United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

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 “desktop guide,” 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

Purpose 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 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.

Page 2 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

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

Barriers to Financial

Accountability Remain

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

Page 3 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

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 system—the 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

Page 4 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

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

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

goals—(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

“healthy and diverse ecosystems,” “ecological sustainability,” “healthy

forests,” and “forest ecosystem vitality” 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

Page 5 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

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

treated—encourages 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.

Page 6 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

The Forest Service’s

Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land

Management Activities

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 purposes—mostly 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

Administration—a congressionally chartered, independent, nonpartisan,

nonprofit organization—proposed changes to the National Forest System

Page 7 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Executive Summary

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 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.

Page 8 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Page 9 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

How the Forest Service Is Organized 12

How the Forest Service Plans 13

Weaknesses Identified in Prior GAO Products 14

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 14

Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial

Accountability

Remain

17

Major Accounting and Reporting Deficiencies Remain 17

Serious Problems Impede the New Accounting System’s

Implementation

20

Current Field Structure Hampers Accountability 21

Corrective Measures Are Under Way 22

The Forest Service’s Accounting and Financial Reporting Has

Been Designated as a High-Risk Area

25

Chapter 3 

Establishing a System

to Measure

Performance Has

Been Difficult

26

The Requirements of the Results Act 26

The Forest Service Has Clarified Its Mission Priorities and

Identified General Goals and Management Approaches

29

The Agency Has Not Developed Quantifiable, Measurable

Objectives and Strategies to Achieve Them

31

Field Offices Continue to Plan and Budget Without Quantifiable

Objectives and Strategies

37

Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s

Budget Structure Is

Not Clearly Linked to

Its Land Management

Activities

42

How the Forest Service’s Budget Is Currently Structured 42

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure and Land Management

Activities Are Not Clearly Linked

44

The Forest Service Is Attempting to Link Its Budget Structure

With Its Performance Goals and Objectives

48

Appendixes Appendix I: Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s Management

Deficiencies and Corrective Actions

52

Appendix II: The Forest Service’s Proposed Outcomes and

High-Priority Long-Term and Annual Performance Measures for

Its Land Health and Service to People Objectives

58

Page 10 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Contents

Appendix III: Comments From the Forest Service 62

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 63

Tables Table 3.1: The Forest Service’s General Goals 30

 Table 3.2: The Forest Service’s Existing Goals, Objectives, and

Proposed Outcomes and the Santiago Declaration’s Criteria

33

 Table 3.3: Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Allocation Criteria for Timber

Sales Management

38

 Table 3.4: Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Allocation Criteria for

Recreation Management

39

 Table 4.1: The Forest Service’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Structure

for Discretionary Appropriations

43

 Table 4.2: The Forest Service’s Preliminary Proposal to

Consolidate and Restructure the National Forest System

Appropriation

50

Figures Figure 1.1: The Forest Service’s Organizational Structure for

Natural Resources Programs

13

Figure 2.1: Location of New Fiscal and Business Management

Positions Within the Forest Service’s Organizational Structure

23

Figure 3.1: Steps in the Forest Service’s Performance

Accountability Process

28

Figure 4.1: Linking Three Extended Budget Line Items to Five

Performance Objectives

47

Abbreviations

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

Page 11 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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 land—nearly 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

uses—outdoor recreation, rangeland, timber, watersheds and waterflows,

wilderness, and wildlife and fish—to 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

How the Forest

Service Is Organized

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 structures—a 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.

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.

Page 12 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: The Forest Service’s

Organizational Structure for Natural

Resources Programs Chief

Associate Chief,

Natural Resources

Deputy Chief,

Research and

Development

Deputy Chief,

National

Forest

System

Deputy Chief,

State and

Private

Forestry

9 regional offices

123 forest offices

About 600 district

offices

Engineering

Lands

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources

Minerals and Geology

Range Management

Forest Management

Watershed and Air Management

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

Ecosystem Management

National Forest System programs

Source: Forest Service.

How the Forest

Service Plans

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

Page 13 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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

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.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

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

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).

Page 14 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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 “desktop guide,” 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 forests—the 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

4

Modernizing Financial Management at the Forest Service: Financial Management & Organizational

Analysis, Coopers & Lybrand Consulting (Mar. 18, 1998).

