Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability (Chapter Report,
10/13/1999, GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Forest Service's progress in improving its accounting and financial
reporting, focusing on: (1) Forest Service's efforts to achieve
financial accountability; (2) become more accountable for its
performance; and (3) better align its budget with its strategic goals
and objectives.

GAO noted that: (1) since the first audit of the Forest Service's
financial statements, the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General
has found serious accounting and financial reporting weaknesses; (2) the
Forest Service has had significant problems implementing its new
accounting system, which the agency has stated is key to correcting its
financial management deficiencies and to attaining accountability over
billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and investments; (3) the
independence afforded the agency's autonomous field structure has
hampered efforts to correct accounting and financial reporting
weaknesses; (4) the Forest Service has completed several actions and
begun others that represent important steps toward achieving financial
accountability; (5) nevertheless, major barriers remain, and the Forest
Service may take several years to achieve financial accountability; (6)
the Forest Service has begun to implement a results-based performance
accountability system; (7) however, the agency has not been able to
develop: (a) quantifiable objectives and long-term and annual measures
of its progress in achieving its general goals; or (b) strategies to
achieve its goals and objectives; (8) as a result: (a) the national
forests cannot blend agencywide objectives and strategies with local
priorities in revising their plans; (b) funds are being allocated to
regions and forests on the basis of old criteria that often are not
linked to the agency's new goals and objectives; and (c) line managers
cannot be held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives; (9)
the Forest Service's budget structure is directly linked to the agency's
resource-specific programs, which, in turn, are intended to fund
program-specific projects and activities in the field; (10) however, the
link between the agency's budget structure and land management
activities has weakened as the field offices have addressed issues or
problems that are not aligned with the agency's resource-specific
programs; (11) there is often no clear link between the budget structure
and the way work activities are structured in the field; (12) GAO
believes that the Forest Service's budget structure should be revised to
better link it to the agency's strategic goals and objectives; and (13)
GAO also believes that any future revisions should coincide with actions
required to correct known accounting and financial reporting
deficiencies as well as problems with performance-related data,
measurement, and reporting.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED/AIMD-00-2
     TITLE:  Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability
      DATE:  10/13/1999
   SUBJECT:  Financial management
	     Internal controls
	     Performance measures
	     Accountability
	     Forest management
	     Strategic planning
	     Federal agency accounting systems
	     Reporting requirements

******************************************************************
** 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 Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

October 1999

FOREST SERVICE - A FRAMEWORK FOR
IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY

GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2

Forest Service Accountability

(141243)

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

  CAS - Central Accounting System
  CFO - Chief Financial Officer
  FFIS - Foundation Financial Information System
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

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

B-282736

October 13, 1999

The Honorable Ralph Regula
Chairman
The Honorable Norman Dicks
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior
 and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

As agreed with your offices, this report discusses the status of the
Forest Service's efforts to (1) achieve financial accountability, (2)
become more accountable for its performance, and (3) better align its
budget with its strategic goals and objectives.  Appendix I provides
information, in the form of a ï¿½desktop guide,ï¿½ on individual
deficiencies and on the status of the Forest Service's actions to
correct them. 

As requested, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the
date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to the
appropriate congressional committees; the Honorable Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture; and the Honorable Mike Dombeck, Chief of
the Forest Service.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV. 

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0

   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, like any publicly
financed agency, must account to the public for its use of the tax
dollars appropriated to it to carry out its mission.  To account
fully for its use of these funds, the agency needs to provide
accurate and timely information on how much it was authorized to
spend on specific programs and activities, how it spent the funds,
and what it accomplished with the money.  Currently, however, the
Forest Service cannot accurately report its expenditures and
accomplishments, and its budgetary, financial, and performance
systems and data are not linked. 

The Forest Service is taking actions to correct known problems with
its accounting and financial reporting, as well as with its
performance-related data, measurement, and reporting.  However, the
agency's efforts to achieve accountability will take years. 
Furthermore, strong leadership within the Forest Service and
sustained oversight by the Congress will be needed to ensure that the
corrective actions are completed.  To help in providing this
oversight, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House Committee on
Appropriations, asked GAO to monitor and periodically report on the
agency's efforts to achieve accountability.  As agreed with their
offices, this report discusses the status of the Forest Service's
efforts to (1) achieve financial accountability, (2) become more
accountable for its performance, and (3) better align its budget with
its strategic goals and objectives. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Since the first audit of the Forest Service's financial statements,
which covered fiscal year 1991, Agriculture's Inspector General has
found serious accounting and financial reporting weaknesses, many of
which continue today.  For instance, the Forest Service lacks
supporting records to substantiate, at a detailed level, the amounts
it either owes or is owed by others.  Additionally, the Forest
Service has had significant problems implementing its new accounting
system, which the agency has stated is key to correcting its
financial management deficiencies and to attaining accountability
over billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and investments. 
Furthermore, the independence afforded the agency's autonomous field
structure has hampered efforts to correct accounting and financial
reporting weaknesses.  The Forest Service has completed several
actions and begun others that, if successfully carried through,
represent important steps toward achieving financial accountability. 
For example, it has created three new fiscal and business management
positions.  Nevertheless, major barriers remain, and the Forest
Service may take several years to achieve financial accountability. 

To improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of its
programs, the Forest Service has begun to implement a results-based
performance accountability system.  This effort includes clarifying
its mission priorities and identifying its general goals.  However,
the agency has not been able to develop (1) quantifiable objectives
and long-term and annual measures of its progress in achieving its
broad, general goals or (2) strategies to achieve its goals and
objectives.  As a result, (1) the national forests cannot blend
agencywide objectives and strategies with local priorities in
revising their plans, (2) funds are being allocated to regions and
forests on the basis of old criteria that often are not linked to the
agency's new goals and objectives, and (3) line managers cannot be
held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives. 

The Forest Service's current budget structure is directly linked to
the agency's resource-specific programs, which, in turn, are intended
to fund program-specific projects and activities in the field. 
However, the link between the agency's budget structure and land
management activities has weakened as the field offices have
addressed issues or problems that are not aligned with the agency's
resource-specific programs.  As a result, there is often no clear
link between the current budget structure and the way work activities
are structured in the field.  Although GAO believes that the Forest
Service's budget structure should be revised to better link it to the
agency's strategic goals and objectives, it also believes that any
future revisions should coincide with actions required to correct
known accounting and financial reporting deficiencies as well as
problems with performance-related data, measurement, and reporting. 

   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

      BARRIERS TO FINANCIAL
      ACCOUNTABILITY REMAIN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

The Inspector General's February 1999 audit report on the Forest
Service's fiscal year 1998 financial statements--a disclaimer of
opinion--shows that the agency remains unable to (1) reliably track
major assets worth billions of dollars, (2) accurately allocate
revenues and costs to its programs in its financial reports, and (3)
accurately prepare its financial statements.  The report also
identifies numerous financial reporting errors and major internal
control weaknesses.  For example, the Forest Service still lacks
supporting records to substantiate, at a detailed level, the amounts
it either owes or is owed by others.  Not having reliable accounts
receivable information severely impairs the agency's ability to
collect money owed it by other agencies.  Not having reliable
accounts payable data impedes the agency's ability to readily
determine the costs it has incurred and the amounts it owes at any
given point. 

The Forest Service has also had significant problems implementing its
new accounting systemï¿½the Foundation Financial Information
System--which the agency has stated is key to correcting its
financial management deficiencies and to achieving financial
accountability.  For instance, GAO reported in February 1999 that the
three Forest Service units that were implementing the system were
unable to produce the critical budgetary and accounting reports that
track the agency's obligations, assets, liabilities, revenues, and
costs, in part because (1) ending balances could not be converted
from the old accounting system to the new one and (2) the old
accounting system was no longer functional for these units. 

Among the factors that have hampered the Forest Service's efforts to
correct accounting and financial reporting weaknesses and to
implement the new accounting system has been the independence
afforded the agency's autonomous field structure.  According to an
independent contractor retained by the Forest Service to analyze and
report on the agency's financial management and organization, each
Forest Service unit operates independently, whether it is executing
budgets, developing financial plans, or accounting for reimbursable
agreements.  The contractor characterized the agency's organizational
structure as a "chaotic financial environment" and stated that it
creates inconsistent practices and credibility problems. 

While major barriers remain, the Forest Service has completed several
actions and begun others that, if successfully carried through,
represent important steps toward achieving financial accountability. 
For example, in April 1998, the Chief of the Forest Service
restructured the agency's management team, creating, among other
things, three new fiscal and business management positions.  In
addition, the agency has (1) hired experienced staff to fill key
financial management and systems positions, including several
individuals who have implemented the new accounting system
successfully at other agencies, and (2) consolidated its budgeting,
financial management, financial systems development and operations,
and related analytical and quality assurance functions into a new
central office.  Together, the Forest Service's new organizational
structure and new fiscal and business management team should help
provide a nucleus around which financial accountability can be built. 
However, the new fiscal and business management team will first need
to ensure that clear lines of responsibility and accountability for
financial management extend throughout the Forest Service's highly
decentralized and autonomous organizational structure. 

The Forest Service's goal is to implement the new accounting system
agencywide on October 1, 1999, and to obtain an unqualified audit
opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial statements.  However, given
the major accounting and reporting deficiencies that remain, the
serious problems that the agency has experienced in implementing the
new system, and the unresolved issue of how to ensure clear lines of
responsibility and accountability for financial management throughout
the organization, GAO believes that the Forest Service's goal of an
unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial
statements is optimistic. 

      ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM TO
      MEASURE PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN
      DIFFICULT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

To comply with the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act), the Forest Service has made
clear that, in keeping with its existing legislative framework, its
overriding mission and funding priority is to maintain and restore
the health, productivity, and diversity of the lands entrusted to its
care to meet the needs of present and future generations.  It intends
to limit goods and services on the national forests to the types,
levels, and mixes imposed by considerations of land health.  The
Forest Service's general goalsï¿½(1) ensuring sustainable ecosystems
(land health), (2) providing multiple benefits for people within the
capabilities of ecosystems (service to people), and (3) ensuring an
effective organization (organizational effectiveness)--are consistent
with its mission priorities. 

Over the last several years, the Forest Service has worked at, but
not succeeded in, developing quantifiable objectives and long-term
and annual measures of its progress in achieving its mission
priorities and general goals.  In particular, the agency has not been
able to develop specific and quantifiable objectives linking its
broad, general goals and its long-term and annual performance
measures.  Although the agency uses terms like ï¿½healthy and diverse
ecosystems,ï¿½ ï¿½ecological sustainability,ï¿½ ï¿½healthy forests,ï¿½ and
ï¿½forest ecosystem vitalityï¿½ to express its goals and objectives,
these terms may mean different things to different people, and
different people could use different measures to assess progress
toward them.  In addition, measuring long-term trends in land health
requires accurate baseline data, but the agency does not know the
condition of many aquatic, forested, and rangeland ecosystems on its
lands. 

Moreover, some of the Forest Service's annual performance measures do
not encourage progress toward its goals and objectives.  For
instance, hazardous fuels, which accumulated under the Forest
Service's decades-old policy of putting out wildfires, now support
larger, often catastrophic, wildfires, many of which threaten lives
and property, especially along the boundaries of forests
(wildland/urban interfaces) where population has grown significantly
in recent years.  Acres along these interfaces are among the
costliest and most difficult to treat, yet they also pose the
greatest hazards to lives and property.  However, the agency's
measure of progress in reducing hazardous fuels on the national
forests and its basis for future years' funding--the number of acres
treatedï¿½encourages a focus on quantity without reference to
difficulty or safety.  Thus, field offices have an incentive to
select the easiest and least costly rather than the most hazardous
and more costly acres to treat. 

The Forest Service also has not established strategies that describe
how it will achieve its goals and objectives and what operational
processes and resources will be required.  For example, to address
the serious forest health problem of the increasing number of
uncontrollable and often catastrophic wildfires, the Forest Service
has agreed to develop, but currently does not have, a cohesive
strategy for (1) reducing accumulated fuels on national forests
nationwide and (2) maintaining these fuels at acceptable levels. 
Such a strategy, when developed, will, among other things, help the
agency to quantify its objective of ensuring healthy and diverse
forestlands and serve as a basis for establishing funding priorities
and developing more meaningful performance measures. 

As the Forest Service works to develop quantifiable objectives,
implementable strategies, and measurable indicators of progress, many
forest plans are being revised or are due for revision.  In addition,
funds continue to be allocated to regions and forests on the basis of
old criteria that are often not linked to the agency's new strategic
goals.  And, although the agency intends to modify its managers'
performance standards to reflect its goals and objectives, it cannot
establish clear standards for holding these officials accountable
until it develops appropriate objectives, strategies, and measures of
performance. 

