GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

WORKFORCE 

PLANNING 

Interior, EPA, and the 

Forest Service Should 

Strengthen Linkages 

to Their Strategic 

Plans and Improve 

Evaluation 

March 2010 

GAO-10-413 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2010

WORKFORCE PLANNING

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should 

Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and 

Highlights of GAO-10-413, a report to Improve Evaluation 

congressional committees 

GAO and others have shown that 

successful organizations use 

strategic workforce planning to 

help meet present and future 

mission requirements. Although 

agency approaches to strategic 

workforce planning can vary 

depending on needs and mission, 

GAO and the Office of Personnel 

Management have identified six 

leading principles that workforce 

planning should address. The

Appropriations Committees 

directed GAO to review workforce 

planning at the Department of the 

Interior (Interior), the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service. GAO 

examined (1) workforce planning 

processes used at each agency, (2) 

the extent to which these 

processes incorporate the six 

principles, and (3) how, if at all, the 

agencies link workforce planning 

with the annual budget allocation 

processes. GAO reviewed 

agencies’ workforce plans, 

strategic plans, and budget 

documents and interviewed human 

resources, planning, and budget 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that the agencies establish 

mechanisms to monitor and 

evaluate their workforce planning 

efforts. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, EPA generally agreed 

with the recommendations but 

proposed a modification, and the 

Forest Service generally agreed 

with the report’s findings and 

conclusions. Interior provided a 

technical comment. 

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service vary in their approaches to workforce 

planning. Interior’s workforce planning occurs at its eight bureaus, which use 

departmental guidance to develop their own workforce plans in a generally 

consistent format. EPA issued an agencywide plan in 2006 that is currently 

being updated, and the Forest Service has issued annual agencywide 

workforce plans since 2007. 

The agencies vary in the extent to which they incorporate the six leading 

workforce planning principles, but they generally do not link their workforce 

plans and their strategic plans or monitor and evaluate their workforce 

planning efforts. The six leading principles and agency actions are as follows: 

• Align workforce planning with strategic planning and budget 

formulation. The agencies generally do not align their workforce and 

strategic plans and differ in whether they considered their workforce 

plans when formulating their budgets. 

• Involve managers, employees, and other stakeholders in planning. The 

agencies varied in the extent to which they involved top managers and 

others in developing workforce plans. 

• Identify critical occupations, skills, and competencies and analyze 

workforce gaps. The agencies have taken some steps to identify missioncritical occupations and competencies, which form the basis for much of 

the agencies’ workforce planning. 

• Develop strategies to address workforce gaps. The agencies have 

identified some strategies to address certain workforce gaps. 

• Build capacity to support workforce strategies. The agencies varied in 

the actions they have taken to support workforce planning efforts through 

the effective use of human capital flexibilities, such as recruitment and 

retention incentives. 

• Monitor and evaluate progress. The agencies generally have not 

monitored and evaluated the results of their workforce planning efforts. 

The agencies do not directly link their workforce planning and budget 

allocation processes. At Interior, although unit and program officials in some 

bureaus use workforce plans to distribute staff geographically, the bureaus do 

not track how program officials use workforce plans to allocate funds. EPA’s 

process for allocating resources involves making annual incremental 

adjustments to prior year allocations and does not directly link to workforce 

plans. The Forest Service’s budget allocation guidance does not mention 

workforce planning directly. However, according to Forest Service executive 

leaders, the agency takes workforce planning information into consideration 

at the unit and program levels during budget formulation and again during the 

annual budget allocation process. 

View GAO-10-413 or key components.

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov, or John 

B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-413 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Vary in Their Approaches to 

Workforce Planning 9 

Agencies Vary in the Extent to Which They Incorporate Leading 

Workforce Planning Principles 12 

Agencies Do Not Directly Link Their Workforce Planning with 

Budget Allocation 27 

Conclusions 29 

Recommendations for Executive Action 29 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30 

Appendix I Briefing Slides 33 

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 53 

Appendix III Full-Time Equivalent Employees at Interior, 

EPA, and the Forest Service from Fiscal Years 

1999 through 2010 58 

Appendix IV Mission-Critical Occupations Identified by Interior, 

EPA, and the Forest Service 60 

Appendix V Comments from the Environmental Protection 

Agency 62 

Appendix VI Comments from the Forest Service 65 

Appendix VII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 66 

Workforce Planning 
Tables 

Table 1: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at Interior and 

Its Eight Bureaus, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010, as 

Reported in Interior’s Budgets in Brief for Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2011 58 

Table 2: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at EPA, Fiscal 

Years 1999 through 2010, as Reported in EPA’s Annual 

Congressional Justification Reports Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2010 59 

Table 3: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at the Forest 

Service, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010, as Reported in the 

Forest Service’s Budget Justification Reports for Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2010 59 

Table 4: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified in the Workforce 

Plans of Interior’s Bureaus, Fiscal Year 2008 60 

Table 5: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, as of December 2009 61 

Table 6: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified by the Forest 

Service, as of January 2010 61 

Abbreviations 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FTE full-time equivalent 

Interior Department of the Interior 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Page 1 GAO-10-413 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

March 31, 2010 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Madam Chairman 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable James P. Moran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Michael K. Simpson 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The ability of federal agencies to achieve their missions and carry out their 

responsibilities depends in large part on whether they can sustain a 

workforce that possesses the necessary education, knowledge, skills, and 

competencies. We and others have shown that successful public and 

private organizations use strategic management approaches to prepare 

their workforces to meet present and future mission requirements. 

Strategic human capital management—which includes workforce 

planning—helps ensure that agencies have the talent and skill mix they 

need to address their current and emerging human capital and other 

challenges, such as long-term fiscal constraints and changing 

demographics. Preparing a strategic human capital plan encourages 

agency managers and stakeholders to systematically consider what is to be 

done, how it will be done, and how to gauge progress and results. In 2001, 

we first identified strategic human capital management as a high-risk area 

because of the federal government’s long-standing lack of a consistent 

approach to human capital management. In 2010, while agencies and 

Congress have taken steps to address the federal government’s human 

capital shortfalls, strategic human capital management remains a high-risk 

area because of the continuing need for a governmentwide framework to 

advance human capital reform. 

Workforce Planning 
 

Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an 

organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging 

mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies 

for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic 

goals. Agency approaches to such planning can vary with each agency’s 

particular needs and mission. While different approaches may be 

appropriate, we and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have 

identified six leading principles that such approaches should incorporate 

regardless of the context in which planning is done.1

 Specifically, agencies 

need to 

• align workforce planning with strategic planning and budget formulation; 

• involve managers, employees, and other stakeholders; 

• identify critical occupations, skills, and competencies and analyze 

workforce gaps; 

• employ workforce strategies to fill the gaps; 

• build the capabilities needed to support workforce strategies through 

steps to ensure the effective use of human capital flexibilities;2

 and 

• monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving workforce planning and 

strategic goals. 

In the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations 

Act of 2009, the Appropriations Committees expressed concern that 

workforce plans for the Department of the Interior (Interior), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service may be outdated and that the agencies may 

not have undertaken comprehensive reviews of staffing needs for the 

 

1

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). OPM, which developed its Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework in conjunction with the Office of Management 

and Budget and GAO, issued the final regulations for this framework in April 2008 (73 FR 

23012-23049). 

2

Human capital flexibilities represent the policies and practices that an agency has the 

authority to implement in managing its workforce—for example, work-life programs, 

monetary incentives and awards, and special hiring authorities. See GAO, Human Capital: 

Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, 

GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002). 

Page 2 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

future.3 The Explanatory Statement directed us to review existing 

workforce planning processes at these agencies. 

As agreed with your offices, this report examines (1) the workforce 

planning processes in place at Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service; 

(2) the extent to which workforce planning at these agencies incorporates 

leading principles that we and OPM have identified; and (3) how, if at all, 

these agencies link workforce planning with their annual budget allocation 

processes. We briefed your offices on the preliminary results of our work 

on December 17 and 18, 2009. As agreed with your offices, this report 

provides more detail on the information we presented at these briefings, 

and appendix I contains the briefing slides we provided. 

To conduct this review, we examined the current workforce planning 

processes at Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service. The periods reviewed 

at each agency varied because each agency had developed its plans at 

different times. Specifically, at Interior, we reviewed workforce planning 

efforts at the eight bureaus from fiscal year 2008, when the bureaus issued 

their most current workforce plans, through December 2009. At EPA, we 

focused on workforce planning at the agencywide level from fiscal year 

2006 through December 2009 because the most current workforce plan 

was issued in 2006. Finally, at the Forest Service, we focused on 

agencywide workforce planning from fiscal year 2007, when the agency 

established its current workforce planning process, through December 

2009. Because our review focused on workforce planning at the 

agencywide or bureau levels, we conducted limited work at lower-level 

units, such as regions. We reviewed agency and bureau workforce plans, 

strategic plans, budget documents, and guidance and, in limited cases, 

documents from other levels in the organizations, and updated the budget 

information from the briefing for this report. We interviewed agency and 

bureau planning, human resources, budget, and program officials 

responsible for these plans. A more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology is presented in appendix II. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through March 2010 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

 

3

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Committee Print of the House Committee on 

Appropriations, Pub. L. No. 111-8 (2009). 

Page 3 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

The three agencies we reviewed—Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service—

have broad missions and differ in organizational structure and workforce 

size.4

Background 

Interior’s mission is to protect and manage the nation’s natural resources 

and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those 

resources; and honor its trust responsibilities. To carry out this mission, 

Interior and its eight bureaus employ about 70,000 full-time equivalent 

(FTE) employees who account for almost 55 percent of the department’s 

operating budget,5, 6

 and over 200,000 volunteers. Interior’s workforce is 

distributed across about 2,400 locations nationwide, and the department’s 

regional and field structure varies by bureau. For fiscal year 2010, Interior 

received appropriations totaling about $20 billion.7

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment by leading 

the nation’s environmental science, research, education, and assessment 

efforts. The agency consists of 10 regional offices and 13 program offices, 

and its budget for fiscal year 2010 is $10.3 billion. Its workforce is made up 

of approximately 17,000 FTEs. Associated costs for these 17,000 FTEs 

constitute about 20 percent of the 2010 budget.8

 EPA also employs about 

6,000 individuals such as contractor employees; interns; and Senior 

 

4

Interior and the Forest Service have similar missions on some of the lands they manage. 

5

The eight bureaus are the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Indian 

Affairs, Minerals Management Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. 

6

An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who collectively complete 2,080 

work hours in a given year. Therefore, both one full-time employee and two half-time 

employees equal one FTE. 

7

For fiscal year 2010, Interior estimates the department will collect about $9.7 billion in 

receipts from mineral leases on onshore and offshore federal lands and various fees. A 

portion of receipts offset federal appropriations and a portion is disbursed to states and 

Indian tribes. 

8

However, in recent prior years, employees constituted generally about 30 percent of the 

budget. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $10.3 billion was higher than any EPA budget since 

1999, when budgets ranged from $7.5 to $8.4 billion. Besides funding for employees, other 

portions of the budget went for grants, trust funds, and infrastructure financing. 

Page 4 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

Environmental Employment Program workers, who are at least 55 years 

old and are not federal employees, to provide their skills to support 

environmental programs. 

The Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. To do so, the agency manages 

approximately 193 million acres of federal land with a fiscal year 2010 

budget of about $6.2 billion and approximately 34,000 FTEs nationwide.9

The agency’s employees are located at 155 national forests within nine 

regions, as well as at other units, including seven research units. Projected 

personnel and benefits costs constitute 60 percent of the Forest Service’s 

budget; the agency also relies on about 70,000 volunteers. 

Appendix III provides information on the number of FTEs at Interior, EPA, 

and the Forest Service from fiscal years 1999 through 2010. 

