Integrity and Accountability:

A Framework for Natural Resource Management

Integrity and Accountability:

A Framework for Natural Resource Management

USDA Forest Service

Strategic Plan

(2000 Revision)

USDA Forest Service 

Strategic Plan

(2000 Revision)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Click on a topic to view section)

Strategic Plan Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

The Management Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

The Findings of the 2000 RPA Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

General Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Relationship between the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plans . . . . . . . . . .12

USDA Forest Service Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Goal 1: Ecosystem Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Objective 1.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Objective 1.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Objective 1.c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Goal 2: Multiple Benefits to People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Objective 2.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Objective 2.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Objective 2.c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Objective 2.d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Objective 2.e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Goal 3: Scientific and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Objective 3.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Objective 3.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Objective 3.c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Objective 3.d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Goal 4: Effective Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Objective 4.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Objective 4.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Objective 4.c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Objective 4.d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Objective 4.e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Objective 4.f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Program Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Outcome Measures To Be Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Program Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Program Budget by Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Major Management Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Coordination of Cross-Cutting Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Appendix A Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Appendix B Coordination of Cross-Cutting Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Appendix C Outcome Measure Development and Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Appendix D Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Net Economic Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Contributions to the National Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Appendix E FY 1999 Baseline Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Appendix F Summary of Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Appendix G References Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

i
THE USDA FOREST SERVICE’S

ii

Integrity and Accountability:

Objective 2.a—Improve the capability of the

Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide

diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities.

Objective 2.b—Improve the capability of

wilderness and protected areas to sustain a

desired range of benefits and values.

Objective 2.c—Improve the capability of the

Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide

desired sustainable levels of uses, values,

products, and services.

Objective 2.d—Increase accessibility to a

diversity of people and members of underserved and low-income populations to the full

range of uses, values, products, and services.

Objective 2.e—Improve delivery of services

to urban communities.

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

Promote ecosystem

health and conservation using a collaborative approach to sustain

the Nation’s forests,

grasslands and 

watersheds.

MISSION: TO SUSTAIN THE HEALTH, DIVERSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE NATION’S

GOALS

Objective 1.a—Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality

and quantity and the soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and

intended beneficial water uses.

Objective 1.b—Provide ecological conditions

to sustain viable populations of native and

desired nonnative species and to achieve

objectives for Management Indicator Species

(MIS)/focal species.

Objective 1.c—Increase the amount of

forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced

risk and damage from fires, insects and 

diseases, and invasive species.

MULTIPLE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE

Provide a variety of

uses, values, products,

and services for present

and future generations

by managing within

the capability of sustainable ecosystems.

OBJECTIVES
iii

STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK

Objective 4.a—Improve financial management to achieve fiscal accountability.

Objective 4.b—Improve the safety and 

economy of USDA Forest Service roads, trails,

facilities, and operations and provide greater

security for the public and employees.

Objective 4.c—Improve and integrate 

informational systems, data structures, and

information management processes to support

cost-efficient program delivery.

Objective 4.d—Improve the skills, diversity,

and productivity of the workforce.

Objective 4.e—Ensure equal opportunity in

employment practices.

Objective 4.f—Provide appropriate access to

National Forest System lands and ensure

nondiscrimination in the delivery of all USDA

Forest Service programs.

Objective 3.a—Better assist in building the

capacity of Tribal governments, rural communities, and private landowners to adapt to 

economic, environmental, and social change

related to natural resources.

Objective 3.b—Increase the effectiveness of

scientific, developmental, and technical information delivered to domestic and international interests.

Objective 3.c—Improve the knowledge base

provided through research, inventory, and

monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including human uses,

and to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and 

grasslands.

Objective 3.d—Broaden the participation of

less traditional research groups in research

and technical assistance programs.

A Framework for Natural Resource Management

FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Develop and use the

best scientific information available to deliver

technical and community assistance and to

support ecological,

economic, and social

sustainability.

EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SERVICE

Ensure the acquisition

and use of an appropriate corporate infrastructure to enable the

efficient delivery of a

variety of uses.

GOALS

OBJECTIVES
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) has significant authorities and responsibilities for stewardship of the Nation’s forests and grasslands resources.The goals and objectives of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan

(2000 Revision) will guide future agency actions.The development of this 2000

Revision includes consideration of science-based information from recent resource

assessments, ideas and suggestions from the public, and other information.

The 2000 Revision focuses on outcomes or results to be achieved over a period of

time.These outcomes will be achieved by managing the lands and resources of the

National Forest System—in collaboration with the American public; interested organizations; private landowners; State, local and Tribal governments; Federal agencies; and

others—delivering technical assistance through State and Private Forestry programs,

making use of scientific information from Research and Development programs, and

improving the management of, and accountability for, these activities.This focus on

outcomes—or long-term results, such as the health of the land, the quality of water,

and customer satisfaction—represents an important change in focus for the USDA

Forest Service.

The four goals of the 2000 Revision address ecosystem health, multiple benefits for

people, scientific and technical assistance, and effective public service.Associated with

each goal are objectives, strategies to achieve the objectives, and measures of progress.

Collectively, these components of the strategic plan provide purpose and context for

future management actions and investments, as well as a set of milestones for evaluating progress toward the goals.

Separately, annual performance plans will address specific management actions and

investments needed to ensure progress toward the goals and objectives of the strategic plan.Annual performance plans will reflect local needs identified in resource management plans for the national forests and grasslands, as well as plans for research and

assistance to Tribal governments, States, and communities.Annual budget proposals

will seek the funding needed to deliver the annual actions and investments.

The USDA Forest Service is committed to provide the best possible stewardship, benefiting current and future generations of the American people.The realities of diverse

interests, finite budgets, and environmental considerations will each influence the

choices to be made in the management of forest and grassland resources. Delivering

on this commitment requires understanding of the public’s interests through direct

discussions and collaboration; financial support through Congressional appropriations,

volunteers, partners, and user fees; development and use of scientific information; and

broad support for the agency’s long-term goals and objectives.
Nearly a century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot conceived of

a system of forest reserves and fostered the first strategy for managing and protecting

the Nation’s forests.Today, the tradition of land stewardship continues with renewed

vigor as we anticipate a new century with its promise and its challenges.

Many acts of Congress define and direct Forest Service management actions. See figure 1 for a summary of the principal laws whose provisions authorize and guide the

mission programs and activities of the Forest Service. During the past decade, the

United States has strengthened its commitment to sustainable forest management in

response to an international consensus to link natural resource development and protection of the environment. Sustainability has been the essence of U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) land and natural resource management from the very beginnings of the National Forest System (NFS). The USDA Forest

Service remains committed to managing the 191 million acres of the NFS in a sustainable manner in collaboration with the American public; interested organizations; private landowners; State, local and Tribal governments; Federal agencies; and others.The

USDA Forest Service responsibilities associated with the NFS, Research and

Development, and State and Private Forestry programs hold opportunities to pursue

and achieve the promise of sustainable forest management.

The Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act) and the Chief Financial

Officer’s Act provide guidance that the mission should be accomplished in a businesslike way. These acts are part of a suite of legislation passed in the 1990’s that outline a

performance-based management system for the Federal Government. Based on the

intent of this legislation, the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) outlines long-term goals and objectives that set the course and provide the guidance for

the USDA Forest Service contribution to forests and grasslands sustainability in North

America and around the world.

While the 2000 Revision of the strategic plan is focused on the future, efforts currently

underway are expected to also contribute to our success in achieving the long-term

goals and objectives of this strategic plan. These current efforts are consistent with

the goals proposed in the 2000 Revision, and they specifically address several proposed long-term objectives associated with those goals. These efforts include the

Natural Resource Agenda, the proposed Land and Resource Management Planning Rule

for the NFS, the proposed Road Management Policy, and the proposed Roadless Area

Conservation Rule.

The Natural Resource Agenda focuses on watershed health and restoration, sustainable

forest management, the national forest road system, and recreation. The Land and

Resource Management Planning Rule proposal calls for consideration of the relationship of possible actions to the goals and objectives in the strategic plan.The Planning

Rule proposal has three key elements that are emphasized: collaboration with interested and affected parties; science-based assessments and planning; and ecological, social,

and economic sustainability.

1

SECTION 1 – MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Introduction
2

The Road Management Policy proposal also emphasizes extensive public involvement

and analysis in order to provide a road system that is environmentally sound, safe, and

efficient to manage. The proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule will help the

agency achieve several 2000 Revision goals and objectives that respond to concerns

expressed by the public, such as clean water, natural resources sustainability, wildlife

habitat, forest health, dispersed recreational opportunities, and other public benefits.
3

Figure 1: Principal Laws Governing Forest Service Mission, Programs, and Activities

Through the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, (chapter 2, 30 Stat. 34-36) Congress authorized the creation of what is now the National Forest System “to improve and protect” Federal forests. To carry out this mission, the USDA Forest Service is vested with broad authority “to regulate [the Forests’] occupancy and use and

to preserve the forests therein from destruction” (16 U.S.C. 551). In this act, Congress provided further direction and management authority for these forest reserves and reaffirmed its intent to provide for sustainable protection and use of these forest reserves. This law provided for the establishment of forest reserves “to improve

and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water

flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United

States...” (16 U.S.C. 475).

In the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), Congress again affirmed the application of sustainability to the broad range of resources over which the USDA Forest Service has responsibility. MUSYA confirms

the USDA Forest Service’s authority to manage the national forests and grasslands “for outdoor recreation, range,

timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes,” (16 U.S.C. § 528), and does so without limiting the USDA

Forest Service’s broad discretion in determining the appropriate resource emphasis or levels of use of the lands

of each national forest and grassland.

In the years following the passage of MUSYA, the public became increasingly concerned about environmental

decline throughout the United States. Congress responded to this concern by enacting several laws directed

toward protecting or improving the natural environment, conserving natural resources so as to meet the needs

of the American people in perpetuity, and providing for greater public involvement in agency decisionmaking.

Specifically regarding forest land and resource management, Congress enacted the National Forest Management

Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1660(6)). NFMA requires the USDA Forest Service to manage the National Forest

System lands according to land and resource management plans that provide for multiple-uses and sustained

yield in accordance with MUSYA (16 U.S.C. 1604(e) and (g)(1)). In developing and maintaining these plans,

NFMA calls for “integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and other sciences.” (16 U.S.C.

1604(b)).

Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) “to promote

efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and

welfare of man, [and] enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to

the Nation” (42 U.S.C. 4321). Under NEPA, all USDA Forest Service proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment must include detailed statements of the environmental

effects and alternatives to proposals (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)).

In addition to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) also bounds the otherwise broad discretion that

the USDA Forest Service has over land and resource management. One of the purposes of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be

conserved...” (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ESA requires Federal agencies such as the USDA Forest Service to “utilize

their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [act] by carrying out programs for the conservation of

endangered species and threatened species” in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

National Marine Fisheries Service (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)).

Source:The Principal Laws Relating to USDA Forest Service Activities, USDA, 1993.
4

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity,

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

present and future generations.

The USDA Forest Service commitment to land stewardship and public service is the

framework within which natural resources are managed. Implicit in this statement is

the agency’s collaboration with partners and the public.

As the lead Federal agency in natural resource conservation, the USDA Forest Service

provides leadership in the protection, management, and use of the Nation’s forest,

rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. Our ecosystem approach to management integrates

ecological, economic, and social factors to maintain and enhance the quality of the

environment to meet current and future needs.Through implementation of land and

resource management plans, the agency ensures sustainable ecosystems by restoring

and maintaining species diversity and ecological productivity that helps provide recreation, water, timber, minerals, fish, wildlife, wilderness, and aesthetic values for current

and future generations of people.

Through technical and financial assistance, the USDA Forest Service assists States and

private landowners in practicing good stewardship, promoting rural economic development, and improving the natural environment of cities and communities.The agency

continues to develop and use the best available scientific information to facilitate

achievement of our goals and objectives. Domestic and international activities are

directed at developing values, products, and services in such a way as to maintain

ecosystem health.

The USDA Forest Service must comply with its legislated authorities and responsibilities, particularly concerning the water, air, and soils that sustain life on Earth.

Specifically, the USDA Forest Service must work to sustain the health, diversity, and

productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands.The agency is equally required to

conduct its business in the most effective and efficient manner possible, providing the

best possible value for the American people.

The strategic plan is intended to be the keystone of the Forest Service management

system, providing the context and purpose for agency actions. National resource

assessments are produced under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-378) (RPA). Assessments are sources of information on the status and trends of renewable resources in the United States that are used

to set the context for strategic planning.These National resource assessments have

influenced the goals, objectives, and associated measures of the 2000 Revision.

Similarly, the 2000 Revision incorporates the priorities of the agency’s Natural

Resource Agenda, and information related to other program and unit plans. The

Natural Resource Agenda focuses on watershed health and restoration, sustainable forest management, the national forest road system, and recreation. The strategic plan

addresses principles and guidance from national policies such as the proposed Land

and Resource Management Planning Rule for the National Forest System, the proposed

Road Management Policy, and the proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Mission Statement

The Management 

Situation
5

Appropriately, the 2000 Revision also addresses current issues and areas of concern

expressed by the public and looks to the future with a focus on long-term results to

be achieved. The goals and objectives of this strategic plan will drive adjustments to,

and development of, new programs and plans. As land and resource management

plans are amended and revised and projects are proposed, local managers will look to

the national strategic plan for guidance. Annual performance plans, including budget

proposals, will be tied to the strategic plan as they provide the means for achieving

the intended land health and other long-term outcomes.

The long-term goals and objectives in the 2000 Revision reflect consideration of science-based information from recent resource assessments, ideas and suggestions from

the public, and professional judgments of how to best serve the needs of the American

people, now and for generations to come.

The management situation of the USDA Forest Service is similar to that of many organizations today. Financial resources are finite and competition for them is strong.

Operations are being transformed by new and emerging information technologies.

Accountability (for monies spent and results achieved) is expected and closely monitored, from within and outside the agency. And, the results expected of the agency are

as diverse as the public interests the agency must serve.

The model for how the USDA Forest Service manages its business has changed in

response to the management situation and other factors. Consistent with requirements

of the Government Performance and Results Act (Public Law 103-62), the new model

provides for considering long-term as well as near-term objectives in an adaptive system with monitoring and evaluation of land and resource management plan implementation, financial performance, public perceptions, accomplishment of operational

objectives, and achievement of long-term results. Full implementation of this model of

management will facilitate USDA Forest Service accountability for actions taken and

results realized.

