Forest Service
Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 Gao ID: GAO-10-337 March 4, 2010Increases in the number and intensity of wildland fires have led the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service to place greater emphasis on thinning forests and rangelands to reduce the buildup of potentially hazardous vegetation that can fuel wildland fires. The public generally has an opportunity to challenge agency hazardous fuel reduction decisions with which it disagrees. Depending on the type of project being undertaken, the public can file a formal objection to a proposed decision, or can appeal a decision the agency has already made. Appeals and objections must be reviewed by the Forest Service within prescribed time frames. Final decisions may also generally be challenged in federal court. GAO was asked, among other things, to determine, for fiscal years 2006-2008, (1) the number of Forest Service fuel reduction decisions and the associated acreage; (2) the number of decisions subject to appeal and objection, the number appealed, objected to, and litigated, and the associated acreage; and (3) the outcomes of appeals, objections, and litigation, and the extent to which appeals and objections were processed within prescribed time frames. In doing so, GAO conducted a nationwide survey of forest managers and staff, interviewed officials in the Forest Service's regional offices, and reviewed documentation to corroborate agency responses. GAO requested, but did not receive, comments from the Forest Service on a draft of this report.
Through a GAO-administered survey and interviews, Forest Service officials reported the following information: (1) In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Forest Service issued 1,415 decisions involving fuel reduction activities, covering 10.5 million acres. (2) Of this total, 1,191 decisions, covering about 9 million acres, were subject to appeal and 217--about 18 percent--were appealed. Another 121 decisions, covering about 1.2 million acres, were subject to objection and 49--about 40 percent--were objected to. The remaining 103 decisions were exempt from both objection and appeal. Finally, 29 decisions--about 2 percent of all decisions--were litigated, involving about 124,000 acres. (3) For 54 percent of the appeals filed, the Forest Service allowed the project to proceed without changes; 7 percent required some changes before being implemented; and 8 percent were not allowed to be implemented. The remaining appeals were generally dismissed for procedural reasons or withdrawn before they could be resolved. Regarding objections, 37 percent of objections resulted in no change to a final decision; 35 percent resulted in a change to a final decision or additional analysis on the part of the Forest Service; and the remaining 28 percent were set aside from review for procedural reasons or addressed in some other way. And finally, of the 29 decisions that were litigated, lawsuits on 21 decisions have been resolved, and 8 are ongoing. Of the lawsuits that have been resolved, the parties settled 3 decisions, 8 were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and 10 were decided in favor of the Forest Service. All appeals and objections were processed within prescribed time frames--generally, within 90 days of a decision (for appeals), or within 60 days of the legal notice of a proposed decision (for objections).
GAO-10-337, Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-337
entitled 'Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and
Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008' which was released on March 4, 2010.
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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2010:
Forest Service:
Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel
Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
GAO-10-337:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-337, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Increases in the number and intensity of wildland fires have led the
Department of Agriculture‘s Forest Service to place greater emphasis
on thinning forests and rangelands to reduce the buildup of
potentially hazardous vegetation that can fuel wildland fires. The
public generally has an opportunity to challenge agency hazardous fuel
reduction decisions with which it disagrees. Depending on the type of
project being undertaken, the public can file a formal objection to a
proposed decision, or can appeal a decision the agency has already
made. Appeals and objections must be reviewed by the Forest Service
within prescribed time frames. Final decisions may also generally be
challenged in federal court.
GAO was asked, among other things, to determine, for fiscal years 2006-
2008, (1) the number of Forest Service fuel reduction decisions and
the associated acreage; (2) the number of decisions subject to appeal
and objection, the number appealed, objected to, and litigated, and
the associated acreage; and (3) the outcomes of appeals, objections,
and litigation, and the extent to which appeals and objections were
processed within prescribed time frames. In doing so, GAO conducted a
nationwide survey of forest managers and staff, interviewed officials
in the Forest Service‘s regional offices, and reviewed documentation
to corroborate agency responses.
GAO requested, but did not receive, comments from the Forest Service
on a draft of this report.
What GAO Found:
Through a GAO-administered survey and interviews, Forest Service
officials reported the following information:
* In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Forest Service issued 1,415
decisions involving fuel reduction activities, covering 10.5 million
acres.
* Of this total, 1,191 decisions, covering about 9 million acres, were
subject to appeal and 217”about 18 percent”were appealed. Another 121
decisions, covering about 1.2 million acres, were subject to objection
and 49”about 40 percent”were objected to. The remaining 103 decisions
were exempt from both objection and appeal. Finally, 29 decisions”
about 2 percent of all decisions”were litigated, involving about
124,000 acres.
* For 54 percent of the appeals filed, the Forest Service allowed the
project to proceed without changes; 7 percent required some changes
before being implemented; and 8 percent were not allowed to be
implemented. The remaining appeals were generally dismissed for
procedural reasons or withdrawn before they could be resolved.
Regarding objections, 37 percent of objections resulted in no change
to a final decision; 35 percent resulted in a change to a final
decision or additional analysis on the part of the Forest Service; and
the remaining 28 percent were set aside from review for procedural
reasons or addressed in some other way. And finally, of the 29
decisions that were litigated, lawsuits on 21 decisions have been
resolved, and 8 are ongoing. Of the lawsuits that have been resolved,
the parties settled 3 decisions, 8 were decided in favor of the
plaintiffs, and 10 were decided in favor of the Forest Service. All
appeals and objections were processed within prescribed time frames”
generally, within 90 days of a decision (for appeals), or within 60
days of the legal notice of a proposed decision (for objections).
Table: Summary of Appeals of and Objections to Forest Service Fuel
Reduction Decisions and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006-2008:
Number of decisions:
Subject to appeal: 1,191;
Subject to objection: 121;
Exempt from appeal and objection: 103;
Total: 1,415.
Number of decisions appealed or objected to:
Subject to appeal: 217;
Subject to objection: 49;
Exempt from appeal and objection: Not applicable;
Total: 266.
Percentage of decisions appealed or objected to:
Subject to appeal: 18%;
Subject to objection: 40%;
Exempt from appeal and objection: Not applicable;
Total: 19%.
Acreage (in thousands):
Subject to appeal: 9,143;
Subject to objection: 1,215;
Exempt from appeal and objection: 188;
Total: 10,545.
Acreage appealed or objected to (in thousands):
Subject to appeal: 839;
Subject to objection: 225;
Exempt from appeal and objection: Not applicable;
Total: 1,064.
Percentage of acreage appealed or objected to:
Subject to appeal: 9%;
Subject to objection: 19%;
Exempt from appeal and objection: Not applicable;
Total: 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
[End of table]
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-337] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841
or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Number and Type of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Activities in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 and the Associated
Acreage:
Number of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities That
Were Subject to Appeal or Objection; Number of Decisions Appealed,
Objected to, or Litigated; and Associated Acreage:
Outcomes of Appeals, Objections, and Litigation of Decisions with
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities; Associated Time Frames; and
Identities of Appellants, Objectors, and Plaintiffs:
Treatment Methods and Contract Types Associated with Fuel Reduction
Decisions; the Number of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits by
Treatment Method and Contract Type; and the Associated Acreage:
Decisions Involving Fuel Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban
Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas; the Number of Appeals,
Objections, and Lawsuits on Those Decisions; and the Associated
Acreage:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated
Acreage, by Forest Service Region:
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits of Fuel
Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Region:
Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest
Service Region:
Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, by
Forest Service Region:
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors and Litigants, by Forest
Service Region:
Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods and Number of Appeals,
Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region:
Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number of Appeals, Objections, and
Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region:
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-Urban Interface
and Inventoried Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region:
Appendix X: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized by the Forest
Service and Represented in the GAO Survey:
Appendix XI: Major Litigation Affecting Appeal Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions:
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National Forests:
Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Traditional Project Appeals Process Compared with Healthy
Forests Restoration Act Project Objection Process:
Table 2: Forest Service Decisions with Fuel Reduction Activities and
Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 3: Forest Service Decisions with Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Activities That Were Appealed, Objected to, Exempt, or Litigated, by
Decision Type, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 4: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation Associated
with Various Treatment Methods, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years
2006 through 2008:
Table 5: Number and Percentage of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation Associated with Various Contracting Types, Fiscal Years
2006 through 2008:
Table 6: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation of Decisions
with Fuel Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface and
Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008:
Table 7: Appellants and Number of Appeals Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 8: Objectors and Number of Objections Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 9: Plaintiffs and Number of Lawsuits Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Table 10: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized for Use by the
Forest Service and Represented in the GAO Survey:
Table 11: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning Regulation Exempting
Decisions That Have Been Categorically Excluded from Appeals:
Table 12: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning the Validity of the
Fuels CE:
Figures:
Figure 1: Lands Managed by the Forest Service, by Region:
Figure 2: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated Acreage,
by Forest Service Region:
Figure 3: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 4: Outcomes of Appeals of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest
Service Region:
Figure 5: Outcomes of Litigation of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by
Forest Service Region:
Figure 6: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Treatment Method and Forest Service Region:
Figure 7: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Contract Type and Forest Service Region:
Figure 8: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-urban
Interface (WUI), and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections,
Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 9: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in Inventoried Roadless
Areas (IRA), and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections,
Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
Abbreviations:
CE: categorical exclusion:
HFRA: Healthy Forests Restoration Act:
IRA: inventoried roadless area:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
PALS: Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System:
RARE: Roadless Area Review and Evaluation:
WUI: wildland-urban interface:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 4, 2010:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Chairman:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Much attention has been paid in recent years to the condition of our
nation's forests, in large part because of increases in the number and
intensity of wildland fires. In an effort to reduce the risk of fire,
federal land management agencies--including the Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture--are placing greater emphasis on thinning
forests and rangelands to help reduce the buildup of potentially
hazardous fuels. The agencies have placed particular emphasis on fuel
reduction in areas where human development meets or intermixes with
undeveloped wildland, known as the wildland-urban interface.
Like many other land management activities, hazardous fuel reduction
activities are typically subject to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA).[Footnote 1] Under NEPA, federal agencies are to
evaluate the likely environmental effects of proposed projects through
an environmental assessment or, if projects are likely to
significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental
impact statement. If, however, the agency determines that activities
of a proposed project fall within a category of activities the agency
has already determined have no significant environmental impact--
called a categorical exclusion--then the agency generally need not
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service then generally issues a final decision for each
project in the form of a Record of Decision, a Decision Notice, or a
Decision Memo, depending on whether the decision stems from an
environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or
categorical exclusion, respectively.[Footnote 2] During the early
planning stage of these environmental reviews, the public has
opportunities to get involved by, for example, submitting written
comments on the proposed project. Depending on the type of project,
the public can generally challenge either the proposed action or the
final decision by filing an objection or an appeal, respectively, with
the Forest Service. These objections or appeals must be reviewed by
the Forest Service within prescribed time frames. Final decisions may
also generally be challenged in federal court.[Footnote 3]
Much debate has focused on the extent and frequency of appeals and
litigation of fuel reduction activities and their effect on agency
activities. On the one hand, critics have asserted that such
challenges to agency activities are stopping or unnecessarily slowing
the decision-making processes of the Forest Service and its efforts to
reduce fuels on federal lands. This opposition to fuel reduction
activities is sometimes viewed as "frivolous" and alleged to be
greatly increasing the costs of managing the national forests.
Supporters of the administrative appeals process, on the other hand,
have indicated that appeals have not been excessive or unwarranted and
that few appeals are frivolous. Supporters further assert that
Congress intended the federal land management process to include
administrative reviews of agency decisions to (1) ensure public
participation in the decision-making process and (2) ensure that
agency managers adequately consider the various factors and policies
affecting the environmental health of the nation's lands.
In 2003, we issued a report on appeals and litigation of Forest
Service fuel reduction projects during fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
[Footnote 4] Since that time, however, the legal and procedural
landscape has changed considerably. For example, at the time of our
2003 report, fuel reduction decisions stemming from categorical
exclusions were generally not subject to appeal; however, as the
result of subsequent litigation, the Forest Service was required to
allow appeals of these types of decisions. In addition, since the time
period covered by that report, the Forest Service has introduced new
categorical exclusions, including one specific to fuel reduction. And
finally, in 2003, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) exempted
certain fuel reduction projects from appeal, instead subjecting them
to objection before the decision is final.[Footnote 5]
In the context of these legal and procedural changes, you asked us to
gather and report data on appeals, objections, and litigation related
to Forest Service fuel reduction activities. This report provides
information on (1) the number and type of Forest Service decisions
involving hazardous fuel reduction activities signed in fiscal years
2006 through 2008 and the acreage associated with those decisions; (2)
the number of these decisions that were subject to the appeal or
objection process; the number that were appealed, objected to, or
litigated; and the acreage associated with those decisions; (3) the
outcomes of these appeals, objections, and lawsuits, including whether
they were processed within prescribed time frames, and the identities
of the appellants, objectors, and plaintiffs; (4) the treatment
methods and contract types associated with fuel reduction decisions,
the associated acreage, and how frequently each treatment method and
contract type was appealed, objected to, or litigated; and (5) the
number of decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities in
the wildland-urban interface[Footnote 6] and inventoried roadless
areas,[Footnote 7] the associated acreage, and how frequently these
decisions were appealed, objected to, or litigated. This letter
provides national data on these issues, while appendixes II through IX
provide information by Forest Service region. Appendixes X and XI
provide more information on the nature and use of categorical
exclusions related to fuel reduction decisions.
In conducting our review, we administered a Web-based survey to all
108 national forests that issued decisions that involved hazardous
fuel reduction activities in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The
survey was used to gather information about each of the decisions,
including the type of environmental analysis used, acres involved,
treatment methods and contract types used, the extent to which the
decisions included activities in the wildland-urban interface and
inventoried roadless areas, and specific information about decisions
subject to the predecisional objection process. We obtained a 100
percent response rate from the national forests. To gather specific
details about appeals and litigation of decisions with hazardous fuel
reduction activities, we conducted semistructured interviews with
officials in each of the Forest Service's nine regions. For both the
Web-based survey and the semistructured interviews, to test the
accuracy and reliability of the responses provided by officials, we
verified the accuracy of a random sample of responses by comparing
them with decision documents and found that the information was
sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. Appendix I provides
details on the scope and methodology of our review. Appendix XII
includes a copy of the survey sent to national forests.
We conducted our work from October 2008 through February 2010, in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.
Results in Brief:
In response to our survey and interviews, national forest and regional
officials reported the following:
* In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 1,415 Forest Service land
management decisions involved hazardous fuel reduction activities.
These decisions involved 10.5 million acres. Of these decisions, 71--5
percent--were based on environmental impact statements, 433--31
percent--were based on environmental assessments, and 910--64 percent--
were based on categorical exclusions. (The remaining decision was a
continuation of a previously authorized project and, according to the
respondent, did not require an environmental impact statement,
environmental assessment, or categorical exclusion.) Decisions based
on environmental assessments covered the greatest acreage in our
review--over 6.3 million acres--representing 61 percent of all acres.
* Of the 1,415 decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction
activities, 1,191 decisions, involving approximately 9 million acres,
were subject to appeal, with 217--about 18 percent--appealed. An
additional 121 decisions, involving approximately 1.2 million acres,
were subject to objection, with 49--40 percent--objected to. The
remaining 103 decisions, involving approximately 188,000 acres, were
exempt from appeal and objection. And finally, of the 1,415 total
decisions, 29--about 2 percent of all decisions--were litigated,
involving approximately 124,000 acres.
* The 217 decisions that were appealed received a total of 298
appeals.[Footnote 8] Of these, the Forest Service ruled against the
appellant in 160 instances (about 54 percent of all appeals), meaning
that the project could be implemented without changes, and in another
22 instances (7 percent) ruled that the project could be implemented
with specific changes. In contrast, the agency reversed its initial
decision (in whole or in part) in response to 24 appeals (8 percent).
It dismissed 91 appeals (about 30 percent) for various reasons,
including failure on the part of the appellant to meet procedural
requirements, and instances in which the appellant withdrew the appeal
or the Forest Service withdrew the decision before the appeal could be
decided. According to regional officials, the outcome of 1 appeal
could not be determined based on documentation in their files. Of the
101 objections filed on 49 proposed decisions, 38 objections resulted
in no change to a final decision. Another 31 objections resulted in a
change to a final decision. An additional 4 objections resulted in the
forest having to conduct additional analysis, and 13 were addressed in
some other way, such as the objector agreeing to withdraw the
objection if the Forest Service agreed to make changes to the final
decision. The remaining 15 objections were removed from administrative
review for a variety of reasons (also known as "set aside" from
review). According to time frame information provided by survey
respondents, the Forest Service processed all appeals and objections
within prescribed time frames. Finally, of the 29 decisions that were
litigated, lawsuits on 21 decisions have been resolved; the parties
settled 3 decisions, 8 were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and 10
were decided in favor of the Forest Service. Most of the appellants,
objectors, and plaintiffs were environmental organizations.