Workforce Planning and 

Leading Principles 

People are an agency’s most important asset: they affect an agency’s 

capacity to achieve its mission. In this context, several organizations, 

including GAO, have shown that successful organizations in both the 

public and private sectors use strategic workforce planning to prepare 

their workforces to meet present and future mission requirements. 

Preparing a strategic workforce plan encourages agency managers and 

stakeholders to systematically consider what is to be done, when and how 

it will be done, what skills will be needed, and how to gauge progress and 

results. 

As we have reported in the past, federal agencies have used varying 

approaches to develop and present their strategic workforce plans, 

depending on their particular circumstances. For example, an agency that 

is faced with the need for a long lead time to train employees hired to 

replace those retiring and an increasing workload may focus its efforts on 

estimating and managing retirements. Another agency with a future 

workload that could rise or fall sharply may focus on identifying skills to 

manage a combined workforce of federal employees and contractors. 

Regardless of the context in which workforce planning is done, we and 

 

9

According to agency officials, the number of FTEs includes approximately 29,000 

permanent full-time employees, as well as the Forest Service’s temporary employees, 

which typically total approximately 17,000 each year. 

Page 5 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

OPM have identified the following six leading principles that agencies 

should incorporate in their workforce planning efforts. 

Align their workforce planning with strategic planning and budget 

formulation. Workforce planning that is linked to an agency’s strategic 

goals is one of the tools agencies can use to systematically identify the 

workforce needed for the future and develop strategies for shaping this 

workforce. Strategic alignment occurs when an agency’s workforce 

strategies are linked with its mission and goals and integrated into its 

strategic plan, performance plan, and budget formulation.10 Such 

alignment allows agencies to assess and understand the extent to wh

their workforce contributes to achieving their overarching mission and 

goals. Among other things, workforce planning provides the inform

agencies need to ensure that their annual budget requests include 

adequate funds to implement their human capital strategies, such as 

recruitment or retention bonuses, awards, training, student loan 

repayments, and tuition assistance. 

ich 

ation 

 

Involve managers, employees, and other stakeholders. Top leadership that 

is engaged in strategic workforce planning can 

• set the overall direction and goals for workforce planning and provide 

organizational vision; 

• help provide stability as the workforce plan is being developed and 

implemented; 

• create support within the agency to ensure that planning strategies are 

implemented and sustained over time; and 

• help integrate workforce planning efforts with other key management 

planning efforts, such as succession planning and information technology 

or financial management reforms, to ensure that such initiatives work 

together to achieve the agency’s goals. 

10An agency’s strategic plan establishes an agencywide vision that guides workforce 

planning and investment activities. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 

Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993), among other things, requires agencies to prepare strategic plans 

and annual performance plans that articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are 

aligned with their long-term strategic goals. 

Page 6 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

By involving agency managers, supervisors, employees, and other 

stakeholders on strategic workforce planning teams, agencies can develop 

new synergies that identify ways to streamline processes, improve human 

capital strategies, and help the agency recognize and deal with the 

potential effect that the organization’s culture can have on the 

implementation of such improvements.11, 12

Identify critical occupations, skills, and competencies and analyze 

workforce gaps. Agencies need to determine the occupations, skills, and 

competencies that are critical to achieving their missions and goals, as 

well as to identify any gaps between their current workforce and the 

workforce they will need in the future. Identifying mission-critical 

occupations, skills, and competencies can help agencies adjust to changes 

in technology, budget constraints, and other factors that alter the 

environment in which they operate. The scope of agencies’ efforts to 

identify their mission-critical occupations, skills, and competencies varies 

considerably, depending on their individual needs and interests. Whereas 

some agencies may decide to define all the skills and competencies 

needed to achieve their strategic goals, others may elect to focus on only 

those most critical to achieving their goals. Agencies can also use various 

approaches to determine their future needs, such as collecting qualitative 

information from interviews with agency executives and managers on the 

factors that influence the agencies’ capability to acquire, develop, and 

retain critical skills and competencies; collecting information from 

employee surveys; and determining attrition rates, projected retirement 

rates, fluctuations in workload, and geographic and demographic trends. 

As agencies estimate the number of employees they need with specific 

skills and competencies, they may consider opportunities to reshape their 

workforce by re-engineering current work processes, sharing work among 

offices within the agency, or contracting.13

 

11Stakeholders may include employee unions, congressional staff, and officials from other 

federal agencies, among others. 

12The organization’s culture refers to the underlying assumptions, beliefs, values, attitudes, 

and expectations generally shared by an organization’s members. 

13Federal agencies sometimes use private sector contractors to deliver services to citizens. 

In July 2009, the administration called for agencies to develop workforce plans that 

consider all the functions for which the agency is responsible and performance by all 

sectors of the workforce—not just federal employees. 

Page 7 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

Employ workforce strategies to fill the gaps. Once agencies have 

identified gaps, they need to develop human capital strategies—the 

programs, policies, and processes that agencies use to build and manage 

their workforces—to close these gaps. These strategies, tailored to the 

agencies’ unique needs, may include strategies for hiring, training, staff 

development, succession planning, performance management, and the use 

of human capital flexibilities, among other things. These flexibilities may 

include providing early separation and early retirement incentives, 

recruitment and retention bonuses, alternative work schedules, and 

special hiring authorities to recruit employees with critical skills. 

Build the capabilities needed to support workforce strategies through 

steps to ensure the effective use of human capital flexibilities. As 

agencies plan how to implement specific workforce strategies that include 

human capital flexibilities, they also need to consider other practices that 

are important to the effective use of flexibilities. For example, it is 

important for an agency to 

• properly train managers and supervisors to identify when flexibilities can 

be used and how to use the agency’s processes for ensuring consistency, 

equity, and transparency; 

• hold managers and supervisors accountable for the fair and effective use 

of these flexibilities; 

• educate employees about how the agency uses human capital flexibilities; 

and 

• streamline and improve administrative processes for using flexibilities and 

review self-imposed constraints that may be excessively process oriented. 

Monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving workforce planning 

and strategic goals. Agencies’ monitoring and evaluation of their efforts to 

achieve their workforce planning and strategic goals are critical to 

effective workforce planning. An agency’s evaluation could help determine 

whether the agency is meeting its workforce planning goals and identify 

the reasons for any shortfalls. For example, a workforce plan can include 

measures that indicate whether the agency executed its hiring, training, or 

retention strategies as intended and achieved its goals for these strategies. 

Page 8 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

The federal budget process involves many steps, including the agencies’ 

formulation of their budget requests and subsequent allocation of the 

funds that Congress appropriates to them.14 The federal government 

assembles an annual budget in a long administrative process of budget 

preparation and review. This process begins one or more years before the 

budget for a particular fiscal year is ready to be submitted to Congress. 

The agencies and their individual organizational units formulate the 

budget by reviewing current operations, program objectives, and future 

plans, and preparing budget estimates for upcoming fiscal years. The 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the Executive Office of 

the President oversees and coordinates formulation of a consolidated 

budget request for the federal government, which the President submits to 

Congress by the first Monday in February. Congress reviews the 

President’s budget request and appropriates funds to federal agencies for 

specific purposes. Once agencies’ funds are appropriated by Congress and 

apportioned to them by OMB, it is the responsibility of the individual 

agencies to allocate their funds within their agencies based on OMB and 

congressional direction. 

Federal Agency Budget 

Formulation and 

Allocation 

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service have taken different approaches to 

workforce planning. Interior bureaus each receive their own 

appropriations and have missions that require workforce plans to be 

developed at the bureau level rather than at the departmentwide level. 

EPA issued an agencywide workforce plan in fiscal year 2006 that 

provided guidance to regional and program offices when developing their 

own plans. Since establishing a new approach to agencywide workforce 

planning in 2007, the Forest Service has annually developed agencywide 

workforce plans using information from its units. 

Interior, EPA, and the 

Forest Service Vary in 

Their Approaches to 

Workforce Planning 

Interior’s Workforce 

Planning Occurs at the 

Bureau Level 

According to Interior, its eight bureaus were established under enabling 

legislation, and each receives its own appropriations and has missions that 

require workforce plans to be developed at the bureau level rather than at 

the departmentwide level. The Office of the Deputy Chief Human Capital 

Officer provided guidance to the bureaus, in the form of a workforce 

planning template, on how to prepare workforce plans for fiscal years 

 

14For a detailed description of the federal budget process, see GAO, A Glossary of Terms 

Used in the Federal Budget Process, Appendix I: Overview of the Development and 

Execution of the Federal Budget, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005). 

Page 9 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

2008 through 2013.15 We found that the bureau plans generally followed the 

format described in the template, which directs bureaus to include the 

following information: 

• the bureau’s mission, 

• a description of how the workforce plan is integrated with Interior’s 

Strategic Plan, 

• a description of the bureau’s workforce profile, 

• the mission challenges facing the bureau, 

• the bureau’s workforce needs, including contractors and volunteers as 

appropriate, 

• plans and solutions to meet the bureau’s workforce and skill needs, 

• resource and investment needs, and 

• any additional information needed to support the bureau’s analyses. 

Interior officials told us that when the agency issues its revised strategic 

plan, for which a proposed framework was out for public comment in the 

fall of 2009, the bureaus would revise their workforce plans to reflect 

changes in the agency’s strategic goals. 

EPA’s 2006 Workforce Plan 

Provided Guidance to 

Regional and Program 

Offices for Developing 

Their Own Plans 

EPA’s Office of Human Resources developed EPA’s first strategic 

workforce plan in fiscal year 2006, with the intent of updating it after 

revising the agency’s strategic plan. The purpose of the workforce plan 

was to provide guidance to regional and program offices, which are 

responsible for developing their own plans.16 The workforce plan 

projected changes in the agency’s core functions from 2005 through 2

For example, the plan estimated that there would be a reduced emphasis

on the core function of developing regulations but an increased emphasis 

on other functions, such as homeland security and research and 

008. 

 

15With the exception of the Bureau of Reclamation’s workforce plan, which covers fiscal 

years 2008 through 2012, the time frames of the other seven bureau plans are consistent 

with this guidance and cover fiscal years 2008 through 2013. 

16Regional and program office workforce planning was beyond the scope of our work. 

Page 10 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

development. However, the plan does not include information on 

contractors because OMB did not provide explicit instructions to include 

them, according to EPA officials.17 The plan has not been updated sinc

2006, but agency officials told us that they expect a new workforce plan 

will be completed after EPA develops its next strat

e 

egic plan in 2010. 

 

Forest Service Annually 

Issues a 5-Year 

Agencywide Workforce 

Plan Using Standard 

Information from Its 

Regions, Stations, and 

Other Units 

The Forest Service began its current agencywide workforce planning 

process in fiscal year 2007 with the creation of its Workforce Planning and 

Program Analysis Branch. In leading the agency’s workforce planning, this 

branch annually develops an analysis of the agency’s workforce and issues 

a 5-year plan for the agency’s permanent workforce; agency officials told 

us that the analyses and plans are posted on the agency’s Web site and 

were announced through a letter to certain leaders.18 In October 2009, the 

branch also began to produce certain workforce-related statistics on a 

monthly basis, which officials told us the branch plans to summarize 

quarterly.19

The annual workforce analysis provides information on the composition of 

the agency’s workforce nationwide. The workforce analyses and plans do 

not include information on contractors; agency officials told us that this 

information is not included because the Forest Service cannot accurately 

track the FTE hours of contractors. According to the 5-year workforce 

plan for 2009 through 2013, the 5-year plan complements the analysis by 

identifying occupation-specific hiring, diversity, and competency needs 

across the agency, and by serving as a guide for the agency’s recruitment, 

succession planning, and training programs, among other things. In 

addition, the agency’s workforce plans for 2008 through 2012 and 2009 

17EPA officials said they will be providing more information on non-FTEs in the next 

workforce plan as part of OMB’s Acquisition and Contracting Improvement Plans and 

Pilots announced in December 2009. 

