National Forests: Funding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (Letter
Report, 02/11/99, GAO/RCED-99-47).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area's (SNRA) funding, its accomplishments
and unmet needs, and on agency actions that have adverse impacts on the
area, focusing on: (1) the funds allocated to the SNRA for fiscal years
1993 through 1997; (2) spending for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 to
enhance recreation, to preserve conservation values, such as fish and
wildlife, and to manage commodity programs, such as grazing, and the
accomplishments and unmet needs in these areas; (3) the funds not
allocated or the funds allocated and then taken back from the Recreation
Area for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and what was done with those
funds; and (4) some examples of potentially adverse effects of how the
Recreation Area is managed on individuals, companies, and communities
economically dependent on the area.

GAO noted that: (1) SNRA's overall annual budget allocation decreased in
constant dollars from about $4.88 million in 1993 to about $2.25 million
in 1997--a decrease of about 54 percent; (2) this rather large decrease
is somewhat misleading--1993 was the second year of a 2-year funding
peak in the Recreation Area's budgets; (3) these peak budgets contained:
(a) special funding for recreation management that dramatically
decreased in the 1994 budget; (b) funds for the construction of
recreation facilities; and (c) funds for land aquisition; (4) SNRA
reduced spending between fiscal years 1993 and 1997 for activities such
as enhancing recreation, preserving conservation values, and managing
commodity programs; (5) spending for enhancing recreation decreased
about 57 percent from 1993 through 1997; (6) similarly, spending to
preserve conservation values decreased 21 percent from 1993 through
1997; (7) spending for commodities programs decreased 44 percent from
1993 through 1997; (8) however, the size of these decreases is somewhat
misleading because of the funds included for special projects and
construction in the 1993 budget; (9) if the funds for these special
projects and construction are excluded, spending decreased 19 percent
for enhancing recreation, and expenditures for preserving conservation
values decreased by 9 percent; (10) SNRA officials stated that because
of funding shortages, a number of needs were still unmet; (11) GAO did
not identify any instances in which funds that were allocated to the
Recreation Area were subsequently taken back for use by other Forest
Service units; (12) overall, representatives from local governments
affected by how the SNRA is managed said that the Forest Service has
done a good job of preserving the values that the Recreation Area was
created to preserve; (13) however, they said that the declining budgets
for the Recreation Area have reduced its ability to meet recreational
needs; (14) the Recreation Area placed restrictions and increased
requirements on river outfitters, limited the size of groups that
horse-pack outfitters can take on wilderness trips, and reduced the
amount of grazing allowed on its lands; (15) GAO found that the actions
taken by the Recreation Area that affected these groups were taken to
protect endangered salmon, rangelands, and wilderness--rather than
because of funding reductions; and (16) except for the effects on some
ranchers who had large reductions in their grazing privileges, from a
monetary standpoint, the adverse impacts on these groups appeared to be
small.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-47
     TITLE:  National Forests: Funding the Sawtooth National Recreation 
             Area
      DATE:  02/11/99
   SUBJECT:  National recreation areas
             Forest management
             National forests
             Wildlife conservation
             Federal property management
             Budget outlays
             Facility construction
IDENTIFIER:  Idaho
             Sawtooth National Recreation Area (ID)
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.  Senate

February 1999

NATIONAL FORESTS - FUNDING THE
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

GAO/RCED-99-47

Sawtooth National Recreation Area Funding

(141207)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  SNRA - Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-281624

February 11, 1999

The Honorable Larry E.  Craig
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests
 and Public Land Management
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

In 1972, the Congress established the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area (SNRA) in central Idaho to ensure the preservation and
protection of the area's natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and
fish and wildlife values and to provide for the enhancement of the
associated recreational values.  The SNRA is part of the Sawtooth
National Forest and is administered by the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service.  As we reported in 1990, the SNRA, as
well as other national recreation areas, had not been developed,
operated, and maintained up to the levels and standards called for in
Forest Service policy and in individual recreation areas' plans,
primarily because of funding shortfalls.\1 The report noted that 663
campsites included in the SNRA's plan and needed to support visitor
trends had not been built and that visitor services, such as ranger
patrols in the wilderness and evening and weekend walks and talks at
the campgrounds, had been severely curtailed.  Concerned that these
shortfalls are continuing and that the Forest Service may not be
fulfilling its mission of enhancing the recreational values in the
SNRA, you asked us to provide information on funding for the
Recreation Area, its accomplishments and unmet needs, and on agency
actions that have had adverse impacts on the area. 

As agreed with your office, this report specifically addresses (1)
the funds allocated to the SNRA for fiscal years 1993 through 1997;
(2) spending for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 to enhance
recreation, to preserve conservation values, such as fish and
wildlife, and to manage commodity programs, such as grazing, and the
accomplishments and unmet needs in these areas; (3) the funds not
allocated or the funds allocated and then taken back from the
Recreation Area for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and what was done
with those funds; and (4) some examples of potentially adverse
effects of how the Recreation Area is managed on individuals,
companies, and communities economically dependent on the area. 


--------------------
\1 National Forests:  Special Recreation Areas Not Meeting
Established Objectives (GAO/RCED-90-27, Feb.  5, 1990). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area's overall annual budget
allocation decreased in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars from
about $4.88 million in 1993 to about $2.25 million in 1997--a
decrease of about 54 percent.\2 This rather large decrease is
somewhat misleading--1993 was the second year of a 2-year funding
peak in the Recreation Area's budgets.  These peak budgets contained
(1) special funding for recreation management that dramatically
decreased in the 1994 budget, (2) funds for the construction of
recreation facilities, and (3) funds for land acquisition.  If these
categories of funds are consistently excluded from the Recreation
Area's 1993 and 1997 budget allocations, the overall budget
allocation decrease would have been about 26 percent.  In comparison,
the 5-year budget allocation decrease for the Sawtooth National
Forest was about 18 percent.  At the same time, the budget for the
Forest Service region containing the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area decreased about 1.6 percent, and the total Forest Service budget
decreased about 12 percent.\3

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area reduced spending between fiscal
years 1993 and 1997 for activities such as enhancing recreation,
preserving conservation values (such as fish and wildlife), and
managing commodity programs (mining, grazing, and timber harvesting). 
Spending for enhancing recreation decreased from $1.8 million in 1993
to $783,100 in 1997--a decrease of about 57 percent.  Similarly,
spending to preserve conservation values decreased 21 percent, from
$586,200 in 1993 to $461,200 in 1997.  Spending for commodities
programs decreased 44 percent, from $253,200 in 1993 to $141,600 in
1997.  However, just as with the overall budget, the size of these
decreases is somewhat misleading because of the funds included for
special projects and construction in the 1993 budget.  If the funds
for these special projects and construction are excluded, spending
decreased 19 percent for enhancing recreation from 1993 through 1997,
and expenditures for preserving conservation values decreased 9
percent.  Spending for commodity programs increased by 4 percent. 
Nevertheless, Recreation Area officials cited a number of
accomplishments under each of these functions.  In recreation
management, the Recreation Area reconstructed a popular campground at
Redfish Lake and began constructing the Harriman Trail, work that
resulted in part from partnership funding from such sources as the
state of Idaho, local governments, and private donors.  In
conservation, the Recreation Area completed environmental impact
statements for the Salmon River Corridor and the Sawtooth Wilderness,
and in commodity programs, reclaimed three abandoned mine sites.  The
Recreation Area's officials also stated that because of funding
shortages, a number of needs were still unmet, such as the
construction of an additional 663 campsites, the reconstruction of
facilities such as visitor centers, the maintenance of trails in the
wilderness, and the completion of plans for managing grazing lands. 

We did not identify any instances in which funds that were allocated
to the Recreation Area were subsequently taken back for use by other
Forest Service units.  We did, however, identify several instances in
which funds, rather than being allocated to the Recreation Area, were
held at the regional or the forest offices to fund region- or
forestwide projects.  The funding for these projects comes off the
top of the regional and forest budgets before funds are subsequently
allocated to the Recreation Area.  Overall, 28 projects totaling
about $37.5 million fell into the regionwide project category.  They
involved a wide range of projects, such as improving the geographic
information system\4

and upgrading computers.  Two other projects totaling $305,000 fell
into the forestwide project category.  These projects included radio
replacements and improving the geographic information system.  The
overall effect on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area of
withholding the funding for these region- and forestwide projects was
equivalent to $116,400 per year, or less than 4 percent of the
Recreation Area's budget, because the funding was withheld from all
of the units within the region and not just from the Recreation Area. 
Any adverse impact on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area was
further reduced because the Recreation Area benefited from some of
these projects. 

