Forest Service
Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects, Calendar Years 2003 through 2005 Gao ID: GAO-07-99 October 10, 2006The Forest Service manages over 192 million acres of land, in part through vegetation management projects such as thinning trees. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) before approving a project that may significantly affect the environment. The agency generally does not need to prepare such environmental analyses, however, if the project involves categories of activities that it previously found to have no significant environmental effects--activities known as a categorical exclusion. As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical exclusion--activities to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat. It has since added four new exclusions, but little is known about their use. GAO was asked to determine, for calendar years 2003 through 2005, (1) how many vegetation management projects the Forest Service approved, including those approved using categorical exclusions; (2) which categorical exclusions the agency used in approving projects; and (3) if field offices are not using categorical exclusions, why. To answer these objectives, GAO surveyed Forest Service officials from all of the 155 national forests. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service generally agreed with GAO's findings and observations.
For calendar years 2003 through 2005, the Forest Service approved 3,018 vegetation management projects to treat about 6.3 million acres. Of these projects, the Forest Service approved about 28 percent using an EA or EIS to treat about 3.4 million acres, while it approved the remainder using categorical exclusions. Although a majority of the projects were approved using categorical exclusions, these projects accounted for less than half of the total treatment acres. The number and size of projects and types of environmental analysis used during the 3-year period varied, depending upon forest size, ecology, and location, according to Forest Service officials. Of nearly 2,200 vegetation management projects approved using categorical exclusions, the Forest Service approved half of them using the categorical exclusion for improving timber stands or wildlife habitat. In approving the remaining projects, the agency primarily used the categorical exclusion for reducing hazardous fuels, followed by those for salvaging dead or dying trees, conducting limited harvests of live trees, and removing trees to control the spread of insects or disease. The projects approved using the categorical exclusion to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat accounted for about 2.4 million of the 2.9 million acres to be treated under projects approved using categorical exclusions. About 11 percent of the Forest Service's 509 field offices had not used any of the five vegetation management categorical exclusions during the 3-year period. The reasons why they had not used specific categorical exclusions varied by office and categorical exclusion. For example, about 91 percent of the field offices had not used the categorical exclusion for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease primarily because they did not have a sufficient number of insect- or disease-infested trees. Similarly, 32 percent of the field offices had not used the categorical exclusion to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat, primarily because no projects of this type had been proposed during the 3-year period.
GAO-07-99, Forest Service: Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects, Calendar Years 2003 through 2005
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-99
entitled 'Forest Service: Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation
Management Projects, Calendar Years 2003 through 2005' which was
released on November 9, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
October 2006:
Forest Service:
Use of Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects,
Calendar Years 2003 through 2005:
GAO-07-99:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-99, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Forest Service manages over 192 million acres of land, in part
through vegetation management projects such as thinning trees. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to
prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental
impact statement (EIS) before approving a project that may
significantly affect the environment. The agency generally does not
need to prepare such environmental analyses, however, if the project
involves categories of activities that it previously found to have no
significant environmental effects”activities known as a categorical
exclusion. As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical
exclusion”activities to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat. It
has since added four new exclusions, but little is known about their
use.
GAO was asked to determine, for calendar years 2003 through 2005, (1)
how many vegetation management projects the Forest Service approved,
including those approved using categorical exclusions; (2) which
categorical exclusions the agency used in approving projects; and (3)
if field offices are not using categorical exclusions, why. To answer
these objectives, GAO surveyed Forest Service officials from all of the
155 national forests.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service generally
agreed with GAO‘s findings and observations.
What GAO Found:
For calendar years 2003 through 2005, the Forest Service approved 3,018
vegetation management projects to treat about 6.3 million acres. Of
these projects, the Forest Service approved about 28 percent using an
EA or EIS to treat about 3.4 million acres, while it approved the
remainder using categorical exclusions. Although a majority of the
projects were approved using categorical exclusions, these projects
accounted for less than half of the total treatment acres. The number
and size of projects and types of environmental analysis used during
the 3-year period varied, depending upon forest size, ecology, and
location, according to Forest Service officials.
Figure: Percentage of Vegetation Management Projects and Treatment
Acres Approved Using an EA, EIS, or Categorical Exclusion, Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO.
[End of Figure]
Of nearly 2,200 vegetation management projects approved using
categorical exclusions, the Forest Service approved half of them using
the categorical exclusion for improving timber stands or wildlife
habitat. In approving the remaining projects, the agency primarily used
the categorical exclusion for reducing hazardous fuels, followed by
those for salvaging dead or dying trees, conducting limited harvests of
live trees, and removing trees to control the spread of insects or
disease. The projects approved using the categorical exclusion to
improve timber stands or wildlife habitat accounted for about 2.4
million of the 2.9 million acres to be treated under projects approved
using categorical exclusions.
About 11 percent of the Forest Service‘s 509 field offices had not used
any of the five vegetation management categorical exclusions during the
3-year period. The reasons why they had not used specific categorical
exclusions varied by office and categorical exclusion. For example,
about 91 percent of the field offices had not used the categorical
exclusion for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or
disease primarily because they did not have a sufficient number of
insect- or disease-infested trees. Similarly, 32 percent of the field
offices had not used the categorical exclusion to improve timber stands
or wildlife habitat, primarily because no projects of this type had
been proposed during the 3-year period.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-99].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Table of Contents:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Categorical Exclusions Were Used to Approve Most Vegetation Management
Projects and about Half of the Total Treatment Acres:
Categorical Exclusion for Improving Timber Stands or Wildlife Habitat
Was Used the Most Frequently to Treat the Most Acreage:
Primary Reasons for Not Using Categorical Exclusions Varied Depending
on the Ranger District and Type of Categorical Exclusion Used:
Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Forest Service Categorical Exclusions
Appendix III: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Appendix IV: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
National Forest (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Appendix V: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Appendix VI: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
National Forest (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Appendix VII: Primary Reasons Cited for Not Using Different Types of
Vegetation Management Categorical Exclusions (Calendar Years 2003
through 2005)
Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
Tables:
Table 1: Forest Service‘s Vegetation Management Categorical Exclusions:
Table 2: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Treatment Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses (Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 3: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Treatment Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions (Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 4: Number of Projects Approved Using the Categorical Exclusion to
Improve Timber Stands or Wildlife Habitat, by Number of Treatment Acres
(Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 5: Number of Ranger Districts Not Using One of the Five
Vegetation Management Categorical Exclusions and Primary Reasons Cited
for Not Doing So (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 6: National Forests and Ranger Districts Selected for Interviews
Table 7: Forest Service Categorical Exclusions
Table 8: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analysis, by
Region 1 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 9: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 2 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 10: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 2 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 11: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 4 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 12: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 5 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 13: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 6 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 14: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 8 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 15: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 9 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 16: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 10 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 17: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 1 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 18: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 2 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 19: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 3 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 20: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 4 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 21: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 5 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 22: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 6 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 23: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 8 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 24: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 9 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 25: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 10 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Table 26: Primary Reasons Cited by 166 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Improving Timber Stands or Wildlife
Habitat
Table 27: Primary Reasons Cited by 255 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Reducing Hazardous Fuels
Table 28: Primary Reasons Cited by 352 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Salvaging Dead or Dying Trees
Table 29: Primary Reasons Cited by 394 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Conducting Limited Timber Harvests of
Live Trees
Table 30: Primary Reasons Cited by 461Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Removing Trees Infested with Insects or
Disease
Figures:
Figure 1: Land Managed by the Forest Service, by Region:
Figure 2: Forest Service NEPA Process:
Figure 3: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved Using an
EA, EIS, or Categorical Exclusion (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Figure 4: Number of Treatment Acres Included in Projects Approved Using
an EA , EIS, or Categorical Exclusion (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005)
Abbreviations
EA: Environmental assessment:
EIS: Environmental impact statement:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
October 10, 2006:
The Honorable Tom Udall Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health Committee on Resources House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Udall:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service is responsible for
managing about 192 million acres of public land--about 30 percent of
all federal lands in the United States. Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), agencies evaluate the likely
environmental effects of projects they are proposing using an
environmental assessment (EA) or, if the projects likely would
significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental
impact statement (EIS). For example, certain proposed vegetation
management projects, which include activities such as thinning trees
and shrubs and harvesting and selling timber, may require the Forest
Service to prepare an EA or EIS for the treatment areas. If, however,
the Forest Service determines that activities of a proposed project
fall within a category of activities the agency has already determined
has no significant environmental impact--called a categorical
exclusion--then the agency generally need not prepare an EA or EIS. The
agency may instead approve projects that fit within a relevant category
by using one of the predetermined categorical exclusions. The extent to
which the Forest Service approves projects using these categorical
exclusions has been controversial. Some critics argue that, even though
these types of projects may be relatively small, the environmental
effects of excluded projects are not being fully analyzed. Others favor
the expanded use of categorical exclusions as a means to accomplish
routine vegetation management projects promptly.
As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical exclusion for
vegetation management activities--it covered certain activities
intended to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat. In 2003, it
issued four more categorical exclusions: (1) hazardous fuels reduction
activities using prescribed fire, not to exceed 4,500 acres, and
mechanical methods such as thinning, not to exceed 1,000 acres; (2)
limited timber harvests of live trees, not to exceed 70 acres; (3)
salvage of dead or dying trees, not to exceed 250 acres; and (4)
removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease, not to
exceed 250 acres. Little is known about the Forest Service's use of
these categorical exclusions because, prior to 2005, the agency did not
maintain nationwide data on their use.
In this context, you asked us to determine, for calendar years 2003
through 2005, (1) how many vegetation management projects the Forest
Service approved, including those approved using categorical
exclusions, and the number of associated treatment acres; (2) for those
projects approved using categorical exclusions, which categorical
exclusions the agency used and the associated treatment acreage under
each; and (3) if the Forest Service field offices are not approving
vegetation management projects using categorical exclusions, what are
the primary reasons for not doing so.
Because the Forest Service has no centralized nationwide information on
vegetation management projects for calendar years 2003 through 2005, we
sent a questionnaire to all 155 national forests to obtain this
information.[Footnote 1] We asked Forest Service officials from these
forests to provide information on the number of vegetation management
projects they approved during the 3-year period and the number of
treatment acres in each project, and whether the Forest Service used an
EA, EIS, or one of the five categorical exclusions when approving the
projects and, as appropriate, which categorical exclusion was used. We
also asked each forest whether each of the ranger districts in that
forest--administrative units primarily responsible for deciding which
types of environmental analysis should be undertaken on projects within
the forests--had used each of the five categorical exclusions during
the 3-year period and, if not, why the ranger districts had not done
so. All 155 national forests, representing 509 ranger districts that
manage National Forest System lands, responded to our questionnaire. We
tested the accuracy and reliability of the information by, among other
things, requesting supporting documentation from the Forest Service for
a randomly selected sample of projects and verifying information
submitted about these projects on the questionnaire. We found that the
information submitted was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Using
a nonprobability sample, we also selected and interviewed 23 ranger
districts at 12 national forest units to obtain a better understanding
of why categorical exclusions may or may not have been used when
approving vegetation management projects.[Footnote 2] These ranger
districts and national forests were selected on the basis of their
diverse ecosystems and geographic location. Appendix I provides further
details on our scope and methodology. Appendix II provides a list of
Forest Service categorical exclusions. Appendixes III through VII
provide the results of the questionnaire in more detail. We performed
our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
From calendar years 2003 through 2005, the Forest Service approved
3,018 vegetation management projects to treat about 6.3 million acres.
