original decision. There is no further administrative review of the Appeal Deciding Officer’s decision by any other Forest Service or Department of Agriculture official. The types of decisions that can be appealed have changed since GAO last reported on this issue in 2003. In 2003, the Forest Service added several new categorical exclusions related to vegetation management (including one specific to hazardous fuel reduction) that it exempted from appeal. However, as the result of subsequent litigation challenging these exemptions, the Forest Service ultimately was required to allow the public to appeal many (though not all) of these decisions during fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the time period covered by our current review. Predecisional administrative objection process. In 2003, HFRA required the Forest Service to establish an alternative process for authorizing certain hazardous fuel reduction projects, including an alternative predecisional objection process in lieu of the appeals process for certain projects. HFRA authorizes the public to file objections to a proposed project before the agency issues a final decision on the project, instead of the traditional appeals process where the administrative review occurs after the agency’s final decision has been made. According to the Forest Service, this objection process was intended to expedite the implementation of fuel reduction projects and to encourage early public input during the planning process. Only those parties who have previously submitted written comments specific to the proposed project may file objections. (The public has an opportunity to provide these written comments during scoping or other public comment periods.) The public must file objections with the reviewing officer—the next higher level supervisor of the person responsible for the proposed action—within 30 days following the publication date of the legal notice of the proposed environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. (Decisions that are subject to objection cannot use categorical exclusions as the basis for the decision.) If no objection is filed within the 30-day time period, the decision may be finalized on, but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, the Forest Service must issue a written response to the objector addressing the objection within 30 days following the end of the objection-filing period. The reviewing officer may hold a meeting to discuss issues raised in the objection and any potential resolution. There are several ways the Forest Service addresses an objection. The objection can (1) be set aside from review, (2) be reviewed by the Forest Service resulting in a change to the final decision, (3) be reviewed by the Forest Service resulting in no change to the final decision, or (4) result in the reviewing officer directing the appropriate Forest Service official to complete additional analysis prior to issuing a final decision. An objection may be set aside from review for procedural reasons—if, for example, the objection is not received within the allowed 30-day time period, or the objecting individual or organization did not submit written comments during scoping or other public comment opportunities. There is no further administrative review by any other Forest Service or Department of Agriculture official of the reviewing officer’s written response to an objection. Table 1 compares the appeals and objection processes. Some decisions, however, were subject to neither the appeal nor the objection process during the time of our review. As noted, the Forest Service was required to allow appeals of many fuel reduction decisions based on categorical exclusions, but was not required to allow appeals on all such decisions—meaning that certain decisions based on categorical exclusions remained exempt from appeal. These decisions were also exempt from the objection process because HFRA requires that fuel reduction decisions subject to objection use environmental assessments or environmental impact statements rather than categorical exclusions. For fiscal years 2006 through 2008, national forest managers reported 1,415 decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities, affecting 10.5 million acres of national forest land. Most of these decisions were based on categorical exclusions, although decisions based on environmental assessments represented the most acreage of all decision types. Table 2 shows the number of decisions and associated acreage, by decision type. Appendix II provides greater detail on the number of decisions and associated acreage for each Forest Service region. Of the 1,415 decisions in our review, 1,191—about 84 percent—were subject to the appeals process. In contrast, only 121 decisions—8.5 percent—were subject to the objection process. However, the rate at which decisions subject to the objection process were challenged was higher than for decisions under the appeals process. Specifically, 40 percent of decisions subject to objection were objected to, compared with the 18 percent appeal rate for decisions subject to appeal. Table 3 shows, for all decisions covered by our review for fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the number of appeals, objections, and litigation associated with each decision type. Appendix III provides greater detail on the number of appeals, objections, and litigation for each Forest Service region. In addition to the introduction of the objection process, our survey data reflect two important changes that have occurred since our 2003 report: (1) the extent to which activities associated with categorical exclusions are subject to the appeals process and (2) the decrease in the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction to authorize hazardous fuel reduction activities. Specifically: Extent to which categorical exclusions were subject to appeal. At the time of our 2003 report, decisions using categorical exclusions were generally not subject to appeal, and in that report we noted that 99 percent of fuel reduction decisions using categorical exclusions in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were exempt from appeal. Also in 2003, the Forest Service introduced several new categorical exclusions that were exempt from appeal, including one categorical exclusion specific to fuel reduction activities. Beginning later that year, however, the agency’s ability to exempt decisions using categorical exclusions from appeal was challenged in court. As a result of this litigation, the Forest Service was required to allow the public to appeal decisions containing any of 11 types of categorically excluded activities, including fuel reduction—and thus, most fuel reduction decisions in our survey that were made using categorical exclusions were appealable by the public.