* With respect to treatment methods, prescribed burning--where fires
are deliberately set by land managers to reduce the buildup of
potentially hazardous fuel--was the treatment most frequently
associated with fuel reduction decisions, and was included in 1,076 of
the 1,415 decisions. Mechanical treatment--in which equipment such as
chain saws, chippers, bulldozers, and mowers is used to cut
vegetation--was included in 973 decisions; and commercial logging--
where trees are harvested for commercial use such as lumber--was
included in 661 decisions.[Footnote 9] Although decisions involving
prescribed burning received the greatest number of challenges,
decisions that used commercial logging were challenged at a higher
rate than the other treatment methods, considering both appeals and
objections. Regarding contract type, timber sale contracts were the
most frequently used, and were included in 606 of the 1,415 decisions.
Service contracts--where contractors are hired to perform specific
tasks such as thinning--were included in 536 decisions, and
stewardship contracts were included in 218 decisions.[Footnote 10] In
addition to issuing contracts for the work, the Forest Service also
issued forest products permits (for activities such as collecting
firewood) in 236 decisions.[Footnote 11] Decisions that included
commercial timber sale contracts were the most frequently appealed,
objected to, and litigated. However the rate at which decisions were
challenged was highest for decisions that included stewardship
contracts.
* There were 954 decisions involving fuel reduction activities in the
wildland-urban interface, involving about 4 million acres. Of these
decisions, 140 were appealed, 45 were objected to, and 13 were
litigated. There were 169 decisions involving fuel reduction
activities in inventoried roadless areas, involving about 750,000
roadless acres. Of these decisions, 26 were appealed, 11 were objected
to, and 4 were litigated. These figures represent a similar rate of
appeals for both types of decision, with about 18 to 19 percent of
appealable decisions appealed; however, decisions involving
inventoried roadless areas were objected to at a higher rate (50
percent) than those involving the wildland-urban interface (40
percent).
Background:
The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres
of public lands--nearly 9 percent of the nation's total surface area
and about 30 percent of all federal lands in the United States. In
carrying out its responsibilities, the Forest Service traditionally
has administered its programs through nine regional offices, 155
national forests, 20 grasslands, and over 600 ranger districts (each
forest has several districts). The Forest Service's implementation,
management, and oversight of fuel reduction activities tend to be
decentralized and vary by region, although all activities must be
carried out under applicable laws.[Footnote 12] Figure 1 shows a map
of the national forests and Forest Service regions.
Figure 1: Lands Managed by the Forest Service, by Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the US]
The following regions are indicated on the map:
Region 1: Northern;
Region 2: Rocky Mountain;
Region 3: Southwestern;
Region 4: Intermountain;
Region 5: Pacific Southwest;
Region 6: Pacific Northwest;
Region 8: Southern;
Region 9: Eastern;
Region 10: Alaska.
Source: Forest Service.
Note: The Forest Service does not have a Region 7.
[End of figure]
Forest Service projects intended to reduce fuels and restore or
maintain desired vegetation conditions generally use prescribed
burning, in which fires are deliberately set by land managers, and/or
mechanical treatments, in which equipment such as chain saws,
chippers, bulldozers, or mowers is used to cut vegetation. Such
mechanical treatment may include logging to remove commercial timber.
Other approaches include applying chemical herbicides, using grazing
animals such as cattle and goats, and allowing the public to remove
firewood by hand. To carry out its fuel reduction work, the Forest
Service may use agency staff but more commonly contracts it out. The
agency generally uses three types of contracts--timber sale contracts,
service contracts, and stewardship contracts--to accomplish fuel
reduction work. Timber sale contracts are awarded to individuals or
companies to harvest and remove trees from federal lands under its
jurisdiction. Service contracts are awarded to contractors to perform
specific tasks, such as thinning trees or clearing underbrush.
Stewardship contracts are generally awarded to contractors who perform
both timber harvesting and service activities, and include contracts
under which the agency uses the value of commercial products, such as
timber, to offset the cost of services received, such as thinning,
stream improvement, and other activities.
Controversy has surrounded the issue of fuel reduction for some time,
particularly in areas where federal lands surround or are adjacent to
human development and communities--the wildland-urban interface--and
in inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas have received special
attention for decades, as some argue that these areas should be
available for appropriate development and timber harvesting, while
others believe that the areas should remain roadless to preserve the
special values that their condition provides, such as clean water and
undeveloped wildlife habitats.[Footnote 13]
Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction activities are typically
subject to one of two different internal administrative review
processes, each of which has a specific procedure through which the
public can challenge the agency's decisions or proposed decisions to
conduct the activities. Specifically:
* Postdecisional administrative appeals process. The Forest Service
has provided an administrative appeals system for review of agency
decisions, under certain circumstances, for over 100 years. Although
the specific requirements of the appeals system have changed over the
years, the Appeals Reform Act of 1993 established the appeals process
pertinent to fiscal years 2006 through 2008--the time period covered
by our review.[Footnote 14] When the Forest Service issues a public
notice in a newspaper of record of a proposed action, the public has
either 30 or 45 days to comment, depending on the type of NEPA
analysis document prepared. Once the agency issues a decision, the
public has 45 days to file appeals; however, only those individuals
who were involved in the public comment process through submission of
written or oral comments or by otherwise notifying the Forest Service
of their interest in the proposed action may file an appeal.[Footnote
15] Once the 45-day time frame for filing appeals has expired, the
Forest Service must review all appeals and issue a response to each
within an additional 45 days. Appeals can result in decisions being
affirmed, in which case the Forest Service can proceed with the
project as planned, or in decisions being reversed in whole or in
part, in which case the agency may revise or even cancel the affected
activities. The official (known as the Appeal Deciding Officer) who
determines the outcome of the appeal must be, at least, the next
higher level supervisor of the individual who made the original
decision. There is no further administrative review of the Appeal
Deciding Officer's decision by any other Forest Service or Department
of Agriculture official.
The types of decisions that can be appealed have changed since GAO
last reported on this issue in 2003. In 2003, the Forest Service added
several new categorical exclusions related to vegetation management
(including one specific to hazardous fuel reduction) that it exempted
from appeal. However, as the result of subsequent litigation
challenging these exemptions, the Forest Service ultimately was
required to allow the public to appeal many (though not all) of these
decisions during fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the time period
covered by our current review.[Footnote 16]
* Predecisional administrative objection process. In 2003, HFRA
required the Forest Service to establish an alternative process for
authorizing certain hazardous fuel reduction projects, including an
alternative predecisional objection process in lieu of the appeals
process for certain projects.[Footnote 17] HFRA authorizes the public
to file objections to a proposed project before the agency issues a
final decision on the project, instead of the traditional appeals
process where the administrative review occurs after the agency's
final decision has been made. According to the Forest Service, this
objection process was intended to expedite the implementation of fuel
reduction projects and to encourage early public input during the
planning process. Only those parties who have previously submitted
written comments specific to the proposed project may file objections.
(The public has an opportunity to provide these written comments
during scoping or other public comment periods.) The public must file
objections with the reviewing officer--the next higher level
supervisor of the person responsible for the proposed action--within
30 days following the publication date of the legal notice of the
proposed environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
(Decisions that are subject to objection cannot use categorical
exclusions as the basis for the decision.) If no objection is filed
within the 30-day time period, the decision may be finalized on, but
not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection-
filing period. If an objection is filed, the Forest Service must issue
a written response to the objector addressing the objection within 30
days following the end of the objection-filing period. The reviewing
officer may hold a meeting to discuss issues raised in the objection
and any potential resolution. There are several ways the Forest
Service addresses an objection. The objection can (1) be set aside
from review, (2) be reviewed by the Forest Service resulting in a
change to the final decision, (3) be reviewed by the Forest Service
resulting in no change to the final decision, or (4) result in the
reviewing officer directing the appropriate Forest Service official to
complete additional analysis prior to issuing a final decision. An
objection may be set aside from review for procedural reasons--if, for
example, the objection is not received within the allowed 30-day time
period, or the objecting individual or organization did not submit
written comments during scoping or other public comment
opportunities.[Footnote 18] There is no further administrative review
by any other Forest Service or Department of Agriculture official of
the reviewing officer's written response to an objection.
Table 1 compares the appeals and objection processes.
Table 1: Traditional Project Appeals Process Compared with Healthy
Forests Restoration Act Project Objection Process:
Authority for review process and corresponding regulation:
Appeals process: Appeals Reform Act; 36 C.F.R. part 215;
Objection process: Healthy Forests Restoration Act; 36 C.F.R. part 218.
Timing of process:
Appeals process: Appeal is filed after the project decision is made;
Objection process: Objection filed before the project decision is made.
Eligibility to appeal/object:
Appeals process: Those who were involved in the public comment process
for the project through submission of written or oral comments or by
otherwise notifying the Forest Service of their interest in the
proposed action;
Objection process: Those who submitted specific written comments
related to the project during the project comment period, the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement comment period (if applicable), or any
other public comment periods.
Filing period:
Appeals process: 45 days after legal notice of the decision is
published in newspaper of record;
Objection process: 30 days after legal notice of the Environmental
Assessment or Final Environmental Impact Statement published in
newspaper of record.
Response/resolution period:
Appeals process: Resolution of appeal within 45 days after end of
appeal filing period;
Objection process: Response to objection within 30 days after end of
objection filing period.
Source: GAO summary of Forest Service information.
[End of table]
Some decisions, however, were subject to neither the appeal nor the
objection process during the time of our review. As noted, the Forest
Service was required to allow appeals of many fuel reduction decisions
based on categorical exclusions, but was not required to allow appeals
on all such decisions--meaning that certain decisions based on
categorical exclusions remained exempt from appeal. These decisions
were also exempt from the objection process because HFRA requires that
fuel reduction decisions subject to objection use environmental
assessments or environmental impact statements rather than categorical
exclusions.
Number and Type of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Activities in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008 and the Associated
Acreage:
For fiscal years 2006 through 2008, national forest managers reported
1,415 decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities,
affecting 10.5 million acres of national forest land.[Footnote 19]
Most of these decisions were based on categorical exclusions, although
decisions based on environmental assessments represented the most
acreage of all decision types. Table 2 shows the number of decisions
and associated acreage, by decision type.
Table 2: Forest Service Decisions with Fuel Reduction Activities and
Acreage Affected, by Decision Type, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Decisions/acres: Number of decisions;
Categorical exclusions: 910;
Environmental assessments: 433;
Environmental impact statements: 71;
Other: 1[A];
Total: 1,415.
Decisions/acres: Percentage of total decisions;
Categorical exclusions: 64;
Environmental assessments: 31;
Environmental impact statements: 5;
Other: less than 1;
Total: 100.
Decisions/acres: Number of acres (in thousands);
Categorical exclusions: 3,559;
Environmental assessments: 6,397;
Environmental impact statements: 586;
Other: 3;
Total: 10,545.
Decisions/acres: Percentage of total acres;
Categorical exclusions: 34;
Environmental assessments: 61;
Environmental impact statements: 6;
Other: 0;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding. Acreage data are not
complete because some respondents did not report this information. In
addition, depending on the status of the projects, some respondents
reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others
reported the actual number of treated acres.
[A] In one case, the survey respondent indicated that the decision was
a continuation of a previously authorized project. According to this
respondent, chapter 18 of the Forest Service Handbook allows such a
decision to be made without the use of a categorical exclusion,
environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement.
[End of table]
Appendix II provides greater detail on the number of decisions and
associated acreage for each Forest Service region.
Number of Decisions Involving Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities That
Were Subject to Appeal or Objection; Number of Decisions Appealed,
Objected to, or Litigated; and Associated Acreage:
Of the 1,415 decisions in our review, 1,191--about 84 percent--were
subject to the appeals process. In contrast, only 121 decisions--8.5
percent--were subject to the objection process. However, the rate at
which decisions subject to the objection process were challenged was
higher than for decisions under the appeals process. Specifically, 40
percent of decisions subject to objection were objected to, compared
with the 18 percent appeal rate for decisions subject to appeal. Table
3 shows, for all decisions covered by our review for fiscal years 2006
through 2008, the number of appeals, objections, and litigation
associated with each decision type.
Table 3: Forest Service Decisions with Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Activities That Were Appealed, Objected to, Exempt, or Litigated, by
Decision Type, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008
(Acres in thousands):
Decisions/acres: Total number of decisions;
Categorical exclusions: 910;
Environmental assessments: 433;
Environmental impact statements: 71;
Other[A]: 1;
Total: 1,415.
Decisions/acres: Total acreage;
Categorical exclusions: 3,559;
Environmental assessments: 6,397;
Environmental impact statements: 586;
Other[A]: 3;
Total: 10,545.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions subject to appeal[B];
Categorical exclusions: 808;
Environmental assessments: 321;
Environmental impact statements: 62;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 1,191.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions appealed;
Categorical exclusions: 80;
Environmental assessments: 90;
Environmental impact statements: 47;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 217[C].
Decisions subject to appeal: Percentage of appealable decisions
appealed;
Categorical exclusions: 10%;
Environmental assessments: 28%;
Environmental impact statements: 76%;
Other[A]: n/a;
Total: 18%.
Decisions subject to appeal: Acreage subject to appeal;
Categorical exclusions: 3,375;
Environmental assessments: 5,285;
Environmental impact statements: 483;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 9,143.
Decisions subject to appeal: Acreage appealed;
Categorical exclusions: 116;
Environmental assessments: 429;
Environmental impact statements: 294;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 839.
Decisions subject to appeal: Percentage of appealable acreage appealed;
Categorical exclusions: 3%;
Environmental assessments: 8%;
Environmental impact statements: 61%;
Other[A]: n/a;
Total: 9%.
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Number of decisions subject to
objection process;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 112;
Environmental impact statements: 9;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 121.
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Number of decisions objected to;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 43;
Environmental impact statements: 6;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 49[E].
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Percentage of decisions objected to;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 38%;
Environmental impact statements: 67%;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 40%.
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Acreage subject to objection;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 1,112;
Environmental impact statements: 103;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 1,215.
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Acreage objected to;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 184;
Environmental impact statements: 41;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 225.
Decisions subject to objection[D]: Percentage of acreage objected to;
Categorical exclusions: n/a;
Environmental assessments: 17%;
Environmental impact statements: 40%;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 19%.
Exempt decisions: Number of decisions exempt from appeal and objection;
Categorical exclusions: 102;
Environmental assessments: 0;
Environmental impact statements: 0;
Other[A]: 1;
Total: 103.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of all decisions exempt from appeal and
objection;
Categorical exclusions: 11%;
Environmental assessments: 0;
Environmental impact statements: 0;
Other[A]: 100%;
Total: 7%.
Exempt decisions: Acreage exempt from appeal and objection;
Categorical exclusions: 185;
Environmental assessments: 0;
Environmental impact statements: 0;
Other[A]: 3;
Total: 188.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of all acreage exempt from appeal and
objection;
Categorical exclusions: 5%;
Environmental assessments: 0;
Environmental impact statements: 0;
Other[A]: 100%;
Total: 2%.
Litigation: Number of decisions litigated;
Categorical exclusions: 4;
Environmental assessments: 14;
Environmental impact statements: 11;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 29.
Litigation: Percentage of all decisions litigated;
Categorical exclusions: less than 1%;
Environmental assessments: 3%;
Environmental impact statements: 15%;
Other[A]: n/a;
Total: 2%.
Litigation: Acreage litigated;
Categorical exclusions: 2;
Environmental assessments: 70;
Environmental impact statements: 52;
Other[A]: 0;
Total: 124.
Litigation: Percentage of acreage litigated;
Categorical exclusions: less than 1%;
Environmental assessments: 1%;
Environmental impact statements: 9%;
Other[A]: n/a;
Total: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Notes: n/a = not applicable. Numbers may not total because of
rounding. Acreage data are not complete because some respondents did
not report this information. In addition, depending on the status of
the projects, some respondents reported the number of acres they
planned to treat, while others reported the actual number of treated
acres.
[A] In one case, the survey respondent indicated that the decision was
a continuation of a previously authorized project. According to this
respondent, Chapter 18 of the Forest Service Handbook allows such a
decision to be made without the use of a categorical exclusion,
environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement.
[B] One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a
fuel reduction activity, but did not qualify as an "authorized
hazardous fuel reduction project" under HFRA and therefore was not
subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent
for this decision, it implemented HFRA provisions related to insect
and disease infestation, and was subject to the notice, comment, and
appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a
timber sale activity. As a result, it is included in our count of
decisions subject to appeal.
[C] These 217 decisions received a total of 298 appeals. The greatest
number of appeals on a single decision was 9.
[D] Only authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects under HFRA that
are analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement are subject to the predecisional objection process.
[E] These 49 decisions received a total of 101 objections. The
greatest number of objections to a single decision was 22.
[End of table]
Appendix III provides greater detail on the number of appeals,
objections, and litigation for each Forest Service region.
In addition to the introduction of the objection process, our survey
data reflect two important changes that have occurred since our 2003
report: (1) the extent to which activities associated with categorical
exclusions are subject to the appeals process and (2) the decrease in
the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction to
authorize hazardous fuel reduction activities. Specifically:
* Extent to which categorical exclusions were subject to appeal. At
the time of our 2003 report, decisions using categorical exclusions
were generally not subject to appeal, and in that report we noted that
99 percent of fuel reduction decisions using categorical exclusions in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were exempt from appeal. Also in 2003, the
Forest Service introduced several new categorical exclusions that were
exempt from appeal, including one categorical exclusion specific to
fuel reduction activities. Beginning later that year, however, the
agency's ability to exempt decisions using categorical exclusions from
appeal was challenged in court.[Footnote 20] As a result of this
litigation, the Forest Service was required to allow the public to
appeal decisions containing any of 11 types of categorically excluded
activities, including fuel reduction--and thus, most fuel reduction
decisions in our survey that were made using categorical exclusions
were appealable by the public. Specifically, 89 percent of the
categorical exclusions identified in our survey were subject to appeal
in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, in contrast to the 1 percent that
were subject to appeal during our 2003 review. The remaining 11
percent of categorical exclusions in our current review--a total of
103 decisions--were identified by survey respondents as exempt from
appeal because they did not contain the activities covered by the
litigation. Subsequently, in 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned
the lower court's ruling on procedural grounds, allowing the Forest
Service to utilize the provisions of its regulations that exempt
categorically excluded decisions from appeal.[Footnote 21] Appendix X
contains data on the type and frequency of the categorical exclusions
represented in our survey.
* Decrease in the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel
reduction. Although Forest Service regulations contain a specific
categorical exclusion under which hazardous fuel reduction activities
can be authorized, this was not the most commonly reported categorical
exclusion in our survey of decisions involving hazardous fuel
reduction activities. Instead, the most commonly reported categorical
exclusion was one intended for timber stand and/or wildlife habitat
improvement. Our survey data show that the total number of decisions
authorized under the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel
reduction decreased greatly over the period covered by our survey,
while at the same time, the use of the categorical exclusion for
timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement increased.
Specifically, use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel
reduction decreased from 214 in fiscal year 2006 to 28 in fiscal year
2008, while the use of the categorical exclusion for timber stand
and/or wildlife habitat improvement increased from 145 in fiscal year
2006 to 167 in fiscal year 2008.
This decrease in the use of the categorical exclusion for hazardous
fuel reduction may have resulted in large part from the chief of the
Forest Service's response to a court order in 2007. In this response
the chief directed that no new decisions should be made under the
categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction after December
2007. Furthermore, he directed that no additional contracts be
initiated to implement projects authorized under this authority--
meaning that projects that were not under way did not start, even if a
final decision had already been issued. Under the chief's direction,
projects that were near completion could proceed. Of the 379 decisions
in our survey originally authorized under the categorical exclusion
for hazardous fuel reduction, respondents reported that 207--or about
55 percent--were affected by the chief's directive. Although we did
not systematically gather information on what happened to projects
subject to the court decision, respondents indicated that they took a
variety of approaches, including the following:
* using a different categorical exclusion, such as the categorical
exclusion for timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement, to
authorize the project;
* preparing an environmental assessment subject to the appeals process;
* stopping or slowing project implementation; and:
* preparing an environmental assessment subject to the predecisional
objection process, under HFRA.
Additionally, the rate at which decisions were litigated was about the
same--2 percent--for decisions that were subject to the Forest
Service's traditional appeals process as for decisions authorized
under HFRA--even though the agency's expectation was that HFRA would
reduce the likelihood of litigation. Of the 29 litigated decisions in
our study, 26 had been subject to appeal, representing 2 percent of
the 1,191 decisions subject to appeal; the remaining 3 litigated
decisions had been subject to objection, likewise representing 2
percent of the 121 decisions subject to objection.
Outcomes of Appeals, Objections, and Litigation of Decisions with
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities; Associated Time Frames; and
Identities of Appellants, Objectors, and Plaintiffs:
In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, of the 298 appeals filed, the
Forest Service upheld its earlier decision in the majority of the
cases without requiring any changes to the decision. Of the 101
objections submitted, the outcome was more evenly divided between
those objections resulting in a change to the decision and those that
did not. According to time frame information provided by survey
respondents, all appeals and objections were processed within the
prescribed time frames. For litigated decisions resolved at the time
of our review, the Forest Service prevailed slightly more often than
the plaintiffs.
Outcomes of Appeals, Time Frames, and Identities of Appellants:
Of the 298 appeals filed on appealable decisions from fiscal years
2006 through 2008,
* For 160 appeals, the decisions were affirmed--that is, allowed to
proceed--with no changes.
* For 22 appeals, the decisions were affirmed with specified changes.
* For 24 appeals, the decisions were reversed --that is, not allowed
to proceed--based on issues raised by the appellants.
* A total of 91 appeals were dismissed for various reasons, including:
- 38 appeals that were resolved informally, of which 30 appeals were
withdrawn by the appellant and 8 decisions were withdrawn by the
agency (when an appeal is resolved informally, changes may or may not
be made to the decision);
- 53 appeals that were dismissed without review, mostly for failing to
meet procedural requirements, such as timeliness--however, 23 of these
appeals were dismissed without review because, subsequent to receiving
the appeal, the agency official who made the decision decided to
withdraw the decision;[Footnote 22]
* For 1 appeal, the outcome could not be determined based on
documentation in the agency's regional files, according to an agency
official.
According to time frame information provided by Forest Service
officials, all appeals of fiscal year 2006 through 2008 decisions were
processed within the time frames prescribed in applicable laws and
regulations.[Footnote 23] See appendix IV for detailed information on
appeal outcomes for each Forest Service region.
The 298 appeals were filed by 217 appellants. This total includes
appeals by 88 different interest groups, mostly environmental groups,
and 129 individuals.[Footnote 24] Of the 88 interest groups, 10--
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,
John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute, Native Ecosystems
Council, Oregon Wild, Ouachita Watch League, Sierra Club, The Lands
Council, Utah Environmental Congress, and the WildWest Institute--each
appealed 10 or more decisions. Appendix VI lists each interest group
that appeared as an appellant in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and
the number of decisions for which each appellant filed appeals in each
region. To protect the privacy of individual appellants, we do not
list their names, but in appendix VI we provide information on the
number of decisions appealed by individuals in each region.
Outcomes of Objections, Time Frames, and Identities of Objectors:
Of the 101 objections filed for 49 decisions from fiscal years 2006
through 2008,
* 38 objections resulted in no change to the final decision.
* 31 objections resulted in a change to the final decision.[Footnote
25]
* 4 objections resulted in the Forest Service having to conduct
additional analysis.
* 15 objections were set aside from review.
* 13 objections were addressed some other way; for example, several
agency respondents explained that they addressed objector's concerns
by both agreeing to make a change to the final decision and by setting
the objection aside from review. Rather than setting it aside from
review for procedural reasons, however, the decisions were set aside
because the objector withdrew the objection after the Forest Service
agreed to make changes to the final decisions.
For objections that the Forest Service does not set aside, the Forest
Service reviewing officer is required to respond in writing. Prior to
issuing a written response, the objector or reviewing officer may
request a meeting to discuss the issues that were raised in the
objection and a possible resolution. According to some Forest Service
officials we spoke with, these meetings have been used to further
satisfy public concerns; however, because meetings are at the
discretion of the reviewer, objectors with whom the reviewer decides
not to meet may feel that their concerns were not adequately
addressed, regardless of the outcome. For example, the Forest Service
received 22 objections to the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel
Reduction decision on the Bitterroot National Forest in west central
Montana and east central Idaho, one of the first and, according to
Forest Service officials, most contentious decisions authorized under
HFRA authority in the Northern Region. One objector requested a
meeting with the Forest Service and others expressed a willingness to
meet, but the reviewing officer chose not to hold meetings, stating
that their objections did not require additional clarification and
that a private consultant with whom the forest contracted had
determined that additional discussions would not resolve the
objector's concerns. The decision was ultimately litigated. In other
cases, however, respondents reported that such meetings successfully
addressed objectors' concerns, sometimes resulting in objectors
withdrawing their objections.
However, we also determined that different regions follow different
approaches in addressing objectors' concerns. For example, an official
in the Pacific Southwest Region told us that officials generally meet
with the objectors associated with valid objections (those that are
not set aside for procedural reasons), with the goal of informally
resolving the objections and having them subsequently withdrawn by the
objectors. In contrast, an official in the Northern Region told us
that while the region seeks to resolve objections informally, unlike
the Pacific Southwest Region, it does not seek to have objectors
subsequently withdraw their objections, and none have done so. Seeking
to have objectors withdraw their objections, as the Pacific Southwest
Region has done, may have important implications for subsequent
litigation because, according to Forest Service officials, under HFRA
and its implementing regulations, an objector that withdraws an
objection has no standing to obtain judicial review of the Forest
Service's final decision.
According to time frame information provided by survey respondents,
the final decisions for all proposals subject to the objection process
from fiscal year 2006 through 2008 were signed in accordance with the
time frames set forth by applicable laws and regulations.[Footnote 26]
However, while officials are required to respond to objections within
certain time frames, there is no limitation on the amount of time
allowed to make a final decision. Of the 49 decisions for which
objections were filed, 25 were signed between 35 days and 3 months of
legal publication date of the proposed action. The remaining 24 were
signed more than 3 months after the legal publication date, including
3 cases in which the final decision was signed more than a year after
the legal publication date of the proposed action.
The 101 objections were filed by 37 organizations and 41 individuals.
Of the 37 organizations, 3--the Center for Biological Diversity, the
Idaho Conservation League, and the WildWest Institute[Footnote 27]--
each objected to 5 or more decisions. Appendix VI lists each group
that filed objections in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the number
of decisions for which objections were filed in each region. As with
appeals, in appendix VI we do not list the names of individual
objectors, but do show the number of proposed decisions objected to by
individuals in each region.
Outcomes of Litigation and Identities of Plaintiffs:
Of the 29 decisions that were litigated from fiscal years 2006 through
2008, we are able to report the outcome for 21 of the lawsuits because
they had been resolved at the time of our review. According to
regional officials, lawsuits for 3 of these 21 decisions were
dismissed because the plaintiffs and the Forest Service agreed to
settle their claims. District courts reached an outcome on the 18
additional decisions, with 8 decided favorably to the plaintiffs and
10 decided favorably to the Forest Service.[Footnote 28] Lawsuits on
the remaining 8 decisions were continuing at the time of our review.
In the 29 litigated decisions, 24 interest groups and 11 individuals
were plaintiffs. The interest groups were primarily environmental
groups, with three groups--Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native
Ecosystems Council, and the WildWest Institute--each acting as
plaintiff in 5 or more decisions. Of the 29 litigated decisions,
plaintiff groups and individuals had previously submitted appeals on
24 of the decisions and objections on 3 of the decisions during the
administrative process. The remaining 2 litigated decisions were
subject to appeal, but the plaintiffs did not submit an appeal during
the administrative process. Appendix VI lists each group that acted as
a plaintiff in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the number of
decisions for which lawsuits were filed by each group within each
Forest Service region. To protect the privacy of individual
plaintiffs, we do not list their names, but in appendix VI provide
information on the number of decisions litigated by individuals in
each region.
Treatment Methods and Contract Types Associated with Fuel Reduction
Decisions; the Number of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits by
Treatment Method and Contract Type; and the Associated Acreage:
Prescribed burning was the most frequently used treatment method
associated with the fuel reduction decisions included in our study,
followed by mechanical treatment and commercial logging. Of these
three methods, prescribed burning was the method most often challenged
through appeals and objections; however, commercial logging was
challenged at the highest rate, considering both appeals and
objections. Table 4 shows, for all treatment methods in our study, the
number and percentage of, and acreage associated with, appeals,
objections, and litigation.
Table 4: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation Associated
with Various Treatment Methods, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years
2006 through 2008 (Acres in thousands):
Decisions/acres: Total number of decisions[A];
Prescribed burning: 1,076;
Mechanical treatment: 973;
Commercial logging: 661;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 279;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 57;
Livestock grazing: 12.
Decisions/acres: Total acreage[B];
Prescribed burning: 5,099;
Mechanical treatment: 1,109;
Commercial logging: 1,283;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 111;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 336;
Livestock grazing: 297.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions subject to appeal[C];
Prescribed burning: 940;
Mechanical treatment: 804;
Commercial logging: 546;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 225;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 50;
Livestock grazing: 7.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions appealed;
Prescribed burning: 187;
Mechanical treatment: 167;
Commercial logging: 162;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 64;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 18;
Livestock grazing: 2.
Decisions subject to appeal: Percentage of appealable decisions
appealed;
Prescribed burning: 20%;
Mechanical treatment: 21%;
Commercial logging: 30%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 28%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 36%;
Livestock grazing: 29%.
Decisions subject to appeal: Acreage subject to appeal;
Prescribed burning: 4,344;
Mechanical treatment: 787;
Commercial logging: 704;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 85;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 328;
Livestock grazing: 229.
Decisions subject to appeal: Acreage appealed;
Prescribed burning: 512;
Mechanical treatment: 266;
Commercial logging: 315;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 59;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 12;
Livestock grazing: 42.
Decisions subject to appeal: Percentage of appealable acreage appealed;
Prescribed burning: 12%;
Mechanical treatment: 34%;
Commercial logging: 45%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 69%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 4%;
Livestock grazing: 18%.
Decisions subject to objection: Number of decisions subject to
objection;
Prescribed burning: 87;
Mechanical treatment: 101;
Commercial logging: 96;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 41;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 7;
Livestock grazing: 3.
Decisions subject to objection: Number of decisions objected to;
Prescribed burning: 41;
Mechanical treatment: 46;
Commercial logging: 41;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 16;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 1;
Livestock grazing: 2.
Decisions subject to objection: Percentage of decisions objected to;
Prescribed burning: 47%;
Mechanical treatment: 46%;
Commercial logging: 43%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 39%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 14%;
Livestock grazing: 67%.
Decisions subject to objection: Acreage subject to objection;
Prescribed burning: 588;
Mechanical treatment: 306;
Commercial logging: 577;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 26;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 7;
Livestock grazing: 64.
Decisions subject to objection: Acreage objected to;
Prescribed burning: 123;
Mechanical treatment: 114;
Commercial logging: 89;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 11;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 1;
Livestock grazing: 20.
Decisions subject to objection: Percentage of acreage objected to;
Prescribed burning: 21%;
Mechanical treatment: 37%;
Commercial logging: 15%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 42%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 14%;
Livestock grazing: 31%.
Exempt decisions: Number of decisions exempt from appeal and objection;
Prescribed burning: 49;
Mechanical treatment: 68;
Commercial logging: 19;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 13;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 0;
Livestock grazing: 2.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of decisions exempt from appeal and
objection;
Prescribed burning: 5%;
Mechanical treatment: 7%;
Commercial logging: 3%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 5%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 0;
Livestock grazing: 17%.
Exempt decisions: Acreage exempt from appeal and objection;
Prescribed burning: 168;
Mechanical treatment: 16;
Commercial logging: 2;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 1;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 0;
Livestock grazing: 4.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of acreage exempt from appeal and
objection;
Prescribed burning: 3%;
Mechanical treatment: 1%;
Commercial logging: less than 1%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: less than 1%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 0;
Livestock grazing: 1%.
Litigation: Number of decisions litigated;
Prescribed burning: 27;
Mechanical treatment: 24;
Commercial logging: 25;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 7;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 3;
Livestock grazing: 0.
Litigation: Percentage of decisions litigated;
Prescribed burning: 3%;
Mechanical treatment: 2%;
Commercial logging: 4%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 3%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: 5%;
Livestock grazing: 0.
Litigation: Acreage litigated;
Prescribed burning: 78;
Mechanical treatment: 37;
Commercial logging: 58;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 8;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: less than 1;
Livestock grazing: 0.
Litigation: Percentage of acreage litigated;
Prescribed burning: 2%;
Mechanical treatment: 3%;
Commercial logging: 5%;
Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks: 7%;
Chemical/herbicide treatment: less than 1%;
Livestock grazing: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding. Acreage data are not
complete because some respondents did not report this information. In
addition, depending on the status of the projects, some respondents
reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others
reported the actual number of treated acres.
[A] Because land management projects may involve multiple treatment
methods, the sum of decisions involving each treatment method exceeds
the total of 1,415 decisions in our review. In addition to the
treatment methods listed in the table, survey respondents selected
"other" as a treatment method used for 95 decisions.
[B] Land management projects may treat the same acreage more than once
using different treatment methods.
[C] One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a
fuel reduction activity, but did not qualify as an "authorized
hazardous fuel reduction project" under HFRA and therefore was not
subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent
for this decision, it implemented HFRA provisions related to insect
and disease infestation, and was subject to the notice, comment, and
appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a
timber sale activity. As a result, it is included in our count of
decisions subject to appeal.
[End of table]
Appendix VII provides additional information on fuel reduction methods
used and the number of appeals, objections and lawsuits by treatment
method, for each Forest Service region.
Commercial timber sale contracts were the most frequent contract type
used to implement the decisions included in our study, and were the
type most often challenged through appeals and objections. Decisions
using stewardship contracting, however, were challenged at a higher
rate than the other contract types, considering both appeals and
objections. Table 5 shows, for all the decisions included in our
study, the number and percentage of contract types, and acreage
associated with, appeals, objections, and litigation.[Footnote 29]
Table 5: Number and Percentage of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation Associated with Various Contracting Types, Fiscal Years
2006 through 2008:
Decisions: Total number of decisions[B];
Timber sale contract: 606;
Service contract: 536;
Stewardship contract: 218;
Forest products permits[A]: 236.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions subject to appeal[C];
Timber sale contract: 503;
Service contract: 446;
Stewardship contract: 166;
Forest products permits[A]: 196.
Decisions subject to appeal: Number of decisions appealed;
Timber sale contract: 151;
Service contract: 86;
Stewardship contract: 55;
Forest products permits[A]: 49.
Decisions subject to appeal: Percentage of appealable decisions
appealed;
Timber sale contract: 30%;
Service contract: 19%;
Stewardship contract: 33%;
Forest products permits[A]: 25%.
Decisions subject to objection: Number of decisions subject to
objection;
Timber sale contract: 82;
Service contract: 59;
Stewardship contract: 48;
Forest products permits[A]: 29.
Decisions subject to objection: Number of decisions objected to;
Timber sale contract: 32;
Service contract: 22;
Stewardship contract: 24;
Forest products permits[A]: 11.
Decisions subject to objection: Percentage of decisions objected to;
Timber sale contract: 39%;
Service contract: 37%;
Stewardship contract: 50%;
Forest products permits[A]: 38%.
Exempt decisions: Number of decisions exempt from appeal and objection;
Timber sale contract: 21;
Service contract: 31;
Stewardship contract: 4;
Forest products permits[A]: 11.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of decisions exempt from appeal and
objection;
Timber sale contract: 3%;
Service contract: 6%;
Stewardship contract: 2%;
Forest products permits[A]: 5%.
Litigation: Number of decisions litigated;
Timber sale contract: 22;
Service contract: 13;
Stewardship contract: 5;
Forest products permits[A]: 9.
Litigation: Percentage of decisions litigated;
Timber sale contract: 4%;
Service contract: 2%;
Stewardship contract: 2%;
Forest products permits[A]: 4%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: We did not collect acreage information by contract type.
[A] Forest products permits are often issued for such purposes as
Christmas tree cutting and firewood gathering.
[B] A total of 1,085 decisions also included the use of Forest Service
personnel to carry out fuel reduction activities. In addition to the
contract types listed in the table, survey respondents selected
"other" as a contract method used for 75 decisions. Because land
management projects may involve multiple contracts and may also use
agency personnel in addition to contracts, the sum of decisions
involving each contracting type exceeds the total of 1,415 decisions
in our review.
[C] One project in our study was authorized under HFRA and involved a
fuel reduction activity, but did not qualify as an "authorized
hazardous fuel reduction project" under HFRA and therefore was not
subject to the objection process. According to the survey respondent
for this decision, it implemented HFRA provisions related to insect
and disease infestation, and was subject to the notice, comment, and
appeals process found in 36 C.F.R. part 215 because it included a
timber sale activity. As a result, it is included in our count of
decisions subject to appeal.
[End of table]
Appendix VIII provides additional information on the contracting
methods used for decisions included in our study and the appeal,
objection, and litigation rates for each Forest Service region.
Decisions Involving Fuel Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban
Interface and Inventoried Roadless Areas; the Number of Appeals,
Objections, and Lawsuits on Those Decisions; and the Associated
Acreage:
Of the 1,415 decisions in our review, respondents identified 954
decisions that included activities in the wildland-urban interface and
169 decisions that included activities in inventoried roadless areas.
Both types of decision were appealed at about the same rate, while
decisions involving inventoried roadless areas were objected to at a
slightly higher rate than those involving the wildland-urban
interface. Table 6 shows, for both wildland-urban interface and
inventoried roadless areas, the number and percentage of, and acreage
associated with, appeals, objections, and litigation.
Table 6: Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and Litigation of Decisions
with Fuel Reduction Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface and
Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Associated Acreage, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008 (Acres in thousands):
Decisions: Total number of decisions;
Wildland-urban interface: 954;
Inventoried roadless areas: 169.
Decisions: Total acreage;
Wildland-urban interface: 4,062;
Inventoried roadless areas: 748.
Appeals: Decisions subject to appeal;
Wildland-urban interface: 772;
Inventoried roadless areas: 138.
Appeals: Number of decisions appealed;
Wildland-urban interface: 140;
Inventoried roadless areas: 26.
Appeals: Percentage of appealable decisions appealed;
Wildland-urban interface: 18%;
Inventoried roadless areas: 19%.
Appeals: Acreage subject to appeal;
Wildland-urban interface: 2,764;
Inventoried roadless areas: 709.
Appeals: Acreage appealed;
Wildland-urban interface: 335;
Inventoried roadless areas: 26.
Appeals: Percentage of appealable acreage appealed;
Wildland-urban interface: 12%;
Inventoried roadless areas: 4%.
Objections: Decisions subject to objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 113;
Inventoried roadless areas: 22.
Objections: Number of decisions objected to;
Wildland-urban interface: 45;
Inventoried roadless areas: 11.
Objections: Percentage of decisions objected to;
Wildland-urban interface: 40;
Inventoried roadless areas: 50.
Objections: Acreage subject to objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 1,249;
Inventoried roadless areas: 36.
Objections: Acreage objected to;
Wildland-urban interface: 159;
Inventoried roadless areas: 14.
Objections: Percentage of acreage objected to;
Wildland-urban interface: 13%;
Inventoried roadless areas: 39%.
Exempt decisions: Number of decisions exempt from appeal and objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 69;
Inventoried roadless areas: 6.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of decisions exempt from appeal and
objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 7%;
Inventoried roadless areas: 4%.
Exempt decisions: Acreage exempt from appeal and objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 50;
Inventoried roadless areas: 5.
Exempt decisions: Percentage of acreage exempt from appeal and
objection;
Wildland-urban interface: 1%;
Inventoried roadless areas: 1%.
Litigation: Number of decisions litigated;
Wildland-urban interface: 13;
Inventoried roadless areas: 4.
Litigation: Percentage of decisions litigated;
Wildland-urban interface: 1;
Inventoried roadless areas: 2.
Litigation: Acreage litigated;
Wildland-urban interface: 48;
Inventoried roadless areas: 1.
Litigation: Percentage of acreage litigated;
Wildland-urban interface: 1%;
Inventoried roadless areas: less than 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. Acreage data are not
complete because some respondents did not report this information. In
addition, depending on the status of the projects, some respondents
reported the number of acres they planned to treat, while others
reported the actual number of treated acres.
[End of table]
Appendix IX provides information on the number of decisions with fuel
reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface and the number of
appeals, objections, and lawsuits for such decisions in each Forest
Service region; this appendix also contains information on the various
definitions used by field managers in responding to our survey.
Regarding fuel reduction activities in inventoried roadless areas, the
majority of decisions in our study involved no road construction in
the roadless area--which is a primary concern related to hazardous
fuel reduction activities in roadless areas. About 10 percent included
temporary road construction or other road construction activity, with
one decision involving the construction of a permanent road in an
inventoried roadless area. Appendix IX provides information on the
number of decisions with fuel reduction activities in inventoried
roadless areas and the number of appeals, objections, and lawsuits for
such decisions in each Forest Service region.
Concluding Observations:
Much has changed since we last reported on appeals and litigation of
fuel reduction activities 7 years ago. One of the most significant
changes to the process has been the passage of HFRA, which has
provided a new approach for public challenges of fuel reduction
projects by allowing the opportunity to formally object to decisions
before they become final, rather than waiting to file appeals until
after the decisions are made. Although the passage of HFRA was seen as
an important new tool for streamlining fuel reduction decisions, our
review indicates that the impact of the act appears to be limited.
Most notably, fuel reduction decisions that used HFRA authority
represented less than 10 percent of decisions signed during fiscal
years 2006 through 2008. As a result, despite the opportunities HFRA
introduced for a new approach to the administrative review process, in
practice most decisions remained subject to the Forest Service's
traditional postdecisional appeals process. In addition, although the
agency's expectation was that HFRA would reduce litigation of fuel
reduction decisions, our review shows that HFRA and non-HFRA decisions
were litigated at about the same rate of 2 percent.
Another area of ongoing change is the dispute over the Forest
Service's ability to exempt categorically excluded decisions from
appeal. Although most of these decisions were subject to appeal during
the years we examined, the Supreme Court's 2009 ruling means that the
regulation exempting categorically excluded decisions from appeal is
once again in effect. However, two factors suggest ongoing uncertainty
about this issue. First, the Supreme Court's ruling was made on
procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the case--meaning that
the court did not rule on whether the regulation is consistent with
the Appeals Reform Act, allowing for the possibility of future
challenges to the regulation. Second, even though the regulation
survived the recent lawsuit, the Forest Service is considering changes
to it in light of, among other things, the litigation it has
engendered. Thus, the ultimate fate of the regulation--and the
public's ability to appeal categorically excluded decisions--remains
uncertain.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for comment.
The Forest Service did not provide comments, although it did provide
technical corrections which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture;
the Chief of the Forest Service; appropriate congressional committees;
and other interested parties. The report also will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix XIII.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We examined (1) the number and type of Forest Service decisions
involving hazardous fuel reduction activities signed in fiscal years
2006 through 2008; (2) the number of these decisions that were
objected to, appealed, or litigated, and the acreage associated with
those decisions; (3) the outcomes of these objections, appeals, and
lawsuits, including whether they were processed within prescribed time
frames, and the identities of the objectors, appellants, and
plaintiffs; (4) the treatment methods and contract types associated
with fuel reduction decisions, and how frequently the different
methods and types were objected to, appealed, and litigated; and (5)
the number of decisions involving hazardous fuel reduction activities
in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and inventoried roadless areas
(IRA), and how frequently these decisions were objected to, appealed,
and litigated. To address our objectives, we implemented a nationwide,
Web-based survey of Forest Service officials, to collect information
about all fuel reduction decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through
2008 (See appendix XII for a copy of the survey). We supplemented the
survey with a semistructured interview of officials in all nine Forest
Service regions to gather additional details about time frames,
outcomes and identities related to appeals and litigation of fuel
reduction decisions. Details about this process are described below.
To identify Forest Service decisions involving hazardous fuel
reduction activities signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, we
asked the agency's Ecosystem Management Coordinator to query a Forest
Service database designed to track decision planning, appeals, and
litigation for all Forest Service decisions---the Planning, Appeals,
and Litigation System (PALS). This official queried the PALS database
using the following criteria: (1) decisions signed in fiscal years
2006 through 2008, and (2) decisions that included fuels management as
a purpose and/or one or more fuel treatment activities. This initial
query identified 1,437 decisions in 108 national forest system units.
Because PALS was not designed to include all information we sought as
part of our review--including information on the number of acres
treated, treatment methods and contract types used, and decisions
involving activities in the wildland-urban interface or in inventoried
roadless areas--we determined that a nationwide survey would be
necessary. We began our survey effort by ensuring that we had
identified the correct universe of fuel reduction decisions. After
reviewing the list of fuel reduction decisions from PALS and
correcting for any obvious duplication and other errors, we sent a
list of each national forest's fuel reduction decisions to the
corresponding forest supervisor's office. We asked the supervisor or
cognizant official to verify the accuracy of our list, removing any
decisions that did not meet our criteria (i.e, that were not signed in
fiscal years 2006 through 2008, or that did not involve any hazardous
fuel reduction activities), and adding decisions that met our criteria
but did not appear in PALS. At this time, we also asked the supervisor
or cognizant official to identify Forest Service employees most
knowledgeable about these decisions. A total of 1,415 decisions,
issued by 108 national forests, were determined to fit our criteria.
We gave recipients 3 weeks to respond to our request for information
and granted extensions as needed. We obtained a 100 percent response
rate from the national forests.
To determine the characteristics of each fuel reduction decision, we
subsequently administered a Web-based survey to those Forest Service
employees identified by each forest supervisor or cognizant official
as most knowledgeable about the decisions at all 108 national forests
that issued decisions with hazardous fuel reduction activities in
fiscal years 2006 through 2008. Appendix XII contains a copy of the
survey used to gather these data. The survey asked respondents to
provide information about each of the decisions, including the type of
environmental analysis used, acres involved, treatment methods and
contract types used, the extent to which the decisions included
activities in the wildland-urban interface and inventoried roadless
areas, and detailed information about the outcomes of those decisions
subject to the predecisional objection process.
The Forest Service does not have a uniform definition of a hazardous
fuel reduction activity, a fact that could affect the information that
forest managers reported to us. Many activities have the practical
effect of reducing fuels, but their stated purpose may be for
something other than, or in addition to, fuel reduction. For example,
the cutting and gathering of firewood or forest products to provide a
product to the public may have the additional benefit of reducing
hazardous fuels. Some forest managers may have included such projects
among the decisions they reported in their responses to our survey,
while other forest managers with similar decisions may not have
included them.
Similarly, there are a number of limitations to the acreage data. The
data reported by forest managers include a mixture of planned,
estimated, and actual treatment acres for decisions included in our
review. In our survey, we did not limit responses to acres actually
treated because once a decision is made and documented, there are many
reasons that activities covered by the decision may be delayed or not
implemented, including availability of funding or personnel, weather
conditions, and administrative appeals or litigation. In addition,
national forests may have submitted more than one decision with
activities on the same area of land, or may have planned to use a
series of different treatments on the same land. Therefore, the 10.5
million acres covered by decisions in our review may include
overlapping acreage.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in
how the data are entered into a database or were analyzed can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps
in the development of the survey, the data collection, and data
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to
developing the data collection instruments, we met with Forest Service
personnel at the headquarters, regional, and national forest levels to
discuss the Forest Service decision-making, appeal, objection, and
litigation processes. We also reviewed current policies, legislation,
and court cases that are relevant to our questions and the analysis of
the survey responses. Survey specialists designed the questionnaire in
conjunction with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. The draft
survey was then pretested with officials from four national forests in
four different regions to ensure that the questions were relevant,
clearly stated, and easy to comprehend.
Upon receiving survey responses, we verified the accuracy of 5 percent
of the surveys by comparing the responses to three survey questions
against the decision documents used to complete the surveys, which
were provided by respondents at our request. Using this approach, we
verified 70 randomly selected decisions. Discrepancies between the
survey responses and our data verification were discussed and resolved
with the responsible forest official. In addition, we conducted follow-
up to clarify ambiguous or incomplete responses that were identified
through an internal logic test of all submitted responses. Through our
data verification process, we determined that the data submitted were
generally reliable.
To gather specific details about the outcomes of appeals and
litigation, we conducted semistructured interviews with regional
appeals and litigation officials in each of the Forest Service's nine
regions. The semistructured interviews were used to gather information
about each of the decisions that were appealed or litigated, including
related dates, status and outcomes of administrative and court
decisions, and the identities of the appellants and litigants.
Information collected through these semistructured interviews was also
verified for a randomly selected sample of decisions. We verified the
accuracy of about 10 percent of the appealed decisions and about 50
percent of the litigated decisions by comparing the information
provided in response to several interview questions against the
administrative and court decision documents provided to us by
interviewees at our request. Any discrepancies between the interview
responses and the documents provided were discussed and resolved with
the responsible regional official. Through our data verification
process, we determined that the data gathered during the
semistructured interviews were generally reliable.
There are some limitations to the data we gathered. As with any
survey, the information obtained from the national forests was self-
reported, and we were not able to ensure that all decisions meeting
our criteria were identified. In particular, we had no way to
determine whether forests were fully reporting their hazardous fuel
reduction activities. To get some indication of the completeness and
accuracy of the data provided by Forest Service, we contacted several
interest groups that, according to our data collection efforts, often
appealed and objected to decisions or determinations. We asked these
groups to verify the data pertaining to their appeals, objections, and
litigation of Forest Service fiscal year 2006 through 2008 fuel
reduction decisions and to identify any missing data. The groups
generally agreed that the data provided by the agency were complete
and accurate. In addition, during these interviews, we asked the
groups for their perspectives on the administrative process for
challenging decisions, including the objection process authorized
under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The interviewees' comments
and perspectives are incorporated in this report.
We conducted our work from October 2008 through February 2010, in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.
Upon receiving survey responses, we verified the accuracy of 5 percent
of the surveys by comparing the responses to three survey questions
against the decision documents used to complete the surveys, which
were provided by respondents at our request. Using this approach, we
verified 70 randomly selected decisions. Discrepancies between the
survey responses and our data verification were discussed and resolved
with the responsible forest official. In addition, we conducted follow-
up to clarify ambiguous or incomplete responses that were identified
through an internal logic test of all submitted responses. Through our
data verification process, we determined that the data submitted were
generally reliable.
To gather specific details about the outcomes of appeals and
litigation, we conducted semistructured interviews with regional
appeals and litigation officials in each of the Forest Service's nine
regions. The semistructured interviews were used to gather information
about each of the decisions that were appealed or litigated, including
related dates, status and outcomes of administrative and court
decisions, and the identities of the appellants and litigants.
Information collected through these semistructured interviews was also
verified for a randomly selected sample of decisions. We verified the
accuracy of about 10 percent of the appealed decisions and about 50
percent of the litigated decisions by comparing the information
provided in response to several interview questions against the
administrative and court decision documents provided to us by
interviewees at our request. Any discrepancies between the interview
responses and the documents provided were discussed and resolved with
the responsible regional official. Through our data verification
process, we determined that the data gathered during the
semistructured interviews were generally reliable.
There are some limitations to the data we gathered. As with any
survey, the information obtained from the national forests was self-
reported, and we were not able to ensure that all decisions meeting
our criteria were identified. In particular, we had no way to
determine whether forests were fully reporting their hazardous fuel
reduction activities. To get some indication of the completeness and
accuracy of the data provided by Forest Service, we contacted several
interest groups that, according to our data collection efforts, often
appealed and objected to decisions or determinations. We asked these
groups to verify the data pertaining to their appeals, objections, and
litigation of Forest Service fiscal year 2006 through 2008 fuel
reduction decisions and to identify any missing data. The groups
generally agreed that the data provided by the agency were complete
and accurate. In addition, during these interviews, we asked the
groups for their perspectives on the administrative process for
challenging decisions, including the objection process authorized
under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The interviewees' comments
and perspectives are incorporated in this report.
We conducted our work from October 2008 through February 2010, in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated
Acreage, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 2 shows, for each of the Forest Service's nine regions, the
number of fuel reduction decisions and the total associated acreage.
As shown, the Southern Region (Region 8) had the largest number of
decisions and the largest acreage, while the Alaska Region (Region 10)
had the fewest decisions and the smallest acreage.
Figure 2: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions and Associated Acreage,
by Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated horizontal bar graph]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 79;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 3;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 33;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 17;
Decisions: Total: 132;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
1,045;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 72;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 78;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 1,195.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 85;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 2;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 50;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 14;
Decisions: Total: 151;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
100;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 440;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 211;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 751.
Region: 3, Southwestern;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 60;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 1;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 17;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 1;
Decisions: Total: 79.
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
726;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 1;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 2,382;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 5;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 3,114.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 117;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 0;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 32;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 8;
Decisions: Total: 157;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
168;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 63;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 19;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 251.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 161;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 8;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 67;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 15;
Decisions: Total: 251;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
107;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 3;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 134;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 72;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 316.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 107;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 2;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 63;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 8;
Decisions: Total: 180;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
200;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 1;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 319;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 58;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 578.
Region: 8, Southern;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 226;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 1;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 115;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 1;
Decisions: Total: 344;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
1,130;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 2,806;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 117;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 4,056.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 55;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 0;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 54;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 7;
Decisions: Total: 116;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
79;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 179;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 26;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 284.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo required): 3;
Decisions: Categorical exclusions (decision memo not required): 0;
Decisions: Environmental assessments: 2;
Decisions: Environmental impact statements: 0;
Decisions: Total: 5;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo required):
1;
Acres (in thousands): Categorical exclusions (decision memo not
required): 0;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental assessments: 1;
Acres (in thousands): Environmental impact statements: 0;
Acres (in thousands): Total: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: In Region 8, the decisions by decision type and acres do not
match the sum for the total because for one decision, the respondent
indicated that the decision did not fall within any of our survey
selection categories. Also, acreage data are not complete because some
respondents did not report this information. In addition, depending on
the status of the projects, some respondents reported the number of
acres they planned to treat, while others reported the actual number
of treated acres.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Number of Appeals, Objections, and Lawsuits of Fuel
Reduction Decisions, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 3 shows, for each of the Forest Service's regions, information
on appeals, objections, and litigation of fuel reduction decisions,
including the total number of appeals, objections, and litigation and
the percentage of decisions appealed, objected to, and litigated. The
Southern Region (Region 8) had the highest combined total of decisions
subject to appeal and objection; however, decisions in the Northern
Region (Region 1) were challenged at the highest rate, considering
both appeals and objections.
Figure 3: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of decisions: 132;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 112;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 40;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 36%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 15;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 13;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 87%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 4%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 11;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 8%.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of decisions: 151;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 122;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 22;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 21;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 6;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 29%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 8;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 5%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 3, Southwestern;
Total number of decisions: 79;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 66;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 7;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 11%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 38%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of decisions: 157;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 137;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 37;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 27%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 15;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 47%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 6;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 4%.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 251;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 212;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 35;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 17%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 16;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 8;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 23;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 9%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: @5.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of decisions: 180;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 139;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 15%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 19;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 10;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 53%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 22;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 12%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of decisions: 344;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 301;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 31;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 10%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 16;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 6%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 27;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 8%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of decisions: 116;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 100;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 24;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 24%;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 9;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 11%;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 7;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 3%.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of decisions: 5;
Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 20%;
Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey and interview results.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Appeal Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest
Service Region:
Figure 4 shows, for each Forest Service region, the outcomes of
appeals filed on fuel reduction decisions within the region. While six
of the eight regions reporting appeal activity allowed the majority of
appealed decisions to proceed without changes, the Southwestern Region
(Region 3) had no appealed decisions that were allowed to proceed
without changes and the highest rate of reversed decisions.
Figure 4: Outcomes of Appeals of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by Forest
Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table with regional map and pie-
chart]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of appeals: 60;
Percent affirmed with no change: 52%;
Number affirmed with no change: 31;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 12%;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 7;
Percent Reversed: 13%;
Number Reversed: 8;
Percent Dismissed without review: 15%;
Number Dismissed without review: 9;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 8%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 5;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of appeals: 28;
Percent affirmed with no change: 57%;
Number affirmed with no change: 16;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 11%;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 3;
Percent Reversed: 4%;
Number Reversed: 1;
Percent Dismissed without review: 14%;
Number Dismissed without review: 4;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 14%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 4;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of appeals: 12;
Percent affirmed with no change: 0;
Number affirmed with no change: 0;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 50%;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 6;
Percent Reversed: 42%;
Number Reversed: 5;
Percent Dismissed without review: 8%;
Number Dismissed without review: 1;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 0;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 0;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of appeals: 47;
Percent affirmed with no change: 43%;
Number affirmed with no change: 20;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Percent Reversed: 6%;
Number Reversed: 3;
Percent Dismissed without review: 38%;
Number Dismissed without review: 18;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 6%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 3;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 10%;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 5.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of appeals: 49;
Percent affirmed with no change: 61%;
Number affirmed with no change: 30;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 12%;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 6;
Percent Reversed: 8%;
Number Reversed: 4;
Percent Dismissed without review: 2%;
Number Dismissed without review: 1;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 6%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 3;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 10%;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 5.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of appeals: 24;
Percent affirmed with no change: 54%;
Number affirmed with no change: 13;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Percent Reversed: 0;
Number Reversed: 0;
Percent Dismissed without review: 17%;
Number Dismissed without review: 4;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 25%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 6%;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 4%;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 1.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of appeals: 33;
Percent affirmed with no change: 64%;
Number affirmed with no change: 21;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Percent Reversed: 3%;
Number Reversed: 1;
Percent Dismissed without review: 12%;
Number Dismissed without review: 4;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 21%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 7;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of appeals: 45;
Percent affirmed with no change: 64%;
Number affirmed with no change: 29;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Percent Reversed: 4%;
Number Reversed: 2;
Percent Dismissed without review: 27%;
Number Dismissed without review: 12;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 4%;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 2;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of appeals: 0;
Percent affirmed with no change: 0;
Number affirmed with no change: 0;
Percent Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Number Affirmed with instructions: 0;
Percent Reversed: 0;
Number Reversed: 0;
Percent Dismissed without review: 0;
Number Dismissed without review: 0;
Percent Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 0;
Number Resolved informally/decision withdrawn: 0;
Percent Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0;
Number Resolved informally/appeal withdraw: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of interview results.
Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Litigation Outcomes for Fuel Reduction Decisions, by
Forest Service Region:
Figure 5 shows, for each Forest Service region, the outcomes of
litigation filed on fuel reduction decisions within the region. Six of
the nine regions experienced litigation during the period covered by
our survey. The Northern Region (Region 1) had the highest number of
decisions judicially challenged as well as the greatest number of
ongoing lawsuits.
Figure 5: Outcomes of Litigation of Fuel Reduction Decisions, by
Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table with regional map]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of litigated decision: 11;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 3;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 4;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 3.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of litigated decision: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 0.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of litigated decision: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 0.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of litigated decision: 6;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 4;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 1.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of litigated decision: 5;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 3;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 1.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of litigated decision: 3;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 1.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of litigated decision: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 0.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of litigated decision: 3;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 1;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 2.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of litigated decision: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by Forest Service: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Won by plaintiff: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Continuing: 0;
Number of litigated outcomes: Settled: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of interview results.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: List of Appellants, Objectors and Litigants, by Forest
Service Region:
Tables 7, 8, and 9 list, by Forest Service region, the appellants,
objectors, and litigants of fuel reduction decisions. We list the
identities of organizations filing appeals, objections, and
litigation, but summarize data on individuals to protect their
privacy. As shown, organizations were most active in the Northern
Region (Region 1) for appeals, objections, and litigation. Individuals
were likewise most active in the Northern Region for objections, but
were most active in the Eastern Region (Region 9) for appeals and
litigation.
Table 7: Appellants and Number of Appeals Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Organization filing appeals: Alliance for the Wild Rockies;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 32;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 10;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 42.
Organization filing appeals: American Forest Resource Council;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Attorney General, State of California;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Bark;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 11;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 11.
Organization filing appeals: California Forest Association;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: California Native Plants Society;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Carson Forest Watch;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Cascadia Wildlands Project;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Center for Biological Diversity;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 6.
Organization filing appeals: Cherokee Forest Voices;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Citizens Assisted Monitoring;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Citizens for Better Forestry;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Clinch Coalition;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Colorado Wild;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Conservation Congress;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Defenders of Wildlife;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Environmental Law & Policy Center;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Environmental Protection Information
Center;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: Ferry County Natural Resources Board;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Forest Guardians;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Forest Issues Group;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Forest Legacy;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Forests Forever;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Friends of the Clearwater;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 8;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 9.
Organization filing appeals: Friends of the Wild Swan;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Greater Yellowstone Coalition;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Habitat Education Center;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Heartwood;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 9;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 9.
Organization filing appeals: Heartwood, Inc.;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Hells Canyon Preservation Council;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Idaho Conservation League;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 6.
Organization filing appeals: Idaho Sporting Congress;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: Indiana Forest Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Institute for Regeneration Agro Forestry;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: John Muir Project of the Earth Island
Institute;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 12;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 12.
Organization filing appeals: Keep the Sespe Wild Committee;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Kentucky Heartwood;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Kerncrest Audubon Society;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Klamath Forest Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 6.
Organization filing appeals: Kootenai Environmental Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Lassen Forest Preservation Group;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: League of Wilderness Defenders BMBP;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 6.
Organization filing appeals: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Los Padres Forest Watch;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Minnesota Forest Industries, Inc.;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Montanans for Multiple Use;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Native Ecosystems Council;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 12;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 13.
Organization filing appeals: Native Forest Network;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: New Mexico Wilderness Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Newton County Wildlife Association;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Northwoods Wilderness Recovery;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: not documented, unknown;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Oregon Natural Resources Council;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Oregon Wild;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 10;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 10.
Organization filing appeals: Ouachita Watch League;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 10;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 10.
Organization filing appeals: Plumas Forest Project;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: Prairie Hills Audubon Society;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Protect Our Woods;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Red Rock Forests;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Santa Fe Forest Watch;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 2;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing appeals: Selkirk Conservation Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Sequoia Forest Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Sequoia Forest Keeper;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Sierra Club;
Number of appeals by region: 1: [Empty];
Number of appeals by region: 2: [Empty];
Number of appeals by region: 3: [Empty];
Number of appeals by region: 4: [Empty];
Number of appeals by region: 5: 13;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 28.
Organization filing appeals: Sierra Forest Legacy;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 7;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 7.
Organization filing appeals: Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 4;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing appeals: Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 3;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing appeals: Swan View Coalition;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: The Clinch Coalition;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: The Ecology Center;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 6.
Organization filing appeals: The Lands Council;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 22;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 23.
Organization filing appeals: The Wilderness Society;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Tree of Life Alliance;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Tule River Conservancy;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Utah Environmental Congress;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 19;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 19.
Organization filing appeals: Virginia Forest Watch;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: Western Watersheds Project;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Wild Connections;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Wild South;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: Wild Virginia;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: Wild Watershed;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Organization filing appeals: WildSouth;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing appeals: WildWest Institute;
Number of appeals by region: 1: 23;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 12;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 0;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 35.
Total for organizational appellants:
Number of appeals by region: 1: 123;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 20;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 16;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 51;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 81;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 36;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 40;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 27;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 394.
Total for individual appellants:
Number of appeals by region: 1: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 13;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 7;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 6;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 5;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 1;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 8;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 33;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: 79.
Total for all appellants:
Number of appeals by region: 1: 129;
Number of appeals by region: 2: 33;
Number of appeals by region: 3: 23;
Number of appeals by region: 4: 57;
Number of appeals by region: 5: 86;
Number of appeals by region: 6: 37;
Number of appeals by region: 8: 48;
Number of appeals by region: 9: 60;
Number of appeals by region: 10: 0;
Total: Total: 473.
Source: GAO analysis of interview results.
Note: A decision can be appealed multiple times, and multiple
appellants can be parties to an appeal. This table provides a list of
the appellants who appeared in the 298 appeals of the 217 appealed
decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
[End of table]
Table 8: Objectors and Number of Objections Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Organization filing objections: Alliance For the Wild Rockies;
Number of objections by region: 1: 3;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing objections: American Forest Resource Council;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 1;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Bark;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 1;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 2;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing objections: Center for Biological Diversity;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 3;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 3;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 7.
Organization filing objections: Colorado Wild;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 2;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing objections: Environmental Protection Information
Center;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 1;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Friends of the Bitterroot, Inc;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Friends of the Wild Swan;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Great Old Broads for Wilderness;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 1;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Idaho Conservation League;
Number of objections by region: 1: 5;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 3;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 8.
Organization filing objections: Idaho Sporting Congress;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Idaho Transportation Department;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: John Muir Project of Earth Island
Institute;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 3;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing objections: Klamath Forest Alliance;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 2;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing objections: Klamath Riverkeeper;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 1;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 2;
Number of objections by region: 6: 2;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing objections: Kootenai Environmental Alliance;
Number of objections by region: 1: 3;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing objections: League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue
Mountains Biodiversity Project;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 1;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Montana Logging Association;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Montana Wood Products Association;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Native Ecosystems Council;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Oregon Natural Resources Council;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 4;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing objections: Oregon Wild;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 3;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing objections: Pacific Rivers Council and American
Wildlands;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Rocky Mountain Log Homes;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Selkirk Conservation Alliance;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Sierra Club;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 1;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 3;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing objections: Sierra Nevada Forest Protection
Campaign;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Sinapu;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 1;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: South Carolina Native Plant Society;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 1;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: Southern Appalachian Biodiversity
Project;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 1;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: The Lands Council;
Number of objections by region: 1: 3;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Organization filing objections: The Wilderness Society;
Number of objections by region: 1: 2;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing objections: Utah Environmental Congress;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: WildWest Institute;
Number of objections by region: 1: 3;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 1;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 4.
Organization filing objections: Native Forest Network;
Number of objections by region: 1: 1;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Organization filing objections: The Ecology Center;
Number of objections by region: 1: 2;
Number of objections by region: 2: 0;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Organization filing objections: Wilderness Workshop;
Number of objections by region: 1: 0;
Number of objections by region: 2: 1;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 0;
Number of objections by region: 5: 0;
Number of objections by region: 6: 0;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Total for organizational objectors:
Number of objections by region: 1: 30;
Number of objections by region: 2: 8;
Number of objections by region: 3: 3;
Number of objections by region: 4: 10;
Number of objections by region: 5: 13;
Number of objections by region: 6: 14;
Number of objections by region: 8: 2;
Number of objections by region: 9: 0;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 80.