Page 15 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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.

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).

Page 16 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

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 system—the 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.

Major Accounting and

Reporting

Deficiencies Remain

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;

1

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

Page 17 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

• 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

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.

Page 18 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

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

“distribution/redistribution” 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.

Page 19 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

The practices of “charging as budgeted and not as worked” and

“retroactive redistribution” 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.

Serious Problems

Impede the New

Accounting System’s

Implementation

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.

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).

Page 20 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

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.

Current Field

Structure Hampers

Accountability

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

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).

Page 21 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

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.

Corrective Measures

Are Under Way

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 positions—a Chief

Operating Officer, a Chief Financial Officer, and a Deputy Chief for

Business Operations. Another new position—an Associate Chief for

Natural Resources—was 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.)

Page 22 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

Figure 2.1: Location of New Fiscal and

Business Management Positions

Within the Forest Service’s

Organizational Structure

Chief

Chief 

Operating

Officer

Associate 

Chief, Natural 

Resources

Deputy Chief,

Chief 

Financial

Officer

Fiscal and 

Accounting

Financial

Analysis

Program

Development

and Budget

Financial

Systems/

FFIS

Deputy Chief,

Business

Operations

Deputy Chief,

Policy and

Legislation

Deputy Chief,

Research 

and

Development

Deputy Chief,

National

Forest

System

Deputy Chief,

State and

Private

Forestry

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

Page 23 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

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

(“retroactive redistribution”). 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.

Page 24 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 2 

Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain

The Forest Service’s

Accounting and

Financial Reporting

Has Been Designated

as a High-Risk Area

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).

Page 25 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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

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 activity1 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

1

The term “program activity” 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).

Page 26 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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.

Page 27 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

Figure 3.1: Steps in the Forest

Service’s Performance Accountability

Process Determine mission and funding priorities

Identify general, outcome-oriented goals

Develop quantifiable long-term and annual objectives 

and measures to assess performance

Establish strategies to achieve priorities, goals, and objectives

Blend goals, objectives, and strategies into plans

Align annual budgets with goals and objectives

Link funding allocation criteria to goals and objectives

Tie unit and individual performance to goals and objectives

Assess and revise priorities, goals, objectives, strategies, 

plans, and allocation criteria as necessary

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

Page 28 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

The Forest Service

Has Clarified Its

Mission Priorities and

Identified General

Goals and

Management

Approaches

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

plan3

 and its first two annual performance plans4 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 “de facto” 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

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).

Page 29 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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 “land health,” and the goal

of providing multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of

ecosystems is also called “service to people.” (See table 3.1.) These goals

capture the agency’s motto of “caring for the land and serving people,”

are consistent with its mission priorities, and encompass all of its major

functions and operations.

Table 3.1: The Forest Service’s

General Goals 1997 strategic plan Fiscal year 2000 budget justification

Ensure sustainable ecosystems Land health

Provide multiple benefits for people within

the capabilities of ecosystems

Service to people

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 systems—such as

watersheds, airsheds, soils, and vegetative and animal communities—by

analyzing and planning along their boundaries rather than along the

boundaries of national forests. The Endangered Species Act is then used

as a “fine filter” to catch and support the special needs of species that

otherwise would go unmet.

7

FY 2000 Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service (Feb. 1999).

Page 30 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

The Agency Has Not

Developed

Quantifiable,

Measurable

Objectives and

Strategies to Achieve

Them

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.

Quantifiable Long-Term

and Annual Objectives and

Measures

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 “Santiago Declaration” 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

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).

10For 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).

11“The Santiago Declaration, Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable

Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (The Montreal Process),” (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.

Page 31 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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.