Most of these projects, about 72 percent, were approved using
categorical exclusions to treat slightly less than half of the acres--
2.9 million--while about 28 percent were approved using an EA or EIS to
treat the remaining 3.4 million acres. Even though the Forest Service
approved more projects using categorical exclusions than projects using
an EA or EIS, the total treatment acreage was about the same because
the relative size of projects approved using categorical exclusions was
much smaller than those approved using an EA or EIS. According to
Forest Service officials, the number and size of vegetation management
projects and type of environmental analysis used during the 3-year
period varied depending upon the forest's size, ecology, and location.
For example, the relatively small 440,000-acre Cleveland National
Forest, a mixed-conifer and hardwood forest in Southern California,
used categorical exclusions when approving all of its 18 vegetation
management projects to treat about 16,000 acres. In contrast, the 1.8
million-acre Ouachita National Forest, a pine and hickory forest in
western Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma, approved 163 vegetation
management projects to treat 400,000 acres, and of these projects, 119
were approved using categorical exclusions to treat 100,000 acres and
the remainder were approved using an EA.
Of the nearly 2,200 vegetation management projects approved using
categorical exclusions for calendar years 2003 through 2005, the Forest
Service most frequently used the categorical exclusion for improving
timber stands or wildlife habitat. This categorical exclusion accounted
for half of the projects. 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 removing trees to control the spread
of insects or disease. While the categorical exclusion for timber stand
or wildlife habitat improvement was the most frequently used and
included the most treatment acres--about 2.4 million of the 2.9 million
acres included in all projects approved using categorical exclusions--
92 percent of the projects approved using this categorical exclusion
were smaller than 5,000 acres.
Of the 509 ranger districts, about 11 percent had not used any of the
five vegetation management categorical exclusions during the 3-year
period, while the percentage of ranger districts not using specific
categorical exclusions varied by type of categorical exclusion.
Specifically, just over 90 percent of the 509 ranger districts had not
used the categorical exclusion for the removal of trees to control the
spread of insects or disease and about 32 percent had not used the
categorical exclusion to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat.
Reasons cited for not using the categorical exclusions varied by type
of categorical exclusion and ranger district. The primary reasons cited
for not using the category for the removal of trees to control the
spread of insects or disease was the lack of insect-or disease-infested
trees;
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
was projects that could have fit the category had already been or were
to be included in an EA or EIS; no projects were undertaken to improve
timber stands or wildlife habitat.
Because the new vegetation management categorical exclusions have been
available for only about 3 years, it is premature to draw any
conclusions about trends in the Forest Service's use of them in
approving vegetation management projects. More information over a
longer period of time will be useful in addressing issues surrounding
their use, such as whether projects approved using them, individually
or cumulatively, have any significant effect on the environment or
whether their use is enabling more timely Forest Service vegetation
management.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service generally
agreed with our findings and observations. The agency also provided
technical comments that we incorporated in this report, where
appropriate. The Forest Service's letter is reprinted in appendix VIII.
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.
Figure 1: Land Managed by the Forest Service, by Region:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
source: Forest Service.
Note: The Forest Service does not have a Region 7.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
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.[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4],[Footnote 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.
Figure 2 shows the NEPA process the Forest Service generally follows
for assessing the likely environmental impacts of land management
activities.
Figure 2: Forest Service NEPA Process:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
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.[Footnote 6] 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.[Footnote 7] 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.)
Table 1: Forest Service's Vegetation Management Categorical
Exclusions:
Type of categorical exclusion for vegetation management and conditions:
Timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement: No acreage restrictions.
May not use herbicides. No more than 1 mile of low standard road
construction.[A];
Examples of activities:
* Girdling trees to create snags.[B];
* Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard,
including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand;
* Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of
southern pine;
* Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel buildup and improve plant
vigor.
Type of categorical exclusion for vegetation management and conditions:
Hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire, and
mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting,
chipping, mulching, and mowing;
Examples of activities: Prescribed fire not to exceed 4,500 acres and
mechanical methods not to exceed 1,000 acres. Activities are limited to
(1) areas in the wildland-urban interface or (2) designated areas
outside the wildland- urban interface.[C] Activities must;
* be identified through a collaborative framework as described in A
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities
and Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Improvement Plan, May
2002;
* be conducted consistent with agency and departmental procedures and
applicable land and resource management plans;
* not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction
of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure, and may
include the sale of vegetative material if the primary purpose of the
activity is hazardous fuels reduction;
and;
* not be conducted in wilderness areas or impair the suitability of
wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness;
Examples of activities:
* Prescribed burning;
* Mechanically crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping,
mulching, and mowing.
Type of categorical exclusion for vegetation management and conditions:
Limited timber harvest of live trees: Not to exceed 70 acres. No more
than one-half mile of temporary road construction. This categorical
exclusion is not to be used for harvesting or generating same-aged
trees or converting to a different type of vegetation. May include
incidentally removing trees for landings, skid trails, and road
clearing;
Examples of activities:
* Removing individual trees for saw logs, specialty products, or fuel
wood;
* Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired
stocking level to increase health and vigor.
Type of categorical exclusion for vegetation management and conditions:
Salvage of dead and/or dying trees: Not to exceed 250 acres. No more
than one-half mile of temporary road construction. May include
incidentally removing trees for landings, skid trails, and road
clearing;
Examples of activities:
* Harvesting a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and
construction of a short temporary road to access the damaged trees;
* Harvesting fire- damaged trees.
Type of categorical exclusion for vegetation management and conditions:
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees: Not to exceed 250 acres.
No more than one-half mile of temporary road construction. Includes
removing infested or infected trees and adjacent live uninfested or
uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of
insects or disease. May include incidentally removing trees for
landings, skid trails, and road clearing;
Examples of activities:
* Felling and harvesting trees infested with southern pine beetles and
immediately adjacent uninfested trees to control expanding spot
infestations;
* Removing and destroying infested trees affected by a new exotic
insect or disease, such as emerald ash borer, Asian long horned beetle,
and sudden oak death pathogen.
Source: Forest Service Handbook.
[A] A low standard road has a rough and irregular surface where traffic
flow is slow and two-way traffic is difficult. While the road can
accommodate high clearance vehicles, it may not provide safe service to
all traffic.
[B] Girdling is a process whereby tree trunks are severed to remove the
outer layers of bark and other woody material. This constricts the
level of nutrients available to support tree life and can result in a
snag--a standing dead tree.
[C] These include certain areas with fire regimes that have been
moderately or significantly altered from historical ranges.
[End of table]
The Forest Service requires agency officials responsible for making
vegetation management project decisions to prepare and retain a file
and decision memo[Footnote 8] for each vegetation management project
approved using a categorical exclusion.[Footnote 9] 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.[Footnote
10] 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.[Footnote 11] 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.
Table 2: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Treatment Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses (Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005):
Number of projects (percent of total);
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental impact statement: 141
(4.7);
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental assessment: 690 (22.9);
Type of environmental analysis: Categorical exclusion: 2,187 (72.5);
Total: 3,018(100)a[A].
Number of treatment acres (percent of total);
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental impact statement: 899,225
(14.4);
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental assessment: 2,506,984
(40.0);
Type of environmental analysis: Categorical exclusion: 2,856,472
(45.6);
Total: 6,262,681 (100)[A].
Median number of treatment acres (range)[ B];
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental impact statement: 2,768
(51 to 60,000);
Type of environmental analysis: Environmental assessment: 1,366 (1 to
124,971);
Type of environmental analysis: Categorical exclusion: 215 (1 to
97,326);
Total: 375 (1 to 124,971).
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[B] Of the 3,018 vegetation management projects, 113 had no acreage or
unknown acreage, according to the Forest Service. The acreage
associated with a vegetation management project may be zero or unknown
because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for the project is in
miles of roadside to be treated or number of trees to be removed. These
projects were not used in calculating the median or range of treatment
acres.
[End of table]
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.
Figure 3: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved Using an
EA, EIS, or Categorical Exclusion (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
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.
Figure 4: Number of Treatment Acres Included in Projects Approved Using
an EA, EIS, or Categorical Exclusion (Calendar Years 2003 through
2005):
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
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.
Table 3: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Treatment Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions (Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005):
Number of projects (percent of total);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 1,094 (50.0);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500- acre
limitation): 485 (22.2);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 264 (12.1);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 220 (10.1);
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 124 (5.7);
Total: 2,187(100)a.
Number of treatment acres (percent of total);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 2,402,188 (84.1);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 405,546 (14.2);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 28,939 (1.0);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70- acre
limitation): 10,541 (0.4);
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 9,258 (0.3);
Total: 2,856,472 (100)[A].
Median number of treatment acres (range)[B];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 433 (1 to 97,326);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 450 (1 to 4,637);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 96 (1 to 250);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 59 (1 to 70);
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 8 (1 to 250);
Total: 215 (1 to 97,326).
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[B] Of the 2,187 vegetation management projects approved using
categorical exclusions, 71 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service. The acreage associated with a vegetation
management project may be zero or unknown because, among other reasons,
the unit of measure for the project is listed as miles of roadside to
be treated or number of trees to be removed. These projects were not
used in the calculation of the median or range. In addition, the Forest
Service indicated that for 38 projects, in addition to the primary
categorical exclusion cited, one or more of the remaining four
categorical exclusions were also used. We counted only the primary
categorical exclusion cited.
[End of table]
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.
Table 4: Number of Projects Approved Using the Categorical Exclusion to
Improve Timber Stands or Wildlife Habitat, by Number of Treatment Acres
(Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
Number of projects (percent of total);
Number of treatment acres: 1-999: 701 (66.5);
Number of treatment acres: 1,000-1,999: 125 (11.9);
Number of treatment acres: 2,000-2,999: 69 (6.5);
Number of treatment acres: 3,000-3,999: 37 (3.5);
Number of treatment acres: 4,000-4,999: 35 (3.3);
Number of treatment acres: 5,000 or more: 87 (8.3);
Total: 1,054[A] (100).
Source: GAO.