Total for individual objectors:
Number of objections by region: 1: 28;
Number of objections by region: 2: 3;
Number of objections by region: 3: 0;
Number of objections by region: 4: 3;
Number of objections by region: 5: 2;
Number of objections by region: 6: 4;
Number of objections by region: 8: 0;
Number of objections by region: 9: 1;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: 41.
Total for all identified objectors:
Number of objections by region: 1: 58;
Number of objections by region: 2: 11;
Number of objections by region: 3: 3;
Number of objections by region: 4: 13;
Number of objections by region: 5: 15;
Number of objections by region: 6: 18;
Number of objections by region: 8: 2;
Number of objections by region: 9: 1;
Number of objections by region: 10: 0;
Total: Total: 121.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: Proposed decisions can be the subject of multiple objections,
and multiple objectors can be parties to an objection. This table
provides a list of the objectors who appeared in the 101 objections
filed on 49 proposed decisions that were signed in fiscal years 2006
through 2008.
[End of table]
Table 9: Plaintiffs and Number of Lawsuits Filed, by Forest Service
Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008:
Plaintiff: Alliance for the Wild Rockies;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 8;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 9.
Plaintiff: Bark;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: California Native Plant Society;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Cascadia Wildlands;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Citizens for Better Forestry;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Conservation Congress;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 2;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Plaintiff: Earth Island Institute;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 3;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Plaintiff: Environmental Law & Policy Center;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 2;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Plaintiff: Friends of the Bitterroot, Inc;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Habitat Education Center;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 2;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 2.
Plaintiff: Hell's Canyon Preservation Council;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Klamath Forest Alliance;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: League of Wilderness Defenders - BMBP;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Native Ecosystems Council;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 7;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 7.
Plaintiff: Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Oregon Wild;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Sequoia Forest Keeper;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Sierra Club;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 3.
Plaintiff: Sierra Forest Legacy;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: The Lands Council;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: The Wilderness Society;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: Utah Environmental Congress;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 1.
Plaintiff: WildWest Institute;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 3;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 4;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 7.
Total for organizational plaintiffs:
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 20;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 6;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 11;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 6;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 8;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 51.
Total for individual plaintiffs:
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 2;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 5.
Total for all plaintiffs;
Number of lawsuits by region: 1: 21;
Number of lawsuits by region: 2: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 3: 0;
Number of lawsuits by region: 4: 6;
Number of lawsuits by region: 5: 12;
Number of lawsuits by region: 6: 6;
Number of lawsuits by region: 8: 1;
Number of lawsuits by region: 9: 10;
Number of lawsuits by region: 10: 0;
Total: 56.
Source: GAO analysis of interview results.
Note: Multiple parties may serve as plaintiffs on a single lawsuit.
This table provides a list of the plaintiffs who appeared in the 29
lawsuits filed on decisions signed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods and Number of Appeals,
Objections, and Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 6 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of
decisions using various fuel reduction treatment methods and the
number and frequency of appeals, objections, and litigation by fuel
reduction method. The rate at which treatment methods were used varied
by region. For example, the Southern Region (Region 8) and the Eastern
Region (Region 9) used prescribed burning more than any other
treatment method, whereas the remaining regions used mechanical
treatment the most. In addition, the Northern Region (Region 1) used
commercial logging at a higher rate than any other region.
Figure 6: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Treatment Method and Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of decisions: 132;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 86;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 30;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 35%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 13;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 11;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 85%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 11;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 8%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 89;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 32;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 36%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 15;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 13;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 87%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 11;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 8%;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 79;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 34;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 43%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 15;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 13;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 87%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 11;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 8%;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 6;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 4;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 75%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%.
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 12;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 42%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of decisions: 151;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 87;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 17;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 11;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 27%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 109;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 22;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 18;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 22%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 8;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 5%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 64;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 16;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 16;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 32;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 10;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 3;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 6;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 17%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 79;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 54;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 13%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 38%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 54;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 13%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 7;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 43%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 5%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 10;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 13;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 1;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 8;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of decisions: 157;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 104;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 31;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 30%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 11;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 64%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 4%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 104;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 25;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 24%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 14;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: #5;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 57;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 27;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 47%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 13;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 54%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 3%;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 13;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 54%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 1;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 8;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%.
Region: 5; Pacific Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 251;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 173;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 31;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 14;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 191;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 34;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 16;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 8;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 20;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 8%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 96;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 30;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 50;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 42%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 9;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 1;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 8;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of decisions: 180;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 105;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 20;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 19%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 17;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 53%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 10;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 122;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 20;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 16%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 18;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 19;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 11%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 84;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 18;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 22;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 6;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: -;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 11;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 9%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 4%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of decisions: 344;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 251;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 30;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 12%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 7;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 14%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: less than 1%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 67;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 12;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 94;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 15;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 16%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 13;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 8%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 58;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 16%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: less than 1%;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 28;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 21%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of decisions: 116;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 80;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 26%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 65;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 15;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 23%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 13%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 4%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 62;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 15;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 24%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 13%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 31;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 19%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 5;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 3;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 11;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 27%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of decisions: 5;
Treatment method: Prescribed burning:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Mechanical treatment:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Commercial logging:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Construction of fuel breaks:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Chemical/herbicide:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Livestock grazing:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Treatment method: Other method:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 1;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Notes: Hyphens represent zero divided by zero. Because decisions may
involve multiple treatment methods, the sum of decisions involving
each treatment method may exceed the total number of decisions for
each region.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Contract Types and Number of Appeals, Objections, and
Lawsuits, by Forest Service Region:
Figure 7 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of
decisions using various contract types and the number and frequency of
appeals, objections, and litigation by contract type. The use of
different contract types varies among regions. The Eastern Region
(Region 9) has the highest rate of commercial timber sale contract use
compared with other regions, while the Rocky Mountain Region (Region
2) has the highest rate of stewardship contracting use.
Figure 7: Number of Decisions Subject to Appeal and Objection, and the
Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections, Exemptions, and
Litigation, by Contract Type and Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1; Northern;
Total number of decisions: 132;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 63;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 28;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 44%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 10;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 90%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 5%;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 24;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 8;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 3%;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 23;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 13;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 57%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 88%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 3%;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 68;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 75%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 7%;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 7;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 57%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 5;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of decisions: 151;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 59;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 15;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 17;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 24%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 70;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 14;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 15;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 27%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 25;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 8;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 32%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 12;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 94;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 17;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 18%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 12;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 24;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 21%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 11;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 36%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 79;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 14;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 36%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 25;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 12%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 3;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 52;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 10%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 6;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 24;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 21%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 11;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 27%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of decisions: 157;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 54;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 28;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 52%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 11;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 45%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 3%;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 45;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 9;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 60%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 9;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 56%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 67%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 116;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 30;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 26%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 14;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 4%;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 23;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 26%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 10;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 251;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 87;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 27;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 10;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 117;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 25;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 21%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 10;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 40%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 10;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 4%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 46;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 17;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 37%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: less than 1%;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 167;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 24;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 14%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 13;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 38%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 18;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 7%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 41;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 10;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 24%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 60%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 5;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 100%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of decisions: 180;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 70;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 20;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 29%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 12;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 86;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 14;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 16%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 14;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 11;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 32;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 19%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 10;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 6;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 60%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 109;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 16;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 15%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 14;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 50%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 18;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 10%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 31;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 23%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 3;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 33%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 6;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 2%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of decisions: 344;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 97;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 15;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 15%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 12;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 8%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 51;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 5;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 10%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 5;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 9;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 11%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 4;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 25%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 236;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 29;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 12%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 13%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 22;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 20;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 15%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: less than 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of decisions: 116;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 59;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 13;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 22%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 7;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 14%;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 4;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 3%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 26;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 8;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 31%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 1%;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 19;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 16%;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 2;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 79;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 27;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 8;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 13;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 7;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 6%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 2;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 2%;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 14;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 3;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 21;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 4;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 1%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of decisions: 5;
Contract type: Commercial timber sale contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Service contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 2;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 1;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 20%;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Stewardship contract:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest service personnel/force account:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 1;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 1;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Forest product permits:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0;
Contract type: Other mechanism:
* Number of decisions: Subject to Appeal: 0;
* Number of decisions: Appealed: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent appealed: -;
* Number of decisions: Subject to objection: 0;
* Number of decisions: Objected to: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent objected to: -;
* Number of decisions: Exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent exempt: 0;
* Number of decisions: Litigated: 0;
* Number of decisions: Percent litigated: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Notes: Hyphens represent zero divided by zero. Because decisions may
involve multiple contract types, the sum of decisions involving each
type may exceed the total number of decisions for each region.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-Urban Interface
and Inventoried Roadless Areas, by Forest Service Region:
In this appendix, Figures 8 and 9 provide information about appeals,
objections, and litigation of fuel reduction activities in the
wildland-urban interface and in inventoried roadless areas. Figure 8
shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of decisions with
fuel reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface and the
number and frequency of appeals, objections, and litigation of such
decisions by region. The Southern Region (Region 8) had the most
decisions in the wildland-urban interface, while the Northern Region
(Region 1) had the highest number of appeals and objections of such
decisions, and the highest rate at which decisions were challenged,
considering both appeals and objections.
Figure 8: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in the Wildland-Urban
Interface (WUI), and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections,
Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table with pie-charts]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of decisions: 103;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 85;
* Appealed: 31;
* Percent appealed: 36%;
* Subject to objection: 14;
* Objected to: 12;
* Percent objected to: 86%;
* Exempt: 4;
* Percent exempt: 4%;
* Litigated: 8;
* Percent litigated: 8%;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 11%.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of decisions: 108;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 87;
* Appealed: 17;
* Percent appealed: 20%;
* Subject to objection: 18;
* Objected to: 4;
* Percent objected to: 22%;
* Exempt: 3;
* Percent exempt: 3%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 11%.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 60;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 49;
* Appealed: 5;
* Percent appealed: 10%;
* Subject to objection: 8;
* Objected to: 3;
* Percent objected to: 38%;
* Exempt: 3;
* Percent exempt: 5%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 6%.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of decisions: 104;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 84;
* Appealed: 22;
* Percent appealed: 26%;
* Subject to objection: 15;
* Objected to: 7;
* Percent objected to: 47%;
* Exempt: 5;
* Percent exempt: 5%;
* Litigated: 2;
* Percent litigated: 2%;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 11%.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 172;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 145;
* Appealed: 21;
* Percent appealed: 14%;
* Subject to objection: 14;
* Objected to: 8;
* Percent objected to: 57%;
* Exempt: 13;
* Percent exempt: 8%;
* Litigated: 2;
* Percent litigated: 2%;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 18%.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of decisions: 97;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 68;
* Appealed: 9;
* Percent appealed: 13%;
* Subject to objection: 18;
* Objected to: 9;
* Percent objected to: 50%;
* Exempt: 11;
* Percent exempt: 11%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 10%.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of decisions: 226;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 189;
* Appealed: 22;
* Percent appealed: 12%;
* Subject to objection: 15;
* Objected to: 1;
* Percent objected to: 7%;
* Exempt: 22;
* Percent exempt: 10%;
* Litigated: 1;
* Percent litigated: less than 1%;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 24%.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of decisions: 81;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 65;
* Appealed: 13;
* Percent appealed: 20%;
* Subject to objection: 9;
* Objected to: 1;
* Percent objected to: 11%;
* Exempt: 7;
* Percent exempt: 9%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: 8%.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of decisions: 3;
Number of WUI decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 0;
* Appealed: 0;
* Percent appealed: 0;
* Subject to objection: 2;
* Objected to: 0;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 1;
* Percent exempt: 33%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total WUI decisions nationwide: less than 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
[End of figure]
According to survey respondents, over half of these decisions (696)
contained definitions of wildland-urban interface that were based on
the definition provided in the January 4, 2001, Federal Register as
refined by HFRA. HFRA Section 101 (16) defines wildland-urban
interface as an area within or adjacent to a community that is
identified as at risk in a community wildfire protection plan.
[Footnote 30] In addition, for areas for which a community wildfire
protection plan is not in effect, the definition in HFRA includes
areas (1) extending 1/2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk
community, or (2) within 1 1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk
community, including any land that has for example, a sustained steep
slope, a geographic feature that could help when creating an effective
firebreak, or Condition Class 3 land,[Footnote 31] or (3) is adjacent
to an evacuation route.[Footnote 32] Further, while many additional
survey respondents who did not select this definition provided their
own definition of wildland-urban interface, we found that 36 such
respondents had definitions very similar to that contained in HFRA.
Other respondents said they defined wildland-urban interface as it is
referenced in their forests' National Forest Land Management Plans.
Others said they used a combination of definitions from multiple
sources. For example, in the Pacific Southwest Region, several
wildland-urban interface definitions were based on both the Federal
Register and their forests' National Forest Land Management Plans.
Still others defined wildland-urban interface as an area within some
distance from private land, or private lands with structures. The
remaining respondents either said they did not have a definition for
wildland-urban interface (14) or did not know the definition they used
to identify the wildland-urban interface (49).
Figure 9 shows, for each Forest Service region, the number of
decisions with fuel reduction activities in inventoried roadless areas
and the number and frequency of appeals, objections, and litigation of
such decisions by region. The Intermountain Region (Region 4) had the
most decisions with activities occurring in inventoried roadless areas
and also the highest number of appeals, objections, and cases
litigated. However, the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) had the
highest rate at which decisions were challenged, considering both
appeals and objections.
Figure 9: Number of Fuel Reduction Decisions in Inventoried Roadless
Areas (IRA), and the Number and Frequency of Appeals, Objections,
Exemptions, and Litigation, by Forest Service Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table with pie-charts]
For each region, the illustration highlights the regional boundaries
on a map of the US.
Region: 1, Northern;
Total number of decisions: 17;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 13;
* Appealed: 3;
* Percent appealed: 23%;
* Subject to objection: 4;
* Objected to: 3;
* Percent objected to: 75%;
* Exempt: 0;
* Percent exempt: 0;
* Litigated: 1;
* Percent litigated: 6%;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 10%.
Region: 2, Rocky Mountain;
Total number of decisions: 30;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 24;
* Appealed: 5;
* Percent appealed: 21%;
* Subject to objection: 6;
* Objected to: 1;
* Percent objected to: 176%;
* Exempt: 0;
* Percent exempt: 0;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 18%.
Region: 3, Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 12;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 11;
* Appealed: 2;
* Percent appealed: 18%;
* Subject to objection: 8;
* Objected to: 1;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 0;
* Percent exempt: 0;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 7%.
Region: 4, Intermountain;
Total number of decisions: 71;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 61;
* Appealed: 10;
* Percent appealed: 16%;
* Subject to objection: 8;
* Objected to: 5;
* Percent objected to: 63%;
* Exempt: 2;
* Percent exempt: 3%;
* Litigated: 3;
* Percent litigated: 5%;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 42%.
Region: 5, Pacific Southwest;
Total number of decisions: 9;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 9;
* Appealed: 3;
* Percent appealed: 33%;
* Subject to objection: 0;
* Objected to: 0;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 0;
* Percent exempt: 0;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 5%.
Region: 6, Pacific Northwest;
Total number of decisions: 10;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 3;
* Appealed: 1;
* Percent appealed: 33%;
* Subject to objection: 2;
* Objected to: 2;
* Percent objected to: 100%;
* Exempt: 5;
* Percent exempt: 30%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 6%.
Region: 8, Southern;
Total number of decisions: 13;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 12;
* Appealed: 2;
* Percent appealed: 17%;
* Subject to objection: 0;
* Objected to: 0;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 1;
* Percent exempt: 8%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: less than 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 8%.
Region: 9, Eastern;
Total number of decisions: 4;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 4;
* Appealed: 0;
* Percent appealed: 0%;
* Subject to objection: 0;
* Objected to: 0;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 0;
* Percent exempt: 0;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 2%.
Region: 10, Alaska;
Total number of decisions: 3;
Number of IRA decisions:
* Subject to appeal: 1;
* Appealed: 0;
* Percent appealed: 0;
* Subject to objection: 1;
* Objected to: 0;
* Percent objected to: 0;
* Exempt: 1;
* Percent exempt: 33%;
* Litigated: 0;
* Percent litigated: 0;
Regional percentage of total IRA decisions nationwide: 2%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix X: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized by the Forest
Service and Represented in the GAO Survey:
A categorical exclusion (CE) is a category of actions for which
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required because the agency has determined that it does
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.[Footnote 33] Agencies develop a list
of categorical exclusions specific to their operations when they
develop or revise their implementing procedures for the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations.
When the Forest Service determines that activities of a proposed
decision fall within a category of activities the agency has already
determined have no significant environmental impact, it approves it
using one of the predetermined categorical exclusions established by
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest
Service.[Footnote 34] Table 10 shows the types and frequency of
categorical exclusions reported in our survey. They are divided into
two types: those that require the agency to prepare a decision memo
for each action approved using a categorical exclusion, and those that
do not require such documentation.[Footnote 35]
Table 10: Types of Categorical Exclusions Authorized for Use by the
Forest Service and Represented in the GAO Survey:
CE number: Categorical exclusions established by the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, not requiring a decision memo.