The long-term goals and objectives of the USDA Forest Service, outlined in this 2000

Revision, are intended to guide near-term agency actions.Those actions include decisions on programs and plans associated with the national forests and grasslands, State

and Private Forestry, Research and Development, Business Operations, and agency budget proposals.The role of the strategic plan is also to identify intended long-term outcomes and priorities.The strategic plan is designed to help us understand the importance of knowing where we want our journey to take us before we travel long distances.The intended outcomes described in the plan will guide decisions throughout

the journey.As the strategic plan guides other plans, actions, and investments, it provides context and purpose that drive near-term choices essential to the achievement

of intended long-term outcomes.

The USDA Forest Service is committed to providing the best possible stewardship of

the Nation’s forest and rangeland resources, benefiting current and future generations

of the American people.The realities of diverse interests, finite budgets, and environmental considerations will each influence the choices to be made in the management

of forest and rangeland resources. Delivering on this commitment requires understand-
ing of the public’s interests through direct discussions and collaboration; financial support through Congressional appropriations, volunteers, partners, and user fees; development and use of scientific information; and broad support for the long-term goals

and objectives of the USDA Forest Service.

In summary, the strategic plan is a keystone that, by itself, means little. However, in

association with other components of the USDA Forest Service management model,

the strategic plan plays a role just as a keystone in an arch provides integrity to the

structure of the arch. The strategic plan outlines the purpose and context for agency

actions, providing integrity for those near-term actions and monitoring how they affect

progress toward long-term outcomes.

The strategic plan objectives and anticipated outcomes must be examined within the

context of existing resource conditions and resource demands, and some expectation

of future trends.Assessments conducted under the RPA are one source of information

on the status and trends of renewable resources in the United States that help to set

the context for strategic planning.

This section describes some of the preliminary findings of the 2000 RPA Assessment,

which is to be completed by December 2000. The 2000 RPA Assessment and the

Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable

Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests provide a framework for evaluating

resource status and trends for U.S. forests and grasslands (see appendix C for a description of the criteria and their linkage to the goals and objectives in this strategic plan).

World growth in population and income has resulted in social, economic, and technological changes that profoundly affect the global management and use of natural

resources.The world population will continue to grow, possibly from 5.9 billion in

1998 to 8.9 billion by 2050.The U.S. population also continues to grow, particularly in

the southern and western regions, with a projected increase of about 50 percent by

2050. Increases in population and discretionary income will, in turn, increase

demands for renewable resources. Demographic shifts, such as the aging of the population and increasing ethnic and racial diversity, will affect the patterns of demand for

natural resources. Restoring and maintaining healthy ecosystems while meeting the

multiple demands of people will provide difficult challenges for natural resource 

managers.

The area of forest land in the United States has been relatively stable since the 1920’s.

Estimated forest land area in 1997 was 748 million acres, showing a small increase

since 1992. Losses of forest land to development and other land uses have been offset

by afforestation and natural reversion of abandoned crop and pasture land to forest

land. The Nation’s forests are getting older in many areas of the country. This maturation will lead to increased diversity of forest structure, but the extent of some seral

stages and forest types will likely decrease because later successional stages will continue to increase at the expense of earlier successional stages.

The Findings of the 

2000 RPA Assessment

Introduction

The Forest and Rangeland

Resource Base

6
7

The forest land base is expected to remain relatively stable in the future, although

expected population increases will lead to greater conversion of forests to developed

uses. Also, subdivision of forest land into smaller parcels is expected to result in further declines in the average size of private forest holdings. From 1978 to 1994, the

number of private forest land ownership units increased by over one-fourth, to nearly

10 million units. Much of this subdivision is likely to continue to occur in close proximity to public lands. For example, second home development near national forests is

increasing in areas of the upper Midwest and the Western United States.

The rangeland base is more difficult to estimate. In the lower 48 States, total rangeland

has been estimated at 630 million acres.The rangeland base is expected to continue

declining slowly in the future.Two opposing forces of change are affecting rangeland.

Like forest land, rangeland in close proximity to public lands is being subdivided into

residential parcels. Simultaneously, some rangeland is being consolidated into more

concentrated private holdings.

The condition of the forest and rangeland resource remains difficult to assess.

Indicators and monitoring protocols are being developed and will eventually lead to a

consistent evaluation of the condition of these resources. In the meantime, existing

data suggest significant forest health problems in various parts of the United States.

In 1998, seven major pests and diseases affected over 54 million acres of forestland in

the United States. For example, over 30 million acres in the Western States are affected

by dwarf mistletoe; over 13 million acres in the South are infected with fusiform rust.

Forests will continue to face threats from exotic diseases and insects. Some 19 of the

70 major insect pests found in the United States are exotics. A significant part of the

total flora is composed of invasive plant species. For example, invasive plant species

account for about 25 percent of the plant cover in California. Wildfire will also continue to be a threat in areas where fuel buildup has resulted from previous suppression

efforts. Fire suppression has caused increased forest density and biomass, changes in

forest composition, and the resulting increases in insect and disease susceptibility and

mortality, as well as buildup of fuels.

Forest resources in urban areas have not been included in traditional forest inventories. Urban areas occupy 3.5 percent of the U.S. land area and have an average tree

cover of 27 percent.Tree cover in urban areas provides recreation settings, wildlife

habitat, energy conservation, flood control, and various other functions. Rapid urban

expansion and increased levels of use by urban populations affect national forests. As

urbanization continues to spread into less developed rural areas, a greater proportion

of natural resources will become part of urban ecosystems.

The United States has a great diversity of wildlife and fish species, but trend data are

available for only a small portion of the total species. Nationally, most big game species

have increased substantially since 1975, some to the point of becoming pests in certain areas of the country. One notable exception to this pattern is a generally declining

trend in mule deer populations since the 1980’s. Furbearers were estimated to be at or

above carrying capacity in most States, reflecting improving habitat and declining harvest pressure.

Trends in Wildlife and 

Fish Populations
Small game species associated with rangeland or agricultural habitats have been

declining, although cottontail rabbits and pheasants have shown recent evidence of an

upswing. Habitats associated with agricultural lands have declined since the 1960’s as

a result of larger field size; reduced crop diversity; and loss of fencerows, hedgerows,

tree cover, and wetlands.The Conservation Reserve Program has had some effect on

improving wildlife habitat in agricultural areas in the last decade. Grassland habitats

have been negatively affected by agricultural development, fire suppression, and nonnative species invasions. In addition to the decline in populations of small game

species on these habitats, grassland nesting birds as a group showed a high proportion

(44 percent) of species with declining population trends.Among birds, only those that

nest in or around urban areas showed a higher proportion (54 percent) of declining

species.

The historic loss of wetland habitats has affected a variety of species, particularly

waterfowl.Wetland conversion has slowed in recent years, and the primary cause of

conversion has shifted from agriculture to urban development.An increase in wetland

habitats in breeding areas in the 1990’s because of unusually wet conditions is

believed to be a primary factor in the substantial increase in many duck populations in

recent years.About 80 percent of goose and swan populations also seem to be stable

or increasing.A contributory factor may be agricultural activities that provide wintering geese with waste grain near human-created open water habitats.Wetland and

open-water-nesting species were among the groups of breeding bird species with the

greatest proportion of increasing population trends.

Although many species are generally abundant and exhibiting stable trends, the number of species federally protected as endangered or threatened continues to increase.

Additions to the list are occurring at a much faster rate than delisting of species for

recovery. Endangered species are concentrated most heavily in 12 geographic areas of

the country, including the southern Appalachians, coastal areas, and the arid

Southwest.

Species that require large undeveloped landscapes or specialized habitats vulnerable

to development pressures are most likely to be at risk in the future.Threatened and

endangered plants are currently most heavily concentrated in peninsular Florida, the

southern Appalachians and piedmont, and the central California coast.Threatened and

endangered animal species are currently most heavily concentrated in the

Southeastern United States, the central California coast, and the Washington-Oregon

border. In the future, the occurrence of threatened and endangered plant species is

likely to increase the most in desert areas of Texas and Nevada and along the southern

California coast range and valleys. Projected areas for the greatest increase in occurrence of threatened and endangered animals include an extension of existing areas in

the Pacific Northwest and the central California coast and interior valleys.

The people of the United States derive a number of goods and services from private

and public forests and grasslands. Demands for these goods and services are expected

to continue increasing in the future, although the relative mix may change. To meet

the projected demands of a growing population, more outputs will need to be produced from the available land base.

Human Uses of the 

Resource Base

8
9

The recreational use of forests and grasslands has been increasing for decades, and is

expected to continue to increase.Almost 95 percent of the U.S. population 16 years old

and older, participate in some form of outdoor recreation.The most popular outdoor

recreation activities (measured in number of days) are walking, nonconsumptive

wildlife activities, biking, sightseeing, nonpool swimming, fishing, family gathering, and

picnicking.The five fastest-growing outdoor recreation activities (measured in number

of days) through the year 2050 are projected to be visiting historic places, downhill skiing, snowmobiling, sightseeing, and participating in nonconsumptive wildlife activity.

Although total participation in hunting has been stable or declining since 1975, it

remains an important recreational use, particularly on national forests and other public

lands. For example, the Rocky Mountain assessment region, which has the highest

concentration of national forest lands, is projected to experience a significant increase

in hunting participation through 2050. Other regions are projected to have significant

decreases (Southern and Pacific coast) or remain approximately stable (North). Also,

while total hunting participation has declined, big game hunting has increased in

every survey period since 1955, and more days are now spent hunting big game than

any other category of hunting.

The resource base and facilities for recreation appear to be keeping pace with population growth in most regions of the country. Exceptions are primarily related to waterbased recreation resources, including beaches, coastal areas, and Federal developed

water sites.The availability of private land for public recreation has declined over the

last 20 years, and is expected to continue to slowly decline.This trend has the potential to reduce some recreation opportunities, especially in the Eastern United States.

The demand for most forest and range products will increase in the future. Per capita

use is increasing for some products such as paper and paperboard, while remaining

stable or declining for other products. The United States has one of the highest per

capita uses of wood and paper products in the world. Compared with rising per capita consumption, per capita harvest of timber has been relatively stable or has been

declining in the last few decades as a result of increases in recycling and efficiency in

production. Overall demand, particularly for smaller diameter trees, will increase as a

result of increasing population and a relative shift toward paper product manufacturing. Total growing stock on timberland is expected to increase for both hardwoods

and softwoods. The United States will continue to rely on domestic sources to meet

most of its fiber needs. Private lands in the Eastern United States will be the main

source of domestic timber; harvest from the public lands is expected to remain stable

at recent levels. Plantations in the South will be the most important source of

increased softwood harvest.

The amount of land available for forage production is expected to decrease in all

regions of the country. Range forage demand is likely to decline in the future, particularly in the western and northern regions. One exception to the trend is the likely

increase in the use of sheep and goats for brush and weed control.Technologies to

improve the productivity and use of grazed forages may play a role in meeting forage

demand for domestic livestock, although the role of the public lands in providing forage
for domestic livestock is likely to decline.Wildlife use of grazing lands is expected to

increase in all regions, and forage supplies appear to be sufficient to meet those needs.

The per capita consumption of many metallic minerals is expected to decline or

remain stable, but increased population will lead to net increases in total consumption

by 2050. Domestic sources will remain important for some minerals, such as coal, gold,

and lead. International prices will remain a major determinant of the level of exploration and development on both public and private lands. Rising oil prices could lead

to renewed domestic exploration.

Improved efficiency, new technology, and increased competition have all contributed

to a decline in per capita for water use in the United States. Between 1990 and 1995,

total withdrawals declined, even though population increased 16 percent.Water use in

the United States is expected to increase only 7 percent between 1995 and 2040,

while population is projected to increase 49 percent. However, several regions of the

country will experience potential water shortages, particularly in arid regions of the

West.An increase in conflicts between off-stream and in-stream uses is also likely, especially in water-short regions.

Potential changes in the climate in the United States and around the world could influence the supply of goods, services, and amenities from forests through changes in forest area, productivity, and species composition. Forest productivity may benefit in the

short term from changes in climate. However, long-term changes will likely influence

species distributions and the duration, frequency, and intensity of forest disturbances

such as fire, insects, disease, drought, and storms.

Demands for, and supplies of, renewable resources from the Nation’s forests and grasslands will continue to change over time in response to changing preferences, new

technology, and new information.The future will bring increasing populations, which

will result in growing urban areas and increased fragmentation and parcelization of

private lands.As a result, most extensive tracts of intact ecosystems will be on public

lands.The public lands will be under increasing pressure to meet varying, and sometimes conflicting, demands.Working in partnership with other public and private land

managers will be essential to developing management strategies to ensure a sustainable flow of goods and services from the forest and rangeland resources of the United

States.

Conclusions

10
11

SECTION 2 - GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) Strategic Plan

(2000 Revision) is mission-driven. The strategic goals set forth in this plan are responsive to the mission: “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the

Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations.”

This section describes each of the four long-term goals of the 2000 Revision.

Associated with each mission-related goal are objectives, strategies to achieve the

objectives, associated land health and other outcome measures for the major functions

of the agency, and priorities for accomplishments linked to costs, outputs, results, and

benefits. Collectively, these components of the 2000 Revision provide purpose and

context for future management actions and investments, as well as a set of milestones

for evaluating progress toward the goals.

USDA Forest Service Goals

Goal 1: Ecosystem Health

Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a

collaborative approach to sustain the Nation’s forests,

grasslands, and watersheds.

Goal 2: Multiple Benefits to People

Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for present and future generations by managing

within the capability of sustainable ecosystems.

Goal 3: Scientific and Technical Assistance

Develop and use the best scientific information available to deliver technical and community assistance 

and to support ecological, economic, and social 

sustainability.

Goal 4: Effective Public Service

Ensure the acquisition and use of an appropriate corporate infrastructure to enable the efficient delivery

of a variety of uses.
12

The 2000 Revision encompasses the roles and responsibilities of the agency and incorporates the long-term priorities of the agency. This introduction discusses generic

aspects of the plan and its relationship to other planning actions by different levels of

the Forest Service.

The goals and objectives set out in the 2000 Revision provide the broad view of what

outcomes the agency plans to pursue. The strategies under each objective provide key

approaches on how to achieve the stated goals and objectives. Priority setting is

expressed by how resources—human and financial—are allocated to the goals and

objectives in the future, affecting investments and land management actions.

Full implementation of the requirements of the Government Performance and Results

Act (Results Act) will significantly improve the agency’s accountability, particularly

with regard to two important aspects of the Results Act. One is that the agency will

identify how priorities are set for the investments to be made, large or small. Two is

that mission investments, large or small, will be accomplished in a business-like way.

This brings the magnifying glass of accountability to bear. How is the agency accomplishing its priorities? (For example, what is the outcome of watershed improvements?

Are water quality and quantity trends improving or degrading?) Success, or failure, will

be evaluated based on results of long-term trend analysis, percentage changes for selected measures, or changes in proportions of land in better (or worse) condition. Section

three of the Results Act prescribes the requirements of an agency’s strategic plan.