Overall, representatives from local governments affected by how the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area is managed said that the Forest
Service has done a good job of preserving the values that the
Recreation Area was created to preserve.  However, they said that the
declining budgets for the Recreation Area have reduced its ability to
meet recreational needs by, for example, preventing the Recreation
Area from maintaining trails and building new campsites.  In addition
to the budget impacts, outfitters that take visitors on raft and
horse-pack trips through the area and cattle ranchers that have
grazing privileges in the Recreation Area said they were adversely
affected by various Recreation Area actions.  The Recreation Area
placed restrictions and increased requirements on river outfitters,
limited the size of groups that horse-pack outfitters can take on
wilderness trips, and reduced the amount of grazing allowed on its
lands.  We found that the actions taken by the Recreation Area that
affected these groups were, for the most part, taken to protect
endangered salmon, rangelands, and wilderness--rather than because of
funding reductions.  Our review showed that from a monetary
standpoint, some ranchers who had large reductions in their grazing
privileges were adversely affected.  The effect of increased
requirements on river and horseback outfitters is less clear because
of factors that can affect river outfitters' revenues and actions
being taken by the Recreation Area to mitigate restrictions on
horse-pack outfitters. 


--------------------
\2 All dollar amounts are expressed in constant 1997 dollars to
represent the actual purchasing power of the dollars spent and to
make budget numbers comparable across the years covered. 

\3 The budget figures for the Forest Service were obtained from the
Service's Final Planning and Budget Advice documents for each year. 

\4 The geographic information system is a computerized mapping tool
that the Forest Service uses to identify social, economic, and
ecological trends. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The SNRA is the largest of the 38 national recreation areas within
the United States.  National recreation areas are areas within the
National Forest System that have outstanding combinations of outdoor
recreation opportunities, scenery, and proximity to potential users. 
They may also have cultural, historic, and other values contributing
to public enjoyment.  The SNRA comprises 754,000 acres in four Idaho
counties--Custer, Blaine, Elmore, and Boise.  Within the SNRA's
boundaries lie portions of five mountain ranges, the headwaters of
five major rivers, and over 1,000 lakes.  The SNRA's forests,
valleys, and barren ridges are home for a variety of wildlife
species, including mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, moose, and
deer.  The lakes and streams provide important habitat for native
fish populations as well as spawning grounds\5 for chinook and
sockeye salmon, which are listed and protected as threatened or
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 
Visitors to the SNRA take trips on horseback and float-boats, camp,
ski, and enjoy a variety of other recreational activities.  (See app. 
I for a map of the Recreation Area.)

Forest Service policy calls for its special recreation areas to be
managed as showcases to demonstrate national forest management
standards for programs, services, and facilities.  While the policy
does not define the term "showcase," Forest Service officials
interpret it to mean that these areas should be developed and managed
to a noticeably higher standard than other Forest Service recreation
units.  The legislation creating the SNRA provides that the
management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources on federal
lands--such as timber, grazing, and mineral resources--could continue
insofar as their utilization does not substantially impair the
purposes for which the Recreation Area was created. 

Funding levels for the SNRA for the period from 1993 through 1997
were developed through a two-part process.  First, Forest Service
budgets were developed through a largely bottom-up process.  Based on
guidance derived from plans and the funds likely to be available, the
lowest-level units, such as ranger districts and recreation areas,
developed and presented their funding requests to successively higher
units--forests, regions, the Washington headquarters--where the
requests were consolidated and prioritized.  (Fig.  II.1 shows the
Forest Service's organization to include regions, forests, and
recreation areas.) These requests provided the basis for the total
Forest Service budget requests that were presented to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations for their review, revision, and
approval.  Once the budgets were enacted, Forest Service headquarters
allocated funds to each of its nine regions.  The regions, in turn,
allocated funds to individual forests, and the forests then allocated
funds to the ranger districts and recreation areas. 

In 1996, the Forest Service revised its budget development and
allocation process.  The Forest Service now uses a more top-down
approach through which it allocates funds to the regions based on a
series of national criteria.  In 1998, the region responsible for the
SNRA began using similar criteria to allocate funds within the
region.  The Forest Service made the change because it believes that
using the allocation criteria improves the objectivity and
rationality of the budget as a process for establishing policy and
program priorities.  The criteria establish a visible and rational
basis for allocating resources by identifying differences among units
in terms of resource conditions, workload, production capabilities,
and other elements. 

The SNRA is one of five units within the Sawtooth National Forest. 
The other four units are ranger districts.  Special recreation areas,
such as the SNRA, are designated by specific legislative acts, and
typically, the legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
manage these areas in a manner that best provides for public outdoor
recreation benefits and the conservation of scenic, scientific,
historic, and other values.  In contrast, ranger districts are
administratively established units responsible for the broad range of
activities covered by the Forest Service's multiple-use mission,
which includes managing timber harvesting, mining, and grazing as
well as recreation.  The Sawtooth National Forest is, in turn, part
of the Forest Service's Intermountain Region, which contains 16
forests. 

The yearly allocations to the SNRA contain a variety of funding
categories.  Three accounts are particularly important in terms of
their impact on the SNRA.  First, the National Forest System account,
which is by far the largest, provides funding for a number of
different functions such as recreation management, protection of
threatened and endangered species, and rangeland management.  The two
other accounts are construction and land acquisition; the sizes of
these two accounts vary substantially from year to year, depending on
whether construction projects or land acquisitions are approved. 


--------------------
\5 Salmon hatch in inland streams; swim to the Pacific Ocean, where
they mature; and then return to the same streams where they hatched
to reproduce.  During the reproduction process, the females develop
nests, called redds, into which they deposit their eggs, an activity
referred to as spawning.  After the eggs are fertilized by the males,
the adult salmon die. 


   THE SNRA'S BUDGET DECREASED BY
   OVER 50 PERCENT FROM 1993 TO
   1997, BUT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
   HELP EXPLAIN THE LARGE DECREASE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The SNRA's budget decreased by 54 percent in constant dollars from
1993 through 1997.  However, special circumstances make the decrease
misleadingly large.  The SNRA's budget for 1993 was part of a 2-year
funding peak brought about by the funding of several special
projects.  After we controlled for these special circumstances, the
SNRA's budget decrease for the 5-year period was about 26 percent. 
The SNRA's decrease compares with about an 18-percent decrease for
the Sawtooth National Forest, a 1.6-percent decrease for the region
that includes the SNRA, and about a 12-percent decrease for the
Forest Service as a whole. 

The Forest Service's budget records show that the SNRA's total budget
decreased from $4.88 million in 1993 to $2.25 million in 1997 in
constant dollars.  The SNRA's staff also decreased.  The number of
full-time staff decreased from 31 to 29, and the number of seasonal
staff providing visitor services and maintenance decreased from 75 to
26 during the 1993-97 period.  Although the SNRA's budget and
staffing decreased during this period, SNRA officials said that
recreation use ranged from about 1.2 million to 1.3 million visitor
days per year between 1993 and 1997.\6

Because of the magnitude of the decrease in funding over the 1993-97
period, we reviewed the area's yearly budgets over a somewhat longer
period to identify the reasons for the decrease.  The funding trend
for the SNRA for the 1991-97 period is shown in figure 1.  As figure
1 shows, fiscal years 1992 and 1993 were peak funding years for the
SNRA.  Three factors account for the funding peak and help to explain
a large part of the 54-percent decrease from 1993 through 1997.  In
1993, the SNRA received a variety of special funds, including
$365,000 for recreation management and $446,000 for the construction
of recreation facilities as part of a special multiyear initiative
aimed at improving recreation programs throughout the Forest Service. 
In addition, the SNRA received $659,000 for land acquisition.  The
availability of these special funds decreased dramatically from 1993
to 1994 when the recreation initiative ended.  The 1997 budget
contained no funds for special projects, construction of recreation
facilities, or land acquisition.\7 However, the fiscal year 1997
allocation included $260,000 for recreation road construction.  Our
analysis shows that if these types of funds are consistently excluded
from the 1993 and 1997 budgets, the decrease in the SNRA's budget
from 1993 through 1997 was about 26 percent. 

   Figure 1:  Trend in the SNRA's
   Budgets, 1991-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  Fiscal year 1995 was the only year in which the SNRA received
no special funds.  In fiscal 1992, the SNRA received $2.73 million in
land acquisition funds.  All figures are in 1997 constant dollars. 

Source:  Forest Service data. 

