Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic

Direction Under RPA

July 1990

OTA-F-441

NTIS order #PB90-253295
Forest Service

Resources Planning

Act of 1974
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic

Direction Under RPA, OTA-F-441 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing (Office, July

1990).

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

America’s forests and rangelands provide valuable commodities and amenities for U.S.

citizens. Forests and rangelands account for two-thirds of all U.S. land, and 40 percent of those

lands are owned by the Federal Government. Forests and rangelands generate clean water,

forage for livestock, timber for homes, habitat for fish and wildlife, area for recreation, and

pristine wilderness settings. As our population has grown and leisure time has increased, the

demands for these products and services has risen, leading to increased conflicts over the use

of forests and rangelands, especially the Federal lands, and concerns about their long-run

protection.

In 1974, Congress enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

(RPA) to assure long-term sustainable management of our Nation’s renewable natural

resources and to increase public involvement in policy and budget debates. In 1976, Congress

amended RPA in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to guarantee sustainable

management for the national forests managed by the USDA Forest Service and to assure active

public involvement in the forest planning process.

Various Members and Committees of Congress have expressed concern that RPA has not

set strategic direction for Forest Service planning at the national level. The RPA Assessments

have provided useful resource data and analysis, but have been incomplete, while the RPA

Programs and Presidential Statements of Policy have not sufficiently addressed timely issues,

guided budget deliberations, or assured sustainable resource management. In addition, the

Annual Report of the Forest Service has not effectively documented progress in implementing

the Program or accomplishing policy objectives.

Congress also has questioned the effectiveness of planning at the forest level under

NFMA and has expressed concern over the direction in which the process is headed. Most of

the local forest plans have taken much longer to complete than anticipated, and frequently

Congress has been asked to address controversial issues which it expected to be resolved in

the planning process. Numerous administrative appeals and litigation of forest plans have

come from environmentalists, business interests, and local governments.

Because of these growing concerns, the House Committee on Agriculture, together with

the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and

the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, requested the Office of

Technology Assessment to examine the Forest Service’s resource planning technologies and

approaches. Because of the pending delivery of the 1990 RPA documents, the Committees

asked that OTA examine the RPA planning process frost. This report evaluates past RPA

efforts, reviews the process used by the Forest Service in preparing the 1989 RPA Assessment

and the Draft 1990 RPA Program, and identities options for improving RPA’s contribution

to long-range planning and to policy and budget deliberations. The second OTA report on

Forest Service planning will review national forest planning, and will examine the relationship

between national planning under RPA and forest planning under NFMA.

. . . Ill
Planning Technologies Advisory Panel

Clark Collins

Executive Director

Blue Ribbon Coalition

Pocatello, ID

Richard Collins

Professor/Director of the Institute

of Environmental Negotiations

School of Architecture

University of Virginia

Dennis Dykstra

Professor

School of Forestry

Northern Arizona University

Paul Ellefson

Professor

Department of Forest Resources

University of Minnesota

Jerry Franklin

Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Analysis

College of Forestry

University of Washington

George T. Hamilton

Consultant

Recreation Resources Management Co.

Bow, NH

Willard Hamilton

Coordinator, Timber Resource Policy

Potlatch Corp.

Lewiston, ID

Betty Huskins

Vice President

Ridgetop Association

Linville Falls, NC

Andy Kerr

Director of Conservation and Education

Oregon Natural Resource Council

Hanna Cortner, Chair

Professor, Water Resources Research Center

University of Arizona

Dennis C. LeMaster

Professor and Head

Department of Forestry .

and Natural Resources

Purdue University

William S. Platt

Fisheries Consultant

Don Chapman Association

Boise, ID

Robert Ragon

Executive Vice President

Sun Studs, InC.

Roseburg, OR

Gerald Rose

Director/State Forester

Division of Forestry

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

R. Neil Sampson

Executive Vice President

American Forestry Association

Washington, DC

Maitland S. Sharpe

Conservation Director

Izaak Walton League of America

Washington, DC

Maynard Smith

Rancher

Smith 6-S Livestock

Glen, MT

Gaylord L. Staveley

President

National Forest Recreation Association

Flagstaff, AZ

A. Milton Whiting

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Kaibab Industries, Inc.

Phoenix, AZ

Louisa Willcox

Policy Director

Greater Yellowstone Coalition

Bozeman, MT

NOTE: OTA appreciates and A grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.

The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the

report and the accuracy of its contents.
OTA Project Staff-Forest Service Planning:

Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program Manager

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Ross W. Gorte,l Project Director

Analytical Staff

Robin P. White, Analyst

Daniel J. Whittle, Research Analyst

Susan Wintsch, Contracted Editor

Administrative Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn M. Swarm, P.C. Specialist
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Technology of Forest and Range Lands Assessment

Contractors

Clark Binkley

Yale School of Forestry

and Environmental Studies

New Haven, Ct

Perry Hagenstein

Resource Issues, Inc.

Wayland, MA

Lloyd Irland

The Irland Group

Augusta, ME

V. Alaric Sample

The Conservation Foundation

Washington, DC

A. Jay Schultz

Meadows, Schultz & Associates

Albuquerque, NM

Margaret Shannon

College of Environmental Science

and Forestry

State University of New York

Syracuse, NY

Other Panelists

Adela Backiel

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Washington, DC

Richard Behan

School of Forestry

Northern Arizona University

Flagstaff, AZ

Hanna Cortner

Water Resources Research Center

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Barry Flamm

The Wilderness Society

Washington, DC

John Heissenbuttel

American Forest Institute

Washington, DC

Dale Jones

Retired

Albuquerque, NM

Dennis LeMaster

Department of Forestry

and Natural Resources

Purdue University

W. Lafayette, IN

William E. Shands

The Conservation Foundation

Washington, DC

Robert Stone

Retired

Madison, WI

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants.

The participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for

the report and the accuracy of its contents.
Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

THE RPA ASSESSMENT ..................4

Resource Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Cooperative Assistance and Research . . . . . 6

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

THE RPA PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Information Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF

POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

THE ANNUAL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Annual Report-Narrative Portion . . . . . . . . 8

Information Content Statistical Appendix.. 9

Meeting Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . 9

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter2. Policy Options: CPR for the RPA. 13

MAJOR FINDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PROBLEMS IN STRATEGIC RPA

PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Data Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Analysis Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Direction Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3. Introduction .*..,*,.. . . . . . . . . . . ● 23

FOREST SERVICE ORGANIZATION.... 24

National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Forest Service Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

International Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON RPA . . . 26

THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPA . . . . . . . . . . 27

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The Presidential Statement of Policy . . . . . 29

The Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

MINERAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 4. Audiences and Players . . . . . . . . . . 31

CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

RPA as Implemented and Congress’

Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Page

Meeting Congressional Needs and

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

THE FOREST SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Pre-RPA Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Expectations and Implementation . . . . . . . . 36

THE ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Future Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

THE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Who Are the Publics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

RPA as Implemented: Meeting the

Public’s Expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Forest Service Use of Public Participation.. 43

Chapter 5. RPA as a Strategic Planning

Process .0..0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .**OOOOO 45

NATURE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING ...45

Principles and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Prerequisites of Effective Strategic

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Problems in Strategic Planning.. . . . . . . . . 48

LESSONS FROM BUSINESS AND

STATE GOVERNMENT .. .. ... ... .....49

Business Experience with Strategic

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Strategic Plaming by State Governments . 50

RPA AND STRATEGIC PLANNING . . . . . 52

RPA as a Strategic Planning Statute . . . . . 52

RPA as a Strategic Planning System:

Potential and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 6. The RPA Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 61

RESOURCE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Range Forage Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Timber Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Wildlife and Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Wilderness Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

ECONOMIC ANALYISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Demand and Supply Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Evaluation of Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

INTERNATIONAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . 74

International Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Global Resource Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . 75

RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Page

Chapter 7. The RPA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

STRUCTURE OF THE DRAFT 1990

RPA PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..79

Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

INFORMATION CONTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Resource and Activity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

THE RPA PROGRAM AND THE

BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Past Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Draft 1990 RPA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Current Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . 94

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Chapter 8. The Presidential Statement of

Policy ● ...0..0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....00 97

Chapter 9. The Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

NARRATIVE PORTION OF THE

ANNUAL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

As an Overview of Agency Programs. . . . 99

As a Report of Forest Service

Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

As a Report of RPA Program

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

INFORMATION CONTENT-THE

STATISTICAL APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . 103

National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Forest Service Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Forest Service Administration . . . . . . . . . . 107

MEETING ANNUAL REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

References .**.**.*. ...*..**** ● .**..**** ● .* 115

Appendix. Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974 As

Amended .0.0.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Index .....00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*O* 139

Boxes

Box Page

3-A. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield

Act of 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5-A. Common Reasons for Using Formal

Strategic Planning .. .. .. ... ... ... ...O. 45

5-B. Principles of Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . 46

5-C. What Strategic Planning I shot. . . . . . . . . 47

5-D. Key Similarities and Dissimilarities

Between the Public and Private Sectors. 51

5-E. Strategic Elements in RPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5-F. Missions, Goals, Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6-A. Resource Data Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

6-B. Valuing Nonpriced Goods and Services. 70

6-C. Timber Processing Technology . . . . . . . . . 71

6-D. Economics of Range Forage . . . . . . . . . . . 72

7-A. Measuring Economic Efficiency . . . . . . . . 89

7-B. Forest Service Trust Funds and

Special Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

9-A. Timber Purchaser Road Credits . . . . . . . 109

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. The RPA Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3-1. State and Private Forestry

Funding, FY 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3-2. Forest Service Research Funding,

FY 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6-1. Annual Net Timber Growth and Forest

Service Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7-1. National Forest System Funding in 1987

and 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7-2. Forest Service Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Tables

Table Page

l-1. RPA Problems and Possible

Congressional Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6-1. Demand-Supply Gaps and Changes in

Market-Clearing Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

7-1. 1987 Forest Service Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . 91

9-1. Nonpriced ResourceValues in the 1988

and 1989 Reports of the Forest Service

and in the Draft 1990 RPA Program . . . 110
Chapter 1

Summary

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) requires the Secretary

of Agriculture to evaluate the Nation’s renewable

forest and rangeland resources and to consider their

future use and sustainability. The Secretary has

directed the USDA Forest Service to prepare three

RPA documents: the Assessment, the Program, and

the Annual Report. The Presidential Statement of

Policy, also required by RPA, and the documents

prepared by the Forest Service, are submitted to

Congress to guide policy and budget decisions.

Congress is concerned that this costly process has

not provided a comprehensive evaluation of renewable resources or an effective guide for policy and

budget deliberations. Individual Members of Congress, congressional committees, and public and

private interest groups have expressed disappointment with the results of RPA, criticizing both the

process and the documents. Because of the disappointing results, some have proposed repealing

RPA, but others, believing in the merits of the

process, argue that this would be “tantamount to

throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

RPA arose from concerns about the future of our

renewable resources and about the tendency to focus

on short-term problems rather than on long-term

conditions. Senator Hubert Humphrey, chief sponsor of the legislation, was particularly disturbed by

the Nixon Administration’s failure to reduce work

backlogs, which Humphrey believed was shortchanging future forest and rangeland resources.

Congress intended RPA to establish long-range

planning for renewable resources and to provide

greater congressional control over Forest Service

programs and budgets.

By requiring that the RPA Program be developed

in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, RPA opened the door to public

participation in the planning process—both in the

scoping of issues to be addressed and in the

reviewing of the draft documents. The extent to

which the public influences forest and rangeland

policy depends largely on Forest Service efforts to

solicit and analyze public input and to address public

concerns in the RPA Program. Some critics assert

that the agency has not involved the public in the

process in a manner that allows for meaningful

participation. Declining numbers of public comments suggest either that the public does not expect

to influence the RPA documents or process, or that

the documents do not have a significant impact on

policy and budget decisions.

RPA established a long-range planning process

for the Forest Service that is built on principles of

strategic planning (figure l-l). Strategic planning

establishes a framework through which an organization defines its mission, goals, and objectives and

sets its future direction. The process typically

includes evaluating an organization’s present situation, assessing internal strengths and weaknesses,

and examining threats and opportunities. Because a

strategic plan guides operations, it must also be

integrated with internal control systems, such as

budgets. Strategic planning is a flexible process that

includes systematic monitoring and feedback to

measure performance; plans can then be modified in

response to new information, emerging issues, and

changing priorities. Above all, strategic planning

demands that top officers and line managers remain

committed to the process.

To date, RPA has not functioned well as a

strategic planning system. RPA Assessments have

suffered from poor data on resource conditions and

the analyses of opportunities and threats have been

incomplete. RPA Programs have provided neither

sufficient guidance for annual budgets nor clear

direction for agency activities. Annual Reports have

provided inadequate feedback on implementation.

And neither the Administration nor Congress has

demonstrated sufficient commitment to make the

process work.

Some observers assert that RPA cannot serve as

an effective strategic planning process because of

inherent political, institutional, and contextual limitations. However, a comprehensive assessment of

resource conditions can establish a common basis

for looking to the future, while an evaluation of

threats and opportunities can explore possible

options. Public input can then be used to develop an

acceptable direction for Forest Service activities,

and annual monitoring and feedback can show

progress in achieving the agreed-upon direction.

–3–
T

* ANNUAL REPORT

1

Congressiona l Analysis of the

intent: current situation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Strategic planning for renewable resources is thus a

feasible process to address the still prevalent concerns about deteriorating resource conditions and

budget constraints. OTA therefore concludes that

the strategic nature of RPA should be retained and

enhanced. With commitment to the process from the

Administration and Congress, Forest Service strategic planning can chart a course for improving the

long-term management of the Nation’s renewable

resources.

THE RPA ASSESSMENT

RPA requires the Assessment to include an

inventory of renewable resources; a supply and

demand analysis of renewable resources; a review of

the international resource situation; a description of

Forest Service programs in research, cooperative

assistance, and the National Forest System; and a

discussion of policy considerations and regulations

expected to influence all forest and rangeland

owners. These requirements provide for the evaluation of the current situation and for the analysis of

opportunities and constraints that are necessary for

effective strategic planning.

The first Assessment under RPA was due on

December 31, 1975, with an update required in 1979

and subsequent Assessments due every 10 years

after that. The three Assessments and one supplement completed to date have met with varied

response from Congress and the public. Most

reviewers commend the efforts of the Forest Service,

but many note shortcomings in specific Assessments

or in the process. In general, the Assessment is a

Strategi c Commitment an d

d ire c t i on budget guide

Implementation,

monitoring, and

feed back

comprehensive document reflecting substantial Forest Service effort but lacking some of the resource

quality and quantity data needed to make wellinformed resource management plans and decisions.

Resource Data

The 1989 RPA Assessment is a short, general

document supported by several more detailed reports on each of the major resources, including range

forage, timber, water, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. Recreation, unlike the other categories, is an

activity rather than a resource and recreation planning requires different kinds of inventory data and

management concepts than planning for renewable

resources.

An inventory of renewable resources is most

useful to resource managers when it provides

accurate data on the quantity, quality, and outputs of

each resource. The amount of the data on these

parameters varies substantially among the resource

reports supporting the 1989 RPA Assessment. The

Timber Assessment, because of a long history of

data collection by the Forest Service, has basic

information on quantity, quality, and outputs for

evaluating the timber resource. The Recreation

Assessment, although dealing with some intangible

measures, quantities recreation activities and measures the quality and outputs of the services provided.

The Water Assessment also has relatively complete

data on quantity, quality, and outputs of the water

resources. The remaining Assessments are missing

at least one of the inventory components. In particular, data on quality of the resources are lacking. For
Chapter 1-Summary ● 5

example, while the area of wilderness is quantified,

no measures for the quality of wilderness are

presented. The Range Assessment does not provide

useful measures for quality or quantity, due in part

to a change in the inventory techniques for rangeland

that has restricted the amount of information available to assess historical trends. The Wildlife Assessment also fails to present sufficient quantity and

quality information to assess population levels and

trends, although it contains output information on

many species.

Differences also exist among the types of measures presented and their usefulness in evaluating the

resources. Direct, replicable measures are most

useful for assessing conditions and trends, although

variable measures based on field surveys can be

helpful. Indirect measures, as surrogates for conditions, are typically less reliable, while professional

judgment often cannot be replicated. Outputs are the

least useful measure for conditions, because output

levels can often be maintained temporarily at

unsustainable levels.

Data presented in the Assessment reports are

rarely from direct measures, although some exceptions exist. For example, the status of the timber

resource is monitored through periodic surveys of

volume of growing stock, growth, mortality, and

removals. These data are generally of better quality

than those for the other resources. The Water

Assessment synthesizes data from several agencies

to produce measures of water flows and quality of

watersheds and, as with the Timber Assessment,

provides better quality data than most of the other

Assessments. The Recreation Assessment uses primarily indirect or output measures because some of

the variables used to evaluate recreation activities

cannot be quantified. The Range Assessment estimates total rangelands that can be used for livestock

grazing as a surrogate for forage production, but this

does not assess the quantity or quality of the range

forage resources. The Range Assessment also estimates productivity in terms of livestock grazing use,

but this measure is also of little value because of

incomplete data on the acres of forests and rangelands actually grazed by livestock and wild herbivores. The Wildlife Assessment discusses land use

and vegetative cover types as indirect measures of

the amount of land that supports a faunal community. These measures provide a coarse description of

wildlife and fish habitats, but are inadequate for

monitoring resource quantity and quality. Professional judgment and variable measures, compiled

from numerous State agencies, provide the databases for many of the population estimates, but

output measures are often used for small game and

furbearers.

Economic Analysis

The Forest Service is directed to analyze current

and expected supplies of and demands for renewable

resources and to evaluate resource investment opportunities. Econometric models are used for timber

resources and for the land base, providing a systematic approach that can be tested. For other resources,

the Forest Service has used the “gap” model,

projecting future demands and supplies independently and then comparing them. Such an approach

can be useful if the projections are based on sound

assumptions and logic, but the Assessment generally

does not include enough information to evaluate the

projection methods. Furthermore, some projections

are inconsistent with current trends and with other

information. The gap model includes no information

about likely price trends, although the size of the gap

could be expected to indicate the likely direction and

magnitude of changes in the values of nonpriced and

subsidized resources. In general, future resource

values correlate with supply and demand projections, but future values for range forage and for

hunting and fishing seem to be overestimated. While

these models are far from perfect, they represent

significant efforts and provide useful insights on

likely trends.

Although RPA requires an evaluation of opportunities, with investment costs and direct and indirect

returns, the Assessment is largely a catalog of

possibilities, with virtually no information on costs

and returns to help decisionmakers arrive at informed choices. The Wildlife Assessment at least

contains a discussion of general priorities, and the

Timber Assessment contains an evaluation of opportunities on some timberlands. overall, however, the

Draft 1989 RPA Assessment is inadequate in

meeting this requirement of the Act.

International Context

RPA requires the supply and demand analysis in

the Assessment to consider the international context

for domestic resources, because trends in international resource use and protection can affect demands on domestic resources. International trade is

considered in the Timber and Range Assessments.
6 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Global resource situations such as demand for

fuelwood, atmospheric pollution and acid deposition, loss of rangelands to encroaching deserts, and

population declines of migratory songbirds are

identified in the individual resource reports. However, two major international environmental concerns, tropical deforestation and global warming,

were essentially ignored in the Assessment, despite

important implications for the future of America’s

renewable resources.

Cooperative Assistance and Research

The 1989 RPA Assessment is of little value for

assessing cooperative assistance and research. Despite the information on these topics in the individual resource Assessments, the 1989 RPA Assessment neither summarizes the identified needs nor

examines their priorities.

Many of the individual resource Assessments

suggest specific cooperative assistance actions for

increasing supplies or improving quality of resources on State and private lands. The Recreation

Assessment, for example, concludes that programs

directed at private lands should focus on keeping

land open for recreation by providing information to

landowners on management, limiting liability risks,

and capturing financial benefits. The Timber Assessment suggests increasing timber productivity on

nonindustry private lands as a way to slow the

expected rate of increase in timber prices. The Water

Assessment suggests that lack of knowledge and

lack of financial incentives to private landowners are

major obstacles to the control of forestry-related

nonpoint-source pollution. Two major issues relevant to private lands-habitat restoration and improvement and restricted access to private lands for

hunting and fishing-are identified in the Wildlife

Assessment. However, the 1989 RPA Assessment

downplays the potential for using markets and prices

to encourage private landowners to respond to the

identified possibilities and problems.

Each of the accompanying individual resource

Assessments also contains a section on research

needs. The Recreation Assessment identifies standardized information on recreation participation

trends, future demands for recreation, and available

supplies of recreation opportunities. The Range

Assessment calls for research on vegetation management for multiple-resource uses of rangelands. The

Timber Assessment suggests continuing importance

for research on basic physiological and biological

processes of tree growth and timber management.

The Water Assessment states that more information

is needed on cumulative effects of different management activities on water quality, and on possible

control actions. The Wildlife Assessment notes that

research is needed on species-habitat relationships

and population inventories. However, research priorities and costs are not evaluated in the 1989 RPA

Assessment.

Conclusions

The 1989 RPA Assessment, together with the

individual resource reports, is a fairly comprehensive document that improves on past efforts. Nonetheless, serious shortcomings remain. Data on resource conditions, particularly on resource quality,

are lacking for many resources. Assessments of

resource conditions often rely on surrogates, professional judgments, and/or outputs to estimate resource quantity or quality. The supply-demand

analysis is generally improved over past RPA

Assessments, but the required evaluation of investment opportunities is missing. The Assessment

ignores major global resource concerns, and generally contains insufficient information on cooperative

assistance and research needs and priorities.

THE RPA PROGRAM

The purpose of the RPA Program is to review

management and administrative programs of the

Forest Service in relation to Assessment findings. It

is to inventory public and private investment needs

and opportunities; identify outputs, results, and

benefits associated with investments; discuss priorities for the inventoried opportunities; and study

personnel requirements. Congress clearly intended

the RPA Program to be a strategic plan for Forest

Service activities, providing necessary information

to the final decisionmakers-the Administration and

Congress.

The frost Program under RPA was due by the end

of 1975, with succeeding Programs required every 5

years. The three Programs completed to date have

not been very useful to the Administration, Congress, or the public for evaluating policy and budget

decisions. These documents have been criticized for

not providing strategic direction, for inadequately

responding to projected resource demands, and for

poorly establishing output goals and budget targets.

The Forest Service has improved the Draft 1990
Chapter 1 Summary ● 7

Program over previous efforts by including more of

the critical components of strategic planning. However, problems remain that limit the value of this

document.

Program Structure

The Draft 1990 RPA Program revises the structure of past Programs by discussing roles, issues,

strategies, and initiatives. This new structure is

closer to a strategic planning model for forest and

rangeland resources than previous RPA Programs,

but it still fails to set clear goals and priorities. The

discussion of roles is a step forward, but the roles are

not clearly defined. Issues reflect public concerns

about renewable resources, but are not used for

comparing strategies. The strategies are really output mixes, and most do not reflect strategic thinking

about direction. Finally, the initiatives are presented

as separate activities rather than as integral components of the strategies.

The National Forest System dominates the Draft

1990 RPA Program, probably because it accounts

for 90 percent of Forest Service funding. The

strategies reflect different resource emphasis, with

timber programs and wildlife and fish programs

showing the greatest variation. The remaining funds

are allocated to cooperative assistance, research, and

international concerns with little variation in program emphasis among the strategies, sometimes

ignoring proposed roles and needs. Timber production is expected to continue to dominate cooperative assistance on private nonindustrial lands with

few differences in approach among the strategies.

Research under the various strategies responds

neither to proposed Forest Service roles nor to the

research needs identified in the individual resource

Assessments. The international forestry program

discusses broad research and assistance programs

with foreign countries without providing guidance

for the Forest Service on relevant global resource

issues, such as tropical deforestation and global

warming.

Information Content

Effective strategic planning in the public sector

relies on substantial data to describe the current

conditions and thorough analysis to examine possibilities. Incomplete inventories in the Assessment

make it difficult to present complete resource and

economic analyses in the Program. Many of the data

presented in the Draft Program are not drawn from

the Assessment. For example, the acres of noxious

weed infestations is a measure of range management

in the Draft Program, but the Assessment contains

no information on noxious weeds. For timber, two

measures of public concern—acres clearcut and

acres of old-growth forests—are discussed in the

Draft Program, but again, the Assessment has no

supporting data on conditions or trends. Similarly,

big game winter range and commercial salmon and

steelhead harvests are measures of wildlife and fish

management in the Draft Program with no background information in the Assessment.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program proclaims that

economic efficiency has been maximized for each

strategy, but presents insufficient evidence to evaluate this claim. Evidence from past RPA Programs,

likely overestimates of future range and timber

revenues, and incomplete cost data tend to refute

such undocumented claims. The Forest Service, the

Administration, Congress, and many individuals

and groups are also concerned about the consequences of Forest Service activities on local communities. The Draft Program responds to such concerns

by projecting total employment impacts and county

payments under each strategy. Except in the Timber

Assessment, however, there is no baseline information on resource industry employment, and the Draft

Program does

were made.

not document how the projections

Budget

The 1980 and 1985 RPA Programs contained two

budget levels: the high-bound level representing the

Forest Service’s view of what is needed for managing the Nation’s renewable resources and the lowbound level representing the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) efforts to control total Federal

spending. Among the five strategies presented in the

Draft 1990 Program, all strategies (except the

continuing current budget strategy) contain large

budget increases, consistent with past Forest Service

efforts but not likely to be acceptable to OMB. The

Forest Service has also failed to identify budget

priorities and to provide benefit/cost information on

proposed actions, as required, making it difficult for

the Administration, Congress, and the public to

arrive at intelligent budget decisions.
8 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Conclusions

RPA Programs have not been useful documents

for evaluating policy and budget decisions. The

failure to document sources, to describe analytical

methods, to provide realistic near-term revenue

estimates and accurate cost information, and to

relate programs to the findings of the Assessment

make alternative strategies difficult to evaluate. The

Programs have generally failed as strategic plans,

and have provided little help on budget choices. The

Forest Service has taken steps in the Draft 1990

Program to move it toward strategic planning by

including critical components of strategic planning

as well as better information. The Draft falls short of

being an effective planning document, however,

because of recurring problems of poor linkage to the

Assessment and inadequate resource and budget

information.

PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT

OF POLICY

RPA requires the President to transmit to Congress a detailed Statement of Policy to be used in

framing budget requests for Forest Service activities. If the budget requests do not conform to the

direction set forth in the Statement of Policy, the

President is required to explain the differences. The

President and OMB have expressed dissatisfaction

with this requirement, because of the perceived

limitations the Statement imposes on the President

in making budget requests and deciding national

priorities.

Since RPA was enacted, three Statements of

Policy have been transmitted to Congress, by

Presidents Gerald Ford (1975), Jimmy Carter (1980)

and Ronald Reagan (1985). These Statements have

been general pronouncements including only broad

commitments to Forest Service programs and not

even general guidance for future budgets. Although

the law states that the Statement may be modified by

Congress, only the 1980 Statement was rejected,

primarily for its failure to set forth a firm budget

request. The 1975 and 1985 Statements also failed in

this regard, but Congress did not respond with a

revision within the designated 90-day period and the

Statements became the broad budget guides to be

used by the Forest Service.

To carry out the original intent of the Act,

Congress must hold the President accountable to a

budget guide, and deviations must be publicly

explained. The purpose of the Statement of Policy is

to gain support from the Administration for the

recommended Program, a necessary condition for

effective strategic planning. If the President cannot

beheld accountable in this way, the Statement serves

no real purpose.

THE ANNUAL REPORT

RPA requires the Forest Service to report annually

on progress in implementing the Program, with

appropriate measures of costs and benefits, and on

agency activities and expenditures. The Annual

Report is to describe accomplishments and backlogs

in cooperative forestry programs and significant

research findings and applications. Several more

specific requirements call for information on acres

and location of lands needing reforestation and

timber stand improvement, and of lands where

successful treatments have occurred; on herbicide

and pesticide use; on the benefits and costs of

activities; on expenditures on timber practices; and

examples of below-cost timber sales.

The Forest Service (or its predecessor) has prepared an Annual Report on its activities since 1886.

The Reports have varied in content, and only with

the enactment of RPA in 1974 have there been

explicit information requirements.

Annual Report—Narrative Portion

The 1989 Annual Report provides a brief but

comprehensive description of Forest Service programs and activities, including a section on each

branch of the Forest Service-National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Research-as

well as a chapter on administration. This description

is quite laudatory in tone, however, and fails to

address adequately such controversial issues as

protecting old-growth forests and conducting belowcost timber sales.

The Annual Report contains output measures for

most national forest resources, but contains little

information on resource conditions. Management

activities are described, often quantitatively, but

without relating the activities to resource conditions

and without adequate expenditure information to

evaluate efficiency. Cooperative assistance activities are also poorly evaluated in the narrative portion
Chapter 1 Summary ● 9

of the Annual Report, although measuring such

performance is more difficult. Research performance is also difficult to evaluate, but the discussions

of priority research programs and of research highlights provide a reasonably complete picture of

Forest Service research.

Information Content—Statistical Appendix

The Forest Service has included a statistical

appendix with the Annual Report since 1955. Output

information is included for most resources, but data

on resource conditions and trends are generally

missing. Reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are identified, as required by RPA, but

backlogs and needs for other resources are lacking.

Even the output data are incomplete for some

resources, such as water, wildlife and fish, and most

notably wilderness.

The data for many of the resources in the Annual

Report suffer fromn additional problems. One is

inconsistency in the level of detail provided. For

example, although road construction is the largest

and perhaps most controversial Forest Service program, much more information is presented on range

forage. Another problem is inconsistent geographic

data. Some data are reported by national forest or by

region, while other data are reported by State. A third

problem is the inconsistent categories used. Data

categories in the 1989 Annual Report often do not

match those used in the Draft 1990 RPA Program,

the 1989 Assessment, or previous Annual Reports.

For example, from 1962 through 1976, the Annual

Report included information on quantity and nature

of developed facilities on Federal lands. The 1989

Recreation Assessment includes such data, but since

1977 they have not been presented in the Annual

Report. Other examples of measures used in the

1989 RPA Assessment but not shown in the 1989

Annual Report include data on timber growth and

mortality, instream flows and water quality, and

wildlife populations. In addition, several measures

used in the Draft 1990 RPA Program were not

included in the 1989 Annual Report (or the 1989

Assessment), including acres of old-growth forests

and acres clearcut, acres of noxious weeds, and

commercial salmon and steelhead harvests.

The Annual Report contains information on

management activities, often in lieu of reporting on

resource conditions or outputs. For example, information is given on wildlife and fish habitat improvement, acres of watershed improvement, and range

allotments under improved management. Such

measures implicitly assume that activities and expenditures are beneficial, but they have not been

correlated to changes in the quality or quantity of the

resources. Thus, the effectiveness of “improved

management cannot be determined. Furthermore,

because the costs are not matched to the activities,

and because most of the data have no geographical

disaggregation, the efficiency of “improved management’’--over time and in comparison to activities elsewhere--cannot be evaluated.

The statistical sections in the 1989 Annual Report

on State and Private Forestry and Research are much

shorter than the National Forest System section,

reflecting their much smaller budgets. Information

on State and Private Forestry is thorough and

consistent with past Reports. The data on fire

protection and on forest management are particularly useful, but the data on pest management are less

valuable. Forest Service research is more difficult to

quantify, because it may take years to show the

results of research efforts. Data are reported on

funding and publications but not on scientist-years

or other measures of research effort or interest.

Finally, the statistical appendix contains no information on international forestry.

Data presented in the 1989 Annual Report on

funding and receipts generally match the 1989

results reported to the Appropriations Committees in

the FY 1991 budget request. While the funding data

are presented with reasonable effort to allocate funds

among the 1989 accounts, problems with the funding and receipt information do exist. For example,

biannual changes in the timber funding data show

reduced total costs, by removing selected cost items

from the analysis, when costs have actually increased. Timber sale values in the receipt data show

the value of timber sold, implying that these are

actual receipts rather than estimates of future receipts and that all of the receipts are paid into the

General Treasury rather than to various trust funds

and special accounts.

Meeting Reporting Requirements

The 1989 Annual Report is satisfactory in meeting some requirements, but weak in meeting others.

The 1989 Report includes a separate chapter on

RPA, making this the second attempt to address

RPA Program implementation as required in the
10 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Act. However, not all important outputs and conditions are examined, and information on costs and

benefits needed to assess the balance between

economic factors and environmental quality factors

is missing. Thus, the Annual Report has not fulfilled

this RPA requirement.

Of the more specific requirements that RPA

defines for the Annual Report, one is met adequately, one is met with shortcomings, and one is

met only marginally. The requirement for information on reforestation and timber stand improvement backlogs and accomplishments is met adequately; detailed tables providing more than the

required information are included in the Annual

Report. The requirement for information on pesticide use in the National Forest System is met with

shortcomings, because the section fails to discuss

the beneficial and adverse effects of the chemicals.

The requirement for reporting on estimated longterm benefits and costs, expenditures on timber

activities, and examples of below-cost timber sales

is met only marginally. The timber sale accounting

system is purported to meet this requirement, but the

information is incomplete, the system is not explained, and the validity of the data cannot be

evaluated.

Conclusions

The Annual Report is a weak final link in the

series of documents required by RPA and does a

poor job of making RPA planning an integrated

strategic process. The 1989 Annual Report is devoted substantially to the National Forest System,

and fails to provide a comprehensive evaluation of

our renewable resources. Data in the 1989 Report

poorly evaluate resource quantities, qualities, and

outputs, and many of the data are inconsistent with

measures used in the Assessment, Draft Program, or

previous Annual Reports. The requirements under

RPA for this document are generally inadequately

met or are ignored.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Congress intended RPA to be used as a strategic

planning process for long-term planning of our

renewable forest and rangeland resources. To date,

the process has not resulted in effective strategic

planning because of problems with data, analysis,

and direction (table l-l). Improvements in these

three areas, with input from the Forest Service, the

Administration, Congress, and the public, could

make RPA work effectively as an instrument for

strategic planning and provide useful guidance for

the management of our renewable resources.

Much of the information in the RPA documents is

incomplete or of poor quality. The resource inventories in the Assessments scarcely provide sufficient

data on the quantity, quality, and outputs of each

resource to analyze opportunities for improving

resource management, and some of the information

is based on surrogate measures or on professional

judgments. Data are also difficult to trace from one

RPA document to another. Some resource measures

in the Assessment are not used in the Program and

Annual Report. Some measures are introduced in the

Program with no explanation or previous use in the

Assessment or Annual Report. Still other measures

are presented in the Annual Report without mention

in the Assessment or Program. Although the Forest

Service could make an effort to report consistent

measures throughout the RPA documents, the Forest

Service is not solely responsible for problems with

the data. Other Federal or State agencies have

principal responsibility over certain resources, and

inadequate funds for research may preclude thorough inventories. However, better data are needed.

Better data will not automatically lead to better

strategic planning, but it could settle debates over

what is and focus attention on what should be.

Analysis in the RPA documents falls short of the

requirements outlined in the Act. The RPA Assessments are required to evaluate opportunities, but

none of the individual resource Assessments provide

a complete analysis of opportunities for improving

yields, with estimates of costs and returns. RPA

Programs have not performed well in identifying

public concerns over impending threats for sustained resource management; for example, the 1980

Program failed to discuss herbicide use, while the

1985 Program omitted information and discussion

on below-cost timber sales, and the importance of

biological diversity. The Draft 1990 Program has

moved in the right direction by including a more

complete list of impending threats but still does not

provide a comprehensive examination of relevant

issues. Finally, the required analysis of benefits and

costs, though more complete in the 1990 Draft

Program, still contains inaccurate estimates and only

a limited discussion of the economic and social

impacts of the alternatives.
Chapter l-Summary . 11

Table 1-1—RPA Problems and Possible Congressional Responses

Problems Possible responses

Data problems:

Incomplete and weak data in RPA documents . . . . . Direct the National Academy of Sciences to study data needs and costs

Poor linkage of data among RPA documents . . . . . . Require the Forest Service to use consistent measures in all RPA documents

Analysis problems:

Poor foresight on impending problems for resource

management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Require the Forest Service to use public participation in identifying potentially

important issues

Lack of an evaluation of opportunities for improving

renewable resource yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforce the RPA requirement of evaluating renewable resource needs and

opportunities

Poor display of benefits and costs of Program

activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Require full and accurate reporting of all relevant economic information

Direction problems:

Weak guidance for addressing renewable resource

issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Require the Program to identify guiding principles for addressing issues

Poor support for budget decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforce the RPA requirement to discuss budget priorities

Poor commitment from decisionmakers . . . . . . . . . . Modify RPA cycle to match political cycles; eliminate the Presidential Statement

of Policy

Poor evaluation of Program implementation . . . . . . . Enforce the RPA requirement to include an evaluation of Program

implementation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Lack of direction from the RPA documents has

resulted in an ineffective strategic planning process.

First, RPA Programs have emphasized resource

output goals for the Forest Service managers, rather

than resource condition goals which would be more

useful in planning for sustainability of the forest and

rangeland resources. Second, the requirement to

discuss budget priorities has been ignored by the

Forest Service. RPA Programs have therefore provided inadequate information for the Administration, Congress, and the public to determine the mix

of funding levels that will lead to good resource

management within budget limitations. Third, the

RPA process has received poor commitment from

the Administration and from Congress. The Statements of Policy, intended to show Administration

support for the recommended Program, have been

overly general. Congress has not followed through

with its commitment to the process by rejecting

unacceptable documents, by conducting oversight

hearings and making recommendations, or by

appropriating consistent amounts. Finally, the Annual Report has failed to evaluate the implementation of the program, as required by RPA, and thus

has not evaluated successes and failures that could

lead to improved resource planning in future Programs.
Chapter 2

Policy Options: CPR for the RPA

RPA established a long-term planning process for

the Forest Service to help direct the course of forest

and rangeland management in the United States.

Congress intended the process to include public

participation in setting strategic direction for Forest

Service activities. The Act requires the Secretary of

Agriculture to prepare: 1) an Assessment of forest

and rangeland conditions, of renewable resource

supply and demand, and of the opportunities to

achieve desired future conditions, every 10 years; 2)

a Program, which examines resource needs and

opportunities and sets the direction for Forest

Service activities, every 5 years; and 3) an Annual

Report, which evaluates agency activities and implementation of the RPA Program. By regulation,

the Secretary has directed the Forest Service to

prepare these documents, but they remain the

Secretary’s responsibility. The Assessment and

Program are transmitted to Congress, together with

a Presidential Statement of Policy for use in framing

Forest Service budget requests. The Annual Report

is submitted to Congress with the annual budget

request.

Past Assessments and Programs have not been

well received by Congress. Congress has praised the

Assessments for presenting substantial information,

but has criticized them for lacking essential data and

analyses. Congress has broadly condemned the

Programs for not providing real direction for the

Forest Service nor assisting Congress and the public

in making policy and budget decisions. The Statements of Policy have been so brief and general as to

be useless. And, the Annual Report has been

described as the weakest link in the RPA process,

because it has been unrelated to the data and

analyses in the Assessment and Program.

Several congressional committees have held hearings on the 1975, 1980, and 1985 RPA Programs,

and interested individuals and groups have similarly

reviewed the RPA documents. In 1980, Congress

revised the Statement of Policy, as allowed under

RPA, to specify the direction for Forest Service

activities, although Congress did not follow through

in subsequent appropriations. In 1986, because of

the 18-month delay in releasing the 1985 Program

and the general uselessness of the Program for

budget decisions, Congress restricted the appropriations available for preparing the RPA documents. Some critics have gone so far as to suggest

that the process is such a waste of time and money

that it ought to be repealed, although others have

argued that the process has merit even

documents have been inadequate.

MAJOR FINDING

In enacting RPA, Congress intended

though the

a strategic

planning process to assure protection and sustainable use of the renewable resources on all forests and

rangelands. Strategic planning establishes a longterm framework for management and decisionmaking. It begins with an evaluation of the current

conditions, and then defines the desired direction.

Strategic planning requires commitment from top

management, and relies on frequent feedback to

determine if the desired direction is being followed.

With the Assessment for analysis of current conditions, the Program for direction, the Statement of

Policy for commitment, and the Annual Report for

feedback, Congress clearly intended a process that

parallels strategic planning.

To date, the RPA process has not met this intent.

Even in the private sector, strategic planning is

sometimes not successful, and government agencies

have additional, inherent difficulties: they cannot

redefine their mission; they cannot easily limit the

issues that must be addressed; they cannot control all

relevant inputs, especially budgets. RPA planning

has been subject to all these difficulties, and thus has

been under scrutiny for its failure as a strategic

planning process. In particular, the Program and

Statement of Policy have provided little guidance for

policy and program decisions or for budget formulation, and the Annual Report has supplied poor

evaluation of agency performance and RPA Program implementation.

If Congress concludes that Forest Service strategic planning under RPA is inappropriate or impossible, the requirement for the RPA Program could be

modified to provide other useful information. For

example, the RPA Program could be required to

aggregate the land and resource management plans

for each national forest, that have been prepared with

enormous investments of time and money to balance

–13-
14 ● Forest Service Planning: setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

resource capabilities and local concerns. The Program could then analyze the direction in which these

plans are leading the national forests and evaluate

the implications of such direction. Alternatively,

Congress could direct the Forest Service to continue

its present course of developing initiatives, such as

the’ National Recreation Strategy, which address

specific issues or opportunities. This approach

would need flexibility in implementation, so a

Program at 5-year intervals would probably be

inappropriate. Congress could restructure RPA to

provide for special initiatives as an additional

chapter in the Annual Report or as periodic reports

to Congress.

Despite the difficulties inherent in strategic

planning, OTA finds that retaining the strategic

nature of the RPA Program is both desirable and

feasible.

RPA was enacted in 1974 because of concerns

about growing work backlogs and fears of budgetdriven shortsightedness. The limited available evidence suggests that the backlogs remain, while

budget deficits have led to continual efforts to

reduce Federal spending. Thus, the reasons for

enacting RPA remain valid. Strategic planning is

undertaken for many reasons—to set organizational

direction, to identify and understand changing demands, to analyze opportunities, to provide a foundation for program and budget decisions. Decisionmakers in the Administration and Congress need

information on opportunities and issues, on direction and priorities; therefore, a strategic RPA planning process is still desirable.

A strategic planning process is also feasible. A

comprehensive picture of resource conditions establishes a common base for discussing the desired

future, and an analysis of opportunities provides a

comparison of possibilities. With input from the

Administration, Congress, and the public on important issues and desired direction, the Forest Service

could develop an acceptable strategic plan to set

general direction and to assist those who must decide

on budget and program priorities. Having an acceptable strategic plan will not solve all dilemmas,

because the Forest Service cannot control all the

relevant issues and inputs. Implementation requires

commitment from all key decisionmakers (i.e., the

Administration and Congress). Nonetheless, an acceptable strategic plan can help decisionmakers

make choices that provide for people’s needs while

protecting the resources.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program takes several steps

in this direction, and is undoubtedly the best effort

under RPA so far to provide strategic planning, but

it still has a number of shortcomings as a strategic

plan.l The examination of Forest Service roles is an

admirable attempt to define the agency’s goals and

objectives, although the discussion of future roles is

generally limited to doing more of what is already

being done. Identifying resource issues also contributes to the strategic nature of the 1990 Draft, but the

agency responses summarize past and current

choices, rather than exploring new ways to address

the issues. The initiatives described in the Draft

Program provide clear direction for agency action in

certain key areas, but are separate from alternative

strategies, rather than a part of the strategic plan.

By addressing several specific problems, Congress could improve the strategic nature of the RPA

process. With some modifications, RPA planning

could set direction for Forest Service programs,

policies, and budgets, leading to better forest and

rangeland management and to stronger support from

the Forest Service, the Administration, Congress,

and the public.

PROBLEMS IN STRATEGIC

RPA PLANNING

Three areas stand out where strategic RPA

planning could be improved by modifying the

process: data, analysis, and direction. Some of the

problems result from inadequate efforts by the

Forest Service, others from insufficient attention

within the Administration, and still others from the

lack of congressional response or follow-through. It

is not the purpose of this report to point fingers at the

cause of problems, but to identify options for making

the process work more effectively.

Data Problems

The RPA documents contain a wealth of data and

analysis, especially on timber resources, that have

contributed to public debates about the future of the

Nation’s renewable forest and rangeland resources.

l~e )?M 1990 WA IYOgrZUII was not available for the preparation of this report. While the Final is likely to vary substantially frOIII tie Draft, WS

analysis examines the IU?A process as strategic plarming, and should prove useful for evaluating the Final 1990 RPA Program.
Chapter 2-Policy Options: CPR for the RPA ● 15

However, many gaps still exist. Some relevant data

on resource quantity, quality, and outputs are

missing, and some are of poor quality. In addition,

data used in the RPA documents are poorly linked.

Resource information describing the current situation and assessing opportunities (in the Assessment)

often differs from that used to set strategic direction

(in the Program), and both may differ from that used

to evaluate agency performance and RPA implementation (in the Annual Report).

Having better data will not “fix” RPA planning.

Strategic planning, particularly by a government

agency, is an inherently political process, because

the choices are about future directions, and better

data will not tell us what should be. However, better

data can tell us what is, reducing the debate about

current conditions. For example, many groups oppose timber sales because of potential damage to

watersheds, although foresters point to evidence that

timber can be cut without such damage. If watershed

condition data were sufficient to track changing

conditions, the impact of harvesting timber could be

shown. If no damage was occurring, the debate

would be quieted, but if damage was shown, then

cutting would probably be reduced or modified.

Thus, having accurate data on renewable resource

conditions and outputs can reduce debates about

what is, and can refocus them on what the future

should be.

Incomplete and Weak Data

Congress enacted RPA in part because of concerns that resource needs and opportunities were

being short-changed by annual budget decisions,

and that backlogs of needed treatments were growing. To address these concerns, RPA requires an

inventory of resources and an evaluation of opportunities. A resource inventory is most useful if it

provides sufficient data on the quantity, quality, and

outputs of each resource to analyze opportunities for

increasing quantity, improving quality, or expanding outputs. However, data for many resources are

incomplete, with information on resource quality

frequently lacking. In addition, many measures of

resource conditions rely on surrogates or professional judgments which are questionable for estimating quantity or quality. The incomplete and weak

data on renewable resources limit the evaluation of

resource needs and opportunities and the ability to

identify responses.

While the Forest Service may be partly to blame

for the data problems, it is not solely a Forest Service

failure. The Forest Service has limited authority and

responsibility for some resources, such as water and

wildlife, and is not the principal Federal agency for

managing others, such as range forage, although the

Forest Service could help to coordinate data collection on renewable resources. In addition, insufficient

research and inventory funding have hampered the

agency’s ability to develop adequate databases for

all renewable resources.

Option: Direct a study to identify renewable

resource data needs.

Congress could direct the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study of the

resource quantity and quality data needed for

strategic planning, and the cost to obtain and

maintain the appropriate data. Congress could

then appropriate sufficient funds to complete

the inventories and maintain the databases,

and could assure the databases are maintained

through periodic oversight hearings and/or

reviews by the General Accounting Office.

An independent study could identify the appropriate renewable resource data for guiding Forest

Service strategic planning. Such a study would need

to assess: 1) data required for evaluating resource

quantity, and quality, including trends; 2) inventory

methods, frequency, and intensity; and 3) implementation costs. If the Forest Service is to meet its charge

for periodically assessing renewable resources, Congress must follow through with the funding to

develop and maintain the appropriate resource

inventories.

The primary advantage of such a study is having

an independent view of resource data needs. The

Forest Service conducts periodic forest inventories,

but focuses on timber quantity and quality. The

agency’s limited responsibility for some resources

further narrows their view, although the 1989 Water

Assessment displays reasonably effective use of

secondary data. In addition, inventories would

compete for funding against activities that the

agency may see as having greater needs. Finally, the

agency’s professionalism and traditional focus on

outputs might prevent the Forest Service from

recognizing the limitations of professional judgments and resource outputs as measures for assessing resource conditions. Thus, an independent re-
16 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

view by an outside entity, such as the National

Academy of Sciences or perhaps the Council on

Environmental Quality, would be appropriate.

One disadvantage of an independent study is that

it may duplicate other efforts. The Forest Service is

working to improve the Assessment, and has been

successful in some areas, most notably in the 1989

analysis of water resources. The Forest Service has

been researching inventory methods, and the traditional forest survey has been expanded to include

additional information for some States. Thus, the

Assessments will probably continue to improve over

time. Furthermore, a separate study would have

costs of its own.

Another aspect of congressional direction for an

independent study is the implicit commitment to act

on the findings. To require and fired such a study and

then not respond to its recommendations would

indicate a lack of congressional commitment to

making the RPA process work. It would also

highlight Congress’ lack of interest in the quality of

the Assessment. Despite numerous congressional

hearings and GAO studies on the RPA process, none

have focused on the quality and the limitations of the

Assessments.

Poor Data Linkage Among RPA Documents

The resource data in the Assessment, Program,

and Annual Report often differ. For example, the

1989 RPA Assessment includes data on ecological

status of rangeland, and on timber growth and

mortality, but such information is lacking in the

Program and the Annual Report. The Draft 1990

RPA Program is replete with data not included in the

Assessment or in the Annual Report, such as

substandard recreation use, the backlog of facility

and trail maintenance, noxious weed infestations on

rangelands, acres clearcut, acres of old-growth

forests, commercial salmon and steelhead harvests,

and acres of big game winter range. Finally, the

Annual Report contains substantial data that are not

included in the Program or the Assessment: the

number of grazing allotments, the number of allotments under improved management, and the acres

suitable for grazing; structural and nonstructural

range improvements; timber stand improvement

needs; acres of watershed improvements; number

and acres of wildlife and fish habitat improvements;

and the total road mileage and the mileage maintained for various levels of use. A further difference

among the documents is that the Program and

Annual Report only provide information on National Forest System lands, whereas the Assessment

reports on all forests and rangelands, and only

occasionally distinguishes resources on National

Forest System lands.

Option: Require data linkage among RPA documents.

Congress could require the Forest Service to

use the same resource output and condition

measures in all RPA documents: the Assessment would contain the databases for evaluating Program alternatives, and the Annual

Report would evaluate the outputs and

changes in resource condition for the measures

used in the Assessment and Program.

Congress could require the use of consistent

measures of resource quantity, quality, and outputs

for the various RPA documents. The Assessment

would need to contain only those data essential for

decisionmaking (including decisions about cooperative assistance), except perhaps to set the context for

decisions. For example, if acres of old-growth

forests and backlog of trail maintenance are important measures for comparing Program strategies, the

current status and trends in such resources and

activities for all lands and for National Forest

System lands would be contained in the Assessment.

The Annual Report could then evaluate the resource

outputs and changes in resource quantity and quality

with the measures used in the Assessment and

Program, This would not mean an annual update of

the Assessment, but rather reporting on activities to

improve the quality or increase the quantity of a

resource, such as the number of watersheds (or acres

if that is the appropriate measure) which changed

condition class or the reduction in trail maintenance

backlog.

Data linkage would enhance the strategic nature

of the RPA process. The Assessment would assure

that analysts within and outside the Forest Service

would have the databases to evaluate and compare

proposed strategies for Forest Service activities.

Furthermore, if the Assessment contained all important measures for Program strategies, it would likely

contain the data for addressing current issues.

Finally, the Annual Report would identify where and

how the Program is not being fully implemented,

and could then explore the reasons—the Program

was not feasible, the funding was inadequate or
Chapter 2-Policy Options: CPR for the RPA ● 17

unbalanced, a hurricane devastated the resource base

in one region, etc. The Annual Report could also

address resource issues more directly, and thus help

in surfacing issues for the next Program.

Data linkage would require better coordination in

preparing the various RPA documents, and might

require a realignment of internal responsibilities,

since the documents are currently prepared by

separate units (the Assessment by the Research

branch, the Program by the RPA staff, and the

Annual Report by the Budget staff). In addition,

linking the Assessment, Program, and Annual Report could reduce the Forest Service’s discretion in

preparing the documents. If, for example, concern

over a resource condition (e.g., the acres of oldgrowth forests) arose during the development of the

Program, additional inventory would be required.

Thus, Assessment supplements might be necessary

to assure that the relevant data are collected on issues

identified after the Assessment is completed.

Analysis Problems

RPA placed enormous analytical requirements on

the Forest Service. In some areas, the Forest Service

has responded admirably. For example, the required

supply and demand analyses have improved significantly for all resources, and now fulfill this requirement reasonably well, although further improvements are still possible. However, in other areas, the

Forest Service has not met its responsibilities. In

particular, the RPA documents have not effectively

identified impending threats for forest and rangeland

resources, have not evaluated opportunities, and

have poorly displayed the benefits and costs of

Program activities.

Poor Foresight on Threats

Concerns about the long-run condition of our

renewable resources were one impetus for enacting

RPA. The analysis of trends in the Assessment and

the long time-horizon specified for the program

clearly indicate that the RPA process was intended

to provide foresight on impending and potential

problems for resource management. To date, the

RPA Programs have been only partly successful in

the early identification of such important issues. For

example, the 1980 RPA program included wood for

energy (responding to the energy crisis) as an issue,

but missed the concerns about herbicide use (despite

reporting on such use). The 1985 RPA Program did

not include a discussion of issues, and therefore

missed current issues, such as below-cost timber

sales and grazing fees, and rising public concerns,

such as global climate change and loss of biological

diversity. The Draft 1990 RPA Program includes a

much more thorough list of issues, but still misses

important matters, such as grazing fees, log exports,

timber taxation, wilderness management, local regulation of forest practices, and the nature of and

changes in resource-dependent communities.

Option: Improve scoping of resource issues.

Congress could require the Forest Service to

use public participation in identifying potentially important issues and concerns for future

renewable resource management on Federal

and non-Federal lands.

RPA implicitly directs scoping of issues by

requiring the agency to develop the Program in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969. The RPA staff held numerous meetings

during the development of the Draft 1990 RPA

Program and was thus reasonably well-informed

about important issues, a condition reflected in the

1990 Draft. Nonetheless, several issues and potential problems that could affect renewable resource

management in the future were not identified in the

Draft Program. Congress could assure that the Forest

Service identifies and addresses such potential

problems by explicitly requiring public participation

early in the RPA process.

One advantage of early public participation is

assuring that relevant data and analyses are included

in the Assessment and then addressed in the

Program. Because of the diversity of interests, the

public is likely to be an effective source for

identifying potential issues and problems. In addition, early participation can help build public

support for the findings and responses. Thus, interacting with the public throughout the RPA process

could increase the agency’s responsiveness to the

public and the public’s support for the Program.

There are two disadvantages of required early

public participation in the RPA process. First, public

participation is expensive and time-consuming.

More importantly, addressing potential difficulties

can result in premature actions to thwart “problems” that might not occur. The Sagebrush Rebellion, for example, seemed to be a major issue in
18 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

1980, but faded away before the 1985 RPA Program

was developed. Thus, addressing all possible problems could lead to wasted time and energy.

Lack of Opportunity Evaluation

RPA specifically requires the Assessment to

include an evaluation of the opportunities for

improving renewable resource yields, with estimates

of the necessary investment costs and the direct and

indirect returns to the government. Although each of

the resource reports supporting the 1989 RPA

Assessment contains a chapter describing opportunities, only the Timber Assessment evaluates them.

The Wildlife Assessment provides a description of

which investments should be made first-not estimates of returns, but at least information for

determining investment priorities. Even for timber,

the evaluation is incomplete, because: 1) public,

industry, and some nonindustry timberlands were

excluded from the analysis; and 2) returns to the

government were not estimated. In addition, RPA

implicitly directs an evaluation of research opportunities, since research is one means of improving

yields, but as with direct investments, research needs

are described without costs, returns, or priorities.

Option: Enforce evaluation of needs and opportunities.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

meet this RPA requirement by examining

resource investment priorities and evaluating

research needs, with estimated costs and direct

and indirect returns.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

explain why the requirement to evaluate investment

opportunities has not been met, and to amend the

1989 RPA Assessment to include such an evaluation. Because of the difficulty in estimating returns

to the government, identifying investment priorities

could be specified as an acceptable substitute, but

priorities among the resources as well as for each

resource should be discussed. Furthermore, evaluating the opportunities for enhancing resources

through research could be explicitly added to the

evaluation requirement.

The primary benefit of evaluating research and

investment needs and opportunities, with costs and

benefits, is that the information could assist decisionmakers in making informed choices. The Forest

Service does not determine the research and investment options. Rather, the Administration and Congress determine the mix and the level of renewable

resource research and investment, and require information that describes opportunities, estimates fiscal

requirements, and assesses the quantitative and

qualitative benefits. The Forest Service has failed in

its responsibility to provide this required information, and Congress has been negligent in overseeing

this aspect of the RPA process.

