Forest Service and BLM Differ in How They Plan Needed Rehabilitation and Restoration Work

The Forest Service and BLM use similar procedures to determine whether  any rehabilitation or restoration work is needed after a wildland fire, but  they differ in how they plan, prioritize, and fund needed work. BLM’s rehabilitation program covers postfire  work up to 3 years after a fire, and any subsequent restoration work must  be addressed by other ongoing BLM programs, such as the wildlife and  noxious weeds programs. BLM  pays for nearly all of its postfire rehabilitation work with rehabilitation  funds within its wildland fire management appropriation, and funding for  such work is available for only 3 years after a fire. The Forest Service does not know how much rehabilitation and  restoration work has been completed because it does not maintain  comprehensive data on such work. Because the Forest Service does not have comprehensive data on  rehabilitation and restoration needs and accomplishments nationwide, we  administered a survey to agency officials in the field to collect this  information, but determined that the information provided in the survey  was not sufficiently reliable to report. Several officials told us that the only  incomplete work is that needed beyond the first 3 years after a fire, which  is defined as restoration work. Forest Service and BLM Officials Cite Different Challenges to Rehabilitating and Restoring Their Lands

Forest Service and BLM officials reported different challenges to their  efforts to rehabilitate or restore their lands after fires. For BLM, headquarters and  field officials told us that while they have completed most of their  projects, they face challenges in achieving long-term success with some  projects. Harvesting burned timber is also controversial. According to BLM officials, a variety of factors can cause planting and  seeding projects to fail or to be only partially successful. 3). BLM has already taken the first  steps toward improving its understanding about how frequently its  rehabilitation projects fail and why. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our study were to determine (1) how the Forest Service  and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identify and plan postfire  rehabilitation and restoration activities; (2) how much needed  rehabilitation and restoration work the agencies have completed for  wildland fires that occurred between 2000 and 2004; and (3) the challenges  the agencies face in addressing their needs, and any actions they are  taking in response. Amount of Needed Rehabilitation and Restoration Work That Has Been Completed

To determine how much needed rehabilitation and restoration work the  Forest Service and BLM have completed, we collected available national,  regional, state, and local data on project needs and accomplishments,  interviewed Forest Service and BLM officials at all levels to ascertain their  subjective assessments of the extent to which they had addressed postfire  rehabilitation and restoration needs, and reviewed relevant agency  reports.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2001, Congress and federal agencies, including the Forest Service and Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), have recognized the importance of rehabilitating and restoring lands unlikely to recover on their own after wildland fires. However, while funding has increased for fire prevention, suppression, and first-year emergency stabilization, it has decreased for rehabilitation (work up to 3 years after fires) and restoration (work beyond the first 3 years). GAO was asked (1) how the Forest Service and BLM plan postfire rehabilitation and restoration projects, (2) how much needed rehabilitation and restoration work they have completed for recent wildland fires, and (3) what challenges the agencies face in addressing their needs.

What GAO Found

The Forest Service and BLM use similar procedures to identify rehabilitation and restoration needs, but differ in how they plan and fund related projects. Given the variety of ecosystems they manage, Forest Service field staff have the discretion to locally prioritize projects, and the agency addresses them through various programs with appropriations from multiple accounts. In contrast, BLM has a standard process for planning needed rehabilitation projects and, through a single account, funds projects for up to 3 years after fires. For restoration projects--that is, work needed beyond 3 years after a fire--BLM requires them to be addressed through other programs such as rangeland management. With available information, it is not possible to reliably determine how much needed rehabilitation and restoration work has been completed for recent Forest Service and BLM fires. The Forest Service does not know how much work has been completed because it does not collect nationwide data. BLM reported that, according to its data, it has completed most of its rehabilitation work, but the agency does not collect data on postfire restoration work, which is done through other programs. GAO surveyed Forest Service and BLM officials to determine how much needed work has been completed, but the information provided in the survey was not sufficiently reliable to report. Forest Service and BLM officials face different challenges to addressing their rehabilitation and restoration needs. Forest Service officials cited factors such as competing priorities within constrained budgets and controversy over certain activities. Agency officials said that controversy over harvesting burned timber can be exacerbated by the limited scientific research available to guide such decisions. BLM officials cited challenges to achieving long-term success when seeding burned areas. The agency is taking several steps to improve success rates.