Sections three and four of the Results Act prescribe how the priorities of the strategic

plan are translated into annual performance plans, providing a basis for agency budget

requests. The annual performance plan for a particular year establishes annual goals

and objectives for what must be done in the near term in order to make progress

toward the long-term outcomes articulated in the strategic plan. The fundamental relationship is that the 2000 Revision outlines where we are going (a destination outcome

or result) and the associated annual performance plans address what we must do in a

particular year to move toward the destination set forth in the strategic plan.

The goals and objectives of the 2000 Revision are outcome focused, identifying results

that will be achieved over a period of time, typically longer than 1 or 2 years.The 2000

Revision includes strategies for each long-term objective that point to the types of

actions the Forest Service must pursue in order to achieve the objective. In this manner, the strategies provide a bridge or direct link to the annual goals and objectives of

the annual performance plans.

While annual performance plans must first relate to the goals and objectives of the

strategic plan, annual plans may also include initiatives addressing contemporary needs

and opportunities. Initiatives must be fundamentally consistent with the overall direction of the strategic plan and may provide direction on priorities for agency programs

and units.

In each of the strategic plan and annual performance plans, accomplishments must be

measured to provide a basis for accountability, both for near-term accomplishments

Introduction

Relationship Between 

the Strategic Plan and

Annual Performance 

Plans
13

and long-term results. Typically, strategic plan measures will include trends over time

associated with resource conditions, such as trends in acres at extreme risk of fire,

insects, diseases, and invasive species in regard to improving ecosystem health.

Related to this, the annual performance plan may address one or another management

action or land treatment intended to reduce such risks, such as measuring the acres

treated by prescribed fire or mechanical removal. The agency’s annual performance

report will include information on what was accomplished relative to annual performance measures and the status of progress toward strategic plan objectives, based on

multiyear trends.

Baseline Data for Long-Term Measures and Milestones

The availability of reliable baseline data for long-term measures is essential to successful implementation of the agency’s strategic plan and ultimate accountability

for the expected results. At this time, existing information sources provide indicators and a baseline quantity for a few of the long-term measures in the 2000

Revision. In many cases, the data necessary for the agency to benchmark and measure its performance directly on those goals and objectives are lacking. In many

instances,no data currently exist to establish baselines or measure the agency's performance on a number of strategic goals and objectives.

The Forest Service is committed to establishing baseline information as quickly as

possible for each of the long-term measures and to initiating actions to ensure timely collection of such information in the future. To establish baselines, fill data gaps,

remedy data deficiencies, and validate performance-related data on an ongoing

basis, the agency will need to prioritize and redirect budgetary and staff resources.

The Forest Service, working in conjunction with other natural resource and land

management agencies, State and Tribal governments, and partners, will work to

identify the data sources and establish the baselines needed to fully comply with

the Government Performance and Results Act by:

• Determining baseline information for at least half of the strategic plan measures 

by December 2000 and for the remainder by July 2001.

• Establishing—in Annual Performance Plans beginning in FY 2001—performance goals to identify data needs, sources, and baselines for tracking 

progress toward meeting the long-term goals and objectives.

• Beginning in FY 2001, establishing performance goals to identify data needs,

sources, and baselines for tracking progress toward meeting the long-term goals 

and objectives in annual performance plans.

• Continuing the efforts to establish agency-wide data quality standards, consistent with good statistical practice, that are available for use by natural 

resource management agencies outside the Department and for reference by 

the public.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information should be noted with respect to the

goals and objectives in this strategic plan.

See Appendix E for available baseline information.
14

GOAL 1: ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a collaborative approach

to sustain the Nation’s forests, grasslands, and watersheds. 

Objective 1.a—Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity and the soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and

intended beneficial water uses.

Objective 1.b—Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native

and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator

Species (MIS)/focal species.

Objective 1.c—Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and

diseases, and invasive species.
15

Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and

quantity and soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and

intended beneficial water uses.

We will . . .

• Maintain the integrity of roadless watersheds through implementation of a roadless

area conservation policy.

• Use collaborative techniques in planning and stewardship of the national forests

and grasslands to cooperatively resolve natural resource issues.

• Implement a system with national standards for assessing watershed conditions by

2001.

• Complete assessments, plans, and projects for watersheds identified as priority for

treatment through the Clean Water Action Plan in collaboration with Federal, State,

Tribal, and private landowners.

• Design projects to achieve soil and water quality protection and watershed restoration with emphasis on transportation and livestock grazing systems.

• Ensure the continued availability of water to meet purposes for which National

Forest System (NFS) lands were established and to sustain ecological functions.

• Provide research results and tools to support the sustainable management, protection, and restoration of watersheds.

• Increase the number of abandoned mines and contaminated sites treated.

Trends in watersheds having improved watershed conditions.

An increase of 20 percent in the number of watersheds having restored or improved

watershed conditions.

The Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other Federal and State

water quality laws and regulations have been enacted to protect the environment from

pollution.As public awareness increases, the trend will be toward even greater protection of the environment, including, if necessary, more regulation. Continued degradation of environmental quality, together with rising costs of remediation, will drive concern for active prevention and interest in greater application of restoration and protection measures.

Not all collaborators are interested in working together to resolve natural resource

issues.When the outcome of collaboration is different from what a participant wants,

they often distrust the USDA Forest Service and choose not to participate in future

collaborative efforts. The responsible USDA Forest Service official may provide early

and continuous opportunities for collaborative participation in the planning process,

without effectively resolving issues.

OBJECTIVE 1.a

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
16

Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and

desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management

Indicator Species (MIS)/focal species.

We will . . .

• Identify species, habitats, and ecological conditions to serve as indicators for ecosystem health and conservation.

• Develop priority conservation strategies and agreements in cooperation with

Federal, State,Tribal, and other partners and private landowners. Implement those

conservation strategies on NFS lands.

• Establish measurable objectives in land and resource management plans for populations, habitats, and/or ecological conditions to provide for viability of listed threatened and endangered species and species at risk, as well as objectives for other

MIS/focal species.

• Establish scientifically credible monitoring programs, develop survey protocols, and

initiate baseline and trend surveys for populations, habitats, and/or ecological conditions to provide for viability of threatened and endangered species, species at risk,

and other MIS/focal species.

• Reduce the potential impacts from roads on ecological conditions through implementation of a roadless area conservation policy.

• Implement habitat restoration and management activities for species with viability

concerns, focal species, and ecosystems at risk.

• Research the effects of sustainable forest and grassland management on selected

aquatic and terrestrial animal and plant species.

Status and/or trends in populations, habitats, and ecological conditions for selected

species.

• 100 percent of national forests and grasslands have established measurable objectives and monitoring programs for populations, habitats, and/or ecological conditions for threatened and endangered species, other species for which there are viability concerns, and other MIS/focal species, and are achieving objectives at rates

consistent with timeframes identified in land and resource management plans.

OBJECTIVE 1.b

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones
17

• Selected species populations and habitats representing land and resource management plan objectives that will be tracked to measure progress toward the milestone

include:

Species Populations Representative of:

To Be Tracked: Ecosystem Geographic Area

Red-cockaded woodpecker Long-leaf & Short-leaf pine Southeast

Golden-winged warbler Early successional 

deciduous forest

Cerulean warbler Mature deciduous forest

Goldenseal Mesic deciduous forest Northeast

Eastern brook trout Perennial streams

Cerulean warbler Mature deciduous forest

Black-tailed prairie dog Mid- and short-grass prairies Northern 

Great Plains

Grizzly bear Mixed conifer forest Northern Rockies

Bull trout Perennial streams & lakes

Aspen Aspen forest Southern Rockies 

& Great Basin

Sage grouse Sagebrush-steppe Great Basin

Lahontan cutthroat trout Perennial streams & lakes

Northern spotted owl Douglas fir/mixed conifer Pacific Northwest

late seral/old growth forest

Mexican spotted owl Mixed conifer forest Southwest

Loach minnow, spikedace Desert streams

Willow flycatcher Riparian areas

California spotted owl Sierra Nevada conifer forests California

Sierra Nevada bighorn Alpine and subalpine

Red-legged frog Riparian & aquatic ecosystems

Successful implementation on non-NFS lands must include achieving coordination of

activities with the landowner for adoption of conservation strategies and agreements.

Data are readily available for most national forests, but accuracy and reliability of the

available data are poor to good. Also, obtaining reliable data from some non-NFS lands

may be difficult.

It may take many years to distinguish trends that result from management actions and

those related to population fluctuations from trends that result from climatic or other

influences.

Key External Factors
18

Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a

healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and diseases, and invasive species.

We will . . .

• Identify priority health restoration needs through national and regional environmental monitoring and ecological risk assessments that include social and economic factors.

• Research ecosystems (composition, structure, and process) and the role of disturbance processes.

• Focus agency resources to:

– Reduce fire hazards, especially in urban/wildland interface areas.

– Prevent the spread of invasive species.

– Minimize insect and disease problems.

• Prepare fire management plans tiered to land and resource management plans.

• Place high priority on fuel reduction activities in short interval, fire-adapted ecosystems (fire regimes I and II), emphasizing condition classes 2 and 3.

• Develop a national and ecoregional ecological integrity rating system to improve

the ability to assess ecological conditions and trends.

• Increase wildland fire protection capabilities to provide for firefighter and public

safety.

Trends in acres at extreme risk from fire, insects, diseases, and invasive species.

• A 5-percent decrease in acres at extreme risk from insects and diseases.

• Reduce the proportion of acres in short-interval, fire-adapted ecosystems (fire

regimes I and II) in condition classes 2 and 3 compared to condition class 1 by 20

percent.

• The rate at which acres infested with targeted invasive species remains unchanged

or is diminished.

• A 10-percent increase in firefighting production capability.

OBJECTIVE 1.C

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones
19

Baseline data on acres at risk were collected in an inconsistent manner in the past.

Well-defined methods of data collection and storage are being developed.

Fires, insect and disease epidemics, and other unplanned large natural disturbances can

radically alter the landscape and rapidly change management strategies, priorities, and

budget allocations.

Another Federal agency, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),

has the primary responsibility for preventing the introduction and initial spread of

nonnative invasive species in the United States.

Local jurisdictions regulate homebuilding.As development extends into wildlands,

areas can experience higher intensity fires that increase risks to human life and property and contribute to the spread of invasive species.

Key External Factors
20

GOAL 2: MULTIPLE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE

Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for present and

future generations by managing within the capability of sustainable 

ecosystems.

Objective 2.a—Improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities.

Objective 2.b—Improve the capability of wilderness and protected areas to sustain a

desired range of benefits and values.

Objective 2.c—Improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide desired sustainable levels of uses, values, products, and services.

Objective 2.d—Increase accessibility to a diversity of people and members of underserved and low-income populations to the full range of uses, values, products, and 

services.

Objective 2.e—Improve delivery of services to urban communities.
21

Improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide

diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities.

We will . . .

• Research methods for estimating recreation capacity and demand using ecological

capabilities and social factors.

• Focus recreation management, maintenance, and development activities where

demand is currently exceeding or is expected to exceed capacity on NFS lands.

• Maintain the integrity of roadless areas for dispersed recreation opportunities

through implementation of a roadless area conservation policy.

• Manage recreation areas and programs on NFS lands to levels compatible with

ecosystem sustainability objectives by:

– Working with communities to help determine recreation opportunities and 

priorities.

– Redirecting opportunities and use.

– Improving management of facilities and special places.

– Increasing environmental education and interpretation.

Trends in user satisfaction by use and geographic region.

• A 5-percent increase in user satisfaction with recreation programs and facilities.

The physical settings, facilities, and direct programs that take place on the national

forests will be the focus of measured satisfaction. However, satisfaction is also influenced by many external factors. External factors include gasoline prices, road conditions, the economy, weather, and highway congestion. The USDA Forest Service has little direct influence on such factors.

OBJECTIVE 2.a

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
22

Improve the capability of wilderness and protected areas to sustain a desired

range of benefits and values.

We will . . .

• Research the effects of human use, natural disturbances, and nonnative species on

wilderness ecosystems.

• Establish baseline information and indicators for determining and maintaining

wilderness quality in collaboration with other agencies.

• Focus agency resources on wilderness and protected areas where human use and

ecological concerns are greatest.

• Ensure agency activities meet the best available pollution control measures to protect sensitive wilderness areas.

• Establish or update memoranda of understanding with States to implement effective smoke management programs, the regional haze rule, and air quality monitoring

programs.

• Develop and implement statewide USDA Forest Service smoke management plans.

• Ensure that all wilderness and other protected areas have management plans integrated into land and resource management plans, and have associated standards and

practices in place.

Trends in user satisfaction by use and geographic region.

• A 5-percent increase in user satisfaction with wilderness experiences and 

opportunities.

Achieving progress in air quality depends on effective coordination and cooperation

among States and other agencies.

Revised Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards will bring a

greater number of NFS areas and agency activities under more stringent compliance

regulations.

OBJECTIVE 2.b

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
23

Improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide

desired sustainable levels of uses, values, products, and services.

We will . . .

• Expand research and apply methods and technology to improve efficiency of processing, use, and reuse of natural resources.

• Finalize and implement cost recovery to improve management of special use programs.

• Acquire land or interest in land through purchase, exchange, and conservation 

easements to enhance long-term management and protection of NFS resources.

• Improve legal public use of NFS lands by acquiring rights-of-way for roads and trails

and by clearly identifying NFS boundaries.

• Implement a science-based road policy by using scientific information and the

increased understanding of the ecological and social impacts associated with roads

and related management activities.

• Focus agency resources for permit, lease, and contract administration where needs

or opportunities exist for achieving or restoring ecosystem integrity.

• Assist State,Tribal, and other governmental agencies and private landowners to

achieve sustainable forest and grassland management.

• Assess the potential economic value of botanical resources and other special forest

products being provided by the Nation’s forests and grasslands.

• Develop information needed to determine sustainable production levels of the wide

variety of goods and services provided by national forests and grasslands.

Trends in the quantity or value of selected goods and services provided from the

Nation’s forests and grasslands.

• Make information available for determining sustainable quantities of goods and services for the Nation’s forests and grasslands.

• Maintain trend in acquisition of rights-of-way for roads and trails acquired for access

to NFS lands.

• Make significant progress toward reaching sustainable quantities of the listed goods

and services indicators.

OBJECTIVE 2.c 

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones
24

Indicator Category 2000 Revision Indicator

Recreation Recreation Use (MM* visits)

Wildlife / Fish (MM visits) 

Wilderness Use (MM visits)

Range Permitted Grazing (MM aum**) 

Timber Harvest Volume (MMBF***)

Mineral Total Mineral Operations Administered to Standard 

Special Uses Receipts ($) 

Botanical Resources / Receipts ($) 

Special Forest Products

Lands Land Exchanged (acres)

Land Acquired (acres)

Land in Conservation Easements (acres)

* = millions

** = animal unit months

*** = million board feet

Obtaining information on quantities and values for some of the goods and services

needed to determine sustainable levels involve non-NFS lands where obtaining reliable

information may be difficult.