Providing benefit and cost information on investment and research opportunities also has its drawbacks. It is difficult to estimate returns from research

and from investments in nonpriced and subsidized

resources, and some benefits are difficult to quantify. Such information also leads to priorities, and

could politicize the RPA Assessment. Individuals

and groups interested in one or a few resources are

likely to be less supportive of the RPA process if

identified priorities differ from their preferences.

Thus, information on priorities could further polarize interest groups, rather than build consensus

toward an acceptable direction for Forest Service

activities.

Poor Display of Benefits and Costs

RPA requires that the Program identify outputs

and results, so that the costs can be compared to the

benefits and to the direct and indirect returns to the

Federal Government. The Draft 1990 RPA Program

is the best effort to date, reporting Federal revenues

as well as two measures of social benefits. However,

future returns from range forage and from timber

seem to be overstated, while the current costs and

probably future, costs are underestimated. The 1990

Draft also makes a weak attempt to evaluate the

economic and social impacts of Program strategies

by only identifying total jobs and county payments

under each strategy.

Option: Require full reporting of economic information.

Congress could require cost and revenue

data to be consistent with appropriations data,

and could expand the reporting requirement

to include economic and social consequences of

decisions as well as benefits, returns, and costs.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to use the

appropriations data and categories in the RPA

planning process. If these data and categories are

deemed inappropriate, Congress could request GAO
Chapter 2--Policy Options: CPR for the RPA ● 19

to examine Forest Service cost and revenue accounts

used in the RPA Program, and recommend ways to

assure that relevant fiscal data are used in the RPA

process as well as in Forest Service appropriations.

Congress could also direct the Forest Service to

identify the likely economic and social consequences of its proposals. Congress has shown

concern about communities and about employment.

The Forest Service could be directed to develop

appropriate measures of community impacts, with

details to distinguish among resource programs, and

then to report on the community impacts with

sufficient information to understand fully the consequences of its actions.

Having accurate and consistent cost and revenue

data is one advantage of this option. Such accuracy

is necessary to assure that decisions are built on a

firm and consistent base of fiscal information. A

second advantage is that information on community

impacts can help build community support for

Forest Service programs by showing their implications. If the Forest Service identifies likely impacts,

it can better predict when actions will be opposed,

and by whom, and can modify the actions appropriately to broaden support.

One disadvantage of reporting fiscal information

in the RPA process is that fiscal measures can lead

to a short-term focus. The impact on renewable

resources of shortsighted budget decisions was one

of the concerns that led Congress to enact RPA.

Reporting fiscal information in an appropriations

format could increase the short-term, budget focus of

the RPA process, short-changing the long-term

needs of the renewable resources. A second disadvantage is that more information on community

impacts could heighten conflicts among interests, if

alternatives are shown to benefit certain segments of

a community at the expense of other segments.

Direction Problems

The RPA process was clearly intended to be

strategic planning, but has not functioned effectively

in this capacity. It has had little influence on the

on-the-ground actions of Forest Service managers,

has provided little guidance for budget decisions,

and has had poor commitment and follow-through

from the Administration and Congress. In addition,

the evaluation and feedback have not been adequate

to determine if the Program is being followed.

Weak Guidance for Action

The RPA Programs have generally identified

agency management direction by describing future

output levels for the various resources. This has led

to a timber focus, because decisionmakers have

more direct control over annual timber outputs than

over other annual resource outputs. While many are

interested in future outputs, others are interested in

the future conditions of the resources, especially in

assuring the sustainability of the various forest and

rangeland resources. In addition, describing future

output levels provides little direction for research,

for cooperative assistance, and for addressing problems and issues.

Option: Require the RPA Program to establish

direction.

Congress could require the RPA Program to

identify guiding principles for addressing issues, and to define goals in terms of resource

conditions as well as by resource output levels.

Congress could specify that the RPA Program

identify a set of principles for guiding Forest Service

actions and for addressing issues and problems. For

example, below-cost timber sales is an issue identified in the Draft 1990 RPA Program, but the agency

response was to describe the new timber accounting

system. Meanwhile, the 1991 budget request proposes a test of eliminating below-cost sales on

several national forests. If principles were defined to

include reducing subsidies and maintaining local

employment, alternative approaches could be identified-e.g., modifying sale practices to reduce Forest

Service costs; altering sale design to increase timber

value or reduce purchaser costs; researching harvesting, transportation, and processing efficiency; subsidizing private timberland production and/or mill

alterations; etc. The Forest Service could also be

directed to explain how its guiding principles could

be used to address the issues raised in the RPA

process. In addition, Congress could direct that the

RPA Program establish goals defining the desired

quantity and quality of renewable resources, as well

as resource outputs.

This approach would turn the RPA process into

strategic planning, as intended in the Act. It would

establish a coherent direction for agency actions—

for managing the national forests, for assisting State

and private landowners, for research on renewable

resources. It would also explain how the Forest
20 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Service could and would respond to current issues

and problems. Such coherent direction could also

help the agency address new problems as they arise.

Finally, by establishing quantity and quality goals as

well as output goals, the various interests would

better understand how the forest and rangeland

resources are being sustained and protected over the

long-term, and consequently would probably conflict less with one another.

The greatest limitation of this approach is the

difficulty in defining principles that are: 1) general

enough to apply to all agency activities and 2)

specific enough to provide direction, while 3) being

generally acceptable to the agency, the Administration, Congress, and the public. Guiding principles

that are too general would provide insufficient

direction for making decisions about policies and

programs, but principles that are too specific might

reduce local flexibility to deal with local conditions.

Defining acceptable principles would undoubtedly

be costly and time-consuming with no guarantee of

success. Finally, identifying principles and establishing resource condition goals could result in a loss

of detail in the Program, especially regional information. Establishing guiding principles that meet

the three conditions-generality, specificity, and

acceptability-is an inherent difficulty in strategic

planning, for the private sector as well as for the

government.

Poor Support for Budget Decisions

The IWA Programs have been generally inadequate for framing and evaluating Forest Service

budgets. Every recommended Program has included

a range of budget levels. In 1975, the range was

relatively narrow, increasing from 75 to 90 percent

over 5 years. In 1980, the proposed budget increases

ranged from 9 to 43 percent over 5 years, reflecting

the differing views of the Office of Management and

Budget (the low-bound Program) and the Forest

Service (the high-bound Program). This difference

of opinion was again reflected in the 1985 RPA

Program, with OMB’s low-bound reducing the

budget by 3 percent over 5 years, but the Forest

Service’s high-bound increasing it by 35 percent.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program presents similar

information, with one strategy simply extending

current budget levels and the other strategies calling

for 25 to 40 percent increases by 1995.

In enacting RPA, Members of Congress said they

wanted the agency’s best professional estimate of

the money needed to do the “right” job in terms of

protecting and managing the Nation’s renewable

resources. Others have noted that the Administration, Congress, and the public need information to

help in selecting the funding level and mix that best

meets the resource needs in the context of overall

Federal budget limitations. This concept was included in RPA by requiring the Forest Service to

include a discussion of priorities for accomplishing

the opportunities identified in the Program. To date,

the Forest Service has not fulfilled this requirement.

Option: Improve budget information in the RPA

Program.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

include the required discussion of priorities, or

to provide an analysis of Program outputs and

resource conditions under a range of budget

levels.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

explain why the required discussion of priorities has

not been included in the RPA Programs, and could

direct the agency to provide such information if the

required discussion is not included in the recommended 1990 RPA Program. Congress could also

clarify the priorities requirement by directing that

each alternative, or at least the recommended

Program, include a display of costs and of quantity,

quality, and output data by resource for budget

levels ranging from the current budget to the

agency’s professional estimate of the optimum

funding level.

This approach would help the Administration

(including the Secretary of Agriculture and OMB)

and Congress make informed decisions about the

Forest Service budget. The Forest Service’s professional opinion about the optimum budget level and

mix would be displayed, along with the expected

trade-offs in resource quality and decreases in

quantity and output that would result from lower

appropriations.

The primary disadvantage of this approach is that

the additional budget details would complicate a

document that is already long and cumbersome, and

would perhaps distract from the guiding principles

for the agency. This problem might be relieved by

presenting two separate documents, one with guiding principles and issue responses and the second
Chapter 2 Policy Options: CPR for the RPA . 21

with budget details. However, this approach would

add to RPA’s substantial analytical requirements,

and thus increase the cost to prepare the documents.

Poor Commitment From Decisionmakers

Decisionmakers within the Administration have

not seemed to be committed to the RPA process. In

particular, the Presidential Statement of Policy was

intended to gain the Administration’s support for the

recommended Program, but to date the Statements

have contained virtually no information useful for

framing budget requests or for directing Forest

Service activities. One particular problem has been

the mismatch of the RPA cycles with the timing of

elections: the first Program and Statement of Policy

were prepared under President Ford for implementation under President Carter, while the second set was

prepared under Carter for implementation under

President Reagan. However, even with the documents prepared under Reagan for implementation

during his second term, the Statement of Policy was

so general as to provide virtually no direction.

One possible means to strengthen the Administration’s commitment to the Program is to have it

developed by a special, perhaps temporary, staff in

the Secretary’s office or by the staff of the Council

on Environmental Quality, rather than by the Forest

Service. Forest Service personnel could be allowed

to participate in, but not to dominate, the process.

This approach would involve Administration decisionmakers more in the planning process, and the

Program would not be as constrained by the

agency’s internal structure and politics. It would,

however, remove the Forest Service from the role of

decisionmaker, and the agency might have less

incentive to implement the Program. Also, even this

alternative may be insufficient to obtain real Administration commitment to the RPA process.

Congress also seems to lack commitment to the

RPA process; congressional feedback (oversight

hearings, Statement of Policy revision) has shown

little focus and has declined since the early RPA

efforts. The 1980 Statement of Policy was revised,

as provided for in RPA, but the subsequent

appropriations followed OMB’s low-bound which

was rejected in the revised Statement of Policy. The

1985 RPA Program, which many felt was no

improvement over the 1980 effort, received much

less congressional review, and the Statement of

Policy was left intact, although this could have been

due to the late delivery-near the end of the second

session of the 99th Congress. Nonetheless, congressional attention and use of the RPA process seem to

have dwindled.

Option: Modify the Statement of Policy.

Congress could modify the RPA cycle to

match the political cycles, could eliminate the

requirement for a Presidential Statement of

Policy, or amend RPA to make the Statement

set forth the Forest Service’s strategic direction.

Congress could modify the RPA schedule, to

acknowledge the inherently political nature of strategic planning by a government agency. The Assessment (or Assessment update) and draft Program

could be released for public review shortly following

a Presidential election, and the final Program and

Statement of Policy could be delivered to Congress

together with the first budget of the newly elected

President. This sequence would allow anew Administration to influence the recommended Program,

such that it could be committed to implementing the

Program. However, it could decrease some of the

intended (but unrealistic) Forest Service control

over the Program.

Since some believe that it is impossible to extract

a real commitment from an Administration to

implement the recommended RPA Program, perhaps eliminating the Presidential Statement of

Policy is the only real alternative. Congress could

direct that budgets be framed from the recommended

Program, rather than from the Statement of Policy as

the Act currently requires. Instead of trying to garner

complete Administration commitment, Congress

could modify the Statement of Policy to be more

useful to the agency, the Administration, Congress,

and the public. The Statement of Policy could

become the Secretary’s strategic plan, similar to the

recommended Program but stripped of analysis,

perhaps defining guiding principles for the agency.

Analytical support for this redirected Statement

could then be contained in the RPA Program. The

principal advantages of this approach would be: 1)

to eliminate the waste of time and false sense of

commitment with the current approach, and 2) to

separate the strategic direction from the detailed

analytical support. However, this would also eliminate the technical requirement for commitment from

the President.
22 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Congress also needs to increase its commitment to

the RPA process. This may be a chicken-and-egg

problem: the RPA documents have not met Congress’ expectations, so Congress has not used them.

Consequently, there has been little congressional

feedback to the agency on how to make the process

and the documents more useful. Improvements in

the documents might improve this aspect of the

feedback loop, and increase congressional commitment to the RPA process. However, the authorizing

and appropriating committees need to follow

through with oversight hearings on the documents,

comments on draft documents, efforts to compare

budget and policy proposals to the recommended

Program, and reaction to the Annual Report.

Limited Feedback

The Annual Report has been used poorly to

evaluate the implementation of the RPA Program.

RP specifically required the Annual Report to “set

forth progress in implementing the Program,” but

Program implementation was not evaluated until the

1988 Report. Even this evaluation was spotty:

important output measures were not examined,

implementation successes and failures were not

discussed, and significant assumptions and conditions were not reviewed to determine if the Program

still could be implemented.

Option: Require complete evaluation of Program

implementation.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

include a complete evaluation of Program

implementation in the Annual Report, including an analysis of causes which have limited its

implementation and determination of whether

the Program is still adequate.

Congress could direct the Forest Service to

include a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the RPA Program in the Annual

Report, and could expand on the RPA requirement

to specify that the Annual Report: 1) display

performance for all output targets in the RPA

Program; 2) describe progress in achieving the

quantity and quality goals established in the Program; 3) identify where progress is slower than

anticipated, and the causes and implications of the

delays; and 4) discuss whether changes in assumed

trends and conditions might require the recommended Program to be modified. In addition,

Congress could direct the Forest Service to expand

the distribution of the Annual Report, to assure that

all individuals and groups expressing interest in the

Program also received the reports on its implementation. A thorough evaluation of the implementation of

the recommended RPA Program is the necessary

final step to complete the strategic process envisioned in RPA.
Chapter 3

Introduction

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) requires the Secretary

of Agriculture periodically to prepare long-range

Assessments and Programs for renewable resources

in the United States; this responsibility has been

delegated to the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of

the Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service

has recently completed its third renewable resource

Assessment, and its fourth Program.l These documents, together with a Presidential Statement of

Policy, are submitted to Congress, to be used in

policy and program deliberations and in the annual

budget debate.

Congress is concerned that past Assessments and

Programs have not been useful to its Members, its

Committees, or its constituents for evaluating policy

and program decisions or for considering how to

allocate funds among Forest Service programs. In

1986 hearings before the House Agriculture

Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy (135), numerous witnesses expressed their

concerns about RPA, focusing particularly on the

1985 RPA Program. A timber industry spokesman

noted that “even a superficial examination clearly

shows that the Program sacrifices the nation’s

resource needs in favor of short-term budget objectives” (82). The Wilderness Society expressed

support for the RPA process, but stated that “the

1985 Program fails to meet [the Nation’s renewable

resource needs] in any environmentally and economically sound way’ (100). The concerns were

effectively summarized by Bill Shands of the

Conservation Foundation (90):

The RPA Program suffers from a credibility gap.

The legislation never intended to commit administrations or Congress to Program targets, yet the

widening gap between RPA targets and Forest

Service budgets is cited by forests interest groups as

evidence of the program’s irrelevancy to annual

decision making. Further, there is a strong feeling

that the Program does not address significant contemporary issues, and has tenuous links with national forest plans and State comprehensive forest

resources plans.

If RPA is to work, the Program must be relevant

to the day-to-day work of Congress and interest

groups.

Congress responded to these concerns in 1986. In

addition to the House Agriculture Subcommittee

hearings, the Senate Committee on Appropriations

(147) stated:

. . . the Committee does not agree to continue to

spend millions of dollars on planning documents that

are not provided in a timely manner, do not reflect

reasonable and professional judgments and estimates when they are released, and are not of

particular value to the Committee when finally

available.

Subsequently, in the conference agreement on

FY1987 appropriations, Congress restricted the use

of appropriations for developing the RPA documents to $500,000 for the year (134).

Some have examined the RPA process, and

concluded that it’s a waste of time and money. One

critic claimed of the process, “At enormous costs in

money, manpower, political energy, and activity

(and legal fees), we are achieving very, very little,”

and argued for its repeal (8). Others have noted the

problems, but believe that the process is valuable,

even if the documents are not, and that repealing the

law would be “tantamount to throwing out the baby

with the bathwater” (55).

This introductory chapter summarizes the Forest

Service’s organizational structure, provides some of

the historical background on why RPA was enacted,

and spells out the requirements that RPA imposed on

the Forest Service. Those requirements provide the

organizational structure for the remainder of this

report. In addition, a section of this chapter explains

why mineral resources have generally been excluded

from this OTA report.

l~e FM 1~ WA ~om ~~ not ~v~abl~ for tie prep~ation of ~report. we tie FM is lkely to vwsu&@Ilti@JfrOnl the hi&, thiS

analysis examines the RF?A process, and should still prove useful for evaluating the Final 1990 Rl?A Program.

–23–
24 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

FOREST SERVICE

ORGANIZATION

National Forest System

In 1891, Congress authorized the President to

reserve (from homesteading and other such entries)

forested lands administered by the General Land

Office of the Department of the Interior. Presidents

Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland proclaimed 17 million acres of reserves over the next

few years. Then, on Washington’s birthday in 1897,

President Cleveland doubled the acreage reserved.

Congress responded with the Forest Service Organic

Administration Act, limiting the purposes for which

reserves could be proclaimed to protecting lands and

watersheds and providing continuous supplies of

timber.

In 1905, the General Land Office’s Forestry

Division was merged with the Department of

Agriculture’s Bureau of Forestry (see State and

Private Forestry, below), and the agency was

renamed the Forest Service. Because President

Theodore Roosevelt continued to expand the forest

reserves, Congress restricted the President’s power

to proclaim reserves in certain Western States (and

simultaneously renamed the reserves as national

forests) in 1907. Despite the restrictions, Roosevelt

expanded the National Forest System from 46

million acres in 1901 to 172 million acres in 1909.

Other laws have allowed further expansion of the

National Forest System. In 1911, concern over

floods and belief in the ability of forests to reduce

flood damage led to the enactment of the Weeks

Law, authorizing the acquisition of lands. In 1937,

the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act authorized

land acquisition for land conservation and utilization, eventually resulting in 19 national grasslands

and 13 land utilization projects, totaling nearly 4

million acres.

The National Forest System currently consists of

156 national forests (managed in 119 administrative

units), 19 national grasslands, and 103 other units

(purchase units, land utilization projects, etc.). In

total, the Forest Service manages 191 million acres

in 43 States plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

(115). These lands are heavily concentrated in the

West, but the 25 million acres in the eastern half of

the country make the Forest Service the largest

public landowner in the East, with nearly more land

than all other Federal agencies combined (132).

The National Forest System is managed for

multiple use and sustained yield, as set forth in the

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. (See box

3-A.) This Act states that the national forests are to

be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and

notes that managing areas as wilderness is consistent

with the intent of the Act. RPA requires the Forest

Service to prepare land and resource management

plans for units of the National Forest System using

an interdisciplinary approach, and the National

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) provides

additional guidance for preparing the plans.

State and Private Forestry

The Federal Government has been providing

forestry assistance to States and to private landowners for well over 100 years. In 1881, a Division of

Box 3-A—The Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960

Section 4 of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield

Act of 1960 defines multiple use and sustained

yield as follows:

(a) “Multiple use” means the management of

all the various renewable surface resources of the

national forests so that they are utilized in the

combination that will best meet the needs of the

American people; making the most judicious use of

the land for some or all of these resources or related

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to

conform to changing needs and conditions; that

some land will be used for less than all of the

resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the

other, without impairment of the productivity of the

land, with consideration being given to the relative

values of the various resources, and not necessarily

the combination of uses that will give the greatest

dollar return or the greatest unit output.

(b) “Sustained yield of the several products

and services” means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular

periodic output of the various renewable resources

of the national forests without impairment of the

productivity of the land.
Chapter 3 Introduction ● 25

Forestry was created in the Department of Agriculture to provide technical assistance to private

landowners. The third Chief, Bernhard Fernow,

referred to his agency as a “bureau of information

and advice” (96). In 1898, technical advice was

formally offered to private landowners in Forestry

Circular 21, under the fourth Chief, Gifford Pinchot.

This aspect of Federal forestry was important

enough that, in 1908, 3 years after the Forest Service

was created, Pinchot established a separate division,

State and Private Forestry (S&PF) (96).

Formal congressional authorization of cooperative assistance was granted in the Clarke-McNary

Act of 1924. In essence, this law established

cooperation, rather than coercion or regulation, as

the Federal strategy for influencing State and private

forest management. This view was maintained when

the Clarke-McNary Act was revised in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. The new Act

specifies the six component activities of S&PF: 1)

rural forestry assistance; 2) forestry incentives; 3)

insect and disease control; 4) urban forestry; 5) rural

fire protection; and 6) management and planning

assistance.

S&PF activities are organized into three major

programs:

1. Forest pest management-insect and disease

surveys, technical assistance, and control efforts on all forest lands-is the largest program, accounting for more than half of the

S&PF budget; however, because much of this

money is spent on control activities in the

national forests, pest management accounts for

2.

3.

only a quarter of Forest Service cooperative

activities.

Fire Protection-financial and technical assistance, surplus equipment, and fire suppression

coordination-is the largest purely cooperative program, accounting for nearly 30 percent

of cooperative funds (excluding pest management in the national forests).

Forest management and utilization--assistance

for State forest resource management and

planning, for improved wood utilization by the

timber industry, for tree nursery production,

and for urban forestry programs-is the smallest of the three, accounting for less than a

quarter of cooperative funding.

S&PF also includes numerous special studies and

projects (e.g., the Pinchot Institute for Conservation

Studies; cooperative trail construction), which account for more than 20 percent of cooperative funds.

Forestry incentives are not funded through the

Forest Service, but S&PF cooperates with the other

Federal agencies that manage these forestry programs. In particular, the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service operates the Forestry

Incentives, Agricultural Conservation, and Conservation Reserve Programs, all of which provide

financial assistance to private landowners for tree

planting and other forestry practices. S&PF also

cooperates with the Soil Conservation Service in

providing technical assistance on watershed protection, windbreaks and shelterbelts, and the like.

Finally, S&PF works with the USDA Extension

Service in providing landowners with information

on effective and efficient practices.

Figure 3-l-State and Private Forestry Funding, FY 1989

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Appropriations (Washington, DC: 1990).

management

$49. 7

Other lands

$18. 5

Federal lands

$31. 2

1991 Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on
26 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Forest Service Research

The first Federal forestry research activity was a

study on forestry conditions, funded in the 1876

Department of Agriculture appropriations. Dr. Franklin B. Hough was commissioned to do the study,

and was subsequently named the first Chief of the

Department’s Division of Forestry. Research continued to be apart of agency activities in the 1890s, and

in 1899, Gifford Pinchot established a separate

Section on Special Investigations to conduct forestry

research (96). In 1915, Pinchot’s successor, Henry

Graves, established the Branch of Research to make

forestry research independent from local control

within the agency (96). This approach laid the

foundation for congressional authorization of Forest

Service research efforts in the McSweeney-McNary

Act of 1928. This law was the basis for Forest

Service Research for 50 years, until the authority

was revised in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978.

The 1978 Act authorizes five basic types of

research on renewable resources: 1) research on

resource management, 2) research on environmental

effects, 3) research on resource protection, 4)

research on resource use, and 5) research to support

the RPA Assessment. Most of the funding is directed

toward projects conducted through the eight experiment stations (with research sites scattered throughout the United States), and through the Forest

Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The

1978 Act also authorizes competitive grants to

conduct research on the subjects described in the

Act.

Figure 3-2-Forest Service Research Funding,

FY 1989

Timber

Forest

‘ manag

$27

Resource analysis

$25.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1991 Budget

Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations (Washington, DC: 1990).

Additional forestry research is conducted with

Federal funds outside the Forest Service, although

with Forest Service consultation. The largest and

best known-the McIntire-Stennis program—

provides funding for forestry research through the

agricultural experiment stations at U.S. land grant

colleges. This program is much smaller than the

Forest Service research program; in 1988, McIntireStennis was funded at $17 million, while Forest

Service Research appropriations were $153 million

(123). Nonetheless, this independent funding, combined with the relative independence of the Research

Branch, helps to assure unbiased research efforts.

International Forestry

The origins of and authorization for the International Forestry program are not clear. International

cooperation has supposedly been a tradition since

the Forest Service was established in 1905 (116).

The Forest Service apparently contributed to the war

effort in the 1940s by examining the supplies of

timber, rubber, and other forest commodities in the

Western Hemisphere for the predecessor of the CIA

(76). The Chief has often hosted visiting dignitaries

interested in forestry, and since many of these

contacts have been through the scientific community, the International Forestry program has grown

within the Research Branch of the Forest Service.

However, before the FY1990 Interior Appropriations Act (137), the only real authority for international forestry has been implicit, derived from

requests by other Federal agencies, such as the State

Department, the Agency for International Development, and the Organization for International Cooperation and Development.

International Forestry is technically located

within the Research Branch of the Forest Service. It

has focused substantially on research and scientific

exchange, with additional efforts at technical assistance to foreign countries, training for foreign

nationals, and cooperation with other U.S. and

international organizations. Thus, International Forestry has both research and cooperative assistance

elements, and doesn’t fit cleanly into either of these

Forest Service branches (42).

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

ON RPA

RPA was enacted in the fall of 1974. Its principal

sponsor was Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, after he
Chapter 3-Introduction ● 27

had returned to the Senate from being the Vice

President under Lyndon Johnson. Senator Humphrey was concerned about the future of our

Nation’s natural resources, because the political

processes too often focused on short-term problems

and gave short shrift to long-term conditions. During

hearings on RPA, Humphrey remarked that “we

work too much on an ad hoc basis in the Congress

and the Executive Branch, moving from. crisis to

crisis, applying policy and funding band-aids and

aspirin to long-term problems that require permanent treatment” (60).

The social setting of the early 1970s contributed

to enacting RPA. Demonstrations protesting the

Vietnam War and revelations about the Watergate

break-in were eroding public trust in government

officials. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 preceded RPA by a month,

and was in part an attempt by Congress to reestablish

its control of the budget, following impoundments

(non-spending of appropriations) by the Nixon

Administration.

Concerns over actions by the Nixon Administration also were a foundation for RPA. In his floor

statement upon introducing RPA, Senator Humphrey said, “The entire National Forest System

stands in jeopardy due to shortsighted Nixon administration policies. . . . Every aspect of management

of the 187 million acres of forest lands is being

short-changed” (145). Humphrey then enumerated

accumulating work backlogs for watershed, recreation facilities, pollution abatement, and reforestation

and timber stand improvement, and accused the

Nixon Administration of ignoring these growing

problems in its budget-cutting efforts. Congressmen

John R. Rarick, the House sponsor of RPA, concurred, noting that the purposes of RPA were to

“establish more long-range planning for the National Forest System, and congressional control over

the management of National Forest System lands”

(145).

Some Members of Congress were also concerned

that many of the controversies were placing disproportionate emphasis on the importance of the

National Forest System. The Senate Agriculture

Committee staff noted the numerous lawsuits over

national forest management, and concluded that

widespread agreement on national forest management objectives could not be achieved (54). Senator

Humphrey believed that expanding the picture to

consider non-Federal forests and rangelands would

downplay the importance of the National Forest

System in providing renewable resources. The

Senate Agriculture Committee report on RPA has

numerous references to the comprehensive view

resulting in better decisions for national forest

management. At one point the report notes that

(145):

One of the most important elements of the

Assessment will be the effectiveness with which it

displays the totality of forest and rangeland and the

dispersion of resources by public and private ownerships and geographic regions. . . . .

Forest Service programs cannot be constructed in

a vacuum. The Assessment will give a comprehensive picture of the sum of public and private

activities and expectations, thus encouraging a

comprehensive and integrated Federal approach at

the very least.

RPA became law when signed by President Ford,

a week after Nixon resigned. It established a process

for long-range thinkinng about the management of

our renewable resources. In describing the goals of

RPA’s authors, Bob Wolf, a congressional staffer at

the time, observed that:

. . . the goal of RPA is to raise our sights to the future,

analyze the interrelationship between resources, and

weigh the differences between short- and long-term

actions. . . . The purpose of the RPA is to look at the

future and outline the actions needed to make it a

better future (151).

THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPA

RPA implicitly directs the Forest Service to

develop a participatory strategic planning process,

and specifically requires the development of four

documents to be submitted to Congress. RPA also

requires the Forest Service to prepare land and

resource management plans for units of the National

Forest System; this planning process for the national

forests will be examined in detail in the subsequent

OTA report, expected to be delivered in 1991. Many

believe that the two processes—the RPA Assessment and Program and national forest planning-are

intertwined in a rational, iterative process establishing a direct link between national goals and local

productivity. However, Congress apparently linked

the two processes more by accident than by intent

(153). Furthermore, the RPA planning process is

clearly to consider all forests and rangelands, not just

the National Forest System, and thus can only be
28 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

imperfectly linked to national forest management

planning. To meet the immediate needs of Congress

and to fully examine both processes, separate OTA

reports on each process seem most appropriate.

The following section summarizes the RPA

requirements (the full text of the Act is in the

appendix), beginning with public participation and

strategic planning, followed by each of the four

documents delivered to Congress. These topics and

documents are described in more detail in separate

chapters in this report.

Public Participation

Public participation is not directly specified in

RPA. Rather, the legal requirement for public

participation comes from the requirement that the

RPA Program “be developed in accordance with

principles set forth in . . . the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]. ” NEPA regulations, at 40 CFR 1500, essentially require agencies:

1) to examine public concerns in advance of making

a decision (scoping), 2) to coordinate activities with

other government agencies at all levels, and 3) to

solicit comments from interested individuals and

organizations.

RPA involves both Congress and the Administration, as well as the Forest Service, in the planning

process. Thus, interested individuals and groups

extend beyond the Forest Service and its traditional

interest groups. Congress, as the author of the law,

had (and has) expectations about the RPA process,

and as the recipient of the required documents, has

responsibilities in the process. Interested individuals

and groups also have expectations about the RPA

process and about their role in the process. The

Administration, through the Secretary of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget, is

another actor in the RPA process, with additional

expectations about the process, as well as the

responsibility for preparing the documents (although this responsibility is delegated to the Forest

Service). Finally, the agency itself should be viewed

as an interest group in the RPA process. The Forest

Service is clearly a participant, because it prepares

the documents, and its expectations undoubtedly

influence the nature of the documents as well as the

interactions among the other participants.

Strategic Planning

RPA does not specifically mandate strategic

planning by the Forest Service, nor does it specify

that the RPA Program should be a strategic plan.

However, RPA was built on concerns about the

long-range future of our natural resources and the

need for a written plan to achieve a desired future.

This implicitly conforms to current concepts of

strategic planning, as practiced by business and

taught in universities. Strategic planning sets the

basic direction and focus for an entire organization,

typically by defining the organization’s mission and

purposes. The strategic plan defines the strategy by

which the mission, goals, and objectives are to be

achieved through the organization’s activities.

There are many limitations to strategic planning.

Some result from poor implementation of the plan,

but some are inherent to government agencies.

Nevertheless, the process of strategic planning is

often useful, even if the plans are never fully

implemented. The planning process, including evaluation and response, can assist managers in understanding how their decisions support or conflict with

the organization’s mission and purposes. It can also

help organizations to examine options that might

otherwise have been ignored. Finally, effective

strategic planning can establish a habit of looking to

the mission and to the long run, a perspective that is

missing in many organizations, especially in government.

The Assessment

RPA requires the Forest Service to prepare a

periodic Assessment of renewable resources on

America’s forests and rangelands. The first Assessment was to be completed by the end of 1975, with

an update in 1979 and every 10 years thereafter. The

1979 RPA Assessment was published in January

1980, and was accompanied by a separate, detailed

Assessment of the timber resource. A supplement

was prepared in 1984 to update the information in

the 1979 RPA Assessment. The draft 1989 RPA

Assessment was issued during 1988, with the final

document released in May 1990. The 1989 Assessment is a brief summary of the resource situation,

accompanied by separate, detailed Assessments of

many of the resources-recreation and wilderness,

range forage, timber, water, and wildlife and fish—

and several additional supporting documents.
Chapter 3--Introduction ● 29

RPA specifies certain information and analyses

which the Assessment must include for all forests

and rangelands. First, the Assessment is to include

an analysis of current and expected uses, supplies of

and demands for renewable resources, and supply,

demand, and price trends. The Assessment is also to

include an inventory of current and potential renewable resources, with an evaluation of investment

opportunities. Next, the Assessment is to describe

Forest Service programs and responsibilities, and

their relations to public and private activities.

Finally, the Assessment is to discuss policy considerations, laws and regulations, and other factors that

affect the use, ownership, and management of

forests and rangelands. RPA was amended in 1976

to also require the Assessment to include information on fiber potential and increased fiber utilization.

The Program

RPA also requires a renewable resources Program

for Forest Service activities, prepared in accordance

with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The first Program was to be completed by the end of

1975, with subsequent programs completed by the

end of March 1980, and every 5 years thereafter. The

1980 RPA Program was nearly 6 months late.

Disagreements within the Administration delayed

the release of the 1985 RPA Program by a year and

a half. The Draft 1990 RPA Program was issued in

June 1989, with the Final 1990 Program released in

June 1990.

RPA directs the Forest Service to submit a

recommended RPA Program which must include

certain specific information. First, the Program is to

include an inventory of public and private investment needs and opportunities, distinguishing between capital and operating expenditures. Next, the

Program is to identify outputs, results, and benefits

so that the costs can be directly compared to total

benefits and to direct and indirect returns to the

Federal Government. Then, the Program is to

discuss priorities for the inventoried opportunities,

specifying the costs, outputs, results, and benefits.

Finally, the Program is to include a detailed study of

agency personnel requirements.

The Presidential Statement of Policy

RPA requires the President to transmit a detailed

Statement of Policy to Congress when the Program

is sent forth. The Statement of Policy is “to be used

in framing budget requests by that Administration

for Forest Service activities for the 5- or 10-year

program period.’ The Statement of Policy could be

disapproved by a resolution in either the House or

the Senate, and Congress could revise the Statement

of Policy. To date, only the 1980 Statement of Policy

has been revised by Congress, in an amendment to

the FY1981 Forest Service appropriations.

Much of the controversy over RPA has focused on

the connection of the Statement of Policy to the

budget. The authors of the legislation were clearly

intending to reassert congressional control over the

Forest Service budget, but acknowledged that the

Statement of Policy (and, implicitly, the Program)

were to guide budgets, and were not commitments to

a particular budget level. However, RPA also require

that, if the budget request deviates from the direction

set forth in the Statement of Policy, the President

must explain the reasons for the discrepancy.

The Annual Report

Finally, RPA requires the Forest Service to

prepare an Annual Report to evaluate the “component elements of the Program. ’ The Forest Service

has produced annual reports since its earliest days,

but until RPA was enacted, there was no legal

specifications for what it must include. The Annual

Report, which is to accompany the annual budget

request, is intended: 1) to provide information to

assist Congress in its oversight responsibilities, 2) to

improve Forest Service accountability for expenditures and activities, and 3) to evaluate progress in

implementing the RPA Program. The Report is to

contain ‘‘appropriate measurements of pertinent

costs and benefits” and is to assess the balance

between economic impacts and environmental quality. In addition, the 1976 amendments to RPA

require an annual report on herbicide and pesticide

use in the national forests, a summary of long-term

benefits and costs, and a representative sample of

below-cost timber sales.

MINERAL RESOURCES

Mineral resources were excluded from RPA, as

they had been excluded from national forest management under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield

Act of 1960. Indeed, RPA is the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, and

minerals are not renewable resources (except in

geological time scales). This exclusion was discussed on the Senate floor between Senator Hum-
30 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

phrey and Senator James McClure (145). Senator

McClure noted that mineral resources are important

to our economy, and Federal lands contain important

mineral resources. Excluding mineral resources

from RPA, according to Senator McClure, “distorts

and perverts the responsibility of the Forest Service” to manage the nonrenewable resources under

the national forests. Senator Humphrey responded

by agreeing about the importance of mineral resources, and pledging cooperation for appropriate

legislation. However, mineral resources had specifically been excluded from RPA, because Humphrey

thought it would have “delayed the reform we

thought quite necessary for the forest management

[sic]” (145). The Senate Agriculture Committee has

jurisdiction over forest management, and was the

initial forum for debating RPA, but has no jurisdiction over mineral resources; Senator Humphrey

stated that mineral resources had been excluded

from RPA “because, honestly, it was beyond our

jurisdiction.’

The legal authorities for managing mineral resources under the national forests are quite different

from the authorities for managing other resources, as

suggested by their exclusion from RPA and the

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Mineral resources are “locatable,“ “leasable,” or “salable,”

with authorities and responsibilities defined in

various laws, depending on the type of mineral and

the means by which Federal ownership was established. The Forest Service has identified 14 major

laws, ranging from the General Mining Law of 1872

to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform

Act of 1987, which determine the rights to exploration, development, and removal of minerals from the

national forests (11 8). Furthermore, several agencies

within the Department of the Interior, and a few

elsewhere in the executive branch, have some

responsibility for mineral activities in the national

forests. Thus, Forest Service management of mineral

resources is enormously more complicated than the

management of renewable resources.

This is not to say that minerals management

should be or has been excluded from Forest Service

responsibilities, or from the required RPA documents. In comments on the 1985 RPA Program,

representatives of the American Petroleum Institute

and the American Mining Congress applauded the

progress that had been made in incorporating

mineral resources in Forest Service resource planning and management, but both acknowledged that

a better balance of mineral resources with the

renewable resources was needed (70, 77). At the

same time, the National Wildlife Federation noted

that mineral resources are “still the most poorly

managed and integrated of all forest uses” (35).

Nonetheless, mineral management activities by

the Forest Service have been excluded from this

report. The complex legal situation and plethora of

Federal agencies with mineral responsibilities in the

national forests greatly complicates any such analysis. Given the time pressures and demands for this

special report, minerals management is beyond the

scope of the analysis. In addition, in parallel with

Senator Humphrey’s observation, two of the three

committees requesting this study have no jurisdiction over mineral resources in the national forests,

and one of the two committees with such jurisdiction

is not a requester. With the complexity of the issues,

it seems appropriate to postpone the relevant and

necessary analysis until this study is completed and

a request from the committees of jurisdiction is

received.
Chapter 4

Audiences and Players

Congress envisioned RPA as a planning process

that would ensure more orderly and responsible

management of the Nation’s renewable resources.

Although the Forest Service had engaged in land

management and forest and rangeland planning

since its inception, it had never been directed to

engage in such an ambitious and comprehensive

long-range planning process as is required under

RPA. Furthermore, RPA gave Congress and the

public significantly greater roles and responsibilities

in shaping resource plans and policies.

Congress intended that RPA serve the needs of

four general audiences: Congress, the Forest Service, the Administration, and the public. The RPA

Assessment and Program were to provide Congress

with sufficient information and analysis on which to

frame long-term policy and programs and to prepare

annual budgets. RPA would serve the management

needs of the Forest Service, by providing more

comprehensive information on resource conditions

and future trends, by establishing long-range goals

and objectives to direct activities, and by assisting it

in justifying its annual budget needs both to the

Administration and to Congress. The RPA documents would substantially improve the Administration’s ability to shape more responsible and balanced short- and long-term renewable resources

policy and to frame budgets consistent with that

policy. And finally, the RPA documents would

provide the public with information sufficient to

allow its expanded and continuous participation in

the planning process.

Interest in RPA has remained relatively high since

it was enacted in 1974, as reflected by the numerous

symposia and workshops that have studied the

process over the years. In addition, Congress commissioned a study of the process by the General

Accounting Office (129), and has held several

oversight hearings since the first set of documents

were delivered in 1976. Despite this interest, there is

a growing concern within each of the four main

audiences that the RPA documents, especially the

Program, are of limited and declining relevance to

annual budgets and decisionmaking. In a 1985 study

of RPA, the Conservation Foundation surveyed

congressional staff and representatives of natural

resource organizations, and concluded that ‘‘the

–31

RPA Program suffers a credibility gap” (89), and

recommended that, to serve the needs of its constituents more effectively, the Forest Service should

clearly identify RPA’s audiences and concentrate on

improving the quality of participation by those

audiences.

CONGRESS

Expectations

As noted earlier, RPA was born in part from

Congress’ frustration with the Nixon Administration’s annual Forest Service budget requests, which

many Members felt had been consistently inadequate for meeting resource needs. The country

lacked long-term goals and objectives for managing

the Nation’s renewable resources, and consequently

lacked any strategy to preserve and protect those

resources for use by future generations. In short,

Senator Humphrey and others perceived that forest

policy and planning, being a product of annual

budgets, was dangerously short-sighted and fragmented.

Congress intended to create a systematic longrange planning process whose strength would be

derived from the aggregation and analysis of comprehensive information on current resource quantity

and quality, as well as on present and future supplies

of and demands for those resources. Congress

expected that acquiring and updating such a base of

knowledge would lead to more informed, more

rational, and probably better decisionmaking than

had been possible, and designed the Assessment to

serve this analytical function.

Congress then expected that the renewable resources Program would respond to the findings of

the Assessment and to other available information.

The Program is intended to set forth goals, objectives, and a recommended course of action for the

management of the Nation’s renewable resources.

Senator Humphrey explained that:

. . . the program is developed from the assessment

and will describe in detail for a 5-year period what

the Federal effort should be. This will include the

plans on Federal lands, the cooperative efforts

needed under the Federal program, and the research

that will go forward to meet unsolved prob-
32 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

lems. . . The annual budget request will thus be

presented against a background of goals that the

Congress will have considered based upon an

executive recommendation (145).

While the law makes the Secretary of Agriculture

responsible for the Assessment and the Program,

Congress expected that both documents would be

prepared by the Forest Service, and the Secretary has

delegated the authority to develop the RPA Assessment and Program to the Chief of the Forest Service

(36 CFR 219.4). The sponsors of the legislation

believed that the Forest Service would play the lead

role in the process and that RPA would provide

“new stature and responsibility” to the agency

(145). RPA permits the inclusion of alternative

courses of action in the Program, but it requires that

a preferred, or recommended, course of action be

specified. This reflects Congress’ intent that, while

the Program is officially the Secretary’s document,

it would also provide insight to the agency’s

professional view of the direction renewable resources policy should take both in the short- and the

long-term.

Another important RPA document, essential for

Congress’ oversight role, is the Annual Report. The

Annual Report is to be delivered to Congress when

the Administration presents its annual budget request. The Annual Report is intended to provide

information on and an evaluation of accomplishing

policy objectives, and to alert the Administration

and Congress of any shortcomings and/or needed

changes or modifications in policy. RPA requires

that the Report sets forth ‘progress in implementing

the Program. . . together with accomplishments of

the Program as they relate to the objectives of the

Assessment, ” and that objectives and accomplishments be described in both qualitative and quantitative terms. The Report shall also include plans for

corrective action and recommendations for new

legislation when necessary. By requiring delivery of

the Annual Report with the President’s budget

request and ‘‘structured for Congress in concise

summary form with necessary detailed data in

appendices,’ Congress anticipated that it could

readily rely on the Annual Report to update, modify,

or completely revise the Program and Statement of

Policy, whenever necessary.

Congressional supporters of the RPA legislation

did not conceal that a primary motive behind the

passage of the law was to assert more congressional

control over Forest Service budgeting and policymaking. The RPA Assessment and Program were

intended to provide Congress with essentially the

same facts that the Administration used in formulating its annual budget requests. The Act vested the

President with the responsibility for the Statement of

Policy to be used in framing budgets, but Congress

reserved the right to rejector revise it. Congress also

included provisions in the law to hold the President

accountable for budget requests which were inconsistent with the stated goals and objectives set out in

the program and Statement of Policy.

Nevertheless, RPA was not intended to set rigid

goals, priorities, or budgets, but was meant to be a

flexible process that could accommodate new information, changing conditions, new priorities, and

fluctuating budget levels where warranted. Senator

Humphrey explained that under RPA:

. . . policy for renewable resources will be subject to

revision as new facts become available. . . Both the

Executive and the Congress must proceed in a

flexible manner to adjust sights, redefine goals, and

provide the financing as the facts warrant (145).

B/et only did Congress perceive this flexibility as

sound policy, it also recognized that such flexibility

was necessary to secure the Administration’s support of the legislation.

While Congress preserved a substantial degree of

flexibility in planning and policy, it clearly envisioned that any changes and revisions in direction

would be premised on more comprehensive and

integrated information than had previously been

available, thereby leading to more informed decisionmaking. According to Bob Wolf, a congressional staffer who worked on the legislation:

With RPA in place, it is possible to document

whether in the quest to meet overriding national

issues, we have impacted conservation goals and, if

SO, how (150).

RPA as Implemented and Congress’ Response

RPA is of limited use as a long-range planning

process unless the documents are produced on time

and serve the needs of the targeted audiences.

Congress understood that RPA directed the Forest

Service to engage in an ambitious resource planning

process, unprecedented in scope and detail, and it

also understood that by creating such high expectations it had assumed responsibility to oversee the
Chapter 4--Audiences and Players ● 33

process, to provide the agency with feedback and

ongoing guidance on how to meet congressional

expectations, and to revise the law, if necessary.

The 1975 RPA Documents

After the first Assessment and Program were

released in early 1976, Senator Herman Talmadge,

chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry, commissioned the U.S.

General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a

‘‘separate evaluation of the 1975 RPA Assessment

and Program from the standpoint of economics and

good management of resources,” explaining that

“Congress must provide the agency with still more

guidance as to how it should proceed in connection

with the next Program and Assessment” (129).

GAO concluded that the documents suffered from

several problems with organization and presentation

as well as from deficiencies in the methods of

analysis (129). For example, GAO criticized the

Forest Service for failing to sufficiently discuss and

highlight issues of broad national importance in a

separate section of the Program. GAO recommended

that the agency improve the format for presenting

and discussing important issues so as to make the

document more useful to both Congress and the

public. The report also criticized the documents for

the lack of regional analysis and failure to analyze

adequately the relation between national forests and

privately-owned forests.

In response to the GAO findings, Congress held

oversight hearings to provide further guidance to the

Forest Service before the next round of documents

were due in 1980. In 1977, the House Agriculture

Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy held 6 hearings around the country and received

testimony from 180 individuals, resulting in 10

major findings and 27 recommendations for improvement (9).

The 1980 RPA Documents

A flurry of congressional

surrounded the development

ment and the 1980 Program.

interest and activity

of the 1979 AssessFollowing the 1977

oversight hearings, “continued contacts-with individual members, their staff, and committee staffs in

both the Senate and House provided a continuous

exchange of information on process, issues, and

planning during the next several months’’(9).

The Administration, by May 1980, still had not

submitted the 1980 RPA documents to Congress,

and on May 27, the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry

held a hearing seeking an explanation for the delay.

The 1980 RPA Assessment, Program, and Statement

of Policy were finally submitted by the President on

June 19, 1980, and met with almost immediate

disapproval from Congress. The Senate subcommittee held a hearing a week later to review the

documents, and expressed serious concern that the

1980 Program had not included a recommended

course of action as required by law, but rather had

included only a range of program alternatives, with

a high-bound and a low-bound.

In August, Senator John Melcher, chair of the

Senate subcommittee, read a white paper into the

Congressional Record outlining the subcommittee’s

concerns with the RPA documents, expressing

disappointment especially with the Program and the

Presidential Statement of Policy, and recommending

that Congress work with the President to amend the

1980 Statement of Policy. While generally embracing the high-bound Program alternative, the subcommittee stated that major problems with the RPA

documents made them of little practical use to

Congress. The white paper outlined the following

shortcomings:

●

●

●

●

●

future targets for action are not well-defined,

and there is no national focus;

the Program provides a range of action levels

for each program activity, avoiding the recommendation of a preferred Program as required

by the Act;

neither the low-bound nor the high-bound

alternative defines the expected outcome for

each resource in the 5 years ahead, the impact

on future targets, or the best judgment of the

professional land managers;

the Program needs to consider timber supplies

in a global context so that reasonable levels of

supply can be anticipated from foreign, industry, non-industrial, and Federal lands. Barring

this global examination, neither the effect of

U.S. supply and demand on world resources,

nor the appropriate timber goals for public

lands, given multiple use and sustained yield

constraints can be determined;

the Program fails to adequately differentiate

between capital and operational activities (64).
34 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

The white paper also expressed the subcommittee’s disappointment that the Program did not

adequately respond to the needs described in the

Assessment. While commending the Forest Service

for a “comprehensive and well prepared” Assessment, the white paper stated that, ‘‘with the possible

exception of the timber resource, the databases [sic]

used to develop Assessment information must be

improved across the board as the programs proposed

can only be as valid as the information available on

which they are built” (64). The subcommittee

expressed confidence that the land and resource

management plans prescribed by the National Forest

Management Act of 1976 would improve future

Assessments.

Despite Congress’ strong criticism of the 1980

Program and swift rejection and revision of the

Presidential Statement of Policy, actual annual

appropriations for 1981-85 closely approximated

those budget levels set forth in the 1980 Program’s

low-bound alternative, which Congress had soundly

repudiated. Although the budget requests reflected

program mixes that were contrary to congressionally

endorsed goals and objectives set forth in the revised

Statement of Policy, Congress systematically approved them with little or no changes or revisions in

the annual appropriations (84).

The 1985 RPA Documents

The 1985 RPA Program and Statement of Policy

were submitted to Congress nearly 11/2 years late,

and then only after the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy had

scheduled oversight hearings to review the Program.

Earlier hearings were held for public comment with

only an advance copy of the Program and a promise

from the Secretary that a complete Program and

Statement of Policy would be transmitted “very

soon” (134).

Like the 1980 Program, the 1985 Program included two alternative levels of funding for the

Forest Service-a high- and a low-bound. “The

pattern of the 1985 Program [was] much the same as

that of the 1980 Program except that initial funding

levels [were] below those in 1980 and generally

increased] at a slower rate . . . the low-bound

call[ed] for zero growth for all programs across the

board” (83). The 1985 Statement of Policy was a

brief and general statement that, instead of supporting a recommended Program alternative, again

embraced a ‘‘reasonable range of management

directions, outputs, costs, and goals for the longterm future, [which] . . . provides Congress and the

public with a valuable information base on which to

continue their informed participation in the decisions affecting our National Forests” (81).

Criticism of the 1985 RPA effort echoed much of

that which was heard in response to the 1980

documents. Although the Program and Statement of

Policy were submitted so late as to be virtually

useless to Congress for the purpose of framing the

budgets for fiscal years 1986 and 1987, Congress’

response to the 1985 RPA effort was tame compared

to its response in 1980. Even the failure of the 1985

Program to address issues or to contain a recommended Program did not cause Congress to revise

the Statement of Policy. While Congress showed

interest in gathering advice on how to improve the

process, it was once again clear that Congress could

make little practical use of the RPA Program to

shape forest policy and appropriate annual funds.

Meeting Congressional Needs and

Expectations

Experience with RPA has caused many observers

to question whether RPA can be of use to Congress

in the manner expected by the framers of the law.

According to Sample, RPA should be most useful

when there is not enough money to go around, but

the “RPA has never provided Congress with information adequate for making budget allocation decisions under constrained budget conditions’ (85).

One observer has suggested that past RPA documents have not been useful to Congress because they

have failed to adequately address current social,

economic, and environmental issues, while others

have questioned whether Congress “institutionally

could really handle long-range goals” (89). As

Congress readies itself to address the 1990 RPA

documents, it is worthwhile to examine some current

congressional concerns and needs with respect to the

RPA process.

Although the Program has consistently fallen

short of congressional expectations, the Assessment

has been said to have some value. Lyons and

Knowles wrote:

In general this document has provided a reasonable benchmark of the status of the Nation’s renewable natural resources. Discussions of most resources

in the Assessment document have been sufficiently

complete to give some indication of where, as a
Chapter Audiences and Players . 35

Nation, we stand. This is especially true for resources

associated with the National Forest System and, in

particular, for commodity resources on the forests.

Where the Assessment has failed, however, is to

provide a more complete picture of the forest and

rangeland resources on state and private lands and a

report on the status of nontimber resources. . . (58).

They fault the Program and explain that its lack of

utility to Congress is a function of a combination of

flaws. They noted four particular problems which

can be summarized as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Timing. None of the previous Programs have

been presented to Congress in time to guide

budget decisions for the first year of the

Program. Further, the RPA cycle is out of sync

with the political cycles of Congress and the

Administration. It is unlikely that a new

Administration will accept and implement a

program and Statement of Policy that were

developed by a prior Administration.l

Format. The “high-bound/low-bound” approach used in the 1980 and 1985 Programs

still fails to provide Congress with a clear,

professional recommendation for how the

forests should be managed. As the white paper

stressed in 1980, Congress is more likely to

respond to a recommended course of action, as

is required by RPA.

Continued lack of clear relevance of the

Program to the findings of the Assessment.

The Program should, at a minimum, enable

congressional observers and others to understand, in strategic terms, what long-range

resource problems or situations exist (or are

forecast) and what the agency recommends be

done to address the identified problems.

Continued failure of Program documents to

demonstrate how the activities of the National

Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry would function together to

achieve the goals and objectives of the Program. What is specifically lacking are statements of quantifiable goals and of the linkages

among Forest Service programs that might

indicate how each affects the other.

Lyons and Knowles (58) also assert that RPA has

been ineffective because the Program has been

unrelated to the President’s annual budget and

because the Forest Service’s Annual Report has

suffered from some major inadequacies in its

function of evaluating Program implementation.

These two problems attest not only to a lack of

commitment to the process by recent Administrations, but also demonstrates that Congress, by

accepting inadequate RPA materials, has not fulfilled its oversight responsibilities under the Act.

As an audience of RPA, Congress demands more

from the RPA documents to guide its budget and

policy decisions. On the other hand, as a key

participant in the RPA process, Congress must be

more committed to fulfilling its oversight responsibilities than it has been in the past.

THE FOREST SERVICE

With RPA, Congress elevated the stature and the

role of the Forest Service in national renewable

resources policymaking. Congress created a mechanism by which the Forest Service could map out its

missions, goals, and objectives in a national setting.

Although, the agency had been assessing resources

and planning activities since its beginning, RPA

gave legitimacy to long-term strategic planning and

management by establishing a formal framework

and procedure.

The Forest Service is the primary actor in the RPA

process and played an active role in the development

and passage of the Act. Its interpretation of the law

and its expectations of the process heavily influence

the nature of the documents as well as the interactions among the participants. How the agency

perceives its role and how it defines and identifies

RPA’s audiences significantly affect the utility of

the documents and the subsequent successes and

failures in implementation.

Forest Service expectations of RPA can perhaps

best be gleaned fromthe documents themselves—

the methods of analyses, the organization, and the

presentation. This task will be taken up in greater

detail in the following chapters on the RPA documents. The section below briefly examines agency

efforts to encourage and solicit outside professional

review of RPA and evaluates the effects these efforts

have had on the agency’s perceptions and expectations of the process.

l~s ~S ~p~~~~d ~ N. of tie fist bee RPA efforts: president Jimmy c~er was to implement tie 1975 Program and S@WX)K@ Of poky

developed under President Gerald Ford, while President Ronald Reagan was to implement the 1980 Program and Statement of Policy developed under

President Carter.
36 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Pre-RPA Experience

Although RPA may well be the most ambitious

long-range planning system ever employed by a

Federal agency, the Forest Service has long engaged

in a variety of assessment and long-term planning

efforts for the Nation’s renewable forest and rangeland resources. While some of these efforts were

mandated by Congress, many others were instigated

by the agency itself.

By 1928, Congress had vested in the Forest

Service the authorities to manage the National

Forest System, to establish cooperative assistance

programs of financial and technical assistance to

States and private landowners, and to engage in

forest and rangeland related research. In 1933, the

Forest Service completed a report entitled A National Plan for American Forestry (better known as

the Copeland Report) which included an extensive

inventory of forest lands and resources, a findings

section detailing the “forest problem’ in the United

States, and several short- and long-term recommendations for action. The Report was intended to

function as a “coordinated plan which [would]

insure all of the economic and social benefits which

[could] and should be derived from productive

forests by fully utilizing the forest land, and by

making all of its timber and other products and its

watershed, recreational, and other services available

in quantities adequate to meet national requirements” (144).

The Forest Service completed several studies,

surveys, and appraisals of the forest resources over

the next 26 years, though none matched the Copeland Report in detail and scope. In 1959, the

agency completed an extensive long-term plan

entitled Program for the National Forests, and in

1961, shortly after the passage of the Multiple-Use

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Kennedy Administration revised and expanded that plan in a

document entitled the Development Program for the

National Forests. Another multi-resource longrange plan developed before RPA was a draft Forest

Service plan entitled Environmental Program for

the Future, described in the 1972-73 Report of the

Chief (101).

RPA differs significantly from those earlier assessment and planning efforts in that it is defined by

statute rather than by the agency. It mandates a more

formal, systematic, and integrated planning process,

and it requires the agency to provide charnels for

public participation.