[A] Of the1,094 projects approved using the categorical exclusion to
improve timber stands or wildlife habitat, 40 had no acreage or unknown
acreage, according to the Forest Service. The acreage associated with
these projects may be zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the
unit of measure for the project is listed as miles of roadside to be
treated or number of trees to be removed.
[End of table]
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.
Table 5: Number of Ranger Districts Not Using One of the Five
Vegetation Management Categorical Exclusions and Primary Reasons Cited
for Not Doing So (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
Number of the 509 ranger districts that had not used the categorical
exclusion (percent of total);
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 462 (90.8);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 395 (77.6);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 353 (69.4);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 256 (50.3);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 165 (32.4).
Number of ranger districts not using the categorical exclusion that
cited the primary reason.
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Lack of insect-or disease-
infested trees;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 114 (24.7);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Size (acreage) of potential
projects is larger than that allowed;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 27 (5.8);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 110 (27.9);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 36 (10.2);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 22 (8.6);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Lack of dead or dying trees
to salvage;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 95 (26.9);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Projects that could fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or impact statement;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 108 (23.4);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 100 (25.3);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 66 (18.7);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 62 (24.2);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 59 (35.8).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: No projects undertaken to
improve timber stands or wildlife habitat;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 61 (37.0).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Have insect-or disease-
infested trees, but other priorities precluded its use;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees
(250-acre limitation): 88 (19.1);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources to propose and plan a vegetation management project;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 27 (5.8);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 55 (13.9);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 28 (7.9);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 33 (12.9);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 26 (15.8).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Lack of required wildland
fire risk reduction plan for using the category;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees
(250-acre limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 46 (18.0);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Have dead or dying trees,
but other priorities precluded its use;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 47 (13.3);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Other categorical exclusion
used;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 14 (3.0);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70- acre
limitation): 16 (4.1);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 13 (3.7);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 21 (8.2);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 2 (1.2).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure to harvest or salvage trees;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 14 (3.0);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 21 (5.3);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 16 (4.5);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 2 (0.8);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 2 (1.2).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: No hazardous fuels;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect- or disease-infested trees
(250-acre limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): [A];
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 13 (5.1);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): [A].
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Ranger district or national
forest preference to use an EA as opposed to the categorical exclusion;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 5 (1.1);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 13 (3.3);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre
limitation): 8 (2.3);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 6 (2.3);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 5 (3.0).
Primary reason for not using an exclusion: Other reasons;
Categorical exclusion: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-
acre limitation): 64 (13.9);
Categorical exclusion: Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre
limitation): 80 (20.3);
Categorical exclusion: Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre
limitation): 45 (12.7);
Categorical exclusion: Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre
limitation): 51 (20.0);
Categorical exclusion: Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no
acreage limitation): 10 (6.1).
Source: GAO.
[A] The primary reason listed was not applicable to the categorical
exclusion and, thus, was not an option for the Forest Service to
choose.
[End of table]
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 [Hyperlink, 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.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: 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.[Footnote 12] 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.
Table 6: National Forests and Ranger Districts Selected for Interviews:
Forest Service region: Region 1;
National forest: Bitterroot National Forest;
Location: Missoula, Montana;
Ranger district: Stevensville Ranger District, Darby Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 2;
National forest: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests;
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado;
Ranger district: Canyon Lakes Ranger District, Boulder Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 3;
National forest: Santa Fe National Forest;
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico;
Ranger district: Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District, Espanola Ranger
District.
Forest Service region: Region 3;
National forest: Cibola National Forest;
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Ranger district: Magdalena Ranger District, Mountainair Ranger
District, Sandia Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 4;
National forest: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests;
Location: Sparks, Nevada;
Ranger district: Carson Ranger District, Santa Rosa Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 5;
National forest: Cleveland National Forest;
Location: San Diego, California;
Ranger district: Descano Ranger District, Trabuco Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 6;
National forest: Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests;
Location: Okanogan, Washington;
Ranger district: Methow Valley Ranger District, Tonasket Ranger
District.
Forest Service region: Region 8;
National forest: George Washington and Jefferson National Forests;
Location: Roanoke, Virginia;
Ranger district: Deerfield Ranger District, Glenwood Ranger District,
Pedlar Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 8;
National forest: Ouachita National Forest;
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas;
Ranger district: Jessieville Ranger District, Womble Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 9;
National forest: Monongahela National Forest;
Location: Elkins, West Virginia;
Ranger district: Potomac Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 9;
National forest: Superior National Forest;
Location: Duluth, Minnesota;
Ranger district: Laurentian Ranger District.
Forest Service region: Region 10;
National forest: Tongass National Forest;
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska;
Ranger district: Petersburg Ranger District.
Source: GAO.
Note: The Forest Service does not have a Region 7.
[End of table]
We conducted our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: 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.[Footnote 13] The Forest Service
Handbook provides information on these categorical exclusions, as well
as guidelines for preparing decision memos.
Table 7: Forest Service Categorical Exclusions:
Decision memo: Required;
Categorical exclusion:
* Constructing and reconstructing trails;
* Additional constructing or reconstructing existing telephone or
utility lines in a designated corridor;
* Approving, modifying, or continuing minor special-use permits of
National Forest System lands that require less than 5 contiguous acres
of land;
* Regenerating an area to native tree species, including site
preparation that does not include the use of herbicides or result in
vegetation-type conversion;
* Undertaking timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement activities
that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1
mile of low standard road construction;
* Modifying or maintaining stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement
structures using native materials or normal practices;
* Conducting short-term (1 year or less) mineral, energy, or
geophysical investigations and incidental support activities that may
require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, less than 1
mile of low standard road construction, or the use and minor repair of
existing roads;
* Implementing or modifying minor management practices to improve
allotment conditions or animal distribution when an allotment
management plan is not yet in place;
* Conducting hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed
fire, not to exceed 4,500 acres;
and mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning,
cutting, chipping, mulching, and mowing, not to exceed 1,000 acres.
Activities are limited to certain designated areas, such as the
wildland urban interface or other areas having certain types of
hazardous fuels;
* Carrying out postfire rehabilitation activities, not to exceed 4,200
acres (such as tree planting, fence replacement, habitat restoration,
heritage site restoration, repair of roads and trails, and repair of
damage to minor facilities such as campgrounds);
repairing or improving lands unlikely to recover to a management-
approved condition from wildland fire damage, or repairing or replacing
minor facilities damaged by fire;
* Harvesting live trees, not to exceed 70 acres and requiring no more
than one-half mile of temporary road construction;
* Salvaging dead or dying trees, not to exceed 250 acres and requiring
no more than one-half mile of temporary road construction;
* Conducting commercial and noncommercial harvesting of trees to
control insects or disease--not to exceed 250 acres and requiring no
more than one-half mile of temporary road construction, including
removing infested or infected trees and adjacent live uninfested or
uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of
insects or disease;
* Issuing new special-use authorizations for a new term to replace an
existing or expired special-use authorization when the only changes are
administrative, there are no changes to the authorized facilities or
increases in the scope or intensity of authorized activities, and the
applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions
of the special-use authorization.
Decision memo: Not required;
Categorical exclusion:
* Policy development, planning and implementation that relate to
routine activities, such as personnel, organizational changes, or
similar administrative functions;
* Conducting activities that deal solely with the funding of programs,
such as program budget proposals, disbursements, and transfer or
reprogramming of funds;
* Conducting inventories, research activities, and studies, such as
resource inventories and routine data collection when such actions are
clearly limited in context and intensity;
* Developing and providing educational and informational programs and
activities;
* Conducting civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative
activities;
* Advising and consulting other agencies and public and private
entities, such as with legal counsel and representation;
* Conducting activities related to trade representation and market
development abroad;
* Issuing orders prohibiting certain activities on National Forest
System lands that are intended to provide short-term resource
protection or protect public health and safety;
* Establishing rules, regulations, or policies for Forest Service-wide
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions;
* Repairing and maintaining administrative sites;
* Repairing and maintaining roads, trails, and land-line boundaries;
* Repairing and maintaining recreation sites and facilities;
* Acquiring land or interest in land;
* Selling or exchanging land or interest in land and resources where
resulting land uses remain essentially the same;
* Approving, modifying, or continuing minor, short-term (1 year or
less) special uses of National Forest System lands;
* Issuing a new permit for up to the maximum tenure allowable under the
National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 for an existing ski area
when such issuance is a purely ministerial action to account for
administrative changes, such as a change in ownership of ski area
improvements, expiration of the current permit, or a change in the
statutory authority applicable to the current permit;
* Amending or replacing an existing special-use authorization that
involves only administrative changes and does not involve changes in
the authorized facilities, increases in the scope or intensity of
authorized activities, or extensions to the term of authorization when
the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and
conditions of the special-use authorization.
Source: Forest Service Handbook.
[End of table]
[This page left intentionally blank.]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Environmental
Analysis and Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Notes: Of the 3,018 vegetation management projects, 113 had no acreage
or unknown acreage, according to the Forest Service. The acreage
associated with a vegetation management project may be zero or unknown
because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for the project is
listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of trees to be
removed.
[A] Numbers do not add to total due to rounding.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Environmental
Analysis and National Forest (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
Table 8: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 1 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Beaverhead-Deerlodge[A];
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 5,357;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 640;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 21[B];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 3,729;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 9,726.
National forest: Bitterroot;
State: Idaho, Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 35,445;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 370;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 28;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 9,538;
Total: Projects: 30;
Total: Acres: 45,353.
National forest: Clearwater;
State: Idaho;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 8,700;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 8,638;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 9;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 46,505;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 63,843.
National forest: Custer;
State: Mont., S.D;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 34,540;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 24,575;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 12;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 9,154;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 68,269.
National forest: Flathead;
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 13,929;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,855;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 9;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,601;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 22,385.
National forest: Gallatin;
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 3;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 16,190;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,744;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 9;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 6,566;
Total: Projects: 16;
Total: Acres: 27,500.
National forest: Helena;
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 7,563;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 12;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,255;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 9,818.
National forest: Idaho Panhandle[C];
State: Idaho, Mont., Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 4,036;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 7,729;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 43;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 12,763;
Total: Projects: 52;
Total: Acres: 24,528.
National forest: Kootenai;
State: Idaho, Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 7;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 27,331;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 7,315;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 36;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 17,296;
Total: Projects: 48;
Total: Acres: 51,942.
National forest: Lewis and Clark;
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 7;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,533;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 2,533.
National forest: Lolo;
State: Mont;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 33,681;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 16,563;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 31;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 13,545;
Total: Projects: 34;
Total: Acres: 63,789.
National forest: Nez Perce;
State: Idaho;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 3;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 19,566;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 9,903;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 29,469.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 28;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 206,338;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 33;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 73,429;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 228;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 139,388;
Total: Projects: 289;
Total: Acres: 419,155.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forests.
[B] Of the 21 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Includes the Coeur d'Alene, Kaniksu, and St. Joe National Forests.