18These leaders comprised the agency’s regional foresters, station directors, Director of the 

Northeastern Area, Director of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry, deputy 

chiefs, and Washington Office directors. 

19For example, these statistics include the percentage of permanent employees eligible to 

retire; total attrition; the number of employees that have completed certain courses or are 

enrolled in certain leadership development programs; the number of employees at grade 

levels 14 or 15 or within the Senior Executive Service; the percentage of permanent 

positions or new hires that are filled by women, veterans, persons with certain disabilities, 

or African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic employees; and 

the number or percentage of new employees hired through sources outside the federal 

government. 

Page 11 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

through 2013 include recommendations for agency actions in a variety of 

workforce planning areas. 

The plans are based on information collected from the Forest Service’s 24 

units—including each of the agency’s nine regions, seven research 

stations, and several Washington offices—using standardized templates.20

According to workforce planning officials, the units are not required to 

include temporary employees in the information provided via their 

templates. These templates collect information in five areas: (1) 

reorganization or consolidation; (2) training and succession planning; (3) 

sourcing options;21 (4) workforce adjustments, such as buyouts and earlyout retirements; and (5) recruitment for professional, administrative, and 

technical occupations that are considered mission-critical. Some sub-units, 

such as national forests, may also complete workforce planning templates 

that feed into the larger planning effort. While the Forest Service has 

agencywide workforce planning analyses and plans, the agency considers 

workforce planning to be the responsibility of unit-level managers. 

Therefore, field units—such as regions and forests—are primarily 

responsible for workforce planning and may conduct their own additional 

workforce planning activities.22

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service differ in the extent to which they 

have incorporated the six leading workforce planning principles, but they 

generally do not link their workforce plans to their strategic plans and do 

not monitor and evaluate their workforce planning efforts. With regard to 

linking workforce plans to budget formulation, the Forest Service recently 

began to formally link the two, but Interior and EPA do not. The three 

agencies vary in the extent to which they involve top managers and others 

in developing workforce plans. The agencies have all taken some steps to 

Agencies Vary in the 

Extent to Which They 

Incorporate Leading 

Workforce Planning 

Principles 

 

20The 24 units include the following: Northern Region (Region 1); Rocky Mountain Region 

(Region 2); Southwestern Region (Region 3); Intermountain Region (Region 4); Pacific 

Southwest Region (Region 5); Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6); Southern Region 

(Region 8); Eastern Region (Region 9); Alaska Region (Region 10); Rocky Mountain 

Research Station; Northern Research Station; Pacific Northwest Research Station; Pacific 

Southwest Research Station; Forest Products Laboratory; Southern Research Station; 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Northeastern Area; Office of the Chief; 

Business Operations; National Forest System; Chief Financial Officer; Research and 

Development; State and Private Forestry; and Law Enforcement and Investigations. 

21These options are supplements to the permanent workforce, such as volunteers. 

22Workforce planning activities at the units were outside the scope of this review. 

Page 12 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

analyze their workforce, including identifying mission-critical occupations, 

which form the basis for much of the agencies’ workforce planning. With 

regard to addressing workforce gaps, such as gaps in staffing levels, 

critical skills, and competencies, all three agencies identified some 

strategies or initiatives that are either under way or being considered. The 

three agencies vary in the actions they have taken to support their 

workforce planning efforts through the effective use of human capital 

flexibilities. 

Agencies Generally Did 

Not Align Workforce and 

Strategic Plans and Differ 

in Whether They Link 

Workforce Plans with 

Budget Formulation 

At Interior, workforce plans for three of its eight bureaus (Bureau of Land 

Management, Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Geological Survey) describe how 

they link to one or more departmentwide mission goals identified in the 

department’s strategic plan and analyze the department’s workforce needs 

in these areas. For example, the Bureau of Land Management’s workforce 

plan links to four of Interior’s strategic mission goals—Resource 

Protection, Resource Use, Recreation, and Serving Communities—and the 

workforce plan includes an appendix that describes the bureau’s current 

workforce profile and makes projections out to fiscal year 2013 for each 

goal. Similarly, Indian Affairs identifies the Serving Communities mission 

goal in its workforce plan and focuses on its Safe Indian Communities and 

Indian Education initiatives in fulfilling this mission. In contrast, other 

bureaus’ workforce plans state that they were linked to Interior’s strategic 

plan, and in one case identified specific mission goals, but none explicitly 

align their workforce planning effort and analysis with such goals. While 

three of the bureaus’ plans illustrate explicit linkages to strategic mission 

goals, none of the eight bureaus’ plans describe links to specific outcome 

measures. However, Interior’s strategic plan contains three workforcerelated outcomes, including one on the percentage of skill gaps that are 

closed across the department’s workforce. Additionally, while the bureaus’ 

workforce plans generally do not include formal links to the budget 

formulation process, we found that bureaus generally requested funds in 

their fiscal year 2010 budget justifications to implement elements of their 

workforce plans. Specifically, bureaus requested funding in areas of 

workforce planning policy and administration, as well as leadership 

development, equal employment opportunity offices, and succession 

planning. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested $12.65 

million, and received $13.15 million, for its youth and careers in nature 

program, designed to reach out to young people to encourage them to 

enter public service as natural resource professionals. 

EPA’s workforce plan is not clearly aligned with the agency’s strategic 

plan or budget formulation. The workforce plan does not show how FTEs, 

Page 13 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

skills, and locations will be aligned with the strategic plan or budget. Only 

one page in the workforce plan refers to the strategic plan, and the plan 

has no references to the budget. Furthermore, we found the strategic plan 

and the 2009 through 2014 Strategic Plan Change Document for Public 

Review do not refer to the workforce plan and the budget only briefly 

refers to the workforce plan in the fiscal year 2010 Congressional 

Justification. The 2006 through 2011 strategic plan included a human 

capital section for each of the five strategic goals that identified some 

future staff skill needs and, in some cases, recruiting strategies to fill those 

gaps, but it did not include any expected measurable workforce outcomes. 

Furthermore, the strategic plan included a discussion of strategies, 

including human capital, that applied to more than one goal. However, the 

human capital section of the plan did not include the expected measurable 

workforce outcomes. In 2005, we reported that EPA’s process for 

budgeting and allocating resources did not fully consider the agency’s 

workload, either for specific statutory requirements such as those 

included in the Clean Water Act or the broader goals and objectives in the 

agency’s strategic plan.23 We reported that any efforts made by the agency 

to develop a more systematic process would be hampered by the lack of 

comprehensive and accurate workload data. 

The Forest Service has not clearly aligned its workforce plans and 

strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012;24 however, the agency has 

recently begun to formally link workforce planning and budget 

formulation. The Forest Service’s workforce plans for 2008 through 2012 

and for 2009 through 2013 state that they link to goal 5 in the agency’s 

strategic plan—”Maintain Basic Management Capabilities of the Forest 

Service”—but we found that this statement is the only reference in the 

plans to specific strategic goals.25 In addition, OPM’s Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework, which provides guidance to 

agencies on human capital management and planning, indicates that 

agencies should integrate workforce planning into their strategic plans. 

However, we found that workforce planning is not fully integrated into the 

Forest Service’s strategic plan. Specifically, for each goal, the plan 

 

23GAO, Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better Respond to 

Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints, GAO-05-721 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005). 

24Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Strategic Plan: 

FY 2007-2012 (July 2007). 

25Forest Service, Forest Service Workforce Plan 2008-2012 (Feb. 29, 2008) and Forest 

Service Workforce Plan 2009-2013 (Sept. 26, 2008). 

Page 14 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

identifies the following elements: an overall outcome, objectives, 

performance measures and targets, and means and strategies for 

accomplishing the goal. While most of the means and strategies for 

accomplishing goal 5 of the strategic plan are associated with workforce 

planning, neither the objectives nor the performance measures and targets 

for goal 5 are linked to workforce planning. Forest Service workforce 

planning officials told us that linkage has not occurred because the current 

strategic plan was developed in 2006, before the agency’s Workforce 

Planning and Program Analysis Branch and the current agencywide 

workforce planning process were established in 2007. The officials said 

that the Forest Service will be developing its next strategic plan during 

fiscal year 2010 and that they will be involved in this process, although the 

specific nature of this involvement has not yet been determined. 

With regard to linking workforce plans to budget formulation, the Forest 

Service began to formally link the two in 2008 through its Budget 

Performance Integration initiative. This initiative involves developing 

business plans that provide guidance to the agency on implementing each 

of the goals in the strategic plan. According to agency officials, the 

business plans deal with the direction the budget should take and are used 

in formulating the agency’s budget requests. Starting with the fiscal year 

2011 budget formulation process, which began in October 2008, officials 

from the Workforce Planning and Program Analysis Branch participated in 

the business plan development. At that time, the Forest Service also 

aligned the timing of the workforce planning and budget cycles, according 

to agency officials. By doing this, the teams developing the business plans 

would have workforce planning information for use in developing the 

business plans, according to agency officials. Our review of the fiscal year 

2011 business plans indicated that these business plans incorporated 

workforce planning information. Specifically, among other things, the 

plans identified workforce-related trends that can hinder the agency’s 

ability to meet its strategic goals, as well as workforce development needs 

that require support from the Forest Service’s Human Resources 

Management office. 

Agencies Vary in the 

Extent to Which They 

Involve Top Management 

and Others in Developing 

Workforce Plans 

To develop their workforce plans, most Interior bureaus involve top 

management, and some bureaus assemble teams of senior managers and 

program staff, as well as officials responsible for human resources and 

budgets. However, it is unclear whether the bureaus consistently involve 

employees and other stakeholders. For example, the Bureau of 

Reclamation directed its Managing for Excellence Team to develop the 

bureau’s workforce plan. The team included high-level officials, managers, 

Page 15 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

and staff from each of the bureau’s regions and offices. It also solicited 

public and stakeholder feedback at a public meeting in September 2006. In 

addition, the Bureau of Land Management’s plan was a collaborative effort 

among the bureau’s Human Capital Management Team in the Washington 

Office; field committee; human resource officers; and leadership in the 

state offices, centers, and the Washington Office. Officials from other 

bureaus told us that they use feedback from employee surveys and provide 

employees an opportunity to comment on the draft plans. For example, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service held listening sessions and surveyed 

employees to obtain their views. The director’s office also sent an e-mail to 

all employees to inform them of the workforce planning process, and the 

Human Resource Office provided information to employees on the 

planning process. 

EPA human resource officials told us that top managers were involved in 

developing the agency’s workforce plans and selected employees were 

involved to some extent. In addition, EPA officials said the agency had 

extensive union involvement with the implementation of the plan, 

particularly assessments of the competencies of mission-critical 

occupations. However, officials said consultation with the unions in the 

selection of mission-critical occupations would be inappropriate, as the 

mission of the unions does not impart any relevant expertise on this 

question. Furthermore, EPA officials stated that formal union engagement 

is not relevant to describe the level and extent that EPA involved 

management and staff, and the agency does not believe union 

involvement, in contrast to management and employee involvement, in the 

development of workforce plans would be appropriate or useful. Officials 

from the union representing the majority of EPA’s bargaining unit said 

their union was not involved in assessing competencies and that they 

should have been involved in developing the workforce plan. 

Executive leaders at the Forest Service have generally not been involved 

in setting the direction for the workforce plan,26 and selected employees 

were involved to some extent. The executive leaders we spoke with were 

also not familiar with the plan, including its recommendations. 