Expectations and Implementation

Although RPA originated in Congress rather than

in the Administration, the Forest Service played an

active role in its development and passage. Top

officials of the agency, including the Chief, supported the legislation, viewing it as providing much

needed legislative sanction for long-term planning.

“Once satisfied with its essential features and

organization, the agency actively pushed the [RPA

bill] within the administration by countering and

thus eroding OMB arguments against it” (54).

Congress clearly expected RPA to substantially

improve the Nation’s long-range resource planning

and policy. While Congress and the public had

participated to some extent in Forest Service planning before 1974, RPA expanded their roles in the

process, and therefore demanded more accountability on the part of the agency. It is unclear, however,

whether top agency officials viewed RPA as significantly changing the manner in which they had

traditionally developed long-range resource management objectives and plans. It is therefore useful

to examine the agency’s planning efforts since 1974

to discern whether its own expectations of RPA

approximate those of its audiences. This examination involves two issues. First, has the Forest Service

modified its performance in response to outside

review and criticism of the RPA process? And

second, do the documents themselves reflect any

changes in expectations?2

Reviewing the Process

The Forest Service assembled an RPA staff and

began to prepare the first RPA documents immediately following the enactment of the law. The agency

completed drafts of the frost Assessment and Program a year later, in August 1975 (54). Following

reviews by State and local governments, academics,

public and private interest groups and individuals,

and other Federal agencies, the Secretary transmit2~~ ~CCtiOn ~x~e~ the extent t. which me Forest Sewice h~ solicited ad responded to Congressiod and public participation and review. The

last section of this chapter explores public participation and its impact on planning in greater detail; chs. 6 through 9 evaluate the documents themselves

more closely.
Chapter Audiences and Players ● 3 7

ted the final documents to Congress by that December, as required. Although, this first round was

viewed by many as a “trial-run” (84), the Assessment and Program were subjected to intense scrutiny

almost immediately.

In addition to the GAO study discussed earlier,

RPA was the subject of a symposium sponsored by

the Forest Service and the University of California

at Berkeley, at Pajaro Dunes, California, in 1976.

The objectives of the symposium were “to encourage academic participation in constructive criticism

of the first Assessment and Program, so as to provide

the Forest Service with assistance in developing

future assessments and programs’ (103). In addition

to highlighting certain shortcomings in the Act,

symposium participants evaluated and critiqued the

1975 RPA documents, generally concluding that

“given the time constraints, the Forest Service did

a remarkable job . . . [although] a better job should

have been done’ (103). The symposium participants

concluded that the most significant weakness in the

1975 RPA effort was “the absence of an explicit

structure explaining the relations among the various

assessments of demands and the various programs

that resulted from those assessments” (103). They

suggested that what was needed was ‘‘a more

rigorous planning process that increases accountability by allowing the agency to retrace planning

decisions” (103).

Since 1976, the Forest Service has engaged in a

series of cooperative efforts with individuals and

organizations to review the RPA process. Perhaps

the most notable is the agency’s association with the

Conservation Foundation. Before completing the

1980 RPA Program, the Forest Service contracted

with the Conservation Foundation to hold a series of

educational and informational workshops on RPA

around the country for both the public and agency

staff, which eventually resulted in A Citizen’s Guide

to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act (107). As was true with the 1976

symposium, this study provided a probing and

comprehensive analysis of the RPA process, including a critique of the 1980 RPA Assessment and

Program. This contract ended in 1981, but the

Conservation Foundation has continued to actively

study and review the RPA process.

Other efforts to evaluate RPA have included The

RPA Process: Moving Along the Learning Curve,

sponsored by Duke University (93); Forests in

Demand: Conflicts and Solutions, sponsored by

Dartmouth University (46); and Redirecting the

RPA, sponsored by Yale University (13). These

workshops supplement the public participation provided for in the Act, and give the agency an

independent professional analysis of its performance

in meeting the expectations of various outside

interests. In the foreword to Forests in Demand,

then-Chief R. Max Peterson implied that the agency

relies on these outside analytical efforts to modify

the ways in which it plans under RPA when he

wrote, “This sort of informed discussion and

analytical thinking will enable us to improve our

forest resource planning in the decades ahead” (79).

Adjustments and Responses

Despite the numerous, extensive reviews of the

RPA process, many question whether the Forest

Service has adequately modified the process and the

documents in response to the needs and expectations

of its audiences. As discussed above, many congressional staff members and interest group representatives support the RPA as a concept but question its

utility. According to Shands (89), the Forest Service

has consistently failed to clearly identify its audiences and thus has failed to produce RPA documents

which respond adequately.

Some attribute the growing public indifference to

RPA to the perception that RPA planning has had

only a minimal impact on budgets and decisionmaking within the Forest Service. This perception may

well be an accurate one. A growing number of

interests groups have cited the widening gap between targets and budgets as evidence of the

Program’s irrelevancy to decisionmaking (89). According to Sample, similar perceptions of RPA exist

within the agency itself:

Beyond its impact in constraining the choice of

timber sale levels in forest planning, the RPA is

regarded by nearly all forest supervisors and district

rangers-the key line officers actually directing

resource management on the national forests—as

being of little or no assistance or relevance to their

program planning or daily decisionmaking responsibilities (85).

It is important to note that the agency solicited

internal feedback on the Draft 1990 RPA Program.

In 1989, the Chief sent a pamphlet to agency

employees asking them to review and comment on

the Draft; this request resulted in 469 employee

responses. The decision to solicit internal feedback
38 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

may have been prompted by the 1989 founding of

the Association of Forest Service Employees for

Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE), a group of more

than 1,000 employees concerned with the future

direction of agency management. Nonetheless, such

internal feedback may provide the kind of information needed to make RPA more relevant to agency

operations.

Since 1975, Congress and the public have also

criticized the agency for failing to tighten the

connection between the findings contained in the

Assessment and the recommendations put forth in

the Program. In spite of this criticism, and the Act’s

requirement that the Program must be based on the

Assessment, the Forest Service still seems to have a

different perception of the relationship between the

two documents. According to Thomas Mills, Director of the RPA staff, the Assessment and Program

have largely been separate efforts (65). And although the agency asserts that it is improving the

linkage between the two documents, the connection

between the Draft 1990 Program and the 1989

Assessment is not obvious.

To date, it seems that the agency has inadequately

met the needs of its audiences, indicating either that

outside expectations are too great, are unrealistic, or

simply differ substantially from those of the agency.

THE ADMINISTRATION

The Administration, through the Secretary of

Agriculture and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), is ultimately responsible for producing the RPA documents and for developing annual

Forest Service budget requests consistent with those

documents. Because the Forest Service has been

delegated the responsibility to develop the Assessment, Program, and Annual Report, the Secretary

and OMB should be viewed not only as players in

the process, but as audiences as well.

The Secretary is responsible for submitting the

Assessment and Program to the President, who in

turn submits them to Congress, along with a

Statement of Policy. But while the Secretary has the

authority to disapprove the materials prepared by the

agency and to revise them at will, it is unclear to

what extent the Secretary exercises this authority.

The Secretary has provided the agency with some

direction in the past, but it appears that this role has

been limited. Fedkiw has described the importance

of the Department in developing the 1980 Program

(28), but the Department’s influence in the 1975 and

1985 efforts is not well-documented. The RPA

documents appear to have been substantially a result

of Forest Service efforts.

On the other hand, OMB clearly plays an active

and major role in the RPA process. As chief architect

of the President’s annual budget requests, OMB is

responsible for coordinating programs and balancing spending priorities among all Federal agencies,

within overall fiscal constraints. In the context of

RPA, the Assessment, Program, and Annual Report

could supply sound justification for agency programs and provide sufficient information to meet the

President’s needs in writing the Statement of Policy

and OMB’s needs in framing annual budget requests.

Expectations

As discussed above, RPA was born largely from

Congress’ frustration with the Administration’s

short-sighted resource management policies and

inadequate budget requests. With this Act, Congress

intended to exert more control over the Forest

Service’s planning and budgeting processes, and to

establish a certain measure of Presidential accountability which had been lacking. The required Presidential Statement of Policy is to be based on the

Assessment and Program and to be used to frame

annual budget requests. Most importantly, in any

instance in which budget requests fail to meet the

established policies, the President is required to

explain publicly the reason(s) for requesting Congress to approve the lesser policies or smaller

programs than’ those presented in the Program and

Statement of Policy.

The Administration generally supported the purpose of the RPA legislation, but fervently opposed

those accountability provisions which it construed

as limiting ‘presidential flexibility and discretion in

preparing annual operating plans and attendant

budget requests” (145). In a letter to the House

Agriculture Committee, then-acting Secretary of

Agriculture Carroll Brunthaver wrote:

The regular appropriations process allows ample

opportunities and an orderly process for questioning

Presidential fiscal priorities and should continue to

be relied upon as the appropriate forum for handling

budget questions and issues (145).

In spite of the Secretary’s opposition, Congress

passed the legislation with the disputed language
Chapter Audiences and Players 39

intact; OMB promptly recommended that the President veto the legislation. While President Ford

expressed some concern over those provisions

relating to Presidential discretion, he signed RPA

into law stating that:

. . . the benefits of this legislation far outweigh any

potential drawbacks, and I am confident that the

Congress and the executive branch, working together, can and will manage, develop, and improve

our priceless natural legacy of forests and rangelands

(29).

Aside from its opposition to the accountability

provisions of RPA, OMB saw great promise in the

rest of the legislation. Having regarded previous

Forest Service national planning efforts as ‘no more

than program promotion devices lacking any real

analytical justification for the increased budgets that

were called for, ” OMB perceived that RPA documents could potentially provide the ‘‘detailed analytical bases needed to justify Forest Service funding

requests” (84).

Implementation

The Secretary and OMB played only minor roles,

if any at all, in the 1975 RPA process; the effort was

almost exclusively that of the Forest Service.

However, the Secretary and OMB took a more active

interest in the 1980 process, after Congress decided

to appropriate 85 percent of the recommended

Program level for 1978.

The Secretary viewed this funding approach as

inconsistent with the analytic underpinnings of

RPA, believing that neither Program development

nor annual budgeting could adequately be done

unless the Program decision process ‘‘was based on

increments of management effort on a resource-byresource basis . . . On the basis of the 1975 RPA

Program, which presented highly aggregated, multiple-use alternatives, the Department decisionmakers

were unable to comprehend and make informed

decisions among alternative levels and mixes of

resource outputs and the total costs for such alternatives” (28). While the Forest Service maintained

that its “multiple-use” approach would more likely

result in a management program that was more

consistent with its mandate and which could be

physically, economically, and environmentally implemented, the Department’s final decision was to

adopt the 1980 Program on a resource-by-resource

basis (28).

OMB also showed a keen interest in the 1980

RPA process. According to Fedkiw, OMB was

dissatisfied with the weak RPA analyses, and

concluded that there was a high degree of uncertainty in the demand and supply projections. OMB

therefore recommended that the 1980 Program

include a wider range of outputs than was suggested

by the Secretary and the agency, and instead of a

recommended Program as mandated by RPA, OMB

developed and advocated a high- and low-bound

range of options (as described in ch. 7) to retain the

Administration’s budget flexibility (28). Sample

(85) suggests that the high- and low-bounds resulted

from disagreements between the Forest Service,

trying to respond to the Assessment, and OMB,

rejecting the agency’s ambitious plans. Presenting

both views instead of one recommended Program

was the Administration’s compromise in the face of

congressional pressure to release the documents.

The extent to which the Secretary was involved in

the development of the 1985 RPA Program and

supplemental Assessment is not clear. What is

apparent, however, is that the Secretary withheld the

RPA documents from Congress for over a year and

a half after they were due; however, some observers

attribute this delay to objections by OMB (84).

OMB’s influence in the process was once again

apparent in the 1985 Program’s use of the highbound/low-bound approach. And once again, OMB

attempted to preserve flexibility in the annual budget

process for the Administration by including a wide

range of resource output levels in the recommended

Program.

Future Role

It seems apparent from these experiences that the

Administration, especially OMB, requires at least

two things of the RPA documents. First, it demands

that the documents provide clear and reasonable

analysis of projected output levels and budget needs

for each resource rather than on an aggregated,

multiple-use basis. Second, it seeks a wide-range of

viable alternatives, rather than a single recommended Program, so that it can respond flexibly to

a variety of fiscal conditions. Until the Forest

Service better meets these needs of the Administration, it is highly likely that the Secretary of the

Agriculture and OMB will continue to strongly

influence future RPA documents.
40 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

RPA documents could be substantially more

useful to OMB if the Forest Service improved its

methods of economic analysis (84). A lingering

feeling exists among OMB officials that the RPA

Program has “degenerated to little more than

another agency promotion device without adequate

analysis to support its budget recommendations’

(84). Sample cites two specific examples of the

Program’s analytical weaknesses. First, OMB believes that the Program fails to provide a straightforward marginal benefit/cost analysis of proposed

increases in funding, and that nearly the same

incremental benefits could be obtained at much

lower incremental cost for many Forest Service

activities (84). Second, OMB is critical of the

methods used by the Forest Service to impute dollar

values for nonpriced resources; specifically, prices

placed on nonpriced resources are not analytically

comparable to prices for market resources (84).

It is clearly within the Forest Service’s capacity to

improve its economic analyses in RPA. Presumably,

if it does so, OMB will rely more heavily on the

Program than it has in the past in developing the

annual budget. It is questionable, however, whether

the agency itself can meet the Administration’s

demand for flexibility in the budget process, without

violating the spirit and intent of the law, which

requires that the agency present a single recommended renewable resources Program.

THE PUBLIC

In creating RPA, Congress recognized the inherently political nature of long-term planning for lands

and resources. Before RPA, national level planning

was a less open process. The Forest Service typically

welcomed outside review and comment, but it was

not explicitly required to do so. RPA opened the

agency’s national planning process to public scrutiny and participation in two significant ways: first,

it established a congressional forum for Forest

Service policy and budgeting by providing a considerable oversight role for Congress; second, it mandated public participation in the agency’s national

planning process.

Although the Act does not include specific

standards and guidelines for public participation, it

requires that the Program be developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA generally establishes a host

of procedures by which a Federal agency solicits,

uses, and responds to public comment.

The following section examines the expectations

and role of the public in Forest Service planning and

policymaking at the national level, and considers

whether RPA, as implemented, has satisfied those

expectations. In addition, this section examines how

the Forest Service has used public input and whether

public participation has had any identifiable impact

on the RPA Programs. Finally, it addresses potential

roles for the public in future RPA efforts.

Who Are the Publics?

To understand the expectations of the “public,”

it is important to distinguish who the various publics

are. Several general labels are frequently used to

compare and contrast broad categories of publics:

users and non-users of resources; commodity and

amenity interests; business and non-business interests; conservationists and preservationists; industry

and environmentalists. Although these labels are

somewhat descriptive of the general points of view

of the various interest groups, they do not reveal the

diversity of objectives of the individual interests

composing those larger groups, nor do they illuminate how these varied interests overlap, compete, or

complement each other. This section will examine

two broad RPA interest groups-environmentalists

and business interests-and will identify some of the

individual interests that comprise each group.

Environmentalists

The environmental movement includes a multitude of individuals, groups, and associations representing a wide range of interests and dedicated to a

variety of purposes. Environmental groups are

generally concerned with the amenity resources and

values of forests and rangelands, such as wildlife,

outdoor recreation, streams and lakes, wilderness,

and scenery; they include backpackers, hunters and

anglers, birders, trail bikers, recreational vehicle

tourists, and so forth (91). While these groups are

loosely bound by a common interest in the amenity

resources, as opposed to commodity resources, their

objectives are diverse and often conflict with one

another. As Shands notes:

Some advocate preservation of wildland with

minimum management both for recreation use and to

provide ecological services-maintenance of water

and air quality, gene pools, and so forth. Others favor
Chapter Audiences and Players . 41

fairly active management to provide habitats for

huntable species. Some like roads through the

forests, others abhor them. . . Some see the forests

[and rangelands] primarily as a place for active

recreation, others prize them for existence values and

the ecological services they provide (91).

But despite some differences, individuals and

groups aligned with each of the above interests came

together in support of RPA as it was making its way

through Congress. Many of these groups shared the

same concerns: that there had been substantial and

disproportionate increases in the amount of timber

harvested in the past decade, and that the Forest

Service’s interpretation of its multiple-use mandate

was out-of-step with public values (92). Dan Poole,

of the Wildlife Management Institute, testified to the

Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Environment,

Soil Conservation and Forestry that:

[T]he central issue. . . is the urgent necessity to

achieve and maintain balance in the national forest

management program. Arguments over such issues

as clear cutting, log exports, and all the rest are

indicative of the current imbalance in the national

forest program (145).

Thomas Kimball, of the National Wildlife Federation, voiced support for RPA because its principles

were ‘‘environmentally sound,” and because it

enhances more “balanced multiple-use management of national forests” (145).

Members of the environmental community perceived RPA as providing a mechanism through

which they could engage in an open and continuous

dialog with the Forest Service. It represented a

legally mandated channel through which they could

express their concerns directly to those in charge of

managing the forest and rangeland resources. Most

importantly, RPA represented a comprehensive and

systematic planning approach that would force the

Forest Service to practice “more balanced” multiple-use and sustained-yield resource management.

Business Interests

There are several distinct interest groups that can

generally be described as “business interests.”

Again, while they share some common goals and

perspectives, it is important to keep in mind the

diversity of interests and objectives held by the

various groups in this category.

There at least four primary kinds of businesses

with an acute interest in Federal forest and rangeland

policy and planning-timber processing, recreation

businesses such as ski areas, ranching, and mining

(41). These businesses typically invest in relatively

long-lived assets and each is tied to a specific

location once it has made an investment. Although

some of the individuals engaged in the above

businesses do not actually use Federal lands or

resources, Federal policies often have important

implications for their business decisions. For example, recreation businesses operating exclusively on

private land must, directly or indirectly, compete

with those businesses operating on Federal land, and

thus have an interest in Federal resource management policy (41).

Business interests generally testified in favor of

RPA and supported the basic principles underlying

the legislation. Like the spokespersons from environmental interests, representatives from various

businesses perceived RPA as establishing a more

orderly, logical, and comprehensive framework for

resource planning and management. Representatives from the timber industry, probably the

most vocal business group to testify at congressional

hearings, saw RPA as a way to eliminate some of the

controversy generated from previous piecemeal

planning efforts. Perhaps most importantly, they

believed that RPA would expose the importance of

developing long-term forest and rangeland planning,

thereby encouraging Congress to increase Forest

Service funding to increase the development of the

national forests. Speaking on behalf of the National

Forest Products Association, John Hall testified:

We think [RPA] is a tremendous first step in

helping to develop the undeveloped potential of the

National Forests, not only for timber but for wildlife,

watershed, recreation, and other uses. . . [T]he separate consideration of each resource activity has

resulted in controversies and stress which could be

avoided with a coordinated plan (145).

Others from the timber industry also perceived

RPA as providing justification for increased investments in Forest Service programs, and especially in

the National Forest System lands. Bill Hagenstein,

of the Industrial Forestry Association, stated that

RPA would provide the Nation with a‘ ‘new national

forest outlook and program for the future” which

would recognize the potential of the national forests

to provide ‘‘more jobs, more timber, more grass,
42 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

more wildlife, more recreation, more water, more

support for local government” (145).

Business interests typically look to RPA to meet

at least four basic needs (41). First, they require a

certain degree of predictability: by establishing both

a short- and long-term direction, RPA could reduce

some of those uncertainties common to the marketplace. “Only in times of crisis do they expect that

government should change its course substantially’

(41). They also look to the Forest Service to work

with them to create a good business climate. This

involves providing channels through which business

can communicate their views to the government.

Third, they expect the Forest Service to provide

accurate, timely, and aggregated information that

can be used in making business decisions. And

finally, they believe the government should provide

them with relatively low-priced land and/or resources.

Both environmental and business interests saw

value in the planning procedures established by the

Act. RPA provided a forum for all publics to review

draft RPA documents and to communicate their

needs and concerns directly to the Forest Service.

Some interpreted the law as providing the public

with the opportunity to serve as a sort of consultant

to the agency. Each of the interest groups lauded

RPA for its potential to bring about a more orderly,

more logical, and longer-term planning process for

the Forest Service. Each seemed to believe that they

could promote and advance their particular interests

more effectively with a more coordinated system in

place.

RPA as Implemented: Meeting the Public’s

Expectations?

In 1982, Gene Bergoffen, director of the Forest

Service efforts for the 1975 Program, wrote that the

RPA process was in ‘‘critical danger of rapid

atrophy,’ and that the 1980 Program had fallen short

of expectations in two fundamental ways:

First, it has not become a tool for policy choices.

It does not provide a way of measuring the effects of

short-term resource actions on long-term trends in

forest outputs and related socioeconomic concerns.

Second, it does not serve as a basis for holding

accountable the decisionmakers in the Forest Service, the Administration, and the Congress (10).

In 1985, the Conservation Foundation conducted

a study to evaluate how useful the RPA documents

had been to the public-at-large and to Congress.

While most of the persons interviewed supported the

principles underlying the law, many expressed

frustration with the quality of the documents and

questioned RPA’s relevance to decisionmaking.

In 1986, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy held two oversight hearings on the 1985 RPA Program. The

subcommittee solicited testimony from a wide

variety of witnesses including representatives from

environmental groups, business interests, professional associations, and academia. Again, witnesses

generally supported the RPA process, but almost all

of them noted significant shortcomings in the 1985

RPA Program.

Mark Rey, of the National Forest Products Association, testified that the 1985 RPA Program failed

to address long-term resource needs and goals

effectively. “[T]he Program sacrifices many of the

Nation’s resource needs in favor of shorter term

budget or fiscal objectives” (82). Speaking on

behalf of the Society for Range Management, Peter

Jackson testified that the assessment of public and

private rangeland resources had been and continued

to be seriously underfunded and that as a result

planning for the range resource through RPA was

poor in comparison to planning for other renewable

resources. “For federal lands, revising priorities so

that basic resource values like soil, water, range and

wildlife habitat are in better balance with timber

production and mineral exploitation seems clearly

the most urgently needed change” (49).

Environmentalists also expressed concern that the

1985 RPA Program continued disproportionately to

favor some resources over others, and that the plan

still failed to address sufficiently long-term resource

conditions and needs. Speaking for The Wilderness

Society, Peter Kirby alleged that despite RPA, the

Forest Service’s interpretation of multiple-use continued to be flawed:

[T]he 1985 update of the RPA program continues

and even expands the dominant use of the national

forests for timber, mining, and grazing at the expense

of recreation, fish and wildlife, wilderness and

watershed. . . [A] very different program is required

if the national forests are to provide the benefits and

uses wanted by the American people in the future

(51).

Public sentiment today echoes those earlier criticisms, with calls either to make the process more
Chapter Audiences and Players ● 43

useful, or to do away with it. The number of groups

and individuals who participate in the RPA dialog

has substantially decreased since 1975. During the

100-day public comment period for the 1975 Draft

RPA Program, the Forest Service received 3,450

public comments, along with 77 petitions (102). In

1980, the agency received only 1,700 public comments, less than half the number received in 1975. In

1985 there was a slight increase, to 1,800 public

comments, but in 1990 public response sharply fell.

By October 3, 1989, when the period for public

comment closed, the Forest Service had received

only 250 comments on the Draft Program from

individuals (other than employees), interest groups,

and other agencies and officials (92).

According to the 1985 Conservation Foundation

survey, many felt that RPA simply required too

much time relative to its influence on Congress or

the Administration (89). It appears that this belief is

even more widespread today.

Forest Service Use of Public Participation

Congress intended that the public would play a

significant and meaningful role in the RPA planning

process, and required the Forest Service to establish

procedures guaranteeing interested members of the

public the opportunity to help shape the issues to be

addressed in the RPA documents and to review and

comment on each RPA draft Program. The public’s

disappointment with past RPA efforts poses questions of to what extent and how well the Forest

Service has used public participation in its national

planning process: does the agency perceive its

publics as mere reviewers of draft Program alternatives or as consultants to the process?

NEPA regulations require Federal agencies to

involve interested members of the public in the

process of “scoping.” Scoping is defined in the

regulations as ‘‘an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and

for identifying the significant issues related to a

proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). Notice of the

agency’s intent to engage in such a scoping process

are to be published in the Federal Register and shall

expressly invite participation by any interested

persons. In addition, the regulations require that

agencies actively solicit public participation

throughout the environmental impact statement

(EIS) process; the agency is required to:

(a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in

preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures,

and (b) provide public notice of NEPA-related

hearings, public meetings, and the availability of

environmental documents so as to inform those

persons and agencies who may be interested or

affected (40 CFR 1506.6).

NEPA contemplates that agencies will use public

input to help them identify important issues and

concerns and to assist them in shaping the agenda for

the proposed action or plan. The Forest Service has

indicated that public participation in the RPA

process should serve as an “early warning system”

of emerging conflicts and new values (92).

Since the first RPA effort in 1975, the Forest

Service has actively solicited public comment and

review. For each of the previous iterations, the

agency has distributed thousands of copies of draft

Programs and has conducted numerous public meetings nationwide. In addition, as discussed above, the

agency has co-sponsored and funded several workshops on RPA with various universities and private

organizations. Nevertheless, some critics of RPA

assert that Forest Service has yet to use public

participation in a manner consistent with the spirit

and intent of NEPA and RPA.

Between 1975 and 1985, “[t]he RPA process did

not serve as a forum for public deliberation and

policy. Rather, comments from groups and individuals alike were transformed into bureaucratic restatements of issues relating to intra-organization conflicts, e.g., timber versus wildlife, water versus

grazing, and so forth” (92). After having reviewed

the 1975 RPA Program and its treatment of “major

issues of public concern, ’ Shannon questioned

whether the list of 66 issues was either comprehensive or representative, and asserted that the agency

seemed to be deliberately avoiding more contentious

issues, such as clearcutting in the national forests

(92).

Shannon also criticized the agency’s analysis and

presentation of public comments in the RPA documents, and asserts that summaries of public comments are typically “disembodied from any real

social, political, cultural or historical context,”

leaving the reader with the impression that he “has

heard all this before . . . While the array of dissected

comments attests to the differences among those

concerned about the use of the [resources and their]

management, this process cannot be considered
44 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

political dialogue in any form” (92). Not only is it

difficult for agency officials to evaluate public

expectations and demands, but the various publics

cannot learn much about each other either. Another

critic asserts that instead of advancing the interests

of the various publics, RPA has transformed the

various views into polarizing issues and has thereby

discouraged meaningful interaction among the various interests (20).

Congress intended that the public would significantly influence the strategic direction of the Forest

Service by actively participating in scoping and in

discussion of important issues. The role that the

public plays in defining and developing national

renewable resources policy in the future will largely

be determined by future efforts by the Forest Service

to solicit, analyze, and incorporate public concerns

into the RPA process.

The Forest Service appears to have made a serious

effort to be more responsive to public participation

in the 1990 RPA effort. The Draft 1990 Program

includes a chapter on proposed agency roles as well

as a discussion of contemporary resource issues. The

proposed future roles appear to be largely derived

from broad issues that surfaced during the development of the 1985 Program. The discussion of issues

directly responds to recurring public concerns.

In a speech to the National Audubon Society in

1989, George Leonard, Associate Chief of the Forest

Service, announced:

The Forest Service is offering an outstretched

hand. I invite you to join us in exploring some new

ways of doing business. . . I am willing to ask our

people to make a greater effort to open up their

deliberative and decisionmaking processes so that

others can feel like they own apiece of the solution,

rather than feeling that they must stand off to the side

and throw stones (92).

The extent to which the agency meets this challenge

will largely influence the utility of future RPA

documents to both Congress and the public.
Chapter 5

RPA as a Strategic Planning Process

Strategic planning sets the basic direction and

focus of an organization. It is an attempt to define

missions, goals, and objectives, and to develop

broadly the means by which best to achieve them.

Proponents of strategic planning emphasize its value

in long-range thinking. The Forest Service has

described the 1990 RPA Program as a strategic plan,

and its effort to think and plan more strategically is

evident in its more extensive treatment of issues,

discussion of agency roles, and inclusion of proposed initiatives. The agency has tried to provide the

Administration and Congress with a clearer picture

of the current and expected future state of the

Nation’s forests and rangelands, of current and

future needs, and of the recommended course of

action. However, some observers have expressed

skepticism over whether the Final 1990 RPA Program will be a strategic plan which can be implemented, while others have questioned whether any

Federal agency can develop an effective strategic

planning system at all.

This chapter discusses the nature of strategic

planning and its strengths and weaknesses, examines

business and State experiences, and then addresses

these specific questions:

1.

2.

Does RPA authorize or require the Forest

Service to engage in formal strategic planning?

What are the limitations to effective strategic

planning within the Forest Service? Notwithstanding those constraints, is strategic planning an efficient means by which to accomplish the purposes of RPA?

NATURE OF STRATEGIC

PLANNING

Companies and other organizations in the private

and public sectors choose to develop formal strategic planning systems for a variety of reasons. (See

box 5-A.) The section on principles and objectives

of strategic planning is followed by a discussion of

prerequisites for strategic planning and its potential

problems and limitations.

Principles and Objectives

While most frequently associated with corporate

or business planning, strategic planning involves

general principles applicable to the public sector as

well (boxes 5-B and 5-C). Experience with formal

strategic planning may be somewhat limited at the

Federal level, but increased use of strategic planning

by Federal agencies could serve the public interest

by enhancing long-range policies that can adapt to

change, and by reducing the risks associated with

short-sighted, incremental decisionmaking (97).

Strategic planning in any organization is a function of top management, not solely of generic

planners. It is a process that enables an organization

Box 5-A-Common Reasons for Using

Formal Strategic Planning

. To provide a road map to show where the

[organization] is going and how to get there.

. To change the direction of the company [or

organization].

. To develop situation analyses of opportunities

and threats to provide better awareness of [an

organization’s] potential in light of its strengths

and weaknesses.

. To concentrate resources on important things and

to allocate assets to areas of best potential.

. To provide awareness of the changing environment in order to adapt better to it.

. To develop a sense of security among managers

coming from abetter understanding of changing

environment and [the organization’s] ability to

adapt to it.

● To develop better information for top managers

to make better decisions.

. To develop a frame of reference for budgets and

short-range operating plans.

● To develop better internal coordination of activities.

. To gain control of operations.

SOURCE: G.A. Steiner, Strategic Planning (New York NY:

The Free Press, 1979).

4 5 –
46 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Box 5-B—Principles of Strategic Planning

. The highest social purpose, or mission, of an organization provides the framework for strategic planning and

management.

. Strategic planning defines measurable goals and objectives, each of which are variable rather than constant.

. Strategic planning deals with a long-run of time.

. Strategic planning applies to a clear enough field of action that plans can be linked to performance.

. Strategic planning focuses on a few fundamental essential forces, objectives, and actions.

. Strategic planning is a line management function for which training in strategic analysis and participative skills

is usually necessary.

. Participative strategy development, a prerequisite for successful strategy execution, often requires cultural change

at the upper levels of organization and their management units.

. A unit’s concept of the business it is in must be formulated in the context of its social, economic, and political

setting.

● Strategic business [or management] units need to be defined so that one manager can control the key variables

essential to the execution of the strategic plan.

. Well-managed organizations must be both centralized and decentralized--centralized so that strategies and

control systems can be integrated, and decentralized so that units can act and be treated individually.

. Organizational structure should be reevaluated, and revised if necessary, to ensure that the structure supports the

execution of the strategic plan.

. Strategic planning includes measuring the results of decisions through coordinated and systematic feedback.

. Strategic planning and internal control systems must be integrated in a consistent whole if strategies are to be

executed effectively.

. Action plans for achieving program objectives are the key to implementing and monitoring strategy. They require

extensive lower-level participation and special leadership skills. Action plans are complete when underlying

assumptions, allocation of responsibilities, time and resource requirements, risks, and likely responses have been

made explicit.

● Over time, strategic planning done well becomes a mind set, a style, and a set of techniques for running an

organization —not something more to do but a better way of doing what has always had to be done.

SOURCES: D.H. Gray, “The Uses and Misuses of Strategic Planning,” Harvard Business Review 86(l): 89-97 1986. P.F. Drucker,

Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1974). L.C. Irland, RPA as Strategic Thinking:

Background, Comparative Experiences, and Some Implications, OTA background paper, Feb. 21, 1990.

— .

to chart its direction by identifying short- and In his treatise on management, Peter Drucker

long-term goals and objectives and to develop the defines strategic planning as:

most appropriate means to accomplish those ends.

Before determining where it wants to go, when it

wants to get there, and how best to get there, an

organization must clearly define its general mission

or purpose (59). The mission statement expresses an

institution’s general purpose or reason for being;

goals and objectives should be defined in accordance with the mission and therefore necessarily

follow it. Rather than attempting to make future is

. . . the continuous process of making present entrepreneurial [risk taking] decisions systematically

and with the greatest knowledge of their futurity;

organizing systematically the efforts needed to carry

out these decisions; and measuring the results of

these decisions through organized, systematic feedback (26).

Explicit in this definition is that strategic planning

not a discrete act, but rather an ongoing process

decisions today, strategic planning designs a desired that links planning with implementation, feedback,

future, then identfies ways of bringing it about (97). and control. Strategic plain-kg does not necessarily

The likely consequences of today’s decisions are require an organization to change its existing direcevaluated by systematically identifying opportuni- tion, but it encourages innovation and allows a more

ties and threats that lie ahead. systematic approach for evaluating whether changes
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process ● 47

Box 5-C—What Strategic Planning Is Not

●

●

●

●

●

●

Strategic planning does not make future decisions and does not set multi-year budgets.

Strategic planning is not an attempt to blueprint

the future.

Strategic planning is not necessarily the preparation of massive, detailed, and interrelated sets

of plans.

Strategic planning is not an effort to replace

managerial intuition and judgment.

Strategic planning is not a simple aggregation of

functional plans or an extrapolation of current

budgets.

Strategic planning is not synonymous with scientific, rational decisionmaking.

SOURCE: G.A. Steiner, Strategic Planning (New York NY:

The Free Press, 1979).

in direction are desirable. Thus, the process must be

sufficiently flexible to absorb and integrate new

information and to respond to changing and/or

unanticipated conditions (97). Further, the plans

should articulate a few specific and measurable

goals and direct courses of action so that the plans

can be linked to performance.

Strategic planning is an important centralizing

agent—it helps an organization take a comprehensive look at its situation and plot an overall direction

by examining its individual units collectively. Large

organizations must be centralized so that strategies

and control systems can be integrated. They must

also be decentralized so that individual units can act

and be treated with appropriate differentiation (40).

Also, strategic planning is a subjective and

political process that is not based solely on scientific

rationality. Better technical data and more thorough

analysis are important elements of strategic planning, because they provide a more accurate and

agreed-upon picture of what is, and thus a common

foundation for the debate on what should be.

However, better data do not automatically lead to

improved planning and management. Strategic planning involves value judgments and its solutions are

more correctly thought of in terms of better or worse,

rather than true or false (2).

Prerequisites of Effective Strategic Planning

A strategic plan must be sensitive to the particulars of organizational structure and purpose. Before

developing a strategic plan (especially in the public

sector), top managers must examine and weigh those

institutional, organizational, and political constraints and limitations, peculiar to their organizations, which might thwart effective planning and

implementation if not detected and addressed up

front (97). Plotting a desired future requires some

understanding of the present situation. In strategic

planning, therefore, it is imperative that sufficient

time and energy be devoted to collecting and

assessing the kinds of data needed to evaluate the

present situation in terms of resources and capabilities. Failure to devote adequate attention to this

present situation analysis, or “situation audit,” can

lead to a finished plan of little or no practical use as

a guide for present and future action.

Strategic planning also presumes the ability “to

narrow the agenda’ ‘—to subdivide the whole into

manageable pieces (40, 48). In businesses or organizations with multiple purposes, this means an ability

to divide the whole into several business or management units (or “strategy centers”), and to develop a

strategy for each unit. Each unit can then address

relatively clear and well-defined problems or objectives. Although there is a need for an overall

direction, organizations which attempt to assault all

of their problems comprehensively and simultaneously (or try to accomplish all of their objectives at

once) frequently find that the approach is unmanageable (40, 48). Thus, a strategic plan must set

priorities for addressing problems and accomplishing objectives.

Controlling agendas and maintaining focus on

given tasks are also crucial to successful strategic

planning (48). Longer-term control is inherently

more difficult in the public sector because of

changing administrations and agendas, shifting political pressures, and changing perceptions of the

public demands and priorities.

If strategic planning is to be successful, planners

and managers must be trained in strategic analysis

and participative skills (40). Strategic planning often

begins as a separate function with a separate staff. If

done well, it explains external factors to managers

and evolves into strategic management ‘‘which

treats strategicthinking as a pervasive aspect of
48 l Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

running [an organization] and regards strategic

planning as an instrument around which all other

control systems—budgeting, information, compensation, organization-an be integrated” (40).

Sound strategic planning demands the intimate

involvement of line managers and a strong commitment to the process by the top officers. Balanced

interplay between officers and management is critical to successful plan implementation (40, 97). In a

well-managed organization, ‘‘top management

knows the direction; those below know the terrain”

(40).

Finally, the progress of strategic planning must be

carefully monitored, using performance indicators

that clearly measure the effectiveness of the plan.

“Planning and doing are separate parts of the same

job; they are not separate jobs” (97). Failure to

effectively monitor progress prevents collecting the

feedback needed to evaluate the strategic decisions

and adapting the plan to new information and

changing conditions.

Problems in Strategic Planning

Strategic plans that break down or are withdrawn

frequently suffer from faulty design, preparation, or

implementation. Others fail because of a lack of

commitment by top officers or managers of an

organization or from a variety of other internal or

external factors. Gray (40) examines a variety of

experiences with strategic planning in the corporate

sector, and identifies six factors which most commonly cause difficulty in plan implementation:l

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

vaguely formulated goals;

inadequate information bases for action planning;

poor preparation of line managers;

faulty definition of business units;

badly coordinated business unit plans; and

inadequate linkage with other control systems.

Gray also suggests some workable solutions to

each of these problems. The first problem, vague

goals, is probably the most common obstacle to

effective strategic planning. Legion are the stories of

planning that went awry because directions imposed

from above were too vague and provided little or no

real guidance to those responsible for implementation. For example, broad, imprecise goals such as

‘‘improve asset conditions’ or ‘optimize balance of

resource uses” are subject to vastly different interpretations, and give no guidance to unit chiefs on

how to deal with “cross impacts and tradeoffs” (40).

Conceivably, such a broad goal could lead two

managers to pursue diametrically opposed actions.

Goals should be specified in more concrete and

concise terms, the success of which could be

measurable in quantity, quality, and time.

One way to move beyond broad, general goals and

into actual strategy is through “action detailing”

(40). “Action detailing” involves developing specific, detailed plans that set forth options and

opportunities for accomplishing the various objectives and is frequently considered a part of operational, rather than strategic planning. However, after

the strategic direction has been determined, organizations could use action detailing as a way to further

test a strategy’s feasibility, and to refine the strategic

plan, if necessary. Once an organization has determined its basic “strategic thrusts, ” it can then use

task forces to weigh options for reaching particular

objectives and to recommend actions necessary to

accomplish an advocated option. Gray describes this

process as follows:

The team’s job is to explain and defend what it

considers the best way of bringing this option to life.

Each team must deal with time frame, risk analysis,

allocation of responsibility, resource requirements,

organization obstacles, and monitoring devices. In

mapping out and testing strategic options, managers

begin to think explicitly about assumptions, alternatives, contingencies, and what competitive reactions

to expect. Failure to come to grips with these details

can undermine the execution of the strategy (40).

Some assert that the process of developing the

strategic plan can be as valuable as the plan itself.

Strategic planning forces managers to think and act

in accordance to the organization’s missions and

goals-strategic planning is a thought process and if

done well develops into strategic management (97).

Another common problem, poorly prepared line

managers, results because top officers often do not

realize that strategic planning is a management

function. Line managers (or unit heads) who are not

prepared to think and plan strategically frequently

perceive plans as a burden imposed on them, rather

than as “abetter way of doing things. ” Top officers

lh tis essay, Gay ex~es experiences with smtegic planning in the corporate world. The preparation and implementation problems he dkWSes

ure not peculiar to the business world, and his prescriptions for overcoming these common problems are valuable to planners in the public sector.
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process . 49

must assure that a good climate for planning is

established, and thus it is essential that line managers are involved in strategy development and are

trained how to think and plan strategically for their

particular management units (97).

Frequently, an organization begins the strategic

planning process without questioning its existing

structure to determine whether the units are appropriate “centers for strategy. ” Organizational structure should not be taken for granted, and organizations must reevaluate existing boundaries prior to

formal planning. 2 “The main purpose of organization (including both structure and process) is to

support the development and execution of strategy.

Thus organization should come after strategic planning” (40).

In an organization with multiple management

units or strategy centers, it is essential that the

individual unit strategies conform to and promote

the organization’s overall strategy. Also, since an

organization is inevitably constrained somewhat by

budgets and other limiting factors that may prevent

it from fulfilling the demands of each unit plan, it is

important to aggregate the individual plans to

resolve conflicts between them and to establish

priorities for action. This process of aggregation is

known as the reconciliation stage, or the “face-off.”

This stage involves “queuing, down sizing, redirection, and recycling,” so that the unit plans can fit

into the overall plan.

A final common problem is the poor linkage of

strategic plans with other control system, such as

budgets, monitoring systems, and incentive and

reward systems (40). These controls should be

designed to guide behavior and performance; if not

in harmony with the strategic plan, they can slow

down or even prevent successful implementation.

For instance, managers are typically rewarded with

bonuses and/or promotions tied to specific outputs,

programs, or accomplishments. If these targets do

not conform to the strategic direction, the incentive

to adhere to the strategy is greatly reduced (97).

Likewise, budgets are frequently produced independent of the strategic plan, leading to inconsistent

emphases and priorities. Spending which is inconsistent with the strategy can easily derail long-term

planning.

LESSONS FROM BUSINESS AND

STATE GOVERNMENT

Strategic planning has been practiced by corporations since the early 1950s and became popular with

State governments in the 1970s. A look at experiences with strategic planning in business and in State

governments can provide meaningful lessons to the

Forest Service in its efforts to think and plan

strategically.

Business Experience With Strategic Planning

Formal modern strategic planning in the business

sector began in the 1950s when large companies,

especially corporations involved in many businesses, began to develop “long-range planning

systems’ (97). Strategic planning gradually evolved

and spread to smaller companies around the United

States and the world, and became especially popular

in the 1970s. While many companies have reported

problems with or failure of strategic planning, the

process continues to be a valuable planning system

for many corporations today (40).

As described above, failures with strategic planning have resulted less from inherent weaknesses

than from poor development and implementation of

the plans. Some companies established separate

strategic planning departments which, instead of

providing necessary support and training to line

managers, tended to usurp management’s planning

responsibilities. In several instances, failure has

been blamed on management’s unwillingness to

follow through with tough decisions and risky

resource commitments. Once planning became bureaucratized, management confidence in elaborate

plans and analyses often declined (4, 59, 73). In

other cases, companies have continued to confuse

budgeting with strategic planning; although budgeting is an element of planning, a multi-year budget is

no substitute for a comprehensive, long-range plan

(59, 72). Despite shortcomings in preparation and

frustration in implementation, however, most corporations that have tried strategic planning express a

firm commitment to the concept and continue to

practice it in some form today (40).

In the private sector, corporate planning is considered the “umbrella” for the more detailed planning

Wray (40) explains that some existing business units “may owe their boundaries to many factors that make them inappropriate to use as a basis for

strategic planning: geography, administrative convenience, . . . or old ideas about centralization and decentralization.”
50 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

in which a corporation engages. Generally, the

corporate plan is:

. . . a statement concerning the long-term destiny of

a company. The destiny of any company, whatever

its size, will normally depend upon two or three or

four absolutely huge decisions. Corporate planning

consists of identifying what those decisions are for

any given company and getting them right (59).

As a top management planning tool, strategic

planning is often the most critical component of the

corporate plan. It is at this stage that the company

engages in a‘ ‘situation audit’ to answer some basic,

but essential questions, such as: “What business are

we in? What business should we be in? What is our

distinctive competence? In what areas are we the

weakest?” (59, 97).

A basic tool in business strategic thinking is the

WOTS UP analysis-a short, focused review of a

firm’s weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and

strengths underlying planning (97). This analytical

approach is strategic because it focuses on the

dominant internal and external forces affecting an

organization’s prospects for survival and growth.

Many companies consider this analysis to be so

essential that they begin the planning process with it

(97). Corporations with multiple units typically

undertake a WOTS UP analysis for each unit.

A strategic plan should be written with sufficient

clarity to guide operations. Once the plan has been

completed and implementation has begun, corporations typically engage in an annual review, or

recycling process to evaluate whether the plan is

being implemented as conceived, whether the plan

is still viable, and whether changes need to be made.

According to Steiner (97), shortly after formal

strategic planning was developed in the 1950s, many

companies failed to review or revise their plans until

long after the plans were obsolete. Since then,

however, the awareness of the importance of monitoring performance and implementation has been

growing, and most companies today systematically

review their plans.

Why should the Forest Service design a planning

system based on the corporate model, when its

purposes and objectives are fundamentally different

from those of private companies? Lessons from

strategic planning in the corporate sector are not

valuable as specific prescriptions for action for a

public agency. Rather, they provide valuable lessons

in strategic thinking that are generic in nature and

can be applied to organizations not motivated

primarily by financial profit. Lessons from strategic

planning in business can be adapted by the Forest

Service (as well as other public agencies), if the

similarities and dissimilarities between the private

and public sectors are recognized and the significance of those differences is carefully evaluated (72,

97). (See box 5-D.)

Strategic Planning by State Governments3

Since the late 1970s, there has been a strong

interest in strategic thinking and planning in State

governments. This interest has been fostered in part

by large-scale economic dislocations in the Frost

Belt States, as well as by the oil boom-and-bust in

the Western States. In many instances cities and

States began discovering the need for longer-term

and more comprehensive planning only after all of

the most serious adverse economic consequences

had already occurred; ‘‘the incremental approach to

annual planning and budgeting [had] failed to

surface the critical issues, despite the recognizable

portents of decline’ (72). These changes stimulated

public concerns, raised many public policy issues,

and uncovered an intellectual and political void that

elected officials and senior staff rushed to fill. In a

few instances, governors from successful business

backgrounds were attracted to the idea of strategies

in public policy.

An interest in strategic thinking was also fostered

by a growing unease at the high cost and uncertain

results of past ad hoc, smorgasbord schemes designed to attract new jobs. A body of literature arose,

narrowly focused on economic development planning, with statistical compendia and feasibility

studies, but without the overall vision of what should

be done. Many were just lists of programs.

Many States found that their offices charged with

policy development had the capacity to plan strategically. The increased use of ‘‘blue ribbon commissions’ to elevate issues and focus public and

political attention led many governors to establish

task forces to study economic conditions and to

recommend development strategies. In contrast with

the laundry list of inducements many States inherited from the 1950s and 1960s, new initiatives were

3~ section is taken from Irland (4S).
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process ● 51

Box 5-D—Key Similarities and Dissimilarities Between the Public and Private Sectors

Key similarities

. Managers in both sectors recognize that strategic planning is an integral part of good management. Business and

agency managers/planners are concerned about future impacts on their organizations, and must spend time

looking ahead to identify critical issues.

. Business and agency managers feel an increasing need to engage in long-term thinking and planning.

Key dissimilarities

● Politics and public concerns dominate the government sector, whereas economic factors are central to business

decisions.

. Individuals and interest groups exert significant power in the decisionmaking process of government agencies

(pluralism), leading to a more open and fragmented decisionmaking process than in the private sector.

● Missions, goals, and objectives have typically been expressed in broad terms for government agencies, whereas

strategic planning is facilitated when they are more specifically defined, as is more common in the private sector.

. In business, decisionmaking criteria are usually specific economic measures, whereas in government the three

most common decisionmaking criteria are: a) the public interest (a vague and shifting concept, conceptually

useful, but operationally difficult); b) political expediency (i.e., will it have sufficient public support?); and c)

benefit-cost analysis (fiscal efficiency).

. In the public sector, the chain of command is frequently not as clear as in the private sector, and total control of

implementation mechanisms (e.g., budgets) is frequently lacking.

SOURCE: G.A. Steiner, Strategic Planning (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1979).

increasingly oriented to measures designed to im- required were generic in nature and did not require

prove the-operation of capital markets and to support

the development and application of new technologies.

Several States identified target industries to receive special support. This concept emerged from

frustration with the weak results from spreading

limited financial assistance across the State’s economy. Geographic targeting was already well established in many traditional assistance programs, such

as Federal programs aimed at rural, low-income,

and/or high unemployment areas.

Finally, as economic development thinking and

policy analysis improved during the late 1970s and

1980s, it became clear that generic weaknesses in

State or regional economies, such as inadequate

infrastructure or lack of skilled labor, were important long-term obstacles to development. Several

low-income States made dramatic efforts to upgrade

the quality of their education systems. Others made

major commitments to eliminating backlogs in

infrastructure construction and maintenance. The

many efforts at strategy development kept coming

back to these basics as the important areas in which

the State government could promote and support

economic growth. From a political standpoint, this

new emphasis on the significance of “getting the

basics right” had a major advantage: the moves

the choosing of winning firms, industries, or regions.

These efforts in strategic planning have been only

qualified successes, however. Commissions and

strategies do not end the political partisanship that

major initiatives frequently encounter. Several

sound initiatives, strongly supported by governors,

have failed legislatively or in referenda on key

financial proposals. State development strategies

have encountered implementation difficulties, as

well. Unwieldy coordinating committees smother

proposals as unresolved conflicts reemerge. Multiagency “packaging” efforts struggle with practical

and political difficulties. In some instances, economic development has proven to be nearly as

resistant to strategic planning as it was previously to

untargeted programs of loans and grants. Also,

States still frequently fail to distinguish long-range

planning from budgeting. “Budgeting has been the

principle vehicle for management innovation in

State government, and at the same time perhaps the

greatest barrier to innovation” (72). All too often

annual, incremental budgeting overrules plans, making planning either less productive or completely

ineffective (72).

Despite setbacks in implementation of strategic

plans at the State level, the process of developing

strategy as a means to make policy has been
52 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

beneficial to many States. The strategic planning

movement, taken across all States, has elevated

awareness of the complexity of economic development and the dependence of local areas on national

and international developments. Strategic planning

has enhanced awareness of the critical importance of

sound foundations: infrastructure, trained workers,

flexible markets, and entrepreneurship in economic

development. Strategic planning has reinforced

skepticism as to the efficacy of previous smorgasbord approaches to attracting businesses by loading

their plates with inducements and subsidies. Finally,

the strategic planning experience has led most

observers to acknowledge the limitations of industrial targeting strategies.

The hoped-for benefits of strategic planning are

sometimes difficult to measure in terms of the stated

objectives of job creation, diversification, and stabilization. But thinking strategically has led State

officials to reach and publicize important and basic

insights about their State economies. Many instances exist in which broad strategic analyses

created the information base and climate of opinion

that enabled States to make useful policy moves that

had previously been considered politically impossible. In sum, the benefits of strategic planning have

been in the unanticipated lessons learned, in the

involvement of wider groups in thinking about

economic policy, and in forging alliances capable of

making policy changes.

Lessons learned from States’ experience with

strategic planning should provide encouragement to

the Forest Service to continue its long-term planning

efforts through RPA, and to work towards forging

programs which are more strategic in nature. Examples from the States show that the process of

strategic planning can sometimes be valuable in and

of itself, because it allows a State (or an agency) to

see itself in the context of the national and international arenas. Because the Forest Service is a public

agency, it is necessarily constrained by some of the

same political and institutional limitations faced by

State planners; politics and budgets can effectively

override plans long before implementation. But

where strategic planning at the State level has

generally been driven by the governor’s office, only

to falter from the lack of legislative embrace,

Congress has provided the Forest Service with

legislative sanction for long-range strategic planning through RPA. This statutory ‘‘license’ to

engage in a long-term planning process is an

invaluable justification for thinkin“ g and planning

strategically.

There is a growing awareness in the public sector

that long-term planning is an integral part of good

management (97). Despite this awareness, annual

incremental budgeting, not long-range planning, is

still the ‘‘preeminent management tool and executive decisionmaking process in the public sector”

(72). Since executive agencies must necessarily

respond to changing administrations and agendas,

agency managers rarely have the realistic capacity to

plan independently for the long term; seldom does a

new administration want to be tied to the policies

and priorities of its predecessor. Nonetheless, sound

strategic thinking can provide a firm foundation for

setting direction that can be adapted to differing

political views. Perhaps most importantly, if the

Federal Government is to engage in strategic planning at all, there must be some real commitment

from the “top” (i.e., the Administration and Congress) to do so.

RPA AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

RPA as a Strategic Planning Statute

RPA maybe the most ambitious Federal planning

statute ever enacted by Congress. The Act directs the

Forest Service to collect, analyze, and evaluate vast

amounts of information on: resource quantity, quality, and outputs; the interrelationships of renewable

resources; present and future supplies and demands;

and a host of other social, economic, and political

factors affecting land and resource use, ownership,

and management. RPA then requires that the Forest

Service use this comprehensive Assessment as a

basis for developing the recommended RPA Program, charting short- and long-term goals and

directions for Forest Service activities. The President is required to transmit these documents to

Congress together with a Statement of Policy, that is

to be used to guide the formulation of annual budget

requests. The Act also requires the Secretary to

prepare an Annual Report informing Congress of its

progress in implementing the RPA Program and

accomplishing policy objectives.

Since RPA was enacted in 1974, much discussion

has focused on the nature of the RPA process and its

potential to shape responsible, far-sighted resource

policy. Many saw RPA’s chief virtue as providing

Congress with a greater oversight role in resource

policy as well as establishing an orderly means by
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process ● 53

which the Forest Service could present to the

Administration and Congress a clearer picture of its

annual budget needs and priorities. Others stressed

the Act’s potential as the agency’s long-range

goal-oriented planning tool: the RPA process, by

providing insight into future demands and supplies

of resources and by examining a range of alternatives for action, could provide for more efficient and

balanced uses of the Nation’s resources. Still others

interpreted RPA’s main strength as directing the

Forest Service to engage in policy analysis by

examining particular contemporary problems, developing alternative ways of addressing and correcting those problems, and presenting their findings to

the Administration and Congress.

Despite establishing extensive standards and

guidelines on procedure, Congress did not clearly

specify whether it expected the RPA process to serve

primarily as a budget guide, as policy analysis, or as

a strategic planning system. These different objectives for RPA compete for limited time and money,

and failure to distinguish them may lead to a product

or process that does not serve any function very well.

Budget Guide?

A primary impetus behind the development and

passage of RPA was a widespread belief in Congress

that planning for and management of the Nation’s

forests and rangelands was too fragmented and

short-sighted, and that long-term objectives and

goals either did not exist or were obscured by

shorter-term objectives and recurring budget limitations. Sponsors of the legislation believed that the

Administration’s budget requests were consistently

inadequate and unresponsive to growing demands

on the resources and that work backlogs were

increasing. To correct this, they sought to reform the

budget process by requiring a more open planning

process and by reasserting more congressional

control over Forest Service budget and policy (145).

Upon delivering the conference report to the Senate,

Senator Humphrey explained, “As the initiator of

this renewable resource reform legislation, one of

my goals was to assist in strengthening the linkage

of goal setting and budget performance’ (145).

Congress expected that the RPA Program would

strengthen this linkage through a clear presentation

of a set of short-and long-term goals, objectives, and

priorities for Forest Service activities. The President

would then use the Program to write the Statement

of Policy, which in turn would be used to guide the

budget.

Congress envisioned a flexible process whereby

new data would be collected on a continuous basis,

with policy and budgets adjusted as necessary to

accommodate and reflect new information, changing conditions, and changing priorities. Congress

did not direct the Program to be a 5 year budget nor

did it intend to force Presidential commitment to a

5 year budget; the Program was designed to guide

annual budget decisions, not dictate them. It is

equally important to note that improving the linkage

between budgets and goals was only one of several

motivations Congress had in passing RPA.

Policy Analysis?

Some argue that it is simply too difficult for a

government agency to engage successfully in strategic planning, and recommend that planning efforts

under RPA emphasize policy analysis instead.