[End of table]
Table 9: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 2 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Arapaho-Roosevelt[A];
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,515;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 38,665;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,560;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 42,740.
National forest: Bighorn;
State: Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 1,860;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,860;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 6;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 792;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 5,512.
National forest: Black Hills;
State: S.D., Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4[B];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 42,492;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 10[C];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 19,247;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 28[D];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,008;
Total: Projects: 42;
Total: Acres: 69,747.
National forest: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison[E];
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9[F];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,909;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,655;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 11,564.
National forest: Medicine Bow-Routt[G];
State: Colo., Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 3;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 10,008;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 6;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 11,455;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11[H];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,716;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 27,179.
National forest: National Forests of Nebraska[I];
State: Neb;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 7,344;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 1;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 650;
Total: Projects: 3;
Total: Acres: 7,994.
National forest: Pike and San Isabel[J];
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 20,170;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 42,500;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 17;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 14,002;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 76,672.
National forest: Rio Grande;
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 1,556;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 550;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 8;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 7,261;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 9,367.
National forest: San Juan;
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 3,380;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 17,950;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 29;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 17,622;
Total: Projects: 37;
Total: Acres: 38,952.
National forest: Shoshone;
State: Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 19,091;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 22,617;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 41,708.
National forest: White River;
State: Colo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 891;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,761;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 23[K];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 32,971;
Total: Projects: 32;
Total: Acres: 39,623.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 14;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 82,872;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 63;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 171,332;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 153;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 116,854;
Total: Projects: 230;
Total: Acres: 371,058.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests.
[B] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the 10 projects, 5 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the 28 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Includes the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National
Forests.
[F] Of the nine projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[G] Includes the Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests.
[H] Of the 11 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[I] Includes the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests.
[J] Includes the Pike and San Isabel National Forests.
[K] Of the 23 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 10: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 3 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Apache-Sitgreaves[A];
State: Ariz., N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 41,059;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 38,786;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 17[B];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,030;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 94,875.
National forest: Carson;
State: N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2[C];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 51;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 10,609;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 13;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,284;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 18,944.
National forest: Cibola;
State: N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 50,615;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 21[D];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 55,940;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 106,555.
National forest: Coconino;
State: Ariz.,;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 6,229;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 16,753;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 14;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 26,448;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 49,430.
National forest: Coronado;
State: Ariz., N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10[E];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 4,604;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 4,604.
National forest: Gila;
State: N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 35,261;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 20[F];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 11,300;
Total: Projects: 23;
Total: Acres: 46,561.
National forest: Kaibab;
State: Ariz;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 102,337;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 19;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 21,293;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 123,630.
National forest: Lincoln;
State: N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 212,163;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 31;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 14,191;
Total: Projects: 35;
Total: Acres: 226,354.
National forest: Prescott;
State: Ariz;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 69,700;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 6[G];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,669;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 72,369.
National forest: Santa Fe;
State: N.M;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1[H];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 13,437;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 27[I];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 18,072;
Total: Projects: 32;
Total: Acres: 31,509.
National forest: Tonto;
State: Ariz;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 145,560;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 14;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 83,848;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 229,408.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 5;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 47,339;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 40;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 695,221;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 192;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 261,679;
Total: Projects: 237;
Total: Acres: 1,004,239.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Apache and Sitgreaves National Forests.
[B] Of the 17 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the two projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the 21 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the 10 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the 20 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[G] Of the six projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[H] The Forest Service reported the project had no acreage or unknown
acreage.
[I] Of the 27 projects, the Forest Service reported 2 had no acreage or
unknown acreage, according to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 11: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 4 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Ashley;
State: Utah, Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,066;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 50;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 7;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 11,012;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 13,128.
National forest: Boise;
State: Idaho;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 5,495;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 10;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 25,564;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 26;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 17,109;
Total: Projects: 38;
Total: Acres: 48,168.
National forest: Bridger-Teton[A];
State: Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,032;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 610;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 19;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 18,113;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 20,755.
National forest: Caribou-Targhee[B];
State: Idaho, Utah, Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,827;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 15,364;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,817;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 24,008.
National forest: Dixie;
State: Utah;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 3;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 17,635;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 16,157;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 4,894;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 38,686.
National forest: Fishlake;
State: Utah;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 7,300;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 13;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 16,079;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 23,379.
National forest: Humboldt-Toiyabe[C];
State: Calif., Nev;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,910;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 22[D];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 13,620;
Total: Projects: 24;
Total: Acres: 19,530.
National forest: Manti-La Sal;
State: Colo., Utah;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 24,600;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,178;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 32,778.
National forest: Payette;
State: Idaho;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 10;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 18,265;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3[E];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 688;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 17;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 14,513;
Total: Projects: 30;
Total: Acres: 33,466.
National forest: Salmon-Challis[F];
State: Idaho;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 18,496;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 9,084;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 27,580.
National forest: Sawtooth;
State: Idaho, Utah;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,865;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 10,833;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 13,698.
National forest: Uinta;
State: Utah;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 285;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 8;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 862;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 1,147.
National forest: Wasatch-Cache;
State: Idaho, Utah, Wyo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 1,471;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 335;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 10;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 11,050;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 12,856.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 22;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 74,391;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 42;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 93,624;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 175;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 141,164;
Total: Projects: 239;
Total: Acres: 309,179.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Bridger and Teton National Forests.
[B] Includes the Caribou and Targhee National Forests.
[C] Includes the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests.
[D] Of the 22 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the three projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[F] Includes the Salmon and Challis National Forests.
[End of table]
Table 12: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 5 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Angeles;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 4[A];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 569;
Total: Projects: 4;
Total: Acres: 569.
National forest: Cleveland;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 18[B];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,997;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 15,997.
National forest: Eldorado;
State: Calif., Nev;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 12,818;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,785;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 18;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 13,393;
Total: Projects: 23;
Total: Acres: 30,996.
National forest: Inyo;
State: Calif., Nev;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 12;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,963;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 2,963.
National forest: Klamath;
State: Calif., Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 1,056;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 18,606;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 31[C];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 30,049;
Total: Projects: 41;
Total: Acres: 49,711.
National forest: Lassen;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 10,376;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7[D];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 18,581;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 18[E];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,420;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 37,377.
National forest: Los Padres;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 20,314;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 20,314.
National forest: Mendocino;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 1,335;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 22;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,499;
Total: Projects: 25;
Total: Acres: 16,834.
National forest: Modoc;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 9,275;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 3,162;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 10,958;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 23,395.
National forest: Plumas;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 18,421;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5[F];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 15,556;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 13;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,815;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 36,792.
National forest: San Bernardino;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 22[G];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 22,907;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 22,907.
National forest: Sequoia;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 4,900;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,715;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11[H];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 10,475;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 18,090.
National forest: Shasta-Trinity[I];
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 10;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 11,354;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 23;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 18,891;
Total: Projects: 33;
Total: Acres: 30,245.
National forest: Sierra;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 960;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 1,175;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 18;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,539;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 10,674.
National forest: Six Rivers;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 802;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 12;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,578;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 6,380.
National forest: Stanislaus;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 13,306;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 10,712;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 29[J];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 6,153;
Total: Projects: 33;
Total: Acres: 30,171.
National forest: Tahoe;
State: Calif;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 16,243;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 10;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 19,648;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 21[K];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 3,985;
Total: Projects: 33;
Total: Acres: 39,876.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 14;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 87,355;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 62;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 108,431;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 282;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 197,505;
Total: Projects: 358;
Total: Acres: 393,291.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[B] Of the 18 projects, 3 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the 31 projects, 7 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the seven projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the 18 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the five projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[G] Of the 22 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[H] Of the 11 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[I] Includes the Shasta and Trinity National Forests.
[J] Of the 29 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[K] Of the 21 projects, 7 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 13: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 6 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Colville;
State: Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 8,642;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,060;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 19;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,286;
Total: Projects: 25;
Total: Acres: 27,988.
National forest: Deschutes;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 5;
Environmental impact statement: [Empty];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 33,738;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 22,613;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 29[A];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 21,299;
Total: Projects: 38;
Total: Acres: 77,650.
National forest: Fremont-Winema[B];
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 22,982;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 32,134;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 31[C];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 73,273;
Total: Projects: 39;
Total: Acres: 128,389.
National forest: Gifford Pinchot;
State: Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 640;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 693;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 20,999;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 22,332.
National forest: Malheur;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 47,035;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 12,000;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 15[D];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 8,060;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 67,095.
National forest: Mount Baker-Snoqualmie[E];
State: Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 274;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 2;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,045;
Total: Projects: 4;
Total: Acres: 1,319.
National forest: Mount Hood;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 550;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7[F];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,537;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 13;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 21,005;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 24,092.
National forest: Ochoco;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 38,308;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 323;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 17;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,005;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 53,636.
National forest: Okanogan-Wenatchee[G];
State: Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 200;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 12;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 68,374;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 29;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 47,874;
Total: Projects: 42;
Total: Acres: 116,448.
National forest: Olympic;
State: Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,295;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 7[H];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,195;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 4,490.
National forest: Rogue River-Siskiyou[I];
State: Calif., Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 66,184;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 4[J];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 1,121;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 18[K];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 4,220;
Total: Projects: 24;
Total: Acres: 71,525.
National forest: Siuslaw;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 3;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,581;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,195;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 7,776.
National forest: Umatilla;
State: Ore., Wash;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4[L];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 53,540;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 19,857;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 32;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 12,508;
Total: Projects: 43;
Total: Acres: 85,905.
National forest: Umpqua;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,363;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5[M];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,737;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 26[N];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,679;
Total: Projects: 33;
Total: Acres: 23,779.
National forest: Wallowa-Whitman[O];
State: Idaho, Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 746;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 40,269;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 26;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 23,098;
Total: Projects: 36;
Total: Acres: 64,113.
National forest: Willamette;
State: Ore;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 16[P];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 5,157;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 47[Q];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 18,619;
Total: Projects: 63;
Total: Acres: 23,776.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 28;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 274,928;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 88;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 223,025;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 321;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 302,360;
Total: Projects: 437;
Total: Acres: 800,313.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Of the 29 projects, 3 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[B] Includes the Fremont and Winema National Forests.
[C] Of the 31 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the 15 projects, 5 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Includes the Mount Baker and Snoqualmie National Forests.
[F] Of the seven projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[G] Includes the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
[H] Of the seven projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[I] Includes the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests.
[J] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[K] Of the 18 projects, 5 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[L] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[M] Of the five projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[N] Of the 26 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[O] Includes the Wallowa and Whitman National Forests.
[P] Of the 16 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[Q] Of the 47 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 14: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 8 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: National Forests of Alabama[A];
State: Ala;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 3[B];
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8[C];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 21,276;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 34[D];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 103,572;
Total: Projects: 45;
Total: Acres: 124,848.
