Federal Land Management: Comments on Selected Provisions of S. 1320--A
Bill to Revise Federal Land Management Planning (Testimony, 07/22/1999,
GAO/T-RCED-99-270).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the planning-related
provisions of titles I and II of S. 1320--the Public Lands Planning and
Management Improvement Act of 1999, focusing on the: (1) statutory basis
for the Forest Service's mission priorities; (2) clarity of the mission
statement in S. 1320; and (3) extent to which the bill addresses
identified planning deficiencies.
GAO noted that: (1) over the past 100 years, Congress has enacted four
principal multiple-use laws that guide the management of the 155
national forests in the National Forest System; (2) however, the
forests' management is guided increasingly by the requirements in
environmental laws that apply not only to the Forest Service but also to
other federal agencies; (3) the implementation of these environmental
laws has evolved over many years in response to implementing regulations
and judicial interpretations, and Congress has never explicitly
acknowledged the effects of these laws, regulations, and judicial
decisions on the production of goods and services in the national
forests; (4) the mission statement in S. 1320 would make it clear that
the overriding priority of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is ecosystem sustainability; (5) this mission statement
is consistent with the evolving mission of the Forest Service, as well
as with the fundamental goal of maintaining and restoring ecological
sustainability expressed in the agency's June 12, 1999, preliminary
draft planning rule; (6) however, other sections of the bill still
require some fine tuning and refinement to harmonize them with the
agencies' new mission of ecosystem sustainability; (7) GAO sees two
significant challenges that must be met if the agencies are to
effectively implement their new mission; (8) the first is adequately
quantifying and measuring ecosystem sustainability; (9) the second
challenge will be to determine whether the existing statutory framework
of environmental laws enables the agencies to ensure ecosystem
sustainability; (10) S. 1320 also begins to address many of the
long-standing planning deficiencies that have contributed to delays,
increased costs, and unmet objectives; (11) however, certain sections of
the bill could be improved to increase the efficiency, effectiveness,
and predictability of the agencies' planning processes; (12) for
example, S. 1320 could limit assessments to lands managed by the Forest
Service and BLM; and (13) however, to adequately address ecological
issues and conditions that transcend the administrative boundaries of
the agencies' land management units, as well as assess the cumulative
impacts of proposed activities, assessments will need to include other
federal and nonfederal lands.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-RCED-99-270
TITLE: Federal Land Management: Comments on Selected Provisions
of S. 1320--A Bill to Revise Federal Land Management
Planning
DATE: 07/22/1999
SUBJECT: Environmental monitoring
Environmental policies
Forest management
Environmental law
National forests
Proposed legislation
Agency missions
Strategic planning
******************************************************************
** 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
Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate
For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
2:00 p. m. EDT
Thursday
July 22. 1999
FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT - COMMENTS
ON SELECTED PROVISIONS OF S. 1320
- A BILL TO REVISE FEDERAL LAND
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director,
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-99-270
GAO/RCED-99-270T
(141359)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BLM -
NEPA -
NFMA -
RPA -
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are here today to discuss the planning-related provisions of
titles I and II of S. 1320�the Public Lands Planning and Management
Improvement Act of 1999. The bill would provide new authority and
give greater responsibility and accountability to the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for planning and managing federal
lands under their jurisdiction.
Over the last decade, we have identified long-standing deficiencies
in, as well as improvements to, the planning processes of the Forest
Service and BLM.\1 In addition, we have made numerous recommendations
to improve the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of the agencies'
decision-making and to better ensure that planned objectives are
achieved. As requested, our testimony today will draw from our prior
work to address three issues: (1) the statutory basis for the Forest
Service's current mission priorities, (2) the clarity of the mission
statement in S. 1320, and (3) the extent to which the bill addresses
identified planning deficiencies. In summary:
-- Over the past 100 years, the Congress has enacted four principal
multiple-use laws that guide the management of the 155 national
forests in the National Forest System. However, the forests'
management is guided increasingly by the requirements in
environmental laws that apply not only to the Forest Service but
also to other federal agencies. These laws, unlike the Forest
Service's multiple-use laws, give priority to protecting natural
resources. The implementation of these environmental laws has
evolved over many years in response to implementing regulations
and judicial interpretations, and the Congress has never
explicitly acknowledged the effects of these laws, regulations,
and judicial decisions on the production of goods and services
on the national forests.