Planning and analysis are two related but distinct

disciplines, and some suggest that efforts by an

organization to plan comprehensively for the longterm can impede its ability to engage in “more

useful and practical” policy analysis. “A common

model for [policy analysis] is to define a problem,

select criteria for evaluating it, lay out alternatives,

predict and value outcomes, and recommend a

course of action” (53). The two approaches are

distinguished by their viewpoints: policy analysis

tends to strive “for understanding of the present

through consideration of policies other than those in

place”; whereas planning, as a forward looking

‘‘scheme of action,’ places more emphasis on

decisionmaking than on understanding (53). Policy

analysis focuses on finding solutions to particular

policy issues or problems, typically deals with the

short-term, and usually addresses simpler problems

(3). Policy analysis generally places less importance

on design and emphasizes instead analysis and

comparison of alternatives (3). Strategic planning,

on the other hand, involves establishing broader

goals and charting the means to accomplish those

goals (12). Planning generally deals with the longterm, typically involves complex multi-sectoral

problems with a large measure of uncertainty, and

has traditionally emphasized design of solutions and

innovation (3).

Leman (53) asserts that RPA, as an exercise in

long-range planning, has been too rigid, and recommends that the agency discard formal planning in
54 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

favor of “more flexible and rational” policy analysis. He argues that the agency has sacrificed

thorough and penetrating analysis by its attempts to

plan comprehensively. ‘‘Another barrier to analysis

in the RPA as so far conducted has been the

insistence that each alternative include policy questions that are present in several regions. The problem

is that because of the diversity of the National

Forests, the key issue in a region may not be present

in many, or any other regions” (53). He also blames

RPA’s ineffectiveness on the Program’s tendency to

‘‘sidestep’ some of the most controversial issues

facing the agency, and suggests that more focused

analytical efforts on specific activities could deal

more effectively with touchy issues (53).

Other critics have also questioned RPA’s value as

a strategic planning tool, asserting that a host of

political and institutional limitations, such as limited

budgetary control, constrain the agency’s ability to

plan strategically. They typically suggest that problem-solving through policy analysis would be both

more feasible and more practical. RPA could serve

as a “distant early warning system” helping the

agency to spot future problems and issues which

might warrant special attention by itself, Congress,

or the private sector (12). Once the agency identified

likely problems, it could establish priorities for

dealing with those problems according to their

proximity and likely consequences.

Most of the above criticism of RPA (e.g., failure

to address significant issues, lack of regional differentiation) focuses on shortcomings of previous

agency planning efforts rather than on the strategic

planning model itself. Strategic planning done well

provides a set of guiding principles and priorities as

well as a framework on which to confront issues and

base future operations. Such direction setting is

generally missing from policy analysis models.

“The focus on specific issues or programs, . . . and

the absence of a rigorous process hardly qualify

policy analysis to meet the pressing need for

governments to set priorities and to make painful

choices among broad courses of action” (72). The

RPA as policy analysis alone may well prevent the

Forest Service from responding to Congress’ express desire for better, more integrated long-range

management of the Nation’s forest and rangeland

resources.

Box 5-E—Strategic Elements in RPA

Assessment

● Strategic planning of the desired future direction requires definition of the organization’s

present situation (Present Situation Analysis)

● Strategic planning frequently includes a

WOTS UP analysis (Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, and Strengths Underlying Planning).

. Action planning depends on adequate information bases.

Program

. Strategic planning deals with a long time

period, where goals and objectives are variables, and can be revised or modified.

. The strategic plan provides a forum for defining missions, goals, and objectives and provides broad direction (i.e., recommended

course of action) on the best means to achieve

those ends.

. Unit plans (individual agency programs)

should be integrated with the strategic whole.

Statement of Policy

● Top-level commitment to the plan is essential.

. Budget process should be directly linked to the

plan. Missions and goals are variables and can

be revised or modified.

Annual Report

. Monitoring is needed to evaluate performance

and feasibility; feedback should be organized

and systematic.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1990.

Strategic Planning Process?

It is apparent that Congress intended that RPA

result in more than a budget guide or a tool for policy

analysis. The language of the Act clearly reflects

Congress’ intent for a long-range renewable resources planning system. Although the framers did

not use the term strategic planning per se, the

requirements of the Act closely parallel basic

principles contained in strategic planning models.

The four documents required-the renewable resources Assessment, the renewable resources Program, the Presidential Statement of Policy, and the

Annual Report-when taken together, provide the

frameworkfor a strategic planning system (box 5-E).

Furthermore, the Forest Service has interpreted the

Act to require strategic planning, and has expressly

dubbed the 1990 RPA Program as its “strategic

plan. ’
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process . 55

The Assessment provides the information base

and the present situation analysis which are critical

starting points to effective strategic planning. The

strategic value of the Assessment lies especially in

its intended comprehensiveness, treatment of the

interrelationships of agency units or programs, and

analysis of issues and other external forces which

influence agency decisionmaking and direction setting. It parallels the WOTS UP analysis used in

strategic planning by the private sector, forcing the

agency to take a close and systematic look at where

it is now, ’ and ‘where it can go. ” The Assessment

provides the agency with sufficient information to

see itself in both the national and international

context. If done well, the process of preparing and

updating the Assessment can provide valuable

insights into internal strengths and weaknesses, and

can serve as a catalyst for innovation and change.

The RPA Program is the strategic plan itself. It is

intended to be a short- and long-term course of

action—to cover the 5-year period immediately

following its release as well as the subsequent 4

decades. It is to include the definition of goals and

objectives and a discussion of priorities, and to

provide the general framework needed to guide

operations and the direction on how to address

important issues. Ideally, it should be crafted with

simplicity and clarity so that performance can be

measured against it.

As RPA is written, the Program could serve one

of two strategic functions. First, by including a series

of alternative courses of actions or initiatives, the

Program could function as a choice document for

decisionmakers in the Administration and Congress.

Rather than setting forth a recommended plan, it

could present several feasible alternative courses of

action, each with a different emphasis or balance. If

the Administration embraced one of these alternatives in its Statement of Policy, then the Program

could serve as the strategic plan for the chosen

direction. Alternatively, and probably more reflective of Congress’ intent, the Program could function

as a decision document. In this case, the Forest

Service would develop and present to Congress one

recommended Program which reflected its professional view of the proper strategic direction for the

agency. This professional view would be tempered

by public desires for natural resources, and by

broader public concerns, such as controlling Federal

spending. Successful implementation of the chosen

plan would then largely depend on commitment to

the plan from both branches of government through

the appropriations process.

Regardless of which strategic function is chosen,

effective strategic planning requires that the toplevel officers of an organization participate in the

planning process and be firmly committed to implementing the plan. RPA’s inclusion of a Presidential

Statement of Policy represents Congress’ effort to

obtain top-level Administration commitment to the

plan and contemplates a commensurate level of

involvement and commitment from itself as well.

Also, strategic planning will not be effective

unless plans are directly linked to key control

systems. Control systems, such as budgets, should

be adjusted as necessary so that they are consistent

with and promote the goals and objectives set forth

in the strategic plan. All too often, the priorities

which emerge from the budget process are significantly different from those established in the planning process. Congress intended that RPA would

lead to greater consistency between planning and

appropriations. In order to secure a greater commitment from the Administration to improving this

linkage between plans and budgets, RPA requires

the President to publicly explain how and why the

budget requests deviate from the direction set in the

program and Statement of Policy. As previously

discussed, RPA does not mandate the formulation of

a 5-year budget; not only would such a commitment

be difficult to secure politically, it is not appropriate

for strategic planning. Rather than making future

policy today, strategic planning evaluates the future

impact of present decisions and provides guidance

for future policy and spending decisions. RPA is

consistent with this strategic principle, because it

contemplates that each Program inform and guide

the annual budget process rather than mandate

specific spending levels.

Finally, in a strategic planning system, monitoring is essential. There must be a direct connection

between plans and actions. As intended in the

statute, the Annual Report was to ensure that this

link is made and maintained. The Annual Report

could provide the agency, the Administration, and

Congress with sufficient information to answer

several questions: is the Program still feasible? is the

Program being implemented as conceived? are

annual budgets (and other control systems) consistent with the program’s objectives? what adjust-
56 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

ments in the Program and/or in its implementation

are needed?

RPA as a Strategic Planning System:

Potential and Limitations

RPA provides legislative sanction for strategic

planning within the Forest Service and establishes a

statutory framework sufficient to drive such a

system. Done well, the RPA Program can provide a

clear strategic direction and vision for the future, not

solely in terms of outputs but also in terms of

resource conditions. The Program should set forth

priorities and provide the Administration and Congress with information needed to reflect these

priorities in annual appropriations, regardless of the

agency’s budget level. The Program could also

effectively serve as a conceptual guide for day-today decisionmaking within the agency. The Annual

Report could then be used to gauge progress in

implementation and to alert the Administration and

Congress to new priorities, changing conditions, and

emerging issues.

However, while the strategic planning model may

be sound in theory, its principles are often difficult

to apply in practice. Faulty preparation, inadequate

implementation, and lack of commitment to the

process are frequently cited as the leading causes of

problems or failure with strategic planning. However, such problems can usually be reduced or

avoided, if precautions are taken.

While it is essential for the Forest Service to

anticipate and address those potential problems

common to corporate planning, it is of special

importance that the agency closely examine and

evaluate institutional constraints peculiar to planning in the public sector. Some have argued that the

RPA process has failed to produce effective strategic

plans, because a host of organizational and political

pressures impede effective and innovative long-term

planning within the Forest Service (12, 23, 53).

Some suggest that unless some basic changes are

made either legislatively or administratively, RPA

simply cannot function effectively as a strategic

planning system.

Decision Criteria

Government planners must examine and understand the basic differences between private and

public sector entities before engaging in strategic

planning (72, 97). (See box 5-D.) First, business

goals and objectives are primarily motivated by

financial considerations, and planning success is

largely measured and reported in financial terms. On

the other hand, political demands dominate public

sector programs and activities. While economic

efficiency is an important concern, a host of other

dynamic social and political factors influence the

policymaking process. Therefore, success of public

strategic planning can rarely be measured solely in

monetary returns.

RPA requires the Forest Service to consider

benefits and costs in the planning process, but not to

be controlled by them. For example, execution of the

laws is strongly influenced by the agenda of the

particular Administration and by various interest

groups and individuals, whose interests are not

necessarily satisfied by simply achieving high economic returns. Since the Forest Service is formally

required to include public participation in the

process, success of agency decisions and plans is at

least related to the degree of public support. Thus,

the criteria for decisionmaking within the Forest

Service are generally more vague and more subjective than those used in the private sector, making

strategic planning more difficult and timeconsuming. Nonetheless, the dual measures of

improved efficiency and public acceptance do provide reasonable criteria for successful strategic

planning in the public sector.

Missions, Goals, and Objectives

Missions, goals, and objectives for government

agencies tend to be expressed in broad terms, again

making strategic planning more difficult (box 5-F).

This is understandable since the ultimate mission of

any public agency is to serve the public interest,

which rarely lends itself to a narrow or precise

definition. However, unless there is an effort by

policymakers, inside and outside of the agency, to

define more concretely how the public interest might

best be served in a given context, agency managers

will have little guidance on how to implement the

plans. This is especially important in the Forest

Service where important goals and objectives may

conflict with one another. The mandate of multipleuse and sustained-yield provides only the most

general direction, without any guidelines on how to

resolve conflicts, to determine trade-offs, or to set

output levels. There must be some effort in the

planning stage to articulate goals and objectives and

to set clear priorities. The regional foresters, forest
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process . 57

Box 5-F—Missions, Goals, Objectives

Strategic planning requires an organization to define its mission, goals, and objectives. Although closely

related, and often used interchangeably, these are distinct concepts. The definitions below illustrate these

distinctions as commonly used in strategic planning. Some organizations use different words; what is important is

that, once terms are applied to a particular definition, they are used consistently throughout an organization (97).

Mission: The chief function or purpose of an organization. The mission typically is expressed in a short,

general statement and often is not directly measurable. A mission guides the development of goals and objectives.

Goal: A condition or state to be brought about through a course of action. Goals are typically expressed

broadly, but are typically measurable in quantity and/or quality for a specified time period or in terms of a

deadline. Goals should conform to an organization’s mission and should guide the development of objectives.

Objective: Something toward which effort is directed. Objectives are usually defined in specific task

and time terms, and must be directly measurable. Objectives should be set according to the goals of an

organization.

Below are examples of missions, goals, and objectives in the context of Forest Service strategic planning, based

on the initiatives contained in the Draft 1990 RPA Program:

Forest Service Mission: “Caring for the land and serving people. ’ (This mission statement is defined in more

depth through three enabling statutes which prescribe Forest Service authorities and responsibilities: the

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978;

and the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.)

Goal I: Increase the level of outdoor recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands by X percent

within the next 4 decades, and maintain that higher level.

Objective IA: Eliminate all deferred maintenance on recreation facilities and trails by 2000.

Objective IB: Fully implement the challenge cost-sharing program designed to create partnerships with

recreation customers by 2000.

Goal II: Increase population levels of critical wildlife and fish species by at least X percent within the next

4 decades, and maintain healthy populations of each of those species.

Objective 11A: Accomplish all salmon and steelhead habitat restoration plans by 2000.

Objective IIB: Complete recovery plans for all current threatened and endangered species by 2000.

supervisors, and district rangers cannot be expected defining goals and objectives with sufficient clarity

to effectively resolve local and regional conflicts

without such guidance.

The current Forest Service mission--caring for

the land and serving people--by itself is too broad

to be usefu; in decisionmaking. In past RPA

programs, the Forest Service has failed to translate

this mission into clear and measurable goals and

objectives. In the Draft 1990 RPA Program, the

Forest Service has attempted to provide clearer

direction through the discussion of issues, roles, and

initiatives. However, as discussed in more detail in

chapter 7, this treatment of issues falls short of

providing strategic guidance to those responsible for

implementation. If RPA is to serve as a strategic

planning system, in which activities are more

closely integrated and implementation is closely

linked to the plan, agency policymakers must devote

more attention to addressing timely issues by

to guide managers at all levels.

While clear goals and objectives are needed to

provide a conceptual guide for decisionmakers

throughout the agency, a strategic plan should be

sensitive to regional differences. Some critics assert

that past RPA planning has been overly centralized

and that the process has consequently not elicited

meaningful participation and support from local

managers or local publics (85). Strategic planning

contemplates that organizations should be centralized so that strategies and controls can be integrated,

yet decentralized so that components can act individually and be treated with appropriate differentiation. Input from field managers and staff, and

information from the individual national forest plans

should provide the agency planners with sufficient

information to assure that an appropriate degree of

decentralization is maintained.
58 ● Forest Service planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Control of the Process

A third major difference between public and

private sector strategic planning is the amount of

control an organization has over its planning process. As a mechanism for developing goals, options,

and a broad course of action, strategic planning

presumes that a single decisionmaker (or a small

group) will act on the recommendations and control

the resources needed to implement the plans (48,

97). Corporate strategic planning is generally the

product of top officers and managers, and usually

takes place behind closed doors. Part of the strength

of strategic planning in the private sector is the

proprietary nature of the process.

This control over the planning process is lacking

in Federal management of renewable resources.

While the Forest Service, as the primary actor in the

RPA process, prepares the Assessment, Program,

and Annual Report, the Secretary of Agriculture is

ultimately responsible, and thus has the authority to

revise or modify the documents. OMB also plays a

role in developing the recommended RPA Program

and the President is officially responsible for the

Statement of Policy.

The Forest Service does not completely control its

budget. Administration and congressional control of

the Forest Service budget limits the agency’s ability

to control the resources needed to implement the

plan’s recommendations. Thus, the plans require a

strong commitment from the Administration and

Congress, if they are to be successfully implemented. Also, because the agency lacks total control

over its budget, the plans necessarily take more time

to develop, and are more vulnerable to outside

influences than is generally true in the private sector.

By law the RPA process is also open to public

participation and review, making the planning process necessarily even more fragmented and timeconsuming. This does not suggest that because

planning is more fragmented and time-consuming, it

is not feasible or desirable. If the agency uses public

participation effectively, it could produce a plan

which responds to the ‘‘public interest,” and which

has a high degree of public commitment and support.

Finally, the Forest Service shares management

responsibilities over some renewable resources with

other Federal and State agencies. For example,

States, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, have primary authority over fish and

wildlife in national forests, the Environmental Protection Agency exercises jurisdiction over air and

water quality, and the Department of the Interior has

jurisdiction over hard rock minerals and oil and gas

on all Federal lands. Because the Forest Service

shares resource management authority with other

Federal agencies, it has limited jurisdiction to fully

implement and control resource plans.

Organizational Maintenance

Part of effective strategic planning is a reevaluation of the organizational structure and a willingness to change the structure to conform to the

strategy if necessary. As discussed earlier, organizational structure should be consistent with the strategy, and support its development and execution.

Therefore, decisions on organization should follow

decisions on the strategic direction (40). However,

Federal agencies tend to be especially resistant to

changes in organizational structure, and some use

planning as a means to justify the status quo rather

than as a mechanism for exploring alternative

approaches or for setting strategic direction:

Because all units seek to protect their present roles

in the organization and to build expanding roles in

influencing the future, planning becomes a vehicle to

‘‘sell’ staff programs and to obtain additional

visibility and influence within the organization.

Significant reductions in any traditional area of

emphasis can be achieved only at a substantial

internal cost to the agency (23).

RPA directs that the Assessment include a description of the three branches of the Forest Service-research, cooperative assistance, and land

management; of their interrelationships; and of the

relationship of each of them to public and private

activities. The Act also requires that the Program

include a “discussion of priorities for accomplishment of inventoried Program opportunities. ’ Implicit in these requirements is that with each RPA

effort, the agency will reexamine and reevaluate its

organizational structure and make any changes

necessary to execute the recommended Program. If

RPA is to function as an effective strategic plan, the

agency must be willing to reevaluate the existing

balance of funding and emphasis among its three

branches.
Chapter 5--RPA as a Strategic Planning Process ● 59

CONCLUSIONS

Strategic planning is a systematic process that

enables an organization to develop along-term plan

to guide present and future management decisions.

It begins by assessing the present situation and

evaluating internal strengths and weaknesses as well

as external threats and opportunities. Strategic

planning designs a future by defining missions,

goals, and objectives and by developing the general

approach to action. Goals and objectives are set

according to the overriding mission and should be

considered as variables rather than constants. Done

well, strategic planning helps managers predict the

likely consequences of present decisions and establishes clear guidelines on which to premise future

decisions. Also, strategic plarnning is a fluid process;

it provides a mechanism for continuously monitoring implementation and for revising plans as conditions change or as new information is collected.

Organizations adopt strategic planning systems

for a variety of reasons—to change the direction or

emphasis; to adapt more quickly to a changing

environment; to develop a better frame of reference

for budget decisions; to assist top managers in

making better decisions. It is a particularly useful

tool for large organizations with multiple units,

because it helps to coordinate the activities of the

various units, ensuring that each promotes the

general direction of the organization as a whole.

Although the term ‘‘strategic planning’ does not

appear in the wording of the Act, RPA clearly directs

the Forest Service to engage in a long-term planning

process modeled after the principles of strategic

planning. Most problems experienced with strategic

planning in business and in State governments have

resulted from poor preparation and/or implementation rather from deficiencies in the planning model

itself. The inherent limitations of an open process

and the lack of control over significant inputs

complicates the Forest Service’s task. However,

concerns about the long-term conditions of renewable resources have grown since RPA was enacted,

especially in the global context. Furthermore, efforts

to restrain the burgeoning Federal debt could increase the potentially “penny-wise, pound-foolish”

budget-driven decisions that concerned Senator

Humphrey and his colleagues. Thus, the need for

strategic planning for the Nation’s renewable resources may even be greater now than it was in 1974.

Past RPA efforts have fallen short of effective

strategic planning, causing many to question

whether RPA can function as a strategic planning

system. However, many of the flaws appear to have

resulted not from poor direction in the Act, but rather

from the agency’s interpretation and implementation of the Act and from insufficient commitment to

the process by the Administration and Congress. To

plan strategically, the Forest Service must carefully

and critically address those political, organizational,

and contextual limitations which impede successful

planning. Because the agency lacks total control

over the process, however, strategic planning can

only be successful if the Administration, Congress,

and the public become more actively involved in and

committed to the RPA planning process.
Chapter 6

The RPA Assessment

RPA requires the Secretary of Agriculture,

through the Forest Service, to prepare a Renewable

Resource Assessment. RPA specifies the Assessment shall include the following (see appendix for

the full text of the Act):

1.

2.

3.

4.

an analysis of present and anticipated uses,

demand for and supply of the renewable

resources, and pertinent supply and demand

and price trends, considering the international

resource situation;

an inventory of present and potential renewable resources, and an evaluation of opportunities for improving their yield of tangible and

intangible goods and services, with estimates

of investment costs and direct and indirect

returns to the Federal Government;

a description of Forest Service programs and

responsibilities in research, cooperative programs and management of the National Forest

System, and their relationship to public and

private activities; and

a discussion of important policy considerations, laws, regulations, and other factors

expected to affect significantly the use, ownership, and management of forests and rangelands.

The Act further directs the Secretary of Agriculture

‘‘to make and keep current a comprehensive survey

and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and range lands of the United

States . . .“ [sec. 3(6)].

This directive calls for information that fits well

into the strategic planning process described in

chapter 5. The analysis of use, inventory of resources, and survey of conditions describe the

current situation, a prerequisite of effective strategic

planning. Furthermore, the analysis of trends, evaluation of opportunities, and description of programs

is comparable to the WOTS UP analysis (weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and strengths underlying planning) used in strategic planning by businesses. Having such data and analysis does not

guarantee effective planning, but lacking it will

probably prevent effective planning.

The first RPA Assessment was due on December

31, 1975, with an update due in 1979 and subsequent

Assessments due every 10 years after that. In

addition, the Forest Service updated the 1979

Assessment in 1984 to contribute to the 1985 RPA

Program. Most reviewers commend the Assessment

efforts, but note limitations and weaknesses in the

process or the documents. For example, the Assessment has been described as ‘‘a reasonable benchmark of the status of the Nation’s renewable natural

resources but which] . . . has failed to provide a

complete picture. . . “ (58). Some environmental

groups disagree with the predictions of shortages for

all resources. Further, the Assessment “has become

so predictable in its conclusions that anyone who

read the last one already knows what the next one

will say” (84). Shands (89) describes the 1984

Supplement as ‘‘shorter and more focused’ than the

previous full Assessments, calling it “an excellent

document” and praising its treatment of imminent

resource shortages.

This chapter examines how well the Assessments

meet the legal requirements and strategic planning

intent of RPA. The first section describes and

evaluates the resource data used in the 1989 Assessment, focusing on the adequacy of the resource

inventories in describing the current resource situation. The next section discusses the economic data

and analyses that project future threats and opportunities. This is followed by a description of the

international resource context. The chapter concludes with an analysis of cooperative assistance and

research needs identified in the Assessment, and the

agency’s strengths and weaknesses for responding to

projected threats and opportunities.

RESOURCE DATA

RPA requires information on resource conditions

and trends because Congress was concerned that

some resources were not being adequately managed

and protected. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield

Act of 1960 directs management of renewable

resources at a high level of sustainable output

-61–
62 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

“without impairment of the productivity of the

land.” Congress enacted RPA because of concerns

that short-range budget decisions were shortchanging long-range resource needs. The Assessment was intended, in part, to describe resource

conditions and trends periodically so that Congress

could know if long-range resource needs were being

met and if resource outputs were sustainable.

Determinations of resource supply and sustainable output have generated a considerable amount of

controversy (124). In 1979, the Committee of

Scientists (21) warned that “In many cases, inventory data are too fragmentary or insufficiently

detailed to allow firm judgments in developing

management programs of the complexity demanded

by RPA/NFMA. In other cases, data on certain

organisms, resources, or management effects have

simply never been gathered. ” Several critics have

questioned the validity of the databases used in the

Assessment (23, 24, 25, 82). Criticism of data has

not only come from outside reviewers but Forest

Service personnel as well. A Forest Service review

team evaluating the 1979 Assessment found “almost unanimous agreement by respondents that

input data was not accurate, data was arbitrarily

changed, valid updates to data were not known, and

control over data was lost during processing [sic]”

(53). In 1980, the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee

on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry

called for an across-the-board improvement of all

databases used to develop the Assessment (64).

The 1989 RPA Assessment (111) is a short,

general document supported by several more detailed reports on each of the major resources. In

analyzing the more detailed reports on renewable

resources it is important to ask how much information is available on resource quality and quantity;

what is the quality of the information; and what are

the measured outputs of the resource. Resources

evaluated include range forage, timber, water, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. Recreation, unlike the

other assessment categories, is an activity rather than

a renewable resource and requires different kinds of

inventory data and management concepts than does

planning for renewable resources (21). Thus, while

the Forest Service pairs recreation with wilderness

in the Assessment, they are treated separately in this

report. Similarly, although the Forest Service discusses wildlife and fish in the same report, these two

resources are sufficiently different to warrant separate documents. OTA, however, has not separated its

discussion of these resources into separate headings

because of the limited amount of information on fish

resources in the Assessment.

The most useful inventory of a resource would be

based on: 1) a data set that provides information on

resource quantity, quality, and outputs; and 2)

replicable, direct measurements rather than indirect

measurements or professional judgment alone.

When a direct measure of a resource is not available,

a variable measure or an indirect measure must be

used to evaluate the quantity and quality of a

resource. (See box 6-A for descriptions of types of

measures.) For example, direct measurement of

wildlife populations is difficult because of their

mobility. Variable measures, compiled from a variety of sources, may also pose a problem for some

resources because of inconsistent data collection

among Federal and State agencies. The next alternative for measuring resource quantity and quality is

an indirect measure. For example, the amount of

suitable habitat can sometimes be used to derive a

wildlife population estimate.

For some resources, the output (e.g., wildlife

harvest) is the principal measure of the resource.

This measure is important for users and managers,

but is usually a poor measure of resource quantity

and quality. The assumption behind this measurethat increased output (harvest) reflects greater quantity or higher quality-may not be valid, because

outputs can be increased, at least temporarily, by

exceeding sustainable use levels. Without more

direct measures, trends in the resource base cannot

be determined and the sustainability of the output

level is questionable.

When logical indirect measures are not available,

planners may resort to narrative descriptions of

predicted change and professional judgment to

estimate resource conditions. For example, planners

may report that some area has been placed under

improved resource management, implicitly assuming that the resource is improving because of the

increased management attention. Furthermore, professional judgments often are not reliable for consistent, replicable data. Narrative descriptions and

professional judgments can be useful if they contain

specific information or analysis. As with output

measures, however, usually little can be determined

about the current quantity or quality of a resource,

trends in the resource base, or the sustainability of

current output levels.
Chapter 6--The RPA Assessment ● 63

Box 6-A—Resource Data Measures

The purpose of data collection is to provide

accurate, replicable information on resource quantity, quality, and outputs. The following categories

are useful for evaluating the resource data collected,

listed in descending order of desirability:

Direct Measure—Data for assessing a resource

based on direct measurements. An example is the

number, size, and species of trees in a forest. Data

include information from censuses and systematic

samples of flora and fauna to assess population

trends as accurately and precisely as possible.

Variable Measure—Data for assessing a resource based on estimates. These data may come

from a wide variety of sources that have collected

data indifferent ways or from a combination of field

inventory data mixed with professional judgment.

An example is the consolidation of acreage estimates of wetlands in each State.

Indirect Measure—Data for an indirect estimate

of a resource, based on a correlated attribute of the

resource. An example is the area of vegetative cover

types as an indirect measure of area of specific

wildlife species habitat.

Output Measure—Data on resource outputs or

use often used to supplement other estimates for an

indirect measurement of resource quantity and

quality. An example is the number of animals

harvested as a measure of the size of a wildlife

population.

Descriptivel/Professional Judgment-information on resource quality, quantity, or outputs that is

not based on systematic data collection. An example is suggesting low population levels for redcockaded woodpeckers (a federally-listed endangered species) in a forest that has not been censused

for woodpeckers.

Recreation

As noted above, recreation stands apart from the

assessments of renewable resources because recreation is an activity-comparable to grazing, birdwatching, or timber harvesting-rather than a resource, like forage, birds, or trees. Quality of the

recreational experience varies with individuals and

interest groups, and must often be determined by

subjective measures, such as personal perceptions.

Some recreational activities that are facility-based,

such as camping and downhill skiing, have closer

parallels with renewable resources because the

facilities can be evaluated objectively as a resource

rather than subjectively as an activity. Nonetheless,

recreation planning often requires different kinds of

data than does planning for renewable resources.

The Recreation Assessment (112) divides the

discussion of recreational activities into three categories: land, water, and snow and ice. Land recreation activities are described using acres of developed

sites, roaded and partially developed areas, and

extensive undeveloped areas. Water recreation activities are described using measures for partially

developed water resources (acres of national rivers,

lakeshores, and seashores) and developed water

resources (swimming areas, beaches, boating, marinas, and swimming pools). The land and water

recreation sections also include information on the

wilderness resource, which is discussed later in this

report. Snow and ice recreation activities are described using trails, roads, and cross-country and

downhill ski facilities, although snowmobile use is

essentially ignored.

All of these measures are either indirect or output

measures for the amount of recreation activity

available. They are not direct measures because the

amount of recreational activity available depends on

many variables, some of which cannot be quantified.

For example, the Recreation Assessment states

recreation ‘is limited only by our capacity to invent

new ways to have fun” (112). Recreation supplies

can be invented, for instance, by converting an

empty swimming pool to a skateboarding site or by

using cliff edges for hang gliding. Physical measures

of the land or water are said to “identify as much

about the supply of recreation as the quantity of

paints reveals about the supply of art” (112). The

Recreation Assessment acknowledges the unique

characteristics of recreation and its intangible nature, listing standardized data and improved assessment methods as ways to increase recreation benefits. The 1989 Assessment uses available measures

to make generalizations about the status of and

future trends in recreation, and identifies potential

supply shortfalls that warrant attention.

Range Forage Resources

The quantity and quality of range forage resources

are described in terms of area of rangelands,

ecological status, and resource value ratings. Outputs for range forage are described using animal unit

months (AUMS), defined as the amount of forage
64 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

required to sustain one cow plus one calf for one

month. The diverse outputs of rangelands are

described in the Range Assessment (119), and

include forage for domestic and wild herbivores,

firewood and specialty wood products, seed sources,

habitat for threatened and endangered species, and

open space and scenic value. Despite the amount of

information provided, the Range Assessment has

serious shortcomings as an assessment of the quantity and quality of forage resources.

Rangeland Area and Outputs

The Range Assessment describes in detail the

difficulty of quantifying the national production of

forage and of linking the area of rangeland and

timberland to forage production and consumption

(119). Total rangelands are estimated at 770 million

acres, or 34 percent of the total land base of the

United States.l As an indirect measure, these land

use data may provide a useful base for working

toward forage production estimates, but they are not

directly useful for assessing status of range forage

resources. Furthermore, the rangeland base is broken

down only regionally, and with virtually no landowner information.

The Range Assessment also uses the output

measure AUMs to estimate productivity. The conceptual weakness of this measure of resource conditions is compounded by incomplete data on the acres

of forests and rangelands that are actually grazed by

livestock, and by the near-universal lack of estimates

of the acres grazed by wild herbivores (88).

The Nation’s forage-producing lands are classified and described using the 34 ecosystems of the

Forest and Range Environmental System (104).

Ranges of forage production for the 34 ecosystems

are provided, along with other output measures

(types of plants, large herbivores, and threatened and

endangered animals), but no estimates are given for

the area occupied by the various ecosystems. A

direct measure of the amount of rangeland in each

ecosystem is apparently not available, and thus

forage production for each ecosystem cannot be

determined (88).

Ecological Status and Resource Value Rating

Rangeland inventory techniques have been evolving, and because the changes have not been linked to

past efforts, little information is available to assess

historical trends in rangeland quality and production. The Forest Service has adopted, and the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) is adopting, a new

system to assess forage resources based on: 1) the

maintenance of a site’s long-term productive potential; and 2) the present level of production relative to

the potential production for a specific use, such as

livestock grazing or wildlife habitat (80). In this

system, forests and rangelands are assessed in terms

of ecological status and resource value rating. The

categories of ecological status-potential natural

community (PNC), late seral, mid seral, and early

seral stages—are not equivalent to the Soil Conservation Service’s (SCS) range condition categories of

excellent, good, fair, and poor (119). The percentage

of land moving toward or away from the PNC is

shown, implying that this is important. However, the

implications of ecological status and trends for the

quantity, quality, and output of range forage resources is not discussed.

The resource value rating for range forage is used

to assess the usefulness of the vegetation for grazing.

The rating hinges on: 1) the adequacy of soil

protection, and 2) the acceptability of current species

composition and production or their trends. Because

the rating is based on adequacy and acceptability, it

is probably determined by professional judgment,

rather than on field measurements, and thus its

replicability is questionable. Furthermore, because

the rating is only satisfactory or unsatisfactory,

trends in quality for a given area cannot readily be

displayed. Therefore, the resource value rating, as

currently applied, is an inadequate measure of the

quality and quantity of the forage resource.

Despite differences in inventory systems, the

Range Assessment gives percentages of rangelands

in various condition classes for private rangelands

(from SCS) and for Federal rangelands (fromBLM).

Without acreage figures to show that field inventories of all rangeland have been completed, it is

assumed that the percentages represent a variable

measure of rangeland status.

l~e 19$39 WA ~~~~~m~~t (1 11) defies ~ngelands ~ lads “on which & Mtive vegetation (climax Or mmd potential pklnt COllMIIUnititZS) k

predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for domestic livestock or wildlife grazing or browsing use.”
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment ● 65

Timber Resources

The Assessment of the timber resource follows a

long series of studies of the Nation’s timber supply.

The Forest Service provides a chronological list,

starting in 1866, of 34 publications and reports

considered to be at least partial predecessors of the

1989 Timber Assessment (113).

Data on the status of the timber resource have

been collected periodically in each State for decades.

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Research Units

and Forest Service Regional Timber Management

staff, as well as State forestry representatives and

other users of the data, design and conduct the

inventories. A typical State timber resource report

contains data on timberland area,2 ownership, timber

volume by species, stand conditions, timber use, and

biomass volume, along with a description of the

sampling scheme used to collect the data and

estimates of sampling error. Access to the data is

provided through published reports, requests for

special analysis, and direct computer access to the

database (88).

These inventories are generally accepted by the

professional natural resource community as state-ofthe-art efforts using the latest inventory and computational techniques. Improvements in inventory

techniques have been frequent during the long

history of periodic inventories and older data are

adjusted to maintain continuity and allow the

monitoring of trends. Data users are more likely to

want more frequent inventories, increased sampling

intensity for areas of special concern, and/or additional data collection for resource management

concerns other than timber status. Inventory data on

timber-related issues, such as old-growth forests and

timberland suitability, are rather sparse, limiting the

value of the Assessment for addressing some important issues.

The data in the Timber Assessment are an

aggregation of the data from the periodic State and

national forest inventories. Older inventories were

updated to 1986 by adding estimates of growth and

deducting estimates of mortality and removals. The

timber resource in this Assessment is described

using the several direct measures derived from field

measurements: acres of timberland; volume of

timber; volume lost to mortality; net annual growth;

timber removals; and 1986 ratio of growth to

removals. Timberland productivity classes, a descriptive scheme of the potential productivity of the

land, are also used in the Assessment to describe the

timber resource.

Because the status of the timber resource has long

been monitored in terms of volume of growing

stock, growth, mortality, and removals, predictions

of future trends in the Assessment rest on a

considerable historical base of information. Most of

the uncertainty in predicting timber resource flow

has to do with estimates of future demand and

removals, although changing conditions that can

affect growth rates, such as atmospheric pollution

and global warming, make growth predictions less

certain than many assume. Clawson (18) has showed

that the Forest Service has consistently underestimated future net timber growth (figure 6-l). Nonetheless, data in the Timber Assessment are generally

more complete than for the other resources, and the

inventories for timber are conducted using sampling

designs that produce replicable estimates.

Water Resources

Historically, several Federal agencies have conducted national water assessments, including the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Soil

Conservation Service (SCS). The Forest Service

used data from all of these sources to prepare the

1989 Assessment of the Nation’s water quantity and

quality.

The Water Assessment (120) describes the water

resource and the anticipated effects of management

programs using several measures, including instream flows, watershed condition class, and acres of

wetlands. These measures calibrate water quantity

and quality much better than might be expected for

a noncommodity resource. Other terms are used in

the Water Assessment, but are only descriptive

because they fail to use any units of measurement to

evaluate the quantity, quality, or output of the

resource. These descriptive terms include enhanced

soil productivity, improved timing of runoff, improved riparian areas, installation of watershed

improvements to avoid flood damage, and implementing nonpoint-source pollution abatement for

silvicultural and range-management activity.

z~e 1989WAAssessmmt(111) defines timberland as forested land [at least 10 percent covered by trees] “that can grow mom mZO cubic f~t

of industrial wood per acre per year.”
66 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Figure 6-l—Annual Net Timber Growth and Forest Service Projections

Billion cubic feet

-x

2 0 - A

x

1 5 -

1 0 -

5 -

0

11111111111 111111! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Iuli I I I II I 1 I I I II I I I

“’”~

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 200 0 2020 204 0

Yea r

— Actual Timbe r

+ Pinchot 190 8 x USFS 1933

~ USFS 1952

A USFS 1970 - X- USFS 197 9

SOURCE: M. Clawson, “Forests in the Long Sweep of American History,” Science 204:1168-1 174, June 15, 1979; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-20&Part/: The Current Resource and Use Situation [by Haynes,

R.W.], draft (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

Instream Flows

Necessary instream flow levels are based on

wildlife and fish needs, because “Navigation and

recreation activities, such as water skiing and

swimming, generally do not suffer. . . over a longterm if low instream flows occur” (120). The flow

estimates for each USGS-defined Water Resources

Region are based on average precipitation, with

deductions for groundwater storage depletion, net

reservoir evaporation, and instream flow requirements for maintaining optimal wildlife and fish

habitat. Projections show surplus or deficit stream

outflow between 1985 and 2040 for two levels of

precipitation (average and low) and two levels of

fish and wildlife habitat maintenance (optimal and

minimal).

The estimates of streamflow are classified as

variable measures of water quantity. The concepts

and assumptions underlying the estimates are generally accepted by water resource managers. The

estimates are replicable, and sufficient for assessing

trends. They provide insights as to where current

instream flows are inadequate, why deficits exist,

and what might be done to improve conditions.

Watershed Condition

The Water Assessment examines water quality in

two ways. First, reports from USGS and EPA are

synthesized into a general description of how water

quality is affected by point and nonpoint sources of

pollution. Major pollutants contributing to degradation of the Nation’s waters are listed and recent

trends described. Particular pollutants posing a

problem in specific regions are discussed. Because

no units of measurement are used, however, this

assessment of water quality is only descriptive and

not a measure of the condition of the resource.

Water quality is also assessed by classifying

watershed condition. The watershed condition class

is determined by the watershed’s ability to “sustain

water quality, quantity, and timing necessary to

support water-dependent ecosystems, instream uses,

and downstream withdrawals of water” (120). In

addition to land management and land uses affecting

water quality and quantity, watershed condition

class depends on management of natural and humanmade stream channels, associated fauna, and

groundwater flows (120).
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment ● 67

The Water Assessment describes three watershed

condition classes: class I watersheds that represent

“an attainable, desirable condition’ class II watersheds that require special consideration in resource

management; and class III watersheds that require

“technologically and economically feasible capital

investments to restore watershed conditions. ” The

status of watersheds that need restoration, but where

the investments are not technologically or economically feasible, is unclear from this classification.

Data for determining watershed condition class

were developed by sampling watersheds in each

Forest Service region. These watersheds were assumed to be representative of all watersheds in the

United States, but this assumption has not been

tested. The percentage of watersheds in each condition class are then presented by Assessment region

(one or more Forest Service regions), but acreage

data and landowner information are not reported.

This classification is used as a variable measure to

group watersheds with similar needs for improvement. Under this system, the Water Assessment

provides useful data: one-fifth of the Nation’s

watersheds need capital investments and one-half

need special management. The Forest Service nonetheless recognizes a need for more data to evaluate

watershed improvement needs and for better quality

data to improve the reliability of this measure. For

example, information on watershed and stream

charnel conditions and capabilities is based on

inventories collected by several agencies for various

ownerships and has not been consolidated, with

current data generally covering only a portion of a

watershed. Geographic information systems (GIS)

may provide a way of consolidating, standardizing,

and displaying the data collected by the various

levels of government, but until these systems are in

widespread use, inventories of watershed condition

class on many lands will continue to depend, in part,

on professional judgment.

Wetlands

One measure that seems to have sufficient supporting data is acres of wetlands. The Water

Assessment reports that an estimated 90 million

acres of wetlands are found in the lower 48 States

with an additional 200 million acres in Alaska. This

variable measure is from the consolidation of

estimates from several agencies. General agreement

exists on the definition of this resource category and

the process of making the estimates seems replicable. A reliable assessment of the number of acres of

wetlands is therefore possible, and trends can be

monitored. The 1989 Assessment estimates an

annual loss of approximately 300,000 acres of

wetlands, an improvement over the estimated annual

loss of 550,000 acres from the 1950s through the

1970s. Again, however, regional acreage data and

landowner information are not reported.

Wildlife and Fish Resources

The Forest Service uses four aspects of wildlife

and fish resources to characterize the quantity,

quality, and outputs of these resources in the 1989

Wildlife Assessment (121): 1) habitats, 2) population levels, 3) number of users, and 4) harvest levels.

Except where harvest levels are used as indirect

measures of resource conditions, only measures of

habitats and population levels are described in this

section, because the other measures do not evaluate

the quantity and quality of wildlife and fish resources.

Habitats

National inventories of the amount of suitable

habitat available for a single species do not exist, but

the Assessment describes and estimates land area

that supports a faunal community based on land use

and vegetative cover types. Land use types used as

indirect measures for wildlife habitats include

forestland, rangeland, wetland, water, and agricultural land. The Assessment reviews relevant literature establishing the relationships between faunal

populations and land use/vegetative cover types and

notes limitations to the use of these relationships in

estimating populations or assessing change. Trends

inland use and changes in vegetative cover types are

discussed for the Nation and for each Assessment

region. The use of models to analyze how species

respond to changes in forestland characteristics is

also discussed and illustrated with a case study

(121).

Although land use and land cover patterns provide

“a coarse description of wildlife and fish habitats

that is appropriate for national and regional evaluations’ (121), these indirect measures provide no real

opportunity to monitor resource quantity and quality. They do not provide a sufficiently detailed

database from which to assess the impact of the

planning process on wildlife populations or speciesspecific habitat requirements.
68 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Population Levels

Estimates are provided for the condition of some

species, primarily game animals and threatened and

endangered species. Population estimates for small

game and furbearers rely primarily on harvest levels

which, as output measures, are not very reliable for

determining population levels or trends. There are

very few population data on nongame species

because funding for their collection has never been

adequate. The one exception is birds.

Nongame Birds—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) administers the Breeding Bird Survey to assess population trends of breeding birds in

the United States and southern Canada. Data are

gathered by volunteers. This survey has critics in the

scientific community and its limitations are discussed in the Wildlife Assessment. Nevertheless, the

survey is a systematic census of breeding birds

serving as a direct measure that is sufficiently

reliable to assess population trends.

Migratory Game Birds—The FWS estimates the

status of migratory game birds annually. Using a

combination of field measurements and professional

judgment, population estimates are made for waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans) and webless migratory game species (such as woodcock and mourning

doves). These estimates are reliable for key areas

that are monitored closely and are generally sufficient to describe long-term trends.

Big Game Populations—Data on big game populations in the 1989 Assessment are derived from

cooperating State wildlife agencies and their associated professional game managers. Because the

number of States with data on any one species varies,

and because data collection and consolidation are

not described, the reliability of these variable

measures for the population status of big game is

unknown.

Small Game Populations—Population estimates

for small game are also compiled from data supplied

by cooperating States. Most States use harvest trends

(output measures) to evaluate the status of small

game, but there is no consistency as to which species

are evaluated. Consequently, very few States have

substantial information on any one species and the

reliability of these population estimates is thus

probably low.

Furbearers—Many furbearing species are evasive in nature and consequently difficult to monitor

for population data. Although several national summaries reporting furbearer population trends were

quoted, this Assessment does not identify survey

techniques for the animals discussed nor make clear

when harvest levels were used to determine population estimates. The Assessment does correctly point

out that harvest may be more a reflection of fur

prices than of animal numbers. Thus, when such

output measures are used for the population estimates for furbearers, the estimates are weak and their

accuracy questionable.

Fish—The 1989 Wildlife Assessment states that,

despite the recreational and economic importance of

the Nation’s fishery resources, there is little information with which to identify or evaluate changes in

fish species distribution and abundance in the

Nation’s fresh waters and estuaries (121). Inventories of fish species are rare. The Assessment did

report on the 1982 National Fisheries Survey (128),

which tabulated the number of miles of streams in

which various species occur. Estimates are not

available for fish caught for recreational purposes.

Commercial harvest in millions of pounds (an output

measure) is reported each year by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, but like most other

indirect measures of resource status, this estimate is

weak and provides little opportunity to monitor the

impact of natural resource management activity.

Threatened and Endangered Species—The Assessment presents the number of species currently

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as

threatened and endangered, and the number found in

the national forests and on lands managed by the

BLM. It discusses the relationship between population declines and land types, lists the number of

approved recovery plans and describes the status of

the listing process. There is discussion of some

recovering and declining species with population

trends given, but in general, no direct or indirect

estimates are produced in this section and data

regarding individual species are not presented.

Wilderness Resources

Wilderness is combined with recreation in the

RPA Assessment, and receives limited attention in

several chapters. Measures used to describe wilderness include acres of wilderness/remote backcountry/extensive roadless areas given by region and

ownership; miles of wild and scenic rivers by region

and ownership; and recreational and non-recreational
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment ● 69

uses (in recreation visitor days and percent of areas

hosting subsistence, commercial, therapeutic, ecological, and social research values).

Data presented in the Recreation Assessment for

evaluating the quantity of the wilderness resource

are difficult to evaluate without a detailed description of how the areas were measured. The data on

recreational use, as pointed out in the Assessment,

have several shortcomings, including inconsistencies in collection methods and irregularity of collection (112). Thus, while trends in wilderness use have

been described, the replicability of these data is

questionable. The Assessment also points out that

because most benefits of wilderness are not as easily

measured as those for other renewable resources,

many uses of wilderness have not been included in

the forest planning process. The Assessment states

that ‘Interest in the uses and values of wilderness is

increasing and improved methods to measure and

describe these uses will have to be developed”

(112).

The Recreation Assessment lists five actions that

might be taken to enhance non-recreation use of

wilderness:

1. inventory roadless areas for non-recreation

wilderness values and propose areas with high

non-recreation values for designation;

2. establish more wilderness and wilderness-like

recreation opportunities on non-wilderness

public and private land to reduce recreation

pressure on sensitive wilderness areas;

3. complete “limits to acceptable change’ ’assessments for each national forest wilderness;

4. incorporate protection of non-recreation values into wilderness management plans; and

5. systematically assess threats to wilderness

areas (112).

Although the Assessment follows this list with a

statement declaring that these actions would provide

better information for wilderness managers and

result in improved management of wilderness areas

for recreation and non-recreation values, no goals or

priorities are set to see that these actions are in fact

implemented.

One serious shortcoming of the Recreation Assessment is the lack of data on wilderness quality. In

1988 hearings on wilderness management, Forest

Service Associate Chief George Leonard acknowledged “a number of problems within wilderness

areas, such as soil erosion, stream sedimentation,

overgrazing, and insufficient trail maintenance

(138). Despite such problems and concerns, apparently no effort has been made to evaluate the current

quality or trends in wilderness resources.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

RPA indirectly requires the Forest Service to use

economic tools in assessing forest and rangeland

resources. The Forest Service is specifically directed

to analyze current and expected supplies of and

demands for renewable resources and to evaluate

resource investment opportunities.

Demand and Supply Analysis

The Forest Service assessed current resource uses

and projected demand and supply for renewable

resources in the supporting Assessments for each of

the resources. In two cases, the analysis is based on

economic theories and projections are made using

econometric models (computer models that make

economic projections from certain economic assumptions and data about likely future conditions

and responses). For other resources, the analysis is

less sophisticated, with demand and supply projected independently, and likely “gaps” identified.

Before discussing the demand and supply analyses in the Assessment, one must consider the role of

prices in economics. In a free market, changing

prices influence demand and supply, bringing them

into a satisfactory balance. If demand exceeds

supply at a paticular price, the price would rise,

reducing the demand and encouraging increased

production and other supply adjustments. Similarly,

if prices are expected to rise in the future, producers

would be inclined to invest in increased production.

The importance of prices in driving private landowner decisions is discussed in the 1989 RPA

Assessment (42). However, the concept of using

market incentives to harness the creativity and

productivity of the private sector is notably lacking

(11). Ultimately, market prices are signals to consumers and producers.

For goods and services provided free or substantially subsidized, market prices do not provide such

signals. There are numerous methods of calculating

values of nonpriced or underpriced goods and

services (see box 6-B). Regardless of the method

used, predicted changes in values should reflect the
70 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Box 6-B—Valuing Nonpriced Goods and Services

Total economic value of nonpriced resources results from both value in use and certain non-use values. Use

values include not only today’s use, but the value of having the option to use the resource in the future (commonly

known as option value). Non-use values include the value of knowing the resource exists as well as the value of

preserving the resource for the future; these values are often referred to as existence and bequest values, respectively.

There are two basic approaches to measuring economic value of nonpriced resources. One is based on the

financial impacts of current use, usually by measuring either total expenditures or the value added because of those

expenditures. Except for evaluating local community impacts, this approach is rarely used, because it doesn’t

measure the value of the resource. It would be like measuring the value of timber by tabulating how much timber

purchasers spent on labor, equipment, gasoline, etc.

The second approach is based on estimated demand for the resource. This approach is generally preferred for

its sound theoretical basis, but is difficult to apply, because it requires demand curves. Two methods have been

developed for calculating demand curves for recreation resources: the travel cost method and the contingent

valuation method. The former relies on participation rates, with travel costs as a proxy for the nonexistent market

price, and thus measures current use value. The latter uses bidding in an artificially structured market, and therefore

can include option, existence, and bequest values. In either case, a demand curve is developed to estimate the

quantity demanded at various prices .

Demand curves for nonpriced resources are usually used to calculate consumer’s surplus. Consumer’s surplus

is the aggregate additional willingness-to-pay for the resource, in excess of current expenditures. It is also described

as the possible revenues of a perfectly discriminating monopolist (i.e., one who could charge a different price to

each customer). This is a useful measure, but it is not directly comparable to market prices for commodities, since

the market price is how much buyers do pay, not how much each would be willing to pay.

The Forest Service has taken nonpriced resource valuation another step in the Draft 1990 RPA Program by

estimating the market-clearing price, the price that would balance demand and supply if the resource were marketed.

Theoretically, supply curves would be developed for the resources, and the market-clearing price is the price at

which supply and demand are in balance. The Draft 1990 RPA Program discusses developing supply curves from

production cost data, but presents no evidence of such with its estimates of market-clearing prices. Thus, although

this approach is conceptually strong, it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the Forest Service calculations.

same economic picture that price changes indicate farther into the future than we have history over

for market goods and services. Thus, one would

expect values to increase for resources with demand

rising faster than supply, and to decline for resources

with supply rising faster than demand. In this

reamer, current and future values of nonpriced and

subsidized goods and services can serve policymakers and government managers in the same

manner as price changes can serve consumers and

producers.

Econometric Analyses

Econometrics is the application of mathematical

and statistical techniques to economic problems.

Typically, computer models are used to predict

future supplies of and demands for resources, and

relevant price trends, considering relevant economic

variables, such as demographic trends, technological developments, and the impact of price changes

on investments. One difficulty in applying econometric models is posed by the long time horizons for

forest management; often, trends must be projected

which to test the models. In addition, occasional

social and cultural changes can overwhelm economic analyses. For example, the Great Depression,

World War II, and the energy crisis radically

affected the U.S. economy, but it would have been

difficult to forecast such major changes. Although

long-term econometric projections are subject to

much uncertainty, the results may be useful for

policymakers.

In the 1989 Assessment, the Forest Service used

econometric models to examine the land base and

the timber resource (11). The land use model

projects the amount of land in various categories

from 1987 to 2040: Cropland, pasture/rangeland,

urban/other, public timberland, industrial timberland, and other private timberland. Except for urban

and public lands, land use shifted toward the

category with the greatest present net value of

current and future returns to landowners. Timber

price forecasts from the other econometric model
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment . 71

(described below) were included in determiningland

use changes, but the feedback loop-of timber

management intensity influencing future timber

prices—appears to be lacking. Thus, the econometric model for projecting land use patterns has flaws,

but the basic approach is consistent with economic

theory and seems to fit the intent of RFA.

The future demands, supplies, and prices of

timber are projected using the Timber Assessment

Market Model—TM (l). TM was originally

designed to project softwood lumber and plywood

demand and supply regionally, with prices rising (or

falling) to dampen demand and enhance supply (or

vice versa), as necessary to bring the market into

balance. Production was translated into timber

demand (adjusted for changing production technologies), with future timber demands and supplies

balanced by raising or lowering prices. TAMM has

since been revised to include hardwood products, the

pulp and paper sector, and Canadian suppliers.

However, TAMM is lacking in a few important

areas, including market interactions with importers

of U.S. wood products, linkage of prices through

time (i.e., expected future prices affect today’s

harvests and thus affect today’s prices) and price

sensitivity of technological developments. (See box

6-C.) In addition, TAMM is quite sensitive to the

many necessary assumptions about future U.S.

economic performance, wood use in construction,

and the like. Nonetheless, T-provides valuable

insights into the workings of timber markets, and

thus is useful in examining likely future timber

demands, supplies, and prices.

Non-Econometric Analyses

Econometric models are not the only means of

analyzing demand, supply, and price trends, although they do provide a replicable means of testing

assumptions and assessing the likely effects of

decisions. In addition, computer models are probably essential to balance supply and demand trends,

and thus to predict prices. Except for certain types of

developed recreation, the non-timber resources in

the national forests are not priced in a market sense

(see box 6-D), and therefore price prediction is not

relevant, although future values of the nonpriced or

subsidized resource uses should be related to future

demand and supply.

For the nonpriced and subsidized resources—

recreation, range forage, water, wildlife and fish, and

wilderness-the Forest Service has projected demand and supply using its traditional ‘gap’ model.

Box 6-C—Timber Processing Technology

The Timber Assessment Market Model (TAMM) does not contain an explicit link between timber prices and

technology, although research has shown that timber processing efficiency (technology) is sensitive to timber prices

(11). Processing technology is exogenous to the model; that is, technology is forecast separately, and the forecast

is then assumed in TAMM.

In contrast, the technology forecasts assumed in TAMM do affect future timber prices, but in an unexpected

manner. As processing technology improves, timber prices rise, and the faster technology improves, the faster prices

rise (43). The explanation behind this relationship is that timber prices are assumed to be a residual value-mill

owners will bid as much as they can afford for timber, after paying their labor and capital costs. Improvements in

technology either reduce labor costs or reduce the amount of timber (the number of logs) needed to produce the wood

products (lumber and plywood). Lower labor costs and/or wood requirements permit the mill owners to bid higher

for timber, and thus timber prices will rise. Some of the characteristics of timber and wood product markets suggest

that, while timber is the largest cost in lumber and plywood production (19), that the amount paid for the timber

is, indeed, a residual, to be paid after other variable and fixed obligations are met. However, some research refutes

this assumed relationship (15).

This assumed relationship-technological advance leading to higher timber prices-has important policy

implications. Rising prices for resources are normally considered to be a sign of impending shortage, and a condition

to be avoided if possible. This is the idea behind RPA--an Assessment of future conditions and a Program that reacts

to undesirable future conditions. However, rising timber prices due to improvements in processing technology

might actually increase social benefits. If the technological improvement lowers production costs or wood

requirements, then product prices and producer profits may remain unchanged, while landowners receive more for

their timber. Under such conditions, rising prices would probably be desirable. In fact, one timberland investor

observed that rising timber prices are necessary to justify most timberland investments (99). Thus, as a policy goal,

the absolute undesirability of rising timber prices may need to be reconsidered.
72 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Box 6-D—Economics of Range Forage

The economics of range forage present an unusual case. Although livestock operations are commercial

enterprises, the Forest Service system for allocating grazing permits is not a market system. Permittees must have

abase ranch reasonably near the grazing allotment, and allotments are renewed automatically, unless the base ranch

is sold or the permittee violates the terms of the permit. In addition, Federal grazing fees are substantially below

market prices, as little as one-seventh (14 percent) of the subleasing price on the few BLM leases where subleasing

is legal (71). The Forest Service calculated that the fair market rental value of grazing in the western national forests

is 2 to 4 times above the current grazing fee (1 16). Thus, livestock grazing on Federal lands clearly does not operate

under a market system.