Nevertheless, they expressed their support for agencywide workforce 

planning efforts and were concerned about how the agency plans to 

 

26The Forest Service’s Executive Leadership Team, which we refer to as the agency’s 

executive leaders, comprises the Chief of the Forest Service; Associate Chief; Chief of 

Staff; Chief Financial Officer; and the Deputy Chiefs of Business Operations, National 

Forest System, Research and Development, and State and Private Forestry. 

Page 16 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

handle specific workforce planning issues, such as succession planning 

and diversity. Employee involvement in developing the agencywide plan 

occurs through small teams in the Forest Service’s 24 units that are 

responsible for completing the templates used to develop the plan. 

According to officials from the Workforce Planning and Program Analysis 

Branch, each Forest Service unit’s workforce team must include at least 

the unit leader, such as the regional forester or station director, who is 

responsible for ensuring completion of the unit’s template; the unit’s civil 

rights representative; a budget officer; and a human resources liaison. In 

addition, employees at some sub-units, such as the national forests, may 

be involved in completing templates. 

Agencies Have Taken 

Some Steps to Analyze 

Their Workforce 

At Interior, bureaus have taken an array of actions to analyze their 

workforce, an essential step to achieve their missions and goals. 

Specifically: 

Interior 

• Workforce plans for each bureau identify mission-critical occupations, 

although the plans vary in the extent to which the occupations are 

categorized. For example, some plans identify bureau-specific, missioncritical occupations, while others, such as the Bureau of Land 

Management, also include Interior-wide and OPM mission-critical 

occupations. In its analysis, the Bureau of Land Management identifies 

expected changes because of attrition and retirement and evaluates its 

need to expand the pool of staff to meet future workforce needs. 

• All the bureaus identify workforce challenges in their workforce plans to a 

varying extent. Some bureaus provide specific challenges critical to their 

mission. For example, Indian Affairs thoroughly details, among others, the 

challenges it faces in confronting increasing drug use and violence in 

Indian communities and recommended approaches to addressing these 

challenges. Other bureaus describe broader short- and long-term mission 

challenges, such as the loss through retirement of valuable institutional 

knowledge at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the use of new 

technologies to monitor environmental change. 

• Most bureaus identify workforce gaps, such as gaps in leadership or talent. 

For example, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

identifies gaps that could result because almost half of its workforce will 

be eligible for retirement in 2013. Additionally, the bureau plans to identify 

Page 17 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

skill gaps and use tools like relocation and retention allowances to 

promote position retention. 

• Some bureaus identify needed competencies and skill levels. For example, 

the U.S. Geological Survey identifies both needed competencies, such as 

working collaboratively and effectively addressing problems, and skill 

levels ranging from entry level to senior science and management levels. 

• Some bureaus identify positions to streamline or eliminate, although they 

are not required to do so. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation’s plan 

includes “position elimination factor” calculations, which considered 

succession rates and critical skill and competency needs, resulting in the 

potential to eliminate 159 positions in the 12 to 36 months following the 

creation of the plan. 

• Some bureaus consider diversity, as well as generational needs, in their 

workforce plans. For example, the National Park Service plan states that 

accomplishing its goals requires the service to have a diverse, highly 

skilled workforce. Accordingly, the plan tracks employee diversity through 

numerous workforce characteristics, including race, gender, and disability 

status. The U.S. Geological Survey uses generational analysis to develop 

employee programs, such as family-friendly programs and alternative 

work schedules, to meet the expectations of the younger workforce and 

attract and retain quality employees who will move into higher-level 

positions. 

EPA has identified competency gaps in its mission-critical occupations. In 

preparation for the 2006 strategic workforce plan, EPA conducted a series 

of interviews with senior agency officials that focused on the current and 

future missions of their respective offices and their core missions and 

major work areas. The agency analyzed the results of the interviews to 

identify the mission-critical occupations and the skills and competencies 

needed for those occupations. In 2006, the agency identified 19 such 

occupations. Among the 19 occupations, agency officials considered the 

highest-priority occupations to be (1) information technology specialists, 

(2) human resource specialists, (3) Senior Executive Service leaders, (4) 

grant specialists, (5) contract specialists, and (6) toxicologists. By 2009, 

EPA had completed competency assessments for 12 priority missioncritical occupations. According to the agency’s 2009 Human Capital 

Management Report, these assessments did not generally identify any 

significant competency gaps, which indicated a seasoned, professional 

workforce well-positioned to meet mission requirements. 

EPA 

Page 18 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

However, we have reported that EPA has not comprehensively analyzed 

its workload and workforce since the late 1980s to determine the optimal 

numbers and distribution of staff agencywide. In 2001, we reported that an 

organization within EPA deployed its workforce on the basis of outdated 

workload models and did not consider current workload information such 

as the increased role states assumed over the years in environmental 

enforcement.27 In 2005, we reported that EPA’s process for allocating 

resources involved making annual incremental adjustments and relied 

primarily on historical precedent. We also reported that EPA did not have 

a system in place to conduct a review of the nature or distribution of its 

current workload, which has changed over time as EPA has taken on new 

responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and other laws and the states 

have gradually assumed a greater role in the day-to-day implementation of 

key aspects of this workload. We specifically recommended in 2005 that 

EPA focus its efforts on a ground-level assessment and (1) identify key 

workload indicators that drive resource needs, (2) ensure that relevant 

data are complete and reliable, and (3) use the results to inform the 

agency’s resource allocations. In 2008, we noted that the agency’s 

approach in its operating plan for allocating its workforce among its 

regional offices had not substantially changed since our 2001 and 2005 

reports.28 In 2009, EPA officials told us the only workload analysis that 

they had conducted in recent years was an examination of the workload 

for the Superfund program completed in 2008. The resulting report said it 

remained a challenge to manage the expectations for the Superfund 

program under the allocation of personnel at the time. One finding in the 

report was that, “...given the allocation of work years, the time required to 

complete the remedial portion of the program for national priority sites 

was likely to be in excess of 70 years and well beyond the expected 

planning horizon for many sites.” Officials stated that they used the 

analysis in some instances to divert efforts from administrative functions 

to implementation of the cleanup program, share work among regions, and 

plan programs. However, the analysis was not used for a centrally 

managed reallocation effort by the office that manages the Superfund 

program. 

 

27GAO, Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA 

to Achieve Its Strategic Goals, GAO-01-812 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001). 

28GAO, EPA’s Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority for the 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional Offices, GAO-08-1109R 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2008). 

Page 19 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

In responding to our 2008 correspondence, EPA stated that it recognized 

the need to improve its ability to understand and quantify the relative 

workload of its component organizations and to make allocation decisions 

based on those assessments. Toward that end, the agency said that it is 

committed to improving its analytical capabilities and examining 

appropriate measures of workload to support the resource allocation 

process. In part, as a response to our recommendations, EPA officials said 

that they issued a contract in 2009 to explore better ways to assess staff 

levels for workload shifts. In 2010, the contractor is to survey selected 

EPA officials to determine the current workload and workforce alignment 

for functions in six areas: (1) regulatory development, (2) scientific 

research, (3) enforcement, (4) financial management, (5) environmental 

monitoring, and (6) permitting.29

The Forest Service has analyzed its workforce and identified missioncritical occupations, and it has taken preliminary steps to identify needed 

competencies and workforce gaps. Each year since 2007, the Forest 

Service has conducted a detailed analysis of workforce data in six areas: 

(1) workforce demographics, such as diversity, attrition, hiring, and the 

temporary workforce; (2) organizational management, including 

information on trends related to the budget, how work is assigned, and 

how organizations and positions are arranged at various levels; (3) 

recruitment; (4) training and succession planning; (5) workforce 

adjustments; and (6) sourcing options. In addition, the Workforce Planning 

and Program Analysis Branch has identified 74 mission-critical 

occupations. These occupations include 30 professional occupational 

series, such as general biology and forestry; 22 administrative series, such 

as program and budget analysts; and 22 technical series, such as forestry 

and hydrology technicians. The Forest Service’s field unit leaders—

including regional foresters, station directors, and others—have had 

opportunities to review and comment on the list of these 74 occupations. 

Forest Service 

 

29In 2010 and 2011, the contractor is to compare EPA’s data for each function with 

comparable functions at other agencies. For example, EPA officials said the contractor 

might compare EPA’s permitting function with that of the Corps of Engineers and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA regulatory development with 

the Food and Drug Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. According to EPA officials, a similar effort by a previous contractor to 

compare EPA’s overall workload assessment efforts was unable to provide actionable 

information due to the difficulty of comparing workload assessments at agencies with 

different missions, statutory mandates, and core functions. EPA officials said they expect 

their current effort to be more successful because it focuses on particular core functions 

that can be compared with similar functions at other agencies. 

Page 20 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

However, the agency’s executive leaders have not yet had a role in 

reviewing the mission-critical occupations identified, although workforce 

planning officials told us that these leaders will review the list for the 2011 

workforce planning cycle. Using agencywide information, the Forest 

Service has identified agencywide gaps in certain mission-critical 

occupations—for example, the workforce plan for 2009 through 2013 

identified shortages in contracting and archaeology. 

The Forest Service has also taken some steps to identify needed 

competencies for its workforce at all levels but has not yet identified 

competency gaps. Specifically, the agency has identified the following 

types of competencies: 

• “Foundational” competencies. These consist of competencies in two 

areas—”managing self,” which applies to all employees and includes such 

competencies as continual learning and interpersonal skills, and 

“managing projects,” which applies to certain managers and includes team 

building and accountability.30

• “Leadership” competencies. These apply to supervisors, managers, and 

executives and consist of a variety of competencies in four areas—leading 

organizations and managing people, programs, and performance.31 Specific 

competencies include conflict management, financial management, 

strategic thinking, and facilitating performance. 

• “Technical” competencies. These competencies apply to specific 

occupational series. The Forest Service has identified technical 

competencies for 24 of its 74 mission-critical occupations. In addition, the 

agency has identified technical competencies for eight occupational series 

that are not mission-critical because, according to agency officials, these 

series have direct relationships to other mission-critical occupations. 

According to an official from the Forest Service’s Center of Learning, the 

center is also working on identifying technical competencies for other 

occupational series. Although the Forest Service intends to complete this 

 

30According to a Forest Service official, these “foundational” competencies are based on 

OPM guidance. 

31According to a Forest Service official, these “leadership” competencies are based on OPM 

guidance. 

Page 21 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

process for all mission-critical occupations, according to agency officials, 

it does not have a plan for doing so or a strategy to set priorities for 

addressing additional occupational series. 

While the Forest Service has not yet inventoried the competencies of its 

current employees, and therefore cannot yet identify its competency gaps, 

an official with the Center of Learning told us that the agency is preparing 

to launch pilot efforts to assess the foundational and leadership 

competencies of staff in certain grade levels and occupational series. 

Appendix IV provides information on the mission-critical occupations 

identified by Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service. 

Agencies Identify Some 

Strategies to Address 

Workforce Gaps 

At Interior, the bureaus’ workforce plans identify a range of strategies to 

address workforce gaps, such as the use of recruitment and other 

incentives, training, and succession planning. In terms of recruitment, 

some bureaus engage in targeted recruitment to attract a skilled, diverse 

workforce. For example, at Indian Affairs, the bureau works with the 

tribes and tribal schools and colleges to recruit qualified applicants. In 

addition, Indian Affairs’ recruitment efforts target Native American 

veterans to fill law enforcement positions, an occupation where the 

bureau has experienced significant shortages of qualified applicants. 