      THE FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET
      STRUCTURE IS NOT CLEARLY
      LINKED TO ITS LAND
      MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

The Forest Service is an agency in transition.  Over the past decade,
it has refocused the mix of its activities, shifting from producing
timber and other goods and services toward restoring or protecting
land health and forest resources.  Currently, it is attempting to
identify where or under what circumstances it should restore degraded
lands through active management rather than allow nature to take its
course.  These issues are controversial and represent significant
changes in the agency's mission and funding priorities and management
approaches.  It is, therefore, important for the Forest Service to
provide the Congress with a clear understanding of what is being
achieved with the funds that are being spent.  However, over time,
the link between the agency's budget structure and land management
activities has weakened. 

The Forest Service's current budget structure is directly linked to
its resource-specific programs, which, in turn, are intended to fund
program-specific projects and activities in the field.  However, the
link between the agency's budget structure and land management
activities has weakened as its districts, forests, and regions have
addressed issues or problems that are not aligned with its programs. 
For example, a decade ago, the Congress could be reasonably assured
that funds allocated to the Forest Service's Forest Management
program for timber sales would be used primarily to produce
commercially valuable timber to help meet the nation's demand for
wood products.  Today, however, timber sales are increasingly being
used to restore degraded ecosystems, and approximately half of the
timber being removed from the national forests is being removed for
stewardship purposesï¿½mostly to accomplish forest-health-related
objectives.  As a result, funds allocated to the agency's Forest
Management program for timber sales must now be split to accomplish
both commodity and stewardship objectives.  The Forest Service's
field offices must also use funds from two or more appropriations or
budget line items to address problems or issues that exceed the scope
of its resource-specific programs, such as protecting the habitats of
the northern spotted owl and other wide-ranging species. 

One purpose of the Results Act is to improve the link between
allocating resources and achieving results with those resources.  The
Forest Service included as a separate component in its fiscal year
2000 budget justification a preliminary proposal to better link the
National Forest System appropriation with its performance goals and
objectives.  In addition, in August 1999, the National Academy of
Public Administrationï¿½a congressionally chartered, independent,
nonpartisan, nonprofit organizationï¿½proposed changes to the National
Forest System appropriation as well as to the agency's Wildland Fire
Management appropriation.  As of August 1999, the Forest Service was
working with its appropriations subcommittees, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Office of Management and Budget to present a
revised budget structure with its fiscal year 2001 budget request. 

GAO has previously concluded that further changes to the Forest
Service's budget structure seem to be warranted to facilitate the
agency's management of the 155 national forests.  In addition, GAO
has recommended that the Forest Service's budget structure be revised
to establish better links to the agency's strategic goals and
objectives.  However, GAO has also maintained that any future
revisions should coincide with actions required to correct known
accounting and financial reporting deficiencies as well as problems
with performance-related data, measurement, and reporting.  As
discussed in this report, major barriers to financial accountability
remain, and the performance measures needed to gauge the Forest
Service's progress in achieving its goals and objectives have not
been developed. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

GAO provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for review
and comment.  The agency generally agreed with the report and said it
accurately and fairly presents information on the Forest Service's
efforts to achieve financial accountability, become accountable for
its performance, and better align its budget with its strategic goals
and objectives.  The Forest Service stated, however, that the report
should include some additional information on steps it has taken
within the past year to improve its financial accountability.  In
response, GAO revised the draft report to mention some additional
efforts that the Forest Service has undertaken.  The Forest Service's
comments appear in appendix III. 

INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The Forest Service, an agency within the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture, is one of four major federal land management agencies.\1
The Forest Service manages about 192 million acres of landï¿½nearly 9
percent of the nation's total surface area and 30 percent of all
federal lands.  Laws guiding the management of the 155 national
forests, 20 national grasslands, and 17 national recreation areas
within the National Forest System require the agency to manage its
lands to provide high levels of six renewable surface usesï¿½outdoor
recreation, rangeland, timber, watersheds and waterflows, wilderness,
and wildlife and fishï¿½to current users while sustaining undiminished
the lands' ability to produce these uses for future generations.  In
addition, the Forest Service's guidance and regulations require the
agency to consider the production of nonrenewable subsurface
resources, such as oil, gas, and hardrock minerals, in its
planning.\2

--------------------
\1 The other three are the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, all within the
Department of the Interior.  Together, the four agencies manage about
95 percent of all federal lands. 

\2 Hardrock minerals include gold, silver, lead, iron, and copper. 

   HOW THE FOREST SERVICE IS
   ORGANIZED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

The Forest Service, created in 1905, is a hierarchical organization
whose management is highly decentralized and whose managers have
considerable autonomy and discretion in interpreting and applying the
agency's policies and directions.  The Chief of the Forest Service
heads the agency and, through Agriculture's Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment, reports to the Secretary of
Agriculture. 

To carry out the agency's multiple-use and sustained-yield mission,
an Associate Chief for Natural Resources in headquarters (the
Washington Office) has direct oversight of three major areas:  (1)
the National Forest System, (2) Forest and Rangeland Research and
Development, and (3) State and Private Forestry.  The National Forest
System is composed of two organizational structuresï¿½a field structure
comprising 9 regional offices, 123 forest offices, and about 600
district offices and a program structure consisting of nine separate
resource-specific programs.  (See fig.  1.1.) Among other things,
program directors for each of the nine separate programs at the
Forest Service's Washington Office establish policy and provide
technical direction to the National Forest System's three levels of
field management.  Similar lines of program management exist at the
regional, forest, and district office levels.  However, because of
budgetary constraints, the management of some of these programs may
be combined. 

   Figure 1.1:  The Forest
   Service's Organizational
   Structure for Natural Resources
   Programs

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Forest Service. 

   HOW THE FOREST SERVICE PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

In carrying out its mission, the Forest Service follows a planning
process that is largely based on laws enacted during the 1970s.  This
process consists of a series of steps linking national, regional,
forest, and district decision-making and becomes increasingly
specific as planning progresses from the national level to the forest
and district levels.  The process includes (1) preparing a long-term
strategic plan that maps the agency's course for the next decade and
beyond; (2) developing regional guides that help link the agency's
strategic planning at the national level with forests' and districts'
planning at more local levels; (3) developing a land and resource
management plan, commonly called a forest plan, for managing each
forest; and (4) reaching project-level decisions for implementing
these plans.  Forest plans blend national and regional demands with
local forests' capabilities and needs and serve as a basis for
developing future budget proposals.  Forest plans must be revised at
least every 15 years. 

   WEAKNESSES IDENTIFIED IN PRIOR
   GAO PRODUCTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

In prior reports and testimonies, we have identified weaknesses and
deficiencies in the Forest Service's financial data and statements,
performance measures, and budget structure and observed that the
agency cannot accurately account for its expenditures and results.\3
Currently, the Forest Service budgets and the Congress appropriates
funds on the basis of a budget structure that is not linked to the
agency's performance goals and objectives.  The Forest Service then
allocates the funds to its field offices according to criteria that
are also often not linked to its goals and objectives.  The
autonomous field offices, in turn, spend the money to accomplish what
they have identified as their highest priorities, which may or may
not be consistent with agencywide goals and objectives or with the
purposes for which the funds were allocated.  In addition, the Forest
Service is unable to accurately track the cost of, and allocate
revenue to, its various programs and activities or to ensure that
field-level data are accurate.  Without accurate financial data and
statements, the agency is unable to, among other things, accurately
report its performance, monitor the income and spending levels of its
programs and activities, and make informed decisions about future
funding.  Also lacking objective and independently verifiable annual
and long-term performance-based measures to assess relevant outputs,
service levels, and outcomes, the Forest Service cannot hold its
managers accountable for their performance, and the information that
the agency produces tells very little about what is actually
occurring on the national forests. 

--------------------
\3 See, for example, Forest Service:  Lack of Financial and
Performance Accountability Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste
(GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-135, Mar.  26, 1998), High-Risk Series:  An
Update (GAO/HR-99-1, Jan.  1999), Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks:  Department of Agriculture (GAO/OCG-99-2, Jan.  1999),
Forest Service Management:  Little Has Changed as a Result of the
Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.2, 1998), and
Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997). 

   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

To help in providing oversight of the Forest Service's progress
toward achieving accountability, the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House
Committee on Appropriations, asked us to monitor and periodically
report on the agency's efforts to achieve both financial and
performance accountability.  As agreed with their offices, this
report discusses the status of the Forest Service's efforts to (1)
achieve financial accountability, (2) become more accountable for its
performance, and (3) better align its budget with its strategic goals
and objectives.  Appendix I provides information, in the form of a
ï¿½desktop guide,ï¿½ on individual deficiencies and on the status of the
Forest Service's actions to correct them. 

We conducted our work primarily at the Forest Service's Washington
Office and at two national forestsï¿½the Willamette in Oregon (Region
6) and the Mark Twain in Missouri (Region 9).  To obtain information
on all of the objectives, we interviewed Forest Service budget,
fiscal, and business management officials at the agency's Washington
Office.  We also interviewed forest supervisors, district managers,
and other officials responsible for managing various programs and
activities at the two national forests we visited.  In addition, we
interviewed the agency's budget team leader from Region 9 and
strategic planning leader from Region 6.  We also reviewed the Forest
Service's budget justifications and annual performance plans for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000; its September 1997 strategic plan;
relevant agency reports, records, correspondence, speeches, news
releases, and other documents; and prior GAO reports, testimonies,
and workpapers. 

To obtain additional information on the status of the Forest
Service's efforts to achieve financial accountability, we reviewed
relevant reports and testimonies by the Department of Agriculture's
Office of Inspector General, including its audit of the Forest
Service's fiscal year 1998 financial statements, and a study by a
consulting firm that addressed the agency's financial management and
organization.\4 We also discussed the Forest Service's efforts with
the agency's Chief Financial Officer and key members of her staff. 

To address the agency's progress in becoming more accountable for its
performance, we reviewed the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, identified the various
components of a results-based performance accountability system, and
obtained information on the Forest Service's efforts to address each
component.  In addition, we compared the agency's existing strategic
objectives with its proposed outcomes, and its proposed outcomes with
internationally recognized criteria for sustainable forest
management.  We also reviewed the agency's budget allocation
criteria, its existing and proposed performance measures, and
relevant studies, including a report by a Committee of Scientists
that addressed the agency's planning process.\5

In addition, we analyzed an alternative budget structure that the
Forest Service identified in its fiscal year 2000 budget
justification.  We focused our analysis on determining the extent to
which the proposed changes would better link the agency's budget with
its strategic goals and objectives.  We also reviewed a study by a
natural resource policy research and education organization that
addressed the agency's budget structure.\6

We performed our work from December 1998 through August 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  In
conducting our work, we did not independently verify the reliability
of the financial data provided by the Forest Service or trace the
data to the systems from which they came.  Some of these systems have
been included in audits of the agency's financial statement audits by
the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General.  Since
auditing the Forest Service's fiscal year 1991 financial statements,
the Inspector General has reported serious internal control
weaknesses in various accounting subsystems that result in unreliable
accounting data.  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. 

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the Forest
Service.  The agency's comments are presented in appendix III. 

--------------------
\4 Modernizing Financial Management at the Forest Service:  Financial
Management & Organizational Analysis, Coopers & Lybrand Consulting
(Mar.  18, 1998). 

\5 Sustaining the People's Lands:  Recommendations for Stewardship of
the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Committee of Scientists, Washington, D.C. 
(Mar.  15, 1999). 

\6 Toward Integrated Resource Management on the National Forests: 
Understanding Forest Service Budget Reform, Pinchot Institute for
Conservation, Washington, D.C.  (Mar.  4, 1997). 

BARRIERS TO FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY REMAIN
============================================================ Chapter 2

Since the first audit of the Forest Service's financial statements,
which covered fiscal year 1991, Agriculture's Inspector General has
found serious accounting and financial reporting weaknesses, many of
which continue today.  Additionally, the Forest Service has had
significant problems implementing its new accounting systemï¿½the
Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS)--which the agency has
stated is key to correcting its financial management deficiencies and
to attaining accountability over billions of dollars in taxpayer
funds and investments.  Furthermore, the independence afforded the
agency's autonomous field structure has hampered efforts to correct
accounting and financial reporting weaknesses and to implement FFIS. 
These shortcomings mean that the agency and the Congress do not have
accurate financial data to track the cost of programs and activities
and to help make informed decisions about future funding.  They also
raise questions about the accuracy of programs' performance measures
and of certain budget data drawn from the same database. 

The Forest Service has completed several actions and begun others
that, if successfully carried through, represent important steps
toward achieving financial accountability.  Nevertheless, major
barriers remain, and the Forest Service may take several years to
achieve financial accountability.  Therefore, in January 1999, we
designated the Forest Service's financial management as a high-risk
area because of the serious and long-standing accounting and
financial reporting weaknesses plaguing its operations.\1 This
high-risk designation means that we will be giving sustained
attention to monitoring the Forest Service's efforts to achieve
financial accountability. 