National forest: Caribbean;
State: P.R;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 0;
Total: Acres: 0.
National forest: Chattahoochee-Oconee[E];
State: Ga;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 6[F];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 16,669;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 19;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 22,323;
Total: Projects: 25;
Total: Acres: 38,992.
National forest: Cherokee;
State: N.C., Tenn.,;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,977;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 43;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 43,981;
Total: Projects: 48;
Total: Acres: 46,958.
National forest: Daniel Boone;
State: Ky;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 44;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 14;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 33,255;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 33,299.
National forest: National Forests of Florida[G];
State: Fla;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 18[H];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 20,624;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 32;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 559,965;
Total: Projects: 50;
Total: Acres: 580,589.
National forest: Francis Marion and Sumter[I];
State: S.C;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 15[J];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 55,278;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 25;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 206,542;
Total: Projects: 40;
Total: Acres: 261,820.
National forest: George Washington-Jefferson[K];
State: Ky., Va., W.Va;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 35;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 66,705;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 48;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 27,979;
Total: Projects: 83;
Total: Acres: 94,684.
National forest: Kisatchie;
State: La;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 21,000;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 25;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 214,517;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 57;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 27,068;
Total: Projects: 83;
Total: Acres: 262,585.
National forest: National Forests of Mississippi[L];
State: Miss;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 38[M];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 83,595;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 107[N];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 267,683;
Total: Projects: 145;
Total: Acres: 351,278.
National forest: National Forests of North Carolina[O];
State: N.C;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 25[P];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 13,958;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 32;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 12,898;
Total: Projects: 57;
Total: Acres: 26,856.
National forest: Ouachita;
State: Ark., Okla;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 44[Q];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 296,175;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 119[R];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 101,198;
Total: Projects: 163;
Total: Acres: 397,373.
National forest: Ozark-St. Francis[S];
State: Ark;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 22;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 93,845;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 46;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 104,681;
Total: Projects: 68;
Total: Acres: 198,526.
National forest: National Forests of Texas[T];
State: Tex;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 7;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 29,740;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 57[U];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 97,828;
Total: Projects: 64;
Total: Acres: 127,568.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 21,000;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 249;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 915,403;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 633;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,608,973;
Total: Projects: 886;
Total: Acres: 2,545,376.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the William B. Bankhead, Conecuh, Talladega, and Tuskegee
National Forests.
[B] The Forest Service reported that the three projects had no acreage
or unknown acreage.
[C] Of the eight projects, three had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the 34 projects, 6 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Includes the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests.
[F] Of the six projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[G] Includes the Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, Ocala, and Osceola
National Forests.
[H] Of the 18 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[I] Includes the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests.
[J] Of the 15 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[K] Includes the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.
[L] Includes the Bienville, Delta, De Soto, Holly Springs, Homochitto,
and Tombigbee National Forests.
[M] Of the 38 projects, 6 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[N] Of the 107 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[O] Includes the Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan, and Uwharrie National
Forests.
[P] Of the 25 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[Q] Of the 44 projects, 4 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[R] Of the 119 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[S] Includes the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests.
[T] Includes the Angelina, Davy Crockett, Sabine, and Sam Houston
National Forests.
[U] Of the 57 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 15: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 9 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Allegheny;
State: Pa;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 4;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 13,240;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 6;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,667;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 24;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 3,741;
Total: Projects: 34;
Total: Acres: 19,648.
National forest: Chequamegon-Nicolet[A];
State: Wis;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 6;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 49,457;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 8[B];
Environmental assessment: Acres: 12,084;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 34[C];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 7,391;
Total: Projects: 48;
Total: Acres: 68,932.
National forest: Chippewa;
State: Minn;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 10;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 28,698;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 6;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,272;
Total: Projects: 16;
Total: Acres: 29,970.
National forest: Green Mountain and Finger Lakes[D];
State: N.Y., Vt;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 840;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 574;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 8;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 2,982;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 4,396.
National forest: Hiawatha;
State: Mich;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 2,425;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 41,114;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 739;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 44,278.
National forest: Hoosier;
State: Ind;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 1,436;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 4[E];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,089;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 2,525.
National forest: Huron-Manistee[F];
State: Mich;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 29;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 30,771;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 23;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,120;
Total: Projects: 52;
Total: Acres: 35,891.
National forest: Mark Twain;
State: Mo;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 9,000;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 49,697;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 39;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 39,641;
Total: Projects: 49;
Total: Acres: 98,338.
National forest: Monongahela;
State: W.Va;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 2;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 1,447;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 6;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,697;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 3,144.
National forest: Ottawa;
State: Mich;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 1;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 5,525;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 5;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 19,276;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 3;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 474;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 25,275.
National forest: Shawnee;
State: Ill;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 2,640;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 1;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,218;
Total: Projects: 2;
Total: Acres: 3,858.
National forest: Superior;
State: Minn;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 2;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 14,256;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 6;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 16,025;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 5[G];
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 294;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 30,575.
National forest: Wayne;
State: Ohio;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 1;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,981;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 11;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 5,464;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 10,445.
National forest: White Mountain;
State: Maine, N.H;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 15;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 10,856;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 7;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,665;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 12,521.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 16;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 94,743;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 104;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 222,266;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 176;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 72,787;
Total: Projects: 296;
Total: Acres: 389,796.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests.
[B] Of the eight projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the 34 projects, 3 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Includes the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests.
[E] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[F] Includes the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
[G] Of the five projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 16: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Environmental Analyses, by
Region 10 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Chugach;
State: Alaska;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 0;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 0;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 0;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 0;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 7;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 1,657;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 1,657.
National forest: Tongass;
State: Alaska;
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 10;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 10,259;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,253;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 20;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 14,105;
Total: Projects: 39;
Total: Acres: 28,617.
National forest: Total;
State:
Environmental impact statement: Projects: 10;
Environmental impact statement: Acres: 10,259;
Environmental assessment: Projects: 9;
Environmental assessment: Acres: 4,253;
Categorical exclusion: Projects: 27;
Categorical exclusion: Acres: 15,762;
Total: Projects: 46;
Total: Acres: 30,274.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Categorical
Exclusion and Forest Service Region (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Notes: Of the 2,187 vegetation management projects approved using a
categorical exclusion, 71 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service. The acreage associated with a vegetation
management project may be zero or unknown because, among other reasons,
the unit of measure for the project is listed as miles of roadside to
be treated or number of trees to be removed. In addition, the Forest
Service indicated for 38 projects that, in addition to the categorical
exclusion cited as being used, one or more of the remaining four
categorical exclusions were also used. We only counted the first
categorical exclusion cited.
[A] Numbers do not add to total due to rounding.
[B] Fewer than 500 acres.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Number of Projects and Acres by Type of Categorical
Exclusion and National Forest (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
Table 17: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 1 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Beaverhead-Deerlodge[A];
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7[B];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,235;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 436;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 438;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 3;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 620;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 3,729.
National forest: Bitterroot;
State: Idaho, Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11[C];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 7,600;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 263;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 9[D];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 1,554;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 121;
Total: Projects: 28;
Total: Acres: 9,538.
National forest: Clearwater;
State: Idaho;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 46,123;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 191;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 191;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 46,505.
National forest: Custer;
State: Mont., S.D;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 9[E];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,920;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3[F];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,234;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 9,154.
National forest: Flathead;
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 911;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4[G];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,568;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 122;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 5,601.
National forest: Gallatin;
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 6,475;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 23;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 43;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 25;
Total: Projects: 9;
Total: Acres: 6,566.
National forest: Helena;
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 330;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,372;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
2[H];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 42;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 511;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 2,255.
National forest: Idaho Panhandle[I];
State: Idaho, Mont., Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 6,618;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 13;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,361;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
15[J];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 750;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 9;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 934;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 100;
Total: Projects: 43;
Total: Acres: 12,763.
National forest: Kootenai;
State: Idaho, Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 11,020;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,639;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
13;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 705;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 598;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 3[K];
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 334;
Total: Projects: 36;
Total: Acres: 17,296.
National forest: Lewis and Clark;
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 500;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,713;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1[L];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 250;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 2,533.
National forest: Lolo;
State: Mont;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 10;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,047;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,926;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 969;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 6;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 533;
Total: Projects: 31;
Total: Acres: 13,545.
National forest: Nez Perce;
State: Idaho;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 8;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,414;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 41;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1[M];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 198;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 250;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 9,903.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 75;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 106,193;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 38;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 22,813;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
52;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres:
2,521;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 46;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 5,628;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 17;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 2,233;
Total: Projects: 228;
Total: Acres: 139,388.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forests.
[B] Of the seven projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the 11 projects, 4 also used the categorical exclusion for
hazardous fuels reduction, and 1 also used the categorical exclusion
for the limited timber harvest of live trees, according to the Forest
Service.
[D] Of the nine projects, three projects also used the categorical
exclusion for the removal of insect-or disease-infested trees,
according to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the nine projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
hazardous fuels reduction, according to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the three projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the salvage of dead or dying trees, according to the Forest Service.
[G] Of the four projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[H] Of the two projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
hazardous fuels reduction, according to the Forest Service.
[I] Includes The Coeur D'alene, Kaniksu, And St. Joe National Forests.
[J] Of the 15 projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[KJ] Of the three projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the limited timber harvest of live trees, according to the Forest
Service.
[L] The Forest Service indicated that the project also used the
categorical exclusion for the removal of insect-or disease-infested
trees.
[M] The Forest Service indicated that the project also used the
categorical exclusion for the limited timber harvest of live trees.
[End of table]
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Table 18: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 2 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Arapaho-Roosevelt[A];
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 87;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,219;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 56;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 196;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 2;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 1,560.
National forest: Bighorn;
State: Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 232;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 120;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 250;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 190;
Total: Projects: 6;
Total: Acres: 792.
National forest: Black Hills;
State: S.D., Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,263;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 10[B];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,933;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 500;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 9;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 2,242;
Total: Projects: 28;
Total: Acres: 8,008.
National forest: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison[C];
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,695;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,651;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 121;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 188;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 5,655.
National forest: Medicine Bow-Routt[D];
State: Colo., Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5[E];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,260;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,071;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 100;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 215;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 5,716.
National forest: National Forests of Nebraska[F];
State: Neb;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 0;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 650;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 1;
Total: Acres: 650.
National forest: Pike and San Isabel[G];
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 4;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 303;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 13;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 13,699;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 17;
Total: Acres: 14,002.
National forest: Rio Grande;
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,900;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,000;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 241;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 120;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 7,261.
National forest: San Juan;
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,196;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 16[H];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 13,016;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 410;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 29;
Total: Acres: 17,622.
National forest: Shoshone;
State: Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5[I];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 13,051;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 9,566;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 22,617.