Bureaus also use incentive programs to attract and retain highly skilled 

and qualified employees, although officials in some bureaus said there was 

seldom enough money for such incentives. For example, the Minerals 

Management Service uses incentives such as student loan repayments and 

recruitment and relocation bonuses to help make its openings competitive 

with the private sector. Bureaus also use training and succession planning 

to fill workforce gaps. In one instance, the Minerals Management Service 

paid for an employee’s college education to obtain the skills it needed and 

help retain the employee. The Bureau of Land Management’s Executive 

Leadership Team endorsed the creation of a leadership excellence 

program as a succession planning strategy to develop new leaders. 

Although all bureaus identify strategies to fill gaps, the extent to which the 

bureaus’ workforce plans identify how the bureaus will track the 

implementation of the strategies is unclear. For example, the National 

Park Service’s workforce plan identifies goals and steps to develop and 

implement a comprehensive leadership management strategy, but it does 

not address how the bureau will track progress toward implementing the 

strategy. 

Page 22 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

EPA officials said they have closed competency gaps on the six highestpriority, mission-critical occupations using recruitment, restructuring, 

succession planning, training, and mentoring. None of the gaps were large, 

according to EPA’s 2009 Human Capital Management Report to OPM. 

For example, the agency stated that among contract specialists, the gaps 

were what EPA termed “medium level gaps” in such competencies as 

teamwork and project management. For another mission-critical 

occupation, information technology specialists, the competencies that 

were improved included risk management and network security. In the 

same 2009 report to OPM, EPA said it found no gaps in the competencies 

for the next six priority mission-critical occupations (chemists, biologists, 

physical scientists, economists, attorneys, and health scientists). 

Consequently, EPA estimated in the 2008 President’s Management 

Agenda Human Capital Green Book that there were no gaps in 62 percent 

of its mission-critical occupations once the gap analysis and actions to fill 

gaps were completed on the first twelve mission-critical occupations. 

While EPA’s efforts are a step in the right direction, efforts to close the 

gaps will remain incomplete without the comprehensive workload and 

workforce analysis that we recommended in our prior reports, as 

discussed earlier. 

The Forest Service has established several leadership development 

programs and is developing and implementing several other agencywide 

initiatives to address workforce gaps. According to an agency official, 

these leadership development programs are central to its succession 

planning and include, among other things, a Senior Leader program and a 

Middle Leader program, for which a pilot was recently completed. The 

Forest Service is also developing a 5-year recruitment strategy and annual 

implementation plan, but these are in draft form, and specific 

responsibilities for implementing this strategy have not yet been assigned. 

The agency’s Center of Learning is developing national strategies to 

identify and address workforce gaps through its training, employee 

development, and succession planning initiatives. For example, a Center 

of Learning official told us that the center is developing and beginning to 

pilot test a method to identify and deliver targeted training to address any 

employee competency gaps that may be identified. The Center of Learning 

is also designing a 5-year implementation plan for its training, 

development, and succession planning programs. In addition to these 

efforts, the agency’s civil rights office is developing a national diversity 

strategy. 

Page 23 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

At Interior, bureaus vary in the extent to which they (1) train managers 

and provide them with guidance on how to use human capital flexibilities 

and (2) streamline processes for hiring employees and administering 

incentive awards. For example, managers at the U.S. Geological Survey are 

educated on recruitment, retention, and relocation flexibilities during the 

Supervisory Challenge training class, and the bureau reviews these 

flexibilities with managers when advertising vacancies. Additionally, the 

U.S. Geological Survey provides guidance and education on the full range 

of available flexibilities through the eastern region manager’s toolkit, on 

its Intranet, and at various management conferences. With regard to 

streamlining processes, the Fish and Wildlife Service implemented OPM’s 

USA Staffing in October 2007 to address hiring challenges, provide timely 

responses to questions, and assess applicants with multiple levels of 

review and screening, among other things.32 In addition to USA Staffing, 

Fish and Wildlife Service officials also told us they are working to further 

improve the hiring process by automating the creation of position 

descriptions. Finally, some bureaus have developed guidance and 

delegated the use of human capital incentives to field and regional 

managers. 

Agencies Vary in the 

Actions They Have Taken 

to Support Workforce 

Planning and 

Implementation 

EPA officials told us the agency supported workforce planning by 

providing guidance to its regional and program offices on how to develop 

their individual workforce plans, assess mission-critical competencies, and 

develop training to address competency gaps. Consequently, human 

resource officers at various levels of the organization receive training on 

available flexibilities, according to EPA’s Acting Deputy Director, Office of 

Human Resources. In addition, the acting deputy director said information 

on these policies is available agencywide on the EPA Intranet. Also, most 

flexibilities are covered by guidance and forms used by the agency’s hiring 

managers. Furthermore, human capital objectives are included in Senior 

Executive Service performance contracts, according to the acting deputy 

director. 

According to the Forest Service’s workforce plan for 2009 through 2013 

and 2009 workforce analysis, the Forest Service has underused 

recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives. According to Forest 

Service human resources officials, the Human Resources Management 

 

32USA Staffing is a Web-based system that automates the public sector staffing process 

through Web-enabled software that automates the recruitment, assessment, referral, and 

notification processes. 

Page 24 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

office is collecting data on these incentives, which it may use to develop 

improved guidance for managers on how to use them. The Forest Service 

provides employees with information about the variety of human capital 

flexibilities available, such as work-life programs and incentive awards, 

through several means, including the agency’s Intranet and a monthly 

human resources newsletter. Officials told us that the agency is also 

considering how to streamline its communications and improve 

management’s knowledge of available flexibilities. While information on 

flexibilities has been provided, managers, such as regional foresters, are 

not formally held accountable—for example, through their performance 

expectations—for fair, transparent, or effective use of the agency’s various 

flexibilities, according to Forest Service officials. 

Agencies Generally Do Not 

Monitor and Evaluate 

Progress in Workforce 

Planning 

Workforce plans for three of Interior’s bureaus—the Bureau of Land 

Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement—describe the steps that would be used to 

measure the outcomes of the workforce strategies they implement. For 

example, the Bureau of Land Management states in its workforce plan that 

it would report progress on both a quarterly basis, and on an annual basis, 

to determine if the actions taken are changing trends in its workforce. 

Additionally, the bureau’s plan states that the bureau will analyze results 

from OPM’s Fiscal Year 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey to determine 

whether it is making progress in becoming a “Best Place to Work.”33 The 

Bureau of Land Management’s workforce plan also states that the bureau 

will update the plan as needed to ensure it is relevant and reflects 

Interior’s and the bureau’s strategic goals and objectives; however, bureau 

officials could not provide us with any progress reports or an updated 

plan. Management teams at the U.S. Geological Survey also use OPM’s 

Federal Human Capital Survey, in addition to a bureau-specific survey 

called the Organizational Assessment Survey, to evaluate organizational 

excellence, develop strategies, and identify actions to advance Interior’s 

strategic plan. According to the survey, from 2002 to 2007, the bureau 

experienced an 8-percent increase in employees’ perceptions of the U.S. 

Geological Survey as a rewarding place to work. The workforce plans of 

the remaining five bureaus do not discuss steps that could be used to 

 

33The Federal Human Capital Survey is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of 

whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are 

present in their agencies. Survey results provide insight into the challenges agency leaders 

face in ensuring the federal government has an effective civilian workforce and how well 

they are responding. 

Page 25 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

measure their progress in implementing the various strategies they have 

identified. 

EPA has not comprehensively monitored and evaluated the results of its 

workforce planning efforts, including whether its workforce planning 

contributes to the agency’s strategic planning goals. Since 2007, EPA has 

focused more on evaluating the workforce planning efforts of its 10 

regions, rather than its 13 program offices. However, according to agency 

officials, EPA has annually collected information on workforce planning 

from regions and program offices for reports to OPM. We found that a 

comprehensive agencywide evaluation was incomplete, since a 

compilation of the data call for 2007 showed that many offices did not 

respond to all of the questions they were asked. 

The Forest Service does not have a process to implement the 

recommendations in its agencywide workforce plans and has not 

established a process to evaluate its workforce planning. Specifically, the 

Forest Service does not have a process to communicate the workforce 

plans’ recommendations, assign responsibilities or establish time frames 

for implementing them, or track their implementation. For example, the 

2009 through 2013 plan includes a recommendation that the leadership 

determine the optimum number of employees necessary to meet the 

agency’s mission and objectives, but the leaders we contacted had limited 

knowledge about this plan or its recommendations. Furthermore, for some 

of the plans’ recommendations, it is not clear who is responsible for 

implementing them. For example, the 2009 through 2013 plan recommends 

developing an agency mentoring protocol but does not specify who or 

what organization would be responsible for doing this. We also found that 

the Forest Service has not evaluated its workforce planning, except to 

request a study to evaluate its diversity initiatives. Specifically: 

• The Forest Service’s Annual Performance Report for fiscal year 2008 did 

not analyze the contributions of workforce planning toward achieving the 

agency’s strategic goals because workforce planning is not fully integrated 

into the agency’s strategic plan.34

 

34The Forest Service’s fiscal year 2008 Annual Performance Report is contained in the 

agency’s 2010 budget justification. The report presents the plans and accomplishments that 

contribute to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives. It analyzes program performance 

at the strategic goal level and serves as the agency’s Government Performance and Results 

Act Annual Performance Report for fiscal year 2008. 

Page 26 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

• Although the agencywide workforce plans and analyses indicate that 

measurement systems and metrics to track workforce planning 

accomplishments are in place, we found that the Workforce Planning and 

Program Analysis Branch had not established such a process; however, it 

recognizes it needs to do so. Furthermore, the workforce plans state that 

the Workforce Planning and Program Analysis Branch will track the 

agency’s progress in implementing the recommendations made in the 

workforce plans, but we found that the branch has not yet started this 

activity. 

• The Forest Service has not evaluated specific workforce planning efforts, 

such as its recruitment strategies and plans or training and employee 

development programs. However, an official told us that the Center of 

Learning was developing an evaluation of its Senior Leader Program. 

• The Forest Service recently requested that the National Academy of Public 

Administration evaluate the agency’s diversity initiatives, with the goals of 

identifying which programs are (1) operating effectively, (2) achieving 

moderate success, or (3) ineffective and should be eliminated. The 

resulting report, issued in 2009,35 stated that the Forest Service was unable 

to provide adequate program data, metrics, and cost data needed for the 

evaluation requested; however, the academy offered several 

recommendations for strengthening the Forest Service’s diversity 

initiatives. 

Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service have not directly linked their 

workforce planning efforts with their budget allocation processes. 

Specifically, we found that the Interior bureaus’ workforce plans do not 

systematically link to budget allocation processes, and the bureaus 

generally do not track how program officials use these plans to allocate 

funds. However, officials in some bureaus reported that unit and program 

officials use workforce plans to distribute staff geographically, share skills 

within the bureau, or adjust workloads to match available funding. For 

example, the Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a competency 

inventory to determine how it can borrow resources across the service’s 

regions and offices to respond to changes in the funding it receives. Such a 

competency inventory could enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to, for 

Agencies Do Not 

Directly Link Their 

Workforce Planning 

with Budget 

Allocation 

 

35National Academy of Public Administration, A Report by a Panel of the National 

Academy of Public Administration for the USDA Forest Service: A Program Review of 

Diversity Strategic Initiatives (Washington, D.C., 2009). 

Page 27 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

example, temporarily relocate a hydrologist from one region to another to 

meet a pressing need that was not funded. 

At EPA, the agency does not directly link workforce planning with its 

annual budget allocation process. EPA’s process for allocating resources 

involves making annual incremental adjustments and relies primarily on 

historical precedent. Specifically, the agency bases budget decisions on 

marginal changes to prior year budgets that occur in response to (1) 

direction from OMB and Congress and (2) spending caps imposed by EPA 

management. EPA officials said the agency recently provided funds for 

additional FTEs and associated payroll to support significant 

enhancements to EPA’s High Production Volume Chemicals Program, but 

they did not provide other examples that would indicate a significant 

departure from their incremental approach. 