A comparison of the trend in the SNRA's budget with budget trends for
the forest, the region, and the Forest Service shows that the SNRA's
budget decrease was part of a general funding decrease that affected
all levels.  The Sawtooth National Forest determines, within the
limits of its own budget, how much the SNRA receives each year.  The
forest's budget decreased by 18 percent over the 1993-97 period.  The
budget allocation for the Intermountain Region, which allocates funds
to the Sawtooth National Forest and all other forests within the
region, decreased by 1.6 percent during the same period.  Forest
Service officials told us that the Sawtooth National Forest's budget
had a larger decrease than the region's because the priority of the
Sawtooth Forest compared with that of the other forests in the region
decreased over the period.  The changes in the region's, the
forest's, and the SNRA's budgets have occurred within the context of
the Forest Service's annual national budgets, which decreased from
$3.2 billion to $2.8 billion, or about 12 percent, over the 5-year
period. 

With the fiscal year 1996 budget, the Forest Service changed how it
allocates funds to its regions to a process called criteria-based
budgeting.  The Forest Service changed this process to sharpen the
focus on objectives and to establish a rational basis for allocating
resources.  In fiscal year 1998, the Intermountain Region began using
a similar process for allocating funds to forests.  According to
regional office officials, the new criteria-based process further
reduced the SNRA's budget.  Two of the new criteria used to allocate
recreation management funds in the 1998 budget process were the
number of visitors and the developed site capacity--that is, the
capacity of the area to handle visitors.  These two criteria provided
the basis for over 60 percent of the SNRA's 1998 recreation
management budget allocation.  According to agency officials,
recreation areas such as the SNRA do not compete well in the new
criteria-based budget process because they have fewer recreation
visitors and less capacity than other Forest Service units such as
ranger districts located near urban areas.  To prevent the continued
decline in the SNRA's budget, the regional office has ensured that
for fiscal year 1999, the SNRA will be funded at no less than fiscal
year 1997 levels for the following accounts:  (1) National Forest
System, which funds functions such as recreation management; (2)
construction; and (3) fire management.  (App.  III provides
additional information on the budgets for the SNRA and other Forest
Service units.) Furthermore, starting with the fiscal year 2000
budget, the region has modified the criteria to provide the
recreation areas with a larger portion of the region's recreation
management funds. 


--------------------
\6 Visitor days are computed from the number of visitors and the
number of hours of their visits. 

\7 From 1993 through 1997, the Congress appropriated funds for two
specific land acquisitions at the SNRA--$600,000 in 1993 ($659,000 in
1997 dollars) and $800,000 in 1997.  However, the $800,000 does not
appear in the SNRA's budget allocation because the region does not
allocate land acquisition funds to the SNRA until acquisitions are
made.  In this case, the purchase was not made. 


   THE SNRA'S SPENDING HAS
   DECREASED FOR RECREATION,
   CONSERVATION, AND COMMODITY
   PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In 1997, enhancing recreation, preserving conservation values, and
managing commodity programs accounted for 63 percent of the SNRA's
total spending.  Our analysis of agency data shows that the SNRA's
spending for these programs for fiscal years 1993 through 1997
decreased--57 percent for enhancing recreation, 21 percent for
preserving conservation values, and 44 percent for managing commodity
programs.  As with the SNRA's overall budget, the change in spending
for these areas was misleadingly large because of the special funds
allocated to the SNRA in 1993.  SNRA officials said that the
Recreation Area had significant accomplishments in the recreation,
conservation, and commodity programs since 1993.  However, the
officials also said that each program still has unmet needs.  Figure
2 shows the trend in expenditures for each of these areas. 

   Figure 2:  Spending for
   Recreation, Conservation, and
   Commodity Programs, 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  "Enhance recreation" includes the budget line items for
recreation management and the construction of recreation facilities
and trails.  "Preserve conservation values" includes the line items
for wildlife and fisheries habitat management and wilderness and
ecosystem management.  "Manage commodity programs" includes the line
items for rangeland management, forestland management, and mineral
and geology management.  All figures are in constant 1997 dollars and
include the funds allocated for special projects. 

Source:  Forest Service data. 


      ENHANCING RECREATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The SNRA's spending for enhancing recreation decreased from $1.8
million in 1993 to $783,100 in 1997--a decrease of about 57 percent. 
Funding for enhancing recreation includes funds for recreation
management and the construction of recreation facilities and trails. 
(See table IV.1 for more detailed information.) In support of its
recreation program, the SNRA is responsible for maintaining over 75
developed recreational facilities that include campsites, picnic
areas, boat launches, scenic overlooks, and trailheads with 750 miles
of trails.  It also provides dispersed recreation activities that
include camping, hunting, facilities for off-road vehicles, customer
service patrols, interpretive programs, and visitor centers.  A large
portion of the 57-percent decrease in spending occurred because funds
from the multiyear recreation initiative program, which ended in
1993, were no longer appropriated.  If the funds for that initiative
and other special projects are excluded from the analysis, we
estimate that spending in 1993 would have been about $970,000.  Thus,
the change from 1993 to 1997 would have shown a decrease of about
$187,000, or about 19 percent.  While spending for recreation
decreased, visitation to the SNRA over the 5-year period remained
relatively constant, ranging from about 1.2 million to 1.3 million
visitor days. 

Despite these reductions in spending for enhancing recreation and the
reductions in seasonal staff previously mentioned, SNRA officials
told us they had made significant accomplishments since 1993.  They
said that in addition to providing for day-to-day operations, they
had been able to continue providing the same recreational services to
the public (such as camping), to renovate some camping facilities,
and to expand the availability of trails through partnership projects
with state, local, and private donors that constructed new trails and
maintained existing trails.  In 1996, the SNRA completed the
renovation of a major campground at Redfish Lake and, in 1997,
awarded a contract to construct the Harriman Trail that will run
through an 18-mile stretch in the Recreation Area.  SNRA officials
also said that the recreation program still has unmet needs in a wide
range of areas, such as in its dispersed recreation programs,
customer service patrols, interpretive programs, and visitor centers. 
They said they have been unable to construct an additional 663 needed
campsites; to reconstruct and rehabilitate deteriorating facilities,
such as visitor centers, trailheads, and camp or day-use facilities;
to maintain about one-third of the trails; or to inspect recreational
residences (summer homes) and other facilities to ensure that they
comply with the requirements in their permits.  They said the SNRA
has also been unable to keep visitor information desks open to
adequately serve visitors, maintain adequate customer service staff
in the field, or provide interpretive programs that enhance the
public's enjoyment of the SNRA.  In addition, officials said that
other factors besides changes in the funds available for this program
affect what can and cannot be accomplished in the recreation program. 
In particular, reductions in funds for other programs such as land
acquisition have required the recreation program to cover a higher
percentage of costs for receptionist, payroll, and public affairs
personnel in the SNRA.  According to these officials, the impacts of
these reductions have had a direct effect on accomplishments and have
resulted in more unmet needs in the recreation program.  (See app.  V
for more information on specific accomplishments and unmet needs.)


      PRESERVING CONSERVATION
      VALUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The SNRA's spending to preserve conservation values decreased 21
percent, from $586,200 in 1993 to $461,200 in 1997.  If the special
funding contained in the 1993 budget is excluded from the analysis,
however, we estimate that spending in 1993 would have been about
$505,000.  Thus the change in spending from 1993 to 1997 would have
been a reduction of about $44,000, or about 9 percent.  Preserving
conservation values is a pervasive effort at the SNRA.  Every
resource activity at the SNRA includes major provisions for
preserving conservation values, according to the SNRA's Acting Area
Ranger.  The main focus of the conservation efforts has been on
protecting threatened and endangered species and protecting key
wilderness values, such as protecting the primitive nature of
wilderness and maintaining the opportunity for solitude, in the
217,000-acre Sawtooth Wilderness.  The Snake River chinook and
sockeye salmon, which spawn in the SNRA, and the Snake River
steelhead trout are protected under provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.  In addition, the Columbia River bull trout is
currently proposed for listing as a threatened species.  As a result
of these endangered species listings, the SNRA must do what it can to
improve the habitat for these species and ensure that its actions do
not have an adverse effect on the fish.  The Sawtooth Wilderness Area
was created by the 1972 act that established the SNRA and must be
managed to meet the requirements set out in the Wilderness Act of
1964.  The Wilderness Act requires that wilderness areas remain
undeveloped to retain their primeval character and be managed to
preserve their natural conditions.  Wilderness areas should also
provide opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation.  As the use of the Sawtooth Wilderness for
recreational purposes increases, the SNRA must, among other things,
limit and distribute use to conserve the wilderness values. 