National forest: White River;
State: Colo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7[J];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 28,114;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,867;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 6[K];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 617;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 3;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 373;
Total: Projects: 23;
Total: Acres: 32,971.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 52;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 59,101;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 65;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 51,792;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 196;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 16;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 2,435;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 17;
Removal of insect- or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 3,330;
Total: Projects: 153;
Total: Acres: 116,854.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests.
[B] Of the 10 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Includes the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National
Forests.
[D] Includes the Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests.
[E] Of the five projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage and two
also used the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuels reduction,
according to the Forest Service.
[F] Includes the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests.
[G] Includes the Pike and San Isabel National Forests.
[H] Of the 16 projects, 1 also used the categorical exclusion for the
limited timber harvest of live trees, according to the Forest Service.
[I] Of the five projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the removal of insect-or disease-infested trees, according to the
Forest Service.
[J] Of the seven projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the salvage of dead or dying trees, according to the Forest Service.
[K] Of the six projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage and two
also used the categorical exclusion for the removal of insect-or
disease-infested trees, according to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 19: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 3 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Apache-Sitgreaves[A];
State: Ariz., N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 8[B];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,867;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 9;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 10,163;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 17;
Total: Acres: 15,030.
National forest: Carson;
State: N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,435;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,849;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 8,284.
National forest: Cibola;
State: N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11[C];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 47,182;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 9;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 8,668;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 90;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 55,940.
National forest: Coconino;
State: Ariz.,;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 9;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 20,672;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 5,776;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 26,448.
National forest: Coronado;
State: Ariz., N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3[D];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,420;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,000;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 184;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 4,604.
National forest: Gila;
State: N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,237;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 13[E];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 6,063;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 11,300.
National forest: Kaibab;
State: Ariz;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 14;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 17,345;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,844;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 104;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 21,293.
National forest: Lincoln;
State: N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 29;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,916;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,275;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 31;
Total: Acres: 14,191.
National forest: Prescott;
State: Ariz;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3[F];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 900;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,769;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 6;
Total: Acres: 2,669.
National forest: Santa Fe;
State: N.M;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 22[G];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 16,430;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,600;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 22;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 20;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 27;
Total: Acres: 18,072.
National forest: Tonto;
State: Ariz;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 9;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 78,050;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 5,798;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 83,848.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 122;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 207,454;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 63;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 53,805;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 22;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 398;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 192;
Total: Acres: 261,679.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Apache and Sitgreaves National Forests.
[B] Of the 8 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the 11 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the three projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the 13 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the three projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[G] Of the 22 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 20: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 4 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Ashley;
State: Utah, Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,212;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 6,700;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 100;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 11,012.
National forest: Boise;
State: Idaho;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 12;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 12,561;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,805;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 59;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 5[A];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 684;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 17,109.
National forest: Bridger-Teton[B];
State: Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 8,225;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 10;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 9,745;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 3;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 143;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 18,113.
National forest: Caribou-Targhee[C];
State: Idaho, Utah, Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 4;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 838;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,711;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 268;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 5,817.
National forest: Dixie;
State: Utah;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 4;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,769;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 478;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 167;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 480;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 4,894.
National forest: Fishlake;
State: Utah;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,348;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 6,210;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 3;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 521;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 16,079.
National forest: Humboldt-Toiyabe[D];
State: Calif., Nev;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 8;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,248;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 12[E];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 11,179;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 69;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 124;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 13,620.
National forest: Manti-La Sal;
State: Colo., Utah;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 300;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 7,049;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 829;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 8,178.
National forest: Payette;
State: Idaho;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,394;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 9,214;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 270;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 635;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 17;
Total: Acres: 14,513.
National forest: Salmon-Challis[F];
State: Idaho;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 8,282;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 345;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 76;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 381;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 9,084.
National forest: Sawtooth;
State: Idaho, Utah;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,993;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,340;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 500;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 10,833.
National forest: Uinta;
State: Utah;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 86;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 386;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 390;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 862.
National forest: Wasatch-Cache;
State: Idaho, Utah, Wyo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,100;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,705;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 245;
Total: Projects: 10;
Total: Acres: 11,050.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 60;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 69,356;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 74;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 65,867;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 474;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 21;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 3,588;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 12;
Removal of insect- or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 1,879;
Total: Projects: 175;
Total: Acres: 141,164.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Of the five projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the removal of insect-or disease-infested trees, according to the
Forest Service.
[B] Includes the Bridger and Teton National Forests.
[C] Includes the Caribou and Targhee National Forests.
[D] Includes the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests.
[E] Of the 12 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[F] Includes the Salmon and Challis National Forests.
[End of table]
Table 21: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 5 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Angeles;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2[A];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 267;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 102;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 200;
Total: Projects: 4;
Total: Acres: 569.
National forest: Cleveland;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 9[B];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 10,574;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 8[C];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 5,399;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 24;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 15,997.
National forest: Eldorado;
State: Calif., Nev;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 9;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 4,653;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 8,490;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 250;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 13,393.
National forest: Inyo;
State: Calif., Nev;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,265;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,356;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 250;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 92;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 2,963.
National forest: Klamath;
State: Calif., Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 18[D];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 19,721;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 11[E];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 10,038;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 40;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 250;
Total: Projects: 31;
Total: Acres: 30,049.
National forest: Lassen;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 10[F];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,167;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,047;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 206;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 8,420.
National forest: Los Padres;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 4;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 19,614;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 700;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 20,314.
National forest: Mendocino;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 14;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 6,974;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 7,755;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 770;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 15,499.
National forest: Modoc;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 10,550;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2[G];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 408;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 10,958.
National forest: Plumas;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 671;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,138;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 5;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 2,815.
National forest: San Bernardino;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 12[H];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 14,558;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 10[I];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 8,349;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 22;
Total: Acres: 22,907.
National forest: Sequoia;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 8,230;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6[J];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,245;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 10,475.
National forest: Shasta-Trinity[K];
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 7;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,461;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 8,514;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 9[L];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 916;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 23;
Total: Acres: 18,891.
National forest: Sierra;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 16;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 8,195;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 344;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 8,539.
National forest: Six Rivers;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,443;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,926;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 209;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 12;
Total: Acres: 5,578.
National forest: Stanislaus;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,138;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 15[M];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,707;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 308;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 29;
Total: Acres: 6,153.
National forest: Tahoe;
State: Calif;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11[N];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,122;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6[O];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 817;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
1[P];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1[Q];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 46;
Total: Projects: 21;
Total: Acres: 3,985.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 150;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 127,603;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 96;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 65,927;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 45;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 28;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 3,342;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 5;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 588;
Total: Projects: 282;
Total: Acres: 197,505.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Of the two projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[B] Of the nine projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the eight projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the 18 projects, 3 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[E] Of the 11 projects, 4 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the 10 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[G] Of the two projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the limited timber harvest of live trees, according to the Forest
Service.
[H] Of the 12 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage and 1 also
used the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuels reduction, according
to the Forest Service.
[I] Of the 10 projects, 1 also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[J] Of the six projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[K] Includes the Shasta and Trinity National Forests.
[L] Of the nine projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the limited timber harvest of live trees, according to the Forest
Service.
[M] Of the 15 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[N] Of the 11 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[O] Of the six projects, three had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[P] The Forest Service reported the project had no acreage or unknown
acreage.
[Q] The Forest Service reported the project had no acreage or unknown
acreage.
[End of table]
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Table 22: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 6 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Colville;
State: Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 8;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,786;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 9,036;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 210;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 254;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 15,286.
National forest: Deschutes;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 18;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 20,522;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 7[A];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 291;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 416;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 29;
Total: Acres: 21,299.
National forest: Fremont-Winema[B];
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 26[C];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 72,266;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 707;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 70;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 230;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 31;
Total: Acres: 73,273.
National forest: Gifford Pinchot;
State: Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 4;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 20,930;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 69;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 20,999.
National forest: Malheur;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 8[D];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,170;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,464;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 203;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 223;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 15;
Total: Acres: 8,060.
National forest: Mount Baker-Snoqualmie[E];
State: Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,029;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 16;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 2;
Total: Acres: 1,045.
National forest: Mount Hood;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 18,793;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,536;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 274;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 402;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 13;
Total: Acres: 21,005.
National forest: Ochoco;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 10;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,377;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 9,392;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 76;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 160;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 17;
Total: Acres: 15,005.
National forest: Okanogan-Wenatchee[F];
State: Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 20;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 47,293;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 180;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 213;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 188;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 29;
Total: Acres: 47,874.
National forest: Olympic;
State: Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6[G];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,145;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 50;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 2,195.
National forest: Rogue River-Siskiyou[H];
State: Calif., Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 10[I];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,561;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 307;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 100;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3[J];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 250;
Total: Projects: 18;
Total: Acres: 4,220.
National forest: Siuslaw;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,080;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 112;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 2,195.
National forest: Umatilla;
State: Ore., Wash;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 11;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 8,736;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,475;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
7[K];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 368;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 901;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 28;
Total: Projects: 32;
Total: Acres: 12,508.
National forest: Umpqua;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 16;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 14,861;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4[L];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 195;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 43;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 580;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 15,679.
National forest: Wallowa-Whitman[M];
State: Idaho, Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 13;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 10,272;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 10;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 12,532;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3[N];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 294;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 26;
Total: Acres: 23,098.
National forest: Willamette;
State: Ore;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 34;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 18,397;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 90;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 7[O];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 132;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 47;
Total: Acres: 18,619.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 189;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 255,218;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 46;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 41,118;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
39;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres:
1,948;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 45;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 3,798;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 278;
Total: Projects: 321;
Total: Acres: 302,360.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Of the seven projects, three had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[B] Includes the Fremont and Winema National Forests.
[C] Of the 26 projects, 2 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[D] Of the eight projects, five had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[E] Includes the Mount Baker and Snoqualmie National Forests.
[F] Includes the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
[G] Of the six projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[H] Includes the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests.
[I] Of the 10 projects, 3 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[J] Of the three projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[K] Of the seven projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[L] Of the four projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[M] Includes the Wallowa and Whitman National Forests.
[N] Of the three projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the removal of insect-or disease-infested trees, according to the
Forest Service.
[O] Of the seven projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Table 23: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 8 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: National Forests of Alabama[A];
State: Ala;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 24[B];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 100,860;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,199;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 178;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 335;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 1[C];
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 34;
Total: Acres: 103,572.
National forest: Caribbean;
State: P.R;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 0;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 0;
Total: Acres: 0.
National forest: Chattahoochee-Oconee[D];
State: Ga;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 15;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 22,115;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 208;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 19;
Total: Acres: 22,323.
National forest: Cherokee;
State: N.C., Tenn.,;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 32[E];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 43,496;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
9[F];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 390;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 95;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 43;
Total: Acres: 43,981.
National forest: Daniel Boone;
State: Ky;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 12;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 33,132;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 123;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 14;
Total: Acres: 33,255.