--------------------
\1 High-Risk Series:  An Update (GAO/HR-99-1, Jan.  1999). 

   MAJOR ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
   DEFICIENCIES REMAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

The Inspector General's February 1999 audit report on the Forest
Service's fiscal year 1998 financial statements--a disclaimer of
opinion--shows that the agency remains unable to (1) reliably track
major assets worth billions of dollars, (2) accurately allocate
revenues and costs to its programs in its financial reports, and (3)
accurately prepare its financial statements.  Specifically, the
report stated that

  -- continuing financial management deficiencies prevented the
     Forest Service from preparing complete, reliable, and consistent
     financial statements;

  -- the lack of an integrated accounting system and material
     weaknesses within the current system resulted in inaccurate and
     unreliable financial data; and

  -- internal controls were not sufficient to safeguard assets or to
     ensure that field-level data were accurate. 

The Inspector General's report identified numerous financial
reporting errors and major internal control weaknesses that had an
impact on the following accounts and activities: 

  -- The Forest Service's reported $3 billion in Fund Balance
     Accounts with the U.S.  Treasury,\2 maintained by Agriculture's
     National Finance Center, were not in balance with the amounts
     reported by the Treasury.\3 The Center made a net adjustment of
     $535 million to balance these accounts for all of Agriculture,
     an undetermined portion of which pertained to the Forest
     Service.  In reality, the Center was simply transferring the
     differences to various suspense accounts and did not research
     the differences to determine which accounts were affected. 
     Because most assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses stem
     from, or result in, cash transactions, errors in these accounts
     may affect the accuracy of the Forest Service's financial
     reports, including the budget execution reports and other
     information reported to the Congress. 

  -- The accuracy of the reported $2.6 billion in net Property,
     Plant, and Equipment could not be determined because the Forest
     Service lacked procedures and controls for reporting real
     property and found discrepancies after most units had reportedly
     certified and validated their respective amounts of property,
     plant, and equipment.  Additionally, the Forest Service did not
     complete physical inventories of personal property.  Until a
     system of controls is put in place to accurately track the
     quantities, locations, and costs of these assets, the Congress
     cannot be assured that the Forest Service's requests for
     additional funds to acquire property, plant, or equipment are
     warranted. 

  -- The Forest Service lacks supporting records (a subsidiary ledger
     system) to substantiate, at a detailed level, amounts the agency
     either owes or is owed by others (accounts payable and accounts
     receivable).  Forest Service officials stated that when FFIS is
     implemented in all Forest Service units, the agency will have
     more reliable data.  However, the accuracy of these accounts
     will be driven, to a great extent, by the reliability of the
     data entered at the field level.  Not having reliable accounts
     receivable information severely impairs the Forest Service's
     ability to collect money owed it by other agencies.  Not having
     reliable accounts payable data impedes the agency's ability to
     readily determine the costs it has incurred and the amounts it
     owes at any given point. 

  -- The Forest Service did not properly allocate $2.87 billion in
     reported net costs among the major components of the agency. 
     This occurred because the team responsible for preparing the
     financial report (the Statement of Net Costs) was not trained to
     properly allocate revenues and costs to the units that generated
     those revenues or incurred those costs.  The ability to properly
     match revenues and costs with the appropriate sources is
     especially important for the Forest Service because it conducts
     significant revenue-generating activities.  Without such
     information, it is not possible to determine the extent to which
     taxpayers bear the costs of these activities.  Additionally,
     proper cost information is necessary to assess how effectively
     and efficiently the agency has used its resources to achieve
     results. 

In addition to the above deficiencies, the Inspector General also
reported that the Forest Service's use of a vast and complex process
to classify and allocate costs in its accounting system increases the
risk of errors or irregularities and the potential for unauthorized
use of appropriations or trust funds.  According to the report, the
Forest Service used at least 269,000 management codes during fiscal
year 1997, most of which were unique to the local levels, to
distribute costs to programs, and this practice continued during
fiscal year 1998. 

The Inspector General's report further stated that controls were not
adequate to ensure that the shifting of costs from one account to
another was authorized, approved, justified, or documented. 
Accordingly, the Inspector General concluded that there was
insufficient assurance that the shifting of costs was done in a
manner consistent with appropriations law. 

Specifically, the Forest Service used a practice called
ï¿½distribution/redistributionï¿½ to achieve or maintain specific levels
of funding within accounts.  The agency either (1) initially
distributed the costs to accounts on the basis of the amounts
budgeted rather than the actual costs of providing services to the
programs or (2) retroactively changed accounting codes, object
classes, and other accounting data after the data had been initially
entered and processed to redistribute the costs among accounts. 

The practices of ï¿½charging as budgeted and not as workedï¿½ and
ï¿½retroactive redistributionï¿½ to achieve or maintain specific levels
of funding within accounts often misstate a project's costs by
understating the costs to one account and overstating the costs to
another account.  In addition, they preclude the Forest Service from
providing the Congress and other interested parties with meaningful,
useful, and reliable information on the costs of its programs and
activities. 

--------------------
\2 The Forest Service records its budget authority in asset accounts
called Fund Balance Accounts with the Treasury and increases or
decreases these accounts as it collects or disburses funds. 

\3 For the last 8 years, the Inspector General has reported numerous
material control weaknesses in the operations at National Finance
Center.  The Center processes the majority of the Forest Service's
financial transactions, and the control weaknesses negatively affect
the reliability of the Forest Service's data. 

   SERIOUS PROBLEMS IMPEDE THE NEW
   ACCOUNTING SYSTEM'S
   IMPLEMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Successfully implementing FFIS agencywide is critical to the Forest
Service's efforts to achieve financial accountability.  In reports
issued since January 1998, the Inspector General, an outside
consultant retained by Agriculture to independently review and assess
FFIS' management and implementation, and we have identified serious
problems with the system's implementation. 

In February 1998,\4 for example, we reported problems with FFIS'
processing of data and with transferring data between FFIS and its
feeder systems that raised questions about FFIS' implementation.  In
that report, we also noted that the three Forest Service units that
are implementing FFIS were unable to produce the critical budgetary
and accounting reports that track the Forest Service's obligations,
assets, liabilities, revenues, and costs, in part because (1) ending
balances could not be converted from the old accounting system to
FFIS and (2) the old accounting system was no longer functional for
these units. 

Agriculture's outside consultant also identified numerous problems
with FFIS' implementation.  For example, in March 1998,\5 the
consultant reported that the failure of the Forest Service to
simplify its business processes had a significant negative impact on
FFIS' implementation.  One major problem was the onerous process the
agency used to classify and allocate costs in its accounting records
for work performed, which led to greater operational costs. 
Furthermore, the process was virtually impossible to perform because
of its demands on computer capacity. 

The Forest Service must correct these implementation problems before
it attempts to bring FFIS on-line agencywide. 

Another critical issue that needs to be addressed is ensuring that
the Forest Service has prepared and tested its Year 2000 business
continuity and contingency plans.  Like other federal agencies, the
Forest Service is highly dependent on information technology to carry
out its business, and Year 2000-induced failures of one or more
mission-critical systems may have a severe impact on the agency's
ability to deliver critical services.  The Forest Service reported
that as of April 9, 1999, all 17 of its mission-critical systems were
Year 2000 compliant.  However, the agency depends on information and
data provided by other organizations, including other federal
agencies and state and local governments.  Therefore, the risk of
failure is not limited to the agency's internal information systems,
and one weak link anywhere in the chain of critical dependency could
disrupt the Forest Service's operations.  Given this interdependency
and risk, it is imperative that the Forest Service develop continuity
and contingency plans that identify, assess, manage, and mitigate
Year 2000 risks and help ensure the continuity of its core business
processes. 

--------------------
\4 Forest Service:  Status of Progress Toward Financial
Accountability (GAO/AIMD-98-84, Feb.  27, 1998). 

\5 Independent Assessment of USDA's Foundation Financial Information
System, Logistics Management Institute (AG801R1, Mar.  1998). 

   CURRENT FIELD STRUCTURE HAMPERS
   ACCOUNTABILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

In February 1998, we reported that the Forest Service's autonomous
organization may hinder top management's ability to gain the full
participation of all regional fiscal directors in efforts to achieve
financial accountability.\6 In March 1998, an independent contractor
retained by the Forest Service to analyze and report on the agency's
financial management and organization also raised the issue of the
agency's autonomous organizational structure.\7 Specifically, the
contractor noted that the Forest Service lacked a consistent
structure for financial management practices.  Furthermore, the
contractor reported that whether the subject is executing budgets,
developing financial plans, accounting for reimbursable agreements,
or creating management codes, each unit operates independently.  The
contractor characterized the Forest Service's organizational
structure as a "chaotic financial environment" and stated that it
creates inconsistent practices and credibility problems. 

The contractor recommended that the Forest Service establish a new
position of Deputy Chief/Chief Financial Officer at the Washington
Office.  In addition, the contractor stated that the creation of a
Chief Financial Officer and a consolidated financial management
organization in headquarters would need to be mirrored throughout the
agency's field organization.  Accordingly, the contractor recommended
that a Deputy Regional Forester for Financial Management/Chief
Financial Officer be established within each region.  The contractor
based this recommendation on the need to ensure clear lines of
responsibility and accountability by having a single executive within
each region who is in charge of financial management, including all
accounting, budgeting, financial planning and analysis, and strategic
planning.  As discussed below, the Forest Service has partially
implemented this recommendation. 

--------------------
\6 Forest Service:  Status of Progress Toward Financial
Accountability (GAO/AIMD-98-84, Feb.  27, 1998). 

\7 Modernizing Financial Management at the Forest Service:  Financial
Management & Organizational Analysis, Coopers & Lybrand Consulting
(Mar.  18, 1998). 

   CORRECTIVE MEASURES ARE UNDER
   WAY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

While major barriers remain, the Department of Agriculture and the
Forest Service have completed several actions and begun others that,
if successfully carried through, represent important steps toward
achieving financial accountability.  For example, in April 1998, the
Chief of the Forest Service restructured the agency's Washington
Office management team, creating three new fiscal and business
management positionsï¿½a Chief Operating Officer, a Chief Financial
Officer, and a Deputy Chief for Business Operations.  Another new
positionï¿½an Associate Chief for Natural Resourcesï¿½was created to
directly oversee the Forest Service's regional, forest, and district
offices, as well as the agency's research and development and state
and private forestry programs and activities.  Both the Chief
Operating Officer and the Associate Chief for Natural Resources
report directly to the Chief of the Forest Service.  (See fig.  2.1.)

   Figure 2.1:  Location of New
   Fiscal and Business Management
   Positions Within the Forest
   Service's Organizational
   Structure

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Forest Service. 

In addition, Agriculture or the Forest Service took the following
positive actions during or after fiscal year 1998: 

  -- Agriculture's Office of the Chief Financial Officer established
     a project management office that has only one
     objective--developing and carrying out a strategic plan for
     implementing FFIS departmentwide.  This office reports directly
     to Agriculture's Office of the Chief Financial Officer and
     should provide the focused attention and independence that is
     needed to help successfully implement the system. 

  -- The Forest Service has proposed reducing the number of
     management codes by more than 50 percent.  The agency believes
     this reduction would simplify the tracking of expenditures and
     would standardize the codes throughout the agency. 

  -- The three Forest Service units that initially implemented FFIS
     are no longer allowed to redistribute costs from one account to
     another after the fact in order to achieve or maintain specific
     levels of funding within accounts (ï¿½retroactive
     redistributionï¿½).  Other units using the old accounting system
     have been directed to substantially curtail the use of
     retroactive distribution.  The agency believes that eliminating
     retroactive redistribution will help to ensure that expenditures
     are charged to the correct accounts. 

  -- The Forest Service has hired experienced staff to fill key
     financial management and systems positions.  Several of these
     newly hired individuals have implemented FFIS successfully at
     other agencies. 

  -- The Forest Service has consolidated its budgeting, financial
     management, financial systems development and operations, and
     related analytical and quality assurance functions into a new
     central office headed by the Chief Financial Officer. 

Furthermore, according to the Forest Service's Chief Financial
Officer, the agency has recently undertaken additional steps to
improve its budget and financial processes, as well as the
development of its financial statements.  The Chief Financial Officer
also stated that the Forest Service is working collaboratively with
Agriculture's Office of Inspector General to improve accountability
over real and personal property. 

Together, the Forest Service's new organizational structure and new
fiscal and business management team should help provide (1) the
leadership needed by the Forest Service to correct its long-standing
accounting and reporting deficiencies and (2) a nucleus around which
financial accountability can be built.  However, the new fiscal and
business management team will first need to ensure that clear lines
of responsibility and accountability for financial management extend
throughout the Forest Service's organizational structure.  Key to
resolving this issue is addressing the agency's highly decentralized
and autonomous field office financial management structure.  A Forest
Service official told us that a decision about hiring chief financial
officers at the regional level will be made after FFIS is implemented
agencywide. 