Actual demand for goods and services as influenced by the state of the national, international, and/or local economies may affect the quantities of goods and services

reported as consumed or used despite the quantities that are made available. For

example, all timber offered may not be sold.

The acquisition of rights-of-way often involves compliance with, and negotiations

among, private landowners and political, legal, regulatory, and environmental agencies

at the Federal, State, and local levels.This can be a lengthy and costly process.

Key External Factors
25

Increase accessibility to a diversity of people and members of underserved

and low-income populations to the full range of uses, values, products, and

services.

We will . .

• Create and institutionalize delivery systems that are more responsive to a diversity

of people and members of underserved and low-income populations.

• Enhance broader public accessibility through partnerships and contracts with

Federal, State, and Tribal governments and other entities.

• Broaden understanding of public preferences for uses, values, products, and 

services.

• Establish communication networks—rural and urban—that increase accessibility.

• Identify data sources(s), collect data, and establish baseline indicators by FY 2003

that support the measurement of progress toward the objective.

Trends in increased accessibility.

• A 5-percent increase in the number of diverse and underserved and low-income

people and communities expressing satisfaction with availability of uses, values,

products, and/or services.

• A 5-percent increase in number of partnerships and contracts that include Federal,

State, and Tribal governments and other entities.

The demographics of areas where USDA Forest Service facilities are located can affect

our capability to increase partnerships and contracts with diverse and underserved

and low-income communities.

OBJECTIVE 2.d 

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
26

Improve delivery of services to urban communities.

We will . . .

• Assist State forestry agencies, local governments, and cooperators in protecting and

increasing forest cover and green space in urban communities.

• Research the relationships between urbanization and forest cover and green space

to develop tools and techniques for improving livability.

• Support and participate with partners to provide educational opportunities for

maintaining and increasing forest cover and green space in selected urban 

communities.

• Build cooperative relationships with communities close to national forests to facilitate management and public support for natural resource management.

• Increase assistance to selected cities and communities to improve livability.

Trends in percentage of forest cover in selected urban areas.

• A 5-percent increase in green space within selected urban areas.

Comprehensive data from State and local agencies may not be available.

Since 1970, 86 percent of the total U.S. population growth has taken place in the suburban areas.This movement has led to an accelerating decrease in forest cover in

urban and suburban areas in many parts of the country.

One of every seven Americans lives within a 2-hour drive of a national forest, contributing to an annual use of about 82 million visitor days.This number has been

increasing over the last several years, with increasing environmental and physical

impacts to the national forest lands and facilities as appropriated funds continue to

decrease.

OBJECTIVE 2.e

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone 

Key External Factors
27

GOAL 3: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Develop and use the best scientific information available to deliver technical

and community assistance and to support ecological, economic, and social

sustainability.

Objective 3.a—Better assist in building the capacity of Tribal governments, rural communities, and private landowners to adapt to economic, environmental, and social

change related to natural resources.

Objective 3.b—Increase the effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical

information delivered to domestic and international interests.

Objective 3.c—Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory,

and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including human

uses, and to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation’s

forests and grasslands.

Objective 3.d—Broaden the participation of less traditional research groups in

research and technical assistance programs.
28

Better assist in building the capacity of Tribal governments, rural communities, and private landowners to adapt to economic, environmental, and social

change related to natural resources.

We will . . .

• Conduct research on the capacity of Tribal governments, rural communities, and/or

private landowners to respond to changes in natural resource conditions and uses.

• Increase technical assistance and technology transfer in dealing with economic,

environmental, and social changes related to natural resources to—

– Tribal governments.

– Rural communities.

– Private landowners.

• Focus increases in technical assistance toward Tribal governments, rural communities, and private landowners in those areas where the greatest difference exists

between the demands for uses and products and their availability are expected to

occur.

• Increase the effectiveness of information and technology transfer to improve the

application of resource management practices on nonindustrial private forestland.

Trend in rural communities working under broad-based local strategic plans.

• A 25-percent increase in rural communities working under broad-based local 

strategic plans.

Successful accomplishment of this objective is directly related to the ability of rural

communities to leverage their limited resources and to increase local leadership, planning, and implementation capacity.

The USDA Forest Service does not control the top-down programming of other agencies that may conflict with or redirect local planning efforts.

Neither the USDA Forest Service nor rural communities control the legal challenges

and special interests that may interfere with developing sustainable local and regional

solutions to resource-based issues and opportunities.

OBJECTIVE 3.a 

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
29

Increase the effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical information delivered to domestic and international interests.

We will . . .

• Use public feedback information and performance results to evaluate the effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical information.

• Focus attention on those domestic and international areas of interest identified in

the Resources Planning Act and other pertinent sources.

• Diversify delivery mechanisms for scientific, developmental, and technical

information.

• Encourage NFS, State and Private Forestry, Research and Development, and

International Programs to establish their respective baselines for the delivery of

scientific, developmental, and technical information.

Trends in user satisfaction with the quality and effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical information delivered.

• Quality and effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical information is

reflected by increased user satisfaction and application.

As a greater awareness of environmental issues and concerns by communities develops, there will be an increasing demand for scientific, developmental, and technical

information to help address local environmental needs and livability concerns.

A number of international programs and projects are supported by or are in coordination with U.S.Agency for International Development and the Department of State. If

their priorities and funding changes, our priorities may also change.

OBJECTIVE 3.b

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
30

Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and

monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including

human uses, and to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of

the Nation’s forests and grasslands.

We will . . .

• Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and

decision support across all land ownerships.

• Develop and implement a comprehensive expert review process for the Research

and Development program.

• Expand the annual Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Health Monitoring programs to all 50 States and U.S. territories, including grassland and aquatic ecosystems and urban areas.

• Implement an integrated approach to detect the presence and spread of invasive

species and establish a monitoring program.

• Provide research results and tools through technology transfer that support effective management, protection, and restoration of ecosystems.

• Incorporate/integrate the best available science in all broad-scale assessments and

land and resource management plan revisions.

• Provide social science research to understand the interactions between humans and

ecosystems.

Trends in expert review results and customer satisfaction with relevance, quality,

and timeliness of research, inventory, and monitoring products and services.

• An expert review process for the Research and Development program is developed

and implemented by September 30, 2004.

• A review process for broad-scale assessments and land and resource management

plan revisions is developed and implemented.

• Protocols for implementation of the Inventory and Monitoring Framework are in

place by September 30, 2002.

• A 10-percent increase in customer satisfaction with:

– Research and Development products and services;

– Inventory and Monitoring products and services.

The virtually instantaneous public knowledge of current issues and events increases

the expectation for an immediate Government response to requests for information

and assistance.

OBJECTIVE 3.c

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
31

Broaden the participation of less traditional research groups in research and

technical assistance programs.

We will . . .

• Complete an assessment of research institutions and organizations participating in

Research and Development programs and identify the potential to diversify the

research capability that can be tapped.

• Use these assessment findings to enrich research, USDA Forest Service programs,

and technical assistance.

• Expand and strengthen relationships with ethnically identified institutions in order

to increase research capacity and to contribute to technical and community assistance to underserved and low-income populations.

• Conduct and apply social science research related to—

– Demographic changes.

– Cultural differences.

– Effectiveness of service delivery.

– Communication strategies.

– Use of traditional knowledge.

• Develop and implement plans that broaden information sharing and provide technical assistance to underserved and low-income populations.

Trends in opportunities for participation in research and in technical assistance

programs.

• A 5-percent increase in opportunities for participation of ethnically identified institutions and organizations in research and in technical assistance programs.

• Protocols for identification of a broader array of less traditional groups are in place

by 2002.

• An assessment of less traditional groups that participate in Forest Service

research/development and technical assistance activities is completed by

September 2002.

• By September 2001, a relational data base for current baseline information is in

place.

Choices of groups and/or institutions that are characterized as being “less traditional”

can choose research unrelated to the Research and Development opportunities

offered by the agency. Such groups and/or institutions may have research priorities

that do not include a focus on natural resources-related issues and concerns.

OBJECTIVE 3.d

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
32

GOAL 4: EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SERVICE

Ensure the acquisition and use of an appropriate corporate infrastructure to

enable the efficient delivery of a variety of uses.

Objective 4.a—Improve financial management to achieve fiscal accountability.

Objective 4.b—Improve the safety and economy of USDA Forest Service roads, trails,

facilities, and operations and provide greater security for the public and employees.

Objective 4.c—Improve and integrate informational systems, data structures, and

information management processes to support cost-efficient program delivery.

Objective 4.d—Improve the skills, diversity, and productivity of the workforce.

Objective 4.e—Ensure equal opportunity in employment practices.

Objective 4.f—Provide appropriate access to NFS lands and ensure nondiscrimination

in the delivery of all USDA Forest Service programs.
33

Improve financial management to achieve fiscal accountability.

We will . . .

• Provide leadership in financial management to promote effective and efficient management of resources and assets.

• Deliver quality, cost-effective public service by creating partnerships and by streamlining processes and organization.

• Establish a knowledgeable, skilled workforce and empower employees to manage

their work and make responsible decisions.

• Create a framework of secure, integrated, user-friendly financial systems using crossfunctional system design teams that include customers and users.

Receive and maintain an unqualified audit opinion on financial statements.

• Unqualified audit opinion for FY 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.

• Removal of agency financial management from General Accounting Office (GAO)

“high-risk” area designation in FY 2003.

Numerous USDA Office of Inspector General, as well as GAO, audits have reported on

serious accountability issues in the USDA Forest Service.Additionally, GAO has designated the USDA Forest Service’s accounting and financial reporting as a high-risk area

because of vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. For removal from

this designation, the USDA Forest Service will need to demonstrate sustained financial

accountability. At a minimum, the agency will need to obtain an unqualified opinion

on its financial statements for 2 consecutive fiscal years.To obtain an unqualified opinion, the agency will need to correct previously identified financial management deficiencies and implement key accounting and financial reporting requirements that

became effective in fiscal year 1998.

According to the report by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA,

1999),“There is a fundamental disconnect between the current budget structure and

the work the USDA Forest Service actually undertakes.” Until the agency and Congress

develop a budget structure that reflects the multiuse work actually performed, an

appropriate corporate infrastructure will not be completely effective as a tool for

achieving the objective of fiscal accountability.

OBJECTIVE 4.a

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
34

Improve the safety and economy of USDA Forest Service roads, trails,

facilities, and operations and provide greater security for the public and

employees.

We will . . .

• Improve education and awareness of wildland fires, abandoned mines, illegal activities, and other potential safety hazards.

• Complete and maintain inventories and condition surveys of roads, trails, and

facilities.

• Reduce the number of identified safety hazards related to roads and trails, wildland

fire management activities, and facilities.

• Develop and implement a national infrastructure management strategy to meet

safety standards and reduce the maintenance backlog.

• Increase law enforcement capability to provide for public and employee safety.

Trends in infrastructure, services, and operations meeting public service safety

standards.

• Eliminate 95 percent of identified safety concerns with roads and trails posing

immediate threats to users.

• A 10-percent increase in the number of facilities maintained and meeting safety

standards.

• A 20-percent reduction in the number of violations against persons and incidents of

destruction of natural resources.

The facilities maintenance needed on the NFS is so great that historical funding levels

are insufficient to reduce this backlog. Inclement weather and increasing recreation

use significantly affect the rate of deterioration of roads, trails, and buildings. In addition, there are ongoing requirements, for example, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act (as amended) and energy conservation regulations, that require additional investment in all facilities.

OBJECTIVE 4.b

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
35

Improve and integrate informational systems, data structures, and information management processes to support cost-efficient program delivery.

We will . . .

• Develop and manage a standardized, integrated resource information environment

that supports agency programs and facilitates cooperation and coordination with

other land management partners.

• Establish baseline data for informational services and structures.

• Develop web-monitoring tools that provide information on the annual number of

users accessing the Forest Service Internet and Intranet home pages.

• Create network monitoring tools that provide:

– An annual index reflecting system availability and performance as experienced 

by the average visitor of the Forest Service Internet site.

– The average amounts of information available online to the Forest Service 

Intranet users and to visitors of the Forest Service Internet site.

• Develop an annual survey tool to measure the usefulness of agency informational

services and structure to the average system and Internet user.

Trend in accessibility and usefulness to users of USDA Forest Service informational

services and structure.

• A 50-percent increase in percentage of USDA Forest Service information services

and data structures that are accessible by employees and the public.

• A 50-percent reduction in information system downtime.

The USDA Forest Service does not control all the factors necessary to achieve integrated information systems and processes. Other Federal and State agencies collect and

store data with systems that are not compatible with those of the USDA Forest

Service.

OBJECTIVE 4.c

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
36

Improve the skills, diversity, and productivity of the workforce.

We will . . .

• Use agency-wide techniques, such as the Continuous Improvement Process (CIP)

survey, to identify critical skill, diversity, and technology needs to help improve

productivity.

• Implement recommendations from surveys and reports, such as the CIP, and the

Forest Service Workforce Management Plan.

• Recruit and retain a workforce reflecting the diversity of the Nation.

Trend in accomplishment of the objectives stated in the agency’s Workforce

Management Plan.

• Selected objectives and recommendations stated in the NAPA report entitled “U.S.

Forest Service Workforce Management Plan” are accomplished on schedule, particularly including:

– Recruitment of high-quality minority, women, and disabled applicants for key 

line and staff occupations.

– Development of strategies for assessing skill needs for recruiting and hiring a 

diversity of occupations.

– Implementation of a corporate training plan that meets the requirements for 

technical and nontechnical defined occupation competencies.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s “Workforce 2000” report indicates that by the year

2000:

• The number of available workers will decrease.

• The average age of the population and the workforce will rise.

• The pool of young workers entering the labor market will shrink.

• The number of less educated people in the workforce will increase.

OBJECTIVE 4.d

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
37

Ensure equal opportunity in employment practices.

We will . . .

• Provide timely, effective responses to all internal complaints.

• Provide basic civil rights training to all employees.

• Improve data collection and maintenance with the creation of a relational data base

management system by 2001.

Trends in the resolution of complaints at the lowest level of the organization.

• A 15 percent increase in resolution of internal EEO complaints at the unit level by

September 2005.

The potential for passage of new or revised laws and the creation of new case law as a

result of court decisions may redefine training and complaints management.

Resolution rates may be affected by actions of other Federal organizations, such as the

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Merit System Protection

Board.