According to SNRA officials, their major accomplishments since 1993
in preserving conservation values include (1) completing an
environmental impact statement aimed at improving riparian ecosystems
and protecting salmon habitat throughout the Salmon River Corridor;\8
(2) eliminating barriers to fish migration; and (3) issuing the SNRA
Wilderness Management Plan.  SNRA officials also said that the
conservation program still has unmet needs.  They said they are
unable to perform a number of activities that would contribute to
improving the habitat for, and thus the health and diversity of, the
species within the SNRA.  The SNRA also has been unable to maintain
trails in the wilderness and fulfill its 1993 Wilderness
Implementation Schedule, which it created to enable the Recreation
Area to meet the management practices, standards, and guidelines
outlined in the Forest Plan for the Sawtooth Wilderness for 1994 to
1997.  In addition, as in the recreation program, officials said that
the reduction in funds for other programs has resulted in the
conservation program's covering a higher percentage of the cost for
some SNRA personnel.  This has an impact on the accomplishments and
contributes to more unmet needs in the conservation program.  (See
app.  V for more information on specific accomplishments and unmet
needs.)


--------------------
\8 Riparian areas are the banks around streams, rivers, and other
wetlands.  The Salmon River Corridor is a 30-mile length of the upper
main Salmon River from its source close to the community of Smiley
Creek, past the city of Stanley, to the eastern border of the SNRA. 


      MANAGING COMMODITY PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The SNRA's spending for commodity programs decreased 44 percent, from
$253,200 in 1993 to $141,600 in 1997.  However, if the 1993
allocation for projects totaling $120,000 is excluded from the
analysis,\9 this area would have experienced a 4-percent increase in
spending from 1993 through 1997.  The commodity programs include
programs for grazing, timber, and mining.  In 1997, the grazing
program had 26 range allotments--19 for cattle and 7 for
sheep--covering 400,500 acres, more than half of the SNRA's land
area.  The allotments provided that 2,500 cows and 4,470 sheep could
graze for a total of 21,000 animal unit months.\10 The timber program
primarily provides firewood and fence posts to meet the needs of
local users.  Commercial timber sales, which are also part of the
timber program, are limited to small-scale operations for posts and
firewood because the area contains only minor amounts of commercial
sawtimber.  The mining program in the SNRA is very small.  The act
creating the SNRA provided that new mining claims could no longer be
filed.  From 1972 through 1997, active mining claims decreased from
approximately 6,000 to approximately 170.  Currently, there are no
commercial mining operations on the SNRA's lands. 

According to SNRA officials, one of the major accomplishments for the
commodity programs is that grazing continues within the SNRA despite
the requirements placed on grazing to protect the habitat of the
threatened or endangered salmon.  Other accomplishments include
improvements to riparian areas and the reclamation of abandoned
mines.  SNRA officials also identified unmet needs.  For example, the
Recreation Area was unable to complete, on schedule, plans for
managing grazing on Sawtooth lands.  As with the recreation and
conservation programs, officials said that the reduction in funds for
other programs has an impact on the accomplishments and unmet needs
in the commodity programs.  (See app.  V for more information on
specific accomplishments and unmet needs.)


--------------------
\9 The $120,000 funded projects covering the Snake River Basin
mitigation, forest vegetation, mountain pine beetles, and wolverines. 

\10 An animal unit month is defined as the amount of forage needed to
support a 1,000-pound cow, a horse, or five sheep for 1 month. 


   FUNDS DEVOTED TO REGION- AND
   FORESTWIDE PROJECTS REDUCED THE
   SNRA'S BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We identified several instances in which funds were held at the
Intermountain Region and at the Sawtooth National Forest rather than
being allocated to subordinate units, including the SNRA.  These
funds were held for a variety of region- and forestwide projects. 
The combined annual impact on the SNRA of withholding these funds was
equivalent to less than 4 percent of the SNRA's budget.  We found no
instances in which funds were allocated to the SNRA and subsequently
taken back by the forest or region for other projects. 

According to agency officials, it is a common practice for regional
and forest offices to retain funds for region- and forestwide
projects.  The funding for regional projects comes off the top of the
regional budget before allocations are made to the forests and
subsequently to the ranger districts and recreation areas.  As a
result, all of the forests, ranger districts, and recreation areas
within the region are affected by the funding of these projects.  The
region responsible for the SNRA had a total of 28 regionwide projects
during the 1993-97 period.  These projects included improving the
geographic information system and computers throughout the region and
conducting the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project.\11 The funds withheld by the region for regionwide projects
for the 5-year period totaled about $37.5 million. 

Also during the 1993-97 period, the Sawtooth National Forest withheld
funds totaling $305,000 from the ranger districts and the SNRA for
two forestwide projects.  Of this amount, $185,000 was for improving
the geographic information system and $120,000 was for radio
replacements.  Both of these projects benefited all of the forest's
units, including the SNRA.  (App.  VI lists the totals for region-
and forestwide projects for fiscal years 1993-97.)

Funds withheld by the region and the forest reduced the SNRA's budget
by less than 4 percent.  According to an estimate by the Forest
Service Intermountain regional office, if there had been no
regionwide projects and the Forest Service had allocated these funds
to the SNRA, the Recreation Area would have received, on average,
about $109,000 per year.  This represents about 3.4 percent of the
area's annual budget for the 1993-97 period.  Officials from the
forest office told us withholding money for forestwide projects had
reduced the SNRA's budget by $7,400 per year, or about 0.23 percent,
on average.  Combined, the overall reduction in funds available to
the SNRA was $116,400 per year, or about 3.6 percent.  Although the
SNRA's budget decreased as a result of these projects, the SNRA also
benefited directly from some of the projects, such as those for
improving the geographic information system and upgrading radios. 


--------------------
\11 The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project is
intended to develop a state-of-the-art management strategy for the
lands administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
Management in the interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the
Klamath Basin and the Great Basin.  These areas are located primarily
in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho but also include small
portions of Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming.  The project aims to
develop ecosystem management strategies to restore forest and
rangeland health while providing sustainable resources and jobs.  It
also aims to address broad-based problems that cross jurisdictional
lines, such as endangered species and species population viability,
in one effort, thus saving money and time. 


   ADVERSE IMPACTS ON BUSINESSES
   AND INDIVIDUALS RESULT
   PRIMARILY FROM THE SNRA'S
   CONSERVATION EFFORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

On February 16, 1998, a field hearing was held in Twin Falls, Idaho,
to examine the management of the SNRA.\12 Areas of particular
interest at the hearing included the impact of both (1) laws,
regulations, and the SNRA's related actions and (2) the SNRA's
funding levels on individuals and businesses that are economically
dependent on the SNRA.  Overall, representatives of the communities
that are affected by the SNRA's management said that the Forest
Service had done a good job of preserving the values that the SNRA
was created to preserve.  However, these representatives and various
businesses and individuals identified a number of adverse impacts on
various activities on the SNRA's lands.  Businesses and individuals
involved in recreational or grazing activities were the most affected
by changes in the SNRA's policies and funding.  In terms of
recreation, outfitters that take visitors on trips through the area
on float-boats or on horseback were the most affected; while in terms
of grazing, cattle ranchers with grazing allotments on SNRA lands
were the most affected.  The outfitters and ranchers were affected
primarily by restrictions resulting from laws and regulations, such
as those protecting the threatened or endangered salmon.  Funding
levels seemed to also affect individuals and businesses but to a
lesser extent than the SNRA's actions to preserve conservation
values. 


--------------------
\12 Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Subcommittee on Forests and
Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S.  Senate (S.  Hrg.  105-493, Feb.  16, 1998). 


      THE FOREST SERVICE PRESERVES
      THE VALUES OF THE SNRA'S
      LANDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

Local public officials and community leaders said that, overall, the
SNRA was doing a good job preserving the values it was set up to
preserve, such as natural, scenic, historic, and pastoral values, and
fish and wildlife.  Elected officials from Blaine County, Idaho, and
the Director of the Blaine County Recreation District said that the
SNRA's management was doing a good job and had maintained good
relations with the county.  In addition, the Executive Director of
the Sawtooth Society, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent
organization, said that most people believed that the Forest Service
was doing well, overall, in preserving the natural and scenic values
it was created to protect. 