Categorical exclusions established by the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, not requiring a decision memo:
CE number: 1;
CE description: Policy development;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 2;
CE description: Program funding;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 3;
CE description: Inventories, research activities, and studies;
Total number in GAO survey: 1.
CE number: 4;
CE description: Educational and Informational Programs;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 5;
CE description: Law enforcement;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 6;
CE description: Legal counsel and representation;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 7;
CE description: Trade and market development abroad;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
Categorical exclusions established by the Chief of the Forest Service
not requiring a decision memo:
CE number: 1;
CE description: Short-term resource protection, public health, and
safety;
Total number in GAO survey: 1.
CE number: 2;
CE description: Agencywide administrative rules, regulations, and
policies;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 3;
CE description: Repair and maintenance of administrative sites;
Total number in GAO survey: 11.
CE number: 4;
CE description: Repair and maintenance of road, trails, and landline
boundaries;
Total number in GAO survey: 6.
CE number: 5;
CE description: Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and
facilities;
Total number in GAO survey: 9.
CE number: 6;
CE description: Acquisition of land or a land interest;
Total number in GAO survey: 2.
CE number: 7;
CE description: Land or resource sales or exchanges;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 8;
CE description: Approving, modifying or continuing minor, short-term
special uses of Forest Service lands;
Total number in GAO survey: 3.
CE number: 9;
CE description: Issuance of a ski area permit;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 10;
CE description: Amending or replacing an existing special-use
authorization;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
Categorical exclusions established by the Chief of the Forest Service
requiring a decision memo:
CE number: 1;
CE description: Construction and reconstruction of trails;
Total number in GAO survey: 1.
CE number: 2;
CE description: Construction and reconstruction of utilities;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 3;
CE description: Approval, modification, or continuation of minor
special uses;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 4;
CE description: Reserved;
Total number in GAO survey: N/A.
CE number: 5;
CE description: Regeneration of native tree species;
Total number in GAO survey: 21.
CE number: 6;
CE description: Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement;
Total number in GAO survey: 454.
CE number: 7;
CE description: Modification or maintenance of stream or aquatic
habitat improvement structures;
Total number in GAO survey: 2.
CE number: 8;
CE description: Short-term mineral, energy, or geophysical
investigations;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 9;
CE description: Allotment improvements;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 10;
CE description: Hazardous fuel reduction activities;
Total number in GAO survey: 379.
CE number: 11;
CE description: Postfire rehabilitation activities;
Total number in GAO survey: 4.
CE number: 12;
CE description: Harvest of live trees;
Total number in GAO survey: 38.
CE number: 13;
CE description: Salvage of dead and/or dying trees;
Total number in GAO survey: 64.
CE number: 14;
CE description: Harvest of trees to control insects or disease;
Total number in GAO survey: 18.
CE number: 15;
CE description: Issuance of a new special use authorization;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 16;
CE description: Land management plans, amendments, and revisions;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
CE number: 17;
CE description: Approval of oil and gas exploration plans;
Total number in GAO survey: 0.
Categorical exclusion established by HFRA not requiring a decision
memo:
CE number: No number;
CE description: Applied silvicultural assessments and research
treatments;
Total number in GAO survey: 1.
Sources: (1) Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act
Handbook, Chapter 30-Categorical Exclusion from Documentation. April
15, 2009; (2) 16 U.S.C. § 6554(d)(1); and (3) GAO data (see citations
above).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Major Litigation Affecting Appeal Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions:
A summary of the major litigation that affected the exemption of
categorical exclusions from the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act process is shown in table 11. Starting in
late 2003, these exemptions were challenged in court and were the
subject of a Supreme Court ruling. Table 12 summarizes the litigation
centered specifically on the validity of the Hazardous Fuel Reduction
categorical exclusion, or Fuels CE, also known as CE #10.
Table 11: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning Regulation Exempting
Decisions That Have Been Categorically Excluded from Appeals:
Date: June 4, 2003;
Major event: Forest Service published a final rule revising appeal
procedures that, among other things, exempted decisions using
categorical exclusions from appeal (CE appeals exemption).
Date: June 5, 2003;
Major event: Forest Service action created a new categorical exclusion
for certain fuel reduction activities (Fuels CE).
Date: September 8, 2003;
Major event: Forest Service issued its Burnt Ridge Project decision
memo approving a timber sale and treatment of 238 acres of postfire
forest area, using the Fuels CE and the CE appeals exemption.
Date: December 1, 2003;
Major event: Earth Island filed a complaint against the Forest Service
that, among other things, challenged the CE appeals exemption
nationwide and as applied to the Burnt Ridge Project, arguing that the
exemption violated the Appeal Reform Act. The Forest Service later
withdrew the Burnt Ridge Project.
Date: July 7, 2005;
Major event: Federal district court invalidated the CE appeals
exemption. Earth Island v. Pengilly, 376 F.Supp.2d 994 (E.D.Cal.2005).
Date: September 16, 2005;
Major event: District court clarified that the scope of the injunction
was nationwide, precluding any enforcement and implementation of the
invalidated regulations. The district court further clarified that the
injunction would apply only prospectively, to decisions made after the
July 7, 2005 order date.
Date: August 10, 2006;
Major event: Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's invalidation
of the CE appeals exemption and the nationwide injunction against its
enforcement. Earth Island v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2006),
amended 490 F.3d 687 (2007).
Date: March 3, 2009;
Major event: In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth
Circuit, holding that because the Forest Service had withdrawn the
Burnt Ridge Project, the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge
portions of the 36 C.F.R. appeal regulations that exempted categorical
exclusions from notice, comment, and appeal. Summers v. Earth Island
Institute, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1142-50 (2009).
Source: GAO analysis of relevant court cases.
[End of table]
Table 12: A Chronology of Litigation Concerning the Validity of the
Fuels CE:
Date: June 5, 2003;
Major event: Forest Service action created a new categorical exclusion
for certain fuel reduction activities (Fuels CE).
Date: October 8, 2004;
Major event: Sierra Club challenged the Fuels CE as applied to several
projects in the Eldorado and Lassen National Forests, arguing, among
other things, that the CE inappropriately included activities that
have significant effects.
Date: September 16, 2005;
Major event: Federal district court rejected the Sierra Club's
challenge, holding that the Forest Service provided reasoned
explanations for its conclusion that the category of actions covered
by the Fuels CE would not normally have a significant impact on the
environment. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 2005 WL 2281074 (E.D.Cal.)
Date: December 5, 2007;
Major event: Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service failed to
assess properly the significance of the hazardous fuels reduction
categorical exclusion and thus it failed to demonstrate that it made a
reasoned decision to promulgate the Fuels CE based on relevant factors
and information. Accordingly, the court held that the agency's
promulgation of the Fuels CE was arbitrary and capricious. Sierra Club
v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007).
Source: GAO analysis of relevant court cases.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix XII: Survey Questions to National Forests:
Survey of National Forest Decisions Signed in FY2006 through FY2008
with Fuel Reduction Activities:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Introduction:
Welcome to GAO's survey on National Forest Decisions Signed in FY 2006
through 2008 with Fuel Reduction Activities. The web-based survey that
you are currently logged into covers the following decision made by
your forest _____:
As a reminder, the decision name shown above will appear at the top of
each screen as you go through the survey.
As noted in our e-mail to you, the survey for each individual decision
is made up of two sections. The first section focuses on questions
regarding the NEPA decision and its outcome. The second section
includes questions about the activities included in the decision.
To learn more about completing the survey, printing your responses,
and who to contact if you have questions, click here for help.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in taking part in our survey.
Definitions of Terms:
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
These definitions have been reviewed by Forest Service management to
ensure that they reflect current Forest Service policy.
Click here to see these definitions.
Respondent Information (Question 1):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
1. Who is primarily responsible for completing the survey for this
decision, in case we need to contact you about your responses?
Name (first and last):
Title:
E-mail:
Telephone: (include area code):
Forest:
District:
Region:
General Information about this Decision (Questions 2-6):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
2. Does the decision indicated above include at least one fuel
reduction purpose or activity?
1. Yes - Continue with question 3.
2. No (Click here to skip to question 31).
3. Unsure/Do not know - Click the link below to send an e-mail to GAO
for clarification: forestservicesurvey@gao.gov.
(or call Sandra Davis at 303-572-7337 or Ulana Bihun at 303-572-7310).
3. What was the date the decision document associated with this
decision was signed? Or, if the decision type is a categorical
exclusion with no decision memo required, please enter the
determination date, or the date the deciding official approved the
action.
(Note: Date entered must be between 10/01/2005 and 09/30/2008.)
Month:
Day:
Year:
4. If available, please provide us with the Web link to the relevant
documentation used to support the decision indicated above. Please
also include the page number(s) of the relevant fuel reduction
activity sections.
Enter web link and page number:
Click on the box below if Web link not available - then -
continue with question 5.
5. What was the date the legal notice for this decision or
determination was published in your district or forest's paper of
record?
(Note: Date entered must be after 10/01/2005.)
Month:
Day:
Year:
Click on the box below if the decision or determination was not
published.
6. What type of decision was this?
1. Categorical exclusion/Decision memo required - Continue with
question 7.
2. Categorical exclusion/No decision memo required (Click here to skip
to question 8).
3. EA (Environmental Assessment)/Decision Notice (Click here to skip
to question 9).
4. EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)/Record of Decision (Click here
to skip to question 9).
5. Unsure/Do not know - Click the link below to send an e-mail to GAO
for clarification: forestservicesurvey@gao.gov.
(or call Sandra Davis at 303-572-733 7 or Ulana Bihun at 303-572-7310).
General Information about this Decision (Question 7):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
7. (If A Decision Memo Was Required) Which of the following CE
categories described in Chapter 30 of the Forest Service's
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15) were used
when approving the decision?
(Please review all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. CE#1: Construction and reconstruction of trails.
2. CE#2: Additional construction or reconstruction of telephone or
utility lines.
3. CE#3: Minor special uses of NF system land.
4. CE#5: Regeneration of native tree species not involving herbicides.
5. CE#6: Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement.
6. CE#7: Stream or lake habitat improvement.
7. CE#8: Short-term mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations.
8. CE#9: Allotment or animal distribution improvements.
9. CE#10: Hazardous fuel reduction activities (Answer question 7a
below).
10. CE#11: Post-fire rehabilitation activities.
11. CE#12: Limited timber harvest of live trees.
12. CE#13: Salvage of dead or dying trees.
13. CE#14: Removal of insect-or disease-infested trees.
14. CE#15: Issuance of a new special use authorization.
15. CE#16: Land management plans developed per 36 C.F.R. Part 219.
16. CE#17: Surface use plan approval for oil and gas activities.
7a. If you answered CE#10: Hazardous fuel reduction activities in
question 7 above, were the projects associated with this decision
enjoined by Sierra Club v. Bosworth?
For information about this case please click here.
1. Yes (Click here to skip to question 9).
2. No (Click here to skip to question 9).
3. Do not know (Click here to skip to question 9).
7b. If you were directed to answer question 7 above - answer "Yes"
below and click on the link to skip to question 9.
1. Yes (Click here to skip to question 9).
General Information about this Decision (Questions 8-11):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
8. (If A Decision Memo Was Not Required) Which of the following CE
categories described in Chapter 30 of the Forest Services
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15) were used
when approving the decision?
(Please review all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. CE#1: Short-term public health/safety or resource protection orders.
2. CE#2: Rules, regulations or policies related to administrative
procedures.
3. CE#3: Repair and maintenance of administrative sites.
4. CE#4: Repair/maintenance of roads, trails and landline boundaries.
5. CE#5: Repair/maintenance of recreation sites and facilities.
6. CE#6: Land acquisition or interest in land.
7. CE#7: Sale or exchange of land.
8. CE#8: Minor, short-term special uses of NF system land.
9. CE#9: Ski area permits.
10. CE#10: Issuance of a new special use authorization.
9. Was this decision subject to notice, comment, and appeal procedures
for National Forest System projects and activities under 36 C.F.R.
Part 215?
1. Yes (Click here to skip to question 16)
2. No, this decision was exempt because it was a decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment and therefore it was not subject to the notice, comment,
and appeals procedures per 36 C.F.R. Part 215.20 -Continue with
question 10.
3. No, this decision was exempt for another reason - Continue with
question 10.
4. Do not know - Continue with question 10.
10. Was this decision subject to predecisional administrative review
(the "objection process") under the process called for by the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (36 C.F.R. Part 218)?
1. Yes - Continue with question 11.
2. No, this decision was exempt because the Secretary of Agriculture
or the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment proposed the
project and therefore it was not subject to the HFRA predecisional
review process per 36 C.F.R. Part 218.13 (Click here to skip to
Question 161).
3. No, this decision was exempt for another reason (Click here to skip
to question 16).
4. Do not know (Click here to skip to question 16).
11. Was an objection to this decision filed under the process called
for by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (36 C.F.R. Part 218)?
1. Yes - Continue with question 12.
2. No (Click here to skip to question 17).
3. Do not know (Click here to skip to question 17).
General Information about this Decision (Questions 12-15):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
12. How many objections were filed for this decision? (Enter number.
If unknown, enter -99 (minus 99).)
Objections:
We will now ask you about how the objection (or objections) to this
decision was addressed.
13. In which way was the objection (or objections) to this decision
addressed?
(Select one answer in all rows, 13a-131 Please respond to this
question by selecting the final action taken to address each
objection. If number of objections is unknown, enter -99 (minus 99)).
13a. The objections(s) was set aside from review.
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13b. The objection(s) was returned with a request for further
information.
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13c. The objection(s) was reviewed and a written response prepared
with no change to the decision.
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13d. The objection(s) was reviewed, no written response was prepared
and no change was made to the decision.
Yes - See question to the right;
No;
Do not know.
13e. The objection(s) was reviewed, and a written response was
prepared, with a change to the decision: (Please describe the change
in question 14 below.)
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13f. The objection(s) was reviewed, no written response was prepared,
but a change was made to the decision (Please describe the change in
question 14 below.)
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13g. The objection(s) was reviewed and a written response prepared
specifying further analysis.
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13h. The objection(s) was reviewed, no written response was prepared,
but further analysis was conducted.
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
13i. The objection(s) was addressed in another way. (Please describe
in question 14 below)
Yes - See question to the right; If yes, how many objections stem
addressed this way. (Enter number. If unknown, enter -99.)
No;
Do not know.
14. If you answered "Yes" to item(s) 13e or 13f above, please describe
the changes that were made to the proposed decision as a result of one
or more of the objection(s).
Also, if you answered "Yes" to item 13i (Addressed in another way),
please describe how the objection(s) was addressed.
If yes to question 13e, describe the changes to the decision:
If yes to question 13f, describe the changes to the decision:
If yes to question 13i, describe how the objection(s) was addressed:
15. For each objection, please list the name(s) of the organizations,
and individuals (that are not affiliated with organizations) that
objected to this decision, even if the objection was set aside from
review.
Please list the name(s) of the organization(s) that objected here.
Please list the name(s of the individual(s) (not affiliated with
organizations) that objected here.
General Information about this Decision (Questions 16-17):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
16. Was this decision appealed under the rules contained in 36 C.P.A.
Part 215?
1. Yes;
2. No;
3. Do not know.
17. Did any individual or group subsequently seek federal judicial
review of the final decision?
1. Yes;
2. No;
3. Do not know.
Activities Conducted under this Decision (Questions 18-20):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
Now that we have collected information about the decision type, we
need to collect information about the activities conducted under this
decision that are intended to accomplish the decision objectives. When
responding to the questions in this section, please consider all
activities described in the decision including those activities that
may not be specific to fuel reduction.
As a reminder, we defined activities earlier as - discrete actions or
tasks intended to accomplish decision objectives.
18. Are the following purposes included in this decision? (Please
review all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. Facility management - FC.
2. Forest Products - TM.
3. Fuels management - HF.
4. Grazing management - RG.
5. Heritage resource management - HR.
6. Land acquisition - LW.
7. Land management planning - PN.
8. Land ownership management - LM.
9. Minerals and Geology - MG.
10. Recreation management - RW.
11. Regulations, Directives, Orders - RO.
12. Research - FR.
13. Road management - RD.
14. Special area management - RU.
15. Special use management - SU.
16. Vegetation management - VM.
17. Watershed management - WM.
18. Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants - WF.
19. Travel management - TR.
20. Other - Please describe any other purposes below.
Please describe any other purposes here.
19. Under this decision, were any of the following mechanisms used,
or expected to be used, to carry out hazardous fuel reduction
activities? (Please review all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. Commercial timber sale contract.
2. Service contract.
3. Stewardship contract.
4. Forest Service personnel/force account.
5. Forest product permits (firewood, post and pole, miscellaneous
products).
6. Other mechanism(s) - Please describe below.
Please describe other mechanism(s) here.