OBJECTIVE 4.e

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestone

Key External Factors
38

Provide appropriate access to NFS lands and ensure nondiscrimination in the

delivery of all USDA Forest Service programs.

We will . . .

• Ensure that all USDA Forest Service assistance programs (for example, Forest

Stewardship and Urban and Community Forestry) are available to all segments of

the population.

• Continue to ensure that NFS lands and USDA Forest Service programs and facilities

are accessible to all Americans, per the requirements of Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act (as amended).

• Create culturally sensitive training, communication processes, and information systems that support employees’ capabilities to reach broader, more diverse audiences

in more effective ways.

• Use special emphasis program managers and liaisons to advise and support delivery

of services to underserved and low-income populations.

Trends in public and administrative access to NFS lands and USDA Forest Service

programs.

• A 10-percent increase in diversity of the public participating in USDA Forest Service

programs and using NFS lands, programs, and USDA Forest Service facilities.

• A 20-percent increase in accessibility of lands, programs, and facilities in accordance

with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (as amended).

The potential for passage of new or revised laws and the creation of new case law as a

result of court decisions may redefine the management of program delivery.

Ensuring that all NFS lands and USDA Forest Service programs and facilities are accessible consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (as amended) is likely to

occur more slowly when linked with facilities maintenance, which has insufficient

funding levels to reduce the maintenance backlog.

OBJECTIVE 4.f

Strategies To Achieve 

the Objective

Measure

FY 2006 Milestones

Key External Factors
39

SECTION 3 – PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS

Long-term land health and other outcome measures were identified during the

development of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest

Service) Strategic Plan (2000 Revision).These measures will provide better information

on which to base management decisions. However, some additional work is needed to

define these measures and establish baseline information for them.

• Objective 1.c—Future Measure: Trends in Ecological Integrity Ratings by 

ecoregion.

Action Needed: Develop and implement an ecological integrity rating system to

improve the ability to monitor ecological conditions and trends by ecoregion.

• Objective 2a—Future Measure: Trends in utilization of recreation capacity.

Action Needed: Research methods for estimating recreation capacity and

demand based on ecological capabilities and social factors.

• Objective 4.f—Future Measure: Trend in the number, diversity, and net benefits

from partners.

Action Needed: Ensure that USDA Forest Service assistance programs are available to all segments of the population.

The Government Performance and Results Act requires a description of program evaluations used in establishing the strategic plan goals and objectives and a schedule for

future program evaluations. Program evaluations can provide important information

about needs and opportunities the agency should address, as well as why a program

did or did not succeed and suggest ways to improve it.

The USDA Forest Service plans to adopt the following approach and schedule for

future evaluations of progress toward strategic plan goals and objectives.

For each objective, the agency will collect information based on agreed-upon established protocols, review historical or benchmark data, and analyze the most recent program data on indicator measures.

A systematic analysis of trends versus expectations will be conducted based on established criteria. Results of the analysis of each long-term measure will be reported to

the Chief and the USDA Forest Service Leadership Team in November of each year

along with recommendations for actions to be taken.

In addition to the approach outlined above, the following evaluations, now underway,

will be helpful in evaluating our strategic goals and objectives.

Outcome Measures 

To Be Developed

Program Evaluations

Identify Data Needs 

and Sources

Conduct Analysis
40

Title Objective Estimated

Completion Date 

Urban Forest Assess status and trends in the October 2000

Assessment extent, condition, and management of 

urban forests.

Range and Timber Assess status and trends in the December 2000 

Resource extent, condition, and management of 

Assessments rangeland timber resources in the United 

States.

National Survey of Assess trends, current situation, and Mid-2001 

Recreation and the likely futures of outdoor recreation 

Environment and wilderness demand and supply.

Numerous evaluations and analyses have helped shape the 2000 Revision. Although

there are far too many to list individually, the following represent the significant

sources of information used:

• Renewable Resources Assessment – Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, this periodic report examines status and trends for natural resources and their management

on all forests and rangelands in the United States, as required by the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (Public Law 93-378).

The 2000 edition of the RPA Assessment will be published in the fall of 2000. This

report can be used to identify needs and opportunities for USDA or others to take

action to strategically address concerns about the Nation’s natural resource situation, which is evaluated within the framework of an internationally accepted set of

criteria and indicators of sustainable resource management. The technical documents supporting the RPA Assessment are also broadly used to track trends in the

extent and condition of forest and rangelands and in renewable resource supply

and demand. These documents contain detailed assessments of specific resource

areas or topics, such as recreation, water, wildlife, fisheries, range forage, timber, minerals, and resource statistics.

• Climate Change Impacts on the United States – Issued in June 2000 by the U.S.

Global Change Research Program, this Federal report contains projections of the

likely effects of global warming over the next century. This executive branch initiative, also known as the national global change assessment, incorporates work by

several USDA and other Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution. It

addresses forests, grasslands, freshwater, and coastal and marine resources and will

be used to understand and plan for the effects of climate change.
41

• Each year, analyze long-term measures to determine—

1. If they are, in fact, appropriate indicators of success.

2.Whether or not the information is valid.

3.Whether or not the trend matches the anticipated result.

• Every 10 years, with interim updates as needed, use results of the RPA Assessment

to verify and validate annual evaluations of long-term results.

• As needed, conduct additional studies and evaluations as directed by agency leadership and report results in the Annual Performance Report.

The Chief and the USDA Forest Service Leadership Team will determine the need to

make changes in policy as a result of the evaluation data and information.The Strategic

Planning and Resource Assessment (SPRA) Staff will evaluate if adjustments are needed

in the long-term goals and objectives.The SPRA Staff will then notify the Chief

Financial Officer and agency leaders of the need to modify annual performance plans.

The results that the USDA Forest Service is able to achieve are directly influenced by

budget-related decisions. A table displaying the relative proportions of the fiscal year

(FY) 1999 final budget appropriations broken down into the set of goals and objectives from the 2000 Revision is included below.

Program Evaluation 

Schedule

Possible Agency 

Leadership Actions

Program Budget by 

Goals and Objectives
42

Relative Budget Priorities of Goals and Objectives

Using FY 1999 Final Appropriations as a Baseline

Percent Share of Total

FY2006

Goals Objectives FY1999 (proposed)

1. Ecosystem Health

1.a Watershed Health 4.0 6.0

1.b Species Habitat 2.6 4.0

1.c Risk Management 33.2 33.2

Goal Subtotal 39.8 43.2

2. Multiple Benefits to People

2.a Quality Recreation 11.3 12.1

2.b Wilderness .9 1.1

2.c Multiple Benefits 16.0 12.0

2.d Underserved Publics .5 .5

2.e Urban Green Spaces .9 1.0

Goal Subtotal 29.6 26.7

3. Scientific and Technical Assistance

3.a Rural Community Adaptability 8.2 8.0

3.b Scientific/Technical Assistance .4 .8

3.c Scientific Information 10.2 11.8

3.d Underserved Research .3 .4

Goal Subtotal 19.1 21.0

4. Effective Public Service

4.a Financial Management 1.8 .8

4.b Public Safety 5.2 5.2

4.c Information Management 2.0 1.0

4.d Workforce Capability .2 .3

4.e Equal Opportunity Employment .4 .3

4.f Nondiscrimination Access 1.9 1.5

Goal Subtotal 11.5 9.1

Totals 100.0 100.0

In addressing how the USDA Forest Service will achieve the goals and objectives in

the strategic plan, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has directed agencies

to address mission-critical management problems or challenges that may impede

accomplishment.“Agencies should include a brief description of steps being taken to

resolve mission-critical management problems. For an agency, a mission-critical problem poses a realistic and prospective impediment to carrying out the agency’s mission

or achieving the general goals and objectives during the strategic plan timeframe (see

also subsection 220.11(e)” (OMB, 1998).

Major Management 

Challenges
43

In January 1999, the U.S. General Accounting Office, placed the USDA Forest Service

(financial) management on a list of Federal agencies whose operations were at risk for

waste, fraud, and abuse.The USDA Forest Service—

• Has not obtained fair market value for its goods or recovered costs for its services.

• Cannot accurately account for significant amounts of its assets and expenditures.

• Has unreliable financial statements.

• Has weak contracting practices.

The immediate USDA Forest Service challenge is to improve management and be

removed from the list of agencies at risk.

The critical first step is to implement a sound financial accounting system. On October

1, 1999, the USDA Forest Service implemented the Foundation Financial Information

System (FFIS), the USDA standard general ledger compliant accounting system.

The USDA published a draft set of cost recovery regulations in November 1999.The

cost recovery regulations, when final, will provide the USDA Forest Service with the

ability to exercise existing statutory authority to assess, collect, process, and monitor

fees for special use authorizations. Language currently in Section 328 of the FY 2000

House Appropriations Bill for Interior and Related Agencies would authorize the

agency’s expenditure of these fees at the time of their collection.

The 2000 Revision incorporates goals and performance measures for obtaining fair

market value. During the 5-year life of the strategic plan, the USDA Forest Service will

evaluate each fee system to determine if fair market value for goods or services has

been achieved.

The USDA Forest Service issued the “Internal Control Plan for Acquisitions,” effective in

August 1999.The USDA delivered a certifying officer’s representative qualifications system prior to FY 2000. Implementation of the USDA certification program will enable

the USDA Forest Service to monitor and conduct reviews of the contracting process

on an annual basis for compliance with the “Internal Control Plan for Acquisitions.”

The USDA Forest Service has worked with USDA, OMB, and Congress to revise the

agency’s once-cumbersome budget structure.The revised structure is the basis of the

FY 2001 budget submission.The functions funded under the new budget structure

reflect the priority goals and objectives stated in the long-term strategic plan.

Subsequent budget distribution will include specific performance measures.The production of budget requests and performance measures, under strategic priorities, also

address a longstanding criticism of the USDA Forest Service for reducing or removing

measurable objectives from the planning process.
44

USDA Forest Service management requires consultation and collaboration with other

Federal, State,Tribal, local, and private land managers.This is consistent with the OMB,

which says,“Strategic plans of agencies participating in a cross-cutting program should

each describe the interface between their related programs, and outline how individual agency efforts synergistically support common endeavors” (OMB, 1998).

The following are examples of key national, ongoing, cross-cutting coordination efforts

by the USDA Forest Service with other Federal agencies. A complete list of cross-cutting functions and coordinating agencies is located in the Appendix B matrix.

National forest and grassland ecosystems provide habitat for 2,500 sensitive species

that require protection and management to ensure their viability and/or recovery,

maintain their role in ecosystem function and productivity, and prevent the need to

list them or facilitate delisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Some 360

species of plants and animals that are listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered have habitat on the National Forest System (NFS) or are affected by NFS management. Providing for the protection and recovery of these species and the ecosystems

upon which they depend is a biological and legal imperative.

Conservation planning involves identifying species recovery and habitat restoration

needs through recovery plans and conservation strategies. It also involves adopting

and implementing management and research tasks that will contribute to species

recovery and ecosystem conservation.There are two components to conservation

planning: recovery of species listed under the ESA and provision for the viability of atrisk species that are not yet listed under the ESA. Both components are directly linked

to and dependent upon ecosystem conservation.The USDA Forest Service is working

with other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies to establish an integrated approach for

developing, adopting, and implementing conservation plans for many of these species,

groups of species, and ecosystems of concern.Working proactively with other agencies, governments, landowners, nongovernmental organizations, and the public to

develop, adopt, and implement conservation strategies provides benefits by minimizing costs and maintaining local management flexibility, while assuring that species and

ecosystems are protected and restored.

Federal agency cooperators in these efforts include the USDA Forest Service and

Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Department of the Interior Bureau of

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park

Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey; the Department of

Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine

Fisheries Service; the Department of Defense; and the Environmental Protection

Agency. Examples of ongoing efforts include Lynx Conservation Assessment and

Strategy, Prairie Dog and Grassland Ecosystem Strategy, sage grouse and sagebrush

steppe conservation planning, the Northwest Forest Plan, the Sierra Nevada

Framework, the Southwest Strategy (Interagency Natural Resource Conservation and

Sustainable Development), and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project.The implementation actions in these conservation plans will be incorporated

into national forest plans.

Coordination of 

Cross-Cutting 

Functions

Endangered Species

Management and

Conservation Planning
45

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de

Janeiro focused world attention on the importance of sustainable forest management.

In 1993, representatives of 12 countries met in Montreal, Canada, to consider ways of

evaluating the status of forest sustainability and to develop national criteria and indicators for measuring sustainability of temporal and boreal forests. In 1998, the USDA

Forest Service called senior governmental and nongovernmental officials to a

Roundtable on Sustainable Forests to promote shared leadership and responsibility in

contributing toward sustainable forests on public and private lands throughout the

United States. At this meeting, the attendees pledged to work together to define

responsibilities for measuring national progress toward sustainable forest management

using a common set of measures.

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program conducts and maintains continuous

inventory of the Nation's forests on all ownerships.The Forest Health Monitoring

(FHM) Program provides baseline and trend information needed to protect the health

of the Nation's forests.The FHM Program is built on a strong partnership between the

National Association of State Foresters, the Bureau of Land Management, and the USDA

Forest Service. In 1999, the program was expanded to include 33 States covering 70

percent of the forested land in the contiguous United States.The FIA and FHM

Programs will be the principal data sources for reporting on the Montreal Process for

sustainable forest management.

The USDA Forest Service is a member of the National Council on Invasive Species,

which was created to address the problem of nonnative invasive insects, pathogens,

and plants.These organisms are among the greatest threats to forests, grasslands, and

riparian and aquatic ecosystems in the United States. Members include most Federal

and State organizations. Council organizations provide leadership in the identification

of key species; discussion of common problems; development of integrated approaches for detection, monitoring, assessment, and control of invasive species; and clarification of agency responsibilities.The USDA Forest Service provides leadership to the

council's organizations in research, monitoring, technical assistance, and education.

The Clean Water Action Plan is a new collaborative effort by Federal, State,Tribal, and

local governments and the public.The plan is designed to sustain healthy conditions

where they exist, as well as to restore watersheds not meeting clean water, natural

resource, and public health goals.The Federal Government will support locally led

partnerships to meet clean water goals; increase financial and technical assistance to

States,Tribes, local governments, farmers, and others; and help States and Tribes restore

and sustain the health of aquatic systems on a watershed basis. Of the 111 action

items identified in the Clean Water Action Plan, the USDA Forest Service is either in a

leadership or shared leadership role for 20 items.These items range from multiownership of watershed assessments to restoration of aquatic systems at risk.

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered by

the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to ensure that Federal policies and programs

are uniform, cooperative, and cohesive. For the first time, one set of Federal fire policies will enhance effective and efficient operations across administrative boundaries to

improve the capability to meet challenges posed by current wildland fire conditions.