National forest: National Forests of Florida[G];
State: Fla;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 28;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 559,482;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 283;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 200;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 32;
Total: Acres: 559,965.
National forest: Francis Marion and Sumter[H];
State: S.C;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 18;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 202,334;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4,041;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 167;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 25;
Total: Acres: 206,542.
National forest: George Washington-Jefferson[I];
State: Ky., Va., W.Va;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 40[J];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 27,598;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 228;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 151;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 2;
Total: Projects: 48;
Total: Acres: 27,979.
National forest: Kisatchie;
State: La;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 35;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 22,438;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,529;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 9;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 444;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 657;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 57;
Total: Acres: 27,068.
National forest: National Forests of Mississippi[K];
State: Miss;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 21;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 265,862;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 400;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
20[L];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 977;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 5[M];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 297;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 60;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 147;
Total: Projects: 107;
Total: Acres: 267,683.
National forest: National Forests of North Carolina[N];
State: N.C;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 16;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 9,130;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 3,060;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 140;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 503;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 2;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 65;
Total: Projects: 32;
Total: Acres: 12,898.
National forest: Ouachita;
State: Ark., Okla;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 71;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 87,768;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 17[O];
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 10,447;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
6[P];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 223;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 25[Q];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Acres: 2,760;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 119;
Total: Acres: 101,198.
National forest: Ozark-St. Francis[R];
State: Ark;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 19;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 55,231;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 17;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 48,565;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 337;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 3;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 548;
Total: Projects: 46;
Total: Acres: 104,681.
National forest: National Forests of Texas[S];
State: Tex;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 37[T];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 87,846;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 8,905;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
16;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres:
1,027;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 50;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 57;
Total: Acres: 97,828.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 368;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,517,292;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 56;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 81,429;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
88;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres:
4,319;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 54;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 5,171;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 67;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 762;
Total: Projects: 633;
Total: Acres: 1,608,973.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project
decision may be zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit
of measure for the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated
or number of trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the William B. Bankhead, Conecuh, Talladega, and Tuskegee
National Forests.
[B] Of the 24 projects, 5 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] The Forest Service reported the project had no acreage or unknown
acreage.
[D] Includes the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests.
[E] Of the 32 projects, 1 also used the categorical exclusion for
hazardous fuels reduction, according to the Forest Service.
[F] Of the nine projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
the salvage of dead or dying trees and one also used both the
categorical exclusion for the salvage of dead or dying tress and for
the removal of insect-or disease-infested trees, according to the
Forest Service.
[G] Includes the Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, Ocala, and Osceola
National Forests.
[H] Includes the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests.
[I] Includes the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.
[J] Of the 40 projects, 1 also used the categorical exclusion for
hazardous fuels reduction, according to the Forest Service.
[K] Includes the Bienville, Delta, De Soto, Holly Springs, Homochitto,
and Tombigbee National Forests.
[L] Of the 20 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[M] Of the five projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[N] Includes the Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan, and Uwharrie National
Forests.
[O] Of the 17 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[P] Of the six projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[Q] Of the 25 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage and 1 also
used the categorical exclusion for the limited timber harvest of live
trees, according to the Forest Service.
[R] Includes the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests.
[S] Includes the Angelina, Davy Crockett, Sabine, and Sam Houston
National Forests.
[T] Of the 37 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[End of table]
[This page intentionally left blank].
Table 24: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 9 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Allegheny;
State: Pa;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 3;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,090;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 4;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 20;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 1,647;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 24;
Total: Acres: 3,741.
National forest: Chequamegon-Nicolet[A];
State: Wis;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 13[B];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 5,623;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 571;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
11;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 543;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 5[C];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 564;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 90;
Total: Projects: 34;
Total: Acres: 7,391.
National forest: Chippewa;
State: Minn;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 23;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,232;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 17;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 6;
Total: Acres: 1,272.
National forest: Green Mountain and Finger Lakes[D];
State: N.Y., Vt;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 2,876;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 25;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 51;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 30;
Total: Projects: 8;
Total: Acres: 2,982.
National forest: Hiawatha;
State: Mich;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 20;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 420;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 249;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 50;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 739.
National forest: Hoosier;
State: Ind;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 2[E];
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 855;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 234;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 4;
Total: Acres: 1,089.
National forest: Huron-Manistee[F];
State: Mich;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 14;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,959;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 5;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,652;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4[G];
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 509;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 23;
Total: Acres: 5,120.
National forest: Mark Twain;
State: Mo;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 16;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 24,788;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 19;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 13,875;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 4;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 978;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 39;
Total: Acres: 39,641.
National forest: Monongahela;
State: W.Va;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,692;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 5;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 6;
Total: Acres: 1,697.
National forest: Ottawa;
State: Mich;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 0;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 456;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 1;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 18;
Total: Projects: 3;
Total: Acres: 474.
National forest: Shawnee;
State: Ill;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,218;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 1;
Total: Acres: 1,218.
National forest: Superior;
State: Minn;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 0;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 1;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 55;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
1[H];
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 239;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 5;
Total: Acres: 294.
National forest: Wayne;
State: Ohio;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 3,287;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 2,027;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 3;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 150;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 11;
Total: Acres: 5,464.
National forest: White Mountain;
State: Maine, N.H;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 1,609;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 2;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 56;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 1,665.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 72;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 46,040;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 41;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 21,317;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects:
19;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 771;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Projects: 40;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250- acre limitation): Acres: 4,471;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 4;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 188;
Total: Projects: 176;
Total: Acres: 72,787.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In some instances, the acreage associated with a project may be
zero or unknown because, among other reasons, the unit of measure for
the project is listed as miles of roadside to be treated or number of
trees to be removed.
[A] Includes the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests.
[B] Of the 13 projects, 1 had no acreage or unknown acreage, according
to the Forest Service.
[C] Of the five projects, two had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[D] Includes the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests.
[E] Of the two projects, one had no acreage or unknown acreage,
according to the Forest Service.
[F] Includes the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
[G] Of the four projects, one also used the categorical exclusion for
improving timber stands or wildlife habitat, according to the Forest
Service.
[H] The project acreage was reported as zero or unknown, according to
the Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 25: Number of Vegetation Management Projects Approved and
Associated Acres for Different Types of Categorical Exclusions, by
Region 10 National Forests (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
National forest: Chugach;
State: Alaska;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 1;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 179;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,478;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 7;
Total: Acres: 1,657.
National forest: Tongass;
State: Alaska;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 5;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 13,752;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 0;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 0;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 245;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 108;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250- acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 20;
Total: Acres: 14,105.
National forest: Total;
State:
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Projects: 6;
Improve timber stands or wildlife habitat (no acreage limitation):
Acres: 13,931;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Projects: 6;
Hazardous fuels reduction (5,500-acre limitation): Acres: 1,478;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Projects: 7;
Limited timber harvest of live trees (70-acre limitation): Acres: 245;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Projects: 8;
Salvage of dead or dying trees (250-acre limitation): Acres: 108;
Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Projects: 0;
Removal of insect-or disease- infested trees (250-acre limitation):
Acres: 0;
Total: Projects: 27;
Total: Acres: 15,762.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Primary Reasons for Not Using Different Vegetation
Management Categorical Exclusions (Calendar Years 2003 through 2005):
Table 26: Primary Reasons Cited by 165 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Improving Timber Stands or Wildlife
Habitat:
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: No projects were
undertaken to improve timber stand or wildlife habitat;
Number (percent of total): 61 (37.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects that fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
Number (percent of total): 59 (35.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources;
Number (percent of total): 26 (15.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: District or forest
preference to use an environmental assessment;
Number (percent of total): 5 (3.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other;
Number (percent of total): 5 (3.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects required more
than 1 mile of low standard road construction or roads of higher
service level;
Number (percent of total): 3 (1.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 2 (1.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other categorical
exclusion used;
Number (percent of total): 2 (1.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Extraordinary
circumstances;
Number (percent of total): 1 (0.6).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Previous court rulings;
Number (percent of total): 1 (0.6).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Concern project may be
litigated;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0) .
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Internal Forest Service
policy;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0) .
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Perceived public
acceptability;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0) .
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Potential for
significant impact of proposed projects on the environment;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects required the
use of herbicides;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0) .
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Total;
Number (percent of total): 165 (100)[A].
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 27: Primary Reasons Cited by 256 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Reducing Hazardous Fuels:
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects that fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
Number (percent of total): 62 (24.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of wildland fire
risk reduction plan;
Number (percent of total): 46 (18.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources;
Number (percent of total): 33 (12.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Size (acreage) of the
proposed projects;
Number (percent of total): 22 (8.6).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other categorical
exclusion used;
Number (percent of total): 21 (8.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other;
Number (percent of total): 19 (7.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of hazardous
fuels;
Number (percent of total): 13 (5.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Extraordinary
circumstances;
Number (percent of total): 8 (3.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: District or forest
preference to use an environmental assessment;
Number (percent of total): 6 (2.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects required the
use of pesticides, herbicides, or new permanent roads or
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 6 (2.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects are not
consistent with applicable procedures or land resource management
plans;
Number (percent of total): 5 (2.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Location of proposed
hazardous fuels reduction projects did not meet criteria;
Number (percent of total): 4 (1.6).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Potential for
significant impact of proposed projects on the environment;
Number (percent of total): 3 (1.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Internal Forest Service
policy;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Perceived public
acceptability;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Previous court rulings;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Concern project may be
litigated;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Total;
Number (percent of total): 256 (100)[A].
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 28: Primary Reasons Cited by 353 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Salvaging Dead or Dying Trees:
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of trees dead or
dying as a result of wind, ice, or fire-related events;
Number (percent of total): 95 (26.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects that fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
Number (percent of total): 66 (18.7).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Have dead or dying
trees, but other priorities precluded its use;
Number (percent of total): 47 (13.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Size (acreage) of the
proposed project;
Number (percent of total): 36 (10.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other;
Number (percent of total): 29 (8.2).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources;
Number (percent of total): 28 (7.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 16 (4.5).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other categorical
exclusion used;
Number (percent of total): 13 (3.7).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: District or forest
preference to use an environmental assessment;
Number (percent of total): 8 (2.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Concern project may be
litigated;
Number (percent of total): 5 (1.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Extraordinary
circumstances;
Number (percent of total): 5 (1.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects would require
permanent road construction or more than one-half mile of temporary
road construction;
Number (percent of total): 4 (1.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Potential for
significant impact of proposed projects on the environment;
Number (percent of total): 1 (0.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Internal Forest Service
policy;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Perceived public
acceptability;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Previous court rulings;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Total;
Number (percent of total): 353 (100)[A].