Finally, at the Forest Service, budget allocation guidance documents do 

not mention workforce planning directly. However, according to its 

executive leaders, the agency links workforce planning with budget 

allocation to some extent. Specifically, these officials said that this linkage 

begins during the agency’s budget formulation process at the unit and 

program levels and continues during the annual budget allocation process. 

As part of the agency’s budget formulation process, units provide 

information to executive leaders on their unit’s capabilities to meet 

programmatic and strategic goals. Although these “capability responses” 

do not necessarily explicitly link to workforce planning, executive leaders 

told us that the units and individual programs take workforce capabilities 

into account in preparing these capability responses.36 After the Forest 

Service leadership proposes its annual budget allocation, the units have an 

opportunity to revisit their capability responses in providing feedback on 

the proposed budget allocation. However, they added, the final allocation 

is mostly based on historical levels and represents only limited, 

incremental shifts from the previous year. Major changes must be planned 

several years in advance through the budget formulation process. 

Moreover, Forest Service officials told us that the agency does not 

typically have a need to shift people and dollars between budget line items 

 

36In addition, as previously noted, the Forest Service began to formally link agencywide 

workforce planning with budget formulation during the formulation of the fiscal year 2011 

budget process—specifically, by involving the Workforce Planning and Program Analysis 

Branch in the budget formulation process and aligning the timing of the workforce 

planning and budget cycles. 

Page 28 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

from year to year and has the flexibility to address some needs through 

temporary employees and contractors. 

With a total of about 121,000 employees nationwide, as well as contractors 

and volunteers, Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service face a daunting 

challenge: to effectively manage their workforces to achieve their 

agencies’ missions. To their credit, the agencies have begun to focus 

attention on the need to use strategic workforce planning to carry out 

current programs and to address new and emerging tasks. Although the 

agencies continue their efforts to better incorporate the principles for 

workforce planning, their efforts have particularly fallen short in two of 

the six leading principles that we and others have identified as important 

to effective workforce planning: (1) aligning the agency’s workforce plan 

with its strategic plan and (2) monitoring and evaluating their workforce 

planning efforts. Until Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service more clearly 

align their workforce plans with their strategic plans and monitor and 

evaluate their progress, they are at risk of not having the appropriately 

skilled workforce they need to effectively achieve their missions. 

Furthermore, specifically at the Forest Service, we found that the agency 

has developed and issued annual workforce plans that contain important 

information about current and emerging workforce issues and has 

identified a variety of recommendations to address these issues. However, 

the agency has not fully taken advantage of these efforts because it has not 

communicated the recommendations or assigned responsibility for 

implementing them, nor has it established time frames for implementation. 

We believe that without appropriate processes for communicating, 

implementing, and tracking these recommendations, the agency may miss 

opportunities to address the workforce needs identified in the plans and 

will not be able to ensure that appropriate steps have been taken. 

To ensure that Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service more fully 

incorporate leading workforce planning principles into their workforce 

planning efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief 

of the Forest Service, take the following two actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Incorporate into their agency’s workforce plans clear and explicit links 

between the workforce plans and the strategic plan, and describe how the 

workforce plans will help the agency achieve its strategic goals. 

Page 29 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

• Establish mechanisms that their agency can use to monitor and evaluate 

the effectiveness of its workforce planning efforts, particularly in 

achieving the agency’s strategic goals. 

To further capitalize on the Forest Service’s existing workforce planning 

efforts, we also recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture, through the 

Chief of the Forest Service, establish processes for (1) communicating the 

recommendations in the agency’s annual 5-year workforce plans; (2) 

assigning responsibility and establishing time frames for implementing the 

recommendations; and (3) tracking implementation of the 

recommendations. 

We provided a draft of this report to Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service 

for their review and comment. Interior provided a technical comment, 

which we incorporated into our report. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

In commenting on the report draft, EPA recognized the need to continue 

to address its human capital issues in carrying out its mission to protect 

human health and the environment. However, EPA stated that we did not 

fully illustrate the tools that it uses to manage its workforce effectively and 

that it would welcome the opportunity to work further with us to provide 

specific examples. During the course of our review, we had many 

discussions with EPA officials regarding EPA’s workforce management 

activities, and we believe that our report accurately reflects EPA’s overall 

activities to manage its workforce. With respect to our recommendations, 

EPA agreed with the principles underlying our recommendations, but 

disagreed with a word in one recommendation. Specifically, EPA 

suggested removing the word “explicit” from our recommendation that the 

agencies incorporate into their workforce plans clear and explicit links 

between their workforce plans and strategic plan. As we pointed out in the 

draft report, EPA referred to the strategic plan only once in its 2006 

strategic workforce plan. We have not made this change to the 

recommendation because we continue to believe that EPA needs to 

provide more explicit links between its workforce plan and the goals of its 

strategic plan. Regarding our recommendation that the agencies establish 

mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of workforce 

planning efforts, EPA asked for specific examples of mechanisms used by 

other federal agencies. During the course of our review, we provided EPA 

with a copy of our report describing leading principles of workforce 

planning, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 

Workforce Planning, and referred officials to other related GAO reports. 

EPA also pointed out that its strategic plan included sections that 

Page 30 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

identified future staff skill needs and recruiting strategies. We added EPA’s 

comments to our report. 

EPA also stated that it evaluates agency workforce planning efforts in a 

program approved by OPM, and that it disagreed with our statement that it 

does not directly link workforce planning with its annual budget process, 

and provided one example in which it has done so.37 We did not revise the 

report in response to these comments because (1) EPA’s evaluation did 

not include all regions and program offices and therefore was not 

comprehensive, and (2) our analysis indicates that EPA’s workforce 

planning process and budget allocation are not clearly linked, although 

there may be some individual cases in which linkages may exist. In 

addition, EPA took issue with our statement that the agency is at risk of 

not having an appropriately skilled workforce to effectively achieve its 

mission if it does not more clearly align the workforce with strategic 

planning. EPA cited its history of mission success and high marks received 

from OMB and OPM on strategic human capital management. While we 

recognize that EPA has made progress, our past work has called for 

improvements in EPA’s workforce management activities that have not yet 

been fully implemented. We continue to believe that further improvements 

are necessary to link EPA’s strategic planning with workforce planning to 

better ensure the agency has the right number of people, with the right 

skills, at the right locations to ensure the success of its mission. EPA also 

provided other technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. EPA’s comments on our report draft are provided in 

appendix V. 

The Forest Service generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

conclusions and stated that it has begun working on some aspects of one 

of our recommendations. Specifically, the Forest Service stated that it is 

working on communicating the Forest Service’s workforce plans’ 

recommendations and assigning responsibility for their timely 

implementation. The Forest Service also provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated, as appropriate. The Forest Service’s comments on 

our report draft are provided in appendix VI. 

 

37EPA also referred to two examples of changes in FTEs among its many programs in its 

fiscal year 2011 budget request, but we described an agency’s budget allocation in our 

report as a process that occurs after Congress appropriates the funds and OMB apportions 

them. This process has not occurred for fiscal year 2011. 

Page 31 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture; Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency; Chief of the Forest Service; and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact us at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

Anu K. Mittal 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

John B. Stephenson 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Page 32 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 33 GAO-10-413 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

1

Workforce Planning at Interior, 

EPA, and Forest Service 

Briefing to the Subcommittees on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies

Committees on Appropriations

U.S. Senate 

House of Representatives

December 2009

This briefing is based on preliminary information and is 

subject to revision.

Workforce Planning 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

2

Background

• Public Law 111-8 – Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 

mandates GAO to review workforce planning processes.

• Strategic workforce planning:

• Aligns an organization’s human capital program with 

its current and emerging mission and programmatic 

goals and

• Develops long-term strategies for acquiring, 

developing, and retaining staff to achieve 

programmatic goals.

• Human capital included on GAO’s high-risk list since 2001 

as a cross-cutting federal government issue.

Page 34 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

3

Background—Interior 

• Mission: To protect and manage the nation’s natural resources 

and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about 

those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities.

• FY 2010 budget request: $18.2 billion and an estimated $14.0 billion in 

receipts.

• Workforce consists of: 

• About 67,000 full-time equivalent employees, and employees make 

up almost 55% of budget.

• Over 200,000 volunteers.

• About 2,400 locations across 8 bureaus; regional/field structure varies by 

bureau.

Page 35 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

4

Background—EPA

• Mission: To protect human health and the environment by leading 

the nation’s environmental science, research, education, and 

assessment efforts.

• FY 2010 budget request: $10.5 billion.

• Workforce:

• About 17,000 full-time equivalent employees.

• These employees constitute about 20% of the 2010 budget.

• About 6,000 contract employees.

• 10 regions and 13 program offices.

Page 36 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

5

Background—Forest Service 

• Mission: To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and

future generations.

• FY 2010 budget request: $6.1 billion.

• Workforce:

• About 34,000 full-time equivalent employees.

• Projected personnel and benefits costs constitute 60% of 

agency’s budget. 

• About 70,000 volunteers.

• 155 national forests within 9 regions; 7 research units. 

Page 37 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

6

Objectives

1. What workforce planning processes are in place at Interior, 

EPA, and the Forest Service?

2. To what extent does workforce planning at Interior, EPA, and 

the Forest Service incorporate leading principles identified by 

GAO and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)?

3. How do Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service link workforce 

planning with their annual budget allocation processes?

Page 38 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

7

Scope and Methodology

• Scope

• Interior—departmentwide and bureau-specific workforce planning efforts since fiscal year 2008.

• EPA—agencywide workforce planning since 2006.

• Forest Service—agencywide workforce planning since 2007. 

• Focused on highest organizational level; limited work at the regional and field levels.

• Methodology

• Reviewed agencywide workforce plans, budget documents, and guidance and, in limited cases, at other levels in the organizations. 

• Interviewed planning, human resources, budget and program officials responsible for these plans.

Page 39 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

8

Scope and Methodology

• Based on prior GAO work, OPM guidance, a literature search, and discussions with government officials and others knowledgeable about workforce planning, 

we identified six GAO and OPM principles for evaluating workforce planning:

1. Align workforce planning with strategic plan and budget. 

2. Involve management, employees, and others. 

3. Analyze the workforce, determine critical skills and competencies, and identify gaps. 

4. Develop and implement strategies to address gaps in the workforce, including critical skills and competencies. 

5. Build capacity to support workforce strategies. 

6. Monitor and evaluate progress.

• We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 to December 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 40 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

9

Interior Workforce Planning

• No current departmentwide workforce plan.

• Delegated workforce planning to bureaus.

• Bureaus use departmental guidance provided by the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer to develop their plans, and plans were generally 

presented in a consistent format.

• A description of the bureau’s mission and how the workforce plan is integrated with Interior’s strategic plan.

• A profile of the bureau’s workforce and a discussion of the bureau’s 

mission challenges and workforce needs.

• A discussion of plans and solutions to meet workforce and skill needs and resources required to meet these needs.

Objective 1

Page 41 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

10

EPA Workforce Planning 

• Issued an agencywide workforce plan in 2006 developed by the 

Office of Human Resources.

• Plan projected changes in core functions for 2005-2008.

• EPA is working on updating the plan.

• EPA issued a contract to explore better ways to assess staff levels for shifts in the workload.

• Plan provides guidance to regional and program offices, which are responsible for developing their plans. 

• Regional and program offices’ workforce planning was beyond 

the scope of our work.

Objective 1

Page 42 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

11

Forest Service Workforce Planning

Objective 1

• Current agencywide workforce planning process began in 

2007.

• Workforce Planning and Program Analysis Branch leads 

process.

