Under NEPA, agencies such as the Forest Service generally evaluate the  likely environmental effects of projects they propose using an EA or, if the  projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more detailed  EIS. The Forest Service may decide to prepare an environmental assessment for a project that  could qualify for approval using a categorical exclusion. As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical exclusion for use in  approving projects involving certain vegetation management activities— timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement—that, still today, has no  acreage limitation. Categorical Exclusions Were Used to Approve Most Vegetation Management Projects and about Half of the Total Treatment Acres

For calendar years 2003 through 2005, as shown in table 2, the Forest  Service approved about 3,000 vegetation management projects to treat  about 6.3 million acres. Although a majority of projects were approved using  categorical exclusions, these projects accounted for slightly less than half  of the total treatment acres because the size of these projects was much  smaller than those approved using an EA or EIS. According to several Forest Service officials, the number of  vegetation management projects approved and the type of environmental  analysis used in approving them depended on the forest’s size, ecology, and  location, as can be seen in the following examples:   At the 2 million-acre Superior National Forest, a pine, fir, and spruce  forest, in rural northeastern Minnesota, forest officials relied more on  environmental assessments and environmental impact statements in  approving projects because most of the projects were larger in terms of  geographic coverage and more inherently complex; they used  categorical exclusions only for a few smaller scale projects or projects  undertaken in response to unanticipated events such as a wind storm  that blew down trees on several hundred thousands of acres and that  subsequently needed to be removed to reduce the risk of wildland fire. Categorical Exclusion for Improving Timber Stands or Wildlife Habitat Was Used the Most Frequently to Treat the Most Acreage

Of the almost 2,200 projects approved using categorical exclusions over the  3-year period, the Forest Service most frequently used the vegetation  management categorical exclusion for improving timber stands or wildlife  habitat; this categorical exclusion was used on half of the projects to treat  about 2.4 million acres. As can be seen in table 3, for the remaining  projects, the Forest Service primarily used the categorical exclusion for  reducing hazardous fuels, followed by salvaging dead or dying trees,  conducting limited timber harvests of live trees, and removal of trees to  control the spread of insects or disease; in all, these categorical exclusions  were used to approve treatments on about a half-million acres. Primary Reasons for Not Using Categorical Exclusions Varied Depending on the Ranger District and Type of Categorical Exclusion Used

Of the 509 ranger districts, 11 percent had not used any of the five  vegetation management categorical exclusions during the 3-year period. As  can be seen in table 5, the percentage of ranger districts that did not use  specific categorical exclusions ranged widely, from 91 percent not using  the category for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or  disease, to 32 percent not using the category for timber stand or wildlife  habitat improvement. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Forest  Service. The Forest Service generally agreed with our findings and  observations, and specifically that it is premature to extrapolate trends  given the studied categorical exclusions’ limited period of use. Scope and Methodology

We were asked to determine how many vegetation management projects  the Forest Service approved for calendar years 2003 through 2005,  including those approved using categorical exclusions, and the number of  associated acres proposed for treatment. 3. 4.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Forest Service manages over 192 million acres of land, in part through vegetation management projects such as thinning trees. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) before approving a project that may significantly affect the environment. The agency generally does not need to prepare such environmental analyses, however, if the project involves categories of activities that it previously found to have no significant environmental effects--activities known as a categorical exclusion. As of 2003, the Forest Service had one categorical exclusion--activities to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat. It has since added four new exclusions, but little is known about their use. GAO was asked to determine, for calendar years 2003 through 2005, (1) how many vegetation management projects the Forest Service approved, including those approved using categorical exclusions; (2) which categorical exclusions the agency used in approving projects; and (3) if field offices are not using categorical exclusions, why. To answer these objectives, GAO surveyed Forest Service officials from all of the 155 national forests. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service generally agreed with GAO's findings and observations.

What GAO Found

For calendar years 2003 through 2005, the Forest Service approved 3,018 vegetation management projects to treat about 6.3 million acres. Of these projects, the Forest Service approved about 28 percent using an EA or EIS to treat about 3.4 million acres, while it approved the remainder using categorical exclusions. Although a majority of the projects were approved using categorical exclusions, these projects accounted for less than half of the total treatment acres. The number and size of projects and types of environmental analysis used during the 3-year period varied, depending upon forest size, ecology, and location, according to Forest Service officials. Of nearly 2,200 vegetation management projects approved using categorical exclusions, the Forest Service approved half of them using the categorical exclusion for improving timber stands or wildlife habitat. In approving the remaining projects, the agency primarily used the categorical exclusion for reducing hazardous fuels, followed by those for salvaging dead or dying trees, conducting limited harvests of live trees, and removing trees to control the spread of insects or disease. The projects approved using the categorical exclusion to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat accounted for about 2.4 million of the 2.9 million acres to be treated under projects approved using categorical exclusions. About 11 percent of the Forest Service's 509 field offices had not used any of the five vegetation management categorical exclusions during the 3-year period. The reasons why they had not used specific categorical exclusions varied by office and categorical exclusion. For example, about 91 percent of the field offices had not used the categorical exclusion for the removal of trees to control the spread of insects or disease primarily because they did not have a sufficient number of insect- or disease-infested trees. Similarly, 32 percent of the field offices had not used the categorical exclusion to improve timber stands or wildlife habitat, primarily because no projects of this type had been proposed during the 3-year period.