Sustainable Forest

Management

Forest Inventory and

Analysis/Forest Health

Monitoring

Invasive Species

Clean Water Action Plan

Interagency Wildland 

Fire Policy
46

The USDA Forest Service, as a member of the policy review team, reexamined the role

of fire in ecological processes and the costs associated with fighting fire.The result—

an interagency product—has produced changes in terminology, funding, agency policy,

and analysis of ecological processes.

In 2000, wildfires burned over 7 million acres of land, mostly in the Western States.

The total acreage burned was three times the 10-year average.

On September 8, 2000, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture delivered a joint

report to the President entitled “Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities

and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000.”

The President asked for recommendations as to how best to respond to the effects of

the severe fires, how to reduce the effects of wildland fires on rural communities, and

how to ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future.

A “National Fire Plan” has been prepared, and implementation has begun, to address

the recommendations accepted by the President. The “National Fire Plan” sets forth

goals and objectives to address:

• Agency firefighting capacity.

• Restoration of damaged watersheds.

• Hazardous fuels reduction.

• Economic assistance to communities.

• Reduction of fire hazards and restoration of landscapes in communities.

The USDA Forest Service, along with several U.S. Department of the Interior agencies,

received an increase in funding to implement the “National Fire Plan.” While the goals

and objectives of the “National Fire Plan” are broadly addressed in the 2000 Revision, a

shift in emphasis and supporting funding is occurring now and has implications for

emphasis in the strategic plan and for how quickly some of the objectives in the

strategic plan will be achieved.

In the context of the 2000 Revision, we will evaluate the implications of the “National

Fire Plan” on the strategic goals and objectives of the agency and make adjustments, as

appropriate.

Response to the

Wildfires of 2000
47

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

A formal agreement between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service identifying management actions necessary to prevent the need to list species under the Endangered Species Act (Proposed

Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

Those species of plants or animals that are not indigenous to an area but valued for

their contribution to species diversity or their high social, cultural, or economic value

(Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

Components of the biological and physical environment that can affect the diversity of

plant and animal communities, including species viability and the productive capacity

of ecological systems. These could include the abundance and distribution of aquatic

and terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural developments, human uses, and invasive and exotic species (Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

The maintenance or restoration of the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems, including the diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive

capacity of ecological systems (Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August

2000).

Focal species are surrogate measures used in the evaluation of ecological sustainability,

including species and ecosystem diversity. The key characteristic of a focal species is

that its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecosystem to

which it belongs. Individual species, or groups of species that use habitat in similar

ways or which perform similar ecological functions, may be identified as focal species.

Focal species serve an umbrella function in terms of encompassing habitats need for

many other species, play a key role in maintaining community structure or processes,

are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the area, or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability. Certain focal species may be used as surrogates to represent ecological conditions that provide for viability of other species, rather than

directly representing the population dynamics of those other species (Proposed

Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

Refers to the integrated network of watersheds, airsheds, woodlands, wildlife habitats,

greenways, parks, working farms, ranches, forests, urban trees and parkways, and other

open spaces that when incorporated into local and regional plans, policies, and practices provide vital services that sustain and ensure the quality of life (From Executive

Summary of Green Infrastructure Training Program Work Session, National

Conservation Training Center, WV, August 4–5, 1999).

An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. An alien species includes, with respect to a

particular ecosystem and species, its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material

capable of propagating that species that is not native to that ecosystem (Executive

Order #13112).

Conservation Agreement

Desired Nonnative Species

Ecological Conditions

Ecological Sustainability

Focal Species

Green Space 

(Green Infrastructure)

Invasive Species
48

Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity to—and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically

dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by—U.S. Department of

Agriculture programs or activities (Environmental Justice, USDA Department

Regulation 5600-2, December 15, 1997).

Species of the plant and animal kingdom indigenous to the plan area or assessment

area (Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

The impact on a resource or landscape of program activities (for example, water quality changes and improved habitat condition).

A unit of production for project work. The unit of production may be, or is related to,

the annual performance measure upon which budgets are built and performance is

evaluated.

Ecosystems at any temporal or spatial scale are in a properly functioning condition

when they are dynamic and resilient to perturbations to structure, compositions, and

processes of their biological or physical components. Risk refers to situations in which

the outcome is not certain, but the chance of system degradation beyond the point of

resiliency and sustainability can be estimated (October 23, 1998, Properly

Functioning Condition, Rapid Assessment Process, Intermountain Region, USDA

Forest Service).

Any member of the animal or plant kingdom that is described as a species in a peerreviewed scientific publication and is identified as a species by the responsible official

pursuant to a plan decision—must include all species listed under the Endangered

Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate or proposed for listing by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (Proposed Planning

Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

Federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate or proposed species and other

species for which loss of viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is

a concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may include sensitive species

and State listed species. A species-at-risk also may be selected as a focal species

(Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

A species consisting of self-sustaining and interacting populations that are well distributed through the species’ range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term persistence and adaptability over time

(Proposed Planning Rule, Section 219.36, August 2000).

Low-Income Population

Native Species

Outcome

Output

Properly Functioning

Condition

Species

Species at Risk

Species Viability
49

Sustainable forest management is the forest component of sustainable development—

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs.” (The Bruntland Commission Report,

Oxford University Press, 1987, p.43). Taken together, the Montreal Process Criteria

and Indicators (see Appendix C) taken together also provide an implicit definition of

what is meant by sustainable forest management at the national level.

Underserved means “ ... all potential customers [should have] full access to all USDA

programs and services,” including women, minorities, and limited-resource customers

(Secretary’s memorandum creating the Office of Outreach).

Sustainable Forest

Management

Underserved
50

APPENDIX B

COORDINATION OF CROSS-CUTTING FUNCTIONS

The following is a list of Federal agencies with which the United States Department of

Agriculture Forest Service is actively engaged in coordination of interagency functions.

The following pages contain a matrix of the specific agencies that are working together on specific programs. *

Acronym Agency

ACE Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense)

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ARS Agricultural Research Service (Department of Agriculture)

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs (Department of the Interior)

BLM Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior)

BOR Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior)

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

DEA Drug Enforcement Agency (Department of Justice)

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

ED Department of Education

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration (Department of Transportation)

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MMS Minerals Management Service (Department of the Interior)

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(Department of Commerce)

NPS National Park Service (Department of the Interior)

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (Department of Agriculture)

NSF National Science Foundation

ONDCP Office of National Drug Center Policy

OSM Office of Surface Mining (Department of the Interior)

SMITHSONIAN Smithsonian Institution

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

USAID U.S.Agency for International Development

USBP U.S. Border Patrol (Department of Justice)

USCS U.S. Customs Service (Department of Treasury)

USGS U.S. Geological Survey (Department of the Interior)

* The Forest Service works with other organizations on cross-cutting issues, including State,Tribal, and local

governmental entities. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that coordination with other

Federal Agencies be cited in the strategic plan.
51

Coordination of Cross-cutting Functions

USGS

USCS

USBP

USAID

TVA

SMITHSONIAN

OSM

ONDCP

NSF

NRCS

NPS

NOAA

NMFS

NASA

MMS

HUD

FWS

FHWA

FEMA

EPA

ED

DOJ

DOE

DOD

DEA

CEQ

BOR

BLM

BIA

ARS

APHIS

ACE Program

Clean Water Action PlanInvasive SpeciesRecreation Fee DemonstrationInteragency Wildland FireEPA LiaisonRoad Maintenance/ReconstructionTEA-21/NEPAAbandoned Mine CleanupMinerals ManagementRecreation InformationNational Scenic BywayWilderness ManagementWild and Scenic RiversTourism PlanningNational Recreation Reservation SystemConservation PlanningRecFishWatershed Protection and RestorationEcological MonitoringRiparian AreasWetlandsAir QualityStream Corridor RestorationWeather Equipment and MonitoringECOMAP

FederalAgency

$$$ $$$ $

$ $$$$ $ $$

$$ $

$$

$

$

$$ $

$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$ $

$$$$

$

$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$

$$

$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$

$$

$

$$

$$

$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$

$

$$$$$

$$$$$$

$
52

Coordination of Cross-cutting Functions (continued)

Program

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER)FirewiseNational Atmospheric Deposition MonitoringUnified Federal PolicyDrug EnforcementLaw Enforcement SupportForest Inventory Analysis andForest Health MonitoringState of Forests Chesapeake Bay WatershedAldo Leopold Wilderness Research InstituteTaskforce on Amphibian Declinesand DeformitiesCommittee on the Environmentand Natural ResourcesCorporate TrainingGlobal Change Research ProgramSafe Drinking Water ReviewLong-Term Ecological Research NetworkWater Studies MOUForest Health ProtectionSustainable Forest Management

FederalAgency

$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$ $

$

$$

$ $ $$ $ $$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$$

$

$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$$$$

$ $

$$$

$

$$$$$$

$$$$$$$

$

$

$$

$$ $

$ $

$$

$ $

USGS

$$

USCS

USBP

USAID

TVA

SMITHSONIAN

OSM

ONDCP

NSF

NRCS

NPS

NOAA

NMFS

NASA

MMS

HUD

FWS

FHWA

FEMA

EPA

ED

DOJ

DOE

DOD

DEA

CEQ

BOR

BLM

BIA

ARS

APHIS

ACE

$ $ $ $
53

Relationship Between

Montreal Process

Criteria and the

Strategic Plan Goals

APPENDIX C

OUTCOME MEASURE DEVELOPMENT AND BASES

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) is committed

to sustainable forest management, as evidenced in this strategic plan and other documents guiding the activities of the agency. At the national level, a framework for evaluating the sustainability of forest management is provided by the Montreal Process

Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate

and Boreal Forests.This framework is being used by the USDA Forest Service in the

development of the 2000 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment.The RPA

Assessment provides a comprehensive look at the natural resource situation for forests

and rangelands in the United States and identifies management implications and concerns.The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan is a tool to alert managers about these

implications and concerns, and to identify the actions the agency will take to address

the opportunities and problems identified in the RPA Assessment.

It is important that the strategic plan objectives and anticipated outcomes be examined within the context of existing resource conditions, supplies, and demands and

with some expectation of future trends.The RPA Assessment is one source of information on the status and trends of renewable resources in the United States that can be

used to set the context for strategic planning.The strategic plan is built on a broad

information base established from the research findings in the RPA Assessment and

from other sources.The strategic plan selects a “vital few” measures to track for management purposes.

In addition to the strategic plan, which tracks long-term commitments to sustainable

resource management, the annual performance plan provides more detailed information on the activities contributing to achievement of long-term goals and objectives.

There are significant linkages from the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000

Revision) goals, objectives, and measures to the criteria and indicators identified in the

Montreal Process, although not all of these indicators can be currently addressed due

to lack of available data.The USDA Forest Service and other members of the

Roundtable on Sustainable Forests are working together to improve their capability to

utilize the indicators in measuring national progress toward achievement of sustainable forest management.

The following is an example of the linkage to be found between the Montreal Process

Criteria and the 2000 Revision goals.
54

Montreal Process Criteria Strategic Plan

Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity, the Goal 1

elements of ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and 

genetic diversity.

Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of Goal 1 

ecosystems.

Criterion 3: Maintenance of ecosystem health and Goal 1 

vitality.

Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and Goal 1

water resources.

Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to Goal 1

global carbon cycles.

Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of Goal 2

long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet 

the needs of society.

Criterion 7: Maintenance of legal, institutional, and Goals 3 and 4

economic framework for conservation and sustainable 

management.

The “indicators” in the Montreal Process provide a link between objectives and resultsfocused outcome measures.There are 67 indicators distributed across the 7 criteria.

The indicators vary considerably in their level of specificity. In some cases, measures

are clearly defined, and in others several measures may be used to define the indicator.

The following example should help clarify the relationship between the strategic plan

goals, objectives, and measures and the Montreal Process “indicators.”

Criterion 1—Conservation of biological diversity

Indicator—Status of forest-dependent species at risk of not maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by legislation or scientific assessment.

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision)

Goal 1—Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a collaborative approach

to sustain the Nation's forests, grasslands, and watersheds.

Objective 1.b—Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native

and desired non-native species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator

Species (MIS)/focal species.

Measure—Status and/or trends in populations, habitats, and ecological conditions for

selected species.

Example of the

Relationship Between 

the Montreal Process 

and a 2000 Revision 

Goal and Objective
55

FY 2006 Milestones

• 100 percent of national forests and grasslands have established measurable objectives and monitoring programs for populations, habitats, and/or ecological conditions for threatened and endangered species, other species for which there are viability concerns, and other MIS/focal species, and are achieving objectives at rates

consistent with timeframes identified in land resource management plans.

• Selected species populations and habitats representing land resource management

plan objectives that will be tracked to measure progress toward the milestone

include— 

Species Populations Representative of:

To Be tracked: Ecosystem Geographic Area

Red-cockaded woodpecker Long-leaf & Short-leaf pine Southeast

Golden-winged warbler Early successional 

deciduous forest

Cerulean warbler Mature deciduous forest

Goldenseal Mesic deciduous forest Northeast

Eastern brook trout Perennial streams

Cerulean warbler Mature deciduous forest

Black-tailed prairie dog Mid- and short-grass prairies Northern 

Great Plains

Grizzly bear Mixed conifer forest Northern Rockies

Bull trout Perennial streams & lakes

Aspen Aspen forest Southern Rockies 

& Great Basin

Sage grouse Sagebrush-steppe Great Basin

Lahontan cutthroat trout Perennial streams & lakes

Northern spotted owl Douglas fir/mixed conifer Pacific Northwest

late seral/old growth forest

Mexican spotted owl Mixed conifer forest Southwest

Loach minnow, spikedace Desert streams

Willow flycatcher Riparian areas

California spotted owl Sierra Nevada conifer forests California

Sierra Nevada bighorn Alpine and subalpine

Red-legged frog Riparian & aquatic ecosystems
56

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) Strategic Plan

(2000 Revision) provides long-term national guidance for the agency in managing

forests and grasslands and producing resource outputs that provide a variety of goods

and services for the American public. The economic effects of these goods and services can be described by several measures, each contributing unique information.

This appendix presents two primary measures of the economic effects that are likely

to occur: 1) net economic benefits and 2) economic contributions to the national

economy. Each economic measure provides information about national-level effects of

selected resource outputs. Net economic benefits are measured by an efficiency analysis that compares the future flow of benefits to agency costs.The contributions to the

economy are measured as effects on employment and income.

An economic efficiency analysis was conducted to compare costs and benefits associated with the production of resource outputs from national forests and grasslands.