   THE FOREST SERVICE'S ACCOUNTING
   AND FINANCIAL REPORTING HAS
   BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HIGH-RISK
   AREA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

Since 1990, we have reported at the start of each new Congress on
government operations that we have identified as high risks because
of their vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.  In
our latest report,\8 we designated the Forest Service's accounting
and financial reporting as a new high-risk area.  For us to remove
the high-risk designation, the Forest Service will need to
demonstrate sustained financial accountability.  At a minimum, it
will need to obtain an unqualified opinion on its financial
statements for 2 consecutive fiscal years.  To obtain an unqualified
opinion, the Forest Service will need not only to correct previously
identified financial management deficiencies but also to implement
key accounting and financial reporting requirements that became
effective in fiscal year 1998. 

The Forest Service's goal is to implement FFIS agencywide on October
1, 1999, and to obtain an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal
year 2000 financial statements.  Therefore, the earliest that we
could remove the high-risk designation is 2003.  However, given the
major accounting and reporting deficiencies that remain, the serious
problems that the agency has experienced in implementing FFIS, and
the unresolved issue of how to ensure clear lines of responsibility
and accountability for financial management throughout the
organization, we believe that the Forest Service's goal of an
unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial
statements is optimistic. 

Moreover, achieving financial accountability goes beyond receiving an
unqualified audit opinion.  Major reforms, such as the Chief
Financial Officers Act (the CFO Act), focus on maintaining a strong
system of internal controls and systematically providing the
accurate, timely, and relevant financial information needed for
management decision-making and accountability throughout the year. 
Even if the Forest Service is able, through its efforts, to obtain
reliable year-end data but does not back up its efforts through
fundamental improvements in underlying internal controls, financial
management systems, and operations that allow for the routine
production of accurate, relevant, and timely data to support ongoing
program management and accountability, the agency will not achieve
the intended results of the CFO Act or meet our criteria for removal
from the high-risk list. 

--------------------
\8 High-Risk Series:  An Update (GAO/HR-99-1, Jan.  1999). 

ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM TO MEASURE
PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN DIFFICULT
============================================================ Chapter 3

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act)
seeks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of
federal programs by establishing a system for agencies to set goals
for their programs' performance and to measure results.  To comply
with the act's requirements, the Forest Service has begun to
implement a results-based performance accountability system,
including clarifying its mission priorities and identifying its
general goals.  However, the agency has not been able to develop (1)
quantifiable objectives and long-term and annual performance measures
to gauge its progress in achieving its broad, general goals or (2)
strategies to achieve its goals and objectives.  As a result, the
national forests cannot blend agencywide objectives and strategies
with local priorities in revising their plans.  In addition, funds
are being allocated to regions and forests on the basis of old
criteria that are often not linked to the agency's new goals and
objectives.  Finally, line managers cannot be held accountable for
achieving the goals and objectives. 

   THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESULTS
   ACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Under the Results Act, federal agencies were required to submit
strategic plans no later than September 30, 1997, to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress.  Updates of the
strategic plan are required at least every 3 years thereafter.  The
plan, covering not less than 5 years, must contain (1) a
comprehensive mission statement for major functions and operations of
the agency; (2) general and outcome-related goals; (3) a description
of how the agency will achieve the goals and what operational
processes and resources will be required; (4) a description of how
the goals relate to annual performance plan goals; (5) an
identification of key factors external to, and beyond the control of,
the agency that could significantly affect the achievement of the
goals; and (6) a description of program evaluations that the agency
used in establishing and revising the general goals, with a schedule
for future program evaluations. 

Annually, beginning with fiscal year 1999, agencies must submit to
OMB performance plans covering each program activity\1 in the
agency's budget.  Each agency's plan must (1) establish goals that
define the level of performance to be achieved by a program activity;
(2) express the goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable
form unless an alternative form is approved by OMB; (3) describe the
operational processes and resources required to achieve the goals;
(4) establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or
assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each
program activity; (5) provide a basis for comparing actual program
results with the established goals; and (6) describe the means to be
used to verify and validate measured values. 

Annually, beginning March 31, 2000, agencies must submit program
performance reports covering performance for the previous fiscal year
to the President and the Congress.  Reports beginning in 2002 must
include actual program performance results for the 3 preceding fiscal
years.  In each report, an agency is to compare its performance
against its goals, summarize the findings of program evaluations
completed during the fiscal year, and describe the actions needed to
address any unmet goals. 

The process of implementing the Results Act within the Forest Service
can be portrayed as a number of interrelated steps.  (See fig.  3.1.)
A discussion of what the agency has done to implement each step
provides a benchmark for measuring its future progress. 

   Figure 3.1:  Steps in the
   Forest Service's Performance
   Accountability Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of documents from the Forest Service. 

--------------------
\1 The term ï¿½program activityï¿½ refers to the listing of projects and
activities in the appendix portion of the Budget of the United States
Government.  Program activity structures are intended to provide a
meaningful representation of the operations financed by a specific
budget account (appropriation). 

   THE FOREST SERVICE HAS
   CLARIFIED ITS MISSION
   PRIORITIES AND IDENTIFIED
   GENERAL GOALS AND MANAGEMENT
   APPROACHES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

The statutory authorities intended to guide the management of the
national forests provide little direction for the Forest Service in
resolving conflicts among competing uses on its lands.  However, the
requirements in environmental laws and their implementing regulations
and judicial interpretations do.  Responding to these requirements
and judicial interpretations, as well as to changing public values
and concerns about the management of the national forests and to
increased scientific understanding of the functioning of ecological
systems and their components, the Forest Service has, over the past 2
decades, refocused the mix of its activities away from producing
timber and other goods and services and toward restoring or
protecting land health and forest resources.\2

During the past 2 years, the Forest Service has clarified its mission
priorities in several documents, including its September 30, 1997,
strategic plan\3 and its first two annual performance plans\4
prepared under the Results Act.  According to the agency, consistent
with its existing legislative framework, its overriding mission and
funding priority is to maintain and restore the health, productivity,
and diversity of the lands entrusted to its care to meet the needs of
present and future generations.  It intends to limit goods and
services on the national forests to the types, levels, and mixes
imposed by considerations of land health and ecological
sustainability.\5 However, these priorities are still ï¿½de factoï¿½ in
that they have evolved over many years, responding, in part, to many
laws and judicial decisions, and the Congress has never explicitly
accepted them or acknowledged their effects on the availability of
timber, recreation, and other uses on the national forests.\6

The Forest Service's September 1997 strategic plan includes three
very broad, general goals:  (1) ensuring sustainable ecosystems, (2)
providing multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of
ecosystems, and (3) ensuring an effective organization
(organizational effectiveness).  In the agency's fiscal year 2000
budget justification,\7 the goal of ensuring sustainable ecosystems
is also referred to as ï¿½land health,ï¿½ and the goal of providing
multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems is
also called ï¿½service to people.ï¿½ (See table 3.1.) These goals capture
the agency's motto of ï¿½caring for the land and serving people,ï¿½ are
consistent with its mission priorities, and encompass all of its
major functions and operations. 

                               Table 3.1
                
                   The Forest Service's General Goals

                                          Fiscal year 2000 budget
1997 strategic plan                       justification
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Ensure sustainable ecosystems             Land health

Provide multiple benefits for people      Service to people
within the capabilities of ecosystems

Ensure organizational effectiveness       Organizational effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Forest Service's September 1997 strategic plan and
fiscal year 2000 budget justification. 

To achieve its goals and objectives for land health and service to
people and to accommodate the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act and other environmental laws, the Forest Service has turned to a
science-based, ecological approach for managing its lands and
resources.  This approach, called ecosystem management, is designed
to ensure the sustained functioning and diversity of natural
systemsï¿½such as watersheds, airsheds, soils, and vegetative and
animal communitiesï¿½by analyzing and planning along their boundaries
rather than along the boundaries of national forests.  The Endangered
Species Act is then used as a ï¿½fine filterï¿½ to catch and support the
special needs of species that otherwise would go unmet. 

--------------------
\2 Forest Service Priorities:  Evolving Mission Favors Resource
Protection Over Production (GAO/RCED-99-166, June 17, 1999). 

\3 USDA Strategic Plan 1997-2002:  A Healthy and Productive Nation in
Harmony With the Land, Forest Service Strategic Plan, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary (Sept.  30, 1997). 

\4 FY 1999 USDA Forest Service Annual GPRA Performance Plan, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Feb.  4, 1998) and USDA
Forest Service FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan, U.S.  Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service (Feb.  1, 1999). 

\5 One definition of ecological sustainability is maintaining the
composition (biological diversity of plants and animals), structure
(biological and physical attributes, such as large trees,
unconstrained rivers, and habitat patterns), and processes (including
photosynthesis, water movement, and disturbance cycles) of biological
and ecological systems (ecosystems). 

\6 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997) and Forest Service
Decision-Making:  Greater Clarity Needed on Mission Priorities
(GAO/T-RCED-97-81, Feb.  25, 1997). 

\7 FY 2000 Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations,
U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Feb.  1999). 

   THE AGENCY HAS NOT DEVELOPED
   QUANTIFIABLE, MEASURABLE
   OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES TO
   ACHIEVE THEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

In March 1998, we reported that the Forest Service had not developed
objective, verifiable accomplishment measures and criteria that focus
on actual improvements and gauge longer-term (5- to 10-year) trends
in the condition of specific resources or attributes of environmental
quality, such as sediment loads in streams or the percentage of trail
miles meeting a specific standard.\8 In December 1998, we reported
that the agency's performance measures often do not adequately
reflect accomplishments or progress toward achieving strategic goals
and objectives.\9 In that report, we recommended that the Forest
Service revise its performance measures to better link them to its
strategic goals and objectives. 

Over the last several years, the Forest Service has worked at, but
not succeeded in, developing quantifiable objectives and long-term
and annual measures to assess its progress in achieving its mission
priorities and general goals.  In particular, the agency has not been
able to develop a cascading hierarchy, or layers of more specific and
quantifiable objectives, between its broad, general goals and the
long-term and annual performance measures that are intended to gauge
its progress in achieving the goals.\10 It has also worked at, but
not finalized, various strategies to achieve its goals and
objectives. 

--------------------
\8 Forest Service:  Lack of Financial and Performance Accountability
Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste (GAO/T-RCED-98-135, Mar.  26,
1998). 

\9 Forest Service Management:  Little Has Changed as a Result of the
Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.  2, 1998). 

\10 For examples of agencies that have used cascading hierarchies of
goals, including the Bureau of Land Management, see Performance
Budgeting:  Initial Experiences Under the Results Act in Linking
Plans With Budgets (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67, Apr.  12, 1999). 

      QUANTIFIABLE LONG-TERM AND
      ANNUAL OBJECTIVES AND
      MEASURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

In its September 1997 strategic plan and first two annual performance
plans, the Forest Service identified a number of objectives under
each of its three general goals.  In its fiscal year 2000 budget
justification, the Forest Service aligns the goals with proposed
outcomes and with criteria in the 1995 ï¿½Santiago Declarationï¿½ to
sustain the world's forests.\11 Table 3.2.  identifies the agency's
existing goals and objectives, its proposed outcomes, and the
Santiago Declaration's criteria.  The fiscal year 2000 budget
justification also aligns the agency's proposed outcomes with its
existing and planned long-term and annual performance measures.  (See
app.  II.) An analysis of the table and the appendix helps highlight
the problems that the agency has experienced in attempting to link
long-term and annual performance measures to its general goals. 