Another problem is the relative lack of information on non-Federal forage supplies. In timber, Federal lands

dominate in one of the largest supply regions (the Pacific Northwest), and the Forest Service provided more than

17 percent of softwood timber harvests in 1986 (113). In contrast, livestock grazing on Federal lands accounts for

less than 7 percent of the total (1 19). The Forest Service supplies 5 percent or less of livestock grazing in the three

largest grazing regions-the South, the North, and the northern Roe@ Mountains. When this situation is combined

with the lack of Federal marketing of livestock grazing, it is not surprising that relatively little market supply

information on range forage exists.

Further complicating the economics of livestock forage is a more complex demand equation. As with timber,

the demand for forage is a secondary demand--consumers want beef, lamb, wool, etc. However, consumers accept

a much greater variety of substitutes, U.S. imports come from a wider array of suppliers, and there are more

non-land-based technologies (e.g., crop residues, feedlots, etc.) to improve forage supplies (11). Thus, demand

projections for range forage are much more complicated than for timber.

The Forest Service did project supply of and demand for range forage in the Range Assessment (119). In

contrast to the timber and land base projection models, the models for projecting range forage have not yet been

published, and thus their economic foundation cannot be evaluated (1 1). However,Binkley(11) notes that, “prices

are not seriously considered as a determinant of either output demand or input supply. ” Thus, the economic logic

behind the demand and supply projections appears questionable. Furthermore, the Range Assessment contains no

historic or projected prices for livestock products or for forage. Therefore, the Range Assessment appears to be a

deficient analysis of livestock forage demand, supply, and price trends.

Under this approach, demand and supply are projected independently, using historic patterns, socioeconomic variables, demographic trends, and other

relevant information; however, price or cost data are

rarely included. Future demand and supply are then

compared, and if demand exceeds supply, a shortage--or gap-exists (or will exist). Gaps are treated

much as rising market prices: they are considered

undesirable, and policies should be formulated to

address this problem. However, potential use of

market forces to address supply-demand gaps, and

the resulting social and economic implications, have

not been considered in the 1989 RPA Assessment

(11).

The gap model could provide useful information

on demand and supply trends, if the projections are

based on sound logic and assumptions. For example,

one might expect demand projections to respond to

demographic and economic changes, including the

impact of changing user costs and increased crowding. Similarly, supply projections should be consistent with general land use decisions, and should

reflect anticipated management activities and market responses, such as the development of recreation

sites and fee hunting areas. However, the Assessment generally does not include adequate information to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the

supply and demand projections for the various

resources. In some cases, the projections are inconsistent with other trends. For example, in the next 50

years, the wilderness/roadless area land base is

projected to decline by 31 percent, but the supplies

of primitive camping and of backpacking are projected to increase by 34 and 98 percent, respectively

(112). Similarly, wilderness use is apparently leveling off, but demands for primitive camping and

backpacking are projected to increase by 64 and 155

percent, respectively (11). Thus, the demand and

supply projections for the nonpriced and subsidized

resources appear to be tenuous, at best.

Another potential limitation of the gap model is in

the prediction of future values for the resources,

which economic theory suggests are related to the

projected supplies and demands-the relative scar-
Chapter 6--The RPA Assessment . 73

city of the resources. However, most research on

nonpriced resource values has focused on estimating

current values, a difficult enough task, and no

accepted or reliable methods for predicting future

values presently exist (12 1). Thus, it is not surprising

that none of the resource Assessments, except for

timber, contain price or value projections.

Despite the lack of such information in the

Assessment, the Forest Service has estimated current and future market-clearing prices and consumer’s surplus for the renewable resources of the

national forests. ‘Appendix F: Resource Pricing and

Valuation Guidelines” in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program (116) provides a description of the economic concepts employed and then the value estimates by Forest Service region. Overall, the relative

size of the Assessment’s projected gaps between

demand and supply correlates with the 1990 Draft

Program’s projected change in market-clearing

prices. (See table 6-1.) However, there are a number

of inconsistencies and problems. For example, the

gaps in range forage and in nonconsumptive wildlife

use are quite small, yet large increases in marketclearing prices are projected. Future market-clearing

price increases for hunting and fishing are also

relatively high, when compared with other recreational activities. There were problems in comparing

demand/supply gaps with market-clearing price

changes for water, because the demand/supply

regions do not conform to Forest Service regions. In

recreation, there are problems with two of the

categories used for projecting market-clearing

prices. Hiking/horseback-riding/water travel is an

illogical mixture of activities, with large demand/

supply gaps for hiking and horseback-riding and

small gaps for water travel (canoeing, boating, etc.).

The projected increase in market-clearing price is,

therefore, probably too high for water travel and too

low for hiking and horseback-riding. Winter sports

is also a problematic category. Downhill skiing is

projected to have excess supply, while the supply of

cross-country skiing is projected to meet only 55

percent of the demand. The small increase in

market-clearing price is probably an accurate

weighted average, but doesn’t really apply to either

activity. Furthermore, snowmobiling has become an

important winter recreational activity, but was

apparently excluded from the Recreation Assessment.

Table 6-1—Demand-Supply Gaps and Changes in

Market-Clearing Prices

Demand/ Change in

supply gap M-C price

Recreation;

Camping/picnicking/swimming . . . 0-1%

Mechanized travel/viewing

scenery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-26%.

Hiking/horseback riding . . . . . . . . . 27-29%

Water travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-6%

Winter sports:

Downhill skiing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Cross-country skiing . . . . . . . . . 55%

Resorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

Other activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-34%

Livestock forage: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Water:

Surplus regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none

Shortage regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . under 40%

Severe shortage regions . . . . . . . . over 90%.

Fish and wildlife:

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16%

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1270

Nonconsumptive use . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

4%

10%

17%

4%

0%

1470

24%

0-4%

8-22%

8-22%

1O%

14%

16%

Wilderness:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-29% 18%

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft 1990

RPA Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1989); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

An Analysis of the outdoor Recreation and Wilderness

Situation in the United States: 7989-2040, draft (1988); U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the

Range Forage Situation in the United States: 1989-2040 [by

Joyce, L.A.], General Technical Report RM-180 (Ft. Collins,

CO: 1989); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An

Analysis of the Water Situation in the United States: 1989-

2040 [by Guldin, R.W.], General Technical Report RM-177 (Ft.

Collins, CO: 1989); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, An Analysis of the Wlldlife and Fish Situation in the

United States: 1989-2040 [by Flather, C.H. and Hoekstra,

T.W.], General Technical Report RM-178 (Ft. Collins, CO:

1989).

Evaluation of Opportunities

In addition to the demand, supply, and price trend

analysis, RPA requires an evaluation of opportunities to enhance renewable resource yields, ‘together

with estimates of investment costs and direct and

indirect returns to the Federal Government. ” All of

the supporting Assessments (except, of course, the

Land Assessment) contain sections describing opportunities to improve resource management. However, except for the Timber Assessment, none

contain any estimates of investment costs or of direct

and indirect returns. Thus, while dozens of opportunities are described, there is virtually no information

for evaluating those opportunities.

The Wildlife Assessment does contain some basis

for setting priorities. It notes that the first priority is

habitat management, since habitat is often the
74 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

limiting factor in wildlife and fish management. This

is followed by population manipulation, and then

user regulation, because appropriate populations

must exist before regulating users is relevant.

Although this set of priorities does not directly

reflect relative economic opportunities, and cost and

return information are not presented, it at least sets

forth a logical approach to selecting which opportunities to invest in first.

There is some evaluation of investment opportunities for timber (114). Even this evaluation is

severely limited, because government and industry

lands are excluded. The Forest Service assumed that

all economic opportunities would be implemented

on industry lands, but this ignores potential limitations on available investment funds and opportunities to increase timber supplies by subsidizing

industry timber investments (with direct financial

support or through the tax code). Opportunities on

government lands are not evaluated, because such

decisions “are subject to public policy determinations as much as economic analysis” (114). However, this hampers the ability of policymakers to

evaluate the potential of such opportunities, in

comparison with timber investment opportunities

elsewhere. The evaluation of opportunities on nonindustry private lands is also unnecessarily constrained. There was no evaluation of many areas,

because the “stands were judged to be sufficiently

productive that no specific treatment was warranted

at the time” (114). This standard, which apparently

excluded any economic criterion, eliminates many

potential opportunities to expand timber supplies.

Several types of investments are examined, including three harvest-with-regeneration ‘investments,”

which one might expect to be profitable to the

landowner already and not an opportunity to be

captured.

INTERNATIONAL CONDITIONS

While RPA directs the Assessment to examine the

renewable resources on America’s forests and rangelands, it also requires the supply and demand

analysis to consider international conditions. Global

conditions are examined in the Timber, Range, and

Wildlife Assessments. Such considerations are

probably not relevant for water resources, since

water is not (yet) an international commodity.

Similarly, foreign visitors account for only a small

component of outdoor recreation in the United

States, and their characteristics and demands are

examined briefly in the Recreation Assessment

(112).

International Trade

Chapter 5 of the Timber Assessment describes

international trade in wood products. The United

States is the world’s largest wood importer and

second largest exporter (after Canada); Canada is the

major U.S. supplier, while the Pacific Rim nations

are our major export markets. There is substantial

international trade in wood products, primarily

among the industrialized nations, with general

trends toward freer import markets and more market

responsiveness by exporters. Restrictions on log

exports from the Philippines, Indonesia, and peninsular Malaysia are noted in the Timber Assessment,

but not the widespread trend toward additional

export restrictions. (Bans on log exports from

Thailand and Brazil and on lumber exports from the

Philippines were announced after the draft Timber

Assessment was written.) However, the implications

of these trends are not discussed.

The Range Assessment contains a brief section on

international trade in livestock products. The United

States is a net meat importer, but the Assessment

doesn’t identify the sources of our imports. Depressed international meat prices have apparently

led to increased protectionism and export subsidies.

However, it is unclear what this means for U.S.

consumers or livestock producers, and the implications are not discussed in the Assessment.

Global Resource Concerns

Problems Examined in the Assessment

In the chapter on international trade, the Timber

Assessment asserts that, overall, for all regions

globally, timber growth exceeds timber harvests.

There are localized shortages, especially in the

poorest nations, implicitly caused by the demand for

fuelwood, and the demand for fuelwood is expected

to continue to grow, leading to more common and

more severe localized wood shortages.

The other global timber resource concern discussed in the Timber Assessment is atmospheric

pollution and acid deposition. This is primarily a

problem of the forests in the industrialized world,

with the most severe impacts in Eastern Europe, and

incipient problems in Western Europe, Scandinavia,

and North America. There is, however, no discussion of the implications of either of these conditions
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment ● 75

on domestic timber supplies, demands, or prices or

on future international trade in wood products.

The Range Assessment observes that the loss of

rangelands to encroaching deserts (desertification) is

a serious global problem, with losses increasing in

area and in intensity. However, the implications for

domestic forage resources or for international trade

in livestock products are not examined.

International conditions are also mentioned in the

Wildlife Assessment. Clearly, migratory birds, and

perhaps anadromous fish, can be affected by changing resource situations in other countries. Migratory

game birds predominately breed in the United States

and Canada, and winter in the United States; since

Canadian resource situations are similar to our own,

there are probably few significant global problems

for migratory game birds. However, many nongame

birds (songbirds, etc.) migrate to Central and South

America for the winter. Some populations have been

declining, allegedly due to Latin American use of

organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT), loss of wetlands, and tropical deforestation.

Concerns Not Addressed in the Assessment

The discussion of tropical deforestation in the

Assessment is totally inadequate. Although tropical

deforestation is mentioned as possibly affecting

migratory nongame bird populations, effects of

protecting tropical forests are not discussed. Tropical timber harvesting and efforts to slow the rate of

cutting will influence international trade in wood

products, and thus the demands on U.S. timber

resources. Similarly, some deforestation in Latin

America is to create pasturage to expand beef

exports to North America and Europe. Thus, attempts to protect tropical forest resources will affect

the demands on U.S. forage resources. Finally,

tropical deforestation has been linked with global

warming.

Global warming is another major, international

concern that can affect renewable resources. Global

warming is expected to alter the quantity and timing

of precipitation, and thus will affect water resources.

These changes, together with increasing temperatures, will affect both flora and fauna. The distributions of tree species will be altered, and could shrink

for some important timber species. Endangered

species are particularly susceptible to climate

changes. While these changes may not be imminent,

RPA requires a long-term vision of renewable forest

and rangeland resources. Furthermore, the Draft

1990 RPA Program identifies global climate change

as 1 of the 15 issues to be addressed. Yet, the 1989

RPA Assessment contains no discussion of global

warming.

Finally, in addition to the lack of discussion of the

implications of global resource issues, there is

nothing on the opportunities to influence these

trends. There are a variety of possible U.S. actions

that could affect these trends, such as expanding

technical assistance for sustainable land use practices and increasing financial assistance for efficient

use of fuelwood. While an analysis of international

opportunities is not a required part of the Assessment, it fits with the intent of the law. Options that

could be employed in the United States, such as

planting more trees (here as well as abroad) to absorb

carbon and thereby slow global warming, would

certainly be relevant to a discussion of forest and

rangeland resources in the United States.

COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE

RPA does not specifically require an analysis of

cooperative assistance needs in the Assessment.

However, because different resource ownerships

require different Forest Service responses, it seems

appropriate that resource inventories and opportunities should distinguish among landowner categories.

Such an analysis is a critical step in strategic

planning. The Senate Agriculture Committee stated

that the display of lands and resources by public and

private ownership and geographic regions was one

of the Assessment’s most important elements (145).

One means of presenting landowner information is

by assessing the needs and opportunities for cooperative assistance.

The 1979 RPA Assessment (105) took such an

approach. It pointed to a need to increase production

and supplies of resources on all forests and rangelands. It also stated that “Substantial increases . . . from [private] ownerships can only be

achieved by such measures as cost-sharing programs

to help finance management practices, and technical

assistance and educational programs to show landowners how to develop and manage forest and range

resources’ (105). Many of the resource chapters in

the 1979 Assessment have a section on specific

cooperative assistance actions for increasing resource supplies. For example, the recreation chapter

notes the need for cooperative assistance to private
74 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

landowners to increase access to private lands for

recreation. The timber chapter points to the importance of reducing losses from fire, insects, and

disease through strong cooperative protection programs and the wildlife chapter identifies the need for

technical assistance and education for landowners

on providing access to their lands and on habitat

management.

Several of the resource reports supporting the

1989 RPA Assessment distinguish resource ownership by landowner category. Timber resources, for

example, are delineated for Forest Service lands,

other public lands, forest industry lands, and other

private lands. Federal range forage resources and

recreational facilities are distinguished from nonFederal resources and facilities. Overall, however,

the 1989 Assessment does not clearly define Federal

resource responsibilities.

Several findings in the 1989 RPA Assessment are

relevant to Forest Service cooperative assistance

programs by the Forest Service (116). One is the

importance of markets and prices as forces that drive

private landowners. Another is the ubiquity of

vegetation management as a plausible action to

improve future resource conditions and supplies,

including water quality and streamflows, range

conditions, wildlife habitat, timber supplies, and

conditions for recreation. The Assessment notes that

management responses to market forces are limited

by: 1) management philosophies and priorities for

Federal lands (e.g., lack of recreation fees affects

private opportunities); 2) the broad societal nature of

some outputs of forests and rangelands (e.g., State

ownership of wildlife and their migratory nature

limit private landowners’ ability to capture the

benefits of habitat improvements); 3) the lack of

market prices for some outputs; and 4) inadequate

knowledge of production opportunities, which can

lead to failure of markets to respond (116). These

limitations broadly define the matters for which

cooperative assistance programs could provide solutions (42).

The resource reports supporting the 1989 Assessment provide much more information than the

Assessment itself on cooperative assistance. The

Recreation Assessment (112) states that increasing

opportunities on private lands could help redress the

geographic imbalance between Federal recreation

sites and the bulk of the population. Barriers to

increased use of and access to private lands for

recreation by the public include potential liability

issues that have inhibited owners from making lands

available, and lack of information on the markets for

recreation use of their lands. As a result of these

kinds of concerns, at least 75 percent of private land

is closed to the public for recreation and this

proportion is increasing. The Recreation Assessment concludes that programs directed at private

lands should focus on keeping land open for

recreation by providing information to landowners

on management, on ways of limiting liability risks,

and on means to capture financial benefits.

The Timber Assessment (114) identifies the

increase in projected timber prices as the primary

concern of the timber portion of Forest Service

programs. Various ways to increase the productivity

of forest lands for timber include reducing losses

from free, insects, and disease and, most importantly,

increasing timber productivity on nonindustry private lands. The Timber Assessment also notes that

the greater sustained harvests on nonindustry private

lands that would be necessary to slow the expected

rate of increase in timber prices ‘‘would require

expanded public programs,’ presumably those

aimed at private lands (114).

The Water Assessment (121) notes that lack of

knowledge and financial incentives are major obstacles for private landowners in the control of silviculture-related nonpoint-source pollution on private

lands. Needed actions for Federal, State, and private

lands include assistance in dealing with pollution

related to past farming practices, protecting riparian

areas, managing vegetation to reduce runoff, and

protecting land and vegetation from wild fire. The

Wildlife Assessment (122) identifies habitat restoration and improvement and limits on access as two

major wildlife issues relevant to private lands. The

Assessment notes the importance of cross-boundary

planning and coordination for wide-ranging wildlife. A major obstacle to improved vegetation

management for wildlife habitats is lack of knowledge by landowners and managers. A trend toward

additional fee hunting and access fees for private

lands will lead toward improved management for the

preferred species, but landowners need technical

assistance on vegetation management for wildlife

and information on markets (i.e., users and prices).
Chapter 6-The RPA Assessment 77

RESEARCH

RPA does not explicitly require an analysis of

forest and rangeland research needs. It does direct

the Forest Service to describe its research programs

and responsibilities, and their relations to other

Forest Service programs, and to private and other

public programs. One document supporting the 1989

RPA Assessment, A Description of Forest Service

Programs and Responsibilities (122), substantially

fulfills this requirement.

Nonetheless, an analysis of research needs, resulting from Assessment findings, appears desirable,

especially in the context of strategic planning. The

1979 RPA Assessment emphasized the lack of

information and the need for more research, stating

that “Much can be done to increase and extend

supplies of forest and range products by better use of

existing technology and by further research to

develop new technology” (105). That Assessment

noted the need for more information on physical

responses to management of wildlife populations

and timber growth; on the cost of management

practices and prices and uses of forest and rangeland

products; and on ways of using land and water to

minimize environmental impacts. It also states that

there is a need to “explore the economic, social, and

environmental implications of a future in which

demands for nearly all forest and rangeland products

are increasing more rapidly than supplies” (105).

The sections on research opportunities in each

chapter of the 1979 RPA Assessment are fairly

detailed in their identification of research needs (42).

For example, the recreation chapter notes the need

for further information on existing and potential

recreation resources, trends in participation, and the

effects of management. The range chapter identifies

needs for ecosystem analysis, range management

methods, and multi-resource management of rangelands. The timber chapter focuses on research

needed to improve utilization and multi-resource

management. The wildlife chapter notes the need for

information on the effects of management, minimum habitat conditions to support wildlife populations, and methods to quantify wildlife values.

Despite the serious data limitations described

above, the 1989 RPA Assessment raises very few

concerns about the adequacy of the information on

which its findings are based. And, except for noting

the need for appropriate databases and models for

evaluating the threat of global climate change,

almost no mention is made of research needs that

emerged in preparing the 1989 Assessment (42). The

accompanying resource reports suggest research

needs but contain no estimates of costs and potential

benefits which policymakers could use to compare

research opportunities. Excluding research needs

from the RPA Assessment effectively prevents any

discussion of research priorities.

The Recreation Assessment identifies several

information needs: standardized information on

participation trends, future demands, and available

supplies; methods for assessing recreation resources

in urban and wild environments; information on how

recreation opportunities and uses are related; and

ways to estimate and evaluate recreation benefits.

The report also identifies the need for research on

management of recreation resources, including wilderness and other special areas; on the management

of recreation facilities; and on ways to balance the

allocation of recreation resources in view of social

equity concerns.

The Range Assessment identifies the need for

research on vegetation management for multipleresource uses of rangelands, and on the management

of combined livestock and wildlife grazing. This

Assessment also notes the need for research on the

use of livestock as a management tool in a broad

range of ecosystems.

The Timber Assessment identifies research on

basic physiological and biological processes of tree

growth and timber management, and accelerated

technology transfer as having continuing importance. It also notes that utilization research has the

greatest potential for curbing the rate of increase in

timber prices in the near term. Research in support

of management and assistance programs on regenerating timber stands are judged to have the greatest

long-term potential for increasing timber growth.

The Water Assessment states that additional

information is needed on the cumulative effects of

different management activities on water quality

(sediment generation and transport) and possible

control actions. The Assessment also identifies

information needs on instream flows that are required for various uses of forests and rangelands. In

a broader context, this Assessment notes that research is needed on the cumulative effects of acid

deposition and of chemical buildup in soils.
78 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

The Wildlife Assessment notes that obstacles to

improving wildlife and fish resources include lack of

knowledge on species-habitat relationships, on population inventories, and on public attitudes and

wildlife and fish values. The report suggests that

monitoring be done to measure the response of

wildlife and fish to management and that this

information be combined with species-habitat research to learn more about multiple-use management. The report also claims that Forest Service

efforts are perceived as being at the forefront of

wildlife research and that steps should be taken to

assure that this continues.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1989 RPA Assessment is a comprehensive

document, produced with substantial efforts by the

Forest Service, but one that lacks some of the

resource quality and quantity data needed to make

well-informed resource management decisions. The

data included in the individual Assessments on

recreation, range forage, timber, water, wildlife and

fish, and wilderness are often incomplete, with

measures often relying on surrogates or professional

judgments, and with information on resource quality

frequently missing.

The Forest Service uses econometric models and

the “gap’ model to analyze supply and demand for

renewable resources. The Assessment generally

does not include enough information to evaluate the

projection methods and some projections are inconsistent with current trends and with other projections. The required evaluation of opportunities is

largely a catalog of possibilities that lacks information on investment costs and on direct and indirect

returns to help make informed choices.

The 1989 Assessment considers the international

context for domestic resources in brief discussions

of international trade and global resource concerns,

including demand for fuelwood, atmospheric pollution, and population declines of migratory songbirds. Inadequate attention is given, however, to two

major international environmental issues—tropical

deforestation and global warming—with important

implications for the future of America’s renewable

resources.

Finally, the 1989 RPA Assessment is not a very

useful document for assessing cooperative assistance and research programs. Despite the information in the individual resource Assessments, the

1989 RPA Assessment contains very little on these

topics. The 1989 Assessment fails to summarize the

needs identified in the individual assessments and

does not present cost and benefit information to

compare opportunities.
Chapter 7

The RPA Program

RPA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to

transmit a renewable resources Program to the

President “to provide for periodic review of programs for management and administration of the

National Forest System, for research, for cooperative State and private Forest Service programs, and

for conduct of other Forest Service activities in

relation to the findings of the Assessment. . .’ The

RPA Program is to be developed in accordance with

the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA). RPA specifies that the Program shall

include (see appendix for the full text of the Act):

1. an inventory of needs and opportunities for

public and private investments, differentiating

between capital and operational activities;

2. identification of Program outputs, likely results, and benefits from investments, such that

anticipated costs can be compared with total

benefits and with direct and indirect returns to the

Federal Government;

3. a discussion of priorities for accomplishing the

inventoried opportunities, with costs, outputs,

results, and benefits;

4. a study of personnel requirements for implementing and monitoring activities; and

5. recommendations which—

a. evaluate objectives for the major Forest

Service programs to assure multiple-use and

sustained-yield of the renewable resources;

b. explain the opportunities for private owners

of forests and rangelands to participate in

programs to improve and enhance the condition of the land and the renewable resources;

c. recognize the fundamental need to protect

and improve soil, water, and air quality;

d. state national goals that recognize the

interrelationships between and interdependence among the renewable resources; and

e. evaluate the impact of log exports on

domestic timber supplies and prices.

Congress clearly intended the recommended RPA

Program to be the agency’s strategic plan, with

periodic reviews to examine whether the current

direction is the most appropriate direction. Because

the Administration and Congress are the ultimate

decisionmakers, however, the Program is required to

include an inventory of opportunities, the identification of costs and results, and a discussion of

priorities. Thus, the Program must have an adequate

information base to describe opportunities and

impacts of alternative directions for Forest Service

programs and activities.

RPA required the first Program to be transmitted

to Congress by the end of 1975, with an update by

the end of March every fifth year thereafter. The

1975 RPA Program established resource output

goals and budget targets beginning with fiscal year

1977, and outlined renewable resources management needs for 1977 to 2020. Because of the short

time period between the signing of the law and the

date the frost program was required, many saw the

1975 effort largely as a trial run. The first full-scale

set of recommendations under the RPA came in the

1980 Program (84).

The 1980 Program established two sets of output

goals and budget targets, the high-bound and lowbound, beginning with fiscal year 1981. These two

levels appeared to set quite different strategic

directions, based on differing views of budget and

resource priorities. The Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and

Forestry strongly criticized the 1980 Program. The

1985 program retained the high-bound/low-bound

approach, and established goals and targets beginning with fiscal year 1986, although its release was

delayed until early in fiscal year 1987 (85). Because

of the internally inconsistent direction and the delays

in release, neither the 1980 nor the 1985 Program has

been an effective strategic plan for the Forest

Service.

STRUCTURE OF THE DRAFT

1990 RPA PROGRAM

The format for the Draft 1990 RPA Program

differs substantially from that of previous Programs.

The Draft 1990 Program defines several possible

roles for the Forest Service, examines 15 issues, and

defines five strategies to fulfill various selected

roles. The Draft Program also examines how several

–79–
80 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

special Forest Service initiatives are affected by its

choice of roles and strategies. This role-and-strategy

approach contrasts with that of previous RPA

Programs which were driven by goals identified

during Program development (42).

Roles

The Draft 1990 RPA Program identifies eight

Forest Service roles, grouped into four categories,

that provide general direction for agency interactions with the Administration, Congress, and the

public:

●

●

●

●

National Resource Management

—Role 1: Multiple-use management

—Role 2: Future resource opportunities

Local Resource Management

—Role 3: Contributions to local economies

—Role 4: Management in mixed ownerships

Research

—Role 5: Scientific information

Complementary

—Role 6: Resource inventory and analysis

—Role 7: Natural resources communication

—Role 8: International forestry

Irland (48) described these eight roles as important in adding to the Program’s review of Forest

Service activities. He also criticized the discussion

of the roles as ‘not crisply set forth in clear terms, ”

Claiming that the Forest Service has defined the roles

“indirectly, by listing activities falling into the role

areas discussed” rather than defining the roles

themselves (48). He concluded that the roles do not

really provide the “strong common thread that ties

an RPA Program together, ’ alluded to in the Draft

1990 program. Wolf pointed out that Congress has

already defined roles for the Forest Service: land

management, research, and cooperative assistance

(152). As the Draft 1990 Program now reads,

research and cooperative activities ‘‘are treated as

almost an after thought” (152). For the RPA

Program to effectively address resource needs, Wolf

claims that both research and assistance “should be

elevated and made visible, ” with alternatives offered that discuss maintaining, revising, or dropping

each of the three roles.

Most of the roles reflect the dominance of national

forest management in Forest Service thinking. One

role proposes a two-pronged approach for Forest

Service research: 1) to expand the scientific information on multiresource problems, using an ecosystem

approach and emphasizing amenity resources; and

2) to increase the understanding of how natural

resources are affected by broad environmental

changes, including those that are global in scope.

Research is a minor consideration in other proposed

roles. Cooperative assistance is discussed in the two

natural resource management roles as well as in the

communications role. Increased assistance for multiple-use management of State and private lands is

discussed, but cooperative assistance is proposed to

“increase technical and financial assistance to

stimulate timber production” (116). Except for the

scientific information and international forestry

roles, national forest management is the focus of

current and proposed Forest Service actions.

Issues

Decisions to include or omit policy issues in the

program have varied throughout the history of the

RPA process. After the GeneraI Accounting Office

(GAO) and others criticized the 1975 RPA Program

for not centaining a discussion of policy issues, the

Forest Service revised the 1980 Program format to

include issues. The 1980 Assessment and Program

generated positive reactions from conservationists

because of the greater emphasis on issues, which

they hoped would lead to greater responsiveness to

their concerns (50). The 1980 RPA Program included some unconventional ideas, such as making

recreation the dominant use of the eastern National

Forests and making the Forest Service a government

corporation. An internal Forest Service review team,

however, concluded that this effort did ‘not respond

to what GAO apparently intended in its recommendation that there be a discussion of issues’ (53). After

making this determination, the Forest Service did

not include a discussion of issues in the 1985

Program, and was again criticized for this omission.

Hewitt (45) examined ways to improve the

effectiveness of issue identification in the RPA

process. He recommended that the Forest Service

develop better mechanisms to involve more people

in the process, and suggested establishing an annual

conference to facilitate this. Such a proposal is

consistent with the scoping process required by

NEPA as part of public participation, and would be

more consistent with a strategic planning process for

the public sector.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program identifies 15 issues

that the Forest Service claims “fit into the strategic
Chapter 7—The RPA Program . 81

planning nature of the RPA Program” (116). The

issues selected met three criteria: a) national significance, b) impact on several Forest Service programs,

and c) implications for the recommended 1990 RPA

Program. The 15 issues in the Draft are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

changing recreation needs;

endangered, threatened, and sensitive species;

riparian management;

water quality;

air quality;

catastrophic fires;

range condition;

minerals development;

below-cost timber program;

old-growth forests;

clearcutting;

timber supply from nonindustrial private lands;

international forest-products competitiveness;

biological diversity; and

global climate change.

These issues cover many of the current concerns

of the individuals and groups interested in forest and

rangeland resources. Only timber industry competitiveness is not a resource issue, while timber supply

concerns are unnecessarily restricted to nonindustry

private lands. A number of other important issues—

e.g., grazing fees, log exports, timber taxation,

wilderness management, local regulation of forest

practices, and the nature of and changes in resourcedependent communities-are not included in the

1990 Draft.

The agency’s issue responses in the Draft 1990

RPA Program are not very useful. Alternative

responses are not explored, and some responses are

simply a description of current policies. For example, below-cost timber sales continue to be a concern

for many groups, but the agency’s response was to

describe the new timber accounting system. A

strategic planning approach would consider possible

responses, such as modifying sale design to enhance

revenues, altering sale practices to cut costs, researching mill efficiency to improve purchaser

profitability, subsidizing timber production on private lands, etc. Then, the Forest Service would have

possible responses that could conform to the various

strategies proposed and to the recommended Program when it is complete. This would allow the

Forest Service to respond to concerns in a manner

consistent with the strategic plan.

Strategies

Chapter 5 of the Draft RPA 1990 Program

identifies five possible long-term program strategies:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

continue budget and relative resource emphasis of the 1980s;

implement local resource plans;

high-bound 1985 RPA Program (adjusted);

special emphasis on responding to the 1989

RPA Assessment; and

shift resource balance among private and

public lands.

There is relatively little information on how these

strategies were developed; the section in the Program titled “How the Forest Service Developed

Strategies’ lists the strategies, but does not describe

their development. Irland (48) criticizes the strategies, noting that:

. . . the strategies identified are really output mixes,

not strategies. They represent a set of incremental

changes from present patterns. In a few cases, the

summaries of strategy contain terms that better

express a strategic sense of what is being proposed.

We learn that High-Bound-a meaningless phrase to

people who have not followed RPA history-is

really a strong emphasis on revenues and net public

benefits. And “shifting resource balance among

private and public lands” is really a proposal to

reduce emphasis on commodity production on

national forests.

Most of the strategies are not consistent with

the strategic planning intent of RPA. Strategy 1 is a

simple continuation of the status quo and contains no

strategic guidance for Forest Service activities; an

unexamined continuation implies no strategic thinking. Strategy 2 suggests that the forest plans be

implemented, implying that the agency has not

really decided to implement these locally developed

plans, generated with so much public attention and

cost. Furthermore, an aggregation of local decisions

is not strategic planning for an organization. Strategy 3 proposes following a previous recommendation, the 1985 RPA High-Bound Program, that was

based on the previous Assessment (rather than on the

current situation analysis) and was not really implemented. Strategy 4--’’Emphasize responding to the

Assessment’ ’—likewise indicates that whether and

in what ways the Assessment should drive programs

remains an open question. Only Strategy 5 presents

an attempt to define an alternative way of meeting
82 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

the resource problems and opportunities identified

in the 1989 RPA Assessment. Furthermore, except

for Strategy 1, the various strategies establish

surprisingly similar direction for Forest Service

activities.

Cooperative Assistance

Strategy 1 continues the current program direction

and level for cooperative assistance. A variation—

Strategy IA—would eliminate financial assistance,

but no explanation is offered for why this variation

is presented nor of why it might be appropriate.

Cooperative assistance programs in the other

strategies are quite similar, with total costs remaining within a very narrow range (between 4 and 5

percent) of the total Forest Service budget (42). The

two largest programs-pest management and fire

protection-appear to be virtually the same under

these strategies. Overall, under the Draft 1990 RPA

Program, the direction for cooperative assistance

will be quite similar-in focus and in total funding-under any of the strategies, except Strategies 1

and 1A. One might expect greatest reliance on

cooperative assistance in Strategy 5 and this strategy

does yield generally greater results from cooperative

assistance than the other strategies. However, these

results are achieved at lower costs than most other

strategies, which leads one to wonder why any other

strategy would ever be selected.

National Forests

The Draft 1990 RPA Program focuses strongly on

the national forests, not surprisingly, since they

account for about 90 percent of total Forest Service

expenditures. The Draft acknowledges that the

analyses of environmental and economic effects

have only been done for the National Forest System

because of difficulties in extending these analyses to

private lands (116). However, when one management strategy contemplates shifting commodity

production toward private lands, and away from

Federal lands, excluding environmental and economic effects from private land management seriously skews the results (11).

Except for Strategy 1, all strategies anticipate

substantial increases in funding, outputs, and receipts for nearly all resources by 2040. Recreation

shows surprisingly consistent increases under Strategies 2 through 5. By 2040, funding will increase by

164 to 187 percent over 1987 funding, accounting

for 14 to 15 percent of national forest funding

(compared with 8 percent in 1987). Use is expected

to increase by 85 to 111 percent, and receipts to

increase within a smaller range, by 90 to 104 percent.

Strategy 5 generates the greatest use and the highest

receipts at the lowest cost; this probably results from

the shift of commodity production toward private

lands, although this rationale is not documented.

Funding projections for range forage and for

water programs are fairly consistent across Strategies 2 through 5, but range forage shows markedly

different use and receipt projections. Forage use

would decline under Strategies 4 and 5, while

increasing under Strategies 2 and 3. However,

receipts are projected to increase by two to three

times current receipts under all strategies, even for

the 10 percent use decline under Strategy 1. The

rationale for this implicit rise in Federal grazing fees

is not presented, but is certainly contrary to the trend

of the past 20 years.

Timber funding and outputs in 2040 have the

smallest changes from 1987 levels for any resource,

but with much variation among the strategies.

Funding and sales offerings would decline by 7

percent under Strategy 5, increase by 27 percent

under Strategies 2 and 4, and increase by 38 percent

under Strategy 3. However, gross timber receipts in

2040 will be substantially above 1987 receipts,

ranging from $2.4 to $2.5 billion under all strategies

(including under Strategy 1).

Wildlife and fish management shows the largest

increases and the largest range of increase in funding

and use levels. Use and funding are projected to at

least double and possibly quadruple by 2040, with

Strategy 5 showing the greatest increase, followed

closely by Strategy 4. Wildlife and fish funding is

also projected to account for a larger share of

funding, rising from 3 percent of the 1987 national

forest funding to 5 percent under Strategies 2 and 3,

to 8 percent under Strategy 4, and to 10 percent

under Strategy 5. Thus, Strategy 5 and, to a lesser

extent, Strategy 4 clearly emphasize wildlife and

fish activities in the National Forest System.

Wilderness is treated as a subset of recreation, and

thus the Draft 1990 RPA Program contains virtually

no data on funding or on the estimated roadless

acreage or extent of the Wilderness System. It was

noted that ‘‘acres in the Wilderness System increase . . . about 25 percent’ under Strategies 2

through 5(1 16), but that total roadless area (and thus

roadless area outside the Wilderness System) will
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 83

decline by “about one-third from the 1987 level”

under Strategies 2 through 4, and by a lesser amount

under Strategy 5 (116).

Research

Some of the strategies discussed in the Draft 1990

Program, particularly Strategies 1 and 3, do not

respond to the two-pronged approach to research

proposed under the roles (42). Strategy 1 proposes

no change in the level or mix of Forest Service

research programs. This is consistent with the

findings in the individual resource Assessments on

the need for commodity-related research, but does

not respond to Assessment findings on research

needs for other resources. Strategy 3 responds to

needs for timber-related research at the expense of

research on recreation, wildlife, fish, and water.

The other strategies do a better job of responding

to the research roles proposed in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program. Strategy 2 places more emphasis on

multiresource studies, non-commodity resources,

and broader based issues such as biodiversity,

although how this direction can be derived from

local resource plan implementation is unclear. Strategy 4 emphasizes research on recreation and wildlife

and fish, especially nongame wildlife and threatened

and endangered species. In its attempt to focus on

integrated rather than single-function concerns, support for national forest programs declines somewhat

in this strategy. Strategy 5 also emphasizes research

on recreation and wildlife and fish, especially habitat

management in the framework of biodiversity issues. The slight decrease in timber-related research

is marked by greater emphasis on holistic management strategies.

By 2040, research gains an increased share of the

Forest Service budget under all of the strategies

except Strategy 1. The research share of total Forest

Service expenditures rises from 7 percent in 1987 to

11.5 percent by 2040. Even with the proportionate

increases in funding for research in Strategies 2

through 5, however, the array of research needs

identified in the several individual resource Assessments cannot be addressed adequately (42).

International Forestry

Except for Strategy 1, all strategies propose

shifting International Forestry to relatively more

technical assistance and cooperation with international organizations. The implications for research

and scientific exchange are unclear, because there

are no cost data for International Forestry, and thus

no information on whether research and scientific

exchange will have fewer dollars or simply less

emphasis. Further, “the rationale for these proposed

changes is not apparent, nor is the way in which they

respond to the ‘increased challenge’ of international

issues” (42).

Initiatives

Following the presentations of the five strategies,

the Draft 1990 RPA Program identifies several

Forest Service initiatives, defined as ‘‘special,

short-term strategies designed to eliminate or prevent backlogs of work or to accelerate work that has

become high priority” (116). Six initiatives were

analyzed in the 1990 Draft Program:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

threatened and endangered species recovery;

restoration of anadromous fish habitat;

facilities maintenance and equipment purchase;

national recreation strategy;

healthy and diversified local economies; and

strengthened intergovernmental relationships.

No information is provided on what system or

process was used to designate the initiatives as the

six most important short-term strategies. Furthermore, the discussion of the initiatives and how they

relate to the strategies is sketchy and difficult to

follow. The justification for the initiatives and their

connection with the strategies need further clarification to aid in comparing strategies. Although the

intent behind the development of the initiatives was

to reduce the number of Program alternatives, two of

the initiatives are not affected by choice of strategy

and could easily have been incorporated into all

strategies.

Thus, while the idea of including initiatives in the

Program is probably a good one, their presentation

in the Program is ineffective. They fall short of their

potential to set goals to eliminate backlogs of Forest

Service tasks, such as reforestation, stand improvement, watershed treatment, and soil conservation.

Rather than driving strategies, they are viewed as

separate exercises with activities and costs added to

those of the strategies.

INFORMATION CONTENT

Congress clearly intended that the Program be

derived from the Assessment. RPA specifically

states: “In order to provide for periodic review
84 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

of. . . Forest Service programs. . . in relation to the

findings of the Assessment, the Secretary of Agriculture. . . . shall prepare and transmit to the President a recommended Renewable Resource Program.” Based on this intent, part of the analysis in

the following sections examines the relationship

between the documents and the presentation of new,

unexplained data in the Program.

Resource and Activity Data

Recreation Activities

Recreation is discussed in 1 of the 8 roles, 1 of the

15 issues, and 1 of the 6 initiatives in the Draft 1990

RPA Program. The recreation-related role of the

Forest Service in multiple-use management has been

to provide 40 percent of the recreation on Federal

lands, and to provide various facilities, including

campgrounds; picnic, boating and interpretive sites;

ski areas; lodges and resorts; and trailheads and

scenic trails. The recreation-related issue identified

in the Program is the American public’s changing

preferences in recreation. The Forest Service responded to this issue with an initiative-the National Recreation Strategy. The primary objectives

of the National Recreation Strategy are: 1) to

implement fully the challenge cost-sharing program

designed to create partnerships with recreation

users; and 2) to eliminate all deferred maintenance

on recreation facilities and trails by 2000.

Measures used to evaluate recreation within the

five strategies include recreation use (measured in

recreation visitor days [RVDs]), condition of facilities and trails, below-standard use, miles of trail

built, and backlog of facility and trail maintenance.

The discussion of these measures in the Program is

generally brief and the relationship between the

measures and the quantity and quality of recreation

provided is not always clear. Some of the measures,

notably below-standard use and the maintenance

backlogs, were not included in the Recreation

Assessment. The discussion of the National Recreation Strategy is much more useful and presents a

good description of how the Forest Service defines

customer satisfaction in recreation. Specific examples for improving recreation experience are listed

and include anticipating changing needs; having

flexibility to provide new experiences; and providing physical improvements such as new and better

interpretive and informational signs and improved

maps showing recreation opportunities.

Range Forage Resources

Alternative strategies, in terms of range forage

resources, are compared using animal unit months

(AUMs) of permitted grazing; the resource value

rating (proportion of rangelands in satisfactory

condition); and the level of noxious weed infestations.

The key output for rangeland is AUMs of

permitted grazing. In the Assessment, this unit of

output was said to be a conservative estimate for

forage produced, because not all land is grazed, and

no estimate is made of forage consumed by wildlife.

AUMs, however, do not measure the quantity or

quality of, or trends in, the range forage resource.

The only measure of resource conditions presented in the Assessment and carried forward to the

Program is the resource value rating. The expected

change in percentage of rangeland with a satisfactory rating is shown for the five strategies. This

measure is of limited value, however, because a

satisfactory rating implies no need or opportunity to

improve the quantity or quality of forage produced.

Using the level of noxious weed infestation as a

measure for comparing strategies is problematic.

The definitions of noxious weeds are usually set by

State agricultural agencies, and the considerable

variation among State definitions makes consolidating the data difficult and of questionable reliability.

Control of undesirable plants is discussed in the

Assessment, but there are no nationwide data

presented for noxious weed infestations on national

forests or other lands. Thus, this variable measure is

of limited use in evaluating alternative Draft Program strategies.

No clear relationship exists between the data

presented in the Range Assessment and the estimated effects of alternative strategies on the rangeland resource. While the scientific rationale for

defining the resource value rating for range condition class is described and overall percentages are

reported in the Draft Program, it is not clear how

much, where, and why a portion of the resource is

rated as unsatisfactory; what can be done about it;

and at what cost. Data on number of acres in a

specified class, location of these lands, and rationale

for designating them as satisfactory or unsatisfactory would seem well-suited for discussion in the

Assessment. Furthermore, ecological status of
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 85

rangelands presented in the Assessment is not used

for comparing strategies in the Draft Program.

Public concern over range condition is recognized

and was included as 1 of the 15 contemporary

resource issues discussed in the Program. It would

again be appropriate to draw on data from the

Assessment to address this concern in the Program.

For example, it seems likely that policymakers and

members of the public are interested in how many

acres of rangeland in the southwestern shrubsteppe

ecosystem are rated in unsatisfactory condition, but

such information is not presented in the Assessment.

Budget requests might generate increased support if

activities were related to the needs of specific

ecosystems and regions. It would be beneficial, for

example, if the Forest Service could show improvements in rangeland condition resulting from its

efforts. Conversely, lack of improvement could be

supported with evidence explaining why the problems remain intractable and a case made for continued efforts and perhaps for more research.

Timber Resources

Several measures are used to compare the outputs

and environmental effects of alternative timber

management strategies for the national forests.

These include volume of timber offered for sale;

acres of timber cutting; miles of road construction;

volume of long-term sustained yield; acres of

reforestation; and acres of old-growth forests. The

flow of data from the 1989 Assessment to the 1990

Draft Program is not clear. In some cases, the source

of data for estimating future outputs and effects may

be the Assessment, but such information is not

identified in the Draft Program. For example, the

volume of timber offered for sale is presumably

calculated using the national forest portion of the

Assessment database, but this is never stated. The

volume offered for sale is the key output for the

timber resource, but was not used as a measure of

timber resource status in the Assessment.

The volume of long-term sustained yield is used

in two ways—to estimate forest land productivity

and to assess soil disturbance and water quality. As

with timber offerings, this is presumably calculated

from the Assessment database, but this measure was

not in the Assessment. It seems likely that long-term

sustained yield provides the base for the other

timber-related measures used in the Draft Program,

but one cannot be certain because no information

sources are identified.

Several measures-acres of timber to be cut;

miles of road construction; acres of reforestation;

and acres of old-growth forests--cannot be derived

from the database described in the Assessment. It is

difficult to classify these measures without knowing

how they were generated. They cannot be measured

until the volume offered for sale has been allocated

to specific harvest locations and preliminary timber

harvest planning completed. The extent to which

this process has been completed was not described

anywhere in the Program. If they were developed by

field measurements or by remote sensing techniques, they would be direct measures. If, however,

they were developed from other sources, including

judgments based on experience, they are variable

measures with uncertain validity. The estimate of

road construction mileage, for example, may have

been developed by measuring proposed roads to

expected timber harvest locations, or as seems more

likely, by a rule-of-thumb estimate of miles of road

per acre or per thousand board feet of proposed

timber sales.

Information presented in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program on timber resources sometimes mixes

description with data. The narrative description of

alternative strategies, for example, makes a distinction between new road construction and reconditioned roads, and the percentage of each is given in

the description of the strategies. Miles of new road

construction, however, is the only measure given in

the analysis of environmental effects.

The treatment of old-growth forests in the Draft

1990 Program is especially poor. The importance of

old-growth forests as habitat for wildlife species is

only described, without data on its extent and

location. Acres of old-growth forests (total and in

Forest Service Regions 3,6, and 10) are presented in

appendix C of the Draft Program to indicate wildlife

and fish habitat capabilities, but it is not possible to

determine the validity of this measure, because the

Forest Service acknowledges that it is still proceeding with its efforts to inventory old-growth forests

(126). The Forest Service discusses the difficulty of

obtaining agreement on a definition of old-growth

forests in the Draft Program, and notes the public’s

concern over old-growth forests. Nonetheless, without reliable baseline data on quantity, quality, and

distribution of old-growth forests, it is difficult to

address their relation to such issues as threatened

and endangered species, biodiversity, esthetics, and

community stability. More appropriate-and of
86 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

greater use to the public and to policymakers—

would be a presentation of the acres of old-growth

forests for various ownerships in the Assessment,

with the projected impact of the alternative strategies then described in the Draft Program.

Water Resources

Water resource information presented in the Draft

1990 RPA Program is not always supported by data

presented in the Water Assessment. For example,

one of the measures used to compare the alternative

strategies is watershed acres in ‘‘improved condition.’ There are few data in the Assessment to arrive

at this measure: the number of watersheds (not acres)

in each condition class was in the Assessment, but

national forest lands are not distinguished from other

lands. Furthermore, the inventory of watershed

condition class derived from field measurements is

not yet complete. Thus, professional judgments

rather than field measurements were apparently used

to broadly classify watersheds by condition in the

Draft Program.

There are further discrepancies in water resource

data between the Assessment and the Draft Program.

The 1990 Draft evaluates how well various management alternatives would meet the needs for such

goals as: a) enhancing soil productivity and water

quality; b) maintaining instream flows for wildlife

and fish habitat and recreation; c) improving timing

of runoff; and d) reversing the trend of wetland loss.

None of these goals meet the definition of a reliable

measure, because none were expressed in identifiable units of measurement that can be used to assess

performance. Some of the goals are predicted effects

of “if-then” propositions associated with different

management strategies and arrived at by a series of

professional judgments. For example, increased

timber harvests are assumed to improve the timing

of runoff, because: 1) increased timber harvest will

create more openings in the forest, which 2) with

proper orientation and size will increase snow

deposition, thereby 3) prolonging the snow melt, and

thus 4) improving the timing of runoff. These

aggregations of professional judgments are not

predictions of change in measures developed and

described in the 1989 Assessment, but instead are

often new and partially independent estimates about

some of the measures presented in the Assessment.

The lack of established databases for measures of

resource conditions is disturbing. Periodic estimates

based in large part on the professional judgment of

planners are not equivalent to periodic repetitive

inventories developed from field measurements.

The Water Assessment states that “One of the most

important tools for solving complex ecological

problems, such as determining the effect of acid

deposition and ozone on forests and rangelands, is

having long-term trend data available” (120). With

inadequate or incomplete databases, it is impossible

to assess these effects or to monitor the cumulative

effects of local management activities on an entire

watershed or region.

Wildlife and Fish Resources

Three measures of the quality and quantity of the

wildlife and fish resources are used to compare the

predicted outcomes of alternative strategies in the

Draft 1990 RPA Program: commercial salmon and

steelhead harvest; acres of big game winter range;

and acres of old-growth forests (examined under

timber resources, above).

Commercial salmon and steelhead harvest is an

output measure used to estimate the status of salmon

and steelhead populations. Although this estimate is

replicable and available annually, it is conceptually

weak as an estimate of population size, because

harvests are not a fixed proportion of the total

population. Also, because these species spawn in

streams outside as well as inside the national forests,

it is difficult to justify the use of their status to

compare predicted outcomes of Forest Service

programs under alternative strategies.

Acres of big game winter range is classed as a

variable measure, although the development of this

measure is not described in either the Assessment or

the Draft Program. It seems likely that the inventory

of big game winter range is conducted in conjunction with range allotment analysis, and thus consists

of both field measurements and professional judgments. There is no way, however, to assess the

replicability of the estimates and no attempt is made

to estimate the quality of the winter range.

Several descriptive terms are used to compare the

predicted outcomes of alternative strategies in the

Draft 1990 program, but none calibrate quantity or

quality of the resource. These include: wildlife and

fish user-days; backlogs in maintenance of wildlife

and fish habitat; funding for wildlife and fish habitat

management programs; Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V)

funding for mitigation and direct habitat improvement; and capability for trout and warm-water fish.
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 87

The key output for wildlife and fish resources is

expressed in terms of predicted wildlife and fish

user-days, and is based on demand and habitat

capability. The Forest Service defines capability as:

The potential of an area of land to produce

resources, supply goods, and services, and allow

resource uses under an assumed set of management

intensity. Capability depends upon current site

conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils

and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection

from fire, insects, and disease (121).

Habitat capabilities for all big game species and for

trout and warm-water fish are thus not measures of

the resource, but rather predictions of changes that

could occur depending on funding levels available

under alternative strategies. Although “elimination

of backlog in maintenance of wildlife and fish

habitat” is not a measure of status, somewhere an

inventory of the backlog must exist, and would

probably be a direct or variable measure of wildlife

habitat conditions. A description in the Assessment

or Program would have been helpful. Funding for

management, mitigation, and habitat improvement

describes anticipated levels of management activity

for the alternative strategies, but does not measure

the quantity or quality of the wildlife and fish

resources.

Acres of old-growth forests, acres of big game

winter range, and riparian capability are used as

measures for evaluating effects on wildlife and fish

habitat capability in the Draft program. There are

two problems with this. One is the uncertain quality

of the first two measures, as described above; neither

measure was included in the Assessment. Second,

the acres of riparian area, improved or otherwise, are

not reported in either the Assessment or Draft

Program. The Forest Service proposes completing

its comprehensive inventory of riparian areas and

their ecological condition by 1995. It seems premature to speculate on changes in the potential of this

resource category when the initial inventory of

resource condition has not been conducted.

It is surprising how few direct measures are

available to evaluate the status of wildlife and fish

resources. Although the lack of information on

habitat condition and population levels is identified

by Forest Service and BLM biologists as highpriority issues, existing population inventory techniques are of questionable reliability or too costly to

be used in a comprehensive, systematic survey

(121). Therefore, very little discussion is possible

regarding anticipated effects of the various strategies

on wildlife and fish resource quantity and quality.

Wilderness Resources

The Draft 1990 RPA Program devotes limited

space to the discussion of wilderness. Wilderness is

mentioned in only one of the eight roles developed

for the Program, the multiple-use management role.

The wilderness “outputs” provided by the national

forests include more than 3,300 miles of wild and

scenic rivers and designated wilderness areas that

account for 1 out of every 6 acres of Forest Service

land. Wilderness is mentioned briefly in 1 of the 15

issues identified in the Program: under changing

recreation needs, the Forest Service has placed

strong emphasis on recreation management on the

national forest wilderness areas and on wild and

scenic rivers.

The information provided on wilderness within

the strategy and initiative discussions is not only

limited but also unclear. Four measures are mentioned in the comparison of Draft Program strategies: acres in the wilderness system, use of the

wilderness system, quality of the wilderness experience, and total roadless acres. These measures are

never defined and are alluded to only briefly in a

short paragraph comparing recreation management

among the five strategies. Some of these measures

are also used in the Recreation Assessment, but no

reference is given to previous Assessment discussions of what the terms mean and of how conclusions about increases and decreases were derived.

The indirect measure for determiningg the quality

of the recreation experience--the amount of deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and trails—

may also have been used to evaluate the quality of

the wilderness experience, but the Draft Program

never explains how the latter was defined or

measured.

The Forest Service stated in the Draft Program

that it has placed strong emphasis on national forest

wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers in

response to the 1989 RPA Assessment findings

related to wilderness. Judging from the meager

attention given to wilderness in the Assessment and

Draft Program, and from the sketchy descriptions of

measures of the quantity and quality of the wilderness resource, especially in the 1990 Draft Program,
88 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

this strong emphasis on the wilderness system lands

and wild and scenic rivers is not apparent.

Economic Analysis

RPA virtually dictates the use of economic

analysis in calling for an analysis of investment

needs and opportunities and of the costs, benefits,

and returns to the Federal Government from Program outputs and priorities. These requirements

essentially express a concern over the economic

efficiency of Forest Service programs-having the

right level of total funding and having the right mix

of funding among the resource programs-as well as

the desire for useful benefit and cost information.

In addition to concerns about economic efficiency, many groups have expressed concern about

the economic impacts of Forest Service programs on

communities and on society. Congress has only

indirectly expressed these concerns in legislation for

the Forest Service; the definition of sustained

yield—a high level of annual or regular periodic

output-in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

reflects such concerns. In the 1976 Senate floor

debate over economic standards for timber management, Senators on all sides expressed concern over

employment in the timber industry (145). Yet,

despite Congress’ concern, the Forest Service has

never been directed to consider employment impacts

or community stability (78). Nevertheless, measures

of economic impacts are examined.

Economic Efficiency

Congress makes two decisions that bear on the

economic efficiency of Forest Service programs: the

total funding level and the funding mix among

programs. (See box 7-A for methods of evaluating

economic efficiency.) With RPA, Congress clearly

intended that the Forest Service provide information

that would help in making such decisions.

The Forest Service claims that “For each Strategy, economic efficiency has been maximized given

the Strategy’s particular constraints” (116). However, for decisions at the broadest scale-whether to

invest in research or in cooperative programs or in

the national forests---economic efficiency is not

considered, because of the noted difficulty in quantifying and valuing the benefits of the research and

cooperative assistance programs. Quantifying the

benefits and costs of research and of cooperative

programs is admittedly very difficult, but ignoring

them necessarily precludes economic efficiency

from two of the three congressionally defined Forest

Service roles. Furthermore, even for the National

Forest System, the Draft 1990 RPA Program does

not provide enough information to evaluate the

claim of maximum economic efficiency (11).

Some evidence discredits the agency’s claim. The

standard for economic efficiency is responsiveness

to price (market value) signals, but the Forest

Service “sets targets regardless of market prices or

consumer demand” (75). One study found that “the

Forest Service appears to have been able to meet the

output targets with less funding than anticipated in

the 1980 RPA Program” (140). Binkley and Hagenstein (14) evaluated the 1985 RPA Program, and

found that the recommended Program did not begin

to approach an efficient mix of funding among the

resources.

Finally, the revenue data in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program probably distort any analyses of Federal

fiscal efficiency. One can argue about the likelihood

of the long-term price projections, but the near-term

(1995) revenue estimates for range and timber

overstate the likely receipts. Range receipts were

estimated to exceed $20 million in 1995 for all

strategies (116), but Forest Service range receipts

were only $9 million in 1989 (126), and have been

declining since 1980. For timber, the projected

revenues apparently include the value of timber

purchaser road credits, even though these credits are

non-cash transactions (timber is exchanged for road

construction) which have no affect on the U.S.