      SNRA ACTIONS ADVERSELY
      AFFECT RECREATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

According to the river and horseback outfitters we talked with, the
SNRA has taken specific actions that are adversely affecting
recreation by curtailing (1) float-boating on a portion of the Upper
Main Salmon River\13 (see app.  I for a map of the Recreation Area),
and (2) stock-supported camping using horses and mules in the
Sawtooth Wilderness, which comprises most of the western half of the
SNRA.\14 In considering the SNRA's actions and their impacts, it is
important to be aware of the changing circumstances affecting the
Forest Service's nationwide decision-making.  In our 1997 report on
the Forest Service's decision-making, we noted that during the last
10 years, the agency has increasingly shifted its emphasis from
consumption (primarily producing timber) to conservation (primarily
sustaining fish and wildlife).\15 This shift is taking place in
response to requirements in planning and environmental laws and the
judicial interpretations of these laws.  In particular, section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 represents a congressional design
to give greater priority to the protection of endangered species than
to the current primary missions of the Forest Service and other
federal agencies, such as timber harvesting, rangeland, and outdoor
recreation. 

In 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed Snake River
sockeye salmon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  In
1992, Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon were listed as
threatened.  The Salmon River and its tributaries, including those
portions running through the SNRA, are designated as part of the
critical habitat for threatened spring/summer chinook salmon
migration and spawning and for endangered sockeye salmon that migrate
up the Salmon River to spawn in Redfish Lake.  From 1992 until 1996,
the SNRA and the float-boat outfitters worked to develop plans to
minimize the impact of float-boating on salmon spawning, which occurs
annually from mid-August to late September, in various parts of the
Salmon River.  In spring 1996, the SNRA completed the final
environmental impact statement for the Salmon River Corridor within
the SNRA.  At that time, it implemented rules to protect spawning
salmon.  The rules required that on August 21 each year, or earlier
if spawning has commenced, the float-boaters must portage (carry)
their rafts around a section of the river called Indian Riffles--a
traditional spawning area for chinook salmon--and terminate their
trips west of Torrey's Hole, another spawning area for chinook
salmon.  These restrictions required outfitters to provide a truck to
portage the rafts, to eliminate the lunch sites three of the
outfitters used, and to shorten the trip for all. 

We met with three of the four float-boat outfitters operating out of
the town of Stanley--the largest town in the SNRA.  They asserted
that the restrictions on float-boating reduced their revenue and
increased their costs of doing business.  Because of the many factors
that influenced the number of rafters--such as the water level and
the weather--the impact of the SNRA's restrictions on the outfitters'
revenues is not clear.  However, our analysis showed that outfitter
revenues for 1996 and 1997, the first years that the new restrictions
were in place, were higher than 2 of the 3 prior years.  Figures the
outfitters provided to the SNRA for the float-boating seasons from
1993 through 1997 indicated that the number of rafters and total
revenues generated in 1996 and 1997 were better than in 1993 and 1994
but less than in 1995 when rafting conditions were considered
exceptionally good.  Table 1 shows the total number of rafters and
revenues for 1993 through 1997. 



                                Table 1
                
                Totals for Number of Rafters and Revenue
                for 1993 Through 1997 in Current Dollars

                                   Total number of
Fiscal year                                rafters       Total revenue
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
1993                                         9,489            $484,569
1994                                         7,949             403,713
1995                                        12,032             624,360
1996                                        10,461             542,485
1997                                        10,468            $555,561
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Forest Service data. 

We conducted a more detailed analysis for August, the month when the
portage rules go into effect.  We looked at the figures for the
2-week period before the portage rules were in effect and the 2-week
period after portaging began.  This analysis showed that for 1996 and
1997, the total revenues and the number of rafters decreased with the
imposition of the portage rule.  However, we noted that the total
revenues and number of rafters also decreased in the latter part of
August 1993 when no restrictions were in place.\16 Because revenues
appear to decrease whether or not there are restrictions, the impact
of the SNRA's restrictions on outfitter revenue is unclear.  The
outfitters also told us that their costs were increased by the
restrictions that require, among other things, that they monitor the
river to identify spawning activity and provide a truck and staff to
portage their rafts.  We did not determine the amount of these costs. 
As a result, despite the strong revenue picture for recent years, the
increased costs resulting from the restrictions may have had a
negative impact on the outfitters. 

Horse-pack outfitters on the SNRA also have stated that the
Recreation Area's actions are hurting their operations economically
and reducing the number of people they can serve.  In summer 1998,
the SNRA amended the Sawtooth National Forest Plan to change the
management direction for the Sawtooth Wilderness.  The purpose of the
changes was to clearly define management objectives, standards, and
guidelines to protect and preserve the Sawtooth Wilderness as
required by the Wilderness Act of 1964.  Rules contained in the
revised plan reduced the number of people who can be part of a
horse-pack excursion in the wilderness from 20 to 12 and also reduced
the number of horses that can be used on each trip.\17

The SNRA reduced the size of horse-pack groups to meet specific
objectives of the Wilderness Act that provide that wilderness lands
are to be managed so that they generally appear to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature and that they provide outstanding
opportunities for solitude.  Hikers complained that their wilderness
experience--the opportunity to experience solitude--was degraded when
they were confronted with large groups of horseback riders.  SNRA
officials also said they imposed the restrictions to reduce adverse
impacts on trails and campsites.  Most trails and campsites in the
wilderness area could not withstand the damage caused by large
horse-pack groups. 

We met with the owner of the largest horse-pack operation in the
SNRA.  He said that reducing the size of horseback groups has
adversely affected his business.  However, these adverse effects may
be largely mitigated because the reductions are being phased in over
a 3-year period and because the SNRA is working with the outfitters
to identify a number of campsites that can accommodate up to 20
people.  These sites will be dedicated to the outfitters' use, and
the outfitters will be able to pre-position supplies at these sites,
thus lessening the impact of the requirement that the outfitters use
fewer horses on their excursions, a requirement that limits the
supplies horse-packing groups can carry with them.  Although the
outfitters' costs may be somewhat higher for smaller groups, the
outfitters will be able to continue accommodating larger groups by
breaking them into smaller groups on the trail and reuniting them at
their campsites. 


--------------------
\13 The Upper Main Salmon River runs from north of Sawtooth City,
past the city of Stanley, and then east to the eastern border of the
Recreation Area.  Float-boating occurs roughly between Buckhorn
Bridge and the Torrey's takeout. 

\14 Stock-supported excursions (using horses, mules, llamas, or
goats) allow groups of visitors to explore the wilderness area on
horseback, their gear and supplies traveling with them on pack
animals. 

\15 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997). 

\16 For 1993, the SNRA was able to provide revenue data for two
outfitters and the number of rafters for one other outfitter.  For
the fourth outfitter, the SNRA provided the number of rafters for
1992. 

\17 The reduction covers May 1 to November 30, annually.  For the
remainder of the year, the person limit stays at 20 and the stock
limit is also reduced to 14. 


      SNRA ACTIONS REDUCE GRAZING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3

We also spoke with SNRA and local officials, ranchers, and a mining
representative about the adverse effects of the Recreation Area's
actions on commodity programs--grazing, timber harvesting, and
mining.\18 Our discussions suggest that grazing is the commodity
program that the SNRA's actions have most affected.  Grazing has been
reduced around the riparian areas providing the watershed for the
Salmon River to protect salmon habitat and to prevent adverse impacts
on spawning salmon.  Grazing has also been curtailed because cattle
and their impacts in campgrounds, in road corridors, and along
heavily used recreational trails are unacceptable to many
recreational users, according to SNRA officials.  Allowing cattle in
campgrounds raises water quality issues as well as physical safety
issues for campers.  In addition, on a national level, the Forest
Service has put a high priority on improving the condition of its
rangelands so that range conditions meet the legal requirements set
out in various laws, regulations, and planning documents. 
Specifically, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires
that management plans be prepared for the forests.  The plan for the
Sawtooth National Forest contains management goals that set the
desired future condition of allotments.  Forest officials told us
they believed that the range conditions established in the forest's
plan were not being met. 

To meet the plan's objectives, the SNRA reduced grazing on allotments
on its lands.  These reductions have closed grazing areas, shortened
grazing seasons, and increased ranchers' grazing costs.  Overall, the
SNRA has reduced grazing on allotments by almost one-third.  However,
some individual allotment reductions have been larger.  For example,
the ranchers we met with who graze cattle on the Stanley Basin
allotment had grazing on their allotments cut by almost 60 percent. 
These ranchers told us that they had experienced a number of adverse
economic impacts as a result.  They said that they had decided to
sell a portion of their herd and then went into debt to purchase
private land for grazing.  As a result, the value of their ranches
had decreased because the value of a ranch is based partly on the
number of cattle that the ranch can support with both its own grazing
lands and its federal grazing privileges.  SNRA documents note that
in the future, grazing may be further reduced when the SNRA completes
the required upgrading of its grazing management plans for 10 of the
25 allotments that do not yet have complete management plans. 


