The report recognized two key aspects of treatment activities:   short-term treatments to remove hazards and stabilize soils and slopes,  such as constructing dams to hold soil on slopes, and longer-term  treatments to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover naturally from  severe fire damage by, for example, reforesting desired tree species. Interior and the Forest Service have attempted to adopt the same policies  and procedures for treating burnt lands, even though the National Fire Plan  does not require them to do so and recently agreed to work towards  standardizing certain aspects of their programs. Interior  requires that treatments be implemented within 3 years. The Forest Service Has Different Processes to Identify Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Treatments

The Forest Service distinguishes between short-term emergency  treatments to stabilize lands burnt by wildland fires and longer-term  rehabilitation treatments. These treatments include those necessary to  protect life and property and to prevent additional damage to resources. This included an effort to  develop an interagency handbook that agencies in both departments could  use. Rehabilitation Plans Vary Widely in Cost and in the Number and Types of Treatments

Following the calendar years 2000 and 2001 fires, Interior and USDA’s  Forest Service approved 421 plans for stabilization and rehabilitation  treatments for an estimated total of more than $310 million. While the two departments  implemented the same types of treatments on their lands following  wildland fire, such as seeding, the frequency with which they relied on  these treatments varied, primarily because of the types of lands they  manage. This runoff can  consist of water, soil, rocks, branches, and trees. Similarly, trail work includes regrading or repairing trails to  reduce erosion and protect public safety. However, neither department specifies  how land units should conduct such monitoring or how they should  document monitoring results. The departments have not implemented these recommendations, however. Conclusions

Most lands burned by catastrophic wildfires will recover naturally, without  posing a threat to public safety or ecosystems. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to better ensure that funds for emergency stabilization and  rehabilitation treatments on burnt lands are used as effectively as possible,  we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior  require the heads of their respective land management agencies to   specify the type and extent of monitoring data that local land units are  to collect and methods for collecting these data, and  develop an interagency system for collecting, storing, analyzing, and  disseminating information on monitoring results for use in management  decisions. In commenting on our recommendation that the departments obtain better  data on treatment effectiveness, the departments said that they were aware  that some of their own studies had previously identified the need to obtain  and disseminate better data for determining treatment effectiveness. Scope and Methodology

To describe the Department of the Interior’s and the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s Forest Service processes for implementing their emergency  stabilization and rehabilitation programs, we obtained departmental  manuals, handbooks, and other guidance that describe Interior’s process  for implementing emergency stabilization and rehabilitation and the Forest  Service’s emergency stabilization program.
Why GAO Did This Study

Wildfires burn millions of acres annually. Most burnt land can recover naturally, but a small percentage needs short-term emergency treatment to stabilize burnt land that threatens public safety, property, or ecosystems or longer-term treatments to rehabilitate land unlikely to recover naturally. The Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Forest Service--the two departments that manage most federal land--spend millions of dollars annually on such treatments. GAO was asked to (1) describe the two departments' processes for implementing their programs, (2) identify the costs and types of treatments implemented, and (3) determine whether these treatments are effective.

What GAO Found

Both Interior and USDA's Forest Service use multidisciplinary teams of experts, such as ecologists and soil scientists, to assess damage and potential risks burnt land poses and to develop emergency stabilization and rehabilitation plans that identify needed treatments to reduce or eliminate those risks. The two departments differ in how they manage their programs, however. Interior uses a single process to assess damage and identify treatments for short-term emergency stabilization and longer-term rehabilitation, while USDA's Forest Service uses different processes for each of these two treatment types. The two departments recognize these differences and recently agreed to work toward standardizing certain aspects of their programs, such as definitions and time frames. Following the 2000 and 2001 fires, the Forest Service obligated $192 million and Interior $118 million for 421 emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatment plans GAO reviewed. Treatments included seeding; fencing; installing soil erosion barriers such as straw bundles, or wattles; and road or trail work. Most of Interior's land--managed by the Bureau of Land Management--consists of rangeland. Thus, the bureau primarily seeded native grasses to retain soils and forage for cattle and wildlife and fenced to prevent grazing. Forest Service land is often steeply sloped and includes watersheds used for drinking water and timber. The Forest Service primarily seeded fast-growing grasses and built soil erosion barriers for emergency stabilization, and worked on roads, trails and reforested for rehabilitation. Neither the departments nor GAO could determine whether emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments were achieving their intended results. The departments require that treatments be monitored, but they do not specify how and the type of data to collect or analyze for determining effectiveness. The departments have stressed the need to systematically collect and share monitoring data for treatment decisions. Yet neither has developed a national interagency system to do so. Therefore, the nature and extent of data collection, analysis, and sharing vary widely. The departments recognize that they need better information on treatment effectiveness. However, they have not yet committed to this effort.