Treasury. (See box 9-A.) If all receipts were equally

inflated, the efficiency of the funding mix might not

be distorted. However, the 1995 estimates for

recreation receipts, $31 to $39 million, are no higher

than the 1989 receipts of $38 million. Thus, the

overblown revenue projections for some resources

probably distort any analyses of efficiency based on

revenues.

Benefit and Cost Information

Congress clearly requested information on benefits and costs of the recommended Program, and the

Programs (including the 1990 Draft) have included

much information. However, Congress also distinguished benefits from direct and indirect Federal

returns. Thus, Congress at least implicitly desired an

analysis of the fiscal effect on the U.S. Treasury as

well as the analysis of social benefits and costs.
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 89

Box 7-A—Measuring Economic Efficiency

In theory, economic efficiency is determined by comparing the marginal benefits of an activity with the

marginal costs. This is not total benefits and total costs, but rather the additional benefits generated by additional

expenditures. Additional investments are warranted as long as the additional benefits are greater than the additional

costs. Thus, assuming that the most rewarding investments are made first, the optimal funding level occurs when

the additional benefits exactly match the additional costs.

This type of marginal analysis also determines the optimal mix among programs. For example, if an additional

investment in watershed protection yields more benefits than an equal investment in forage production, the

watershed investment is a‘ ‘better’ (more rewarding) investment. In natural resources, such an analysis can be quite

complicated, because an investment in one resource can generate benefits for another resource; the investment in

forage production, for example, might also yield some watershed benefits. In theory, all such benefits and any

environmental damages would be included, but in practice, it is difficult to measure all such effects for each

investment opportunity.

Measuring Benefits-There are many ways to measure the benefits that result from investments. One measure

is revenues generated. In tight fiscal times, revenue is an important consideration. However, Federal revenue

shouldn’t be the sole criterion, because many resources are subsidized or provided free. As discussed earlier, there

are ways of measuring the social value of nonpriced goods and services (see box 6-B). The Forest Service calculated

market-clearing prices in the Draft 1990 RPA Program; in essence, this measures total producer revenues at the

output level which would occur if the resources were marketed. Thus, market-clearing price data define the producer

benefits that would result from private ownership and marketing of the resources. The Forest Service also estimated

consumer’s surplus, a measure of benefits received by consumers in excess of the payments they make. By adding

consumer’s surplus to the market-clearing price, the Forest Service has generated a reasonable estimate of benefits

to society from providing resources and uses in the national forests.

Measuring Costs—Measuring costs is deceptively simple. Again, one key is to measure the additional costs,

both investment and operating costs. In addition, the costs measured must be comparable to the benefits measured.

For example, Federal costs should be compared with Federal revenues, to measure the impacts of the investment

on the U.S. Treasury. producer costs, including the profit needed to keep the firm in business, would be compared

to the Forest Service’s market-clearing prices. Finally, societal costs would be compared with societal benefits;

these costs should include additional financial and environmental costs imposed on others (public and private) by

the investment decision.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program is the first RPA private sectors in resource production (11). Howdocument to include such fiscal information. However, as noted above, the near-term revenue projections for some resources are probably overestimated.

In addition, the Draft Program contains inaccurate

cost data. The total 1987 cost for the National Forest

System was reported as $1,691 million in the Draft

RPA Program (116), but the actual expenditures

were $2,027 million (123). Furthermore, the Draft

Program estimates that 42 percent of the costs were

capital investments (116), but less than 10 percent of

actual expenditures were identified as capital outlays in the 1988 Report of the Forest Service (123).

Finally, environmental costs of producing resources on private lands have been excluded from

the economic analysis in the RPA Programs, including the Draft 1990 Program. This is not a problem if

all strategies have similar roles for the public and

ever, Strategy 5 in the Draft contemplates shifting

more commodity production to private lands. Excluding private land environmental costs allows the

Federal Government to transfer environmental costs

to the private sector with no consequence to the

government. From a social standpoint, however, the

environment is still affected, regardless of where the

commodity production occurs. In fact, if Federal

production occurs under stricter environmental protection, then shifting commodity production to

private lands might increase environmental costs, a

condition clearly not reflected in the analysis in the

Draft 1990 RPA Program.

Economic Impacts

The Forest Service has no statutory mandate to

consider employment or other economic impacts of

its programs (78). Nonetheless, Congress and many
90 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

individuals and groups are concerned about the

economic consequences of Forest Service activities.

This concern is often expressed in terms of “community stability,” but this phrase is not clearly

defined, either in law or by academia (52, 78).

Historically, Congress and the Forest Service have

thought that a stable, sustainable supply of timber

resources could lead to stable communities (87).

However, recent research has shown that stable

timber supplies are, at best, ineffective at providing

stable employment levels (37, 148).

Measuring community stability is not a simple

task. Stable timber industry employment and Federal payments to counties are measures of concern to

Congress (74). However, communities may also

depend on other industries, such as commercial

fishing and recreation and tourism, that can be

affected by Forest Service activities (39, 86). Thus,

community stability depends on more than just

timber industry employment.

The Draft 1990 RPA program projected total

employment and county payments resulting from

Forest Service activities under each strategy (116).

By law, county payments are 25 percent of gross

Forest Service receipts,1 and the projections are

consistent with this requirement. However, the

methods for making the employment projections

were not described, and thus their accuracy cannot

be assessed. Furthermore, the Draft Program contains no disaggregations by region or by industry.

Because there were no data on resource industry

employment, except in the Timber Assessment, or of

the local importance of Forest Service county

payments in the Assessment, the relative magnitude

and importance of the information in the Draft

Program cannot be evaluated.

Other measures of the economic and social

impacts of Forest Service activities are excluded

entirely. Employment can be subdivided into permanent and temporary, full-time and part-time. Local

income and State and local taxes are also useful

measure of economic impacts. Furthermore, the mix

of jobs in a community, and changes in the mix, are

useful measures of the social setting. The Forest

Service needs to develop a spectrum of relevant

measures to accurately report on the economic and

social impacts of the recommended RPA program.

THE RPA PROGRAM AND

THE BUDGET

As discussed earlier, Congress intended the RPA

process to help frame Forest Service budget requests. Many interest groups viewed RPA as a

means of raising the importance of Forest Service

budget needs, relative to other agencies within and

outside the Department of Agriculture. In congressional testimony on the 1980 Program, the National

Wildlife Federation observed that insufficient funding would make RPA planning ‘fruitless’ (95). The

implicit commitment to future budget targets, based

on the Program and Statement of Policy, were a

major objection from OMB during the enactment of

RPA (84).

These hopes and concerns probably overstate

Congress’ expectations for budget direction from the

RPA process. Wolf succinctly summarized Congress’ views (150):

Neither the President nor the Congress would be

required to implement the program at full funding,

and the program would not be in the nature of an

authorization. Thus, [Senator Hubert] Humphrey

sought to create something that could best be defined

as a guide to budget directions and levels.

Thus, Congress never expected the RPA Program

and Statement of Policy to be a straitjacket for or

even a commitment by the President. The Forest

Service concurred in this view; ex-Chief John

McGuire identified one reason for long-range planning as the need to “establish a multi-year framework for evaluating budget alternatives (emphasis

added)’ (60). The provisions requiring an explanation for budgets that deviated from the direction set

forth in the Program and Statement of Policy,

however, illustrated that Congress wanted to know

when short-term decisions, to reduce the Federal

deficit or whatever, were constraining long-run

renewable resource management.

Past Performance

The Forest Service asserts that the RPA Program

should not be constrained by budget limitations,

because: 1) it should present the agency’s professional opinion of ideal renewable resource management, and 2) it should display the opportunities

foregone because of insufficient funding (85). While
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 91

foregone because of insufficient funding (85). While

this concept has merit, others have noted that the

Forest Service has attempted to resolve conflicts by

essentially throwing money at the problems (53).

The approach has been described as the old “good

news/bad news” pitch—the bad news is demand is

rising, but the good news is that all problems can be

solved with another billion dollars or so (84).

Congress apparently thought reasonably well of

the Forest Service’s 1975 RPA program, but because of overall budget constraints, Congress only

funded 85 percent of that Program’s budget proposal

for 1978 (83). However, the Administration and

some interest groups argued that the mix among

programs needed to be adjusted if the budget level

was reduced—that the interactions among resource

activities didn’t allow for equal reductions in all

programs-and Congress has not tried such a

fried-mix approach again.

In 1980, and again in 1985, instead of the single

recommendation required by RPA, the Program

contained two levels of budget and output targets,

known as the high-bound and the low-bound. The

high-bound essentially reflected the agency’s goals

for improving renewable resource management. The

low-bound responded to OMB’s concern for reducing the Federal budget deficit. In addition, OMB

believed that the Forest Service budget proposals

were generally excessive, and that most of additional

benefits could have been obtained with much lower

additional expenditures (84).

Congress explicitly rejected OMB low-bound in

the 1980 RPA Program by revising the Presidential

Statement of Policy to proclaim that the high-bound

was the 1980 RPA Program. (The Statement of

Policy and the 1980 revision by Congress are

described more fully in the next chapter of this

report.) However, the subsequent appropriations

have actually followed the low-bound targets quite

closely (85). Furthermore, OMB’s contention of

inflated Forest Service budget targets is supported

by an analysis that found that the Forest Service

actually achieved more than 100 percent of lowbound targets for nearly all Program activities (and

100 percent of high-bound targets for some activities) with less than two-thirds of the low-bound

budget level from 1982 through 1985 (140). That

report notes that “this might have occurred because

the location and/or quality of the outputs differs

from those anticipated in the 1980 RPA Program”

but no information was presented to verify such

possibilities (140).

Draft 1990 RPA Program

The Draft 1990 RPA Program presents 1987 cost

data for the National Forest System, with projections

for 1995,2000,2005, and 2040. Appendix E of the

Draft Program contains several tables with costs and

cost projections by strategy and by Forest Service

region, including proportional costs by resource

category (figure 7-l). These tables are labeled as the

costs for RPA strategies by region and for the

Nation, but do not include any data on research or

cooperative assistance.

The tables in the Draft 1990 RPA Program, both

in the appendix and in the text, are not consistent

with 1987 Forest Service costs shown in the 1988

Report of the Forest Service (123). That Report

shows higher costs for each branch of the Forest

Service than does the Draft 1990 Program, as well as

identifying several costs apparently not included in

the Draft (table 7-l).

It is unclear whether these inconsistent cost data

imply a smaller increase in Forest Service funding to

achieve the 1995 through 2040 cost projections, or

whether the cost projections underestimate the fiscal

requirements because the base was understated. It

seems much more likely that the projections were

made from the understated 1987 cost base, and thus

the percentage increases would be accurate and the

funding requirements in the Draft Program are

underestimated by nearly 38 percent.

Table 7-1—1987 Forest Service Cost Data

(In millions of dollars)

Draft Annual

Program Report

National Forest System:

Capital outlays . . . . . . . . . . . $ 715 $ 197.4

Operating costs . . . . . . . . . . 976 1,829.6

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,691 $2,027.0

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 147.4

State and Private Forestry . . . 60 73.3

Human resources . . . . . . . . . . — 80.5

Payments to States and

counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 278.3

Forest Service total. . . . . . . . . $1,891 $2,606.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft 1990 RPA

Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

19S9); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of

the Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1988 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1989).
92 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Figure 7-1—National Forest System Funding in 1987 and 2040

1987 Strategy 1 for the year 2040

Timber 44%

Support

Strategy 2 for the year 2040

Timber 37%

rals 2%

Support 37% r 2%

e 5%

5%

%

Support

Strategy 3 for the year 2040

%

Support 37%

Strategy 4 for the year 2040 Strategy 5 for the year 2040

%

Timber 36% Timber

Recreation 14% Recreation 15%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft 7990 RPA Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1989).
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 93

Figure 7-2—Forest Service Expenditures

(millions of 1988 dollar)

3,500 I

[ 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Year Strategies

n National forest system m State and private forestry m

;. “’;”’= Research

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft 7990 RPA Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1989),

adjusted by OTA (see table 7-l); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office), annual series, 1978-1988.

For the National Forest System, all strategies are

shown to require an increase in funds. Even under

Strategy I---+ontinuation of the current budget—the

budget would increase by nearly 3 percent. This

strategy is not very useful to Congress, because it

simply extends the current congressional budget

decisions, rather than providing the agency’s concept of the proper funding mix. Furthermore, it may

be inconsistent with the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act, unless the current budget mix provides

for managing the resources ‘in the combination that

will best meet the needs of the American people. ’

Strategies 2 through 5 all propose substantial

increases in funding-more than 40 percent for

Strategy 5, more than 50 percent for Strategies 2 and

4, and more than 60 percent for Strategy 3. The Draft

1990 Program asserts that these increases are really

not that large—‘‘less than 1 percent per year for each

Strategy” (116). This is true, but the majority of the

increases are concentrated in the first 5 years.

Strategy 5 requires a 25 percent budget increase by

1995 (only 4.5 percent per year for 5 years), while

Strategies 2,3, and 4 require about 40 percent budget

increases by 1995 (nearly 7 percent per year). These

increases are even bigger than they may seem,

because they are in addition to inflation. From 1978

through 1988, Forest Service expenditures have not

exceeded $2.8 billion annually (in 1988 dollars), and

have been less than $2.5 billion since 1982, but three

of the five strategies in the Draft Program would

require more than $3.0 billion (after adjusting for the

cost understatement described above). (See figure

7-2.) This departure from recent expenditures clearly

illustrates that the Draft 1990 RPA program is based

on a radically different trend in future budgets than

has been seen in the past few years.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program also presents total

1987 cost data for State and Private Forestry (S&PF)

and for Research, with cost projections for 2040. The

strategies contain descriptions of the proportional

emphasis of S&PF and of Research, but without cost

data. Except under Strategy 1 (and 1A), the budgets

for both S&PF and Research are projected to more

than double by 2040. However, because only cost

projections for 2040 are included, it is unknown

whether the proposed budget increases are slow and

steady or are substantially concentrated in the first

few years (as they are for the National Forest

System). Such substantial proposed increases are

unlikely to be funded, although they may be more

feasible than the proposed increases for the National

Forest System because fewer total dollars are

involved.
94 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Current Needs and Opportunities

What can the RPA process offer to the agency, the

Administration, Congress, and the public for the

annual budget process? According to two congressional staffers, Congress seeks information on what

needs to be done, and what it will cost in the short

term to achieve the long-run forest management

goals (58). Further, Congress also needs “a clear,

professional recommendation for how the forests

should be managed” (58).

In addition to the professional recommendation,

Congress and the public also need information to

determine priorities. If the entire recommended

course of action cannot be funded, Congress needs

information on priorities, with benefits and costs of

alternative actions spelled out. The persistent, high

Federal budget deficits and rising interest payments

suggest that a substantial increase in Federal

renewable resource funding is unlikely in the

foreseeable future (56). The RPA Assessment and

Program could provide information to help establish

priorities; in fact, RPA requires such information. As

Jim Giltmier, a congressional staffer who worked on

RPA, noted, “RPA has provided the best tool in

government for dealing with budget examiners who

insist that agencies operate in the most cost-effective

manner” (36).

While many have complained about the budget

ranges presented in the 1980 and 1985 Programs—

the high-bound/low-bound approach—a range of

budget levels can be useful (53). One method,

consistent with economic efficiency theory (44), is

to present a schedule for displaying the efficient

funding mix (and relevant resource output and

condition data) for a variety of budgets under each

alternative or strategy. This would assist Congress

and the public in understanding feasible funding

combinations, and what can be bought with additional funds. Unfortunately, this approach would

substantially increase the analytical requirements, as

well as add to the complexity of an already bulky

document. The next best option, a discussion of

priorities, is required by RPA. This could include

economic efficiency criteria, identifying the investments needed first to achieve the goals of each

alternative or strategy.

One additional aspect of the budget is also

important for decisionmakers to understand. The

Appropriations Committees, and Congress as a

whole, do not address all Forest Service funds,

because some funds are permanently appropriated

(i.e., the money is available without congressional

action). (See box 7-B.) The nature of the funds is not

particularly important when funds are unlimited.

However, when total funds are limited, the funding

balance can become skewed, because some funds are

permanently available while others must compete

against other Federal priorities annually. Furthermore, because some funds generated by Forest

Service actions (notably the K-V Funds resulting

from timber harvesting) are available to the Forest

Service, the agency is highly likely to continue such

actions (and arguably to focus on expanding them),

regardless of their efficiency or desirability. (See

Reforming the Forest Service (75) for a lengthy

discussion of this concern.) In discussing opportunities and priorities, the Forest Service needs to be

explicit about the sources and uses of permanent

appropriations that might influence the decisions.2

CONCLUSIONS

Congress intended the RPA Program to be a

strategic plan for Forest Service activities, providing

essential resource management and budget information. The Program has been criticized for not

providing strategic direction, for inadequately responding to projected resource demands, and for

poorly establishing resource goals and budget targets. The Forest Service has improved the Draft

1990 Program over previous efforts, but there are

still problems that make this document of questionable use to the agency, the Administration, Congress,

and the public.

The Draft 1990 RPA Program’s revised structure

is closer to a strategic planning model for forest and

rangeland resources than previous RPA Programs,

but still fails to set clear goals and priorities. Agency

roles are not clearly defined, issues are not used to

set the stage for recommended strategies, strategies

do not set direction, and initiatives are not presented

as integral components of the strategies. In addition

to these structural problems, the strategies present

unbalanced funding levels among international forestry, cooperative assistance, research, and the

2A &orough ~~ysis of factom which in.tluence agency decisions is beyond the scope of this OTA special report. Such factors, including budgets

and personnel evaluation will be explored in more detail in the full OTA Assessment of Forest Service planning.
Chapter 7—The RPA Program ● 95

Box 7-B—Forest Service Trust Funds and Special Accounts

The Forest Service has six special accounts and trust funds which require annual appropriations and 15 with

permanent appropriations. (For a description of budget terms and these Forest Service accounts, see The Forest

Service Budget: Trust Funds and Special Accounts (141).) The 15 permanent appropriations accounted for more

than a third of total Forest Service appropriations in 1989. The 10 major permanent appropriations (more than $10

million annually) include:

. Payments to States ($371 million in 1989);

● The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Fund ($237 million in 1989);

● The Timber Salvage Sale Fund ($132 million in 1989);

● The Working Capital Fund ($118 million in 1989);

● National Forest Roads and Trails ($96 million in 1989, but since 1982, these funds have been transferred

to the U.S. Treasury to offset annual appropriations for road and trail construction and maintenance);

. Other Cooperative Work ($57 million in 1989);

. Brush Disposal ($54 million in 1989);

● The Tongass Timber Supply Fund ($36 million of annual appropriations in 1989, but which will again be

permanently appropriated in 1990 unless Congress repeals the permanent appropriation);

. The Reforestation Trust Fund ($31 million in 1989); and

. Timber Roads, Purchaser Election ($10 million in 1989).

It is interesting to note that all 10 of these major permanent appropriations are largely or entirely tied to the

timber sale program. The only major special account or trust fund not tied to timber-the Land and Water

Conservation Fund ($64 million for the Forest Service in 1989)--requires annual appropriations.

national forests, and do not follow-through with integrating it with the Program. The Draft 1990

concerns for diversified resource studies and program appropriations.

RPA requires the Program to review management

and a administrative programs of the Forest Service in

relation to Assessment findings. Incomplete inventories in the Assessment make it difficult to present

complete resource and economic analyses in the

Program. The presentation of new data in the Draft

program disregards the importance of presenting the

best scientific evidence in the Assessment and then

Program also proclaims that economic efficiency

has been maximized within each strategy, but there

is insufficient evidence to evaluate this claim. The

Forest Service has failed to document sources, to

describe analytical methods, and to provide realistic

near-term revenue estimates and accurate cost information. The failure to identify budget priorities and

to provide benefit/cost information on proposed

actions makes it difficult for Congress and the public

to arrive at intelligent budget choices.
Chapter 8

The Presidential Statement of Policy

RPA requires that, along with the RPA Assessment and Program, the President transmit to Congress a‘ ‘detailed Statement of Policy intended to be

used in framing budget requests by that Administration for Forest Service activities” for the 5-year

program period. In essence, this was an attempt to

gain Administration commitment to the recommended program, a necessary condition of effective

strategic planning. The President is to ‘‘carry out

programs already established by law in accordance

with such Statement of Policy or any subsequent

amendment or modification thereof approved by the

Congress.” Either the House or Senate can disapprove of the Statement by resolution and/or revise or

modify it if they so choose. The revised or modified

Statement of Policy is then to be used in framing

future budget requests. Since RPA was enacted,

three Presidential Statements of Policy have been

transmitted to Congress: the 1975 Statement signed

by Gerald Ford (30); the 1980 Statement signed by

Jimmy Carter (16); and the 1985 Statement signed

by Ronald Reagan (81).

The Act states that the Statement of Policy is to be

used in framing budget requests for Forest Service

activities. If the budget request does not conform to

the Statement, the President “shall specifically set

forth the reason or reasons for requesting the

Congress to approve the lesser programs or policies

presented.’

The Presidential Statement of Policy has been a

controversial requirement in the RPA process. This

is due, in part, to concerns at the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) about the President’s need for flexibility in responding to shifting

budget needs and priorities (85). OMB did not like

the accountability implied by the signing of a

Statement of Policy laying out the President’s

commitment to a 5-year Program, and recommended

in 1974 that the legislation be vetoed by thenPresident Nixon (84, 85). Although President Ford

chose to disregard OMB recommendation and sign

RPA into law, he noted that:

I would be less than candid if I did not admit that

certain provisions of this act disturb me, especially

those provisions relating to Presidential discretion in

formulating annual budget requests for our national

forestry programs (29).

In the 1975 Statement of Policy, President Ford

acknowledged problems encountered in preparing

the Program, including the lack of adequate and

accurate data and the difficulty of determining the

relative priority of competing uses. He declared that

his policy would be to implement the goals recommended in the 1975 Assessment ‘in accord with two

basic principles— maximizing the Federal budget’s

contribution to the Nation’s welfare and minimizing

Government interference with the normal operation

of the market” (30). The recommended 1975 RPA

Program goals were to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

increase supply of outdoor recreation opportunities;

provide a moderate increase in wilderness;

provide for species diversity;

provide forage without impairing land productivity;

increase timber supplies and quality in an

environmentally sound reamer;

meet minimum air and water quality standards;

and

increase emphasis on involvement in discrete

human and community development efforts

that complement Forest Service activities.

As stated in the law, the Presidential Statement

may be revised or modified by Congress. Among the

three statements transmitted to date, only the 1980

Statement by President Carter was rejected by

Congress. The objections to this statement centered

on: 1) its failure “to send Congress a preferred

program of work rather than a range of options” to

assist Congress in forming future environmentally

and socially sound budgets (64); and 2) the limited

budget choices: the high-bound alternative in which

the annual rate of program growth had been reduced

from 6.7 to 4.9 percent or the low-bound alternative

in which the annual growth rate was 3.2 percent (84).

Neither of the budget alternatives described the

effects of the recommended budgets on the condition

of the resources, nor did they assess the long-term

impact on goals.

After rejecting the 1980 Statement of Policy, the

Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Environment,

Soil Conservation, and Forestry prepared a “white
98 ● Forest service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

paper” to further explain congressional opposition

(64). The subcommittee generally accepted the

high-bound alternative, with amendments calling for

forest productivity to be at 90 percent of the land’s

potential by 2030, and for forage-producing rangeland to be at 85 percent of potential by 2000.

Several hearings were held to obtain public

comment on the 1979 Assessment, 1980 Program,

and 1980 Statement of Policy. At one, Dennis

LeMaster, chair of the Department of Forest and

Range Management at Washington State University,

recommended that, if no accord could be reached

between the Congress and the executive branch, the

Act be revised to provide for congressional responsibility for the Statement of Policy (9). Other witnesses at the hearings also expressed dissatisfaction

with the 1980 Statement of Policy and their agreement with the subcommittee’s white paper. On

December 12, 1980, the Appropriations Act for the

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

(Public Law 96-514) was signed into law containing

a revised Statement of Policy. The revised statement

put forth the ideas included in the white paper,

stating that Congress generally accepted the highbound Program, but cautioned that even this budget

level might not be sufficient to accomplish the goals

of the revised Statement of Policy, particularly in the

areas of range and watershed resources, State and

private forest cooperation, and timber management.

The 1985 Statement of Policy, signed by President Reagan, was submitted in September 1986, 18

months after the due date designated in RPA. It

emphasized: 1) the need for judicious review of our

choices and decisions regarding the short- and

long-term planning of our renewable resources, and

2) acceptance of the 1985 Recommended RPA

Program, because “it identifies a reasonable range

of management directions, outputs, costs, and goals

for the long-term future” (81). Lyons and Knowles

(58) criticized this Statement for not providing

specific objectives for Forest Service activities and

for not offering guidance for the development of

budget requests for the remainder of the Program

period. They further stated that, “In fact, the

objective of the low-bound element of the 1985 RPA

Program--to defer investments in Forest Service

programs in the short run-is essentially similar to

the direction provided by the low-bound of the 1980

RPA Program that was rejected by the Congress”

(58). Congress did not respond with a revised or

modified Statement of Policy within the 90 days

specified in section 8(a) of the RPA, and thus the

Presidential Statement from Reagan became the

guidance to be used by the Forest Service in framing

budget requests. Congress might not have responded

because the delivery was late in the second session

of the 99th Congress, when Congress was rushing

toward adjournment, but it may also demonstrate a

lack of congressional attention and commitment to

the process.

In sum, the Presidential Statement of Policy has

failed to provide real guidance for framing budget

requests for Forest Service activities. Critics of this

provision, including OMB and the President, claim

that the Statement of Policy commits the President

to a 5-year budget, and restricts needed flexibility.

The three Presidential Statements transmitted to date

have been general proclamations of anticipated

needs without any real commitments to Forest

Service direction or sufficient information to guide

budget requests for Forest Service programs. To

increase the effectiveness of this RPA requirement

it may be necessary to further assure OMB and the

President that the Statement is not a 5-year budget

commitment, but rather will be used to inform and

guide the annual budget process only. Deviations

from the direction set forth in the Statement are

permitted as long as the President publicly explains

the changes. Alternatively, the Statement of Policy

could be restructured to try to increase the Administration’s commitment to the RPA process. However, if OMB and the President are unwilling to be

held accountable in this way, the Statement serves

no real purpose and could be eliminated from the

RPA requirements.
Chapter 9

The Annual Report

The Forest Service (and its predecessor) has been

preparing reports on its activities almost every year

since at least 1886. The Report of the Chief,

originally a part of the Secretary of Agriculture’s

annual report on USDA programs, described forest

management planning assistance to private landowners (the original purpose of the Bureau of

Forestry) and provided a wealth of information on

various forestry topics, such as lumber production

and international trade in wood products. The focus

of the report shifted when the forest reserves (later

renamed the national forests) were transferred from

the Department of the Interior to the Department of

Agriculture in 1905. Discussions of Forest Service

activities-national forest management, cooperative

assistance, and forestry research-have been included in every Annual Report since 1905.

The initial legal requirements for the Report of the

Chief are not clear. It presumably began as part of the

Secretary’s annual report, but has traditionally been

printed as an independent volume. In 1974, RPA

(sec. 8(c)) required the preparation of an Annual

Report by the Secretary of Agriculture (who delegated the responsibility to the Forest Service), and

the report was renamed the Report of the Forest

Service.

The Annual Report, the fourth document required

by RPA, is to provide information evaluating the

component elements of the RPA Program to support

congressional oversight and enhance agency accountability. In addition, the Annual Report is to

appraise the progress in implementing the RPA

Program, with objectives and accomplishments “in

qualitative and quantitative terms and. . . [with]

appropriate measures of pertinent costs and benefits.” Thus, the Annual Report was intended to be

the piece that closed the circle, making RPA a

continuing and interactive process (83). However,

most who have examined the Annual Report have

concluded that it falls short of the mark. In the early

1980s, one congressional staffer observed that ‘thus

far, the Annual Report has been the weakest of the

three [sic] parts of RPA” (36). Subsequent analyses

have suggested that it has not improved (58, 140).

The Annual Report typically contains a narrative

section, describing Forest Service programs and

activities, and a statistical appendix, intended to

provide sufficient details to assess agency performance. The narrative and the statistical appendix are

surprisingly independent. Although they address the

same topics, the narrative rarely refers to data in the

statistical appendix, and the appendix rarely contributes to the narrative. Thus, the two halves of the

Annual Report are examined separately, even

though better coordination would contribute to a

more complete picture of Forest Service programs

and activities. Finally, RPA also imposed a number

of specific requirements for the Annual Report,

addressed at the end of this chapter.

NARRATIVE PORTION OF THE

ANNUAL REPORT

The narrative portion of the 1989 Annual Report

(126) describes agency programs and activities.

There is a separate chapter on each branch of the

Forest Service-National Forest System, State and

Private Forestry, Research, and Administration. In

addition, since 1988, the Annual Report has included a chapter specifically addressing RPA.

As an Overview of Agency Programs

The narrative portion of the Annual Report

provides general information on Forest Service

programs useful for congressional staff and interest

groups who may be new to Forest Service issues or

who deal with the agency only occasionally. Some

observers note that the needs for general descriptive

information and for reporting accomplishments

probably requires separate reports, rather than a

single document (94). Nonetheless, the Forest Service apparently tries to serve both needs in the Annual

Report.

The narrative portion of the Annual Report does

inform the public about Forest Service programs and

activities. The descriptions are concise and generally

readable, with coverage of virtually all agency

programs and activities. The abundant tables, charts,

and photographs in the 109 pages of text in the 1989

Annual Report provide an interesting overview of

who and what the Forest Service is.

The narrative has also been criticized as a source

of information about the Forest Service. Its tone has
100 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

been described as that of propaganda (38). The

Report contains numerous broad generalizations

that can be misleading. For example, the 1989

Report of the Forest Service states that “We have

increased cooperation and communication with

every segment of the society” (126), implying that

all interest groups are being listened to. However,

some groups would probably object to this characterization, and the large number of appeals and

lawsuits over forest plans and activities tend to

refute the assertion. The Forest Service has improved relations with groups in many areas, and such

efforts should be recognized and rewarded, but when

stated so broadly, the Forest Service loses credibility.

In addition, many controversial aspects of Forest

Service activities are given short shrift. For example,

Congress has had several acrimonious debates over

appropriations for Forest Service road construction,

with the final results being substantially above or

below the requested level (139), but the controversy

was described as a “misunderstanding about the

number of miles of road constructed” in the 1989

Report. Other contentious issues, such as protecting

old-growth forests and improving riparian areas, are

described in bland terms, while a few major controversies, such as below-cost timber sales and efforts

to reform the Tongass Timber Supply Fund, have

been completely ignored.

As a Report of Forest Service

Accomplishments

The problems of bias and the glossing of controversy become more serious when it comes to

examining Forest Service accomplishments. The

Annual Report was intended to assist congressional

oversight and ‘‘improve the accountability of

agency expenditures and activities. ’ The inadequacies of the Annual Report in terms of measuring

accomplishments have been noted (58, 140), and

some of these weaknesses have been described (38).

The following section analyzes these problems of

the narrative portion of the 1989 Annual Report in

more detail, examining each branch of the Forest

Service in the order presented in that Report.

National Forest System

The Annual Report was clearly intended to

address congressional and public interest in the

quantity, quality, and annual outputs of the various

renewable resources. One would expect the Annual

Report to focus on annual outputs, but relevant

resource quantity and quality data should also be

included at least periodically, if not annually. One

would also expect a discussion of management

accomplishments, with information on expenditures

and results of the activities. Finally, one would

expect the Annual Report to examine the current

controversies over management of the national

forests.

Output measures are presented in the narrative

portion of the Annual Report for nearly all resources-timber harvested, livestock grazed, total

recreation, and recreation associated with wildlife

and with wilderness. However, no outputs are given

for watershed or other forest protection activities,

even though these were cited in 1897 as primary

purposes for reserving forest lands. No regional

differences are discussed. Geographic disaggregations are presented in the statistical appendix for the

output measures for most resources, but the narrative

rarely refers the reader to relevant information in the

appendix.

Information on resource quality and quantity is

much less complete. For example, the recreation

section describes trail condition and facility maintenance, but the backlog of deferred facility maintenance has only been shown in the 1988 Report. Most

of the information on resource conditions is a brief

description of concerns about resource conditions,

often describing what should be and what is

intended, rather than what is. For example, the 1989

Annual Report notes that the Forest Service protects

wilderness resources by educating users, enforcing

regulations, rehabilitating damaged areas, inventorying uses and conditions, and preparing and implementing protection plans. However, no data are

presented on education or enforcement, on wilderness resource conditions, on rehabilitation needs or

efforts, or on the number of wilderness plans or the

area protected under such plans.

The Annual Report contains substantial information on management activities, but virtually no

information on what this means for the resources.

For example, the 1989 Report displays acres of

watershed improvements and discusses range improvements, but does not indicate what, if any,

changes in resource quantity or quality will result

from these efforts. Similarly, the 1989 Report

trumpets the successes of the challenge cost-share

programs for improved quality of recreation sites
Chapter 9--The Annual Report ● 101

and for wildlife and fish habitat improvements, but

does not relate these efforts to the quantity or quality

of the resources. Even for timber, activities and

results are poorly related. Reforestation and timber

stand improvement accomplishments are compared

to targets, but not to needs. The volume of timber

prepared and offered for sale is reported, together

with the total volume under contract, but problems

resulting from administrative appeals and from

litigation are mentioned only briefly, despite, affecting 17 percent of the prepared volume.

The narrative portion of the Annual Report has

generally not contained adequate expenditure information to oversee the agency’s fiscal performance.

The 1989 Report includes receipts and expenditures

for recreation and range management, and funding

for watershed improvements and for wildlife challenge cost-sharing. However, virtually no timber

revenue or cost data are shown in this narrative, even

though below-cost timber sales have been a controversy for most of the decade. The only unit cost

information in the 1989 Report is on road construction, but these data are not very useful, because

building new roads is combined with rebuilding

existing roads and because construction is not

distinguished byroad function (arterial, collector, or

local). Furthermore, the unit cost data are not

consistent with the road construction and cost data

in the statistical appendix.

Finally, some current concerns about national

forest management are glossed over, while others are

ignored entirely. For example, litigation to protect

spotted owls halted half the Forest Service timber

sale program in Washington and Oregon in 1988 and

1989, but was ignored in the 1988 Report and was

only mentioned in the middle of the discussion of

old-growth forests in the 1989 Report. Concerns

about road construction were not mentioned in the

Annual Report until 1989, and then only characterized as a misunderstanding. President Bush’s announced wetlands policy-no net loss—is not mentioned, although 5 percent of the National Forest

System is classified as wetlands. Concerns over

administrative appeals and litigation have led Members of Congress to introduce legislation to modify

the current system, but such attention is not acknowledged in the 1989 Report. These examples of

poorly addressed issues demonstrate the inadequacies of the Annual Report.

State and Private Forestry

Relatively little attention is given to cooperative

assistance in the narrative, probably because State

and Private Forestry accounts for less than 4 percent

of the total Forest Service budget, and because

evaluating performance for cooperative assistance is

much more difficult than for management activities.

Most cooperative activities are discussed briefly, but

the information on cooperative assistance is not very

useful for evaluating Forest Service performance.

The statistical appendix contains substantial information on cooperative activities, but the narrative

portion of the 1989 Annual Report only displays fire

protection and pesticide use information on National

Forest System lands, and the narrative does not refer

to the wealth of information in the appendix.

The severe 1987 and 1988 fire seasons, especially

the fires around Yellowstone National Park, led to an

expanded discussion of fire protection activities.

Although fire protection on all lands (including the

national forests) is coordinated through State and

Private Forestry, fire protection usually accounts for

more funds than any other activity in the national

forests. Thus, discussing fire protection only under

State and Private Forestry seems inappropriate.

Research

In many ways, Forest Service Research suffers

from the same problems as State and Private

Forestry-less focus because of a much smaller total

budget (only 6 percent of the Forest Service budget)

and more difficulty in assessing accomplishments.

Measuring research performance is probably even

more difficult than measuring cooperative assistance performance, because research efforts may

require years to show any tangible results.

The discussion of research in the narrative portion

of the 1989 Report is perhaps the most useful section

of the narrative. It begins with a look at six priority

research programs, and includes background on why

these are important problems. Various interest

groups might argue about whether these are the most

important research topics, but all six relate directly

or indirectly to issues identified in the Draft 1990

RPA Program. The discussion of research priorities

is followed by a brief presentation of research

highlights, describing several of the major findings

in each of nine categories; one minor fault is that

these categories do not match the categorization

used in the statistical appendix or in the Draft 1990
102 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

RPA Program. This approach-describing research

priorities and highlighting research findings-is

reasonably effective at presenting Forest Service

research accomplishments.

The research chapter of the 1989 Report also

briefly describes the highlights of international

activities. However, cooperative assistance is a

major element of International Forestry. More comprehensive information on international cooperative

assistance (types of programs, countries assisted,

etc.) comparable to the information provided for

domestic cooperative assistance programs, would

help Congress and others to evaluate the Forest

Service’s international activities.

Administration

The Annual Report traditionally includes a separate chapter on Forest Service Administration. The

1989 Report contains sections on improving productivity; on managing the human, capital, and information resources; and on public involvement. Efforts to

improve agency productivity are laudable, and need

to be heralded. The 1989 Report describes one

particular effort, the National Pilot Study, intended

to increase flexibility for and creativity by agency

employees. There are undoubtedly other efforts to

increase performance or reduce costs that also

deserve praise that are not discussed in the Annual

Report. This failing probably results from the lack of

direct Washington Office support (in contrast to the

Pilot Study, which has been strongly endorsed by the

Chief). Nonetheless, other efforts to improve productivity, large and small, should be highlighted in

the Annual Report, both to reward such efforts and

to spread the word about successes.

There are two important elements to managing

human resources: work force management and

human resource programs. The increasing diversity

of the work force—more women and minority

employees throughout the agency—is described, but

the narrative contains no data to illustrate the

diversity. An important trend is the rise of women

and minorities to line management positions

(particularly district rangers and forest supervisors),

but there are no data by type of position or level

within the agency. Another important trend is the

mix of educational backgrounds. It seems likely that

the number of biologists, ecologists, archeologists,

landscape architects, and other specialists has been

increasing, relative to the number of foresters and

engineers, but this aspect of work force diversity has

been entirely ignored in the Annual Report. Finally,

Congress was quite concerned about the the huge

numbers of Forest Service workers who were not

full-time permanent employees (36), and the statistical appendix presents information showing the

change in numbers of such employees over the past

10 years, but the importance of these changes is not

noted in the text.

The human resource programs are more fully

examined in the 1989 Report than is the work force.

The narrative describes the five current human

resource programs-Job Corps, Senior Community

Service Employment, Youth Conservation Corps,

Volunteers in the National Forests, and Hosted

Programs. The narrative includes a little information

on the use of these programs (e.g., the number of

people served), but without referring to the more

comprehensive information in the statistical appendix.

The section on Administration also discusses

Forest Service interaction with the public in a variety

of ways, including on a few controversial issues.

This section, however, does not evaluate Forest

Service interaction with the public. Although public

interaction is difficult to present quantitatively, even

the relatively easy measures to quantify, such as the

number of various types of publications distributed

and the number of school presentations made by

Forest Service employees, are not presented. Furthermore, public interest in national forest management appears to be rising, and some sort of measure

of this interest, such as numbers of comments on

forest plans and on other agency decisions, might be

a useful indication of the level of interest.

As a Report of RPA Program Implementation

The 1989 Annual Report contains a separate

chapter on RPA, continuing the format begun in

1988. It contains a very brief summary of the major

findings of the 1979 RPA Assessment and 1984

Assessment Supplement, followed by a description

of the 1985 RPA Program, both high-bound and

low-bound, for the resource elements of the National

Forest System, for State and Private Forestry, and for

Research. The narrative is accompanied by several

figures showing some historical data, RPA Assessment projections, the 1985 RPA targets, and accomplishments through 1989 for selected outputs and

activities. At least three of the measures—

commercial salmon and steelhead harvests, deferred
Chapter 9-- The Annual Report 103

recreation facility maintenance, and reforestation on

nonindustry private lands-are not shown elsewhere

in the Annual Report, and the source of the data is

not identified. Other figures display funding for the

three branches of the Forest Service, including some

historical information, the high-bound and lowbound projections, and the actual funding. These

measures are certainly not comprehensive, and some

might argue that important measures are excluded,

but it is a beginning (more than a decade late) at

reporting on the implementation of the RPA Program.

INFORMATION CONTENT—THE

STATISTICAL APPENDIX

The Annual Report has contained a statistical

appendix since 1955. This appendix is organized in

the same manner as the narrative, with separate

sections addressing each branch (National Forest

System, State and Private Forestry, Research, and

Administration), but with virtually no statistics on

RPA Program implementation. The National Forest

System section of the statistical appendix focuses on

resource and activity data, with the fiscal data

included with human resource management under

Administration. This pattern is followed in this

report.

National Forest System

The Annual Report was clearly intended to

support congressional oversight of Forest Service

activities, displaying resource outputs and management accomplishments for the National Forest

System in ways that would assist the Members and

Committees of Congress. Therefore, one would

expect the Annual Report: 1) to focus on the most

costly and most controversial programs; 2) to

provide sufficient geographic detail to serve congressional interests; and 3) to support the RPA

planning process. However, the Annual Report has

generally not met these expectations.

One problem is inconsistency in the level of detail

provided: the statistical appendix does not reflect the

importance of the various activities. For example,

forest and watershed protection were two of the

original authorized purposes of the forest reserves,

but the statistical appendix contains no information

on watershed management or fire protection in the

national forests. Similarly, road construction is the

largest budget line item (accounting for nearly 10

percent of annual Forest Service appropriations) and

perhaps the most controversial Forest Service program, but relatively little information is presented on

the road program. In contrast, appropriations for

range management are much lower (roughly comparable to watershed protection appropriations), but

the statistical appendix presents more information

on range management activities.

Data presentation is also geographically inconsistent. Some data, such as range improvements and

watershed improvements, are only reported nationally. Other information, such as suitable rangeland

acres and wildlife habitat improvements, is reported

by Forest Service region, while reforestation and

timber stand improvement needs and certifications

are presented by national forest. Still other data-on

recreation use, livestock grazing, timber cut and

sold, road construction, and wilderness acres-are

reported by State. These differences are important.

While national forest data can be summed to

regional data, they cannot be aggregated to State

totals because 28 national forests have land in more

than one State. Similarly, State data cannot be

summed to regional totals, because only one region

(Alaska) follows State boundaries.

This geographical inconsistency limits the Report’s value to Congress. National and regional

statistics mask the enormous diversity of the National Forest System. For example, the 1989 Annual

Report shows a net gain of $403 million on timber

sales, but 72 of the 120 national forests (including

several in nearly every region) reported a net loss,

with the losses on these forests totaling $61 million

(127). Most Members of Congress are interested in

a relatively small area, usually one or a few national

forests or perhaps an entire State. Thus, national and

regional data not only provide insufficient information to examine the relative efficiency of investments in various areas, they also fail to provide

adequately detailed information for Congress.

Finally, the information reported annually often

does not match that which appears in the RPA

Assessment and Program, limiting the ability to use

the Annual Report to evaluate the implementation of

the RPA Program. The differences are discussed

below for the various resources and for facilities in

the National Forest System.
104 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Recreation

Recreation use is reported in recreation visitor

days (RVDs), a measure of the amount of time

people spend recreating. The 1989 Annual Report

shows total RVDs by State for nine use categories.

These categories conform with those used in the

Draft 1990 RPA Program for projecting future

recreation values. However, they do not match the

categories used in the Recreation Assessment, and

they differ from the traditional recreation categories

used in the Annual Report from 1969 through 1986.

Furthermore, the new categories combine inappropriate mixes of activities; for example, all camping

(from backpacking to house trailers) is reported with

picnicking and swimming, while hiking and horseback-riding are combined with water travel (boating,

canoeing, etc.).

The 1989 Annual Report also reports the existing

miles of trails, the miles built, and the miles

maintained, by State. This displays the management

activity (miles built) and the resource quantity

(miles) and quality (miles maintained), although one

might expect different levels of maintenance for

assessing quality, and trail use is an important output

measure. The Recreation Assessment only identities

the total existing trail mileage, while the Draft 1990

RPA Program only includes trail construction mileage, and thus the Annual Report is more complete

for this aspect of recreation.

The Recreation Assessment includes data on the

area available for various types of recreation and on

the quantity and nature of developed facilities on

Federal lands, while the Draft 1990 RFA Program

includes the recreation facility maintenance backlog

and use of substandard sites as measures of recreation quality. From 1962 through 1976, the Annual

Report contained information on use capacity and

quality by type of facility, but this information has

not been presented since. No data have been reported

on the location or on the types of facilities in need of

repair since 1976.

Range Forage

The 1989 Annual Report contains more information on livestock grazing than either the 1989 Range

Assessment or the Draft 1990 RPA Program. Grazing use, measured in animal unit months (AUMs), is

reported in the 1989 Report of the Forest Service by

State for various types of livestock. This measure of

forage output has been the standard measure for the

national forests for decades, and is used in both the

1989 RPA Assessment and in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program. It indirectly measures the amount of forage

consumed, but does not measure the amount produced.

The 1989 Annual Report displays the status of

grazing allotment management, showing the number

of allotments, the number where ‘‘improved management was started, and the number where

‘‘improved management’ was maintained; it does

not show the. number where ‘‘improved management” wasn’t maintained, although the historic data

clearly indicate that ‘‘improved management” was

not maintained on some allotments. These tables

also show total acres in the allotments and the acres

that is “suitable’ ’---deemed as that “which can be

grazed on a sustained yield basis without damage to

the resource” (126). This measure does not match

either the ecological status used in the Range

Assessment or the resource value rating used in the

Assessment and in the Draft Program. Suitability

might be a useful measure of rangeland quality, but

no information is presented to assess its validity. The

term can also be confusing, because RPA--as

amended--directs the Forest Service to identify

suitable timberlands, considering economic as well

as physical and biological factors.

Finally, total structural and nonstructural range

improvements are identified in the Annual Report.

Structural improvements include water developments and other site facilities, and miles of range

fence and pipelines. Nonstructural improvements

include acres of cover manipulation, range plant

control, forage improvement, and noxious weed

control. This last category is used as a measure of

management in the Draft 1990 RPA Program. All of

these measures report on management performance,

with cost data. Some geographic details could make

these useful measures of management efficiency,

although they are still unrelated to resource quantity

or quality.

Timber

More data are provided on the timber program

than on any other Forest Service activity, but the data

still have limitations. Reforestation and timber stand

improvement are reported by: 1) total acres treated

by funding source for 1985 to 1989; 2) needs by

national forest; and 3) certified performance by

national forest. Reforestation is an important measure, both as annual performance and as an indicator
Chapter 9-The Annual Report .105

of future resource quantity, and was included in the

Draft 1990 RPA Program. However, reforestation

efforts are not always successful. One study showed

that 16 percent of Forest Service reforestation

efforts, averaging more than 60,000 acres per year,

failed between 1976 and 1984 (133), although the

1989 Report claims that success rates have risen to

93 percent (only 7 percent failures). Therefore,

second (or subsequent) efforts on the same site

should be separated from initial efforts. The certification of performance indicates successful reforestation, but most observers are only aware of total

reforestation efforts, without distinguishing successful from unsuccessful or repeat efforts.

Timber offered for sale, sold, and harvested is

reported by Forest Service region. Volume offered

and sold could be used to compare locations and

conditions where offered timber is and is not being

purchased, but the data are not sufficient for this

task. For 4 of the 9 Forest Service regions in 1988

and 3 of the 9 in 1989, more timber was sold than

was offered for sale, a peculiar condition that is not

explained in the Annual Report. In addition, timber

released for harvest under long-term contracts in

Region 10 (Alaska) is included in timber offered and

in timber harvested, but not in timber sold. The Draft

Program uses timber offered as the output measure

for the timber program, implicitly assuming that if

timber is offered for sale, it will eventually be cut.

This probably overstates the sale and harvest levels,

because some offered sales are not purchased.

Timber offered as the output measure also focuses

Forest Service efforts on getting timber sales prepared, without regard to efficiency or salability.

The volume harvested differs from volume sold

(or offered) in any one year, because timber sales

have harvesting deadlines of 3 years or more. The

volume of uncut timber under contract, shown in the

Annual Report, is the link between timber sold and

timber harvested. However, uncut timber under

contract cannot be tracked with sale and harvest data

(38). In practice, each region provides a new

estimate of uncut timber under contract each year,

without necessarily considering the previous estimate, even though such information could be

generated from the agency’s computerized timber

contract database, and the causes of variation could

be identified. Uncut volume under contract is an

important short-term measure of available Federal

timber, and thus is of interest to timber purchasers,

but it is not included in either the Timber Assessment or in the Draft 1990 Program.

There are several additional measures of timber

resource quantity, quality, and output that are

included in the Timber Assessment and/or the Draft

Program, but not in the Annual Report. The Timber

Assessment includes data on commercial timberland, timber productivity classes, and timber inventory; annual updates may not be necessary, but

significant variations found in field inventories

should be noted when uncovered. Annual growth

and mortality estimates could be reported to indicate

near-term salvage and reforestation needs, especially following drought, frees, hurricanes, and other

natural disasters. The Draft 1990 Program also

includes acres harvested, acres clearcut, and acres of

old-growth forests as measures of importance to

timber and other resources. The Annual Report has

never included such data, although there is a brief

discussion of old-growth forests in the narrative.

However, all three of these measures are important

to issues in national forest management, and some

efforts to monitor trends are needed to show what is

happening on the ground.

Water

The statistical appendix of the Annual Report

contains no information on the water resources of the

National Forest System. The only water resource

data in the 1989 Report are in a table in the narrative

showing total acres of watershed improvement.

These data represent agency activities, but are not

linked to the condition classes used to measure

watershed quality in the 1989 Water Assessment and

in the Draft 1990 Program. Linking management

efforts to watershed condition class, with sitespecific unit cost information, would be very useful

for congressional oversight of agency performance

and of RPA Program implementation.

Acres of wetlands are noted as important resource

characteristics in both the 1989 Assessment and the

Draft Program, although neither has good measures

of wetland quantity or quality for the national

forests. The 1989 Annual Report contains no data on

the extent, location, or changes in wetlands.

Wildlife and Fish

The Annual Report contains little information on

wildlife and fish in the National Forest System. The

data presented are often unrelated to resource

condition and have not been reported consistently in
106 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

other Annual Reports or RPA documents. Hunting

and fishing are reported under recreation use,

measured in recreation visitor days (RVDs), and

total wildlife and fish use is shown in the summary

tables, measured in wildlife and fish user days

(WFUDs). Unfortunately, WFUDs cannot be directly converted to RVDs, because the number of

WFUDs per RVD depends on the type and location

of the activity; the 1989 Wildlife Assessment and the

Draft 1990 Program use WFUDs. The recreational

use of wildlife and fish is an important measure of

the resource value, but it is at best indirectly related

to resource quantity and quality or to Forest Service

efforts.

The 1989 Annual Report shows habitat improvements in acres and numbers of structures by Forest

Service region. The types of habitats being improved

and the means of improving the habitats are not

specified, so historical comparisons and efficiency

measures are impossible. As with watershed improvements, habitat improvements measure agency

activities, but are not particularly helpful in understanding wildlife and fish resource quantity, quality,

or output, and are not included in either the Wildlife

Assessment or the Draft Program.

Big game harvests from national forests were

reported in early Annual Reports, but have not been

included since 1977. The Annual Report includes

none of the relevant measures of wildlife and fish

resources found in the Draft 1990 Program, such as

acres of old-growth forest, acres of big game winter

range, and habitat maintenance backlog.

Wilderness

The wilderness resource may have the poorest

statistical base of any of the renewable resources in

the National Forest System. As noted earlier, the

Recreation Assessment includes wilderness with

remote back country (lands more than 3 miles from

a road) in estimating recreation resources. The Draft

1990 RPA Program only mentions wilderness in

passing, and includes no data or projections on

wilderness designations. Despite concerns about

degradation of wilderness areas (138), there are no

measures of the quality of the wilderness resource in

any of the RPA documents.

Designated national forest wilderness areas in

each State and the past year’s additions are reported

in the 1989 Annual Report. Wilderness use nationally is shown in one of the summary tables of the

1989 Report, but is not a distinct recreation use

category in any of the RPA documents. Wilderness

use data are identified for special requests, such as

studies of potential wilderness designations (see, for

example, the Congressional Research Service analysis of Montana wilderness (143)), but are not

reported consistently. This seems a serious gap,

since declining use has been cited in recent arguments against additional wilderness designations.

Facilities

While facilities are not part of the renewable

resources of the National Forest System, they are

assets that are created and maintained and should be

tracked. The major categories of facilities are lands,

roads, and non-resource-related structures (e.g.,

ranger stations, in contrast to resource-related structures, such as campgrounds and livestock fences).

Aside from the effects of road construction on soil

and water resources, discussion of facilities is

generally lacking in the 1989 Assessment and Draft

1990 Program. Neither these documents nor the

Annual Report contain any information on nonresource-related structures.

The Annual Report always includes a table

identifying total National Forest System lands by

State. In addition, since 1978, the agency has

identified the land purchases, exchanges, and donations by number of cases, acres, and value of the

transactions. Finally, boundary surveying, known as

landline location, is an ongoing activity. The 1989

Report identifies total miles of boundary, miles

surveyed in 1989, and the total surveyed to date, by

Forest Service region. This table presents: a) longterm goals (surveying all boundaries); b) current

status (accomplishments to date); and c) current

output (1989 accomplishments), and thus effectively

summarizes boundary measurement for the national

forest land resource, although it lacks cost data to

evaluate efficiency and rationale for the goal.

Information on roads is less complete. One table

shows the road mileage and number of bridges built

from appropriations and purchaser road credits, by

State. However, unit costs generated from these data

are seriously misleading, because about half of

appropriations are used to plan, engineer, and

oversee roads built with purchaser credits (139).

Appropriations to support purchaser credit roads are

identified in the annual budget request, but comparable details are not included in the Annual Report.

Construction and reconstruction (upgrading an ex-
Chapter 9--The Annual Report ● 107

isting road because of deterioration or because a

better road than had originally been anticipated is

now needed) are separated for the first time in the

1989 Report. This will help link the RPA documents, since only new construction is identified in

the Draft 1990 Program, but the data flow is still

inadequate.

In contrast to past efforts, the total road mileage

in the National Forest System is not shown in any of

the current RPA documents. Maintenance of the

road network is mentioned in the narrative of the

1989 Annual Report, but no data are included in the

statistical appendix. This lack of information is a

serious flaw, because virtually all interest groups are

concerned about roads—their cost, location, construction standards, maintenance and/or closure, etc.

State and Private Forestry

The statistical appendix to the Annual Report

contains relatively little information on Forest Service cooperative assistance. However, in contrast to

the information on the National Forest System, the

few statistical tables on State and Private Forestry

are relatively thorough, with most cooperative

activities reported quantitatively, and the information has been presented in a consistent manner for

more than a decade. It was noted earlier that using

solely quantitative data misses important information about resource quality, and this limitation

applies to the data on cooperative assistance. Nonetheless, with some additional information for the

development and improvement of quality and effectiveness measures, the data for evaluating cooperative forestry could be quite useful.

The only information on pest management is the

Pesticide Use Report, which identifies the quantity

of each herbicide and pesticide used, along with the

purpose or intended target and a measure of the units

treated-acres, seedlings, pounds of seed, or whatever is relevant. The Pesticide Use Report has been

included in the Annual Report since 1976, as

required by RPA, and it has contained the same

measures each year. The value of the data is limited

by the lack of location information (e.g., geographical region) and the lack of effectiveness measures.

Herbicide and pesticide use is not the only activity

of pest management, but it is the only activity with

any reported quantitative data with which to evaluate performance.

The statistical appendix contains some information on cooperative fire protection, showing area

protected and area burned by State. No data on

cooperative expenditures or fire damages are reported, so it is impossible to evaluate efficiency.

Nonetheless, these data exceed the data on fire

protection in the national forests.

Forest Service Research

Forest Service Research also receives little coverage in the statistical appendix of the Annual Report.

Quantitative measurements for research are probably more difficult to develop than for other activities,

because research results may require years to affect

resources or management. Tables in the 1989

Annual Report show research funding and number

of publications, by research category. Information

about research efforts in scientist-years would also

be useful. For many years, the categories used to

report funding had differed substantially from those

used to report publications. However, the funding

categories in the 1989 Report are virtually identical

to the major categories used to report publications

for more than a decade, although insect and disease

research is combined with fire and atmospheric

sciences research. Since 1988, the budget requests

have also conformed to the format now used for the

Annual Report, and the Draft 1990 Program uses the

same structure.

The Statistical appendix of the Annual Report

contains no information on International Forestry.

Forest Service Administration

The Annual Report contains statistical information on managing human and capital resources in the

section on Forest Service Administration. Human

resource management involves both the work force

and various human service programs, while capital

management focuses substantially on expenditures,

receipts, and social benefits. The Annual Report

contains no statistics on productivity improvement,

information management, or public involvement.

Human Resources

The work force, and its diversity and changing

nature, are described in the narrative portion of the

Annual Report. However, the tables in the statistical

appendix provide no data to illustrate the diversity

by type of position or level within the agency. There

are no data on the rise of women and minorities to

line management positions (particularly district
108 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

rangers and forest supervisors), and no data on the

increasing diversity in the mix of educational

backgrounds. The 1989 Annual Report does show a

radical change in the mix of permanent fill-time,

other permanent, and temporary employees since

1980. Permanent full-time workers increased by 42

percent, while other permanent workers declined to

only 13 percent of the 1980 level and temporaries

declined to 60 percent of the 1980 level. This has

important implications for the agency’s work force,

but is not even noted in the narrative.

The human resource programs are more fully

evaluated in the 1989 Report of the Forest Service

than is the work force. Only one table is presented on

the human resource programs (Job Corps, Senior

Community Service Employment, Youth Conservation Corps, Volunteers in the National Forests, and

Hosted Programs), but this table is reasonably

complete, identifying funding, numbers served (including the proportion of women and minorities),

the work accomplished in person-years and in value,

and a few other relevant measures. Furthermore, this

table has been included in the Annual Report in the

same format for more than a decade, thus providing

a valuable historical perspective on human resource

programs.

Fiscal Resources

Measuring financial and economic performance is

also important for assessing accomplishments and

evaluating performance. Expenditures and receipts

are important fiscal measures, but because the Forest

Service was not created as a profit-making venture,

social benefits need to be reported as well.

Expenditures-One of the purposes of the Annual Report is to improve accountability for

expenditures. One means of examining financial

performance is to display unit costs for various

activities, showing geographic variation and

changes over time. However, the statistical appendix

to the Annual Report contains virtually no unit cost

data on any activity for any branch of the Forest

Service, and contains insufficient detail to calculate

unit cost data. Thus, the effectiveness or efficiency

of management, research, and cooperative efforts

cannot be evaluated.

Congress specified that the Annual Report accompany the budget request, suggesting that the Report

was intended to provide supplemental information.

However, some expenditure data in the 1989 Annual

Report is internally inconsistent (various tables have

different data) and is inconsistent with the FY1991

budget request (125). The discrepancies are generally small, but Forest Service payments to counties

($371 million in 1989) are consistently excluded

from all tables in the Annual Report.

Data on timber sale funding have been included in

the Annual Report for more than a decade, and

illustrate how information reported has changed,

making historical analyses extremely difficult. Timber funding has risen in 8 of the past 10 years,

declining by 14 percent in 1986 and by 8 percent in

1988. Yet, total timber funding was reported as $918

million in 1979 and only $477 million in 1989. This

misleading “decline” results from the removal of

selected cost items from the timber funding table.

General administration and purchaser road credits

were eliminated in the 1982 Report, removing $375

million of 1981 timber funding. In the 1984 Report,

reforestation and timber stand improvement expenditures were dropped, reducing 1983 funding by

$249 million. In 1986, landline location and road

maintenance were eliminated and purchaser roads

built by the Forest Service were revised to show the

lower actual expenditures rather than the authorized

level, saving a total of $115 million of 1985 timber

funding. And finally, in 1988, reforestation and

timber stand improvement funding from the Tongass

Timber Supply Fund was deleted, reducing timber

funding by about $15 million. Thus, since 1981,

timber funding as shown in the Annual Report has

been revised four times, deleting about $750 million

from “timber funding” without changing anything

on the ground. Interestingly, purchaser credit roads,

landline location, and the Tongass Fund were still

reported as timber funding expenditures in the 1991

budget request.

Receipts—The Annual Report shows National

Forest System receipts by source-by resource,

under various special deposits, and numerous other

categories. (The other Forest Service branches do

not generate receipts, except for a few minor

cooperative deposits.) Although the data generally

match the receipts shown for 1989 in the FY1991

budget request (with small discrepancies for two

special deposits), the Forest Service inappropriately

includes the value of purchaser road credits used

($107 million in 1989), in total receipts. The credits

are actually an exchange of timber for road construction, an in-kind receipt not a cash receipt, and the
Chapter 9--The Annual Report ● 109

FY1990 budget request shows them, but properly

excludes them from total receipts. (See box 9-A.)

The 1989 Annual Report also shows timber sale

values. The Report, and most other Forest Service

documents, show the value of timber sold, implying

that these are timber receipts. This is misleading,

because receipts are not collected until timber is

harvested, which may be several years after the

contract is awarded. Thus, the value of timber sold

is an estimate of future receipts, and can vary from

actual receipts for several reasons. First, timber

prices are adjusted periodically after the contract is

signed, based on changes in lumber prices, under a

standard Forest Service procedure (known as escalation) in use for many years. In addition, most Forest

Service timber is paid for at the bid rate, so errors in

volume estimates will lead to errors in receipt

estimates. Volume estimates can vary widely from

the actual volume removed, although no bias has

been observed (63). The accuracy of the receipt

estimates has never been evaluated, but several

critics have noted that bids can be (and have been)

intentionally skewed to lead to errors in receipt

estimates (130, 146). Thus, it is possible that the

Forest Service ultimately never collects all of the

receipts estimated as the value of timber sold,

although this possibility has never been evaluated.

Finally, the presentation of receipts implies that

all this money is paid into the General Treasury.

Such is not the case. Some are deposits made directly

into individual trust funds or special accounts. In

particular, deposits to the Knutson-Vandenberg

Fund are reported as timber receipts, but are

permanently appropriated for reforestation, timber

stand improvement, or other sale-area related activities. Many national forest receipts are subsequently

used to cover other special accounts and trust funds

(141). The major accounts paid from receipts

include payments to counties, the Roads and Trails

Fund, the Tongass Timber Supply Fund, purchaser

roads built by the Forest Service (the Purchaser

Election Program), the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Range Betterment Fund, and a few

other minor accounts. (See box 7-B.) Because of the

ways in which these transfers are calculated, the

amount going to the General Treasury fluctuates.

Over 60 percent of receipts were deposited in the

General Treasury in the late 1970s, but this fell to

less than 12 percent in 1982 before recovering to 47

percent in 1987 (142). Thus, indications of $1.5 or

$1.6 billion in receipts mislead the casual observer

into thinkln“ g this is entirely beneficial to the Federal

Treasury, when half or more is already allocated to

various Forest Service activities.

Other Benefits-The Forest Service generates

benefits other than just cash receipts for the U.S.

Box 9-A—Timber Purchaser Road Credits

Under the 1964 National Forest Roads and Trails Act, the Forest Service is authorized to construct roads in

the national forests “by requirements on purchasers of national forest timber and other products, including

provisions for amortization of road costs in contracts.” In practice, the Forest Service specifies the location and

standards for roads to be built in each timber sale contract, estimates the construction costs, and grants the purchaser

credits (equal to the estimated construction costs) which can then be used to pay for the timber.

There are situations where the purchaser cannot use the credits-the credits are “ineffective.” The Forest

Service establishes base rates as the minimum cash payments per thousand board feet of timber, ostensibly to

recover the reforestation costs plus $0.50 per thousand board feet. (In practice, the base rates are arbitrary.) When

the timber is offered for sale, potential purchasers may bid on the timber, raising the price of the timber. However,

if the bid price is at or near the base rates (the minimum required cash payment), all or some of the credits cannot

be used to pay for timber. This situation is actually more complicated, because timber prices are often adjusted after

contracts are signed, a standard procedure for most Forest Service contracts. These timber price changes can make

more or fewer credits ineffective, depending on whether prices are falling or rising. Thus, when the contract is

signed, the purchaser may not know how many of the credits can be used.

One further point needs to be made about purchaser road credits. After the downpayment on a timber sale is

made, the purchaser can use all the credits to pay for timber before putting forth any cash. Thus, the credits amount

to short-term, interest-free loans for timber purchasers. In addition, purchasers can transfer effective credits (but not

ineffective credits) among timber sales within a national forest, although they cannot be shifted to another forest

or to another purchaser. Thus, some purchasers with several timber sales on one forest maybe able to delay making

cash payments for several years.
110. Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Treasury. The Draft 1990 RPA Program notes that

the social benefits of research and of cooperative

assistance are difficult to calculate, and makes no

effort to do so. The Annual Report continues this

approach, with no reporting of cooperative assistance or research benefits.

The Annual Report does show the value of

benefits generated by the National Forest System.

There are many ways to calculate the social benefits

of nonpriced or underpriced resources. (See box

6-B.) The approach used in the Draft 1990 RPA

Program, calculating both market-clearing price and

consumer’s surplus, is consistent with economic

theory. Thus, one might expect that the nonpriced

and underpriced resources would be valued similarly

in the Annual Report, but this is not so. The 1988

Report used values substantially below the marketclearing price for recreation and wilderness, and

below the social value (market-clearing price plus

consumer’s surplus) for all four resources. The 1989

Report used values for recreation and for wilderness

that were above the social values identified in the

Draft 1990 Program. (See table 9-l.) In addition, the

reported timber value ($103 per thousand board feet

(MBF)) is noted as the ‘‘actual value at time of

sale,” but matches neither the value of timber sold

in 1989 ($128 per MBF) nor the value of timber

harvested in 1989 ($110 per MBF).

The Annual Report also overstates the outputs in

calculating total benefits. Timber is reported at 11.5

billion board feet, the. amount of timber offered for

sale, not the amount sold or harvested (8.4 and 12.0

billion board feet, respectively). Timber offered may

measure agency activity, but it does not measure

value generated for society. Forage use is similarly

reported at the permitted level of use, not the actual

use that occurred, and thus overstates benefits

generated by 18 percent. Recreation use in the table

matches total recreation use elsewhere in the Annual

Report, which includes hunting, fishing, and recreation in wilderness areas; the benefits of recreation

use is overstated because these three activities

account for 17 percent of total recreation use. The

accuracy of the wilderness use data cannot be

evaluated, because wilderness use is not discussed

elsewhere in the Annual Report, nor in the Recreation Assessment or the Draft 1990 Program. Finally,

the wildlife and fish use data also cannot be

compared, because of differences in the measures

reported.

The Forest Service also includes tables on the

financial performance of the timber sale program,

apparently in place of reporting a representative

sample of timber sales where the costs exceeded the

benefits. The latter is required by RPA and a sample

was included in the Annual Report from 1977

through 1982. A new table showing values, costs,

and associated outputs first appeared in the 1984

Report. The Forest Service provided data in this new

format in 1984 and 1985, but in 1986 replaced the

data with a statement noting that the Timber Sale

Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS)

was being developed to generate such information,

and the data would become available after full

implementation of TSPIRS. The 1989 Report is the

first to show data from this new system.

The House Appropriations Committee initially

requested the Forest Service to develop a timber sale

cost accounting system. The Forest Service argued

that tracking costs for every timber sale was far too

cumbersome for the 500,000 sales made annually,

although fewer than 1,500 sales annually actually

account for more than 75 percent of the sale volume

and more than 88 percent of estimated timber

receipts (126). Nonetheless, the Forest Service

developed TSPIRS to display costs, receipts, and

Table 9-1—Nonpriced Resource Values in the 1988 and 1989 Reports of the Forest Service

and in the Draft 1990 RPA Program

Draft 1990 RPA Program

1988 1989 Market price +

Annual Annual Market consumer’s

Report Report price surplus

Recreation-per RVD (recreation visitor day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 24.59 13.68 22.08

Wilderness-per RVD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.74 32.75 15.68 30.42

Wildlife and fish-per WFUD (wildlife/fish user day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24.36 24.36 20.42 37.13

Livestock forage--per AUM (animal unit month) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.30 6.89 5.12 8.41

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft 1990 RPA Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989). U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1988 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1989). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1990).
Chapter 9-The Annual Report . 111

other benefits generated by the timber sale program.

There are many problems with TSPIRS as a measure

of timber sale economics. Revenues include deposits

to the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund and timber purchaser road credits, although neither benefits the

U.S. Treasury. The comparable expenses (plus other

road construction, reforestation, and other stand

investment costs) are “depreciated” over long time

periods, often 100 years or more, so that most road

construction and reforestation expenditures are reported in the short-term as net social benefits of

timber sales. This approach is unlikely to assist

congressional oversight of agency accountability for

expenditures.

TSPIRS also reports employment and income

generated by timber sales. Such social benefits may

well be appropriate for reporting annually, and

Congress has frequently expressed interest in such

information. Employment, income, payments to

counties, and other relevant measures of the economic and social impacts of Forest Service activities

are important, as described earlier, but such information should only be reported when the complete

picture can be shown. Presenting such data only for

Forest Service timber sales seriously skews the

information base. This can focus attention on

increasing timber sales, at the expense of generating

social benefits through management of, research on,

and assistance for other renewable resource production and protection activities.

MEETING ANNUAL REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

In addition to assessing agency activities and RPA

program implementation, the Annual Report is to

meet certain specific reporting requirements. This

section examines each of these requirements, and

evaluates the performance of the 1989 Annual

Report in meeting them.

The Forest Service has produced an Annual

Report every year since RPA was enacted, as

required by section 8(c). As described above, the

evaluation of the elements of the RPA Program is

now satisfactory in some areas, although few RPA

Program targets are shown and the effort is rather

weak in other areas.

The Annual Report is reasonably successful at

meeting the requirement for “a description of the

status of major research programs [and] significant

findings, ” and the statistical appendix presents a

reasonably comprehensive summary of cooperative

forestry accomplishments, as required in section

8(c). However, the discussion of research applications is weak, and the analysis of cooperative

assistance needs and work backlogs is entirely

lacking. The Report describes priority research

programs, which is not required, but which should

prove useful in helping to develop future RPA

Assessments and Programs.

In general, the Annual Report does not fulfill the

requirement that it provide “appropriate measures

of pertinent costs and benefits. . . to assess the

balance between economic factors and environmental quality factors’ [sec. 8(d)]. One table

provides a summary of benefits by resource category, but the measures used are inconsistent with

quantities and values elsewhere in the Annual

Report and in the RPA Program. Furthermore, some

of the benefits specified, such as esthetics and public

access, are excluded from that table, while others,

such as cost savings and rate of return, are excluded

from the Annual Report entirely. Assessing the

balance between economic and environmental factors is admittedly a difficult task, but the Annual

Report has made no attempt to meet this requirement.

The Annual Report is also to include “plans for

implementing corrective actions and recommendations for new legislation where warranted” [sec.

8(e)]. If the Report truly assessed the implementation of the RPA Program, deviations from the targets

and difficulties in meeting targets would have been

identified. Then, corrective actions and legislative

needs could be discussed. However, until it evaluates RPA Program implementation, the Annual

Report probably cannot meet this requirement.

Section 3(d)(1) requires the Annual Report to

include information on reforestation and timber

stand improvement needs and on certification of

successful reforestation and stand improvement

efforts, by national forest and by State. The Report

has included tables providing such information, with

more details than specified, every year since 1978,

although site productivity details for the certifications were eliminated in the 1989 Report. Nonetheless, the Annual Report has clearly met this requirement.

The Annual Report is required to identify “the

amounts, types, and uses of herbicides and pesti-
112 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

cides used in the National Forest System, including

the beneficial or adverse effects of such uses” [sec.

3(e)]. The Report of the Forest Service has included

the Pesticide Use Report annually since 1978, but it

contains no discussion of the beneficial or adverse

effects of herbicide and pesticide use. Thus, the

Annual Report has met only part of the requirements

of this section of RPA.

Finally, section 6(l)(1) directs the Secretary to

develop a process for estimating long-term benefits

and costs, including information on the “estimated

expenditures associated with the reforestation, timber stand improvement, and sale of timber from the

National Forest System, and. . . a comparison of

these expenditures to the return to the Government

resulting from the sale of timber. ” Subsection (2)

then requires a summary of these data in the Annual

Report, ‘including an identification on a representative sample basis of those advertised timber sales

made below the estimated expenditures for such

timber as determined by the above cost process.”

From 1977 through 1982, the Annual Report included a table with a sample of timber sales, some

with costs exceeding receipts, although it is impossible to determine if those sales were ‘ ‘representative. ” It is also unclear whether the costs included

reforestation and stand improvement costs; one

might expect that the timber funding table, described

earlier in this chapter, might be the basis for these

costs, and this table did include reforestation and

stand improvement costs until 1984. However, since

1984, this requirement has been largely ignored.

The Timber Sale Program Information Reporting

System (TSPIRS) identifies timber receipts, allocated expenses, and other economic consequences

of the timber sale program, but critics charge that it

presents an inaccurate picture, particularly of the

costs. The Annual Report neither explains the

system used, nor refers the reader to source material,

so the validity of the data cannot be readily

evaluated. It clearly does not meet the legal requirement for comparing the expenditures (including

reforestation) and returns of a representative sample

of below-cost timber sales.

CONCLUSIONS

The Annual Report provides an informative

overview of Forest Service programs and activities

for individuals and groups not familiar with the

agency, although it presents an extremely favorable

picture of the agency and ignores or glosses over

most controversies.

As a report of Forest Service accomplishments,

the Annual Report is much less useful. The narrative

portion of the Report presents output measures for

most national forest resources, but information on

resource conditions is generally lacking. The Annual

Report contains information on national forest

management activities without explaining the implications for resource conditions. For example, the

1989 Report displays acres of watershed improvement, but does not relate this effort to changes in

watershed conditions. Furthermore, some activities,

such as forest protection, are excluded entirely. The

narrative also does not contain adequate expenditure

information to oversee Forest Service fiscal performance. The description of cooperative assistance

is even less useful, with virtually no assessment of

results or of efficiency, and no reference to the

relatively complete picture contained in the statistical appendix. In contrast, the discussion of research

priorities and of major research findings is reasonably effective at presenting the agency’s research

accomplishments. Finally, the 1989 Report describes public interactions, human resource programs, and the increasing work force diversity, but

without any supporting data.

As a report on the implementation of the RPA

Program, the Annual Report has been nearly useless.

The 1988 Report was the first to include a separate

section addressing RPA implementation. Accomplishments are compared with several RPA output

and budget targets, although the analysis is far from

comprehensive and RPA targets are excluded from

the other chapters of the Annual Report and from

most of the tables in the statistical appendix. The

recent efforts are a late and incomplete beginning for

reporting on RPA Program implementation.

The Annual Report’s statistical appendix presents

the details of Forest Service activities and accomplishments. One problem is inconsistency in the

level of detail; the Report contains relatively little

information on some important resources or issues,

such as watershed protection and road construction.

Another problem is the inconsistent geographic base

for reporting. Some measures are reported only

nationally, while others have regional, State, or

national forest information. In addition, the measures used often differ from those in the RPA

Assessment and Program. For example, the 1989
Chapter 9--The Annual Report ● 113

Annual Report identifies trail maintenance, suitable

rangeland, watershed and wildlife habitat improvements, and road reconstruction-not used in the

other RPA documents-but excludes information

on recreation facility maintenance, rangeland condition, old-growth forests, clearcutting, and wetlands.

Finally, the statistical appendix is generally

treated as independent from the narrative. The

information does not support the narrative, and the

narrative rarely refers to the copious statistics that

are presented.

Adequate statistical information on cooperative

assistance and on research is difficult to develop, but

the Forest Service has reasonably thorough data on

these branches. The statistical base for human

resource programs is similarly thorough, but the data

on the work force is nearly useless. Finally, the

Annual Report is inadequate for examining the

financial and economic performance of the agency.

While generally consistent with the budget requests,

the fiscal data are inadequate to calculate and

compare unit costs for activities and areas over time.

One table, reporting timber sale funding, has been

modified biannually to show declining costs while

costs have actually been increasing. Information on

the local and regional economic and social consequences of Forest Service activities are lacking.

RPA also imposed numerous specific reporting

requirements on the Forest Service. Several of the

requirements, such as the pesticide use report and the

needs and certifications for reforestation and timber

stand improvement, have been met annually, although often the required reporting is incomplete.

Other requirements, such as reporting long-term

benefits and costs, have not been so effectively

addressed. A few, such as identifying needed

corrective actions and presenting representative

below-cost timber sales, have been virtually ignored.

Overall, the Annual Report has been a mediocre

tool for evaluating Forest Service performance, and

its independence from the RPA process has rendered

it ineffective for documenting implementation of the

RPA Program. Furthermore, there have been few

changes to improve the ability of the Report to meet

these tasks, and some changes have actually reduced

its value. In examining the potential of the Annual

Report to serve as the final step in the RPA process,

Stairs and Maurer (94) observed that the needed

changes in the Annual Report “are not compatible

with incremental revisions of the present process . . . . [T]he annual reporting process can no

longer be perceived as an autonomous process. ”

Until the Annual Report displays Forest Service

efforts toward achieving the resource quantity and

quality goals established in the RPA Program, with

sufficient geographic and unit cost details to oversee

performance, the Report will continue to be the weak

link in the RPA process.
References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W., The 1980

So~ood Timber Assessment Market Model:

Structure, Projections, and Policy Implications, Forest Science Monograph 22 (Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters,

1980).

Allen, G.M., and Gould, E.M., “Complexity,

Wickedness, and Public Forests,” JournaZ of

Forestry 88(4):20-23, 1986.

Alterman, R., and MacRae, D., ‘‘Planning and

Policy Analysis-Converging or Diverging

Trends?” Journal of the American Planning

Association 49(2):200-215, 1983.

Ames, C.B., “Straight Talk From the CEO,”

Harvard Business Review 49(6):132-138,

1989.

Appropriations-Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 1981,

Public Law 96-514 (94 Stat. 2957), sec. 310.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937, ch.

517 (50 Stat. 522), sees. 31-33. 7 U.S.C.

1010-1012.

Beasley, J.L., and bMaster, D. C., “Administrative Mechanisms of the RPA,” In: Hewett

et al. (1982), pp. 155-161.

Behan, R.W., “RPA/NFMA-Time to Punt,”

Journal of Forestry 79(12):802-805, 1981.

Benjamin, R. O., “Congressional Involvement

in the 1980 RPA Process, ’ In: Stairs et al.

(n.d.), pp. 70-76.

Bergoffen, G.F., “Industrial Aspirations for

the RPA’s Next Round,” In: Hewett et al.

(1982), pp. 203-214.

Binkley, C.S., Economic Analysis in the Resource Planning Act Assessment and Program, OTA background paper, Mar. 15, 1990.

Binlcley, C. S., Brewer, G.D., and Sample,

V.A., ‘‘The Resources Planning Act: Strategic

Planning or Policy Analysis?” In: Binkley et

al. (1988), pp. 11-26.

Binkley, C. S., Brewer, G.D., and Sample, V.A.

(eds.), Redirecting the RPA: Proceedings of

the 1987 Airlie House Conference on the

Resources Planning Act, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin 95

(New Haven, CT: 1988).

Binkley, C. S., and Hagenstein, P.R., “Economic Analysis of the 1985 RPA Program, ’

15.

16.

17.

18,

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Journal of Forestry 85(11):25-30, 1987.

Cardellichio, P.A., and Binkley, C.S., “The

Effects of Overrun Improvements on Stumpage Price Inflation,” Canadian Journal of

Forest Research 18(8):981-985, 1988.

Carter, J., “Statement of Policy,” Hearings:

Resources Planning Act: Management of the

Nation’s Forests, U.S. Senate, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation,

and Forestry, May 27 and June 27, 1980

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1980), pp. 47-50.

Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, ch. 348 (43 Stat.

653). 16 U.S.C. 568-570.

Clawson, M., “Forests in the Long Sweep of

American History,” Science 204:1168-1174,

June 15, 1979.

Clephane, T.P., and Carroll, J., Timber Survey:

Timber Ownership, Valuation, and Consumption Analysis for 97 Forest Products, Paper,

and Diversified Companies (New York, NY:

Morgan Stanley & Co., Aug. 25, 1982).

Collins, C.L., “Comments horn the Blue

Ribbon Coalition,” Letter to R.W. Gorte,

Project Director, Office of Technology Assessment, Mar. 31, 1990.

Cooper, A.W., Box, T.W., Foil, R.R., Stone,

E.L., Stark, R.W., Teeguarden, D.E., and

Webb, W. L., “Final Report of the Committee

of Scientists, ” Federal Register 44:26599-

26659, May 4, 1979.

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978,

Public Law 95-313 (92 Stat. 365). 16 U.S.C.

2101-2111.

Cortner, H.J., and Schweitzer, D.L., “Institutional Limits to National Public Planning for

Forest Resources: The Resources Plaming

Act,” Natural Resources Journal 21:203-222,

1981.

Cortner, H.J., and Schweitzer, D.L., “Institutional Limits and bgal Implications of Quantitative Models in Forest Planning,” Environmental Law 13:493-516, 1983.

Cortner, H.J., and Schweitzer, D.L., “Limits to

Hierarchical Planning and Budgeting Systems: The Case of Public Forestry,’ Journal of

–115-
116 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Environmental Management 17:191-205,

1983.

Drucker, P. F., Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York, NY:

Harper & Row, 1974).

Fairfax, S.K., “RPA and the Forest Service,’

In: USDA, FS (1981), pp. 181-200.

Fedkiw, J., ‘‘The USDA Decision Process for

the 1980 RPA,” In: Hewett et al. (1982), pp.

163-168.

Ford, G.R., ‘Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974,” Weekly

Compilation of Presidential Documents

10(34):1043, Aug. 17, 1974.

Ford, G. R., Statement of Policy, attached to

letter to The Honorable Speaker, U.S. House of

Representatives, Mar. 2, 1976.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (lWA), Public Law

93-378 (88 Stat. 476). 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, Public Law 95-307 (92

Stat. 353). 16 U. S. C!. 1641-1647.

Forest Reserve Act of 1891, ch. 561 (26 Stat.

1103), sec. 24 of the Sundry Civil Expenses

Appropriations Act for FY1892. 16 U.S.C.

471.

Forest Service Organic Administration Act of

1897, ch. 2 (30 Stat. 11), part of sec. 1 of the

Sundry Civil Expenses Appropriations Act for

FY1898. 16 U.S.C. 473-482.

France, T.M., Director, Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center, National Wildlife Federation, ‘‘ Statement,’ In: House Agriculture

Committee (1986), pp. 137-146.

Giltmier, J.W., “RPA: The Promise and the

Final Product,” In: Stairs et al. (n.d.), pp.

24-31.

Gorte, J.K. and Gorte, R.W., ‘‘Employment

and Community Stability in the Forest Products Industries, ’ In: LeMaster and Beuter

(1989), pp. 158-175.

Gorte, R.W., “Reporting Progress: The Annual Report of the Forest Service, ’ Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation 43(2):155-157,

1988.

Graham, K., “Commercial Fishing and

Community Stability,’ In: LeMaster and Beuter (1989), pp. 155-157.

Gray, D. H., ‘‘The Uses and Misuses of Strategic Planning,” Harvard Business Review

86(1):89-97, 1986.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Hagenstein, P.R., “Commodity, or Business,

Interests and the RPA Program,’ Zn: Binkley

et al. (1988), pp. 111-124.

Hagenstein, P. R., Strategic Planning—

Cooperative Assistance and Research in the

RPA Program, OTA background paper, Feb.

15, 1990.

Hagenstein, P.R., and Bruner, W.E., Semitivity of the Timber Assessment Market Model

(T~A4), OTA background paper, Dec. 8,

1982.

Heady, E.O., Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use (New York, NY:

Prentice-Hall, 1952).

Hewett, C.E., ‘‘Achieving the Potential of the

Resources Planning Act,” In: Hewett et al.

(1982), pp. 225-233.

Hewett, C.E., Hamilton, T.E., and Anderson,

LC. (eds.), Forests in Demand: Conjlicts and

Solutions (Boston, MA: Auburn House, 1982).

Irland, L. C., “Strategic Thinking: A Critical

Gap in American Forestry Planning and Management, Renewable Resources Journal

4(1):14-18, 1986.

Mand, L. C., RPA as Strategic Thinking: Background, Comparative Experiences, and Some

Implications, OTA background paper, Feb. 21,

1990.

Jackson, P. V., Executive Vice President, Society for Range Management, ‘‘Statement’ In:

House Agriculture Committee (1986), pp.

309-314.

Kirby, P. C., “A Conservationist’s Hopes for

the 1985 RPA,” In: Hewett, et al. (1982), pp.

215-220.

Kirby, P. C., Senior Counsel, The Wilderness

Society, ‘‘ Statement,’ In: House Agriculture

Committee (1986), pp. 40-41.

Lee, R.G., “Community Stability: Symbol or

Social Reality?” In: LeMaster and Beuter

(1989), pp. 36-43.

bman, C.K., “Planning Against Analysis:

Forest Service Implementation, of the Resources Plaming Act of 1974, ’ Zn: Binkley, et

al. (1988), pp. 176-198.

LeMaster, D. C., Decade of Change: The Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority

During the 1970s (WestPort, CT: Greenwood

Press, 1984).

hMaster, D. C., Chair, Department of Forestry

and Range Management, Washington State
References . 117

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

University, ‘‘ Statement,” In: House Agriculture Committee (1986), pp. 707-713.

hMaster, D. C., ‘‘On Expanding the Supply of

Forest Resources From Federal Forest

Lands,” In: Binkley, et al. (1988), pp. 44-67.

bMaster, D. C., and Beuter, J.H. (eds.), Community Stability in Forest-Based Economies

(Portland, OR: Timber Press, 1989).

Lyons, J.R., and Knowles, D.R., “The Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act: Congressional Staff Perspectives on

Alternative Responses to the Assessment and

Implementation of the Planning Process,’ In:

Binkley et al. (1988), pp. 199-215.

Marrus, S.K., Building the Strategic Plan:

Find, Analyze, and Present the Right Information (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,

1984).

McGuire, J.R., “The RPA: Something for

Everyone,” In: Hewett et al. (1982), pp.

147-151.

McIntire-Stennis Act (officially, the Cooperative Forestry Research Program Act of 1962),

Public Law 87-788 (76 Stat. 806). 16 U.S.C.

582a.

McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, ch. 678 (45

Stat. 699). 16 U.S.C. 581. Repealed and

replaced by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16

U.s.c. 1641).

Mead, W.J., Schniepp, M., and Watson, R.B.,

The Effectiveness of Competition and Appraisals in the Auction Markets for National Forest

Timber in the Pac&i’c Northwest, USFS Contract No. 53-3187-1-43 and PSW G-34 (Santa

Barbara, CA: Sept. 30, 1981).

Melcher, J., “A White Paper: The Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act,’ ‘ Congressional Record, 126:21348-

21351, Aug. 5, 1980.

Mills, T.J., Director, RPA Staff, USDA Forest

Service, letter to R.W. Gorte, Project Director,

Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 18,

1990.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

(MUSYA), Public Law 86-517 (74 Stat. 215).

16 U.S.C. 528-531.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, (83 Stat. 852).42

U.S.C. 4321-4347.

National Forest Management Act of 1976

(N’FMA), ~bfic Law 94-588 (90 Stat. 2949).

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

16 U.S.C. 472a, et al. NFMA amended RPA

and many other statutes governing Forest

Service activities, and thus is scattered through

several sections of 16 U.S.C.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964,

Public Law 88-657 (78 Stat. 1089). 16 U.S.C.

532-538.

Nelson, R. E., Manager, Corporate Environmental Quality, Utah International Inc.,

‘‘Statement of American Mining Congress on

the U.S. Forest Service’s Management and

Research Needs,” In: House Agriculture

Committee (1986), pp. 124-130.

Nelson, R.H., “Improving Market Mechanisms in U.S. Forestry, ” In: Binkley et al.

(1988), pp. 78-94.

Olsen, J.B., and Eadie, D. C., The Game Plan:

Governance With Foresight (Washington,

DC: The Council of State Plaming Agencies,

1982).

Ohmae, K., The Mind of a Strategist: Business

Planning for Competitive Advantage (New

York, NY: Penguin Books, 1982).

o’lliordan, W.H., “Discussion: Neither Complex Nor Obscure in Meaning,” Zn: hMaster

and Beuter (1989), pp. 51-53.

O’Toole, R., Reforming the Forest Service

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1988).

Payne, B.R., Deputy Director, International

Forestry Staff, U. S.D.A. Forest Service, personal communication, Jan. 25, 1990.

Penn, B.G., Land and Environmental Coordinator, Marathon Oil Co., “Statement on Behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and

the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association, Zn: House Agriculture Committee

(1986), pp. 115-123.

Perry, J.P., “Community Stability: Is There a

Statutory Solution?’ In: LeMaster and Beuter

(1989), pp. 30-35.

Peterson, R.M., “Foreword,’ In: Hewett, et al.

(1982), pp. v-vi.

Range Inventory Standardization Committee,

Guidelines and Terminology for Range Inventories and Monitoring, report to the Society for

Range Management (Denver, CO: 1983).

Reagan, R., “Statement of Policy on the

Recommended Program for the Forest Service , Zn: House Agriculture Committee

(1986), pp. 557-558.

Rey, M., Vice President, Public Forestry

programs, National Forest Products Associa-
118 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

tion, “Statement for the Record,” In: House

Agriculture Committee (1986), pp. 69-94.

Sample, V.A., “A Summary of the RI?A

Process and Implementation to Date,” In:

Binkley et al. (1988), pp. 27-43.

Sample, V.A., “Improving the Linkage Between the RPA Assessment Findings and the

RPA Program: The View From the Office of

Management and Budget,” In: Binkley et al.

(1988), pp. 161-175.

Sample, V.A., Improving the Integration of

RPA Planning With National Forest Planning

and the Budget and Appropriations Process,

OTA background paper, Mar. 15, 1990.

Schaap, R.L., “Achieving Community Stability Through a Quality Environment,” In:

LeMaster and Beuter (1989), pp. 146-149.

Schallau, C. H., “Sustained Yield Versus

Community Stability,” Journal of Forestry

87(9):16-23, 1989.

Schultz, A.J., Biological Resources in the RPA

Assessment and Program, OTA background

paper, Mar. 27, 1990.

Shands, W.E., “RI?A at the Timing Point,”

Journal of Forestry 84(2):20-24, 1986.

Shands, W. E., Senior Associate, The Conservation Foundation, “The Resources Planning

Act and Forest Service Planning: Testimony,’

In: House Agriculture Committee (1986), pp.

693-706.

Shands, W.E., “RPA Program Options: The

Environmentalist Perspective,’ In: Binkley et

al. (1988), pp. 125-141.

Shannon, M.A., Public Participation in the

RPA Process, OTA background paper, May

31, 1990.

Stairs, G.R., Hamilton, T.E., and Matthews,

M.L. (eds.), The RPA Process: Moving Along

the Learning Curve (Durham, NC: Duke

University Center for Resource and Environmental Policy Research, n.d.).

Stairs, G. R., and Maurer, E.J., “RPA and the

Annual Reporting Process,” In: Stairs et al.

(n.d.), pp. 79-81.

Stairs, G.R., and Maurer, E.J., “Scale, Value

and Opinion in the RPA Process, ’ In: Stairs et

al. (n.d.), pp. 57-69.

Steen, H.K., The U.S. Forest Service: A

History (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1976).

Steiner, G.A., Strategic Planning (New York,

NY: The Free Press, 1979).

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

Stoll, J.R., Loomis, J.B., and Bergstrom, J.C.,

‘‘A Framework for Identif@g Economic Benefits and Beneficiaries of Outdoor Recreation,” Policy Studies Review 7:443-452, 1987.

Tarver, C.M., unpublished speech at conference, Opportunities in National Forest Planning (Washington, DC: American Forestry

Association, May 5, 1987).

The Wilderness Society, “Comments of The

Wilderness Society, on the Forest Service,

USDA, Renewable Resources Program: 1985-

2030,” In: House Agriculture Committee

(1986), pp. 245-258.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Chief, Fiscal Years 1972-

1973 (Washington, DC: 1974).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RPA: The Nation’s Renewable Re -

sourcesdn Assessment, 1975 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1976 Inter-University Symposium on Renewable Resource Assessment and Programming: Executive Summary my Pemberton,

B.G.], General Technical Report PSW-21

(Berkeley, CA: 1977). Also known as the

Pajaro Dunes Conference.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Vegetation and Environmental Features of

Forest and Range Ecosystems my Garrison,

G.S., et al.], Agricultural Handbook 475

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

OffIce, 1977).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Assessment of the Forest and Range

Land Situation in the United States, Report

FS-345 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1979).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, A Recommended Renewable Resources

Program: 1980 Update, Report FS-346

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1980).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and The Conservation Foundation, A

Citizen’s Guide to the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act [Shands,

W.E., cd.], FS-365 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1981).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the

United States: 1952-2030, Forest Resource
References ● 119

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

Report No. 23 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, America’s Renewable Resources: A Supplement to the 1979 Assessment of the Forest

and Range Land Situation in the United States,

Report FS-386 (Washington, DC: February

1984).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement:

1985-2030 Resource Planning Act Program,

Report FS-403 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RPA Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland Situation in the United States, 1989,

Forest Resource Report No. 26 (Washington,

DC: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Outdoor Recreation and

Wilderness Situation in the United States:

1989-2040, draft (1988).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the

United States: 1989-204(KPart I: The Current Resource and Use Situation by Haynes,

R.W.], draft (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the

United States: 1989-204Uart II: The Future Resource Situation by Haynes, R.W.],

draft (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1988).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Areas of the National Forest System,

As of September 30, 1988, Report FS-383

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1988).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Drafi 1990 RPA Program (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Land Base Situation in

the United States: 1989-2040, General Technical Report RM-181 (Ft. Collins, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Minerals Situation in

the United States: 1989-2040, General Technical Report RM-179 (Ft. Collins, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Range Forage Situation

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

in the United States: 1989-2040 ~y Joyce,

L.A.], General Technical Report RM-180 (I%

Corns, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Water Situation in the

United States: 1989-2040 by Guldin, R.W.],

General Technical Report RM-177 (Ft. ColliIIS, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Analysis of the Wildll~e and Fish

Situation in the United States: 1989-2040 by

Flather, C.H. and Hoekstra, T.W.], General

Technical Report RM-178 (Ft. Collins, CO:

1989).

U.S. Depmtment of Agriculture, Forest Service, A Description of Forest Service Programs

and Responsibilities, General Technical Report RM-176 (Ft. Collins, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year

1988 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing OffIce, 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Review of Critiques of the USDA Forest

Service Land Management Planning Process

my Baltic, TJ.; Hof, J.G.; and Kent, B.M.],

General Technical Report RM-170 (Ft. Colli.tlS, CO: 1989).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Semice, 1991 Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations (Washington, DC:

1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year

1989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing OHice, 1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Sale Program Annual Report,

Fiscal Year 1989: Forest Level Information

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

OffIce, 1990).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1982 National Fisheries

Survey, Volume I Technical Report: Initial

Findings by Judy, R.D., et al.], FWS/OBS

84/06 (Washington, DC: 1984).

U.S. General Accounting Office, How To

Improve U.S. Forest Service Reports on Forest

Resources, GAO/I?AD-77-29 (Washington,

DC: 1977).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Skewed Bidding Presents Costly Problems for the Forest
120 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

Service Timber Sales Program: Report to the

Honorable Eugene A. Chappie, House of

Representatives, by the Comptroller General

of the United States, GAO/RCED-83-37

(Washington, DC: Feb. 9, 1983).

U.S. General Accounting OffIce, Information

on the Forest Service Road Construction

Program, GAO/RCED-84-99 (Washington,

DC: Feb. 14, 1984).

U.S. General Services Administration, Summary Report of Real Property Owned by the

United States Throughout the World as of

September 30, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September

1988).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Appropriations, Surveys and Investigations

Staff, 10-Year Reforestation Backlog Elimination Program of the U.S. Forest Service

(Washington, DC: 1985).

U.S. House of Representatives, Making Appropriationsfor the Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies: Conference Report,

Report 99-1002 (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Agriculture, Subcommittee on Forests, Family

Farms, and Energy, Review of the Nation’s

Forest Management and Research Needs and

the 1985 Renewable Resources Planning Act

Program: Hearings, Aug. 13 and Sept. 23,

1986, Serial No. 99-42 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1987).

U.S. House of Representatives, Cornrnittee on

Appropriations, Surveys and Investigations

Staff, Timber Thefi in the Pac&ic Northwest

Region of the U.S. Forest Service (Washington, DC: 1988).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Appropriations, Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,

1990, Report 101-120 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, June 29, 1989).

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on

National Parks and Public Lands, Oversight

Hearing: Forest Service Wilderness Management, July 26, 1988, Serial No. 100-63 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce,

1989).

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Forest Service Road Construction: Proposed Funding Cuts by Gorte,

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

R.W. and Backiel, A.], Report No. IB85192

(Washington, DC: 1985).

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Forest Service’s 1980

RPA Program: Comparison With Accomplishments by Gorte, R.W.], Report No. 86-902

ENR (Washington, DC: Sept. 22, 1986).

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Forest Service Budget:

Trust Funds and Special Accounts by Gorte,

R.W. and Corn, M.L.], Report No. 89-75 ENR

(Washington, DC: Jan. 27, 1989).

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, National Forest Receipts:

Sources and Dispositions my Gorte, R.W.],

Report No. 89-284 ENR (Washington, DC:

May 5, 1989).

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Economic Impacts of

Enacting Alternative Wilderness Proposals

for the National Forests in A40ntana @y Gorte,

R.W.], Report No. 89-352 ENR (Washington,

DC: May 19, 1989).

U.S. Senate, A National Plan for American

Forestry, Document No. 12, 73rd Congress

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1933). Also known as the Copeland

Report.

U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Compilation of the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Committee Print, 96th

Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1979).

U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, T~k Force Report on the

Department of Agriculture (Draft Report) by

The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost

Control, Committee Print 98-76 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

U.S. Senate, Department of the Interior and

Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1987:

Report, Report 99-397 (Washington, DC:

1986).

Wear, D.N., Hyde, W.F., and Daniels, S.E.,

“Even-Flow Timber Harvests and Community Stability, ” Journal of Forestry 87(9):24-

28, 1989.

Weeks Act of 1911, ch. 186 (36 Stat. 961). 16

U.S.C. 485,515, et al.

Wolf, R. E., ‘Architects and Architecture,” In:

Stairs et al. (n.d.), pp. 5-23.
References . 121

151. Wolf, R.E., “The Goals of the Authors of the 153. Wolf, R.E., “Comments From the Floor,”

RPA,” In: Hewett et al. (1982), pp. 137-146. Forum on National Forest Planning: Search152. Wolf, R. E., “Designing Forest Service Roles ing for a Common Vision, workshop convened

and Strategies That Can Be Understood,” by the Conservation Foundation and Purdue

Letter to Dale Robertson, Chief, USDA Forest University (Washington, DC: Feb. 23, 1990).

Service, Sept. 27, 1989.
Forest and Rangeland

Resources Planning

Appendix

Renewable

Act of 1974

As Amended
124 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

TITLE 16–CONSERVATION Page 1362

CHAPTER 36-FOREST AND RANGELAND

RENEWABLE RESOURCES PLANNING

SUBCHAPTER I–PLANNING

sec.

1600.

1601.

1602.

1603.

1604.

Congressional findings.

Renewable Resource Assessment.

(a) Preparation by Secretary of Agriculture; time of preparation, updating

and contents.

(b) Contents of Assessments

(C) Public involvement; consultation

with governmental departments

and agencies.

(d) Congressional policy of multiple use

sustained yield management; examination and certification of lands;

estimate of appropriations necessary for reforestation and other

treatment; budget requirements;

authorization of appropriations.

(e) Report on herbicides and pesticides.

Renewable Resource Program; preparation

by Secretary of Agriculture and transmittal to President; purpose and development

of program; time of preparation, updating

and contents.

National Forest System resource inventories;

development, maintenance, and updating

by Secretary of Agriculture as part of Assessment.

National Forest System land and resource

management plans.

(a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary of Agriculture as

part of program; coordination.

(b) Criteria.

(c) Incorporation of standards and

guidelines by Secretary; time of

completion: progress reports; existing management plans.

(d) Public participation in management

plans: availability of plans; public

meetings.

(e) Required assurances.

(f) Required provisions.

(g) Promulgation of regulations for development and revision of plans;

environmental considerations: resource management guidelines:

guidelines for land management

plans.

(h) Scientific committee to aid in promulgation of regulations; termination; revision committees; clerical

and technical assistance: compensation of committee members.

(i) Consistency of resource plans, permits, contracts, and other instruments with land management

plans; revision.

(j) Effective date of land management

plans and revisions.

(k) Development of land management

plans.

(Z) Program evaluation; process for estimating long-term costs and benefits; summary of data included in

annual report.

(m) Establishment of standards to ensure

culmination of mean annual increment of growth; silvicultural practices; salvage harvesting; excep.

tions.

sec.

1605.

1606.

1606a.

1607.

1608.

1609.

1610.

1611.

Protection, use and management of renewable resources on non-Federal lands; utilization of Assessment, surveys and Program

by Secretary of Agriculture to assist

States, etc.

Budget requests by President for Forest

Service activities.

(a) Transmittal to Speaker of House and

President of Senate of Assessment,

Program and Statement of Policy

used in framing requests; time for

transmittal; implementation by

President of programs established

under Statement of Policy unless

Statement subsequently disapproved by Congress; time for disapproval.

(b) Contents of requests to show extent

of compliance of projected programs and policies with policies approved by Congress; requests not

conforming to approved policies;

expenditure of appropriations.

(c) Annual evaluation report to Congress

of Program components; time of

submission; status of major research programs; application of

findings; status, etc., of cooperative

forestry assistance programs and

activities.

(d) Required contents of annual evaluation report.

(e) Additional required contents of

annual evaluation report.

(f) Form of annual evaluation report.

Reforestation Trust Fund.

(a) Establishment; source of funds.

(b) Transfer of certain tariff receipts to

Trust Fund; fiscal year limitation:

quarterly transfers; adjustment of

estimates.

(c) Report to Congress; printing as

House and Senate document: investments: sale and redemption of

obligations; credits for Trust Fund.

(d) Obligations from Trust Fund.

National Forest System renewable resources;

development and administration by Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with multiple use and sustained yield concepts for

products and services; target year for operational posture of resources: budget requests.

National Forest Transportation System.

(a) Congressional declaration of policy;

time for development: method of financing; financing of forest development roads.

(b) Construction of temporary roadways

in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or leases.

(c) Standards of roadway construction.

National Forest System.

(a) Congressional declaration of constituent elements and purposes; lands

etc., included within; return of

lands to public domain.

(b) Location of Forest Service offices.

Implementation of provisions by Secretary

of Agriculture; utilization of information

and data of other organizations; avoidance

of duplication of planning, etc.; “renewable

resources” defined.

Timber.

(a) Limitations on removal; variations in

allowable sale quantity; public participation.

(b) Salvage harvesting.
Appendix--Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended ● 125

Page 1363 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION § 1600

sec.

1612.

1613.

1614.

1641.

1642.

1643.

1644.

1645.

1646.

1647.

Public participation.

(a) Adequate notice and opportunity to

comment.

(b) Advisory boards.

Promulgation of regulations.

Severability of provisions.

SUBCHAPTER II–RESEARCH

Congressional statement of findings; application of provisions with planning provisions.

Investigations, experiments, tests, and other

activities.

(a) Authorization; scope and purposes of

activities.

(b) Development of periodic Renewable

Resource Assessment through

survey and analysis of conditions.

(c) Program of research and study relative to health and Productivity of

domestic forest ecosystems; advisory committee; reports.

Implementation of provisions.

(a) Establishment and maintenance of

research facilities: acquisition. expenditures, etc., for property.

(b) Acceptance, holding, and administration of gifts, donations, and bequests; use and investment of gifts,

proceeds, etc.; funding requirements.

(c) Cooperation with Federal, State, and

other governmental agencies,

Public and Private agencies, etc.;

funding requirements for contributions from cooperators.

Competitive grants; scope and Purposes; Prerequisites.

General Provisions.

(a) Availability of funds to cooperators

and grantees.

(b) Coordination of cooperative aid and

grants with other aid and grant authorities.

(c) Dissemination of knowledge and

technology developed from research activities; cooperation with

specified entitles.

(d) Additional implementative authorities.

(e) Construction of statutory Provisions.

(f) Definitions.

Authorization of appropriations.

Other Federal programs.

(a) Repeal-of statutory authorities relating to investigation, experiments,

and tests in reforestation and

forest products.

(b) Force and effect of cooperative and

other agreements under repealed

statutory authorities relating to investigation, etc.. in reforestation

and forest products.

(c) Issuance of rules and regulations for

implementation of provisions and

coordination with agricultural research. extension, and teaching

provisions.

(d) Availability of funds appropriated

under repealed statutory authorities relating to investigation, etc.,

in reforestation and forest products.

SUBCHAPTER III–EXTENSION PROGRAMS

1671. Congressional statement of findings.

Sec.

1672.

1673.

1674.

1675.

1676.

1681.

1682.

1683.

1684.

1685.

1686.

1687.

This

General program authorization.

(a) Types of programs; preconditions

and cooperation with State program directors, etc.

(b) ‘(Eligible colleges and universities”

defined.

(c) Use of appropriate educational methods required; scope of methods.

State programs.

(a) Development by State program director, etc., of comprehensive and coordinated program by mutual

agreement; consultations; review

procedure.

(b) Encouragement by State director,

etc., of cooperation between county

and State extension staffs and appropriate Federal and State agencies and organizations.

(c) Administration and coordination of

program by State director: exception.

(d) Appointment and use of advisory

committees by State director, etc.;

composition of advisory committees.

(e) “State” defined.

Renewable Resources Extension Program

plan.

(a) Preparation and submission to Congress; purposes; contents.

(b) Considerations governing preparation.

(c) Annual report to Congress.

(d) Review of activities and evaluation of

progress.

Authorization of appropriations; criteria for

eligibility of States for funds.

Issuance of rules and regulations for implementation of provisions and coordination

with agricultural, research, extension, and

teaching provisions.

SUBCHAPTER IV–WOOD RESIDUE

UTILIZATION

Congressional statement of purpose.

Pilot projects and demonstrations.

(a) Establishment, implementation.

(b) Scope; residue removal credits

Pilot projects; requirements; residue removal

credits as compensation; implementation

guidelines.

Annual reports.

Regulations.

Definitions.

Authorization of appropriations.

CHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

chapter is referred to in section 472a of this

title. -

SUBCHAPTER I—PLANNING

SUBCHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This subchapter is referred to in sections 46000,

460vv--4, 472a, 497b, 539c, 582a, 6700, 1641, 2101 of this

title; title 43 section 1721.

51600. Congressional findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the management of the Nation’s renewable resources is highly complex and the uses,

demand for, and supply of the various resources are subject to change over time;

(2) the public interest is served by the

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, in

cooperation with other agencies, assessing the
126. Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1601 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1364

Nation’s renewable resources, and developing

and preparing a national renewable resource

program, which is periodically reviewed and

updated;

(3) to serve the national interest, the renewable resource program must be based on a

comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources from the Nation’s public

and private forests and rangelands, through

analysis of environmental and economic impacts, coordination of multiple use and sustained yield opportunities as provided in the

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (74

Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531), and public participation in the development of the program;

(4) the new knowledge derived from coordinated public and private research programs

will promote a sound technical and ecological

base for effective management, use, and protection of the Nation’s renewable resources;

(5) inasmuch as the majority of the Nation’s forests and rangeland is under private,

State, and local governmental management

and the Nation’s major capacity to produce

goods and services is based on these nonfederally managed renewable resources, the Federal Government should be a catalyst to encourage and assist these owners in the efficient long-term use and improvement of these

lands and their renewable resources consistent with the principles of sustained yield and

multiple use;

(6) the Forest Service, by virtue of its statutory authority for management of the National Forest System, research and cooperative programs, and its role as an agency in the

Department of Agriculture, has both a responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader

in assuring that the Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that will

meet the requirements of our people in perpetuity; and

(7) recycled timber product materials are as

much a part of our renewable forest resources

as are the trees from which they originally

came, and in order to extend our timber and

timber fiber resources and reduce pressures

for timber production from Federal lands, the

Forest Service should expand its research in

the use of recycled and waste timber product

materials, develop techniques for the substitution of these secondary materials for primary materials, and promote and encourage

the use of recycled timber product materials.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 2, as added Pub. L. 94-588, § 2,

Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2949. )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Multiple-Use Sustained-yield Act of 1960, referred to in par. (3), is Pub. L. 86-517, June 12, 1960, 74

Stat. 215, as amended, which is classified to sections

528 t. 53 I of this title. For complete classification of

this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out

under section 528 of this title and Tables.

SHORT TITLE OF 1988 AMENDMENTS

Pub. L. 100-521, § 1, Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2601,

provided that: “This Act [amending section 1642 of

this title and enacting provisions set out as a note

under section 1642 of this title] may be cited as the

‘Forest Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act of 1988’. ”

Pub. L. 100-231, 31, Jan. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1565, provided that: “This Act [amending sections 1674 and

1675 of this title and provisions set out as a note under

section 1671 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Renewable Resources Extension Act Amendments of 1987’. ”

SHORT TITLE OF 1980 AMENDMENT

Pub. L. 96-554, § 1, Dec. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 3257, provided: “That this Act [enacting subchapter- IV of this

chapter and enacting provision set out as a note under

section 1681 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Wood

Residue Utilization Act of 1980’.”

SHORT TITLE OF 1978 AMENDMENTS

Pub. L. 95-307, § 1, June 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 353, provided: “That this Act [enacting subchapter II of this

chapter, repealing sections 581 to 5811 of this title, and

enacting provisions set, out as a note under section

1641 of this title] may be cited as the “Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of

1978’.”

Pub. L. 95-306, § 1, June 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 349, provided: “That this Act [enacting subchapter III of this

chapter and provision set out as a note under section

1671 of this title] may be cited as the “Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978’. ”

SNORT TITLE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1 of Pub. L. 94-588 provided: “That this Act

[enacting sections 472a, 521b, 1600, and 1611 to 1614 of

this title, amending sections 500, 515, 516, 518, 576b,

581h, and 1601 to 1610 of this title, repealing sections

476, 513 and 514 of this title, and enacting provisions

set out as notes under sections 476, 513, 528, 594-2, and

1600 of this title] may be cited as the ‘National Forest

Management Act of 1976’.”

SHORT TITLE

Section 1 of Pub. L. 93-378, Aug. 17, 1974, 88 Stat.

476, provided: “That this Act [enacting this subchapter and amending section 581h of this title] may be

cited as the ‘Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974’.”

SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS

Section 21 of Pub. L. 94-588 provided that: “If any

provision of this Act [see Short Title of 1976 Amendment note set out above] or the application thereof to

any person or Circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and of the application

of such provision t o other persons and circumstances

shall not be affected thereby. ”

ACT REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 is referred to in sections 46011, 460qq. 497b, 544k, 5440 of

this title; title 43 section 1635.

§ 1601. Renewable Resource Assessment

(a) Preparation by Secretary of Agriculture; time of

preparation, updating and contents

In recognition of the vital importance of

America’s renewable resources of the forest,

range, and other associated lands to the Nation’s social and economic well-being, and of

the necessity for a long term perspective in

planning and undertaking related national renewable resource programs administered by the

Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture

shall prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment. (hereinafter called the “Assessment”).

The Assessment shall be prepared not later

than December 31, 1975, and shall be updated
Appendix--Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended ● 127

page 1365 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION

during 1979 and each tenth year thereafter,

and shall include but not be limited to—

(1) an analysis of present and anticipated

uses, demand for, and supply of the renewable resources, with consideration of the

international resource situation, and an emphasis of pertinent supply and demand and

price relationship trends;

(2) an inventory, based on information developed by the Forest Service and other Federal agencies, of present and potential renewable resources, and an evaluation of opportunities for improving their yield of tangible

and intangible goods and services, together

with estimates of investment costs and direct

and indirect returns to the Federal Government;

(3) a description of Forest Service programs

and responsibilities in research, cooperative

programs and management of the National

Forest System, their interrelationships, and

the relationship of these programs and responsibilities to public and private activities;

and

(4) a discussion of important policy considerations, laws, regulations, and other factors

expected to influence and affect significantly

the use, ownership, and management of

forest, range, and other associated lands.

(b) Contents of Assessments

The Secretary shall report in the 1979 and

subsequent Assessments on:

(1) the additional fiber potential in the National Forest System including, but not restricted to, forest mortality, growth, salvage

potential, potential increased forest products

sales, economic constraints, alternate markets, contract considerations, and other multiple use considerations;

(2) the potential for increased utilization of

forest and wood product wastes in the National Forest System and on other lands, and of

urban wood wastes and wood product recycling, including recommendations to the Congress for actions which would lead to increased utilization of material now being

wasted both in the forests and in manufactured products; and

(3) the milling and other wood fiber product

fabrication facilities and their location in the

United States, noting the public and private

forested areas that supply such facilities, assessing the degree of utilization into product

form of harvested trees by such facilities, and

setting forth the technology appropriate to

facilities to improve utilization either individually or in aggregate the units of harvested

trees and to reduce wasted wood fibers. The

Secretary shall set forth a program to encourage the adoption by these facilities of these

technologies for improving wood fiber utilization.

(c) Public involvement; consultation with governmental departments and agencies

In developing the reports required under subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall

provide opportunity for public involvement and

shall consult with other interested governmental departments and agencies.

(d) Congressional policy of multiple use sustained

yield management; examination and certification

of lands: estimate of appropriations necessary for

reforestation and other treatment; budget r e -

quirements: authorization of appropriations

(1) It is the policy of the Congress that all

forested lands in the National Forest System

shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover

with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of

growth, and conditions of stand designed to

secure the maximum benefits of multiple use

sustained yield management in accordance with

land management plans. Accordingly, the Secretary is directed to identify and report to the

Congress annually at the time of submission of

the President’s budget together with the

annual report provided for under section

1606(c) of this title, beginning with submission

of the President’s budget for fiscal year 1978,

the amount and location by forests and States

and by productivity class, where practicable, of

all lands in the National Forest System where

objectives of land management plans indicate

the need to reforest areas that have been cutover or otherwise denuded or deforested, and

all lands with stands of trees that are not growing at their best potential rate of growth. All

national forest lands treated from year to year

shall be examined after the first and third

growing seasons and certified by the Secretary

in the report provided for under this subsection

as to stocking rate, growth rate in relation to

potential and other pertinent measures. Any

lands not certified as satisfactory shall be returned to the backlog and scheduled for

prompt treatment. The level and types of treatment shall be those which secure the most effective mix of multiple use benefits.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section

1607 of this title, the Secretary shall annually

for eight years following October 22, 1976,

transmit to the Congress in the manner provided in this subsection an estimate of the sums

necessary to be appropriated, in addition to the

funds available from other sources, to replant

and otherwise treat an acreage equal to the

acreage to be cut over that year, plus a sufficient portion of the backlog of lands found to

be in need of treatment to eliminate the backlog within the eight-year period. After such

eight-year period, the Secretary shall transmit

annually to the Congress an estimate of the

sums necessary to replant and otherwise treat

all lands being cut over and maintain planned

timber production on all other forested lands in

the National Forest System so as to prevent the

development of a backlog of needed work larger

than the needed work at the beginning of the

fiscal year. The Secretary’s estimate of sums

necessary, in addition to the sums available

under other authorities, for accomplishment of

the reforestation and other treatment of National Forest System lands under this section

shall be provided annually for inclusion in the

President’s budget and shall also be transmitted to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate together with the annual

report provided for under section 1606(c) of

this title at the time of submission of the President’s budget to the Congress beginning with
128. Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1602 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION Page 1366

the budget for fiscal year 1978. The sums estimated as necessary for reforestation and other

treatment shall include moneys needed to

secure seed, grow seedlings, prepare sites, plant

trees, thin, remove deleterious growth and underbrush, build fence to exclude livestock and

adverse wildlife from regeneration areas and

otherwise establish and improve growing forests to secure planned production of trees and

other multiple use values.

(3) Effective for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1977, and each fiscal year thereafter,

there is hereby authorized to be appropriated

for the purpose of reforesting and treating

lands in the National Forest System

$200,000,000 annually to meet requirements of

this subsection (d). All sums appropriated for

the purposes of this subsection shall be available until expended.

(e) Report on herbicides and pesticides

The Secretary shall submit an annual report

to the Congress on the amounts, types, and

uses of herbicides and pesticides used in the National Forest System, including the beneficial

or adverse effects of such uses.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 3(a) [formerly § 2(a)], (c)-(e),

Aug. 17, 1974, 88 Stat. 476, renumbered § 3(a)

and amended Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2, 3, 4, Oct. 22,

1976, 90 Stat. 2949, 2950. )

CODIFICATION

Section is constituted as follows:

Subsec. (a) consists of section 3(a), formerly 2(a), of

Pub. L. 93-378, as renumbered by section 2 of Pub. L.

94-588. Section 3(b), formerly section 2(b), of Pub. L.

93-378 amended section 581h of this title.

Subsec. (b) consists of section 3(c) of Pub. L. 93-378.

as added by section 3 of Pub. L. 94-588.

Subsec. (c) consists of section 3(d) of Pub. L. 93-378,

as added by section 3 of Pub. L. 94-588.

Subsec. (d) consists of section 3(d) of Pub. L. 93-378,

as added by section 4 of Pub. L. 94-588.

Subsec. (e) consists of section 3(e) of Pub L. 93-378,

as added by section 4 of Pu b L. 94 588.

AMENDMENTS

1976–Subsecs. (b) to (e). Pub. L,. 94-588. §§ 3, 4,

added subsecs. ( b ) to ( e )

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Enforcement functions of Secretary or other official

m Department of Agriculture. Insofar as they involve

lands and programs under jurisdiction of that Department, related to compliance with this subchapter and

system activities requiring coordination and approval

under general authorities of this subchapter with respect to pre-construction, construction, and initial operation of transportation system for Canadian and

Alaskan natural gas were transferred to the Federal

Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska

Natural Gas Transportation System, until the first anniversary of date of initial operation of the Alaska

Natural Gas Transportation System, see Reorg. Plan

No. 1 of 1979, §§ 102(f), 203(a), 44 F.R. 33663, 33666, 93

Stat. 1373, 1376, effective JulY 1, 1979, set out in the

Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and

Employees.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHFR SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 1606, 1606a,

1642. 1674, 1675 of this title; title 7 section 3121.

51602. Renewable Resource Program; preparation by

Secretary of Agriculture and transmittal to President; purpose and development of program; time

of preparation, updating and contents

In order to provide for periodic review of programs for management and administration of

the National Forest System, for research, for

cooperative State and private Forest Service

programs, and for conduct of other Forest Service activities in relation to the findings of the

Assessment, the Secretary of Agriculture, utilizing information available to the Forest Service

and other agencies within the Department of

Agriculture, including data prepared pursuant

to section 1010a of title 7, shall prepare and

transmit to the President a recommended Renewable Resource Program (hereinafter called

the “Program”). The Program transmitted to

the President may include alternatives, and

shall provide in appropriate detail for protection, management, and development of the National Forest System, including forest development roads and trails; for cooperative Forest

Service programs; and for research. The Program shall be developed in accordance with

principles set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215;

16 U.S.C. 528-531), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852) [42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]. The Program shall be prepared not later than December 31, 1975, to

cover the four-year period beginning October 1,

1976, and at least each of the four fiscal decades next following such period, and shall be

updated no later than during the first half of

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, and

the first half of each fifth fiscal year thereafter

to cover at least each of the four fiscal decades

beginning next after such updating. The Program shall include, but not be limited to—

( 1 ) an inventory of specific needs and opportunities for both public and private program investments. The inventory shall differentiate between activities which are of a capital nature and those which are of an operational nature;

(2) specific identification of Program outputs, results anticipated, and benefits associated with investments in such a manner that

the anticipated costs can be directly compared with the total related benefits and

direct and indirect returns to the Federal

Government;

(3) a discussion of priorities for accomplishment of inventoried Program opportunities,

with specified costs, outputs, results, and benefits;

(4) a detailed study of personnel requirements as needed to implement and monitor

existing and ongoing programs; and

(5) Program recommendations which—

(A) evaluate objectives for the major

Forest Service programs in order that multiple-use and sustained-yield relationships

among and within the renewable resources

can be determined;

(B) explain the opportunities for owners

of forests and rangeland to participate in

program:, to improve and enhance the con-
Appendix--Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended ● 129

Page 1367 TITLE 16–C0NSERVATION § 1604

dition of the land and the renewable resource products therefrom;

(C) recognize the fundamental need to

protect and, where appropriate, improve

the quality of soil, water, and air resources;

(D) state national goals that recognize the

interrelationships between and interdependence within the renewable resources;

and

(E) evaluate the impact of the export and

import of raw logs upon domestic timber

supplies and prices.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 4, formerly § 3, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 477, renumbered § 4 and amended Pub.

L. 94-588, §§ 2, 5, Oct. 22. 1976. 90 Stat. 2949,

2951, )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 86-517, June 12, 1960, 74

Stat. 215, as amended, which is classified to sections

528 to 531 of this title. For complete classification of

this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out

under section 528 of this title and Tables.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 91-190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83

Stat. 852, as amended, which is classified generally to

chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq. ) of Title 42, The Public

Health and Welfare. For complete classification of

this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out

under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

AMENDMENTS

1976—Par. (4). Pub. L, 94-588 substituted “implement and monitor” for “satisfy”.

Par. (5). Pub. L. 94-588 added par. (5).

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 1604, 1606 of

this title; title 7 section 3121.

61603. National Forest System resource inventories;

development, maintenance, and updating by Secretary of Agriculture as part of Assessment

As a part of the Assessment, the Secretary of

Agriculture shall develop and maintain on a

continuing basis a comprehensive and appropriately detailed inventory of all National Forest

System lands and renewable resources. This inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect

changes in conditions and identify new and

emerging resources and values.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 5, formerly § 4, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 477, renumbered § 5, Pub. L. 94-588, § 2,

Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2949.)

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 43 section 1903.

§ 1604. National Forest System land and resource

management plans

(a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary of Agriculture as part of program; coordination

As a part of the Program provided for by section 1602 of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans

for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management

planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies.

(b) Criteria

In the development and maintenance of land

management plans for use on units of the National Forest System, the Secretary shall use a

systematic interdisciplinary approach t o

achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences.

(c) Incorporation of standards and guidelines by Secretary; time of completion; progress reports; existing management plans

The Secretary shall begin to incorporate the

standards and guidelines required by this section in plans for units of the National Forest

System as soon as practicable after October 22,

1976, and shall attempt to complete such incorporation for all such units by no later than September 30, 1985. The Secretary shall report to

the Congress on the progress of such incorporation in the annual report required by section

1606(c) of this title. Until such time as a unit of

the National Forest System is managed under

plans developed in accordance with this subchapter, the management of such unit may continue under existing land and resource management plans.

(d) Public participation in management plans; availability of plans; public meetings

The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the development, review, and revision

of land management plans including, but not

limited to, making the plans or revisions available to the public at convenient locations in the

vicinity of the affected unit for a period of at

least three months before final adoption,

during which period the Secretary shall publicize and hold public meetings or comparable

processes at locations that foster public participation in the review of such plans or revisions.

(e) Required assurances

In developing, maintaining, and revising plans

for units of the National Forest System pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall assure

that such plans—

(1) provide for multiple use and sustained

yield of the products and services obtained

therefrom in accordance with the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C.

528-5311, and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness; and

(2) determine forest management systems,

harvesting levels, and procedures in the light

of all of the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1)

of this section, the definition of the terms
130 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1604 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION Page 1368

“multiple use” and “sustained yield” as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

of 1960, and the availability of lands and

their suitability for resource management.

(f) Required provisions

Plans developed in accordance with this section shall—

(1) form one integrated plan for each unit

of the National Forest System, incorporating

in one document or one set of documents,

available to the public at convenient locations, all of the features required by this section;

(2) be embodied in appropriate written material, including maps and other descriptive

documents, reflecting proposed and possible

actions, including the planned timber sale

program and the proportion of probable

methods of timber harvest within the unit

necessary to fulfill the plan;

(3) be prepared by an interdisciplinary

team. Each team shall prepare its plan based

on inventories of the applicable resources of

the forest;

(4) be amended in any manner whatsoever

after final adoption after public notice, and,

if such amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, in accordance with

the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of

this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this

section; and

(5) be revised (A) from time to time when

the Secretary finds conditions in a unit have

significantly changed, but at least every fifteen years, and (B) in accordance with the

provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of this

section and public involvement comparable to

that required by subsection (d) of this section.

(g) Promulgation of regulations for development and

revision of plans; environmental considerations;

resource management guidelines; guidelines for

land management plans

As soon as practicable, but not later than two

years after October 22, 1976, the Secretary

shall in accordance with the procedures set

forth in section 553 of title 5, promulgate regulations, under the principles of the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C.

528-5311 that set out the process for the development and revision of the land management

plans, and the guidelines and standards prescribed by this subsection. The regulations

shall include, but not be limited to—

(1) specifying procedures to insure that

land management plans are prepared in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.], including, but not limited to, direction on when

and for what plans an environmental impact

statement required under section 102(2)(C) of

that Act [42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)] shall be prepared;

(2) specifying guidelines which—

(A) require the identification of the suitability of lands for resource management;

(B) provide for obtaining inventory data

on the various renewable resources, and soil

and water, including pertinent maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids; and

(C) provide for methods to identify special conditions or situations involving hazards to the various resources and their relationship to alternative activities;

(3) specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of

the Program which—

(A) insure consideration of the economic

and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management,

including the related systems of silviculture

and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife,

and fish;

(B) provide for diversity of plant and

animal communities based on the suitability

and capability of the specific land area in

order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives

of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to

be taken to preserve the diversity of tree

species similar to that existing in the region

controlled by the plan;

(C) insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the

field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not

produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land;

(D) permit increases in harvest levels

based on intensified management practices,

such as reforestation, thinning, and tree improvement if (i) such practices justify increasing the harvests in accordance with

the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of

1960, and (ii) such harvest levels are decreased at the end of each planning period

if such practices cannot be successfully implemented or funds are not received to

permit such practices to continue substantially as planned;

(E) insure that timber will be harvested

from National Forest System lands only

where—

(i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged;

(ii) there is assurance that such lands

can be adequately restocked within five

years after harvest;

(iii) protection is provided for streams,

streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands,

and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions

or fish habitat; and

(iv) the harvesting system to be used is

not selected primarily because it will give

the greatest dollar return or the greatest

unit output of timber; and

(F) insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an evenaged stand of

timber will be used as a cutting method on

National Forest System lands only where—
Appendix--Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended ● 131

Page 1369 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1604

(i) for clearcutting, it is determined to

be the optimum method, and for other

such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management

plan;

(ii) the interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area

have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of

the general area;

(iii) cut blocks, patches, or strips are

shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;

(iv) there are established according to

geographic areas, forest types, or other

suitable classifications the maximum size

limits for areas to be cut in one harvest

operation, including provision to exceed

the established limits after appropriate

public notice and review by the responsible Forest Service officer one level above

the Forest Service officer who normally

would approve the harvest proposal: Provided, That such limits shall not apply to

the size of areas harvested as a result of

natural catastrophic conditions such as

fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm; and

(v) such cuts are carried out in a

manner consistent with the protection of

soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation,

and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource.

(h) Scientific committee to aid in promulgation of

regulations; termination; revision committees;

clerical and technical assistance; compensation

of committee members

(1) In carrying out the purposes of subsection

(g) of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture

shall appoint a committee of scientists who are

not officers or employees of the Forest Service.

The committee shall provide scientific and

technical advice and counsel on proposed guidelines and procedures to assure that an effective

interdisciplinary approach is proposed and

adopted. The committee shall terminate upon

promulgation of the regulations, but the Secretary may, from time to time, appoint similar

committees when considering revisions of the

regulations. The views of the committees shall

be included in the public information supplied

when the regulations are proposed for adoption.

(2) Clerical and technical assistance, as may

be necessary to discharge the duties of the committee, shall be provided from the personnel of

the Department of Agriculture.

(3) While attending meetings of the committee, the members shall be entitled to receive

compensation at a rate of $100 per diem, including traveltime, and while away from their

homes or regular places of business they may

be allowed travel expenses, including per diem

in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section

5703 of title 5, for persons in the Government

service employed intermittently.

(i) Consistency of resource plans, permits, contracts,

and other instruments with land management

plans; revision

Resource plans and permits, contracts, and

other instruments for the use and occupancy of

National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans. Those resource plans and permits, contracts, and other

such instruments currently in existence shall

be revised as soon as practicable to be made

consistent with such plans. When land management plans are revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments, when

necessary, shall be revised as soon as practicable. Any revision in present or future permits,

contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(i) Effective date of land management plans and revisions

Land management plans and revisions shall

become effective thirty days after completion

of public participation and publication of notification by the Secretary as required under subsection (d) of this section.

(k) Development of land management plans

In developing land management plans pursuant to this subchapter, the Secretary shall identify lands within the management area which

are not suited for timber production, considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent feasible, as determined by

the Secretary, and shall assure that, except for

salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect

other multiple-use values, no timber harvesting

shall occur on such lands for a period of 10

years. Lands once identified as unsuitable for

timber production shall continue to be treated

for reforestation purposes, particularly with

regard to the protection of other multiple-use

values. The Secretary shall review his decision

to classify these lands as not suited for timber

production at least every 10 years and shall

return these lands to timber production whenever he determines that conditions have

changed so that they have become suitable for

timber production.

(2) Program evaluation; process for estimating longterm costs and benefits; summary of data included in annual report

The Secretary shall—

( 1 ) formulate and implement, as soon as

practicable, a process for estimating longterms 1 costs and benefits to support the program evaluation requirements of this subchapter. This process shall include requirements to provide information on a representative sample basis of estimated expenditures

associated with the reforestation, timber

stand improvement, and sale of timber from

the National Forest System, and shall provide

a comparison of these expenditures to the

return to the Government resulting from the

sale of timber; and

‘ So in original. Probably should be “long-term’”.
132 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1605 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1370

(2) include a summary of data and findings

resulting from these estimates as a part of

the annual report required pursuant to section 1606(c) of this title, including an identification on a representative sample basis of

those advertised timber sales made below the

estimated expenditures for such timber as determined by the above cost process; and

(m) Establishment of standards to ensure culmination of mean annual increment of growth; silvicultural practices; salvage harvesting exceptions

The Secretary shall establish—

( 1 ) standards to insure that, prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the National

Forest System shall generally have reached

the culmination of mean annual increment of

growth (calculated on the basis of cubic measurement or other methods of calculation at

the discretion of the Secretary): Provided,

That these standards shall not preclude the

use of sound silvicultural practices, such as

thinning or other stand improvement measures: Provided further, That these standards

shall not preclude the Secretary from salvage

or sanitation harvesting of timber stands

which are substantially damaged by fire,

windthrow or other catastrophe, or which are

in imminent danger from insect or disease

attack; and

(2) exceptions to these standards for the

harvest of particular species of trees in management units after consideration has been

given to the multiple uses of the forest including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range and after completion

of public participation processes utilizing the

procedures of subsection (d) of this section.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 6, formerly, § 5, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 477, renumbered § 6 and amended Pub.

L. 94-588, §§ 2, 6, 12(a), Oct. 22. 1976, 90 Stat.

2949, 2952, 2958. )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, referred to in subsecs. (e) and (g), is Pub. L. 86-517, June

12, 1960, 74 Stat. 215. as amended, which is classified

to sections 528 to 531 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note

set out under section 528 of this title and Tables.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (g)( 1), is Pub. L. 91-190, Jan. 1,

1970, 83 Stat. 852. as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 55 ( § 4321 et seq. ) of Title 42, The

Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification

of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out

under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

AMENDMENTS

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-588, § 12(a), substituted

“section 4“ for “section 3“ in the original, which, because of the translation as “section 1602 of this title”

required no change in text.

Subsecs. (c) to (m). Pub. L. 94-588, § 6, added subsecs. (c) to (m).

T RANSFER OF F UNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

E XPEDITIOUS C OMPLETION OF M ANAGEMENT P LANS O F

F OREST S ERVICE AND B UREAU OF L AND M ANAGEMEN T ;

C ONTINUATION O F E XISTIN G PLANS; J UDICIAL

R EVIE W

Pub. L. 100-446, title III, § 314, Sept. 27, 1988, 102

Stat. 1825, provided that: “The Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management are to continue to complete as expeditiously as possible development of their

respective Forest Land and Resource Management

Plans to meet all applicable statutory requirements.

Notwithstanding the date in section 6(c) of the NFMA

(16 U.S.C. 1600) [16 U.S.C. 1604(c)], the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management under separate authority, may continue the management of

lands within their jurisdiction under existing land and

resource management plans pending the completion of

new Plans. Nothing shall limit judicial review of particular activities on these lands: Provided, however,

That there shall be no challenges to any existing plan

on the sole basis that the plan in its entirety is outdated, or in the case of the Bureau of Land Management,

solely on the basis that the plan does not incorporate

information available subsequent to the completion of

the existing plan: Provided further, That any and all

particular activities to be carried out under existing

plans may nevertheless be challenged. ”

Similar provisions were contained in the following

prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 100-202, § 101(g) [title III, $3141, Dec. 22,

1987.101 Stat. 1329 213, 1329-254.

Pub. L. 99-500, § 101(h) [title II, 52011, Oct. 18, 1986,

100 Stat. 1783-242, 1783-268, and Pub. L. 99-591,

§ 101(h) [title 11, 52011, Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat.

3341-242, 3341 268.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 46000. 460vv-4,

539d, 542d, 1611 of this title; title 42 section 8855; title

43 section 1752.

51605. Protection, use and management of renewable

resources on non-Federal lands: utilization of Assessment, surveys and Program by Secretary of

Agriculture to assist States, etc.

The Secretary of Agriculture may utilize the

Assessment, resource surveys, and Program prepared pursuant to this subchapter to assist

States and other organizations in proposing the

planning for the protection, use, and management of renewable resources on non-Federal

land.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 7, formerly § 6, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 478, renumbered § 7, Pub. L. 94-588, § 2,

Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2949. )

51606. Budget requests by President for Forest Service activities

(a) Transmittal to Speaker of House and President of

Senate of Assessment, Program and Statement of

Policy used in framing requests; time for transmittal; implementation by President of programs

established under Statement of Policy unless

Statement subsequently disapproved by Congress:

time for disapproval

On the date Congress first convenes in 1976

and thereafter following each updating of the

Assessment and the Program, the President

shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President of the

Senate, when Congress convenes, the Assessment as set forth in section 1601 of this title

and the Program as set forth in section 1602 of
Appendix--Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended . 133

Page 1371 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION

this title, together with a detailed Statement of

Policy intended to be used in framing budget

requests by that Administration for Forest

Service activities for the five- or ten-year program period beginning during the term of such

Congress for such further action deemed appropriate by the Congress. Following the transmission of such Assessment, Program, and Statement of Policy, the President shall, subject to

other actions of the Congress, carry out programs already established by law in accordance

with such Statement of Policy or any subsequent amendment or modification thereof approved by the Congress, unless, before the end

of the first period of ninety calendar days of

continuous session of Congress after the date

on which the President of the Senate and the

Speaker of the House are recipients of the

transmission of such Assessment, Program, and

Statement of Policy, either House adopts a resolution reported by the appropriate committee

of jurisdiction disapproving the Statement of

Policy. For the purpose of this subsection, the

continuity of a session shall be deemed to be

broken only by an adjournment sine die, and

the days on which either House is not in session

because of an adjournment of more than three

days to a day certain shall be excluded in the

computation of the ninety-day period. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, Congress may revise or modify the Statement of Policy transmitted by the President,

and the revised or modified Statement of Policy

shall be used in framing budget requests.

(b) Contents of requests to show extent of compliance

of projected programs and policies with policies

approved by Congress; requests not conforming

to approved policies; expenditure of appropriations

Commencing with the fiscal budget for the

year ending September 30, 1977, requests presented by the President to the Congress governing Forest Service activities shall express in

qualitative and quantitative terms the extent to

which the programs and policies projected

under the budget meet the policies approved by

the Congress in accordance with subsection (a)

of this section. In any case in which suc h

budget so presented recommends a course

which fails to meet the policies so established,

the President shall specifically set forth the

reason or reasons for requesting the Congress

to approve the lesser programs or policies presented. Amounts appropriated to carry out the

policies approved in accordance with subsection

(a) of this section shall be expended in accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

(c) Annual evaluation report to Congress of Program

components; time of submission; status of major

research programs; application of findings;

status, etc., of cooperative forestry assistance

programs and activities

For the purpose of providing information

that will aid Congress in its oversight responsibilities and improve the accountability of

agency expenditures and activities, the Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare an annual

report which evaluates the component elements of the Program required to be prepared

by section 1602 of this title which shall be furnished to the Congress at the time of submission of the annual fiscal budget commencing

with the third fiscal year after August 17, 1974.

With regard to the research component of the

program, the report shall include, but not be

limited to, a description of the status of major

research programs, significant findings, and

how these findings will be applied in National

Forest System management and in cooperative

State and private Forest Service programs.

With regard to the cooperative forestry assistance part of the Program, the report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the

status, accomplishments, needs, and work backlogs for the programs and activities conducted

under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act

of 1978 [16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.].

(d) Required contents of annual evaluation report

These annual evaluation reports shall set

forth progress in implementing the Program required to be prepared by section 1602 of this

title, together with accomplishments of the

Program as they relate to the objectives of the

Assessment. Objectives should be set forth in

qualitative and quantitative terms and accomplishments should be reported accordingly. The

report shall contain appropriate measurements

of pertinent costs and benefits. The evaluation

shall assess the balance between economic factors and environmental quality factors. Program benefits shall include, but not be limited

to, environmental quality factors such as esthetics, public access, wildlife habitat, recreational and wilderness use, and economic factors such a.. the excess of cost savings over the

value of foregoing benefits and the rate of

return on renewable resources.

(e) Additional required contents of annual evaluation

report

The reports shall indicate plans for implementing corrective action and recommendations for new legislation where warranted.

(f) Form of annual evaluation report

The reports shall be structured for Congress

in concise summary form with necessary detailed data in appendices.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 8, formerly § 7, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 478, renumbered § 8 and amended Pub.

L. 94-588, §§ 2, 7, 12(b), Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat.

2949, 2956, 2958; Pub. L. 95-313, § 12, July 1,

1978, 92 Stat. 374. )

R EFERENCES IN T E X T

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment, Control Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L.

93-344, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 297, as amended. For

complete classification of this Act to the Code, see

Short Title note set out under section 621 of Title 2,

The Congress, and Tables.

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 95-313, July 1, 1978,

92 Stat. 365, which is classified principally to chapter

41 ( § 2101 et seq. ) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set

out under section 2101 of this title and Tables.
134 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1606 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1372

AM E ND MENTS

1978—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95-313 inserted provisions

relating to inclusion in report of findings involving cooperative State and private Forest Service programs,

and provisions relating to scope of report descriptions

involving programs and activities under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.

1976-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 7(a), 12(b)(l).

substituted “section 3“ and “section 4“ for “section 2“

and “section 3“, respectively, in the original, which,

because of their translation as “section 1601 of this

title” and “section 1602 of this title” required no

change in text, and substituted “ninety calendar days

of continuous session” for “’sixty days of continuous

session” and “ninety-day period” for “sixty-day

period”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 7(b), 12(b)(2), substituted “section 4“ for “section 3“ in the original which,

because of its translation as “section 1602 of this title”

required no change in text and inserted provision requiring that the report include a description of the

status of major research programs, significant findings, and how such findings will be applied in National

Forest System management.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94-588, § 12(b)(3), substituted

“section 4“ for “section 3“ in the original which, because of the translation as ‘“section 1602 of this title”,

required no change in text.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 95-313 effective Oct. 1, 1978,

see section 14 of Pub. L. 95-313, set out as an Effective

Date note under section 2101 of this title.

STATEMENT OF POLICY

Pub. L. 96-514, title III, § 310, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat.

2984, provided that: “The Statement of Policy transmitted by the President to the Speaker of the House

of Representatives and the President of the Senate on

June 19, 1980, as required under section 8 of the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act of 1974 [this section], is revised and modified to

read as follows:

“ STATEMENT OF P OLICY

“BASIC PRINCIPLES

“It is the policy of the United States—

“(1 ) forests and rangeland, in all ownerships,

should be managed to maximize their net social and

economic contributions to the Nation’s well being, in

an environmentally sound manner.

“(2) the Nation’s forested land. except such public

land that is determined by law or policy to be maintained in its existing or natural state, should be

managed at levels that realize its capabilities to satisfy the Nation’s need for food, fiber, energy, water,

soil stability, wildlife and fish, recreation, and esthetic values.

“(3) the productivity of suitable forested land, in

all ownerships, should be maintained and enhanced

to minimize the inflationary impacts of wood product prices on the domestic economy and permit a net

export of forest products by the year 2030.

“(4) in order to achieve this goal, it is recognized

that in the major timber growing regions most of

the commercial timber lands will have to be brought

to and maintained, where possible, at 90 percent of

their potential level of growth, consistent with the

provisions of the National Forest Management Act

of 1976 [see Short Title of 1976 Amendment note set

out under section 1600 of this title] on Federal

lands, so that all resources are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.

“(5) forest and rangeland protection programs

should be improved to more adequately protect

forest and rangeland resources from fire, erosion, insects, disease, and the introduction or spread of noxious weeds, insects, and animals.

“

4

(6) the Federal agencies carrying out the policies

contained in this Statement will cooperate and coordinate their efforts to accomplish the goals contained in this Statement and will consult, coordinate, and cooperate with the planning efforts of the

States.

‘I(7) in carrying out the Assessment and the Program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974 [this subchapter]

and the Appraisal and the Program under the Soil

and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [section 2001 et seq. of this title], the Secretary of Agriculture shall assure that resources and economic information and evaluation data will be continually

improved so that the best possible information is

always available for use by Federal agencies and the

public

“RANGE LAND DATA BASE AND ITS IMPROVEMENT

“The data on and understanding of the cover and

condition of range lands is less refined than the data

on and understanding of commercial forest land.

Range lands have significant value in the production

of water and protection of watersheds: the production

of fish and wildlife food and habitat; recreation; and

the production of livestock forage. An adequate data

base on the cover and condition of range lands should

be developed by the year 1990. Currently, cattle production from these lands is annually estimated at 213

million animal unit months of livestock forage. These

lands should be maintained and enhanced, including

their water and other resource values, so that they can

annually provide 310 million animal units months of

forage by the year 2030, along with other benefits.

“GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF HIGH BOUND PROGRAM

“Congress generally accepts the ‘high-bound’ program described on pages 7 through 18 of the 1980

Report to Congress on the Nation’s Renewable Resources prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture.

However, Congress finds that the ‘high-bound’ program may not be sufficient to accomplish the goals

contained in this statement, particularly in the area of

range and watershed resources, State and private

forest cooperation and timber management.

“STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS

“States and owners of private forest and rangelands

will be encouraged, consistent with their individual objectives, to manage their land in support of this Statement of Policy. The State and private forestry and

range programs of the Forest Service will be essential

to the furtherance of this Statement of Policy.

“FUNDING THE GOALS

“In order to accomplish the policy goals contained in

this statement by the year 2030, the Federal Government should adequately fund programs of research

(including cooperative research), extension, cooperative forestry assistance and protection, and improved

management of the forest and rangelands. The Secretary of Agriculture shall continue his efforts to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the renewable resource

programs. ”

STATEMENT OF PURPOSES OF AMENDMENT BY

COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978

Section 12 of Pub. L. 95-313 provided in part that

the amendment of subsec. (c) of this section by Pub. L.

95-313 is to insure that Congress has adequate information to implement its oversight responsibilities and

to provide accountability for expenditures and activities under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978. See Short Title note set out under section 2101

of this title for classification of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 in the Code.
Appendix-Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended . 135

Page 1373 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1606a

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 1601, 1604,

1684 of this title.

§ 1606a. Reforestation Trust Fund

(a) Establishment; source of funds

There is established in the Treasury of the

United States a trust fund, to be known as the

Reforestation Trust Fund (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the “Trust Fund”), consisting of such amounts as are transferred to

the Trust Fund under subsection (b)(1) of this

section and any interest earned on investment

of amounts in the Trust Fund under subsection

(c)(2) of this section.

(b) Transfer of certain tariff receipts to Trust Fund;

fiscal year limitation; quarterly transfers; adjustment of estimates

(1) Subject to the limitation in paragraph (2).

the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to

the Trust Fund an amount equal to the sum of

the tariffs received in the Treasury after January 1, 1989, under headings 4401 through 4412

and subheadings 4418.50.00, 4418.90.20,

4420.10.00, 4420.90.80, 4421.90.10 through

4421.90.20, and 4421.90.70 of chapter 44, subheadings 6808.00.00 and 6809.11.00 of chapter

68 and subheading 9614.10.00 of chapter 96 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States.

(2) The Secretary shall not transfer more

than $30,000,000 to the Trust Fund for any

fiscal year.

(3) The amounts required to be transferred to

the Trust Fund under paragraph (1) shall be

transferred at least quarterly from the general

fund of the Treasury to the Trust Fund on the

basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the

Treasury. Proper adjustment shall be made in

the amounts subsequently transferred to the

extent prior estimates were in excess of or less

than the amounts required to be transferred.

(c) Report to Congress; printing as House and Senate

document; investments; sale and redemption of

obligations; credits for Trust Fund

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of

the Treasury to hold the Trust Fund, and

(after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture) to report to the Congress each year on

the financial condition and the results of the

operations of the Trust Fund during the preceding fiscal year and on its expected condition

and operations during the next fiscal year.

Such report shall be printed as both a House

and Senate document of the session of the Congress to which the report is made.

(2)(A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of

the Treasury to invest such portion of the

Trust Fund as is not, in his judgment, required

to meet current withdrawals. Such investments

may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations

guaranteed as to both principal and interest by

the United States. For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired (i) on original issue at

the issue price, or (ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United

States may be issued under chapter 31 of title

31 are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to

the Trust Fund. Such special obligations shall

bear interest at a rate equal to the average rate

of interest, computed as to the end of the calendar month next preceding the date of such

issue, borne by all marketable interest-bearing

obligations of the United States then forming a

part of the Public Debt; except that where such

average rate is not a multiple of one-eighth of 1

percent, the rate of interest of such special obligations shall be the multiple of one-eighth of 1

percent next lower than such average rate.

Such special obligations shall be issued only if

the Secretary of the Treasury determines that

the purchase of other interest-bearing obligations of the United States, or of obligations

guaranteed as to both principal and interest by

the United States on original issue or at the

market price, is not in the public interest.

(B) Any obligation acquired by the Trust

Fund (except special obligations issued exclusivey to the Trust Fund) may be sold by the

Secretary of the Treasury at the market price,

and such special obligations may be redeemed

at par plus accrued interest.

(C) The interest on, and the proceeds from

the sale or redemption of, any obligations held

in Trust Fund shall be credited to and form a

part of the Trust Fund.

(d) Obligations from Trust Fund

The Secretary of Agriculture is on and after

December 19, 1985, authorized to obligate such

sums as are available in the Trust Fund (including any amounts not obligated in previous fiscal

years) for—

( 1 ) reforestation and timber stand improvement as specified in section 1601(d) of this

title; and

(2) properly allocable administrative costs

of the Federal Government for the activities

specified above.

(Pub. L. 96-451, title HI, § 303, Oct. 14, 1980, 94

Stat. 1991; Pub. L. 97-424, title IV, § 422, Jan. 6,

1983, 96 Stat. 2164; Pub. L. 99-190, § 101(d)

[title II, 32011, Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1224,

1245: Pub. L. 100-418, title 1, § 1214(r), Aug. 23,

1988, 102 Stat. 1160. )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States, referred to in subsec. (b)(l), is not set out in

the Code. See Publication of Harmonized Tariff

Schedule note set out under section 1202 of Title 19,

Customs Duties.

CODIFICATION

Section was not enacted as part of the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

which comprises this subchapter.

In subsec. (c)(2)(A), “chapter 31 of title 31” was substituted for ‘“the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended” on authority of Pub. L. 97-258, § 4(b), Sept. 13,

1982, 96 Stat 1067, the first section of which enacted

Title 31, Money and Finance.

AMENDMENTS

1988—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 100-418 amended par.

( 1 ) generally. Prior to amendment, par. ( 1 ) read as follows: “Subject to the limitation in paragraph (2), the

Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the Trust
136 ● Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§ 1607 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION Page 1374

Fund an amount equal to the sum of the tariffs received in the Treasury after September 30, 1979, under

subparts A and B of part 1 of schedule 2 of the Tariff

Schedules of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) and

under part 3 of such schedule.”

1985—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99-190 amended subsec.

(d) generally, substituting Provisions authorizing the

Secretary to obligate available sums in the Trust

Fund, for provisions requiring the Secretary to expend

all available amounts in each of fiscal years 1983, 1984,

and 1985.

SubSec. (e). Pub. L. 99-190 struck out subsec. (e)

which related to sense of Congress with respect to disposition of unexpended funds.

1983—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 97-424, § 422(b), struck

out “and before October 1, 1985, ” after “September 30,

1979”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 97-424, § 422(a), substituted provisions relating to fiscal years 1983 through 1985 for

provision that directed that for each of the first 5

fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 1980, there was

authorized after that date to be appropriated to the

Secretary of Agriculture, out of any amounts in the

Trust Fund, an amount equal to the sum of the

amount by which the sum estimated by the Secretary

of Agriculture for the fiscal year under section

1601(d)(2) of this title to be necessary for reforestation and other treatment of acreage, as set forth in

the report transmitted by the Secretary to the Congress under that section for the fiscal year, exceeded

the sum of the amounts appropriated for the fiscal

year under the authorization contained in section

1601(d)(3) of this title and under any other provision

of law to carry out the same purpose; and such sums

as were determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to

be properly allocable to administrative costs of the

Federal Government incurred for the fiscal year in

connection with the reforestation program carried out

under this chapter.

SubSec. (e). Pub. L. 97-424, § 422(a), substituted provision that it is the intent of Congress t hat the Secretary expend all of the funds available in the Trust

Fund in each fiscal year and that any such funds

which are not expended in a given fiscal year remain

available for expenditure without fiscal year limitation; except that any funds not expended prior to Oct.

1, 1985, shall, no later than Apr. 30, 1986, be distributed to the States for use in State forestry programs

pursuant to the formula set forth in section 500 of

this title for provision that the Secretary of the Treasury pay into the general fund of the Treasury any

amounts, including interest earned on such amounts,

remaining in the Trust Fund after Sept. 30, 1985,

which were not expended and remained in the Trust

Fund.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 100-418 effective Jan. 1,

1989, and applicable with respect to articles entered on

or after such date, see section 1217(b)(1) of Pub. L.

100-418, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3001 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

51607. National Forest System renewable resources;

development and administration by Secretary of

Agriculture in accordance with multiple use and

sustained yield concepts for products and services; target year for operational posture of resources; budget requests

The Secretary of Agriculture shall take such

action as will assure that the development and

administration of the renewable resources of

the National Forest System are in full accord

with the concepts for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services as set

forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

of 1960 [16 U.S.C. 528-5311. To further these

concepts, the Congress hereby sets the year

2000 as the target year when the renewable resources of the National Forest System shall be

in an operating posture whereby all backlogs of

needed treatment for their restoration shall be

reduced to a current basis and the major portion of planned intensive multiple-use sustained-yield management procedures shall be

installed and operating on an environmentallysound basis. The annual budget shall contain

requests for funds for an orderly program to

eliminate such backlogs: Provided, That when

the Secretary finds that (1) the backlog of

areas that will benefit by such treatment has

been eliminated, (2) the cost of treating the remainder of such area exceeds the economic and

environmental benefits to be secured from their

treatment, or (3) the total supplies of the renewable resources of the United States are adequate to meet the future needs of the American

people, the budget request for these elements

of restoration may be adjusted accordingly.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 9, formerly § 8, Aug. 17, 1974,

88 Stat. 479, renumbered § 9, Pub. L. 94-588, § 2,

Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2949. )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 86-517, June 12, 1960, 74

Stat. 215, as amended, which is classified to sections

528 to 531 of this title. For complete classification of

this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out

under section 528 of this title and Tables.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in section 1601 of this

title.

$1608. National Forest Transportation System

(a) Congressional declaration of policy; time for development; method of financing; financing of

forest development roads

The Congress declares that the installation of

a proper system of transportation to service the

National Forest System, as is provided for in

sections 532 to 538 of this title, shall be carried

forward in time to meet, anticipated needs on a n

economical and environmentally sound basis,

and the method chosen for financing the construction and maintenance of the transportation system should be such as to enhance local,

regional, and national benefits: Provided, That

limitations on the level of obligations for construction of forest roads by timber purchasers

shall be established in annual appropriation

Acts.

(b) Construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits o r

leases

Unless the necessity for a permanent road is

set forth in the forest development road system

plain any road constructed on land of the Na-
Appendix-Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 As Amended ● 137

Page 1375 TITLE 16–CONSERVATION § 1610

tional Forest System in connection with a

timber contract or other permit or lease shall

be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where

the vegetative cover has been disturbed by the

construction of the road, within ten years after

the termination of the contract, permit, or

lease either through artificial or natural means.

Such action shall be taken unless it is later determined that the road is needed for use as a

part of the National Forest Transportation

System.

(c) Standards of roadway construction

Roads constructed on National Forest System

lands shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety,

cost of transportation, and impacts on land and

resources.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 10, formerly § 9, Aug. 17,

1974, 88 Stat. 479, renumbered §10 and amended Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2, 8, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat.

2949, 2956; Pub. L. 97-100, title II, § 201, Dec.

23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1405. )

A MENDMENTS

1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97-100 substituted “Provided, That limitations on the level of obligations for

construction of forest roads by timber purchasers

shall be established in annual appropriation Acts” for

“, except that the financing of forest development

roads as authorized by clause (2) of section 535 of this

title, shall be deemed ‘budget authority’ and ‘budget

outlays’ as those terms are defined in section 1302(a)

of title 31, and shall be effective for any fiscal year

only in the manner required for new spending authority as specified by section 1351(a) of title 31”.

1976—Pub. L. 94-588, § 8, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

51609. National Forest System

(a) Confessional declaration of constituent elements

and purposes; lands etc., included within; return

of lands to public domain

Congress declares that the National Forest

System consists of units of federally owned

forest, range, and related lands throughout the

United States and its territories, united into a

nationally significant system dedicated to the

long-term benefit for present and future generations, and that it is the purpose of this section to include all such areas into one integral

system. The “National Forest System” shall include all national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United

States, all national forest lands acquired

through purchase, exchange, donation, or other

means, the national grasslands and land utilization projects administered under title III of the

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act [7 U.S.C.

1010 et seq.], and other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the

Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the

system. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 473 of this title, no land now or hereafter

reserved or withdrawn from the public domain

as national forests pursuant to section 471 of

this title, or any act supplementary to and

amendatory thereof, shall be returned to the

public domain except by an act of Congress.

(b) Location of Forest Service offices

The on-the-ground field offices, field supervisory offices, and regional offices of the Forest

Service shall be so situated as to provide the optimum level of convenient, useful services to

the public, giving priority to the maintenance

and location of facilities in rural areas and

towns near the national forest and Forest Service program locations in accordance with the

standards in section 3122(b) of title 42.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 11, formerly § 10, Aug. 17,

1974, 88 Stat. 480, renumbered § 11 and amended Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2, 9, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat.

2949, 2957. )

R EFERENCES IN T E X T

The Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act, referred to

in subsec. (a), is act July 22, 1937, ch. 517, 50 Stat. 522,

as amended. Title III of the Bankhead Jones Farm

Tenant Act is classified generally to subchapter III

( §1010 et seq. ) of chapter 33 of Title 7, Agriculture.

For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see

Short Title note set out under section 1000 of Title 7

and Tables.

Section 471 of this title, referred to in subsec. (a),

was repealed by Pub. L. 94-579, title VII, § 704(a), Oct.

21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792. )

A MENDMENTS

1976 --Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-588, § 9, prohibited the

return to the public domain of land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain as national forests pursuant to section 471 of this title except by an act of

Congress.

T RANSFER OF F UNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 42 section 8401.

91610. Implementation of provisions by Secretary of

Agriculture; utilization of information and data

of other organizations; avoidance of duplication

of planning, etc.; “renewable resources” defined

In carrying out this subchapter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize information

and data available from other Federal, State,

and private organizations and shall avoid duplication and overlap of resource assessment and

program planning efforts of other Federal

agencies. The term “renewable resources” shall

be construed to involve those matters within

the scope of responsibilities and authorities of

the Forest Service on August 17, 1974 and on

the date of enactment of any legislation amendatory or supplementary thereto.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 12, formerly § 11, Aug. 17,

1974, 88 Stat. 480, renumbered §12 and amend-
138 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

§1611 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1376

ed Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2, 10, Oct. 22, 1976, 90

Stat. 2949, 2957. )

AMENDMENTS

1976—Pub. L. 94-588, §10, inserted “and on the date

of enactment of any legislation amendatory or supplementary thereto”.

T RANSFER OF F UNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

§ 1611. Timber

(a) Limitations on removal; variations in allowable

sale quantity; public participation

The Secretary of Agriculture shall limit the

sale of timber from each national forest to a

quantity equal to or less than a quantity which

can be removed from such forest annually in

perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis: Provided,

That, in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, the Secretary may establish an allowable sale quantity for any decade which departs

from the projected long-term average sale

quantity that would otherwise be established:

Provided further, That any such planned departure must be consistent with the multiple-use

management objectives of the land management plan. Plans for variations in the allowable

sale quantity must be made with public participation as required by section 1604(d) of this

title. In addition, within any decade, the Secretary may sell a quantity in excess of the annual

allowable sale quantity established pursuant to

this section in the case of any national forest so

long as the average sale quantities of timber

from such national forest over the decade covered by the plan do not exceed such quantity

limitation. In those cases where a forest has

less than two hundred thousand acres of commercial forest land, the Secretary may use two

or more forests for purposes of determining the

sustained yield.

(b) Salvage harvesting

Nothing in subsection (a) of this section shall

prohibit the Secretary from salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other

catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger

from insect or disease attack. The Secretary

may either substitute such timber for timber

that would otherwise be sold under the plan or,

if not feasible, sell such timber over and above

the plan volume.

(Pub. L. 93-378, §13, as added Pub. L. 94-588,

§ 11, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2957. )

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

§ 1612. Public participation

(a) Adequate notice and opportunity to comment

In exercising his authorities under this subchapter and other laws applicable to the Forest

Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings

where appropriate, to give the Federal, State,

and local governments and the public adequate

notice and an opportunity to comment upon

the formulation of standards, criteria, and

guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs.

(b) Advisory boards

In providing for public participation in the

planning for and management of the National

Forest System, the Secretary, pursuant to the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770)

and other applicable law, shall establish and

consult such advisory boards as he deems necessary to secure full information and advice on

the execution of his responsibilities. The membership of such boards shall be representative

of a cross section of groups interested in the

planning for and management of the National

Forest System and the various types of use and

enjoyment of the lands thereof.

(Pub. L. 93-378, § 14, as added Pub. L. 94-588,

§ 11, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958. )

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Federal Advisory Committee Act, referred to in

text, is Pub. L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770, as

amended, which is set out in the Appendix to Title 5,

Government Organization and Employees.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under section 1601 of this title.

51613. Promulgation of regulations

The Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe

such regulations as he determines necessary

and desirable to carry out the provisions of this

subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93-378, §15, as added Pub. L. 94-588,

§11, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958. )

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of

Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector,

Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural

Gas Transportation System, see Transfer of Functions

note set out under sect ion 1601 of this title.

51614. Severability of provisions

If any provision of this subchapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subchapter and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 93-378, §16, as added Pub. L. 94-588,

§ 11, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958. )
Index

Annual Report, 3,8-10,11,13,15,16-17,22, 28,32,35,52,54,

55,56,99-113

Assessment, 3,4-6,7, 10, 13, 15, 16-17, 18,21,28-29,31,32,

34-35,52,54-55,61-78,83,94

1975 Assessmen\ 28,33, 36-37,97

1979 Assessment 28,33-34, 37,39,62,75-76,77, 102

1984 Assessmentupdate,28,39, 61,102

1989 Assessmen~4-6, 16,18,28,38,62-78,85,87

see also individual resource assessments

Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental

Ethics-see Human resources

Backlogs-see Conditions, renewable resource

Biological diversity-see Wildlife & fiih resources

Budget process, 3,7,14,19,20,32,37,38, 39,40,47,49,51-52,

53,55,58,90-93,94,97-98

Expenditures & nxeipts, 7,8,9,10,18,82,88-89, 91-93,95,

101, 108-109

High-bound/low-bound fiOgraln, 7,20,21,33-34,35,39, 79,

81,91,94,97-98, 102-103

Request, annual, 8,9, 19,20,29,31-32,34,35, 3840, 108

see also Economic & fiscal analysis

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 64,68,87

Conditions, renewable resource, 3,4-5,8,9, 10, 15-17, 19-20,

22,27,61-62, 100

see also individual resources

Cooperative assistance-see State and Private Forestry

Economic & fiscal analyses, 5, 7, 10, 18-19, 40, 56, 69-74,

88-90,94, 108-111, 112

Community impacts, 17, 18-19,81,83,85,88,89-90, 111

Demand & supply, 5,29,61,69-73,77

Investment opportunities, 4,5,6,10,14,18,29,41, 61,73-74,

79,88,94

Prices & values, 5,6,7,40,42,69-73,76, 108-110

see also Budget-expenditures & receipts

Endangered species-see Wildlife & fish resources

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 58,65,66

Facilities, 83, 100, 106

see also Recreation; Roads

Fire protection, 9,25,81, 101, 107

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 58,68

Forest plans, 13,23,24,27-28,34,81

Forest Service

Employees-see Human resources

History & organization, 17,24-26,29,35-36,58,99

Initiatives, 7, 14,45,51,55,57,83,84

Mission, 3, 13,28,35,45-46,48,51, 56-57

Roles, 7, 14,28,32,35-38,58,79-80, 83,88,89

Strategies-see Program

General Accounting Office (GAO), 15, 16, 18,31,33,80

Grazing-see Range forage resources

Human resources

Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental

Ethics, 38

Employees & work force, 29,37-38,79, 102, 107-108

~O~amS, 102, 108

Humphrey, Sen. Hubert H., 3,26-27,30,31-32,53, 59,90

Initiatives-see Forest Service

International conditions & concerns, 5-6,33,61,74-75,83

Global climate change, 6, 17,65,75,77,78,81

Tropical deforestation, 6,75,78

International forestry, 7,9,26,83, 102, 107

Inventories & methods, 4-5,7,9, 10, 15-17,61-63

Issues, discussion of, 3,7,8,10-11,13,16-17, 19,34,41,43,54,

57,80-81, 100

see also individual resources for specific issues

Land and resource management plans-see Forest plans

Livestock grazing-see Range forage resources

Measures-see Inventories & methods

Mineral resources, 29-30,58,81

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960,24,29-30,36,61,79,

88,93

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 3, 17,28,

29,40,43,79

National Fonxt Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), 24,62

National forest plans-see Forest plans

National Forest System, 7,9, 16,24,27-28,80,82-83, 88,89,

91-93, 100-101, 102,103-107

OffIce of Management a Budget (OMB), 7,8,20,21,28,36,

38-40,58,90,91,97,98

Old-growth forests—see Timber

Outputs, 5,8,9, 10, 15,16, 19-20,22,39,62,81, 100

see also individual resources; Conditions, renewable resources

Pesticides and herbicides, 8, 10, 17, 25, 29, 75, 101, 107,

111-112

Presidential Statement of Policy—see Statement of Policy

~OfjGiIll, 3,4,6-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 16-17, 19-20,21,22,23,29,

31-32,35,52-56,79-95

Implementation of, 9, 11, 15, 16-17, 22, 35, 52, 55, 99,

102-103

Initiatives-see Forest Service

1975 ~O@i3111, 13,20,33,36-37,39,43, 79,80,91,97

1980 Program, 7,13,17,20,29,33-34, 37,38,39,42,43,79,

80,88,91

1985 ~Ogri3111, 7,13,17,20,21,23,29, 34,39,42,43,79,80,

81,88,91, 102-103

lhfl 1990 Program, 6-8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29,

37-38,43,44,57,73,75, 79-95, 101

Roles–-see Forest Semice

–139-
140 . Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA

Strategies, 7-8, 16,49,50,52,57,79,81-93

Public participation, 3, 17,28,31,40-44,56,58, 80, 102, 107

Scoping, 17,28,43,44,80

Range forage nxources

Conditions/inventories, 5, 16,63-64,75,81,84-85, 104

Ecological status, 16,64,84-85, 104

Economics, 72,73

1989 Range Assessment, 5,6,63-64,74,75,77,84-85, 104

Noxious weeds, 7,9, 16,84, 104

Outputs (A~s), 63-64,82,84, 104

Resource Value Rating, 64,84, 104

Recreation, 62,63,76,81

Facilities, 9, 16,57,63,84, 100, 102-103, 104

National Recreation Strategy, 14,83,84

1989 Recreation Assessment, 4,5,6,63,68-69,74,76, 77,84,

104, 106

Outputs (R~s), 5,72,73,82,84, 100, 104

Trails, 16,69,84, 100, 104

Report of the Forest Service-see Annual Report

Research

Branch, 6,7,9,26,58,77,80,83, 91,93, 101-102, 107, 111

Needs, 6, 15-16, 18,77-78,83

Resource inventories-see Inventories & methods

Roads

Construction, 9,85, 100, 101, 103, 106-107

Purchaser credits, 88, 106, 108-109

Roles—see Forest Service

RPA Assessment—see Assessment

RPA Program-see Program

RPA requirements, 3,4,5,8,9-11,13,18,20, 23,27-29,32,61,

75,77,79,83-84,97,99, 111-112

see Appendix for complete text of statute, 123-138

Secretary of Agriculture, 3,20,21,23,28,32,34, 37,38-40,58,

61,79,99

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 64,65

Spotted owl—see Timber, old-growth fonxts

State and Private Forestry (S&PF), 6, 7, 8-9, 24-25, 27, 58,

75-76,78,80,82,93, 101, 107, 111

Statement of Policy, 3,4,8, 11, 13,21, 29,52,53,54,55,90,

97-98

1975 Statement, 8,97

1980 Statement, 8, 13,21,29,33-34,91,97-98

1985 Statement, 8,34,97,98

Strategic planning

Business experiences, 49-50,51

Policy analysis, In contrast to, 53-54

Principles, 3, 13,28,45-49,58

RPA as strategic plarming, 3-4,6-7,8, 10, 13-15, 16, 19,20,

21,27,28,45,52-58,61, 79,81,94

States’ experiences, 50-52

WOTS UP analysis, 50,54,55,61

Strategies-see Program

Threatened & endangered species-see Wildlife & fish resources

Timber resources

Air pollution/acid rain, 6,65,74-75,78,86

Below-cost sales & TSPIRS, 8,9,10,17,19,29,81,100, 101,

103, 108, 110-111, 112

Cleareutting, 7,9, 16,41,43,81,85, 105

Conditions/inventories, 5,65,66,85-86, 104-105

Img exports, 17,41,74,79,81

1989 Timber Assessment, 4,5,6,7,18,65,70-71, 73,74,76,

77,85,90, 105

Old-growth forests, 7,8,9,16,17,65,81,85-86, 87,100,101,

105

Outputs/harvest, 7, 19,65,74,82,85, 105

Purchaser credits-see Roads

Reforestation, 9, 10, 83,85, 101, 102-103, 104-105, 111

Tongass National Forest, 95, 100, 108

Trails-see Recreation

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 65,66

Water & watershed resources

Conditions/inventories, 5, 15, 16,65-67,81,85,86, 105

Condition classes, 66-67,86, 105

hxstream flOWS, 9,66,73,77-78,86

1989 Water Assessment, 4,5,6,15,65-67,76,77-78, 86,105

Riparian area management, 65,81,87, 100

Wetlands, 65,67,86, 101, 105

Wilderness resourees

Conditions/inventories, 5, 17,62,68-69,72,87-88, 100, 106

Outputs, 68-69,72,73,82-83,87, 106

Wildlife & f~h resources

Big game winter range, 7, 16,86,87, 106

Biological diversity, 10, 17,81,83, 85

Conditions/inventories, 5, 6, 9, 16, 62, 66, 67-68, 86-87,

105-106

1989 Wildlife Assessment, 5,6, 18,67-68,73-74,75,76, 78,

86,87

Outputs, 67-68,82,86-87, 106

Salmon & steelhead, commercial harvests, 7,9,16,57,83,86,

102-103

Spotted owls—see Timber, old-growth forests

Threatened & endangered species, 57,68,75,81,83,85