Monetary estimates of benefits are available for recreation use, fishing, hunting, wildlife

viewing, timber harvest, minerals production, domestic livestock grazing, commercial

fish harvest, and lands leased for utility uses. Research and Development, State and

Private Forestry, and other program areas are not included in the analysis, since comparable benefit measures from these programs are difficult to quantify in economic

terms. Benefits from research discoveries and technical assistance programs were not

estimated. Similarly, a variety of benefits from National Forest System (NFS) lands

could not be included due to lack of monetary estimates or an inability to quantify the

measures at the national scale. For example, nonuse and aesthetic values, protection

for water quality, and the value of the forest for carbon storage could not be included

as separate benefits. However, some of the aesthetic and water quality values are captured in the estimates of recreation use, fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing benefits.

The economic analysis includes only NFS costs and the monetary benefits that stem

directly from the production of resource outputs. The estimated value of resource outputs is priced "on-forest," (that is, the value of the good or service at the site). The 7-

year analysis period is between 1999 and 2006. All costs and benefits are net of inflation and expressed in constant 1999 dollars. Two separate accounting stances for benefits were developed for comparison to agency costs: 1) agency receipts and 2) willingness to pay. Not all of the resource uses listed above had values for both accounting stances.

This accounting stance measures the flow of benefits to the Government from the collection of fees for the use of NFS lands and resources. Fees are collected from the sale

of forest products, the extraction of minerals, the use of some recreation areas, and

issuance of permits for grazing and other special uses.The receipts are grouped into

three categories for distribution and use: returns to the Federal Treasury, payments to

States and counties, and deposits to working funds.The receipts reported here are the

sum of all three and include additional receipts collected by other Federal agencies

coordinating fee collection from mineral leases for energy on NFS lands.The projections of agency receipts for 2006 are based on current authorizations for fee collection

and do not include potential revenues from proposed changes to laws and regulations.

APPENDIX D

ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Net Economic Benefits

USDA Forest Service 

Receipts
57

Timber sales account for 65 percent of the receipts in 1999, a share that is expected

to remain nearly constant through 2006. The percentage of agency receipts attributed

to recreation use drops by nearly 50 percent, due to the exclusion of fee demonstration revenue in 2006. In 1999, the USDA Forest Service collected approximately $26

million in receipts from fee demonstration projects throughout the Nation. Because

the authority does not extend through 2006, fee demonstration revenue was not

included when estimating future recreation receipts.The value of receipts from mineral resource uses is expected to increase by 2006. A good portion of this increase is

from modest real price increases in oil and natural gas and increased natural gas production. Receipts from special uses include fees collected from communication site

leases and linear right-of-way uses. Overall, fees from these sources will increase

through 2006, primarily from increases in the number of communication uses and

changes in fee policy and schedules.

A portion of the receipts collected by the USDA Forest Service for the use of national

forests and grasslands is returned to States for distribution to counties for their use in

maintaining and improving roads and schools. Federal laws require the USDA Forest

Figure D-1 displays the percentage distribution of agency receipts attributed to specific resource uses. Overall, agency receipts decrease about 3 percent in constant 1999

dollars from approximately $628 million to $609 million between 1999 and 2006.

USDA Forest Service receipts do not always keep pace with the general level of inflation since the agency authority to set fees does not include an inflation adjustment for

all types of fees.

Figure D-1. Percentage distribution across resource uses of agency receipts for

1999 and 2006.
58

Willingness To Pay

Service to distribute 25 percent of the nonmineral revenues based on requirements

specified in the Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 1908. Revenues from some mineral

materials sales and some mineral leases also require payments at the 25-percent level.

In 1999, the payments totaled $208.3 million.

Benefits in this accounting stance reflect estimates of the total economic value from

production of resource outputs. It is a dollar measure of the benefits for the use of

resource outputs.Willingness to pay includes the value of the market transaction and

the value individuals place on access to forest resources over and above the amount typically captured in the market price. It provides a legitimate measure of total economic

value from all resource uses, including those the USDA Forest Service prices at market

value (such as timber harvest) and those priced below market value (such as recreation

use). The willingness-to-pay benefits are valued at the same output levels as for the

receipts accounting stance (that is, actual use level for 1999 and projected use for

2006). The largest share of willingness-to-pay benefits is associated with recreation use.

Figure D-2 shows the trend in aggregate willingness to pay between 1999 and 2006.

The value of those benefits increases about 8.5 percent over the 7-year period to about

$15.8 billion dollars. This represents an aggregate measure of the value the Nation

places on resources from national forests and provides a dollar measure of the uses,

values, products, and services the USDA Forest Service is expected to sustain by meeting the objectives under goal 2 (Multiple Benefits to People) in the 2000 Revision.

Figure D-2. Estimates of total USDA Forest Service receipts, willingness to pay, and

costs associated with NFS resource uses for 1999 and 2006 (1999 Dollars).
59

The value of water flowing from NFS lands was not included as part of the estimates

of willingness-to-pay benefits for the economic analysis. According to the January

2000 report, "Water & The Forest Service," by the USDA Forest Service Policy Analysis

Staff, the instream and offstream value of water flowing from the national forests is

approximately $3.7 billion. The value of water for withdrawal to offstream uses was

not considered directly comparable to the "on-forest" values estimated for the other

resource uses. A large portion of the instream value is included in the analysis as part

of the benefit estimates for recreation use.

Present Net Value (PNV) was selected as one measure of comparing agency benefits

and costs. PNV is the difference between the discounted dollar value of benefits from

the production of resource outputs and the discounted costs of USDA Forest Service

management and investment over the analysis period. The PNV calculation converts

the flow of benefits and costs over time into a single number.

The costs incorporated in the analysis represent a subset of total USDA Forest Service

budget costs. These include the direct costs of managing the national forests and

grasslands for resource uses and associated costs for support and protection of those

lands, such as for fire protection and forest pest management. Research and

Development and State and Private Forestry costs were excluded.

Figure D-2 provides a visual perspective on the relationship between agency costs and

benefits over the 7-year strategic planning period. Benefits are displayed for both the

receipts and willingness-to-pay accounting stances. Essentially, receipts and costs are

flat throughout, with costs exceeding the revenue from receipts each year.

Willingness-to-pay benefits are substantially higher than costs, signifying that there is

considerable value associated with the resource uses of NFS lands over and above the

costs of management.

A PNV was calculated comparing benefits and costs for both the receipts and willingness-to-pay accounting stances. Benefits and costs accruing beyond 1999 are discounted using a 4 percent real discount rate. Investments made before 1999 are considered

sunk costs and are not included in the analysis. Similarly, benefits from investments

made in the analysis period that extend beyond 2006 are not included in the analysis.

The PNV for the stream of receipts and costs displayed in figure D-2 is negative, estimated to be about $-15.5 billion. In comparison, the PNV for willingness to pay versus

agency costs yields net discounted benefits exceeding $82 billion. For the 7 years covered by the 2000 Revision, the net benefits are about $427 per acre across the 192

million acres managed by the USDA Forest Service.

The economic activity supported by NFS resource outputs creates ripple effects

throughout the economy with measurable impacts at local, regional, and national

scales. Employment and income are often used to describe the economic activity sustained or maintained in the economy in association with NFS resource outputs. These

measures provide information about the role or importance of USDA Forest Service

programs to the national economy.

Comparison of Benefits to

Agency Costs

Contributions to the 

National Economy
60

Total Income Effects

USDA Forest Service programs support economic activity from three components of

agency operations: 1) production of resource outputs, 2) agency direct expenditures,

and 3) distribution of agency receipts. The largest share of economic effects linked to

USDA Forest Service operations stems from the production of resource outputs from

national forests and grasslands. Recreation (including hunting and fishing) opportunities, timber harvest, grazing, and mining activities support production of goods and services in the economy. The nature and magnitude of the economic effects vary across

resource uses depending on how individual outputs feed into the economy. Two other

components of USDA Forest Service operations that sustain economic activity are

agency expenditures and the transfer of a share of USDA Forest Service receipts to

States and local governments. Agency expenditures include employee salaries and

benefits and goods and services for day-to-day operations. Receipts are transferred to

States and local governments as infrastructure support for schools and roads.

The economic effects that stem from resource production are defined as those that

can be clearly associated with NFS outputs. For purposes of this analysis, effects are

calculated only for immediate users of those resource outputs. Examples of immediate

users are sawmills, ranchers, recreation visitors, and mining operations. Secondary

users, such as purchasers of the refined products from sawmills, are not included in

the analysis.The relative contribution of the NFS resource output to the value added

by the secondary users is quite small and difficult to estimate. The value should be

attributed to the secondary producers, not claimed by the agency.

The USDA Forest Service uses a model that captures the cumulative effects of production relationships associated with the immediate users of forest resources. These

cumulative effects are composed of direct, indirect, and induced effects. Direct effects

capture the economic stimulus of the immediate user of the forest resource. Indirect

effects account for additional production by industries that supply the immediate user.

Induced effects capture the economic activity of household spending resulting from

increased jobs in the direct and indirect industries. This analysis includes the direct

effects and the multiplier effects captured in the indirect and induced components.

Implementation of the 2000 Revision is expected to yield a mix of goods and services

over the planning period. The model used to estimate the economic effects is national

in scope. The analysis is intended to quantify the significance of USDA Forest Service

operations as contributions to the national economy. It is a descriptive analysis. In

comparison, economic impact analysis for forest or project planning traditionally

focuses on impacts of forest activities on local communities. These analyses are often

used to estimate the new dollars brought into communities located near national

forests and grasslands. The national model is not limited to local community impacts,

and, as a result, captures more economic activity.

The USDA Forest Service traditionally reports total income as the measure describing

the income effects associated with agency operations.Total income reported here

includes wage income (wages and salaries), proprietary income (self-employment

income), and property income (for example, rents and stock dividends). It accounts

for about 90 percent of the income included in Gross Domestic Product, which is the

value of all final goods and services produced in the economy.
61

Table D-1 displays the total income and employment effects sustained in the national

economy in association with agency operations. The economic effects are grouped by

each of the three components (production of resource outputs, distribution of agency

receipts, and agency expenditures) comprising the USDA Forest Service sources for

the stimulus to the economy. The economic effects from production of resource outputs and the payment of a portion of agency receipts to States and counties are both

directly dependent on resource-specific activities. The effects from these two components are displayed by individual resource use.The combined effects of agency spending on salaries and goods and services across all USDA Forest Service programs are

included in the agency expenditures component.

Table D-1. Total Income and Employment Effects1 Sustained in the Economy in

Association with USDA Forest Service Activities.

Total Income Effects Employment 

Effects

Source of Economic Effects (MM Dollars, 1999) (Jobs)

1999 2006 1999 2006

National Forest Resource Outputs

Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Viewing $5,431 $6,023 131,774 146,202

Livestock Grazing $327 $319 10,949 10,702

Minerals & Energy Extraction $2,393 $3,190 35,225 46,824

Recreation Use2 $21,104 $22,785 519,524 560,901

Timber Harvest $3,567 $3,642 66,694 68,088

Distribution of Agency Receipts

Livestock Grazing $3 $2 61 54

Minerals & Energy Extraction $86 $98 1,976 2,258

Recreation Use $15 $13 348 304

Special Uses and Leases $5 $7 109 156

Timber Harvest $143 $140 3,294 3,224

Agency Expenditures $4,618 $4,664 136,078 137,920

Total Agency Effects $37,692 $40,884 906,031 976,632

1 Includes all economic effects (direct, indirect, and induced).

2 Includes all recreation activities except hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing.

The production of resource outputs stimulates the largest share of total income supported in the economy from the three sources of agency effects. It produces about 87

percent of the total income effects. Recreation use accounts for the largest share in

1999, sustaining about $21.1 billion in total income activity across the country.1 This

1 Employment and income effects stimulated from recreation opportunities on national forests and grasslands are directly

correlated to recreation use. For this analysis, estimates of use were obtained from a USDA Forest Service pilot study

designed to develop a statistically sound methodology for measuring recreation participation at the national level.

Recreation use was estimated with +/- 30 percent precision at the 80 percent confidence level. The economic effects and

benefits are based on these estimates. Updated estimates of recreation use are expected in late 2000 after the first year of

sampling from a 4-year project to estimate visitation for all of the NFS.
62

grows to about $22.8 billion in 2006, primarily from a projected increase in recreation

use of about 1 percent annually. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing account for

about $6 billion in total income by 2006. Minerals resource uses show the largest proportional increase (33 percent) between 1999 and 2006. This is primarily from the oil

and natural gas increases noted earlier.

The total income stimulated by the transfer to States of a portion of USDA Forest

Service receipts is considerably smaller than the effects from resource output production. County spending on goods and services for maintaining and improving schools

and roads supports about $252 million in total income.This estimate includes the

effects from revenues distributed by the USDA Forest Service and from revenues distributed by the Minerals Management Service for mineral leases on NFS lands. The

proportion that is attributed to specific resource uses differs significantly from the distribution observed from the resource output effects. Over 56 percent of the effects

are from timber harvest receipts, with most of the remainder from minerals uses.

Agency expenditures in table D-1 show relatively constant contributions to total

income between 1999 and 2006. Agency spending was projected to be flat in constant 1999 dollars across the 7-year period covered by the 2000 Revision. About $3.2

billion dollars in spending is associated with $4.6 billion in total income effects

throughout the economy. This category captures all USDA Forest Service spending for

management of NFS resources and for the other agency programs and activities where

the economic stimulus is not directly associated with resource outputs. Those include

Research and Development, State and Private Forestry, and NFS programs grouped into

support and protection functions.The economic activity supported by these latter programs is limited to agency expenditures. Because most of the outcomes and products

from these programs are not easily quantified in economic terms that can be traced in

the economy, the overall effects are underestimated.

Figure D-3 aggregates effects from all three sources and displays them by resource use.

This provides a more complete picture of the total effects associated with each of the

resource uses. The totals displayed in figure D-3 are less than the totals shown in table

D-1 due to the exclusion of agency income effects that are not directly associated with

NFS resource uses. (The difference in those effects stems from expenditures on

Research and Development, State and Private Forestry, and other agency programs not

directly linked with NFS uses.) Approximately 62 percent of the total income effects

occur in association with recreation use. Recreation use stays relatively flat through

2006. Minerals uses and hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing show increases in

income effects, while timber harvest and livestock grazing show small decreases.
63

The employment effects displayed in table D-1 are a measure of the jobs sustained in

the economy in association with USDA Forest Service activities.The agency helps support over 900,000 jobs in the economy each year, of which 38,000 are associated with

permanent or temporary employment by the agency. The total jobs are expected to

grow about 1 percent annually to over 975,000 by 2006. NFS resource outputs

account for 84 percent of the jobs. The majority of the employment occurs in association with recreation use related activities. Livestock grazing is the only resource use

reporting smaller employment effects in 2006 than in 1999. The current trend of a

gradual decline in permitted grazing is expected to continue at a 0.3 percent annual

rate over the next 7 years.