-- The mission statement in S. 1320 would make it clear that the
overriding priority of the Forest Service and BLM is ecosystem
sustainability. This mission statement is consistent with the
evolving mission of the Forest Service, which favors resource
protection over production, as well as with the fundamental goal
of maintaining and restoring ecological sustainability expressed
in the agency's June 12, 1999, preliminary draft planning rule.
It is also consistent with the overarching objective of
ecological sustainability identified in a March 15, 1999, report
by a committee of scientists convened by the Secretary of
Agriculture to review and evaluate the Forest Service's planning
process and to identify changes that may be needed to the
agency's planning regulations.\2 Moreover, the mission statement
in S. 1320 acknowledges the effects of sustaining ecosystems on
the availability of other uses on the lands managed by the
Forest Service and BLM. According to the mission statement,
other uses may be available to an extent that is consistent with
ecosystem sustainability. Thus, the bill's mission statement
makes it clear that goods and services on the agencies' lands
would be limited to the types, levels, and mixes imposed by
considerations of land health and ecological sustainability.
However, other sections of the bill still require some fine
tuning and refinement to harmonize them with the agencies' new
mission of ecosystem sustainability. In addition, we see two
significant challenges that must be met if the agencies are to
effectively implement their new mission. The first is
adequately quantifying and measuring �ecosystem sustainability.�
Without this information, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, for the agencies to (1) identify where or under what
circumstances they should actively manage degraded lands to
restore them rather than allow nature to take its course and (2)
demonstrate that goods and services can be produced in ways that
are consistent with sustaining ecosystems. The second challenge
will be to determine whether the existing statutory framework of
environmental laws enables the agencies to ensure ecosystem
sustainability. Currently, there is no statute that
specifically requires federal agencies to sustain ecosystems as
such. Therefore, the agencies would need to turn to the laws
and regulations intended to protect individual natural
resources�such as species, water, and air. However, the
agencies do not know whether these laws will provide the minimum
level of ecological health needed to sustain ecosystems.
Moreover, satisfying the requirements for protecting specific
resources may not always be consistent with providing the
conditions needed to sustain ecosystems, at least in the short
term.
-- S. 1320 also begins to address many of the long-standing
planning deficiencies that have contributed to delays, increased
costs, and unmet objectives. For example, the bill would (1)
require planning to be completed within discrete time frames,
(2) require the agencies to consider funding constraints when
preparing their plans, (3) establish deadlines for filing
appeals and litigation and limit these challenges to the issues
and stakeholders involved in reaching a decision, and (4)
require the agencies to monitor the implementation of their
plans and adapt their management on the basis of new
information. However, certain sections of the bill could be
improved to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and
predictability of the agencies' planning processes. For
example, as written, S. 1320 could limit assessments to lands
managed by the Forest Service and BLM. However, to adequately
address ecological issues and conditions that transcend the
administrative boundaries of the agencies' land management
units, as well as assess the cumulative impacts of proposed
activities, assessments will need to include other federal and
nonfederal lands. In addition, according to the bill,
assessments should consider economic and social as well as
ecological effects. These effects will be difficult to consider
if assessments are limited to Forest Service and BLM lands.
--------------------
\1 See app. I for pertinent GAO products on the decision-making
processes of the Forest Service and BLM.
\2 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).
MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL
FORESTS IS INCREASINGLY GUIDED
BY ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
Over the past 2 decades, the Forest Service has refocused its
activities, shifting from producing goods and services (such as
timber) toward protecting land health and forest resources. This
shift in emphasis has evolved in response to the requirements in
environmental laws and their implementing regulations and judicial
interpretations. However, the Congress has never explicitly
acknowledged the effects of the laws, regulations, and judicial
decisions on the agency's multiple-use mandate.
The Congress has enacted four laws specifically to guide the
management of the national forests. These laws require the Forest
Service to manage the 192 million acres of land in the National
Forest System under the principles of multiple-use and
sustained-yield to meet the diverse needs of the American people.
Under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the national forests
are to be established to improve and protect the forests within their
boundaries or to secure favorable water flow conditions and provide a
continuous supply of timber to citizens. The Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 added outdoor recreation, range,
watersheds, and fish and wildlife. This act also requires the agency
to manage its lands to provide high levels of all of these uses to
current users (the multiple-use principle) while sustaining the
lands' ability to produce these uses for future generations (the
sustained-yield principle). The Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (known as RPA) establishes a
long-range strategic planning process through which the Forest
Service reviews the condition of the country's long-range renewable
resources. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), which
amended RPA, requires each national forest or group of forests to
develop a land and resource management plan, commonly called a forest
plan. Under the act and its implementing regulations, the Forest
Service is to (1) recognize wilderness as a use of the forests and
(2) provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities
(biological diversity). In addition, this act attempts to facilitate
continuous levels of timber production on Forest Service lands while,
at the same time, protecting and improving other forest resources,
such as air, water, and wildlife and fish habitat.
While establishing long-term goals, NFMA does not provide direction
for achieving them. For example, it does not indicate how much
timber and other commodities should be provided, which uses of
national forests should have priority, or how conflicts among uses
should be resolved. The act's legislative history is also silent on
these matters. As a result, the Forest Service is expected to
provide for continuous levels of certain goods and services and for
the protection of other resources, even when providing for one may
conflict with sustaining another. However, because of growing
demands for these uses, the Forest Service is increasingly unable to
avoid, resolve, or mitigate conflicts among competing uses on
national forests by separating them into different areas or over
time.
While the Organic Administration Act, the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act, RPA, and NFMA provide little direction for the
agency in resolving conflicts among competing uses on its lands, the
requirements in environmental laws and their implementing regulations
and judicial interpretations do. These laws, unlike the Forest
Service's multiple-use laws, give priority to protecting natural
resources. In particular, section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
represents a congressional design to give greater priority to the
protection of endangered species than to the other missions of the
Forest Service and other federal agencies.\3 When proposing a
project, the Forest Service bears the burden of demonstrating that
its actions will not likely jeopardize threatened and endangered
species. The agency is also required by regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of activities occurring
outside the national forests, such as timber harvesting on state and
private lands, in deciding which uses to emphasize on its lands. In
addition, other environmental laws, their implementing regulations,
and judicial interpretations require the Forest Service to protect
other components of natural systems, including water and air.
Moreover, under the agency's biological diversity requirement for
fish and wildlife habitat�found in its regulations implementing
NFMA�the Forest Service is to maintain well-distributed viable
populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate
species in a planning area.
Over time, the requirements in environmental laws and their
implementing regulations and judicial interpretations, together with
changing public values and concerns about the management of the
national forests and better ecological information, have led the
Forest Service to change the mix of its activities, shifting the
focus from production toward protection. For instance, the number of
threatened and endangered species on national forests and grasslands
has risen more than sevenfold in the 26 years since the Endangered
Species Act was passed in 1973.
In the mid-1970s when NFMA was enacted, the agency believed that its
mission was primarily to produce timber and, more generally, to serve
as a steward of the land. Today, the Forest Service states that
maintaining and restoring the health of the land is its overriding
priority and that outputs of goods and services will be accomplished
within the �ecological sideboards imposed by land health.� Moreover,
within the decision space imposed by these ecological sideboards, the
agency has increasingly chosen to emphasize land health and
ecological sustainability. For example, the Forest Service has used
its discretionary authority to set aside or withdraw an increasing
percentage of lands for conservation.
To accommodate the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and
other environmental laws, the Forest Service, BLM, and other federal
land management agencies have turned to a science-based, ecological
approach for managing their lands and resources. This approach,
called ecosystem management, is designed to ensure the sustained
functioning and diversity of natural systems�such as watersheds,
airsheds, soils, and vegetative and animal communities�by analyzing
and planning along the boundaries of these systems rather than along
the boundaries of national forests and other federal land management
units. Then, for example, the Endangered Species Act can be used as
a �fine filter� to catch and support the special needs of species
that otherwise would go unmet.
--------------------
\3 TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185 (1978).
S. 1320 MAKES CLEAR THAT
PRIORITY IS TO BE GIVEN TO
SUSTAINING ECOSYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
As we reported in April 1997, statutory and other changes to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Forest Service's
decision-making process cannot be identified until the Congress and
the agency reach agreement on the Forest Service's mission
priorities. Without such an agreement, we see distrust and gridlock
prevailing in any effort to streamline the agency's statutory
framework. Moreover, reaching agreement on the Forest Service's
mission priorities is key to developing the quantifiable goals and
objectives as well as the long-term and annual performance measures
necessary to hold the agency accountable for its performance.
It appears to us that S. 1320 establishes a starting point for the
Congress and the administration to agree on the mission priorities of
both the Forest Service and BLM. The bill states that the two
agencies are to manage their lands to �assure the health,
sustainability, and productivity of the lands' ecosystems.� This is
consistent with the Forest Service's shift in emphasis away from
producing goods and services and toward protecting land health and
forest resources, as well as with the ecosystem management approach
being used by the Forest Service and BLM to manage their lands and
resources. Similarly, the Forest Service's June 12, 1999,
preliminary draft planning rule states that the �most fundamental
goal of the National Forest System is to maintain and restore
ecological sustainability, the long-term maintenance of the diversity
of native plant and animal communities, and the productive capacity
of ecological systems.� The agency's preliminary draft planning rule
was, in turn, based on a March 15, 1999, report by an
interdisciplinary committee of scientists, which stated that the
Forest Service's overarching objective should be ecological
sustainability.
By clarifying the mission priorities of the Forest Service and BLM,
S. 1320 represents a significant first step toward holding the two
agencies accountable for their performance. The bill also represents
a significant change in mission from its predecessor (S. 1253),
which emphasized multiple uses and sustained yields of goods and
services.\4 However, other sections of S. 1320 still require some
fine tuning and refinement to harmonize them with the agencies' new
mission of sustaining ecosystems.
For example, S. 1320 would require the Forest Service and BLM, when
developing a plan and making a decision, to accord �equal
consequence� to five elements, including the production of goods and
services and desired future conditions. However, the bill does not
make it clear that desired future conditions are to reflect the
minimum level of ecological health needed to sustain ecosystems.
Moreover, if the overriding mission priority of the two agencies is
to sustain ecosystems and desired future conditions reflect the
minimum level of ecological health needed to do so, then, it would
seem to us, that this element of the plan must have priority over all
other elements. In addition, the bill identifies which law would
prevail in the event of inconsistencies between it and certain other
laws, including NFMA and the statutes governing the management of
units of the National Wilderness Preservation, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers, and National Trails systems. It does not, however,
identify which law would prevail in the event of inconsistencies
between it and other environmental laws, such as the Endangered
Species Act, NEPA, and the Clean Water Act.
--------------------
\4 S. 1253 was introduced in 1997. Eight hearings were held on the
bill; however, it was not reported out of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY
MUST BE ADEQUATELY
QUANTIFIED AND MEASURED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1
We also see two significant challenges that must be met in
implementing an ecosystem sustainability mission. The first is
adequately quantifying and measuring the term �ecosystem
sustainability.� For instance, according to the committee of
scientists, sustaining ecosystems would require 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. However, the Forest Service and BLM do not
know what these systems are, where they are, what ecological
condition they are in, or what their ecological condition should be.
Without this information, it will be difficult, if not impossible,
for the agencies to identify where or under what circumstances they
should actively manage degraded lands to restore them rather than
allow nature to take its course. Moreover, to the extent that the
bill would require the production of goods and services to be
consistent with sustaining ecosystems, as suggested by its mission
statement, their production could be halted if the agencies were
unable to adequately demonstrate that human activities would not
likely jeopardize the minimum ecological conditions necessary to
sustain ecosystems. This stalemate, in turn, could adversely affect
the individuals and communities that are economically dependent on
the national forests but are precluded from forming reasonable
expectations about the future availability of goods and services from
the forests.
THE ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK TO
SUSTAIN ECOSYSTEMS MUST BE
DETERMINED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2
The second challenge will be to determine whether the existing
statutory framework of environmental laws enables the agencies to
ensure ecosystem sustainability. Currently, there is no statute that
specifically requires federal agencies to sustain ecosystems as such.
Therefore, the agencies would need to turn to the laws and
regulations intended to protect individual natural resources. For
instance, a stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to
conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species
depend, and the regulations adopted under NEPA require federal
agencies to identify and consider the effects of their activities on
ecosystems. However, the agencies do not know whether these laws
will provide the minimum level of ecological health needed to sustain
ecosystems. As the understanding of ecosystems increases through
experience gained from ecosystem management initiatives--such as the
Northwest Forest Plan--needed changes to existing legislation can be
sought to better define and achieve the minimum required level of
ecosystem sustainability.
There are, however, indications that satisfying the requirements for
protecting specific resources may be difficult to reconcile with
providing the conditions needed to sustain ecosystems, at least in
the short term. For example, the most extensive and serious problem
related to the health of the 91 national forests located in the
interior West is the excessive accumulation of vegetation that forms
fuels for large, intense, uncontrollable, and catastrophically
destructive wildfires.\5 Fuels are accumulating, in large part,
because for decades the Forest Service has suppressed fire in forests
where frequent, low-intensity fires historically removed flammable
undergrowth without significantly damaging larger trees. However,
many agency officials told us they do not believe it is possible to
set controlled fires to reduce fuels on a scale replicating that of
natural fires and still meet air quality standards under the Clean
Air Act. The Forest Service and EPA are conducting a 3-year
experiment to better determine whether and how it will be possible to
reconcile controlled burning and air quality standards. Moreover,
mechanically removing fuels (through commercial timber harvesting and
other means) can have adverse effects on wildlife habitat and water
quality in many areas, at least in the short term.
S. 1320 would begin to address the requirements of planning and
environmental laws that may be difficult to reconcile in the short
term with long-term ecosystem sustainability. For instance, when a
forest supervisor or BLM district manager (after providing an
opportunity for review by the appropriate state governor) finds that
a prescribed fire will (1) reduce the likelihood of greater emissions
from a wildfire and (2) be conducted so as to minimize impacts on air
quality to the extent practicable, the prescribed fire is deemed
under the bill to be in compliance with applicable requirements of
the Clean Air Act. The bill would also provide that when a state has
certified that a nonpoint source of water pollution, such as a
timber-harvesting operation and related roads, meets best management
practices or their functional equivalent, the activity is deemed to
be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act.
However, as we observed in our April 1997 report on the Forest
Service's decision-making process, unintended consequences have often
been the rule rather than the exception in implementing planning and
environmental statutes affecting federal land management. Therefore,
any proposal to change the current statutory framework would require
careful consideration to ensure that no unintended consequences would
occur. Some Forest Service officials, including a former Chief,
believe that an independent, bipartisan commission may need to be
established to thoroughly review the current statutory framework
before making recommended changes to laws. Therefore, a more
systematic and comprehensive approach may be needed to ensure that
the requirements of planning and environmental laws are consistent
with the goal of ecosystem sustainability.
--------------------
\5 Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2,
1999).
S. 1320 BEGINS TO ADDRESS MANY
LONG-STANDING PLANNING
DEFICIENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Procedural changes to the agencies' planning processes are needed.
As we have previously reported, the Forest Service's planning process
is clearly broken and in need of repair and the agency's limited
resources are increasingly being consumed by efforts to comply with
procedural requirements. The fundamental problem with the agency's
planning process, as highlighted in our April 1997 testimony on
delays to revising the Tongass forest plan, is the lack of
accountability for making timely, orderly, and cost-effective
decisions. Therefore, the objective of proposed procedural changes
to the Forest Service's planning should be to ensure that
scientifically credible and legally defensible decisions are made in
a timely, orderly, and cost-effective manner.
We believe that S. 1320 begins to address many of the long-standing
planning deficiencies that have contributed to delays, increased
costs, and unmet objectives. However, certain sections of the bill
still could be strengthened to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the agencies' planning processes. For ease of
discussion, we have divided planning into two components�process and
participation. Process, in turn, includes data and decisions, while
participation consists of interagency coordination and public
involvement.
DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1
As we have previously reported, data gathered by federal agencies are
often not comparable; large gaps in the available information exist;
and the agencies may not know who has what information or how
existing information can be made available within agencies, across
agencies, and to the public. These data limitations continue to
hinder the development of federal land management plans, result in
legal challenges to the plans, and limit the implementation of
efforts to expedite decision-making. In addition, until recently,
the Forest Service and BLM lacked an approach to adequately assess
ecological, social, and economic issues that transcend the
administrative boundaries of their land management units--such as
issues concerning watersheds or the habitats of wide-ranging species,
including birds, bears, and salmon. The lack of such an approach has
contributed to the inefficiency in developing, and ineffectiveness in
implementing, federal land management plans. Moreover, once a plan
is approved, agencies must monitor its implementation to meet
long-term and annual goals and objectives and to adapt the plan's
management when new information becomes available. Historically,
however, the Forest Service has failed to live up to its own
monitoring requirements, particularly those for monitoring the
effects of past management decisions. The failure to monitor and
evaluate its decisions could expose the agency to further litigation.
S. 1320 includes provisions to address these data limitations.
Specifically, the bill would (1) authorize the Forest Service and BLM
to assess issues and conditions that transcend the administrative
boundaries of their land management units and (2) require the
agencies to monitor the implementation of their plans and adapt their
management on the basis of new information. We offer the following
observations and suggestions for your consideration in fine-tuning
the data-related provisions of S. 1320.
-- The bill would allow, but would not require, the agencies to
conduct assessments. Our work in the Pacific Northwest, the
interior Columbia River basin, and elsewhere has shown that
assessments are often necessary and should be required to
efficiently and effectively address issues and conditions that
transcend the administrative boundaries of federal land
management units.
-- S. 1320 could also limit the assessments to lands managed by
the Forest Service and BLM. However, to adequately address
ecological issues and conditions that transcend the
administrative boundaries of the agencies' land management
units, as well as comply with NEPA's requirement for assessing
the cumulative impacts of proposed activities, assessments will
need to include other federal and nonfederal lands. In
addition, according to the bill, assessments should consider
economic and social as well as ecological effects. These
effects will be difficult to consider if assessments are limited
to Forest Service and BLM lands.
-- The bill would make it clear that assessments are not decisions,
but would not specify what their outcome should be. As we found
in the interior Columbia River basin assessment, the lack of
clear objectives can increase time and costs. Therefore,
assessments should be designed to provide the agencies' managers
with adequate direction for reaching informed decisions on the
issues and conditions addressed in the assessments.
-- S. 1320 would require the Forest Service and BLM to evaluate
whether a plan is being implemented as planned (implementation
monitoring), but not necessarily whether it is accomplishing its
intended results (effectiveness monitoring) or whether the
management direction in the plan is the best way to achieve its
goals and objectives (validation monitoring). All three types
of monitoring are important, especially for an agency such as
the Forest Service, where unintended consequences have often
been the rule rather than the exception in implementing plans.
However, monitoring costs can be significant. For example,
according to the Forest Service, the scientific expertise, data,
and technology currently needed to conduct the required
monitoring of species' viability far exceed the resources
envisioned by the agency when it developed the regulations
implementing NFMA, as well as the resources available to any
agency or scientific institution. Therefore, it may be
important to know the magnitude of the costs and resources that
would be needed to implement a monitoring requirement before
enacting it into law.
DECISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2
Basing decisions on adequate data, which may require conducting
assessments as well as adapting management on the basis of new
information, should help to reduce the time and costs needed to make
decisions. Forest plans have generally taken from 3 to 10 years to
complete. For example, the Forest Service spent about 10 years and
$13 million revising the Tongass forest plan. In addition, the
agency has often failed to achieve or has altered its planned
objectives. For instance, the revised Tongass plan was modified
within 2 years to reduce the annual goal for timber sales by 30
percent. Moreover, after spending over 5 years and about $41 million
through the end of fiscal year 1998 to develop plans for managing
federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin, the Forest
Service and BLM have exceeded time and cost estimates but have still
not made the necessary decisions and finalized their plans. This
planning effort has taken longer and cost more than anticipated, in
part, because the agencies failed to limit the scope of their
decision to issues that are appropriately dealt with at the basin
scale. However, their development of the Northwest Forest Plan has
shown, the agencies can, given the right incentives, complete an
implementable plan expeditiously and at a relatively low cost.
To expedite decision-making, S. 1320 would, among other things,
require the Forest Service and BLM to (1) identify the issues to be
decided, and the documentation required, at each level of
decision-making; (2) meet established deadlines for making decisions;
(3) identify the costs to implement their plans, as well as the
effects of lower appropriation levels on accomplishing the plans'
objectives; and (4) generally limit when changes to a plan can occur.
We offer the following observations and suggestions for your
consideration in fine-tuning the decision-related provisions of S.
1320.
-- The bill would limit decisions to two levels of planning, one of
which would be the project or site-specific level for management
activities. Our work has shown that, depending on the issues to
be decided, decisions may be required at more than one planning
level above the project level. For instance, in the interior
Columbia River basin, the Forest Service and BLM believe that a
series of decisions will be required that affect federal land
management. Therefore, a �one-size-fits-all� solution to the
number of decision levels may not be appropriate. Instead, the
Forest Service and BLM could be required to identify (1) the
issues to be addressed in revising or amending their land
management plans and (2) the appropriate geographical or
ecological scales for making management decisions on these
issues.
-- Under S. 1320, the Forest Service or BLM would be allowed to
continue implementing management activities under an approved
plan while the plan was being amended or revised unless
otherwise required to stop by a provision of the bill, a court
order, or a formal declaration by the Secretary of Agriculture
or the Secretary of the Interior. However, S. 1320 does not
identify the criteria that the Secretaries should or must use in
reaching such decisions. Criteria could help to ensure that the
Secretaries' decisions are consistent with the agencies' mission
priorities. For instance, the criteria could include
discontinuing management activities that pose clear threats to
ecosystem sustainability.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3
As the role of environmental laws in the Forest Service's
decision-making has increased, so too has the role of the federal
regulatory agencies that are charged with implementing and enforcing
them. We have found that disagreements between the Forest Service
and federal regulatory agencies�including Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service, Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)�over the best ways of
achieving environmental objectives and of implementing laws and
regulations have delayed the development and implementation of forest
plans and projects. These disagreements often stem from the
agencies' differing standards for evaluating environmental effects
and risks, which in turn reflect their disparate missions and
responsibilities. For example, the Forest Service may be willing to
accept a greater level of risk to the recovery of a threatened or
endangered species under its multiple-use mandate than would the Fish
and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both
of which are charged unambiguously with conserving and protecting
species threatened with extinction.
S. 1320 would give the Forest Service and BLM more authority and
responsibility in meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act. For instance, the bill would allow the Fish and Wildlife
Service to certify the Forest Service and BLM to fulfill the
consultation requirements and prepare the �biological opinion�
required by the act. (A biological opinion reviews the potential
effects of a proposed action on listed species and/or their critical
habitat and must be based on the best available biological
information.\6 )
Deciding whether to transfer more authority and responsibility for
meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act from federal
regulatory agencies to federal land management agencies is a policy
decision for the Congress. However, in our April 1997 report on the
Forest Service's decision-making process, we observed that any
potential gains in efficiency from transferring the responsibility
for environmental compliance from the regulatory agencies to the
Forest Service would need to be weighed against the policy reasons
that led originally to separating the responsibility for managing the
nation's forests for multiple uses from the responsibility for
ensuring regulatory compliance with environmental and other laws.
Although S. 1320 would make clear that the overriding priority of
the Forest Service and BLM is ecosystem sustainability, satisfying
the requirements for protecting specific resources may not always be
consistent with providing the conditions needed to sustain
ecosystems, at least in the short term, and federal regulatory
agencies may continue to disagree with the Forest Service and BLM
over the best ways of achieving environmental objectives and of
implementing laws and regulations.
Our work has not examined the conditions that should govern such a
transfer. However, we note that the bill, as presently structured,
does not identify (1) criteria for certifying the land management
agencies, (2) a monitoring role for the regulatory agencies once the
land management agencies have been certified, or (3) procedures for
revoking the certifications if the Forest Service and BLM fail to
adequately carry out their new responsibilities.
--------------------
\6 Endangered Species Act: Types and Number of Implementing Actions
(GAO/RCED-92-131BR, May 8, 1992).
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.4
The role of the public in federal land management has also increased.
Those concerned about how federal lands are managed have expressed
their desire to become more involved in decision-making and have
demonstrated their preference for presenting their concerns,
positions, and supporting documentation during, rather than after, an
agency's development of proposed plans. They have also signaled
their intent to use administrative appeals and lawsuits to challenge
decisions that they have not been involved in reaching.
As we found in the Pacific Northwest and the interior Columbia River
basin, the Forest Service and BLM have improved opportunities for
public participation in their decision-making processes. For
example, in our July 1998 report on ensuring safe drinking water in
western Oregon's municipal watersheds, we stated that the Forest
Service and BLM had shown a willingness to increase the involvement
of cities and other stakeholders in their decision-making and to come
together with these parties to discuss, understand, and address
watershed problems and issues and to implement restoration plans.\7
However, our work has shown that decision-making on managing federal
lands is inherently contentious and that public involvement in the
process should not be viewed as a panacea to legal challenges.
Dissatisfaction with an agency's process for public involvement often
cannot be dissociated from dissatisfaction with the outcome of the
process, and parties opposed to a particular activity, such as timber
harvesting, can cause a federal agency to delay, alter, or withdraw
plans and projects by availing themselves of the opportunities for
administrative appeal and judicial review that are provided by
statute or regulation.
As we reported in April 1997, the Forest Service alone receives over
1,200 administrative appeals to project-level decisions annually, and
about 20 to 30 new lawsuits are filed each year. S. 1320 would,
among other things, establish deadlines for filing appeals and
litigation and limit these challenges to the issues and stakeholders
involved in reaching the contested decision. To the extent that
parties have conducted �litigation by ambush�--that is, have withheld
their concerns, positions, and supporting documentation until after a
decision has been made�the bill may help to ensure that challenges to
plans and projects are brought only by participants in the agencies'
planning processes.
--------------------
\7 Oregon Watersheds: Many Activities Contribute to Increased
Turbidity During Large Storms (GAO/RCED-98-220, July 29, 1998).
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as we stated 2 years ago, the Forest
Service has made hard, controversial policy choices in shifting its
emphasis from production to resource protection.\8 Now that it has
refocused its priorities, we believe that it is up to the Congress to
accept or reject the agency's choices and to acknowledge the effects
of the new priorities on the mix of multiple uses on the national
forests. In our view, the mission statement in S. 1320 acknowledges
the agency's shift in mission priorities. If enacted, this mission
statement could allay the concerns of administration officials who
have been hesitant to suggest procedural changes to environmental
laws and to the agency's planning process for fear that the Congress
might also make substantive changes to the laws with which they would
disagree. By establishing common ground for discussion, the bill
provides an opportunity for the administration and the Congress to
begin working together to identify (1) the procedural changes to the
Forest Service's and BLM's planning processes that are necessary to
efficiently and effectively ensure ecosystem sustainability and (2)
the extent to which such changes should be made legislatively.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. If you or the
other Members of the Subcommittee have any questions, we will be
pleased to answer them.
--------------------
\8 The Results Act: Observations on the Forest Service's May 1997
Draft Plan (GAO/T-RCED-97-223, July 31, 1997).
CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Barry T.
Hill at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Charles Cotton, Chester Joy, and Doreen Feldman.
PERTINENT GAO REPORTS AND
TESTIMONIES ON FOREST SERVICE AND
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DECISION-MAKING
=========================================================== Appendix I
Forest Service: Information on the Forest Service Appeals System
(GAO/RCED-89-16BR, Feb. 16, 1989).
Public Lands: Limited Progress in Resource Management Planning
(GAO/RCED-90-225, Sept. 27, 1990).
Forest Service: The Flathead National Forest Cannot Meet Its Timber
Goal (GAO/RCED-91-124, May 10, 1991).
Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a
Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug. 16, 1994).
Forest Service: Factors Affecting Timber Sales in Five National
Forests (GAO/RCED-95-12, Oct. 28, 1994).
Forest Service: Issues Relating to Its Decisionmaking Process
(GAO/T-RCED-96-66, Jan. 25, 1996).
Forest Service: Issues Related to Managing National Forests for
Multiple Uses (GAO/T-RCED-96-111, Mar. 26, 1996).
Forest Service Decision-Making: Greater Clarity Needed on Mission
Priorities (GAO/T-RCED-97-81, Feb. 25, 1997).
Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr. 29, 1997).
Tongass National Forest: Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs
Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr. 29, 1997).
Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River
Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use Planning
(GAO/RCED-99-64, May 26, 1999).
Forest Service Priorities: Evolving Mission Favors Resource
Protection Over Production (GAO/RCED-99-166, June 17, 1999).
*** End of document. ***