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 29: Primary Reasons Cited by 395 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for Conducting Limited Timber Harvests of
Live Trees:
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Size (acreage) of the
proposed projects;
Number (percent of total): 110 (27.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects that fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
Number (percent of total): 100 (25.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other;
Number (percent of total): 62 (15.7).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources;
Number (percent of total): 55 (13.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 21 (5.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other categorical
exclusion used;
Number (percent of total): 16 (4.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: District or forest
preference to use an environmental assessment;
Number (percent of total): 13 (3.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Extraordinary
circumstances;
Number (percent of total): 7 (1.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Internal Forest Service
policy;
Number (percent of total): 4 (1.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects would require
permanent road construction or more than one-half mile of temporary
road construction;
Number (percent of total): 4 (1.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Concern project may be
litigated;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.5).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Perceived public
acceptability;
Number (percent of total): 1 (0.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Potential for
significant impact of proposed projects on the environment;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Previous court rulings;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Total;
Number (percent of total): 395 (100)[A].
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 30: Primary Reasons Cited by 462 Ranger Districts for Not Using
the Categorical Exclusion for the Removal of Insect-or Disease-Infested
Trees:
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of insect-or
disease-infested trees;
Number (percent of total): 114 (24.7).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects that fit the
category have already been or will be included in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
Number (percent of total): 108 (23.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Have insect-or disease-
infested trees, but other priorities precluded its use;
Number (percent of total): 88 (19.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other;
Number (percent of total): 39 (8.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of internal Forest
Service resources;
Number (percent of total): 27 (5.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Size (acreage) of the
proposed projects;
Number (percent of total): 27 (5.8).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Other categorical
exclusion used;
Number (percent of total): 14 (3.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Lack of commercial
infrastructure;
Number (percent of total): 14 (3.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Extraordinary
circumstances;
Number (percent of total): 9 (2.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Perceived public
acceptability;
Number (percent of total): 6 (1.3).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: District or forest
preference to use an environmental assessment;
Number (percent of total): 5 (1.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Internal Forest Service
policy;
Number (percent of total): 5 (1.1).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Projects would require
permanent road construction or more than one-half mile of temporary
road construction;
Number (percent of total): 4 (0.9).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Concern project may be
litigated;
Number (percent of total): 2 (0.4).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Potential for
significant impact of proposed projects on the environment;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Previous court rulings;
Number (percent of total): 0 (0.0).
Reason for not using the categorical exclusion: Total;
Number (percent of total): 462 (100)[A].
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1950/1420:
Date: Sep 22 2006:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Robin Nazzaro:
It is evident that GAO conducted a thorough study of the Agency's use
of categorical exclusions for vegetation management projects approved
during calendar years 2003 through 2005. Not only was data collected
from all 155 national forests, representing 509 ranger districts, but
GAO's efforts to pretest the data collection instrument, conduct site
visits, and interview employees are noteworthy.
The Forest Service generally agrees with GAO's findings and
observations, and specifically that it is premature to extrapolate
trends given the studied categorical exclusions' limited period of use.
The Forest Service would additionally like to provide the following
five clarifications.
1. applicability of categorical exclusions under NEPA and the role of
the Council on Environmental Quality: Expanding on footnote 3 (p. 7),
NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality, which is
responsible for, among other things, issuing guidelines and reviewing
agencies' policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Act.
The Council's regulations implementing NEPA appear at 40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508. Categorical exclusions are a recognized tool for compliance with
NEPA, as required by the Council's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
1507.3(b)(2)(ii) and 1508.4. In developing categorical exclusions,
agencies must consult with and obtain a conformity determination from
the Council for compliance with NEPA and the Council's implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1507.3(a)).
2. Documentation and analyses for categorical exclusions: Expanding on
discussions of analyses and documentation (pp. 7 and 11), the purpose
of a categorical exclusion is to eliminate the need for unnecessary
paperwork and effort under NEPA for categories of actions that normally
do not warrant preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)
or environmental assessment (EA) (40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k)). The
Council's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 do not
specify analyses or documentation requirements for categorical
exclusions. Furthermore, "(T)he Council believes that sufficient
information will usually be available during the course of normal
project development to determine the need for an EIS and further that
the agency's administrative record will clearly document the basis for
its decision. Accordingly, the Council strongly discourages procedures
that would require the preparation of additional paperwork to document
that an activity has been categorically excluded." (Council on
Environmental Quality, "Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations," 48 FR
34263 (July 28, 1983), available at [Hyperlink,
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/1983/1983guid.htm)]. As noted on page 11
of the report, the Forest Service requires limited documentation of the
studied categorical exclusions in a decision memo and supporting file
(Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 - Environmental Policy and Procedures,
sections 32.2 and 32.3). As determined appropriate by the agency
Responsible Official, the extent of project-specific analyses and
documentation is related to the type of action involved, the potential
for extraordinary circumstances, and compliance with other laws,
regulations, and policies. For example, analyses are done to comply
with the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation
Act and are part of the supporting file, although they are not usually
detailed in a decision memo.
3. Applicability of the 2005 Earth Island Institute court ruling:
Expanding on footnote 9 (p. 11), the 2005 Earth Island Institute court
ruling applies only to categorically excluded timber sales and the
following types of categorically excluded activities: A) Projects
involving the use of prescribed burning; B) Projects involving the
creation or maintenance of wildlife openings; C) The designation of
travel routes for off highway vehicle (OHV) use which is not conducted
through the travel management planning process as part of the forest
planning process; D) The construction of new OHV routes and facilities
intended to support OHV use; E) The upgrading, widening, or
modification of OHV routes to increase either the levels or types of
use by OHVs (but not projects performed for the maintenance of existing
routes); F) The issuance or reissuance of special use permits for OHV
activities conducted on areas, trails, or roads that are not designated
for such activities; G) Projects in which the cutting of trees for
thinning or wildlife purposes occurs over an area greater than 5
contiguous acres, H) Gathering geophysical data using shorthole,
vibroseis, or surface charge; 1) Trenching to obtain evidence of
mineralization; and J) Clearing vegetation for sight paths from areas
used for mineral, energy, or geophysical investigation or support
facilities for such activities.
4. Applicability of the hazardous fuels categorical exclusion outside
of the wildland urban inter ace: Expanding upon the categorical
exclusion descriptions in Table 1 (p. 10) and Table 7 (Appendix II, p.
29), use of the studied hazardous fuels categorical exclusion is
restricted outside of the wildland urban interface to areas having
Condition Classes 2 and 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III.
Condition Class 2 is the condition class description under which: A)
Fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered from historical
ranges, B) A moderate risk exists of losing key ecosystem components
from fire; C) Fire frequencies have increased or decreased from
historical frequencies by one or more return intervals, resulting in
moderate changes to the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of
fires or landscape patterns; and D) vegetation attributes have been
moderately altered from their historical ranges. Condition Class 3 is
the condition class description under which: A) Fire regimes on land
have been significantly altered from historical ranges; B) A high risk
exists of losing key ecosystem components from fire; C) Fire
frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple
return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to the size, frequency,
intensity, or severity of fires or landscape patterns and vegetation
attributes have been significantly altered from their historical
ranges. Fire Regime I consists of an area that historically has had low-
severity fires every 0 to 35 years and is located primarily in low-
elevation forests of pine, oak, and pinyon juniper. Fire Regime II
consists of an area that historically has had stand-replacement-
severity fires every 0 to 35 years and is located primarily in low-to
mid-elevation rangeland, grassland, or shrubland. Fire Regime III
consists of an area that historically has had mixed-severity fires
every 35 to 100 years and is located primarily in forests of mixed
conifer, dry Douglas fir, or wet ponderosa pine.
5. Vegetation management categorically excluded activities not included
in study: Expanding upon the discussion in Appendix I (pp. 25 to 26),
the studied vegetation management projects do not include independently
approved categorically excluded reforestation or rehabilitation
activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report. Questions on these comments may be directed to Joe Carbone,
Assistant Director for NEPA, at 202-205-0884.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:
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.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or n [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]
azzaror@gao.gov:
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.
(360623):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Our work focused only on national forests; we did not include other
types of Forest Service units, such as national grasslands, in our
analyses.
[2] There are 155 national forests, which have been combined into 110
administrative units to enable better management. These 12
administrative units encompass 16 national forests.
[3] NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality, which
is responsible for, among other things, issuing guidelines and
reviewing agencies' policies and procedures to ensure compliance with
the act. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA appear at 40 C.F.R. Part
1500. Each agency shall as necessary adopt procedures supplementing the
CEQ regulations. The procedures shall be adopted only after an
opportunity for public review and after review by the council for
conformity with the act and these regulations. Among other things, the
procedures must contain specific criteria for and identification of
those typical classes of actions that do not normally require an EA or
EIS (i.e., categorical exclusions).
[4] 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.
[5] The Forest Service may decide to prepare an environmental
assessment for a project that could qualify for approval using a
categorical exclusion.
[6] In addition to the timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement
categorical exclusion, the Forest Service previously had a categorical
exclusion for timber sales of 250,000 board feet or less of
merchantable wood products or 1 million board feet of salvage. In 1999,
a federal district court issued a nationwide injunction barring use of
this categorical exclusion, holding that the agency did not provide any
rationale for why the specified magnitude of timber sales would not
have a significant effect on the environment. Heartwood v. U.S. Forest
Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 975 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd on other
grounds, 230 F. 3d 947 (7TH Cir. 2000).
[7] 68 Fed. Reg. 33814 (June 5, 2003) and 68 Fed. Reg. 44598 (July 29,
2003).
[8] In addition to categorical exclusions requiring decision memos, the
Forest Service has categorical exclusions not requiring decision memos.
Projects that do not require a decision memo include routine activities
such as establishing Forest Service-wide administrative procedures,
program processes, or instructions, and repairing and maintaining
administrative sites by replacing roofs or storage sheds or painting
buildings.
[9] According to the Forest Service, the extent of analyses and
documentation prepared for projects is related to the types of actions
involved; the potential for extraordinary circumstances; and compliance
with other laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act, regulations, and policies. Analyses and
documentation for projects approved using categorical exclusions are
typically less than those approved using an EA or EIS and, although
they may not be detailed in decision memos, are to be included in
project files.
[10] Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal.
2005), aff'd in part sub. nom., Earth Island v. Ruthenbeck, Civ. No. 05-
16975 (9th Cir. 2006). In the ruling, the court held that the Appeals
Reform Act "— certainly permits exclusion of environmentally
insignificant projects from the appeals process." However, it stated
that "actions that concern 'land and resource management plans . shall'
be subject to notice, comment, and appeal procedures."
[11] Legislation pending in the Senate would exempt projects being
approved using categorical exclusions from formal public notice,
comment, and appeal.
[12] Underburning is prescribed burning under a timber canopy.
[13] While a decision memo is not required for certain categories, one
may be prepared at the discretion of the responsible Forest Service
official.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