--------------------
\18 In our numerous discussions, we did not identify any adverse
effects related to the timber management program, which is a very
small program that primarily serves residential needs for firewood
and fence posts.  Discussions with elected officials in the area
suggest that mining in the SNRA is not an issue.  The mining program
is very small, any potential adverse effects seem limited to only one
claim, and even those suggested impacts are not clear. 


      DECLINING SNRA BUDGETS MAY
      ALSO REDUCE RECREATION AND
      GRAZING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.4

According to the SNRA, local government, and other individuals we
talked with, the SNRA's declining budgets have also reduced
recreational opportunities.  Several of them said that as a result of
budget restrictions, needed new campsites that have long been in the
SNRA's area plan are not being built.  As noted previously, the
Recreation Area has been unable to construct an additional 663
campsites that were included in its 1975 area plan.  Many campers
must be turned away during peak periods because there are not enough
campsites equipped with facilities such as water, toilets, picnic
tables, and grills.  Those we spoke with also said that trails and
some campsites are poorly maintained and that other trails are not
maintained at all.  All these factors either directly limit
recreation or discourage recreation by making the experience less
enjoyable, according to those we spoke with. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for its
review and comment.  The Forest Service agreed with the overall
findings and also provided detailed technical comments clarifying
certain aspects of the report.  We considered these comments and
revised the report as appropriate. 

In addition, the Forest Service also commented that we did not fully
disclose the Sawtooth National Recreation Area's accomplishments and
unmet needs in three areas discussed in the report--recreation,
conservation, and commodities.  The Forest Service pointed out a
number of specific accomplishments and unmet needs that we should add
to the report.  We added these comments as appropriate. 

The Forest Service's letter also said it was unclear how the special
funds for recreation construction were handled throughout the report
in terms of any accomplishments stemming from these funds.  The
Forest Service said that since we did not include these construction
funds when calculating changes in the Recreation Area's budget
because they represented special funding, we should also not have
included accomplishments made possible by those funds.  We do not
believe that our analysis should exclude discussing these
accomplishments.  As the report points out, the Recreation Area's
overall budget decreased by 54 percent and its budget for enhancing
recreation decreased by 57 percent from 1993 through 1997.  In
computing these decreases, we included funds for recreation
construction.  The report also points out that the rather large
decreases of 54 and 57 percent are somewhat misleading because they
contain large amounts for special funds, such as construction funds,
in certain years.  Therefore, to get a truer reading on the decreases
in the Recreation Area's budget for the 1993-97 period, we provide an
analysis that excluded these types of funds.  The accomplishments
that we included in the report were those Forest Service officials
identified, including some which were paid for with special funds. 

The Forest Service also said we should not include the $260,000 for
recreation road construction that the Recreation Area received in
1997 as part of its budget, but instead should treat road
construction funds similarly to the other construction funds that
were excluded.  We agree.  As a result of removing this amount from
our analysis, the corrected overall budget decrease for the
Recreation Area was about 26 percent over the 1993-97 period.  (Had
we included the funds, the decrease would have been 16 percent.) In
addition, the Forest Service raised questions about whether funds
provided through cooperative projects with outside sources, such as
state and private organizations, should be included in the total.  In
designing this study, we worked with Forest Service officials at the
region, forest, and Recreation Area to determine the budget fund
codes to include.  It was agreed at that time that funds for
cooperative projects should be included in the Recreation Area's
total budget allocation for each year.  We further discussed this
subject with officials at the Sawtooth National Forest, and they
recommended that we not make any revisions in the numbers included in
the report.  The Forest Service's letter is in appendix VII. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We conducted our work at the Forest Service headquarters in
Washington, D.C.; the Forest Service Intermountain Regional Office in
Ogden, Utah; the Sawtooth National Forest Office in Twin Falls,
Idaho; and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and the surrounding
communities of Stanley and Blaine County.  To determine how much was
allocated to the SNRA during fiscal years 1993 through 1997, we
reviewed the initial and final planning and budget advice documents
for the Forest Service, the regional office, the Sawtooth National
Forest, and the SNRA.  We also reviewed an agency document prepared
for our use by the Intermountain Region and the Sawtooth National
Forest offices that included all the appropriate budget fund codes. 
This document was prepared to ensure that we had data that the
participating Forest Service units agreed on and considered to be
accurate and consistent.  We interviewed Forest Service budget
officials at the SNRA, the forest office, the region, and at
headquarters; the SNRA Area Ranger; and the Sawtooth National Forest
Supervisor.  To determine the trend in funding from 1993 through 1997
and to put the trend in its historical perspective, we also reviewed
the SNRA's budgets for 1991 and 1992 and converted all numbers to
constant 1997 dollars.  To help explain the large allocation
decreases, we identified and removed allocations for 1993 that made
that year's budget unusually high and removed funds for construction
and land acquisition because funds for these activities vary
substantially from year to year depending on whether construction
projects or land acquisitions are approved. 

To determine whether regional or forest funds had not been allocated
to the SNRA or whether funds had been allocated and then taken back
during fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and what was done with those
funds, we obtained and compared final budget allocations with
expenditures.  We also reviewed the allocation change documents for
the SNRA and interviewed Forest Service budget officials at the SNRA,
the forest office, and the region. 

We did not independently verify the reliability of the financial data
provided nor did we trace the data to the systems from which they
came.  These systems were, in some cases, subject to audit procedures
by the Department of Agriculture's Office of the Inspector General in
connection with the agency's financial statement audits.  For fiscal
years 1995, 1996, 1997, and previous years, the Office of the
Inspector General reported that because of significant internal
control weaknesses in various accounting subsystems, the Forest
Service's accounting data were not reliable.  Despite these
weaknesses, we used the data because they were the only data
available and are the data that the agency uses to manage its
programs. 

Because of the portion of the SNRA's budget that enhancing
recreation, preserving conservation values, and managing commodity
programs account for, we agreed with your office to focus our review
of the SNRA's expenditures on these areas.  We further agreed that
conservation values would include such areas as fish and wildlife,
threatened and endangered species, and wilderness management. 
Similarly, commodity programs would include timber harvesting,
grazing, and mining.  To determine how much the Recreation Area spent
to enhance recreation, to preserve conservation values, and to manage
commodity programs, we obtained and reviewed documents showing
expenditures for the SNRA.  To obtain trends over the 5-year period,
we converted all expenditures to constant 1997 dollars, removed
special funding allocations from the 1993 budget, and estimated the
reduction in expenditures that resulted from the reduced allocations. 
To identify accomplishments and unmet needs, we relied on information
provided to us by the Area Ranger and other officials responsible for
the program areas.  We also inspected some of the most significant
accomplishments. 

To identify examples of potentially adverse effects of the SNRA's
actions on individuals, companies, and communities economically
dependent on the area, we reviewed and analyzed the testimony
presented at the February 16, 1998, hearing on the SNRA before the
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.  The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the management of the SNRA.  On the basis of
the data presented in the testimony and our interviews with community
groups, local elected officials, and Forest Service officials, we
identified the most significantly affected areas in the SNRA.  We
then interviewed individuals, company representatives, and community
officials to obtain their views and related documents on the SNRA's
actions and their impacts.  Specifically, we met with the following
local officials:  the mayor of the city of Stanley, the chair of the
Stanley Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of the Blaine County Board
of Commissioners, and a commissioner from Blaine County.  We also met
with the following business owners and individuals:  float-boat
operators, a horse-pack outfitter, ranchers, the director of the
Sawtooth Society, and private landowners.  Lastly, we discussed the
actions and their impacts with SNRA officials and analyzed various
data the SNRA provided.  We performed our work from June 1998 through
December 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for
10 days after the date of this letter.  We will then send copies to
the Secretary of Agriculture; the Chief, Forest Service; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties.  We will also make copies available to others on request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VIII. 

Sincerely yours,

Barry T.  Hill
Associate Director, Energy,
 Resources, and Science Issues


LOCATION OF THE SAWTOOTH NATIONAL
RECREATION AREA
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The Sawtooth Wilderness is part of the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area. 

Source:  Final Environmental Impact Statement, Salmon River Corridor,
SNRA. 


PARTIAL FOREST SERVICE
ORGANIZATION CHART
========================================================== Appendix II

This organization chart highlights the position of the Sawtooth
National Forest and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area within the
Forest Service. 

   Figure II.1:  Partial Forest
   Service Organization Chart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  U.S.  Department of Agriculture. 


BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR THE
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
AND OTHER FOREST SERVICE UNITS
========================================================= Appendix III

This appendix presents information on budgets for the Sawtooth
National Recreation Area (SNRA) and for other Forest Service units. 
Table III.1 provides the SNRA's budget allocations for fiscal years
1991 through 1997, with and without special funds.  Special funds
include funds from the multiyear recreation initiative and funds for
construction and land acquisition.  Table III.2 provides the final
budget allocations for the Sawtooth National Forest, the Forest
Service Region 4 (the Intermountain Region), and the Forest Service
nationwide for fiscal years 1993 through 1997. 



                              Table III.1
                
                 The SNRA's Budget Allocations, Fiscal
                             Years 1991-97

                        (1997 constant dollars)

                                                      SNRA
                                                    budget
                                      Year-to-     without    Year-to-
                              SNRA        year     special        year
                            budget  percentage       funds  percentage
Fiscal year             (millions)      change  (millions)      change
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
1991                       $2.9791          --     $1.7174          --
1992\a                      7.1663       140.6      2.9287        70.5
1993                        4.8792       -31.9      2.6848        -8.3
1994                        3.1423       -35.6      2.8474         6.1
1995\b                      2.6821       -14.6      2.6821        -5.8
1996                        3.1281        16.6      2.1439       -20.1
1997                       $2.2531       -28.0     $1.9931        -7.0
======================================================================
Percentage change            -53.8          --       -25.8          --
 (1993-97)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In fiscal year 1992, the SNRA received $2.73 million in land
acquisition funds for the purchase of the Busterback Ranch. 

\b Fiscal year 1995 did not have any special funds. 

Source:  Forest Service data. 



                              Table III.2
                
                   Final Budget Allocations for Other
                Forest Service Units, Fiscal Years 1993-
                                   97

                  (1997 constant dollars in millions)

                              Sawtooth
                              National                  Forest Service
Fiscal year                     Forest        Region 4      Nationwide
----------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
1993                           $13.690        $210.028          $3,192
1994                            12.228         202.318           3,004
1995                            11.745         224.768           3,150
1996                            11.013         201.830           2,701
1997                            11.251         206.673           2,802
======================================================================
Percentage change                -17.8            -1.6           -12.2
 (1993-97)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Forest Service data. 


FUNDS THE SNRA SPENT FOR
RECREATION, CONSERVATION, AND
COMMODITY PROGRAMS FROM 1993
THROUGH 1997
========================================================== Appendix IV

Table IV.1 shows the funds the SNRA spent to enhance recreation,
preserve conservation values, and manage commodity programs for
fiscal years 1993 through 1997.  The figures shown in the table
include those from funds allocated for special projects, such as the
funds for the multiyear recreation initiative and for the
construction of recreation facilities.  A large portion of the
decrease in the SNRA's spending from 1993 through 1997 may be
explained by the loss of special funding or the creation of
additional budget line items that shifted funds from line item to
line item.  For example, spending for enhancing recreation decreased
about 57 percent from 1993 through 1997.  A significant portion of
the decrease occurred because the recreation initiative, which
provided additional funding in 1992 and 1993, ended in 1993, and
because the SNRA had recreation facilities construction funds in 1993
but did not have such construction funds to spend in 1997.  If these
items are excluded from the analysis, the decrease in spending for
enhancing recreation is about 19 percent rather than 57 percent. 



                                    Table IV.1
                     
                      The SNRA's Total Spending for Selected
                                Budget Line Items

                       (1997 constant dollars in thousands)

                                                                       Estimated
                                                                      percentage
                                                                          change
SNRA                                                                     without
budget                                                    Percentage     special
line                                                          change       funds
item        1993      1994      1995      1996      1997   (1993-97)   (1993-97)
------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------
Enhance recreation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recrea  $1,283.8  $1,129.1    $663.9    $781.3    $783.1       -39.0
 tion
 manag
 ement
 \a
Recrea     426.4      29.0       0.9     456.1       0.0      -100.0
 tion
 facil
 ities
 const
 ructi
 on
Trail      119.9      68.4      87.4      75.7       0.0      -100.0
 const
 ructi
 on
================================================================================
Total   $1,830.0  $1,226.5    $752.2  $1,313.2    $783.1       -57.2       -19.3
 for
 recre
 ation

Preserve conservation values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildli    $370.0    $488.4    $291.6    $267.0    $218.9       -40.8
 fe
 and
 fishe
 ries
 habit
 at
 manag
 ement
Wilder     216.2     180.9     227.8     151.4     163.3       -24.5
 ness
 manag
 ement
 \a
Ecosys       0.0       0.0     438.9     164.0      79.0          --
 tem
 manag
 ement
 \b
================================================================================
Total     $586.2    $669.3    $958.2    $582.4    $461.2       -21.3        -8.7
 for
 conse
 rvati
 on

Manage commodity programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangel    $135.4    $181.7     $54.2     $25.7     $68.1       -49.7
 and
 manag
 ement
Forest      91.2      26.8      13.2      34.5      36.0       -60.5
 land
 manag
 ement
Minera      26.6      24.9      37.7      39.7      37.5        41.0
 ls
 and
 geolo
 gy
 manag
 ement
================================================================================
Total     $253.2    $233.4    $105.1     $99.9    $141.6       -44.1         4.4
 for
 commo
 dity
 progr
 ams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a For fiscal year 1993 and 1994, we have added $79,300 and $93,400
to recreation management and $34,100 and $39,800 to the wilderness
program, respectively.  These funds are from the trail maintenance
budget line item that was eliminated in fiscal 1995; the funds were
distributed between the recreation management and wilderness
management programs.  We distributed the funds based on a Forest
Service headquarters formula under which 70 percent went to
recreation management and the remaining 30 percent went to wilderness
management. 

\b In fiscal year 1995, the Forest Service created the ecosystem
planning, inventory, and monitoring budget line item and funded it by
shifting funds from other budget and extended budget line items such
as recreation management.  This budget line item is currently called
land management planning, inventory, and monitoring, and it funds the
ecosystem management program. 

Source:  Forest Service data. 


THE SNRA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
UNMET NEEDS FOR RECREATION,
CONSERVATION, AND COMMODITY
PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix V

Officials at the SNRA identified a number of accomplishments and
unmet needs in their programs for enhancing recreation, preserving
conservation values, and managing commodity programs.  The following
are examples of specific accomplishments and unmet needs for each
area. 


   ENHANCING RECREATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1


      ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.1

  -- In 1994, the SNRA transferred the management of its recreational
     facilities to a concessionaire.  SNRA officials said this
     transfer allows them to provide the same recreational services
     to the public at one-third the cost to the SNRA and with
     one-third the SNRA staff. 

  -- The SNRA completed the renovation of a major campground at
     Redfish Lake (a scenic and popular camping area) in 1996 through
     a funding partnership in which the state of Idaho paid $285,000
     of the project's $777,000 cost.  The major renovations included
     larger paved campsites to accommodate the larger recreational
     vehicles now in use, upgraded restrooms, and numerous erosion
     and vegetation improvements.  This campground experiences nearly
     100-percent occupancy during much of the high-use season. 

  -- In 1997, the SNRA awarded a contract to construct a trail that
     will run through an 18-mile stretch in the SNRA.  When
     completed, this trail will be used for hiking, horseback riding,
     mountain biking, and cross-country skiing.  Large portions of
     the cost of this project are being covered by the state and by
     private contributions. 


      UNMET NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.2

  -- The SNRA has not been able to construct an additional 663
     campsites that have been in its area plan since 1975.  According
     to Forest Service officials, the SNRA is unable to meet the
     public's demand for camping accommodations or to rotate
     campsites to allow for them to recover from heavy use. 

  -- The SNRA has been unable to maintain about one-third of its 750
     miles of trails.  The trails require regular maintenance to
     remove fallen trees, cut back undergrowth, and repair erosion
     and use damage.  Unmaintained and closed trails reduce the
     recreational experience of visitors to the SNRA and increase
     costs to horse-pack outfitters who must use some of their own
     resources to make trails safe and usable for their trips. 

  -- The SNRA has 130 recreational residences (summer homes), 8
     organization camps, and 4 resorts authorized under special uses. 
     Prior to 1997, nearly all of these facilities were inspected
     annually to ensure compliance with the special use permits.  In
     1997, when funds for fire protection were moved from the SNRA to
     the Ketchum Ranger District, the SNRA also lost the position for
     the person who had done the inspections.  As a result, only
     about one-third of the residences are now inspected annually. 
     In addition, the SNRA is unable to process requests for permit
     modifications because it does not have the staff to perform the
     required analysis of the impacts these modifications might have. 
     Therefore, deviations from the permits can occur and go
     undetected, and some of these deviations could have significant
     adverse impacts on area resource values such as endangered
     species habitat. 

  -- The SNRA has not been able to keep its visitor information desks
     open to provide adequate service for its more than 1 million
     visitors each year.  The days and hours of operation have been
     reduced, and in 1996, the Redfish Lake Visitor Center was
     closed, causing a loss of service to the 18,000 people who
     visited the center during its average 2-1/2 month season. 

  -- The SNRA decreased customer service crews by approximately
     one-third between 1993 and 1997.  These staff are the SNRA's
     primary contact in the field with the visiting public, and they
     are responsible for visitor assistance, education and
     interpretation, compliance, and search and rescue assistance. 

  -- The SNRA has cut back interpretive programs at all locations
     because of a lack of staff and program supplies and equipment. 

  -- Inadequate funding has prevented the SNRA from doing any
     meaningful travel management or dispersed recreation management
     to deal with the increasing conflicts between many of the
     dispersed recreation uses, such as skiers and snowmobilers, and
     motorized and nonmotorized trail users. 

  -- Construction funds have been unavailable since 1993 to improve
     aging interpretive exhibits at the Headquarters and Redfish Lake
     visitor centers. 

  -- The Redfish Lake Visitor Center needs extensive repair work to
     keep it functionally sound and requires considerable remodeling
     to make it accessible. 


   PRESERVING CONSERVATION VALUES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2


      ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1

  -- In 1996, the SNRA completed the final environmental impact
     statement for the Salmon River Corridor--a 30-mile length of the
     Salmon River from its source around the community of Smiley
     Creek to the eastern border of the SNRA.  The statement
     identified direct measures to protect salmon, primarily by
     improving habitat, maintaining or improving water quality,
     restricting float-boating activities to prevent the disturbance
     of spawning, and curtailing other water-related recreation
     activities during the critical spawning season for both sockeye
     and chinook salmon. 

  -- The SNRA reestablished the migration route for salmon trying to
     return to Alturas Lake to spawn by increasing the water flow
     along Alturas Lake Creek and removing an irrigation diversion
     that was blocking the migration.  The work was done through a
     partnership project in which the SNRA paid for the removal of
     the irrigation diversion from Alturas Lake Creek with $13,000
     provided by the Bonneville Power Administration in 1997.  The
     Idaho Fish and Game Department provided about $50,000 in 1998 to
     develop a well source to provide replacement water for the
     landowner who had been using water from the creek for
     irrigation.  The landowner installed a replacement irrigation
     system at an estimated cost of $50,000.  The Forest Service's
     funding for the project was limited to its staff's salaries for
     participation and oversight of the negotiations. 

  -- The SNRA developed and issued a wilderness management plan in
     which it updated the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan
     and clearly defined the management objectives for the Sawtooth
     Wilderness to address the impacts from increasing numbers of
     visitors and more intensive use.  The SNRA also issued a
     prescribed natural fire plan for the wilderness in 1997.  The
     plan provides criteria under which fires started by natural
     causes, such as lighting, can be allowed to burn, the objectives
     to be achieved with such burns, and the requirements for
     monitoring and controlling such fires. 

  -- The SNRA completed Endangered Species Act consultations for all
     ongoing activities after chinook and sockeye salmon and
     steelhead and bull trout were listed under the act. 


      UNMET NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.2

  -- From 1995 to 1997, the SNRA was unable to conduct broad-level
     surveys of habitat condition or species distribution. 
     Consequently, without updated field surveys, the SNRA is not
     able to effectively assess the effects of forest management
     activities on species or habitat to effectively manage, protect,
     or recover listed species. 

  -- The routine maintenance of trails in the Sawtooth Wilderness has
     not been performed as needed.  In 1993, 195 miles (82 percent)
     of trails in the Sawtooth Wilderness were maintained, while in
     1997, only 122 miles (51 percent) of the trails were maintained. 
     The reduction of maintenance directly correlates to the decrease
     in trail crew size from 15 people in 1993 to 5 people in 1997. 
     The reduction in trail maintenance has led to (1) trail damage
     and increased impacts due to soil erosion, (2) decreased visitor
     satisfaction, and (3) increased hazards because visitors are
     forced to find other routes around fallen trees. 

  -- The SNRA has been prevented by inadequate funding from
     completing conservation agreements that allow for proactive
     management for species prior to the species' being listed under
     the Endangered Species Act. 


   MANAGING COMMODITY PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3


      ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1

  -- The SNRA reported that almost all of the formerly degraded
     riparian habitat on allotments has been allowed to recover to
     levels that benefit various fish populations.  The recovery
     occurred because of rigorous compliance with standards, changes
     in grazing management, and new fencing to prevent cows and sheep
     from grazing in riparian areas. 

  -- The SNRA contracted in 1995-96 with the Idaho Geological Survey
     to complete abandoned mine surveys for chemical and physical
     hazards at 44 sites and, between 1995 and 1997, reclaimed three
     abandoned mine sites and one mining road. 


      UNMET NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2

  -- Because of funding shortages, the SNRA did not have staff to
     consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the
     appropriateness of using newly acquired land for grazing. 
     Completing the consultation process might have resulted in
     additional lands being opened to grazing, according to an SNRA
     official.  The new lands would have compensated for reductions
     in grazing elsewhere. 

  -- The SNRA has been unable to meet the schedule mandated in the
     1995 Recissions Bill for the Forest Service to meet requirements
     set out in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  All
     forests are required to have updated allotment management plans
     that set out how grazing allotments will be brought up to and
     maintained at conditions that meet the direction, standards, and
     guidelines in the forests' land and resources management plans. 

  -- The SNRA has been unable to contain infestations of noxious
     weeds.  Consequently, the weeds are spreading more rapidly, with
     a resulting loss in land productivity for grazing. 

  -- Because the limited funding for range programs must be spent
     primarily on monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions
     of Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act, the
     needs for completing or revising allotment management plans and
     for interacting with permittees cannot be fully met. 


FUNDS RETAINED AT THE REGION AND
THE SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST TO
FUND REGION- AND FORESTWIDE
PROJECTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

The Forest Service's Region 4 and the Sawtooth National Forest
withheld funds from the SNRA for region- and forestwide projects. 
Table VI.1 lists some of the regionwide projects and the total dollar
amounts for fiscal years 1993 through 1997.  Similarly, table VI.2
lists the forestwide projects and dollar amounts for the same period. 



                                    Table VI.1
                     
                     Regionwide Projects, Fiscal Years 1993-
                                        97

                       (1997 constant dollars in thousands)

                                                                             Tot
Regionwide                                                                   al\
projects            FY 1993     FY 1994     FY 1995     FY 1996     FY 1997   a
---------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ---
Computer             $3,846      $3,478        $919      $2,551      $4,000  $14
 Enhancement/                                                                ,79
 Geographic                                                                   4
 Information
 System
Interior                  0           0       2,245         561         780  3,5
 Columbia Basin                                                              86
 Ecosystem
 Management
 Project
2002 Winter               0           0           0           0         655  655
 Olympics
Water Rights            474           0       1,613       1,387       1,040  4,5
 Adjudication\b                                                              14
Timber                  654         516         469         583         703  2,9
 Inventory\c                                                                 25
Regional                275         257           0         255         250  1,0
 Forester                                                                    37
 Emergency
All Other             3,157       1,762       1,297       2,005       1,756  9,9
 Regionwide                                                                  77
 Projects
================================================================================
Total\a              $8,405      $6,014      $6,543      $7,342      $9,184  $37
                                                                             ,48
                                                                              8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Numbers may not add up because of rounding. 

\b The figure for fiscal year 1993 is for the Snake River
Adjudication project. 

\c The figure for fiscal year 1995 is for a vegetation inventory. 
The figures for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 are for an integrated
ecosystem inventory. 

Source:  Forest Service data. 



                                        Table VI.2
                         
                         Forestwide Projects, Fiscal Years 1993-
                                            97

                           (1997 constant dollars in thousands)

Forestwide
projects            FY 1993     FY 1994     FY 1995     FY 1996     FY 1997         Total
---------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------
Radio                  $0.0        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0      $120.0        $120.0
 Replacement
Geographic            108.8        30.1         8.3        37.8         0.0         185.0
 Information
 System
=========================================================================================
Total                $108.8       $30.1        $8.3       $37.8      $120.0        $305.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Forest Service data. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE'S FOREST SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix VI



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

Robert E.  Cronin
Josï¿½ Alfredo Gï¿½mez
Chester F.  Janik
Victor S.  Rezendes


*** End of document. ***