                                        Table 3.2
                         
                           The Forest Service's Existing Goals,
                          Objectives, and Proposed Outcomes and
                           the Santiago Declaration's Criteria

Existing goals and                                           The Santiago Declaration's
objectives                    Proposed outcomes              criteria
----------------------------  -----------------------------  ----------------------------
Ensure sustainable            Ensure sustainable ecosystems  Ensure sustainable
ecosystems (land health)      (land health)                  ecosystems (land health)
 Ensure healthy and diverse   Healthy forests               Maintenance of forest
forestlands                    Healthy grasslands           ecosystem health and
 Ensure healthy and diverse   Clean water                  vitality
aquatic ecosystems             Robust fish and wildlife      Conservation of biological
 Ensure healthy and diverse  populations (improved          diversity
rangelands                    viability)                      Conservation and
 Respond to hazardous         Clean air                    maintenance of soil and
substance sites                Productive soils             water resources
 Protect threatened,                                         Maintenance of forests'
endangered, and sensitive                                    contribution to global
species                                                      carbon cycles
 Develop scientific and
management information to
support sustainable
ecosystem management
 Protect natural wilderness
ecosystem values

Provide multiple benefits     Provide multiple benefits for  Provide multiple benefits
for people (service to        people (service to people)     for people (service to
people)                        Quality outdoor recreation   people)
 Provide quality recreation  and natural settings            Maintenance of productive
experiences                    Improved urban               capacity of forest
 Provide for heritage        environments                   ecosystems
resource education and use     Healthy rural communities     Maintenance and
 Support improved urban       Continuing availability of   enhancement of long-term
environments                  goods and services             multiple socioeconomic
 Support healthy and          Safe public lands and        benefits to meet the needs
diverse rural communities     facilities                     of societies
 Provide for sustainable      Good neighbors
yield of wood and forest
products
 Provide for sustainable
grazing use
 Support ecologically sound
minerals production
 Develop scientific and
management information to
support improved natural
resource management and use
 Provide a safe environment
for the public and employees
on National Forest System
lands
 Provide safe
infrastructure and access to
National Forest System
lands
 Provide for special uses
and protect National Forest
System land title

Ensure organizational         Ensure organizational          Ensure organizational
effectiveness                 effectiveness                  effectiveness
 Ensure a productive and      Productive and diverse        Legal, institutional, and
diverse workforce             workforce                      economic framework for
 Improve customer service     Improved customer service    forest conservation and
 Integrate information        Integrated information       sustainable management
systems                       systems and management
 Improve financial           processes
management and                 Sound financial systems and
accountability                management
 Ensure an effective and      Effective and efficient
efficient administrative      administrative organization
organization                   Improved knowledge and
                              decision-making to support
                              management and use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Forest Service's fiscal year 2000 budget justification
and annual performance plan. 

First, the Forest Service has not made clear the link between its
existing objectives, its proposed outcomes, and the Santiago
Declaration's criteria.  For instance, all three contain very similar
goals relating to healthy forests, making it difficult to distinguish
(1) an objective from an outcome and an outcome from a criterion and
(2) how outcomes are linked to objectives or how the criteria will be
used to measure the objectives and/or outcomes. 

Second, some proposed outcomes appear to result from other proposed
outcomes.  For example, clean water, robust fish and wildlife
populations, and productive soils are the outcomes of healthy forests
and grasslands, yet they are all layered together as proposed
outcomes. 

Third, some proposed outcomes appear to be broad, general objectives,
and some broad, general objectives appear to be outcomes or measures
of performance.  For example, one proposed ï¿½outcomeï¿½ under the Forest
Service's goal of providing multiple benefits for people is the
continuing availability of goods and servicesï¿½a very broad, general
objective.  Conversely, some existing ï¿½objectivesï¿½ are more specific,
quantifiable, and measurable outcomes relating to the continued
availability of goods and services, such as providing a sustainable
yield of wood and forest products, providing for sustainable grazing
use, and supporting ecologically sound minerals production.  In
addition, these objectives are identified as annual performance
measures under the proposed outcome of continuing the availability of
goods and services.  Thus, instead of a cascading hierarchy of
objectives, outcomes, and measures, a very broad, general outcome is
wedged between very similar objectives and measures of performance. 

Fourth, although the Forest Service uses terms like ï¿½healthy and
diverse ecosystems,ï¿½ ï¿½ecological sustainability,ï¿½ ï¿½healthy forests,ï¿½
and ï¿½forest ecosystem vitalityï¿½ to express its goals and objectives,
these terms may mean different things to different people, and
different people could use different measures to assess progress
toward them.  For instance, the agency has identified the objective
of ensuring healthy and diverse forestlands as an overriding priority
in achieving its goal of land health.\12 However, despite widespread
use of the term in recent years, forest health does not have a
generally accepted definition.  The Forest Service, in its strategic
plan and annual performance plans, defines forest health as the
ï¿½ecological integrityï¿½ of forested ecosystems.  The agency defines
ecological integrity as a forested ecosystem's structure,
composition, and processes; ability to maintain biological and
physical components, functions, and interrelationships; and
capability for self-renewal.  Nevertheless, many Forest Service staff
and others with whom we have spoken say that, because of its
vagueness and subjectivity, the concept of forest health is often
difficult to use effectively.\13 According to officials on the
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado, the definition of
forest health as the ecological integrity of an ecosystem lacks
management objectives.  Therefore, national forests in the Rocky
Mountain Region (Region 2) define forest health instead as a
condition where influences on the forest, including pests,
silvicultural treatments, and timber harvesting practices, do not
threaten resource management now or in the future.  They believe that
this definition is quite clear in tying management objectives to
forest health, has more meaning for the management of the forests,
and is the only way to measure whether national forests are meeting
their goals. 

Fifth, to measure long-term trends in land health requires accurate
baseline data.  However, the agency does not know the current
condition of many aquatic, forested, and rangeland ecosystems.  For
example, in its performance plans for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the
Forest Service acknowledges that inventories of 40 percent of the
aquatic ecosystems on its lands are inadequate to determine their
condition.  Similarly, descriptions of the condition of forested
ecosystems within the national forests are generally based on
estimates, and the criteria for determining their condition and
assigning priorities to needed actions have not been developed. 
Without these data, it is not possible to measure the impact of
management actions on the lands and resources. 

Sixth, some of the Forest Service's annual performance measures do
not encourage progress toward its goals and objectives.  For
instance, hazardous fuels, which accumulated under the Forest
Service's decades-old policy of putting out wildfires, now support
larger, often catastrophic, wildfires, many of which threaten lives
and property, especially along the boundaries of forests
(wildland/urban interfaces) where population has grown significantly
in recent years.\14 Acres along these interfaces are among the
costliest and most difficult to treat, yet they also pose the
greatest hazards to lives and property.  However, the agency's
measure of progress in reducing hazardous fuels on the national
forests and its basis for future years' funding--the number of acres
treatedï¿½encourages a focus on quantity without reference to
difficulty or safety.  Thus, field offices have an incentive to
select the easiest and least costly rather than the most hazardous
and more costly acres to treat. 

--------------------
\11 ï¿½The Santiago Declaration, Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal
Forests (The Montreal Process),ï¿½ (Feb.  3, 1995).  The nonlegally
binding agreement has been signed by the United States and 11 other
countries--Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico,
New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and
Uruguay.  The Forest Service is the lead agency for implementing the
criteria and indicators in the United States and has committed to
integrating and using them, to the extent possible, in planning,
budgeting, and reporting. 

\12 See, for example, the Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year
1997, U.S.  Department of Agriculture (May 1998). 

\13 Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2,
1999). 

\14 Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2,
1999). 

      STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE GOALS
      AND OBJECTIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

To implement its stated goals and objectives and measure its
performance, the Forest Service will also need to establish
strategies that describe how it will achieve its goals and objectives
and what operational processes and resources will be required.  In
particular, many types of active management--such as timber sales on
lands in the Pacific Northwest inhabited by the northern spotted owl
and other old-growth-dependent species--have threatened rather than
contributed to the achievement of ecological goals over the past few
decades.  Therefore, the agency will need to identify where or under
what circumstances it should intervene to restore or protect the
health of ecosystems rather than allow nature to take its course.\15

In March 1998, the Chief of the Forest Service identified a natural
resource agenda for the next century.\16

The agenda identifies four areas of emphasis:  watershed health and
restoration, sustainable forest management, the national forest road
system, and recreation.  Among other things, it (1) establishes
watershed health and restoration as the overriding priority and/or
concern in planning for and implementing resource management actions,
(2) temporarily suspends new road construction into most roadless
areas until the Forest Service can develop a long-term forest roads
policy, and (3) commits the agency to providing superior customer
service and to ensuring that the rapid growth of recreation on the
national forests does not compromise the long-term health of the
lands. 

Although not directly linked to the Results Act, the agenda is
intended to start a gradual unfolding of a national purpose for the
agency, set the agency's priorities, and give strategic focus to its
programs.  However, much work remains to translate the agenda into
implementable strategies.  For example, to address the serious forest
health problem of the increasing number of uncontrollable and often
catastrophic wildfires, the Forest Service has agreed to develop, but
currently does not have, a cohesive strategy for (1) reducing
accumulated fuels on national forests nationwide and (2) maintaining
these fuels at acceptable levels.\17 Such a strategy, when developed,
will, among other things, help the agency to quantify its objective
of ensuring healthy and diverse forestlands and serve as a basis for
establishing funding priorities and developing more meaningful
performance measures. 

--------------------
\15 Review of Proposed Legislation to Reform Laws Governing Federal
Forest Management in the United States, Testimony by Dr.  K.  Norman
Johnson before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.  Senate
(Feb.  25, 1997). 

\16 A Gradual Unfolding of a National Purpose:  A Natural Resource
Agenda for the 21st Century, Speech before Forest Service Employees,
Chief of the Forest Service (Mar.  2, 1998). 

\17 Western National Forests:  Status of Forest Service's Efforts to
Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/T-RCED-99-241, June 29,
1999). 

   FIELD OFFICES CONTINUE TO PLAN
   AND BUDGET WITHOUT QUANTIFIABLE
   OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

As the Forest Service works to develop quantifiable objectives,
implementable strategies, and measurable indicators of progress, many
forest plans are being revised or are due for revision.  In addition,
funds continue to be allocated to regions and forests on the basis of
old criteria that are often not linked to the agency's new strategic
goals.  Finally, although the agency intends to modify its managers'
performance standards to reflect its goals and objectives, it cannot
establish clear standards for holding these officials accountable
until it develops appropriate objectives, strategies, and measures of
progress. 

      FOREST PLANS ARE BEING
      REVISED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1

The last of the 123 forest plans covering all 155 forests in the
National Forest System was approved in 1995.  Twelve of the forest
plansï¿½costing an estimated $3 million each, or a total of $36
million--have already been revised, and 20 more plansï¿½costing another
$60 million--are scheduled for completion in 1999 and 2000.  However,
the Forest Service has not determined how or if the national forests
will blend agencywide objectives and strategies with local priorities
in revising their plans. 

The approach taken by Interior's National Park Service suggests some
positive insights for the Forest Service in linking plans to
results.\18 The agency already requires the 376 separate units in the
National Park System to develop strategic plans to address applicable
agencywide goals, as well as goals specific to each unit's unique
legislative and operating environments.  Both the agency and
individual parks and programs have prepared strategic and annual
performance plans with measurable outcome-related goals. 

--------------------
\18 National Park Service:  Efforts to Link Resources to Results
Suggest Insights for Other Agencies (GAO/AIMD-98-113, Apr.  10,
1998). 

      OLD BUDGET ALLOCATION
      CRITERIA ARE BEING USED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.2

Since fiscal year 1996, the Forest Service has used criteria to
allocate appropriated funds to its field offices.  However, the
criteria used by the agency often are not linked to its
performance-based goals and objectives. 

As the Forest Service noted in its fiscal year 2000 budget
justification, a criteria-based approach for allocating funds (1)
improves the objectivity and rationality of the budget as a process
for establishing policy and program priorities and (2) establishes a
visible and rational basis for allocating resources.  According to
the agency, it assigns annual funding to its field offices on the
basis of their ability to achieve agencywide goals and objectives. 
However, the Washington Office's criteria for allocating funds to the
field offices continue to be linked primarily to resource-specific
programs and activities, such as timber sales and controlled fires,
rather than to goals and objectives, which increasingly require that
these programs and activities be integrated to achieve broader
stewardship objectives, such as reducing the risk of uncontrollable
wildfires.\19

For instance, about half of the funding for timber sales in fiscal
year 2000 will be used to support the agency's land health mission
through activities designed to restore or protect the ecological
integrity of forested ecosystems.  However, all three of the budget
criteria for allocating the $197 million requested to manage timber
sales in fiscal year 2000 relate to the cost-effectiveness of
preparing and administering the sales, not to restoring or protecting
forested ecosystems.  (See table 3.3.)

                               Table 3.3
                
                   Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Allocation
                  Criteria for Timber Sales Management

Criterion                                                       Weight
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Amount of green volume that could be                        50 percent
 produced at current service level
Amount of green timber that could be                        25 percent
 produced with unlimited funding
3-year average of green timber offered                      25 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Forest Service. 

Similarly, under its goal of service to people, the Forest Service
has singled out recreation for special emphasis and funding, and the
Chief has committed the agency to providing superior customer service
and quality settings and experiences.  However, all five of the
budget criteria for allocating the $145 million requested for
recreation management in fiscal year 2000 relate solely to the
quantity rather than the quality of recreational experiences on the
national forests.  (See table 3.4.)

                               Table 3.4
                
                   Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Allocation
                   Criteria for Recreation Management

Criterion                                                       Weight
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Recreation use (in millions of visitor                      31 percent
 days)
Developed site capacity (in persons at                      30 percent
 one time)
Acres of nonwilderness national forests                     18 percent
 and grasslands
Existing miles of nonwilderness trails                      12 percent
Number of special use permits (for ski                       9 percent
 areas, resort lodges, marinas, guide
 services, private recreational cabins,
 etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Forest Service. 

Basing the allocation of funds for recreation management solely on
the quantity rather than the quality of recreational experiences on
the national forests could work counter to the agency's commitment to
providing superior customer service and quality settings and
experiences and could give forests an incentive to maintain
substandard facilities and sites.  For example, on the Mark Twain
National Forest in Missouri, we visited one campground with numerous
substandard facilities, including a water and sewer system that posed
potential health and safety hazards.  Another campground on the
forest was not only substandard but also clearly inferior to other
federal, state, local, and private campgrounds in the immediate
vicinity.  However, the forest's future years' funding for developed
facilities and sites is based primarily on developed site capacity
and the total number of visitor days rather than the quality of the
sites and the recreational experience.  Therefore, the forest is
reluctant to close the campgrounds or turn their management over to
another federal or nonfederal entity for fear that its future years'
funding could be reduced. 

According to the National Academy of Public Administration,\20 using
a criteria-based approach for allocating funds does not result in
budgets that reflect the Forest Service's changing priorities, nor
does it allow the agency to hold field organizations and employees
fully accountable for expenditures or performance.\21 The Academy
observed that distributing budget resources on the basis of
allocation criteria ï¿½is a poor substitute for making hard choices
among alternatives given limited resources.ï¿½ The Academy recommended
replacing the Forest Service's criteria-based approach with one based
on the agency's strategic plan and the level of resources needed to
accomplish stated goals and objectives. 

--------------------
\19 Forest Service Management:  Little Has Changed as a Result of the
Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.  2, 1998) and
Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2, 1999). 

\20 The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent,
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization chartered by the Congress to help
federal, state, and local governments improve their performance. 

\21 Restoring Managerial Accountability to the United States Forest
Service, Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public
Administration for the United States Forest Service (Aug.  1999). 

      MANAGERS' PERFORMANCE CANNOT
      BE TIED TO STRATEGIC GOALS
      AND OBJECTIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.3

Integrating human resource management activities into an agency's
organizational mission rather than treating the activities as
isolated support functions can improve the implementation of
performance-based management.\22 This sort of integration is
particularly important in a highly decentralized and autonomous
organization like the Forest Service and may include tying individual
performance management, career development programs, and pay and
promotion standards to the agency's goals and objectives. 

According to the Forest Service, it intends to link accountability
for achieving its goals and objectives to the performance of
individuals.  Key performance measures and indicators will become
part of the standards used to evaluate their annual performance. 
Toward this end, the agency has modified the performance standards
for some of its managers to establish a link to its goals and
objectives.  The agency is also developing a communication plan for
explaining the scope, approach, and importance of performance
accountability to its employees and customers. 

However, without quantifiable objectives, implementable strategies,
and measurable indicators of progress, Forest Service officials
cannot be held accountable for their performance.  For instance,
since the agency has not reached agreement on a definition of forest
health, activities needed to achieve one definition of forest health,
such as tree stand conditions, might conflict with activities needed
to achieve another definition of forest health, such as the
ecological integrity of forested ecosystems.  Numerous administrative
appeals and judicial actions have been filed by environmental groups
out of concern that efforts to improve the health of tree
standsï¿½which would be implemented, in part, through timber
harvestingï¿½might exacerbate problems affecting species, habitat, or
watersheds.  Thus, depending on the operative definition of forest
health, a manager could be rewarded or punished for the same action. 

In addition, some of the Forest Service's annual performance measures
do not adequately reflect accomplishments or progress toward
achieving the agency's goals and objectives.  For instance, if
managers are held accountable for meeting the agency's acreage
targets for reducing hazardous fuels, then they will continue to
focus on areas where the costs of reducing fuels are low so that they
can reduce fuels on more acres, rather than on those areas with the
highest fire hazards, including especially the wildland/urban
interfaces. 

--------------------
\22 Transforming the Civil Service:  Building the Workforce of the
Future, Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 
20, 1995). 

THE FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET
STRUCTURE IS NOT CLEARLY LINKED TO
ITS LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
============================================================ Chapter 4

As discussed in chapter 3, the Forest Service is (1) refocusing the
mix of its activities, shifting from producing timber and other goods
and services toward restoring or protecting land health and forest
resources, and (2) attempting to identify where or under what
circumstances it should restore degraded lands through active
management rather than allow nature to take its course.  These issues
are controversial and represent significant changes in the agency's
mission and funding priorities and management approaches.  It is,
therefore, important for the Forest Service to provide the Congress
with a clear understanding of what is being achieved with the funds
that are being spent.  However, over time, the link between the
agency's budget structure and land management activities has
weakened. 

As of August 1999, the Forest Service was working with its
appropriations subcommittees, the Department of Agriculture, and OMB
to present a revised budget structure with its fiscal year 2001
budget request.  However, although we believe that the Forest
Service's budget structure should be revised to better link it to the
agency's strategic goals and objectives, we also believe that any
future revisions should coincide with actions required to correct
known accounting and financial reporting deficiencies as well as
problems with performance-related data, measurement, and reporting. 
As discussed in this report, major barriers to financial
accountability remain and the performance measures needed to gauge
the Forest Service's progress in achieving its goals and objectives
have not been developed. 

   HOW THE FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET
   IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Each year the President's budget proposes and the Congress
appropriates moneys to fund the Forest Service's programs and
activities as part of the appropriations act for the Department of
the Interior and related agencies.  For fiscal year 1999, the
agency's budget included 10 discretionary appropriations (budget
accounts).  In committee reports, the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations allocated funds within 5 of the Forest Service's 10
discretionary appropriations to 21 ï¿½budget line itemsï¿½ and 34
ï¿½extended budget line items.ï¿½\1 (See table 4.1.) These budget line
items and extended budget line items are intended to provide a
meaningful representation of the operations financed by the five
appropriations.  Within the agency's largest discretionary
appropriation--National Forest System--budget line items and extended
budget line items are generally used to fund the system's nine
resource-specific programs identified in figure 1.1. 

                                        Table 4.1
                         
                          The Forest Service's Fiscal Year 1999
                            Budget Structure for Discretionary
                                      Appropriations

Appropriation (budget account)               Budget line item/extended budget line item
-------------------------------------------  --------------------------------------------
National Forest System                       Land management planning

                                             Inventory and monitoring

                                             Recreation use

                                              Recreation management

                                              Wilderness management

                                              Heritage resources

                                             Wildlife and fisheries habitat management

                                              Wildlife habitat management

                                              Inland fisheries habitat management

                                              Anadromous fisheries habitat management

                                              Threatened, endangered, and sensitive
                                             species habitat management

                                             Rangeland management

                                              Grazing management

                                              Range vegetation management

                                             Forestland management

                                              Timber sales management

                                              Forestland vegetation management

                                             Soil, water, and air management

                                              Soil, water, and air operations

                                              Watershed improvements

                                             Minerals and geology management

                                             Landownership management

                                              Real estate management

                                              Land line location

                                             Infrastructure management

                                              Facility maintenance (nonrecreation)

                                              Facility maintenance (recreation)

                                              Trail maintenance

                                             Law enforcement operations

                                             General administration

State and Private Forestry                   Forest health management

                                              Federal lands

                                              Cooperative lands

                                             Cooperative fire protection

                                              State fire assistance

                                              Volunteer fire assistance

                                             Cooperative forestry

                                              Forest stewardship

                                              Stewardship incentives program

                                              Forest legacy program

                                              Economic action program

                                              Pacific Northwest assistance programs

                                              Urban and community forestry

Forest and Rangeland Research                None

Wildland Fire Management                     Preparedness

                                             Operations

Reconstruction and Construction              Facilities

                                              Research

                                              Fire, administrative, and other

                                              Recreation

                                             Roads and trails

                                              Roads reconstruction and construction

                                              Roads maintenance and decommissioning

                                              Trails reconstruction and construction

Land Acquisition--Land and Water             Acquisition management
Conservation Fund

                                             Land purchase

Acquisition of lands for national forests-   None
-special acts

Acquisition of lands to complete exchanges   None

Range Betterment Fund                        None

Gifts, donations, and bequests--Forest       None
Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Forest Service's fiscal year 2000 budget justification
(explanatory notes). 

--------------------
\1 Among the four major federal land management agencies, budget line
items and extended budget line items are unique to the Forest
Service.  For the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, budget line items and
extended budget line items are referred to as program activities and
subactivities, respectively, in the agencies' respective budget
documents. 

   THE FOREST SERVICE'S BUDGET
   STRUCTURE AND LAND MANAGEMENT
   ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CLEARLY
   LINKED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

One purpose of the Results Act is to improve the link between
allocating resources and achieving results with those resources. 
However, over time, the link between the Forest Service's budget
structure and land management activities has weakened.  This
weakening occurs when the Forest Service's regions, forests, and
districts either (1) disaggregate funds within a budget line item or
extended budget line item to accomplish multiple objectives or (2)
consolidate funds from two or more appropriations and/or aggregate
funds from various budget line items and extended budget line items
within an appropriation to address problems or issues whose scope
exceeds that of individual resource-specific programs.\2

The Forest Service's current budget structure was developed over time
to respond to specific needs.  Budget line items and extended budget
line items are directly linked to the agency's resource-specific
programs, which, in turn, are intended to fund program-specific
projects and activities in the field.  While the Forest Service's
needs have changed, its budget and program structures have not. 

For example, a decade ago, the Congress could be reasonably assured
that funds allocated to the Forest Service's Forest Management
program for timber sales would be used primarily to produce
commercially valuable timber to help meet the nation's demand for
wood products.  Today, however, timber sales are increasingly being
used to restore degraded ecosystems, and approximately half of the
timber being removed from the national forests is being removed for
stewardship purposesï¿½mostly to accomplish forest-health-related
objectives.\3 For instance, most of the trees that need to be removed
to reduce accumulated fuels and lower the risk of catastrophic fires
are small in diameter and have little or no commercial value.\4 As a
result, funds allocated to the agency's Forest Management program for
timber sales must now be disaggregated to accomplish both commodity
and stewardship objectives. 

Conversely, the Forest Service's regions, forests, and districts must
consolidate funds from two or more appropriations and/or aggregate
funds from various budget line items and extended budget line items
within an appropriation to address problems or issues that cut across
the boundaries of resource-specific programs.  These problems and
issues include protecting the habitats of the northern spotted owl
and other wide-ranging species,\5 reducing the growing threat of
catastrophic wildfires,\6 mitigating sediment levels in streams to
ensure safe drinking water,\7 and preventing and suppressing damaging
insect and disease infestations. 

For example, the agency has agreed to develop a cohesive strategy to
address the growing threat of catastrophic wildfires in the interior
West.  This strategy will involve most, if not all, of the 91
national forests in the region.\8 According to the Forest Service,
reducing this threat will require ï¿½a full range of tools,ï¿½ including
timber sales, thinning, watershed improvement projects, wildlife
habitat treatments, prescribed fires, and mechanical treatments and
will involve staff representing programs in fire management, forest
health, forest management, watersheds, fire research and development,
and wildlife and fish management.  Such a strategy must consolidate
funds from at least four discretionary appropriationsï¿½the National
Forest System, which funds the national forests; State and Private
Forestry, which funds special grants to communities at risk of
wildfire; Forest and Rangeland Research, which funds fire-related
research; and Wildland Fire Management, which funds programs for
reducing hazardous fuels.  Moreover, within the National Forest
System appropriation, the strategy will need to aggregate funds from
many budget line items, including those that support programs
responsible for timber, wildlife and fish, recreation, and water and
air quality.\9

The lack of a clear link between the Forest Service's current budget
structure and its performance goals and objectives is exemplified by
the effort of the agency's Washington Office to link or crosswalk 3
of its 34 extended budget line items to 5 of its 23 performance
objectives.  (See fig.  4.1.) For example, for every dollar allocated
for Forest Stewardship, the Forest Service estimates that $0.05 will
be spent to ensure healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems, $0.60 will
be spent to ensure healthy and diverse forestlands, $0.05 will be
spent to provide quality recreational experiences, and $0.30 will be
spent to provide for a sustainable yield of wood and forest products. 

   Figure 4.1:  Linking Three
   Extended Budget Line Items to
   Five Performance Objectives

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of Forest Service data. 

The link between the Forest Service's current budget structure and
its performance goals and objectives becomes even less clear and more
complex as more appropriations, budget line items, and extended
budget line items are crosswalked to more performance objectives. 
Moreover, the Forest Service's regions, forests, and districts
currently have no way to track or report how actual spending compares
with planned spending by performance goal and objective.  Faced with
a similar situation, the National Park Service designed an entirely
separate information system to report each park's estimates of
spending by performance goal and objective.\10 However, where such
record-keeping is simply informational and not a matter of fund
control, the accuracy and completeness of the information could come
into question, according to the Pinchot Institute.\11

--------------------
\2 The Results Act permits agencies to aggregate, disaggregate, or
consolidate the program activities in their budgets (budget line
items and extended budget line items) so that the activities are
aligned with the goals presented in the performance plans. 
Aggregation combines program activities within one of an agency's
budget accounts (appropriations).  Disaggregation breaks a single
program activity in one budget account into two or more activities. 
Consolidation combines some or all of the program activities in two
separate budget accounts to form a single program activity that
appears in the performance plan.  See Agencies' Annual Performance
Plans Under the Results Act:  An Assessment Guide to Facilitate
Congressional Decisionmaking, Version 1, (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18, Feb. 
1998). 

\3 Forest Service:  Amount of Timber Offered, Sold, and Harvested,
and Timber Sales Outlays, Fiscal Years 1992 Through 1997
(GAO/RCED-99-174, June 15, 1999) and Forest Service Management: 
Little Has Changed as a Result of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms
(GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.  2, 1998). 

\4 Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2,
1999). 

\5 Ecosystem Planning:  Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River
Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use Planning
(GAO/RCED-99-64, May 26, 1999). 

\6 Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2,
1999). 

\7 Oregon Watersheds:  Many Activities Contribute to Increased
Turbidity During Large Storms (GAO/RCED-98-220, July 29, 1998). 

\8 Western National Forests:  Status of Forest Service's Efforts to
Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/T-RCED-99-241, June 29,
1999). 

\9 Western National Forests:  Status of Forest Service's Efforts to
Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/T-RCED-99-241, June 29,
1999).

\10 National Park Service:  Efforts to Link Resources to Results
Suggest Insights for Other Agencies (GAO/AIMD-98-113, Apr.  10,
1998). 

\11 ï¿½Toward Integrated Resource Management on the National Forests: 
Understanding Forest Service Budget Reform,ï¿½ Pinchot Institute for
Conservation, Washington, D.C.  (Mar.  4, 1997.)

   THE FOREST SERVICE IS
   ATTEMPTING TO LINK ITS BUDGET
   STRUCTURE WITH ITS PERFORMANCE
   GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

Ultimately, any changes to the Forest Service's budget structure must
be cleared by OMB and will result from negotiations between the
agency and its appropriations subcommittees.  All the parties have
indicated their willingness to better link the Forest Service's
budget to its performance goals and objectives. 

In its circular on the Results Act (A-11), OMB encourages agencies to
consider changes to their budget account structure that would ï¿½lead
to more thematic or functional presentations of both budget and
performance information, thereby enhancing the understanding of
programs and measures of performance.ï¿½ According to OMB, current
differences between the program activities structure in an agency's
budget and the program activities structure in its performance plans
should eventually diminish as the agency modifies either its budget
structure or its performance goals and objectives. 

In its report on the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and related agencies (S.  Rep.  No. 
106-99), the Senate Committee on Appropriations stated that the
Forest Service's current budget structure ï¿½does not accurately
reflect current programs and does not provide an adequate linkage to
a performance measurement process that will improve accountability
and performance.ï¿½ The Committee believes that it is important for the
Forest Service to present a revised budget structure with its fiscal
year 2001 budget request that ï¿½reflects the agency mission; provides
a strong linkage to the Government Performance and Results Act
strategic goals; incorporates annual performance measures; and
improves overall accountability.ï¿½

According to the Forest Service, the annual performance plans it
prepares under the Results Act (see ch.  3) are intended to be the
basic management tool for directing resources and budgets to programs
and activities that move the agency toward accomplishing its
long-term goals and outcomes.  In its fiscal year 2000 budget
justification, the agency recognizes the need to link its budget
structure and accounting information with its performance information
to ensure accountability and improve management. 

In its report on the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and related agencies (H.R.  Rep.  No. 
105-609), the House Committee on Appropriations directed the Forest
Service to contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration to assess the restructuring of the Forest Service's
budget.  In the interim, the Forest Service included as a separate
component in its fiscal year 2000 budget justification a preliminary
proposal to change its budget structure to one that it believes is
better linked to its proposed objectives.  The proposed changes were
confined to 2 of the agency's 10 discretionary
appropriationsï¿½Reconstruction and Construction and the National
Forest System.  (See table 4.1.) For fiscal year 2000, the Forest
Service proposed, and the Committees accepted, a new
appropriationï¿½ultimately titled Reconstruction and Maintenanceï¿½to
consolidate and restructure (1) the Reconstruction and Construction
appropriation and (2) the infrastructure management budget line item
and extended budget line items within the National Forest System
appropriation.  The Forest Service also presented a preliminary
proposal to replace the remaining 11 budget line items and 15
extended budget line items within the National Forest System
appropriation with 4 budget line items and 7 extended budget line
items.  (See table 4.2.)

                               Table 4.2
                
                    The Forest Service's Preliminary
                Proposal to Consolidate and Restructure
                the National Forest System Appropriation

Budget line items                         Extended budget line items
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Forest and rangeland health               None

Fish and wildlife conservation            None

Conservation of soil, water, and air      None
resources

Public benefits                           Recreation use management
                                          Grazing use management
                                          Timber sales management
                                          Minerals and geology
                                          management
                                          Landownership management
                                          Law enforcement operations
                                          Planning, inventory, and
                                          monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Forest Service's fiscal year 2000 budget justification. 

The Forest Service's preliminary proposal to revise its budget
structure would have better linked the National Forest System
appropriation with the performance goals and objectives in the
agency's September 1997 strategic plan and first two annual
performance plans prepared under the Results Act. 

The Committees did not accept the Forest Service's preliminary
proposal to make further changes to the National Forest System
appropriation, choosing instead to await the results of the study by
the National Academy of Public Administration.  In its August 1999
report, the Academy proposed changes to the National Forest System
appropriation as well as to the agency's Wildland Fire Management
appropriation.\12 As of August 1999, the Forest Service was working
with its appropriations subcommittees, the Department of Agriculture,
and OMB to present a revised budget structure with its fiscal year
2001 budget request. 

In a December 1998 report on Forest Service management,\13 we
concluded that further changes to the Forest Service's budget
structure seemed to be warranted to facilitate the agency's
management of the 155 national forests, and we recommended that the
agency's budget structure be revised to establish better links to the
Forest Service's strategic goals and objectives.  However, we also
maintained that any future revisions should coincide with actions
required to correct known accounting and financial reporting
deficiencies as well as problems with performance-related data,
measurement, and reporting.  As discussed in this report, major
barriers to financial accountability remain, and the performance
measures needed to gauge the Forest Service's progress in achieving
its goals and objectives have not been developed. 

--------------------
\12 Restoring Managerial Accountability to the United States Forest
Service, Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public
Administration for the United States Forest Service (Aug.  1999). 

\13 Forest Service Management:  Little Has Changed as a Result of the
Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.  2, 1998). 

DESKTOP GUIDE TO THE FOREST
SERVICE'S MANAGEMENT DEFICIENCIES
AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

   ACCOUNTING WEAKNESSES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

According to the February 1999 report of the Department of
Agriculture's Inspector General on his audit of the Forest Service's
fiscal year 1998 financial statementsï¿½a disclaimer of opinionï¿½the
Forest Service remains unable to reliably keep track of major assets
worth billions of dollars, cannot accurately allocate revenues and
costs to its programs, and made significant errors in preparing its
financial statements.  Specifically, the report stated that
continuing financial management deficiencies prevented the Forest
Service from preparing complete, reliable, and consistent financial
statements.  In addition, the agency lacks an integrated accounting
system, and problems within the current system resulted in inaccurate
and unreliable financial data.  Finally, internal controls were not
sufficient to safeguard assets or to ensure that field-level data
were accurate. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

The Forest Service has made some improvements, but significant work
is still needed.  Forest Service personnel conducted real property
inventories for the first time in many years in fiscal year 1998. 
The Forest Service established a team to review its budget and
accounting activities and to recommend ways of simplifying and
improving its business operations.  The Forest Service also
implemented sweeping changes in its management structure to improve
accountability and reform its financial systems.  The Forest Service
restructured its Washington Office management team in April 1998 to
create functional lines of accountability for fiscal management that
report directly to the Chief of the Forest Service.  The agency has
also consolidated its budgeting, financial management, financial
systems development and operations, and related analytical and
quality assurance functions in a new central office headed by a Chief
Financial Officer.  This new organization and management team should
help provide the strong management and leadership needed by the
Forest Service to correct its long-standing accounting and reporting
deficiencies. 

   IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW
   ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The Department of Agriculture's current financial accounting system,
the Central Accounting System (CAS) is not in compliance with the
U.S.  Government Standard General Ledger,\1 is not well integrated,
and is generally outdated.  In 1994, the Department's Office of the
Chief Financial Officer purchased a system, the Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS), to replace CAS departmentwide.  Because of
financial deficiencies at the Forest Service, the Department decided
that the Forest Service would be one of the first of its agencies to
implement FFIS.  However, the system failed to operate properly at
the three operating units where it was installed, (e.g., it could not
produce certain critical budgetary and accounting reports that track
obligations, assets, liabilities, revenues, and costs) because the
Forest Service did not simplify its business processes before
implementing FFIS, added feeder systems to FFIS, implemented the
system before it was fully tested, and exercised inadequate oversight
and management control over the project. 

--------------------
\1 The U.S.  Government Standard General Ledger provides a standard
chart of accounts and standardized transactions that agencies are to
use in all their financial systems. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

Because of these difficulties, the Forest Service has deferred the
full implementation of FFIS in all of its units until October 1,
1999.  The Forest Service has established two teams to manage the
FFIS project--a functional team responsible for implementing FFIS
agencywide, providing training, and integrating accounting standards,
new business practices, and policies and procedures with financial
systems; and a technical team responsible for providing technical
input, ensuring that infrastructure exists to support FFIS,
monitoring performance, and preparing and maintaining system and
application documentation.  Heading the project is the Forest
Service's new Chief Financial Officer, who has experience with the
FFIS software package.  Forest Service officials told us that
implementation is on schedule for release to the remainder of the
agency at the beginning of fiscal year 2000. 

   THE FOREST SERVICE'S FIELD
   STRUCTURE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The Forest Service's largely autonomous field organization may hinder
top management's ability to gain the full participation of all
regional fiscal directors in efforts to achieve financial
accountability. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

A consultant hired by the Forest Service recommended that the agency
establish a new position of Deputy Chief, Chief Financial Officer,
who would consolidate all of the financial management functions
within the Washington Office.  In addition, the consultant advised
the replication of the national financial management structure at the
regional level, recommending that a Deputy Regional Forester for
Financial Management/Chief Financial Officer be established within
each region. 

The Forest Service restructured its national office management team
in April 1998 to create functional lines of accountability for fiscal
management that report directly to the Chief of the Forest Service. 
Three new management positions were created:  a Chief Operating
Officer, a Deputy Chief/Chief Financial Officer, and a Deputy Chief
for Business Operations.  The agency will decide whether to hire
chief financial officers at the regional level after it has
implemented FFIS agencywide. 

This restructuring addresses some of the concerns we have previously
raised about the Forest Service's management structure.  However, the
key issue about the autonomous field structure, as it relates to
financial management, remains unresolved. 

   RETROACTIVE REDISTRIBUTION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

According to the Forest Service, expenditures are often correctly
recorded to the management codes worked but are then reassigned to
different codes, depending upon the availability of funds, through a
practice known as retroactive redistribution.  However, retroactive
redistribution leaves no record of changes in expenditures, making it
difficult if not impossible to identify where changes occurred. 
Given the number of transactions and lines of accounting and the
detail involved, accountability is lost. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

For fiscal year 1999, retroactive redistribution is not an option for
units using the new accounting system, FFIS.  Other units still using
the old accounting system, CAS, have been directed to substantially
curtail the use of retroactive redistribution.  Unavoidable changes
must be properly authorized, approved, justified, and supported with
documentation to provide an audit trail of retroactive redistribution
activities under CAS. 

The Forest Service has said that regional foresters, station
directors, area directors, the International Institute of Tropical
Forestry director, and the Deputy Chief, Chief Financial Officer,
will be responsible for establishing controls to ensure that the
authorizations and documentation take place. 

According to the Forest Service, retroactive redistribution will no
longer be feasible after the agency fully implements FFIS on October
1, 1999. 

   CHARGING ï¿½AS BUDGETEDï¿½ AND NOT
   ï¿½AS WORKEDï¿½
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

Under the benefiting function concept embodied in the fiscal year
1995 budget reforms, programs (such as Forest Management and
Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources) are expected to pay
the costs of support services provided by other programs.  However,
staff from programs providing support services may not always charge
their costs to the benefiting program if the program primarily
benefiting from the work has not been clearly identified, defined, or
understood.  In addition, individual programs that underestimate the
costs of a project or otherwise do not have the funds needed to pay
for a project's support services may require other programs to absorb
the costs of the services.  This practice of charging ï¿½as budgetedï¿½
and not ï¿½as workedï¿½ circumvents the requirements established by the
appropriations committees and the agency for moving funds between
line items and understates a project's costs.  It also precludes the
Forest Service from providing the Congress and other interested
parties with meaningful, useful, and reliable information on the
costs and the accomplishments of programs. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.1

Several regional and forest offices have issued guidance to managers
that explains how to identify the benefiting program and stresses the
importance of charging work to it.  However, agency officials
informed us that charging ï¿½as budgetedï¿½ and not ï¿½as workedï¿½ was
sometimes more acceptable than not doing the project, requesting the
brokering of funds between offices or regions, or requesting a
time-consuming and possibly uncertain reprogramming of funds.  They
further stated that, if reasonably final budgets are distributed to
the field in a timely manner, managers may be better able to plan
projects within their program's available funding levels.  Guidance
reinforcing the need for reliable information on the costs of
projects is also required. 

   BUDGET ALLOCATION CRITERIA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

The Forest Service has developed agencywide criteria to allocate
appropriated funds to its regions to improve the objectivity and
rationality of the budget as a process for establishing policy and
program priorities.  However, the budget allocation criteria are
often not linked to the agency's strategic goals and objectives. 
Rather than develop new criteria or improve existing ones to better
align them with its mission and funding priorities, the agency has
been trying to use old resource-specific allocation criteria with its
new integrated-resource goals and objectives. 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.1

The Forest Service has reported that, given the complexity of
managing natural resources, no set of criteria will yield the optimal
allocation.  Management review will still be required to ensure the
proper distribution of funds.  Agency officials informed us that,
while efforts to improve the budget allocation criteria were ongoing,
no specific changes to the fiscal year 1999 budget allocation
criteria were made to assist in planning the fiscal year 2000 budget. 

   INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

Currently, there is no clear link between the Forest Service's
strategic goals and objectives and its performance measures.  The
agency's performance measures often do not adequately reflect the
agency's accomplishments or progress toward achieving its goals and
objectives.  In addition, the Forest Service's existing indicators
often measure quantity and outputs when they should be measuring
quality and outcomes, do not measure outputs consistently, and are
not reliable.  For instance, the agency counts facilities and miles
of Forest Service-managed roads as accomplishments toward its
strategic objective of improving customer satisfaction even when the
facilities are not maintained ï¿½to standardï¿½ and the roads are ï¿½less
than fully maintained.ï¿½

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.1

Over the last year, the Forest Service has made some progress in
identifying long-term performance measures and in reducing the number
of annual indicators in its performance plan.  For instance, in its
fiscal year 2000 budget justification, the Forest Service proposed a
set of long-term measures for its proposed objectives.  During an
April 7, 1999, consultation between Forest Service and congressional
staff, the agency identified a subset of these measures that it
intends to implement agencywide in fiscal year 2000. 

   INDIRECT COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8

Indirect costs (overhead) have risen over time; however, accounting
inconsistencies make it difficult to ascertain specifically why.  An
essential step for controlling indirect costs is establishing clear
definitions for them and applying the definitions consistently over
time and across locations.\2

--------------------
\2 Forest Service:  Better Procedures and Oversight Needed to Address
Indirect Expenditures (GAO/RCED-98-258, Aug.  28, 1998). 

      STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.1

As directed by Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the
Forest Service submitted proposed definitions of indirect costs in
its fiscal year 2000 budget justification to the appropriations
committees.  The agency reported that these definitions were
consistent with standards developed by the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board and will be used consistently within the
agency's cost accounting system to display the full cost of
activities.  In addition, the Forest Service included in its budget
submission a spreadsheet displaying estimates of indirect costs by
extended budget line item for the Forest Service's regions, stations,
and Washington Office.  The Forest Service estimates indirect costs
at about 19 percent of total funding. 

THE FOREST SERVICE'S PROPOSED
OUTCOMES AND HIGH-PRIORITY
LONG-TERM AND ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
MEASURES FOR ITS LAND HEALTH AND
SERVICE TO PEOPLE OBJECTIVES
========================================================== Appendix II

Proposed outcome  Long-term performance measures      Annual performance measures
----------------  ----------------------------------  -----------------------------------
Clean water        Trends in miles of streams and     Miles of riparian areas and acres
                  acres of lakes meeting state water  of wetlands restored
                  quality standards

                   Trends in miles of riparian
                  areas that are properly
                  functioning, functionally at risk,
                  nonfunctional, and not assessed

                   [Trends in watersheds where the
                  timing and magnitude of flow
                  regimes are within the range of
                  natural variability]

                   [Trends in road and trail          Miles of roads and trails
                  mileage that meet environmental     reconstructed, maintained, and
                  standards/best management           decommissioned to improve soil,
                  practices]                          water, and air quality

                                                       Number of hazardous material and
                                                      abandoned/inactive mine sites
                                                      reclaimed

Healthy forests    Trends in acres at risk from       Acres of forests and grasslands
and grasslands    native insects and diseases         treated to reduce unacceptable risk
                                                      from native insects and diseases

                   Trends in acres at risk from       Acres of forests and grasslands
                  invasive plants and/or exotic       treated to reduce unacceptable
                  insects and diseases                levels of invasive plants and
                                                      exotic insects and/or diseases

                   Trends in acres at risk from       Acres of forests and grasslands
                  wildland fires                      treated through prescribed fire and
                                                      mechanical treatments to reduce
                                                      unacceptable levels of hazardous
                                                      fuels

                                                       Feet of fireline constructed to
                                                      protect firefighting capability

                                                       Trends in firefighter resources
                                                      available for wildland fire
                                                      suppression

                                                       Dollar value of federal excess
                                                      personal property equipment for
                                                      fire suppression loaned to states

                                                       Number of volunteer fire
                                                      departments assisted

                   Trends in number of endangered
                  rare plant species

                   [Trends in ecological integrity
                  ratings by ecoregion]

                   [Trends in achieving land-         Acres acquired and/or exchanged
                  ownership patterns that promote or  in support of desired ecological
                  improve desired forest and          conditions or land patterns
                  grassland conditions]               (specifics to be added later)

                                                       Acres of land acquired through
                                                      the forest legacy program

                                                       Number of forest legacy state-
                                                      level needs assessments completed

                                                       Number of forest stewardship
                                                      plans completed

                                                       Acres of land in stewardship
                                                      management plans

                                                       Acres of multiresource practices
                                                      implemented through stewardship
                                                      incentives practices

Robust fish and    Trends in number of endangered     Number of conservation agreements
wildlife          fish and wildlife species           signed
populations
(improved
viability)

                   Population trends for selected     Number of recovery and
                  species                             conservation actions taken

                   Habitat trends for selected        Acres and miles of habitat
                  species                             improved

Clean air          Trends in the percentage of air    None
                  quality monitoring sites meeting
                  or moving toward attainment of air
                  quality objectives

Productive soils   Trends in acres meeting soil       None
                  quality standards

Quality outdoor    [Trends in recreation quality      Percentage of estimated capacity
recreation and    and use of recreation capacity]     used for dispersed recreation,
natural settings                                      developed recreation, and
                                                      congressionally designated areas

                   Trends in acres and constructed    Percentage of acres meeting
                  features meeting scenic integrity   scenic quality and land ownership
                  objectives                          pattern objectives

                                                       Number of heritage sites
                                                      protected

                                                       Acres inventoried for heritage
                                                      sites

                                                       Acres of wilderness condition
                                                      inventoried

                                                       Percentage of scheduled measures
                                                      implemented for congressionally
                                                      designated areas

                   [Trends in deferred recreation     Number of facilities and miles of
                  facility maintenance]               roads and trails constructed,
                                                      reconstructed, and maintained

                   [Trends in recreation user
                  satisfaction by use and geographic
                  region]

Improved urban     Proportional range between         [Number of communities
environments      growth in population and land use;  implementing urban natural resource
                  retention and/or enhancement of     assessments/projects]
                  green infrastructure

                                                       Number of participating
                                                      communities

                                                       Number of technical assists to
                                                      communities

                                                       Hours of volunteer assistance
                                                      generated

                   Adoption of new technology by
                  urban policymakers to reduce
                  infrastructure costs and improve
                  environmental quality

Healthy rural      [Trends in selected indicators     Number of rural communities
communities       of community vitality]              working under broad-based local
                                                      strategic plans

                                                       [Percentage of participating
                                                      communities using outcome
                                                      measurement systems based on
                                                      strategic plans]

                                                       Number of rural communities using
                                                      outcome measurement systems based
                                                      on local strategic plans

                                                       Number of tribal and minority
                                                      communities receiving assistance

                                                       Number of research studies
                                                      focused on solving resource
                                                      problems

Continuing         Trends in the quantities and/or    Forest and grassland products
availability of   values of a wide variety of goods   provided, including (1) volume of
goods and         and services provided from the      wood fiber sold, (2) revenue from
services          national forests and grasslands,    and number of special forest
                  consistent with maintaining         products sold, (3) number of months
                  ecological integrity                of grazing use, and (4) number of
                                                      minerals operations

                                                       Number of special use
                                                      applications processed and number
                                                      of permits administered to standard

                                                       Number of land and access cases
                                                      resolved to protect or provide
                                                      public and private access

                                                       Miles of boundary marked/
                                                      maintained to standard

                                                       Number of livestock grazing
                                                      allotments administered to standard

                                                       Number of energy and nonenergy
                                                      minerals' operations administered
                                                      to standard

                   Trends in employment and income
                  sustained from the national
                  forests and grasslands

                   Development and application of     [New technology adopted by public
                  new knowledge to ensure the         and private land managers]
                  availability of goods and services

                   [Acres of nonindustrial private
                  forestlands managed with
                  landowners' understanding of
                  options and consequences related
                  to the production of commodities,
                  amenities, services,
                  sustainability, and residual
                  conditions]

Safe public        Trends in criminal activity on     Number of serious safety
lands and         national forests and grasslands     incidents investigated and
facilities                                            corrected

                                                       Number of marijuana plants
                                                      eradicated

                                                       Number of incident, violation,
                                                      and warning notices issued

                                                       Number of investigations
                                                      completed

                                                       Number of patrol hours provided
                                                      through cooperative agreements with
                                                      other law enforcement agencies

                   Trends in the percentage of        Miles of roads and trails and
                  miles of roads and trails and the   number of facilities reconstructed,
                  number of facilities and services   maintained, and decommissioned to
                  meeting public safety standards     meet safety standards

                                                       Percentage of special use permits
                                                      administered to meet safety
                                                      standards

                   [Trends in customers'              [Customers' perception of
                  perceptions of personal security    personal security on national
                  on national forests and             forests and grasslands]
                  grasslands]

Good neighbors     [Trends in public perceptions of   Number of partners and value of
                  the quality of relationships with   partners' contributions
                  national forests and grasslands
                  managers]

                                                       Number of people contacted
                                                      through conservation education
                                                      programs

                                                       Number of Forest Service
                                                      volunteer hours

Improved           Percentage of total acres of       Number of reports and data sets
knowledge and     forest, [grassland, and aquatic]    for forest inventory and health
decisionmaking    ecosystems covered by forest        monitoring activities provided to
to support        inventory and analysis, forest      public and private land managers
management and    health monitoring, or other         that characterize resource status,
use               nationally consistent monitoring    conditions, and trends
                  systems

                                                       Average inventory cycle length
                                                      for updating state-level data in
                                                      the forest inventory and analysis
                                                      monitoring system

                                                       Percentage of plots measured

                                                       Development of new inventory
                                                      technology

                   [Assessments of capacity and       Scientific knowledge provided by
                  accomplishments of the research     research that assists public and
                  and development program by peer     private land managers in meeting
                  review]                             existing legal and regulatory
                                                      requirements

                                                       [Research capacity (scientist
                                                      years, publications, etc.)]

                                                       Number of technology transfer
                                                      activities

                                                       Number of technologies developed
                                                      and transferred to users

                   [Trends in acres meeting forest    Acres of landscape-scale and
                  plan goals for composition,         watershed assessments completed
                  structure, and function and
                  percentage of forests' and          Acres of soil, water, riparian
                  regions' monitoring reports         area, forests, and grasslands
                  consistent with national            inventoried and monitored
                  protocols]

                                                       Percentage of scheduled water
                                                      quality monitoring tasks
                                                      implemented

                                                       Percentage of scheduled air
                                                      quality sites monitored

                                                       Acres monitored for soil quality
                                                      improvements

                                                       Amount (acres and miles) of fish,
                                                      wildlife, and rare plant habitat
                                                      inventoried and monitored
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Bracketed measures [] have been identified, but not developed,
by the Forest Service. 

Source:  The Forest Service's fiscal year 2000 budget justification. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE FOREST SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix II

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO CONTACTS

Charles S.  Cotton, (202) 512-5281
McCoy Williams, (202) 512-6906

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, Marcus R.  Clark, Jr.; Ryan T. 
Coles; Susan L.  Conlon; Elizabeth R.  Eisenstadt; Doreen S. 
Feldman; Kathleen A.  Gilhooly; and Louis J.  Schuster made key
contributions to this report. 

*** End of document. ***