The overall trends in employment effects from agency transfer payments (the distribution of receipts to States and counties for schools and roads) are identical to trends in

total income effects. From 1999 to 2006, grazing, recreation use, and timber harvest

show declines, while minerals and special use authorizations increase.

Aggregate employment effects across all sources (resource outputs, distribution of

receipts, and agency spending) are displayed in relative terms by resource use in figure

D-4. The percentage of total jobs associated with recreation use is nearly constant

between 1999 and 2006 at about 65 percent. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing

use and minerals uses show increases from 1999 to 2006. The distribution of percentages across resource uses within and between years is very similar to the distribution

reported for total income in figure D-3. Due to the exclusion of agency employment

Employment Effects

Figure D-3. Percentage distribution across resource uses of the total income sustained in the economy in association with NFS resource activities.
64

effects not directly associated with NFS resource uses, the totals displayed in figure D4 are less than the totals shown in table D-1. (The difference in those effects stems

from expenditures on Research and Development, State and Private Forestry, and other

agency programs not directly linked with NFS resource uses.)

A useful way of comparing the relative employment effects across resource uses is to

calculate average wage income per job.Wage income or employee compensation is

the portion of total income returned to labor. Estimates of wage income were divided

by the employment for each of the resource uses to place income on a per job basis.

The wage income displayed in figure D-5 for timber harvest does not represent the

wages of an employee at a sawmill. Rather, it is based on the average of all jobs and

income stimulated (direct, indirect, and induced) by timber harvest throughout the

economy. This interpretation holds for all resource uses. From a national perspective,

mineral uses and to a lesser extent timber harvest support wage income on a per job

basis at higher levels than the other resource uses.

Figure D-4. Percentage distribution across resource uses of the employment sustained in the economy in association with NFS resource activities.
65

Resource uses of the national forests and grasslands provide a mix of economic benefits to the American people and support significant levels of jobs and income in the

economy. No single resource use dominates all results of the analysis presented here.

Different measures of economic effects will tend to highlight the benefits of different

resource uses. Also, alternative projections of future resource output levels would produce a different picture of the relative distribution of effects across resource uses. In

combination, all uses are important to the provision of a variety of resource and economic opportunities to the Nation. Although not elaborated on in this section, there

are significant roles the national forests and grasslands play in providing other types of

benefits. Some of these benefits are not easy to quantify in monetary terms, but

nonetheless are highly valued. These include the value of watersheds for maintaining

high-quality drinking water and the value of forests for delivering a variety of ecosystem services.

Summary

Figure D-5. Average annual wage income per job sustained in the economy in

association with NFS resource uses.
66

APPENDIX E

FY 1999 BASELINE INFORMATION

Baseline Data for Long-Term Measures and Milestones

The availability of reliable baseline data for long-term measures is essential to successful implementation of the agency’s strategic plan and ultimate accountability

for the expected results. At this time, existing information sources provide indicators and a baseline quantity for a few of the long-term measures in the 2000

Revision. In many cases, the data necessary for the agency to benchmark and measure its performance directly on those goals and objectives are lacking. In many

instances,no data currently exist to establish baselines or measure the agency's performance on a number of strategic goals and objectives.

The Forest Service is committed to establishing baseline information as quickly as

possible for each of the long-term measures and to initiating actions to ensure timely collection of such information in the future. To establish baselines, fill data gaps,

remedy data deficiencies, and validate performance-related data on an ongoing

basis, the agency will need to prioritize and redirect budgetary and staff resources.

The Forest Service, working in conjunction with other natural resource and land

management agencies, State and Tribal governments, and partners, will work to

identify the data sources and establish the baselines needed to fully comply with

the Government Performance and Results Act by:

• Determining baseline information for at least half of the strategic plan measures 

by December 2000 and for the remainder by July 2001.

• Establishing—in Annual Performance Plans beginning in FY 2001—performance goals to identify data needs, sources, and baselines for tracking 

progress toward meeting the long-term goals and objectives.

• Beginning in FY 2001, establishing performance goals to identify data needs,

sources, and baselines for tracking progress toward meeting the long-term goals 

and objectives in annual performance plans.

• Continuing the efforts to establish agency-wide data quality standards, consistent with good statistical practice, that are available for use by natural 

resource management agencies outside the Department and for reference by 

the public.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information should be noted with respect to the

goals and objectives in this strategic plan.

See Appendix E for available baseline information.
67

Goal 1

Objective 1.a

Objective 1.b

Baseline for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999

6,108 watersheds to be monitored.

(Note: the baseline number of watersheds will likely change for 2002 due to adoption

of new national boundary delineation standards.)

22.3 percent of watersheds in condition class I (good condition).

77.7 percent of watersheds in condition class II & III (marginal and unsatisfactory 

condition).

(Note: the baseline percents will likely change for 2001 due to the adoption of national definitions for each condition class.)

Baseline for FY 1999

 _ percent of national forests and grasslands that have achieved objectives for populations, habitat, and ecological conditions for threatened and endangered species, other

species for which there are viability concerns, and Management Indicator Species

MIS/focal species at a rate consistent with timeframes identified in land and resource

management plans.

_____ Red-cockaded woodpeckers 

_____ Golden-winged warblers 

_____ Cerulean warblers 

_____ Goldenseal populations 

_____ Eastern brook trout 

_____ Black-tailed prairie dogs 

_____ Grizzly bears 

_____ Bull trout 

_____ Acres of Aspen forest

_____ Sage grouse 

_____ Lahontan cutthroat trout 

_____ Northern Spotted owls 

_____ Mexican Spotted owls

_____ Loach minnows 

_____ Spikedace

_____ Willow flycatcher

_____ California Spotted owl 

_____ Sierra Nevada bighorns 

_____ Red-legged frogs 
68

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ acres at extreme risk from insects and diseases

The following is the FY 1999 baseline in acres of fire-adapted ecosystems by condition

class and fire regime:*

Proportion 

Fire Regime CC1 CC2 CC3 FR Totals CC2+3 CC2+3/CC1

I 20,251,491 32,324,176 28,589,236 81,164,903 60,913,412 3.00

II 2,072,688 5,790,593 316,539 8,179,820 6,107,132

CC Totals 22,324,179 38,114,769 28,905,775 89,344,723 67,020,544

FY 2006 

Milestone 26,277,859 63,066,864 2.40

* Data Source: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fire

Modeling Institute, Missoula, Montana. November 1999.

Fire Regime Condition Class Definitions

Condition Class Interpretation

Condition Class 1 Fire regimes are within a historical range. Vegetation attributes 

Low Risk (species composition and structure) are largely intact and 

functioning within a historical range.

Condition Class 2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from historical 

Medium Risk ranges. One or more fire return intervals may have been 

missed, resulting in moderate increases in fire sizes, intensities,

severities, and coarser landscape patterns.

Or,

Fire frequency or intensities have been moderately altered 

(increased or decreased) due to the introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, introduced insects or disease, or 

past management activities.

Condition Class 3 Fire regimes have been significantly altered from historical 

High Risk ranges. Multiple fire return intervals may have been missed,

resulting in dramatic departures from historical conditions,

causing increased fire sizes, intensities, severities, and coarser 

landscape patterns.

Or,

Fire frequency or intensities have been highly altered (increased 

or decreased) due to the introduction and establishment of 

exotic plant species, introduced insects or disease, or past 

management activities.

Objective 1.c
69

Acres of each of the following targeted species:

_____ acres of Gypsy moth

_____ acres of Hemlock wooly adelgid

_____ acres of Pine shoot beetle

_____ acres of Pine pitch canker (CA)

_____ acres of Port Orford cedar root disease

_____ acres of Beech bark disease

_____ acres of White pine blister rust

_____ acres of Pink hibiscus mealybug

_____ acres of Miconia calvescens

_____ acres of Mile-a-minute weed

_____ acres of Leafy spurge

9,714—Level of firefighting production capability (FY 2000 level, FY 1999 not 

available)

Baseline for FY 1999

Level of user satisfaction with recreation programs and facilities is:

84 percent for National Average (FY 1997 baseline)

TBD percent for the Northeast United States.

TBD percent for the Southern United States.

TBD percent for the North Central & Midwest United States.

TBD percent for the Intermountain United States.

TBD percent for the Southwest United States.

TBD percent for Alaska & the Northwest United States.

TBD percent for the Pacific Southwest United States.

Baseline for FY 1999

Level of user satisfaction with wilderness experiences and opportunities is:

TBD percent for the Northeast United States.

TBD percent for the Southern United States.

TBD percent for the North Central & Midwest United States.

TBD percent for the Intermountain United States.

TBD percent for the Southwest United States.

TBD percent for Alaska & the Northwest United States.

TBD percent for the Pacific Southwest United States.

Goal 2

Objective 2.a

Objective 2.b
70

Baselines for FY 1999

TBD Recreation Use (MM visits)

TBD Wilderness Use (MM visits)

109.6 Wildlife / Fish (MM visits)(FY 1996 base, FY 1999 projection)

8.15 Permitted Grazing (MM animal unit months) (FY 1998, FY 1999 not 

available)

2,939 Harvest Volume (MMBF)

79 percent of Mineral Operations Administered to Standard

$ in receipts for Special Uses

$2,760,762 in receipts for Botanical Resources / Special Forest Products

TBD of Land Exchanged (acres)

TBD of Land acquired (acres)

TBD of Land in Conservation Easements (acres)

TBD of rights-of-way for roads and trails acquired for access to NFS lands.

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ of diverse and underserved and low-income people and communities expressing satisfaction with availability of uses, values, products, and/or services.

_____ of partnerships and contracts that include Federal, State, and Tribal governments

and other entities.

Baseline for FY 1999

27.1 percent of forest cover in selected urban areas.

Baseline for FY 1999

782 rural communities working under broad-based local strategic plans.

Baseline for FY 1999

____ percent of customers having incorporated new scientific, developmental, and

technical information in project design or implementation.

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ percent customer satisfaction with Research and Development products and

services.

_____ percent customer satisfaction with Inventory and Monitoring products and 

services.

Objective 2.c

Objective 2.d 

Objective 2.e

Goal 3

Objective 3.a

Objective 3.b

Objective 3.c
71

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ opportunities for participation of ethnically identified institutions and organizations in research and in technical assistance programs.

Baseline for FY 1999

Disclaimer of Opinion.

GAO “high-risk” area designation.

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ identified safety concerns with roads and trails posing immediate 

threats to users.

_____ facilities maintained and meeting safety standards.

269,384 violations against persons.

_____ incidents of destruction of natural resources.

Baseline for FY 1999

____ percent of USDA Forest Service information services and data structures that are

accessible by employees and the public.

_____ hours of information system downtime.

Baseline data for FY 1999

_____ workforce management plan objectives accomplished.

Baseline for FY 1999

_____ internal (Equal Employment Opportunity) complaints settled at lowest possible

level.

Baseline for FY 1999

Amount of diversity of the public participating in USDA Forest Service programs and

using National Forest System lands and facilities.

_____ lands, programs, and facilities determined to be accessible per the requirements

of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

_____ external complaints (program services) settled at lowest possible level.

Objective 3.d

Goal 4

Objective 4.a

Objective 4.b

Objective 4.c

Objective 4.d

Objective 4.e

Objective 4.f
72

APPENDIX F

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT

The Content Analysis Report was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) Content Analysis Enterprise Team (CAET) following the conclusion of a 60-day comment period (November 30, 1999 -- January 30,

2000) on the Draft USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). In the analysis

2,260 letters, e-mail, online comments, faxed materials, and comment forms (postcards

or letters) were included. Letters and e-mails came from 45 States and Canada. Thirtyone responses came in a form that did not reveal geographic origin. Comments came

from Federal, State, county, and Tribal Governments; preservation/conservation organizations; the wood products, mining, and oil industries and associations; utility companies; recreation groups and associations; multiple use groups; university and other

national/international professional and research organizations; and interested American

citizens.

Public/employee comments focused on— 

• More on individual program issues and emphasis than on the draft 2000 Revision

goals and objectives.

• A desire for greater specificity about long-term measures.

• Questions about planning processes at all levels of the agency, the Government

Performance and Results Act, and the purpose of a strategic plan for the USDA

Forest Service.

• Lack of balance in presenting four objectives to address the underserved publics vs.

primary mission programs.

• The relationship of near-term initiatives, such as the Natural Resource Agenda,

watershed restoration, roads, and revision of the National Forest Management Act

rule, to the strategic plan.

• A need to clarify the laws that authorize the USDA Forest Service to do its business,

especially in relation to the agency’s mission and whether some laws are more

important than others.

• Concern about the number of major program initiatives for which the USDA Forest

Service was seeking input simultaneously.

• Request for clarification of terms, such as,“outcomes,”“outputs,” and “cross-cutting

functions.”

• Perceptions about what people thought should be in the draft 2000 Revision that

wasn’t there (for example, current or 2006 budget mix figures, baseline data for

measures, economic analysis).

• Objections to paying fees for the use of USDA Forest Service facilities and programs.

• The use of “customers” rather than “owners” of national forests.

Introduction: 

Review of the Report:
73

APPENDIX G

REFERENCES INDEX

GAO, 1997a. Forest Service Decision-Making:A Framework for Improving Performance.

GAO/RCED-97-71,April 1997.Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO, 1997b. Results Act: Observations on USDA’s Draft Strategic Plan. GAO/RDED-97-

196R, July 10, 1997.Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO, 1997c. Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies’

Strategic Plans. GAO/GGD-97-180, September 1997.Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO, 1998a. Forest Service: Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing Costs.

GAO/RCED-98-58, February 13, 1998.Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO, 1998b. Program Evaluation:Agencies Challenged by New Demand for

Information on Program Results. GAO/GGD-98-53,April 1998.Washington, DC: GAO.

GAO, 1999. U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO Performance and Accountability

Series, January 1999, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department

of Agriculture, GAO/OCG-99-2.Washington, DC: GAO.

NAPA, 1999. Restoring Managerial Accountability to the U.S. Forest Service,August

1999.Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.

OMB, 1998. Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans and Annual Performance

Plans. OMB Circular No.A-11 Part 2, July 1998.Washington, DC: OMB.

USDA, 1999. Sustaining the People’s Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the

National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century, March 15, 1999,The

Committee of Scientists.Washington, DC: USDA.

USDOT, 1997. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 1997-2002.Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Transportation.

USDA FS, 1997. USDA Forest Service First Approximation Report for Sustainable Forest

Management: Report of the United States on the Criteria and Indicators for the

Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests, June 1997.Washington,

DC: USDA Forest Service.

USDA FS, 1999. Proposed Rule, Section 219.36, 1999. National Forest System Land and

Resource Management Planning; Proposed Rule.Washington, DC: USDA Forest

Service.




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

http://www.fs.fed.us/plan

FS-682

October 2000