20. Did any of the activities that make up this decision include the
following fuel treatment methods?
(Please review all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. Prescribed burning.
2. Mechanical treatment (machine or chainsaw).
3. Commercial logging.
4. Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks.
5. Chemical/herbicide treatment.
6. Livestock grazing.
7. Other fuel treatment method(s) - Please describe below.
Please describe other fuel treatment method(s) here.
Activities Conducted under this Decision (Questions 21-22):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
21. What is the approximate total area, in acres, that was treated or
is expected to be treated for fuel reduction by the activities in this
decision?
Example: A hypothetical decision lists fuel reduction as a purpose for
the following three activities: Activity 1 is a commercial thinning
activity to harvest trees on 3,000 acres. Activity 2 is a pre-
commercial thinning activity on 1,500 acres within the above harvest
area Activity 3 combines underburning on 300 acres within the harvest
area and 700 acres outside of the harvest area. The total area treated
in question 23 is 3,700 acres: the harvested 3,000 acres plus 700
acres outside the harvest area. Therefore, your entry for question 23
would be 3,700 acres.
Enter whole numeric digits only. Enter 0 (zero) if none. Enter -99
(minus 99) if not available.
Acres:
22. For the following types of fuel treatment, how many acres have
been, or are to be, treated by each of the following methods?
Enter numeric digits only. Enter 0 (zero) if none. Enter -99 (minus
99) if not available. Note: Acres may overlap and not add to the
answer given in question 21.
Method:
22a. Prescribed burn;
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22b. Mechanical treatment (machine or chainsaw);
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22c. Commercial logging;
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22d. Construction/maintenance of fuel breaks;
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22e. Chemical/Herbicide treatment;
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22f. Livestock grazing;
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Method:
22g. Other method(s) --Please describe below:
Number of acres treated or to be treated (Please enter 0 (zero) if
none):
Describe other method(s) used and indicate the number of acres treated
by each method.
Other method:
Acres treated:
Activities Conducted under this Decision (Questions 23-26):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
The following questions ask about the wildland-urban interface.
23. At the time this decision was signed, was any portion of the
approved fuel reduction activity or activities in the wildland-urban
interface, as defined by your forest (regardless of whether they were
described as such in the decision document or NEPA documents)?
1. Yes - Continue with question 24.
2. No (Click here to skip to question 27).
3. Do not know (Click here to skip to question 27).
Please note: The following question refers to the definition of the
wildland-urban interface contained in the Federal Register, dated
January 4, 2001 as refined by HFRA Section 101(16) and an alternate
definition in HFRA Section 101(16)(B(ii)) for certain at-risk
communities.
To review this definition, please click here.
24. At the time this decision was signed, what definition of the
wildland-urban interface did your forest use?
1. The definition in the Federal Register dated January 4, 2001 as
refined by HFRA Section 101 (16). (Click here to skip to question 26).
2. The definition for at-risk communities that have not yet designated
their WUIs as part of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan as defined
by HFRA Section 101 (16) (B(ii)). (Click here to skip to question 26)
3. A definition other than the one in the Federal Register dated
January 4, 2001 - Please enter that definition in the box below and
then (Click here to skip to question 26).
4. Our forest did not have a definition - Continue with question 25.
5. Do not know - Continue with question 25. Enter the definition of
wildland-urban interface used by your forest - then - skip to question
26.
25. If your forest did not have a definition of the wildland-urban
interface at the time this decision was signed or you do not know of
any definition, did your forest identify in the decision documents or
NEPA documents whether any portion of the fuel reduction activities in
this decision were to occur within the wildland-urban interface?
1. Yes;
2. No;
3. Do not know.
26. Approximately how many total acres of the approved fuel-treatment
related activity or activities that make up this decision are in a
wildland-urban interface area?
(Enter whole numeric digits only. Enter -99 (minus 99) if not
available.)
Acres:
Activities Conducted under this Decision (Questions 27-29):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
The following questions ask about Inventoried Roadless Areas.
27. At the time this decision was signed was any portion of the fuel
reduction activity or activities to occur in an Inventoried Roadless
Area?
Note: To review the definition of Inventoried Roadless Area, please
click here.
1. Yes - Continue with question 28.
2. No (Click here to skip to question 30).
3. Do not know (Click here to skip to question 30).
28. Approximately how many total acres of the fuel reduction activity
or activities that make up this decision occur in an Inventoried
Roadless Area?
(Enter whole numeric digits only. Enter -99 (minus 99) if not
available.)
Acres:
29. Which activity or activities for road construction in the
Inventoried Roadless Area did this decision include? (Please review
all responses, then check all that apply.)
1. No road construction.
2. Temporary road construction.
3. Forest Service system road construction, classified road.
4. Forest Service system road construction, unclassified road.
5. Other - Please specify below.
Specify other road construction activities.
Additional Comments and Survey Completion Question (Questions 30-31):
The questions in this survey cover the following decision for the_____:
30. If you have any additional comments concerning this decision,
please enter them in the space below.
Please continue to the survey completion question below.
31. Have you finished GAO's survey for this decision?
(Answering "Yes" to this question and clicking on the "Exit" button
below will submit your responses for this decision to GAO.)
1. Yes, my survey is complete.
2. No, my survey is not yet complete.
You may view and print your completed survey by clicking on the
Summary link in the menu to the left. Please note that the name that
will appear at the top of this summary of your responses is that of
our primary survey contact for your forest (in most cases, the forest
supervisor or NEPA Coordinator).
When you exit this survey you will see the list of decisions. You may
need to complete other surveys for other decisions on this list.
if you have completed all of the decisions you are responsible for,
click on the "Cancel" button at the bottom of the screen listing the
decisions. Note that even after you click on the "Cancel" button, you
will still be able to log into the survey at any time to either change
a response or complete a survey for another decision.
Print this Page:
Exit Survey:
Definitions of Terms for Survey of National Forest Decisions Signed in
FY2006 through FY2008 with Fuel Reduction Activities:
Definitions of Terms (Pop-up link located in the "Definitions of
Terms" Screen and in various other locations in the questionnaire when
covered in various questions.)
Activities: Activities or an activity are discrete actions or tasks
intended to accomplish decision objectives.
Decision: A decision is composed of one or more "activities", is
intended to guide action on National Forest system land and is
described in "NEPA documents" and/or "decision documents". The
decision name should be the name used by your forest to refer to this
action.
Decision documents: Include records of decisions, decision notices and
decision memoranda in the case of categorical exclusions. Decisions
can also include letters to the file or other written forms of
approving fuel reduction activities.
Hazardous fuel reduction: Vegetative manipulation designed to create
and maintain resilient and sustainable landscapes, including burning,
mechanical treatments, and/or other methods that reduce the quantity
or change the arrangement of living or dead fuel so that the
intensity, severity, or effects of wildland fire are reduced within
acceptable ecological parameters and consistent with land management
plan objectives, or activities that maintain desired fuel conditions.
These conditions should be measurable or predictable using fire
behavior prediction models or fire effects models.
Inventoried Roadless Areas: Generally refer to areas identified as
such in the applicable Land and Resource Management Plan or in 2001
Inventoried Roadless Area maps. These areas may also be identified as
such in the Forest Service's Roadless Area Review and Evaluation
(RARE) studies completed in the 1970s, excluding areas that have since
been designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
by Congress. NEPA documents: Include environmental impact statements
(EISs), environmental assessments (EAs) and findings of no significant
impact (FONSIs).
Wildland-urban interface (WUI): WUI has been defined in various ways
over time and by forest location.
One definition is contained in Federal Register Notice, Volume 66,
page 751, dated January 4, 2001, which defines the WUI community as
those areas where humans and their development meet or intermix with
wildland fuel. This definition was refined in HFRA Section 101 (16).
The HFRA provides expedited NEPA procedures for authorized fuel-
reduction projects on NFS and BLM lands in the WUIs of at-risk
communities. Under HFRA Section 101(1), an at-risk community is one
that:
* Is an interface community as defined in the Federal Register notice
of January 4, 2001 (66 FR 753), or a group of homes and other
structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities
and collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to
Federal land;
* Has conditions conducive to a large-scale wildland fire;
* Faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of
a wildland fire for at-risk communities that have not yet designated
their WUIs as part of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, the HFRA
has a default definition of Wildland-urban Interface (Section
101(16)(B (ii)). It is:
- Extending 1/2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community.
Or:
- Extending 1 1/2 miles from the boundary when other criteria are met,
for example, a sustained steep slope, a geographic feature that could
help when creating an effective firebreak, or Condition Class 3
land.
Or:
- Adjacent to an evacuation route. There is no distance limitation for
evacuation routes.
Pop-up ” Sierra Club v. Bosworth (Pop-up link located in question #7a.)
Sierra Club v. Bosworth: The case of Sierra Club v. Bosworth resulted
in an injunction precluding the Forest Service from implementing
CE#10. The injunction covered projects the Forest Service had not
approved prior to the initiation of this lawsuit in October 2004,
except for those projects the district court determined were already
at or near completion.
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, 202-512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant
Director), Ulana Bihun, Sandra Davis, Justin Fisher, Cathy Hurley,
Richard P. Johnson, Stuart Kaufman, Armetha Liles, Diane Lund, Robin
Nazzaro, Alison O'Neill, and Shana Wallace made key contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), as amended.
[2] For some categorical exclusions, decision memos are not required.
For example, a decision memo is not required for repair and
maintenance of Forest Service administrative sites, roads, and
recreation sites.
[3] It is the position of the Department of Agriculture that any
filing for federal judicial review of a decision subject to appeal is
premature and inappropriate under 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) unless the
plaintiff has first sought to invoke and exhaust the appeal
procedures. 36 C.F.R. § 215.21. See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest
Service, 579 F.3d 1114, 1121-24 (10th Cir. 2009) (discussing
exhaustion requirement).
[4] GAO, Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation
Involving Fuels Reduction Activities, GAO-04-52 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 24, 2003).
[5] Pub. L. No. 108-148, Title I, § 105 (2003).
[6] It should be noted that the Forest Service does not use a single,
specific definition of wildland-urban interface, and that different
definitions can be used depending on the authority under which fuel
reduction projects are carried out. GAO has previously recommended
that the Forest Service develop a consistent, specific definition of
the wildland-urban interface. See GAO, Wildland Fire Management:
Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands
Needing Fuels Reduction, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-805] (Washington, D.C.; Aug. 15,
2003).
[7] In this report, we use the term "inventoried roadless areas" to
describe undeveloped areas with few or no roads that are identified as
such in the applicable forest's Land and Resource Management Plan or
in 2001 Inventoried Roadless Area maps. These areas may also be
identified as such in the Forest Service's Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation (RARE) studies completed in the 1970s, excluding areas that
have since been designated as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System by Congress.
[8] Because multiple appeals can be filed on a single decision, the
number of appeals filed is greater than the number of decisions
appealed. Similarly, proposed decisions can be the subject of multiple
objections, and the number of objections filed is greater than the
number of proposed decisions objected to.
[9] Because each decision can be implemented using more than one
treatment method, the sum of decisions by treatment method is greater
than the total number of decisions.
[10] Stewardship contracts include those under which the agency uses
the value of commercial products, such as timber, to offset the cost
of services received, such as thinning, stream improvement, and other
activities. For more information about stewardship contracting, see
GAO, Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community
Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-652] (Washington, D.C.:
June 14, 2004), and Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship
Contracting Is Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data
and Contracting Strategies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13,
2008).
[11] Because each decision can be implemented using more than one
contract type, the sum of decisions by contract type is greater than
the total number of decisions.
[12] For example, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, one of
the major laws governing the Forest Service, requires the Forest
Service to, among other things, (1) develop a plan to manage the lands
and resources of each national forest in coordination with the land
management planning process of other federal agencies, states, and
localities and (2) revise each plan at least every 15 years. Each
forest plan--called a Land and Resource Management Plan--establishes
how land areas within a forest may be used and governs individual
projects or activities that occur within the forest. Individual
projects or activities, such as reducing fuels, may take place only if
they are consistent with the plan and after site-specific
environmental review, which often includes public notice, comment, and
administrative appeal.
[13] Regulations governing roadless areas have been extensively
litigated, and Congress is considering legislation addressing these
areas. For a full discussion of these issues, see Congressional
Research Service, National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives,
RL30647 (Washington, D.C.: October 9, 2008).
[14] 16 U.S.C. § 1612 nt; see 36 C.F.R. part 215, Notice, Comment, and
Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects.
[15] The Forest Service appeals regulations contain a provision
stating that only a person who files "substantive" comments may file
an appeal. 36 C.F.R. § 215.13(a). A federal district court has held
that this requirement is invalid under the Appeal Reform Act.
Wilderness Society v. Rey, D. Mont., Civ. No. 03-00119, April 24,
2006. The case is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. See Wilderness
Society v. Rey, 06-35565, filed June 23, 2006.
[16] See appendix XI for more information.
[17] The agency's objection process appears at 36 C.F.R. part 218.
Fuel reduction projects authorized under HFRA include those occurring
on federal land in the following areas: the wildland-urban interface;
certain municipal watersheds; areas where wind throw, blowdown, ice
storm damage, or the existence or imminent risk of an insect or
disease epidemic significantly threatens ecosystem components or
resource values; and areas where wildland fire poses a threat to, and
where the natural fire regimes are important for threatened and
endangered species or their habitat. Actions implemented under HFRA
are prohibited in wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and
federal lands where an act of Congress or presidential proclamation
prohibits or restricts removal of vegetation.
[18] Other reasons include the following: The decision is not subject
to objection procedures; there is not enough information included in
the objection for the reviewing officer to review; the objector
withdraws the objection; an objector's identity is not provided or
cannot be determined from the signature or a reasonable means of
contact is not provided; or the objection is illegible for any reason,
including submissions in an electronic format different from that
specified in the legal notice of the proposed decision.
[19] The Forest Service does not have a uniform definition of a
hazardous fuel reduction activity, and many agency projects may
involve fuel reduction activities that provide an ancillary benefit to
a project conducted for another purpose--potentially affecting the
information that forest managers reported to us. See appendix I for
more information about our data collection methodology.
[20] See appendix XI for a summary of the major litigation affecting
the exemptions for categorical exclusions.
[21] The Forest Service is considering amending this regulation in
light of the litigation that challenged it, the agency's experience in
implementing it, and possible changes in policy direction.
[22] Decisions withdrawn in this manner are considered different from
decisions the agency withdraws as a result of informal resolution.
According to a regional official, withdrawn decisions that fall within
the "Dismissed without Review" category avoid having to "daylight" to
appellants what the flaws were in the decision.
[23] To verify these responses, we collected and reviewed agency
documentation for a randomly selected sample of appealed decisions.
Our review of this documentation confirmed that, for each such
decision, the agency had processed appeals within prescribed time
frames. See appendix I for additional information on our survey and
data verification methodologies.
[24] Some of the individuals may have submitted an appeal on more than
1 decision. Consequently, there may have been some double counting of
specific individuals.
[25] As a result of one objection to one decision, a change was made
and no written response was provided to the objector.
[26] 36 C.F.R. part 218.12.
[27] Our data for the WildWest Institute include objections made by
the Native Forest Network and Ecology Center. These two groups merged
to form the WildWest Institute in April 2006.
[28] Both plaintiffs and the Forest Service have the option of
appealing the decisions of the district court to the relevant federal
court of appeals. We did not collect information on whether the
decisions were appealed to a higher court.
[29] For 32 of the decisions included in our study, the survey
respondents did not provide information on the contract type.
[30] Under HFRA Section 101(1), an at-risk community is one that is an
interface community as defined in the Federal Register notice of
January 4, 2001 (66 FR 753), or a group of homes and other structures
with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and
collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to
federal land; has conditions conducive to a large-scale wildland fire;
and faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result
of a wildland fire. HFRA defines a community wildfire protection plan
as a plan that is developed primarily by state and local agencies in
consultation with interested parties and federal land management
agencies, and that identifies and prioritizes areas in and near a
community for fuel reduction treatments and recommends the types of
treatments to be used.
[31] The term "condition class 3" with respect to an area of federal
land refers to the condition class description developed by the Rocky
Mountain Research Station in the report Development of Coarse-Scale
Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management, GTR RMRS-87 (Fort
Collins, Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Research Station: April 2002).
[32] There is no distance limitation for evacuation routes.
[33] 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
[34] HFRA, Title IV--Insect Infestations and Related Diseases--also
authorizes categorical exclusions for applied silvicultural
assessments and research treatments provided the total number of acres
does not exceed 250,000. Decisions authorized under Title IV are not
subject to the predecisional administrative review process, but are
subject to the notice, comment, and appeals process found in 36 C.F.R.
215.
[35] While a decision memo is not required for certain categories, one
may be prepared at the discretion of the responsible Forest Service
official. For more information, see GAO, Forest Service: Use of
Categorical Exclusions for Vegetation Management Projects, Calendar
Years 2003 through 2005, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-99] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10,
2006).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