• 5-year agencywide workforce plan updated annually using 

standard templates completed by 24 units.

• Annual workforce analysis provides information on composition 

of agency’s workforce nationwide.

• Field units—such as regions and national forests—are 

primarily responsible for workforce planning, but they are 

outside the scope of our work.

Page 43 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

12

Principle 1: Align Workforce Planning with 

Strategic Plan and Budget Formulation

Workforce plan and FY 

2007-2012 Forest Service 

strategic plan not clearly 

aligned. Workforce 

planning branch staff to 

participate in development 

of agency’s next strategic 

plan.

Agency began to link 

workforce planning with 

budget formulation during 

FY 2011 budget process.

EPA could not demonstrate that 

the workforce plan is clearly 

aligned with the strategic plan 

or the budget. Workforce plan 

does not show how FTEs, skills, 

and locations will be aligned with 

the strategic plan or budget.

Three of 8 bureaus link 

workforce plans to one or 

more of Interior strategic 

goals, and none link plans to 

specific outcome measures. 

Bureaus generally request 

funds to implement their 

workforce plans when they 

formulate their budgets.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 44 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

13

Principle 2: Involve Management, Employees, 

and Others in the Workforce Plan

Generally, executive 

leadership not involved in 

setting overall direction for 

agencywide workforce plan 

and has limited knowledge of 

plan. Workforce Planning and 

Program Analysis Branch 

leads process to develop the 

plan.

Employees involved through 

small teams that complete the 

units’ templates used to 

develop the plan.

Top managers involved in 

developing workforce plans, 

and some employees 

participated to some extent. 

Most bureaus involved top 

management when 

developing workforce plans, 

but it is less clear whether 

they consistently involved 

employees and other 

stakeholders.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 45 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

14

Principle 3: Analyze the Workforce, Determine Critical 

Skills and Competencies, and Identify Gaps

Detailed annual workforce 

analysis conducted since 

2007; some steps taken to 

identify competencies and 

occupation gaps.

• Identified 74 MCOs that much of 

agency’s workforce planning is 

based on, but executive leadership 

has not reviewed these.

• Established technical 

competencies for three MCOs, as 

well as general leadership 

competencies. Developing process 

to identify gaps for these. 

• 2009-2013 workforce plan 

identified shortages in some MCOs 

(e.g., contracting and archaeology).

Agency is identifying 

competency gaps in MCOs.

• Identified 19 MCOs among 200 

occupations.

• Identified competency gaps for 

12 priority MCOs.

EPA has not comprehensively 

analyzed its workload and 

workforce in more than 20 

years to determine the 

optimal number and 

distribution of staff 

agencywide. 

Most bureaus identified 

mission-critical occupations 

(MCOs), gaps, challenges, 

and needed competencies 

or skill levels, and some 

identified occupations to 

streamline or eliminate.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 46 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

15

Principle 4: Develop and Implement Strategies to Address Gaps 

in the Workforce, Including Critical Skills and Competencies

Developing national 

strategies to address 

workforce gaps, such as

• 5-year recruitment strategy 

and annual implementation 

plan, 

• 5-year training and 

development plan,

• process to identify and 

deliver competency-based 

training to address individual 

employee gaps, and

• diversity strategy. 

EPA officials stated that agency 

closed competency gaps on 6 

occupations using recruitment, 

restructuring, succession 

planning, training, and 

mentoring.

Gap closure efforts did not 

include workload analyses as a 

step toward examining the 

optimal distribution of the 

workforce to meet its strategic 

goals. 

All bureaus identified 

strategies managers may 

use to fill gaps, but not all 

track whether these 

strategies are used.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 47 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

16

Principle 5: Build Capacity to Support 

Workforce Strategies 

Agency collecting data that 

may be used to provide 

guidance on using recruitment, 

retention, and relocation 

incentives, which the most 

recent workforce plan and 

analysis state have been 

underutilized.

Managers not formally held 

accountable for use of human 

capital flexibilities.

Agency uses human capital 

flexibilities such as rotation 

opportunities for employees 

and a student loan repayment 

program. 

Bureaus vary in their efforts 

to inform managers on how 

to use human capital 

flexibilities, streamline 

administrative processes, 

and develop clear guidance.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 48 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

17

Principle 6: Monitor and Evaluate Progress

Forest Service recognizes the 

need to evaluate workforce 

planning but has not 

established an evaluation 

process.

Limited steps taken to 

implement workforce plan’s 

recommendations.

EPA has evaluated most of 

the regions and several other 

offices since fiscal year 

2007, but has not 

comprehensively reviewed 

how or whether its workforce 

planning contributes to the 

achievement of strategic 

planning goals.

Few bureaus described how 

they plan to measure the 

outcomes of workforce 

strategies or whether the 

strategies helped to achieve 

their strategic goals.

Interior EPA Forest Service

Objective 2

Page 49 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

18

Interior Workforce Planning

and Budget Allocation

Objective 3

• Bureau workforce plans generally do not state that they will be 

used to inform budget allocation decisions.

• Bureaus generally do not track how program officials use 

workforce plans to allocate funds.

• Officials in some bureaus use workforce plans to distribute staff 

geographically, share needed skills, or adjust workloads to 

match available funding.

Page 50 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

19

EPA Workforce Planning and Budget 

Allocation

Objective 3

• Workforce planning not clearly connected to budget 

allocation.

• Budget decisions are based on marginal changes to prior 

year budgets and occur in response to (1) direction from 

OMB and Congress and (2) spending caps imposed by 

EPA management. 

Page 51 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

20

Forest Service Workforce Planning

and Budget Allocation

Objective 3

• Budget allocation guidance documents do not clearly link to workforce 

planning.

• According to executive leaders, workforce planning has been indirectly 

linked to annual budget allocation process through budget formulation 

at field and program levels.

• Forest Service began to more systematically link agencywide workforce 

plan with budget formulation during FY 2011 budget process.

• Incremental changes in budget allocations occur from year-to-year, but 

major changes must be planned years in advance.

Page 52 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

This appendix details the methods we used to examine workforce 

planning at the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the Forest Service, an agency within the 

Department of Agriculture. We were asked to describe (1) the workforce 

planning processes in place at these agencies, (2) the extent to which 

workforce planning at these agencies incorporates leading principles we 

and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) identified, and (3) how, if 

at all, these agencies link workforce planning with their annual budget 

allocation processes. Our review focused on workforce planning at the 

highest levels within these agencies, and the time periods reviewed at each 

agency varied as noted below. 

Based on prior GAO work, OPM guidance, a literature search, and 

discussions with government officials and others knowledgeable about 

workforce planning, we identified six leading principles for evaluating 

workforce planning: 

• align workforce planning with strategic planning and budget formulation; 

• involve managers, employees, and other stakeholders; 

• identify critical occupations, skills, and competencies and analyze 

workforce gaps; 

• employ workforce strategies to fill the gaps; 

• build the capabilities needed to support workforce strategies through 

steps to ensure the effective use of human capital flexibilities;1

 and 

• monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving workforce planning and 

strategic goals. 

To identify the workforce planning processes in place at Interior, we 

reviewed the workforce plans developed by each of Interior’s eight 

bureaus, which are primarily responsible for workforce planning at the 

Interior 

 

1

Human capital flexibilities represent the policies and practices that an agency has the 

authority to implement in managing its workforce—for example, work-life programs, 

monetary incentives and awards, and special hiring authorities. See GAO, Human Capital: 

Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, 

GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002). 

Page 53 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

department. The bureaus’ plans had been developed since 2007, when the 

department’s current policies, practices, and guidance became effective. 

These plans covered fiscal year 2008 through December 2009. Specifically, 

we reviewed the following workforce plans: 

• Bureau of Land Management Human Capital Workforce Plan, FY 2008–

2013; 

• Reclamation, Managing Water in the West, Workforce and Succession 

Plan, FY 2008–2012; 

• Indian Affairs Workforce Plan, 2008–2013; 

• Minerals Management Service Human Capital Workforce Plan, 2008–

2013; 

• National Park Service Workforce Management Plan, Developing, Valuing 

and Sustaining a World Class Workforce, FY 2008–2013; 

• Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Workforce Plan, 

FY 2008–FY 2013; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2008–2013 Workforce Plan; and 

• USGS Workforce Plan, FY 2008–2013. 

We also reviewed the departmental guidance provided to the bureaus by 

the Office of the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer to help them prepare 

these workforce plans, and interviewed human resources and budget 

officials at Interior and its eight bureaus. 

We then compared the workforce plans and related documents for each of 

the bureaus to the leading principles for workforce planning to determine 

how, if at all, the principles had been adopted. In addition to the 

workforce plans, we reviewed Interior’s current strategic plan, GPRA 

Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2007–2012, U.S. Department of the Interior

to determine links between the workforce plans and the department’s 

strategic goals, and reviewed its fiscal year 2010 budget justifications to 

identify requests for funds to implement workforce strategies. We 

supplemented our comparison of documents with interviews with human 

resources and budget officials who were responsible for carrying out the 

bureaus’ workforce planning and budget formulation efforts. 

Page 54 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

To determine how, if at all, Interior links workforce planning with its 

annual budget allocation process, we reviewed the bureaus’ workforce 

plans and fiscal year 2010 budget justifications and interviewed bureau 

officials responsible for workforce planning and budgeting. 

To determine the existing workforce processes at EPA, we reviewed 

relevant agency documents, such as its 2006 strategic workforce plan, 

reports to OPM, and EPA’s budget documents. In addition, we reviewed 

GAO reports and EPA Office of the Inspector General reports on 

workforce planning issued since 2000. We examined workpapers of the 

EPA Office of the Inspector General while its review of workforce 

planning was ongoing. We interviewed agency officials, particularly those 

responsible for human resources and budget issues. 

EPA 

To determine the extent to which EPA incorporates leading principles, we 

focused on the six leading principles developed by GAO and OPM for 

effective strategic workforce planning. We examined documents such as 

EPA’s 2006 strategic workforce plan; the agency’s annual human capital 

reports to OPM; EPA’s 2010 budget, 2009 and 2010 performance plans, and 

the 2006 through 2011 strategic plan; and the 2009 through 2014 Strategic 

Plan Change Document for Public Review. Also we interviewed agency 

officials responsible for workforce planning and the budget issues. As part 

of our examination of EPA’s identification of workforce gaps, we reviewed 

its 2008 Superfund workload study. We interviewed Superfund program 

officials and officials from two regions, recommended by EPA, about their 

views on workforce planning for their specific areas in light of the 2008 

workload study. We provided written questions to the agency’s human 

resource and budget offices requesting written responses on how they 

follow each of the leading principles and reviewed their responses. As part 

of our examination of employee participation in workforce planning, we 

interviewed officers of the American Federation of Government 

Employees, which represents the majority of agency employees. 

To determine how, if at all, EPA links workforce planning with its annual 

budget allocation processes, we reviewed relevant workforce planning 

documents, budgets, and the agency’s strategic plan. In addition, we 

interviewed agency officials responsible for workforce planning and the 

budget. 

Page 55 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

To address our first and second objectives for the Forest Service, we 

reviewed the agency’s annual workforce analyses and 5-year workforce 

plans developed since the formation of its Workforce Planning and 

Program Analysis Branch in 2007. Specifically, we reviewed the 

agencywide workforce plans for 2008 through 2012 and 2009 through 2013; 

2007 and 2008 workforce analyses, as well as the draft 2009 analysis; and 

the agency’s workforce planning guide. To gather additional information, 

we went to the Forest Service’s Albuquerque Service Center, where we 

conducted interviews with officials from the agency’s Workforce Planning 

and Program Analysis Branch responsible for the agencywide analyses and 

plans, Forest Service human resources officials, and other agency officials. 