Page 32 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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

Existing goals and objectives Proposed outcomes The Santiago Declaration’s criteria

Ensure sustainable ecosystems (land

health)

• Ensure healthy and diverse forestlands

• Ensure healthy and diverse aquatic

ecosystems

• Ensure healthy and diverse rangelands

• Respond to hazardous substance sites

• Protect threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species

• Develop scientific and management

information to support sustainable

ecosystem management

 • Protect natural wilderness ecosystem

values

Ensure sustainable ecosystems (land

health)

• Healthy forests

• Healthy grasslands

• Clean water

• Robust fish and wildlife populations

(improved viability)

• Clean air

• Productive soils

Ensure sustainable ecosystems (land

health)

• Maintenance of forest ecosystem health

and vitality

• Conservation of biological diversity

• Conservation and maintenance of soil

and water resources

• Maintenance of forests’ contribution to

global carbon cycles

Provide multiple benefits for people

(service to people)

• Provide quality recreation experiences

• Provide for heritage resource education

and use

• Support improved urban environments

• Support healthy and diverse rural

communities

• Provide for sustainable 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

Provide multiple benefits for people

(service to people)

• Quality outdoor recreation and natural

settings

• Improved urban environments

• Healthy rural communities

• Continuing availability of goods and

services

• Safe public lands and facilities

• Good neighbors

Provide multiple benefits for people

(service to people)

• Maintenance of productive capacity of

forest ecosystems

• Maintenance and enhancement of

long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits

to meet the needs of societies

Ensure organizational effectiveness

• Ensure a productive and diverse workforce

• Improve customer service

• Integrate information systems

• Improve financial management and

accountability

• Ensure an effective and efficient

administrative organization

Ensure organizational effectiveness

• Productive and diverse workforce

• Improved customer service

• Integrated information systems and

management processes

• Sound financial systems and management

• Effective and efficient administrative

organization

• Improved knowledge and decision-making

to support management and use

Ensure organizational effectiveness

• Legal, institutional, and economic

framework for forest conservation and

sustainable management

Source: The Forest Service’s fiscal year 2000 budget justification and annual performance plan.

Page 33 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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 “outcome” under the Forest

Service’s goal of providing multiple benefits for people is the continuing

availability of goods and services—a very broad, general objective.

Conversely, some existing “objectives” 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 “healthy and diverse

ecosystems,” “ecological sustainability,” “healthy forests,” and “forest

ecosystem vitality” 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

“ecological integrity” of forested ecosystems. The agency defines

ecological integrity as a forested ecosystem’s structure, composition, and

12See, for example, the Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1997, U.S. Department of Agriculture

(May 1998).

Page 34 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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

13Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats

(GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2, 1999).

14Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats

(GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2, 1999).

Page 35 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

and its basis for future years’ funding—the number of acres

treated—encourages 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.

Strategies to Achieve Goals

and Objectives

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

15Review 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).

16A 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).

Page 36 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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.

Field Offices Continue

to Plan and Budget

Without Quantifiable

Objectives and

Strategies

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

The last of the 123 forest plans covering all 155 forests in the National

Forest System was approved in 1995. Twelve of the forest plans—costing

an estimated $3 million each, or a total of $36 million—have already been

revised, and 20 more plans—costing 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.

17Western National Forests: Status of Forest Service’s Efforts to Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Threats

(GAO/T-RCED-99-241, June 29, 1999).

18National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest Insights for Other Agencies

(GAO/AIMD-98-113, Apr. 10, 1998).

Page 37 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

Old Budget Allocation

Criteria Are Being Used

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

produced at current service level 50 percent

Amount of green timber that could be

produced with unlimited funding 25 percent

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

19Forest 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).

Page 38 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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 days) 31 percent

Developed site capacity (in persons at one

time) 30 percent

Acres of nonwilderness national forests and

grasslands 18 percent

Existing miles of nonwilderness trails 12 percent

Number of special use permits (for ski

areas, resort lodges, marinas, guide

services, private recreational cabins, etc.) 9 percent

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

20The 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.

Page 39 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

expenditures or performance.21 The Academy observed that distributing

budget resources on the basis of allocation criteria “is a poor substitute

for making hard choices among alternatives given limited resources.” 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.

Managers’ Performance

Cannot Be Tied to

Strategic Goals and

Objectives

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 stands—which would be implemented, in part, through timber

harvesting—might exacerbate problems affecting species, habitat, or

21Restoring 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).

22Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the Future, Results of a GAO-Sponsored

Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 20, 1995).

Page 40 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 3 

Establishing a System to Measure

Performance Has Been Difficult

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.

Page 41 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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

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 “budget line items“

and 34 “extended budget line items.”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

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.

Page 42 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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

(continued)

Page 43 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

Appropriation (budget account) Budget line item/extended budget line item

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 Conservation Fund Acquisition management

Land purchase

Acquisition of lands for national forests—special acts None

Acquisition of lands to complete exchanges None

Range Betterment Fund None

Gifts, donations, and bequests—Forest Research None

Source: The Forest Service’s fiscal year 2000 budget justification (explanatory notes).

The Forest Service’s

Budget Structure and

Land Management

Activities Are Not

Clearly Linked

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

Page 44 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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 purposes—mostly 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

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).

Page 45 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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

“a full range of tools,” 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 appropriations—the

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

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).

Page 46 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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 Appropriation/extended budget line item Performance objective

National Forest System

• Wildlife Habitat Management

• Timber Sales Management

State and Private Forestry

• Forest Stewardship

5%

5%

60%

60%

54%

Ensure healthy and

diverse aquatic 

ecosystems

Aggregation

20%

20%

Disaggregation

46%

30%

Consolidation

Ensure healthy and

diverse forestlands

Ensure healthy and

diverse rangelands

Provide quality

recreational 

experiences

Provide for 

sustainable yield of

wood and forest

products

Source: GAO’s analysis of Forest Service data.

Page 47 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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

The Forest Service Is

Attempting to Link Its

Budget Structure With

Its Performance Goals

and Objectives

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 “lead to

more thematic or functional presentations of both budget and

performance information, thereby enhancing the understanding of

programs and measures of performance.” 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 “does not accurately reflect current programs and does

not provide an adequate linkage to a performance measurement process

that will improve accountability and performance.” The Committee

believes that it is important for the Forest Service to present a revised

10National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest Insights for Other Agencies

(GAO/AIMD-98-113, Apr. 10, 1998).

11“Toward Integrated Resource Management on the National Forests: Understanding Forest Service

Budget Reform,” Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 4, 1997.)

Page 48 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

budget structure with its fiscal year 2001 budget request that “reflects the

agency mission; provides a strong linkage to the Government Performance

and Results Act strategic goals; incorporates annual performance

measures; and improves overall accountability.”

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

appropriations—Reconstruction 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 appropriation—ultimately titled

Reconstruction and Maintenance—to 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.)

Page 49 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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 resources None

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

12Restoring 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).

13Forest Service Management: Little Has Changed as a Result of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms

(GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec. 2, 1998).

Page 50 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Chapter 4 

The Forest Service’s Budget Structure Is Not

Clearly Linked to Its Land Management

Activities

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.

Page 51 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

Accounting

Weaknesses

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 statements—a disclaimer of opinion—the 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 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

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

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.

Page 52 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

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.

Status of Corrective Action 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

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 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

Page 53 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

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

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 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 “as

Budgeted” and Not

“as Worked”

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,

Page 54 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

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 “as budgeted” and not “as worked” 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 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 “as budgeted” and not “as worked” 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

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 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.

Page 55 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

Inadequate

Performance

Measures

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 “to standard” and

the roads are “less than fully maintained.”

Status of Corrective Action 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 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

Status of Corrective Action 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

2

Forest Service: Better Procedures and Oversight Needed to Address Indirect Expenditures

(GAO/RCED-98-258, Aug. 28, 1998).

Page 56 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix I 

Desktop Guide to the Forest Service’s

Management Deficiencies and Corrective

Actions

Washington Office. The Forest Service estimates indirect costs at about

19 percent of total funding.

Page 57 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix II 

The Forest Service’s Proposed Outcomes

and High-Priority Long-Term and Annual

Performance Measures for Its Land Health

and Service to People Objectives

Proposed outcome Long-term performance measures Annual performance measures

Clean water • Trends in miles of streams and acres of lakes

meeting state water quality standards

• Miles of riparian areas and acres of wetlands

restored

• 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 mileage that meet

environmental standards/best management

practices]

• Miles of roads and trails reconstructed, maintained,

and decommissioned to improve soil, water, and air

quality

• Number of hazardous material and

abandoned/inactive mine sites reclaimed

Healthy forests and

grasslands

• Trends in acres at risk from native insects and

diseases

• Acres of forests and grasslands treated to reduce

unacceptable risk from native insects and diseases

• Trends in acres at risk from invasive plants and/or

exotic insects and diseases

• Acres of forests and grasslands treated to reduce

unacceptable levels of invasive plants and exotic

insects and/or diseases

• Trends in acres at risk from wildland fires • Acres of forests and grasslands 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-ownership patterns that

promote or improve desired forest and grassland

conditions]

• Acres acquired and/or exchanged in support of

desired ecological conditions or land patterns

(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

(continued)

Page 58 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix II 

The Forest Service’s Proposed Outcomes

and High-Priority Long-Term and Annual

Performance Measures for Its Land Health

and Service to People Objectives

Proposed outcome Long-term performance measures Annual performance measures

Robust fish and wildlife

populations (improved

viability)

• Trends in number of endangered fish and wildlife

species

• Number of conservation agreements signed

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

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

Clean air • Trends in the percentage of air quality monitoring

sites meeting or moving toward attainment of air

quality objectives

• None

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

Quality outdoor recreation

and natural settings

• [Trends in recreation quality and use of recreation

capacity]

• Percentage of estimated capacity used for

dispersed recreation, developed recreation, and

congressionally designated areas

• Trends in acres and constructed features meeting

scenic integrity objectives

• Percentage of acres meeting scenic quality and

land ownership 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 facility

maintenance]

• Number of facilities and miles of roads and trails

constructed, reconstructed, and maintained

• [Trends in recreation user satisfaction by use and

geographic region]

Improved urban

environments

• Proportional range between growth in population

and land use; retention and/or enhancement of

green infrastructure

• [Number of communities implementing urban

natural resource assessments/projects]

• 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 communities • [Trends in selected indicators of community

vitality]

• Number of rural communities 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

(continued)

Page 59 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix II 

The Forest Service’s Proposed Outcomes

and High-Priority Long-Term and Annual

Performance Measures for Its Land Health

and Service to People Objectives

Proposed outcome Long-term performance measures Annual performance measures

Continuing availability of

goods and services

• Trends in the quantities and/or values of a wide

variety of goods and services provided from the

national forests and grasslands, consistent with

maintaining ecological integrity

• Forest and grassland products provided, including

(1) volume of wood fiber sold, (2) revenue from and

number of special forest products sold, (3) number of

months 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 knowledge

to ensure the availability of goods and services

• [New technology adopted by public and private

land managers]

• [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 lands and

facilities

• Trends in criminal activity on national forests and

grasslands

• Number of serious safety incidents investigated

and 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 the number of facilities and services

meeting public safety standards

• Miles of roads and trails and number of facilities

reconstructed, maintained, and decommissioned to

meet safety standards

• Percentage of special use permits administered to

meet safety standards

• [Trends in customers’ perceptions of personal

security on national forests and grasslands]

• [Customers’ perception of personal security on

national forests and grasslands]

Good neighbors • [Trends in public perceptions of the quality of

relationships with national forests and grasslands

managers]

• Number of partners and value of partners’

contributions

• Number of people contacted through conservation

education programs

• Number of Forest Service volunteer hours

(continued)

Page 60 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix II 

The Forest Service’s Proposed Outcomes

and High-Priority Long-Term and Annual

Performance Measures for Its Land Health

and Service to People Objectives

Proposed outcome Long-term performance measures Annual performance measures

Improved knowledge and

decisionmaking to support

management and use

• Percentage of total acres of forest, [grassland,

and aquatic] ecosystems covered by forest

inventory and analysis, forest health monitoring, or

other nationally consistent monitoring systems

• Number of reports and data sets for forest inventory

and health monitoring activities provided to public

and private land managers that characterize

resource status, conditions, and trends

• 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 accomplishments

of the research and development program by peer

review]

• Scientific knowledge provided by research that

assists public and private land managers in meeting

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 plan goals for

composition, structure, and function and

percentage of forests’ and regions’ monitoring

reports consistent with national protocols]

• Acres of landscape-scale and watershed

assessments completed

•Acres of soil, water, riparian area, forests, and

grasslands inventoried and monitored

• 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.

Page 61 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix III 

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 62 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

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.

(141243) Page 63 GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2 Forest Service Accountability
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100