In addition, we interviewed a human resources official at the Department 

of Agriculture. To enhance our understanding of the role of the field and 

other units in agencywide workforce planning, we reviewed several 

examples of the unit-level workforce templates used to develop the 

agencywide plan and interviewed officials from two such units—the Chief 

Financial Officer and a regional office. 

Forest Service 

To further address our second objective for the Forest Service, we 

reviewed the agency’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012; 

budget-related documents; drafts of the 5-year recruitment strategy and 

annual recruitment plan; drafts of the training and development strategy 

and 5-year plan; and other information obtained from officials responsible 

for training and development, recruiting, civil rights and diversity, and 

employment policy, including human capital flexibilities. In addition, we 

interviewed strategic planning and budget officials; six of the eight 

members of the agency’s Executive Leadership Team, including the 

Associate Chief, Chief Financial Officer, and the agency’s four deputy 

chiefs; and an official responsible for developing the agency’s employee 

development and training efforts. To evaluate the Forest Service’s 

agencywide workforce planning, we then analyzed the information 

gathered and compared it to the leading principles for workforce planning 

we and OPM previously identified. 

To address our third objective for the Forest Service, we reviewed the 

agency’s guidance documents on allocating the fiscal year 2009 budget for 

the following areas: National Forest System, Business Operations, Forest 

and Rangeland Research, State and Private Forestry, and Wildland Fire 

Management. We also reviewed the fiscal year 2010 budget request and the 

fiscal year 2011 business plans developed during the Budget Performance 

Integration process for each of the agency’s strategic goals. In addition, we 

conducted interviews with the Forest Service’s workforce planning, 

Page 56 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

strategic planning, and budget officials; the agency’s Associate Chief; and 

the four deputy chiefs responsible for budget allocation. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through March 2010 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 57 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix III: Full-Time Equivalent 

Employees at Interior, EPA, and the Forest Appendix III: Full-Time Equivalent Service from Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010 

Employees at Interior, EPA, and the Forest 

Service from Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010 

Table 1: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at Interior and Its Eight Bureaus, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010, as 

Reported in Interior’s Budgets in Brief for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2011 

Fiscal year 

Organizational 

unit 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

National Park 

Service 19,918 19,808 20,289 20,505 20,574 20,399 20,485 20,056 19,832 20,301 20,991 21,922

Bureau of Land 

Management 9,841 9,938 10,373 10,916 11,219 11,136a

10,958 10,668 10,577b10,626 10,834 11,107

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 8,117 8,360 8,530 8,908 9,248 9,345 9,170 8,910 8,749 8,704 8,925 9,400

Indian Affairs 9,343 9,241 9,407 9,667 9,617 9,712 9,664 9,233 8,731 8,404 8,265 8,451

U.S. Geological 

Survey 9,482 9,417 9,527 9,611 9,448 9,002 8,920 8,578 8,368 8,355 8,482 8,596

Bureau of 

Reclamation 5,786 5,632 5,609 5,634 5,721 5,750 5,731 5,630 5,510 5,344 5,352 5,224

Departmental 

Offices and 

Departmentwide 

Programs 2,079 2,457 2,561 2,693 2,829 3,035a

3,294c3,451 3,524b3,514 3,569 3,680

Minerals 

Management 

Service 1,745 1,771 1,743 1,732 1,701 1,717 1,651c

1,641 1,600 1,600 1,643 1,708

Office of Surface 

Mining 

Reclamation and 

Enforcement 645 636 627 617 595 567 542 528 528 525 516 515

Total, Interior 66,956 67,260 68,666 70,283 70,952 70,664 70,415 68,694 67,419 67,373 68,577 70,603

Source: Interior’s Budgets in Brief for fiscal years 2001 through 2011. 

Notes: Totals for fiscal years 1999 through 2009 are actuals, and totals for fiscal year 2010 are 

estimates. Some columns do not sum due to rounding. 

Departmental Offices and Departmentwide Programs includes full-time equivalent employees at 

Office of the Secretary, Central Utah Project, Office of Insular Affairs, Office of the Solicitor, Office of 

Inspector General, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Wildland Fire Management, 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Central Hazardous Materials Fund, Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment, Working Capital Fund/Franchise Fund, National Business Center, and National Indian 

Gaming Commission. 

a

The 2006 budget proposed to transfer management of the Central Hazardous Materials Fund from 

the Bureau of Land Management to Departmental Offices. Interior adjusted its staffing data from fiscal 

year 2004 on to reflect this change. 

b

The 2009 budget moved the Wildland Fire Management appropriation from the Bureau of Land 

Management to Departmentwide Programs. Interior adjusted its staffing data from fiscal year 2007 on 

to reflect this change. 

c

The Interior Franchise Fund was transferred in 2006 to the National Business Center. Interior 

adjusted its staffing data from fiscal year 2005 on to reflect this change. 

Page 58 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning 
Appendix III: Full-Time Equivalent 

Employees at Interior, EPA, and the Forest 

Service from Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010 

Table 2: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at EPA, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010, as Reported in EPA’s Annual 

Congressional Justification Reports Fiscal Years 2001 through 2010 

Fiscal year 

1999a 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004b 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009a 2010c

18,366.2 17,670.0 17,558.1 17,590.4 17,621.4 17,610.9 17,494.6 17,354.6 17,071.9 16,916.4 17,252.1 17,384.3

Source: EPA Annual Congressional Justification Reports for fiscal years 2001 through 2010. 

a

Enacted budget data were the only data available for this year. 

b

Obligation budget data were the only data available for this year. 

c

Budget data were the only data available for this year. 

Table 3: Number of Full-Time Equivalent Employees at the Forest Service, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2010, as Reported in the 

Forest Service’s Budget Justification Reports for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2010 

Fiscal year 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a

34,366 34,079 35,390 36,704 35,547 37,648 36,631 34,907 33,912 33,623 33,705 33,601

Source: Forest Service Budget Justifications for fiscal years 2001 through 2010. 

Note: Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for fiscal years 1999 through 2009 are actual FTEs. 

a

Number of FTEs included in the 2010 President’s Budget Request. 

Page 59 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix IV: Mission-Critical Occupations 

Identified by Interior, EPA, and the Forest Appendix IV: Mission-Critical Occupations Service 

Identified by Interior, EPA, and the Forest 

Service 

Table 4: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified in the Workforce Plans of Interior’s Bureaus, Fiscal Year 2008 

Bureau Mission-critical occupations 

Bureau of Land Management 20 mission-critical occupations: civil engineer, contracting specialist, forester, general 

biologist, geologist, human resource specialist, human resource assistant, hydrologist, 

information technology specialist, land law examiner, law enforcement criminal 

investigator, law enforcement ranger, leadership positions, mining engineer, park ranger, 

petroleum engineer, petroleum engineering tech, purchasing agent, realty specialist, and 

wildlife biologist 

Bureau of Reclamation 5 mission-critical occupations: biology, electrician, engineering, information technology 

management, and plant mechanica

Indian Affairs 26 mission-critical occupations: archeology, civil engineering, contract specialist, 

correctional officer, criminal investigating, education and training technician, education 

and vocational training, engineering technician, environmental protection specialist, 

forestry, general biological science, geology, human resources management specialist, 

hydrology, information technology management, legal instruments examining, 

management and program analysis, miscellaneous administration and program, police, 

program management, rangeland management, range technician, realty, safety and 

occupational health management, social work, and wildlife biologyb

Mineral Management Service 7 mission-critical occupations: accountants/auditors, contracting specialists, geologists, 

human resources specialists, information technology specialists, Minerals Revenue 

Management business specialists, and petroleum engineers 

National Park Service 4 mission-critical occupations: contract specialists, human resources management, 

information technology, and park rangers/law enforcement and interpretation 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

13 mission-critical occupations: accountant, auditor, biological scientist, civil engineer, 

contract specialist, financial specialist, geologist, human resources specialist, 

hydrologist, information technology specialist, mining engineer, physical scientist, and 

reclamation specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 11 mission-critical occupations: civil engineer, contracting specialist, education specialist, 

general biologist, geologist, human resources specialist, hydrologist, information 

technology, park ranger, realty specialist, and wildlife biologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 12 mission-critical occupations: budget analysts, civil engineers, contract specialists, 

financial specialists, general biologist, geographers, geologists, human resources 

specialists, hydrologists, information technology specialists, leadership, and wildlife 

biologists 

Source: Interior’s bureaus’ workforce plans. 

a

The Bureau of Reclamation also identified six high-priority occupations to include in its workforce 

plan: education specialist, geologist, hydrologist, park ranger, realty specialist, and wildlife biologist. 

b

Indian Affairs also identified 16 important occupations to include in its workforce plan: accounting 

technician, engineering equipment operating, facility management, general business and industry, 

general education and training, irrigation system operation, laboring, legal assistance, maintenance 

mechanic, miscellaneous clerk and assistant, motor vehicle operating, office automation clerical and 

assistance, secretary, security guard, social services, and training instruction. 

Page 60 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning 
Appendix IV: Mission-Critical Occupations 

Identified by Interior, EPA, and the Forest 

Service 

Table 5: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified by the Environmental Protection Agency, as of December 2009 

Mission-critical occupations 

19 mission-critical occupations: accountants/auditors, attorneys, biologists, chemists, contract specialists, ecologists, economists, 

environmental engineers/mechanical engineers, environmental protection specialist, financial specialists, geneticists, grants 

specialists, health scientists, human resources specialists, information technology, leaders, physical scientists, public 

affairs/information specialists, and toxicologists 

Source: EPA. 

Table 6: Mission-Critical Occupations Identified by the Forest Service, as of January 2010 

Type of occupational series Mission-critical occupations 

Professional 30 mission-critical occupations: accountant, archeology, biological science student trainee, botany, 

chemistry, civil engineer, contracting, ecology, economist, education and vocational training, 

education services, engineering and architecture student trainee, entomology, fisheries biologist, 

forestry, general biology, general engineer, geology, hydrology, landscape architecture, land 

surveying, meteorology, nurse, plant pathology, physical science, range management, social 

science, soil science, statistician, and wildlife biologist 

Administrative 22 mission-critical occupations: administrative officer, budget analyst, civil rights, criminal 

investigating, financial administration and program, miscellaneous administration and program, 

general arts and information, general business, general inspection investigation and compliance, 

human resources management, information technology specialist, line manager, manpower 

development, program analyst, public affairs, realty, recreation specialist, safety and occupational 

health management, support services, telecommunications, transportation operations, and 

transportation specialist 

Technical 22 mission-critical occupations: accounting technician, aircraft operations, biological science 

technician, cartographic technician, compliance inspection and support, electronics, engineering 

technician, forestry technician, forestry technician (fire), general arts and information, general 

business, general clerk, hydrological technician, office automation, human resources assistant, 

physical science technician, procurement, purchasing, range technician, recreation aid and 

assistant, social service, and supply clerk 

Source: Forest Service, Workforce Planning and Program Analysis Branch. 

Page 61 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix V: Comments from the Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 62 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning 
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 63 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 64 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning
Appendix VI: Comments from the Forest 

Service 

Page 65 GAO-10-413 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Forest 

Service 

Workforce Planning 
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov 

In addition to the contacts named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown 

(Assistant Director), Edward Kratzer (Assistant Director), Cheryl Williams 

(Assistant Director), Krista Breen Anderson, Stephen Cleary, Laura Erion, 

Michael J. Hanson, Caryn Kuebler, Robin M. Nazzaro, Cheryl Peterson, 

Daniel Semick, Rebecca Shea, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Gregory 

Wilmoth, and Rebecca Yurman made key contributions to this report. 

Page 66 GAO-10-413 Workforce Planning

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361097, 361114, 361115) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper