Executive Summary
Content Analysis Report
Phase I: Public Employee Outreach
Government Performance & Results Act
(September 1998 -- January 1999)
Prepared by: The Content Analysis Enterprise Team
Kalispell, Montana
For: The Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment Staff
March 29, 1999
The policy of the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or political affiliation. Persons believing they have been discriminated against in any Forest Service related activity should write to: Chief, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C.
Introduction
This document provides an executive summary analysis of concerns raised by the public after issuance of a Notice of Intent regarding the Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan Revision for the year 2000. Analysis assesses comments received through January 1999. For a more detailed analysis of public comment the reader should refer to the full USDA Forest Service (GPRA) Strategic Plan: Content Analysis Report.
Although the analysis attempts to capture the full range of public concerns, this summary should be used with caution. Comments from those who responded do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the entire public. It is also important to note that while an effort has been made to qualify the strength of public concern over specific issues, this analysis is not and should not be considered a tally of votes. All comments are treated equally and are not weighted by number, organizational affiliation, or other status of respondents.
Eight-hundred and twenty letters were received in the SPRA Office. A total of 647 or 79 percent of responses were from unaffiliated individuals. The remaining percent of responses include representatives of conservation organizations; recreational groups and businesses; professional associations; wood products, oil and gas, and mining industry; grazing interests; place-based groups; civic organizations; and, federal, state, county, local, and tribal governments. For more information on response demographics see Appendix A.
How to Use This Document
This Executive Summary is divided into sections including: analysis of general comments referring to the introductory portion of the Strategic Plan, performance measures, relationship to other planning processes and land management laws, and public involvement for the plan; analysis of Goal 1: Ensure Sustainable Systems, related objectives, ecosystem management, and disturbance processes; analysis of Goal 2: Provide Multiple Benefits, related objectives, and tribal treaty rights and interests; analysis of Goal 3: Ensure Organizational Effectiveness and related objectives; and analysis of Management Initiatives 1 through 5.
Public Involvement Process
During the Fall of 1998, nearly 300 people participated in nine public meetings to provide their perspectives on the Forest Service's Strategic Plan. The public meetings, held in conjunction with employee meetings in the same cities, were conducted in major metropolitan areas throughout the country.
People attending the meetings were asked to respond to a form titled ``An Opportunity to Contribute.'' The form poses five questions: 1) Are these [1997 Strategic Plan Goals] the goals that should be included in the revised strategic plan? Are there other goals that should be added or substituted for the 1997 strategic plan goals? 2) Given these strategic goals, what should the agency define as its long-term priorities or objectives? 3) Given these strategic goals and your sense of how long-term priorities or objectives should be execefined, what do you think agency managers should focus on as the critical indicators of success or failure? 4) From your perspective, what are the most important outcomes or future resource conditions on which you would like to see the agency focus? 5) What other issues and concerns would you like the Forest Service to know about and/or consider in the revision of its strategic plan? Examples of goals, objectives, and outcomes were also provided.
Meetings were designed to explain the strategic planning process and solicit suggestions, recommendations, and comments to help frame the Year 2000 Revision. Comments submitted at the meetings, via the Internet, and in letters will be considered in the development of the Year 2000 Revision of the Forest Service Strategic Plan. Additional information and a copy of the Strategic Plan can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa .
This summary describes public concerns regarding the GPRA 2000 Revision, including those not mentioned in the 1997 Strategic Plan.
Response Patterns
Although the public involvement process solicited comment specific to the GPRA year 2000 revision, many respondents interpret the scoping period as an opportunity to share their general concerns and desires for long-term national forest management. As a result, the majority of people who offer comment do not clearly address the Strategic Plan document.
Analysis of public comment reveals that while respondents' concerns relate generally to plan objectives and performance measures, many comments do not apply directly to document content and so are difficult to link to detailed revision suggestions. These general comments often refer to broad philosophies concerning public land management and propose significant paradigm shifts or, in contrast, adherence to historic management patterns. A number of people appear to be confused about the planning process. Several of these respondents submit comments that may be more appropriately addressed to other land management agencies or elected officials.
Many people do respond directly to the Strategic Plan content, offering detailed suggestions for revisions and stating agreement with specific elements of the plan. In fact, a significant number of these respondents request that the Strategic Plan state goals and objectives in greater detail, with heightened attention to explicit implementation strategies and long-term planning efforts.
OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN
Mission and Purpose
The Forest Service mission, as stated in the Strategic Plan, is ``To sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of the land to meet the needs of present and future generations.'' Some respondents feel the mission statement is too vague and must be restated more clearly to ensure the plan's success. For others, however, clarity is not the problem. They perceive the Strategic Plan in its entirety as an inappropriate attempt to redefine the Congressionally established mission of the U.S. Forest Service.
In contrast, some think the Forest Service vision should focus on working with people and sustaining multiple uses, while others suggest that protecting and restoring ecosystems should form the basis for all goals and objectives. Whatever the focus, some believe, the priorities established by the mission should be reflected in budget allocation. One person, referring to the document's estimated funding distribution, asks ``Why is goal 2 worth two times goal 1?'' Several respondents are confused by the apparent lack of a completion date for the GPRA Strategic Plan, and believe this reveals the plan's relative unimportance in the agency's future agenda.
Strategic Plan Goals
Nearly all respondents appear to support the idea of setting goals, but they disagree regarding the selection of specific goals for the Forest Service. Many are satisfied with goals stated in the draft and believe they are clear, concise, and a logical framework for organizing objectives. Yet others see these goals as too vague, too political, or essentially useless; one refers to the goals as ``nonsensical gibberish.''
Those who seek more clarity in Strategic Plan goals believe clarification will facilitate more effective management strategies and simplify Forest Service public involvement efforts. ``Ambiguous, appealing metaphors,'' asserts one respondent, have confused expectations in the past, both inside the agency and outside in the public sphere. This person believes the Forest Service should seek common ground in the definition of key words and phrases, such as ``sustainable,'' in order to foster honest communication within the agency and between the agency and the public. Expressing a related concern, a few respondents believe all goals should be linked to internal agency responsibilities and clear targets for agency performance. Short-term strategies detailed in the Draft Strategic Plan, one person believes, should be augmented by long-term strategies to achieve goals beyond initial targets.
Setting goal priorities and linking these priorities to explicit targets will also serve to clarify expectations and streamline implementation, many people believe. One person believes Forest Service goals promise more than can reasonably be achieved. Others assert that goals should only be included if they are achievable, and the Forest Service should develop a realistic plan for implementing these goals.
Several people would like the Strategic Plan to include additional goals: ensuring community stability, guaranteeing ecological stewardship, serving as a good neighbor, providing opportunities for recreation and commodity production, and accommodating the desires of the public.
Critical Indicators and Performance Measures
Many respondents interpret the opportunity to contribute to the GPRA 2000 revision as a forum for detailing what they would like to see in long-term forest management, responses vary widely and are hard to categorize.
A few people recommend using broad, inclusive critical indicators such as a measure of forest health with desired outcomes including improved population viability, increased protection of critical habitat, improved water quality, and reduced numbers of threatened and endangered species. However some caution that critical indicators should be explicit and include quantifiable improvements and specific results. They recommend linking critical indicators to specific land management practices and showing outcomes such as a decrease in road miles and an increase in roadless area protection and wilderness area designation.
``A key measurement of success is accessibility,'' asserts one person, who claims that public use of forest resources should take precedence over leaving forest ecosystems untouched. Other suggestions for critical indicators include public acceptance of agency decisions, reduced numbers of appeals and lawsuits, and balanced Forest Service budgets.
Suggesting that there is not only one way to best portray results, one respondent believes critical indicators should be set and analyzed at the local level. In contrast, one person supports the use of national-level assessment tools such as the Montreal Protocol Criteria and Indicators.
In general, people support the inclusion of specific performance measures in the Strategic Plan, and many recommend revising the measures to incorporate greater detail. A few respondents state a need for the consistent application of standards in setting measures for all goals, expressing concern that some performance measures are very broad, while others are quite specific. All performance measures, several people assert, should be quantifiable, and the Forest Service should clearly define units of measurement and evaluation processes when developing them. In opposition to this view, one person suggests that performance measures should not be quantifiable, as such an approach would not be responsive to individual forest needs. A greater level of detail is needed, believes another, in setting timelines for the achievement of performance measures.
Few respondents refer to Annual Performance Plans in their comments. One person asks for a detailed annual reporting system to determine forest conditions. Another requests that the Annual Performance Plan incorporates goals from both Forest Plans and the Strategic Plan.
Relationship to Other Planning Processes
People question how the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan relates to the Resources Planning Act (RPA), the agency Natural Resources Agenda, Forest Plans, and other Forest Service budgeting and planning processes. The Strategic Plan should detail the link between these plans, they insist, and explain whether local plans must be revised to mesh with national goals or vice versa. Other respondents recommend that the plan incorporate lessons learned from previous RPA efforts, or even revisit and pursue unfinished goals.
Many people who submitted comments appear to have grown weary of the planning process. They want the Forest Service to stop planning and start implementing. Some, satisfied with recently enacted Forest Plans, see the Strategic Plan as an attempt to derail hard-fought, expensive local planning efforts. They prefer that the Strategic Plan focus on providing funding for Forest Plan implementation. Several people assert that the Strategic Plan should be written to harmonize with existing Forest Plans, and the planning team should ensure that the new plan does not clash with these working programs. Responsibility and authority for determining management direction, many people feel, should lie at the local forest levels, not in the Washington Office. They recommend that the Strategic Plan be written as a general administrative directive that motivates local forests but contains no specifics. One person, unhappy with federal management of Forest Service lands, suggests that the states could do a better job of managing them.
Relationship to Land Management Laws
Citing the Organic Act, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the Renewable Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act, several respondents remind the planning team of the Forest Service's mandate to provide for multiple uses, including logging and mining. They assert, and the Forest Service must not allow pressure from environmental organizations to override the goals outlined in these laws. Some question which goals are derived from administrative policy and which are derived from law.
The Forest Service is hampered by contradictory laws and the appeals process, several people feel, and they want the agency to take an active role in attempting to change laws that impede management.
Public Involvement
Most respondents refer specifically to the public involvement strategy used to solicit comments for the Strategic Plan. Although one person recommends implementing the plan without further public input, many others are unsatisfied with the public notice and opportunities to comment provided for the plan. One suggests that the Forest Service has already made its decisions and is just trying to determine ``political fall-out.''
Many respondents believe communication efforts should be improved to provide better information to more people. Even for employees, one person writes, obtaining GPRA information is difficult, and if you miss the teleconference ``you are out of the loop.''
In some cases, people claim, public meeting announcements were sent after meetings had already been held, and important user groups were not invited. Citing the poor attendance at some of these meetings, others recommend improving future public involvement efforts by holding meetings in the evening or on weekends when more people can attend. The Strategic Plan should be available on the Internet with an opportunity to comment via list server.
Meeting locations are also a source of discontent for many respondents. They believe holding meetings in urban areas excludes the people and communities most likely to be affected by Strategic Plan decisions. More meetings should be held in forest-dependent rural communities and western states, they assert, to obtain a wider cross-section of public comment. Some doubt whether people in the cities know or care much about forest management, and others worry that a nationwide poll may be conducted using questions they feel are slanted, resulting in an inaccurate picture of public opinion.
Dissatisfied with the process for soliciting public comment at meetings, one respondent believes the Forest Service should clearly state the statutory foundation of the Strategic Plan. It is a waste of time, this person writes, to ask people to assume a ``blank slate'' in formulating goals and objectives when the Forest Service has responsibilities outlined by law.
Document Clarity and Accessibility
The language used in the Strategic Plan, many people believe, is difficult for the general public to understand. They recommend rewriting the plan in ``plain language'' without the use of jargon, elusive terms, or undefined acronyms. Acronyms should be defined on first reference, they suggest, and ambiguous or technical terms should be explained or replaced. The language in the plan could be ``subject to almost any interpretation,'' one person writes, and another points out that the word ``road'' is likely to have different meanings to different user groups. A few respondents suggest adding a glossary.
GOAL 1: ENSURE SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS
Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems (Goal 1)
While many respondents feel that the Forest Service should address ensuring sustainable ecosystems there is no consensus as to how much weight this goal should be given. In particular, a number of people see a potential conflict between managing for ecosystem health and simultaneously providing multiple benefits for humans. Emphasis, some argue, should be placed upon sustainable ecosystems with this first goal receiving sixty percent of Forest Service allocations. Other individuals feel the original purpose of the Forest Service was to provide benefits and products to humans, and they fear that ``ensuring sustainable ecosystems'' is another idiom for excluding humans from the forests. Some respondents however, would like to know just what is meant by ``ensuring sustainable ecosystems.''
Prior to implementing Goal 1 some people request a preliminary evaluation of all potential lands that could be included in carrying out the first goal of the GPRA. Their personal opinions range from including all lands to including only those designated as Wilderness. Others believe measurable goals and objectives should be defined prior to implementing this first goal.
Many respondents agree that collaboration between the Forest Service, other government agencies, and the public will be an important component in the success of ensuring sustainable ecosystems.
Ecosystem Management
Many people feel it is important to manage for healthy, natural ecosystems. Additionally, a number of respondents believe the Strategic Plan should focus on restoring and introducing natural processes back into ecosystems.
Management scale for ecosystems is a cause of concern for several respondents. Arguing that ecosystems stretch across the landscape, regardless of political boundaries, some feel the Forest Service should extend its management scale past national forest land, some believing this entails viewing natural systems from a global level. They cite issues to consider, including human population growth, climate changes, and shifting resource burdens to countries outside the U.S. In contrast, other people feel ecosystem management should be applied and can be effective at a site-specific level.
Many respondents agree that adaptive management, monitoring, and field data collection should be conducted prior to implementing ecosystem management decisions. Along similar lines, a few note the ambiguity in terms such as ``sustainability,'' ``ecosystem,'' ``biodiversity,'' and ``forest health.'' These terms, they argue, should be defined prior to implementing the Strategic Plan.
Aquatic Systems (Objective 1.1)
Domestic water supply is an issue of utmost importance to many who indicate having a clean, dependable source of drinking water should be a high priority of the Forest Service.
Some people believe the agency should implement aquatic restoration and protection measures and take steps to minimize the amount of sediment that enters the nation's watersheds. Reduced sediment in watersheds, they believe, will enhance fisheries, recreation opportunities, and rural and municipal drinking water. Some respondents feel one way to protect riparian areas is by establishing buffer zones, where little or no management activities would occur.
Monitoring aquatic resource restoration projects is a concern of a few respondents. They warn that funding for monitoring needs to be accounted for early on in the planning process. Monitoring, they believe, will allow managers to prioritize projects relative to their effectiveness and obtain the greatest return for their efforts.
Forested Ecosystems (Objective 1.2)
Forest restoration and a return to natural processes several respondents feel are important measures the Forest Service should take in managing for healthy forest ecosystems. Prior to implementation, however, some warn that an inventory and analysis of existing conditions is needed. Specifically, clarification of what should be restored and to what extent, needs to be explained and also understood by the public. They further ask, who will identify damaged lands and how will these lands be prioritized as needing restoration? Public collaboration and keeping key players involved in implementation and monitoring are very important to several respondents.
There are differing views on management priorities within forested ecosystems, particularly with regard to simultaneously implementing this objective with other goals of the Plan. Some respondents would like to see balanced forested ecosystem management where there is some level of multiple-use benefits as well as preservation efforts. These respondents insist that sustainable use of the National Forest System is mandated by federal land management laws and can be accomplished with innovative forest management techniques while also allowing for a wide array of uses. Doubting the efficacy of an ecosystem wide approach to forested ecosystems management, some respondents argue these ecosystems are best managed on a local level.
Long-term goals for protection and enhancement of forested ecosystems are paramount to providing a viable program, some respondents believe. In addition, a few people feel that to stay on track with these long-term goals, management should be based on scientific principles and not political influence. Adaptive management and monitoring, some state, will be important ingredients in the Forest Service's ability to successfully meet long-term goals. Quantifiable means of measuring success or failure are identified as the best way to measure how well the Forest Service is meeting objectives in the Strategic Plan.
Protecting and promoting suitable wildlife habitat, some believe, is an important component in any management plan for forested ecosystems. Specifically, some point out the need to identify and protect existing old growth forested ecosystems, thus protecting the species that depend on these systems.
Rangeland Ecosystems (Objective 1.3)
Paramount to ensuring sustainable ecosystems, some argue, is the need to restore and protect rangelands. These systems, they feel, have long been degraded and are in need of repair. The Forest Service conduct further analysis prior to implementing the Strategic Plan assert many respondents who feel this analysis should entail investigating grazing effects on ecosystem health and from there, determining which lands are appropriate for grazing and which should be restored and protected. A few respondents believe there are no rangelands appropriate for grazing, thus grazing activities in national forests should be phased out with no direct or indirect subsidization of grazing. The Forest Service, some believe, should address conflicts between wild herbivores and domestic livestock on national forest lands.
What is the definition of ``range,'' several people wonder, and how does this definition influence the need for rangeland restoration in light of Forest Service figures pertaining to the current acreage of rangelands and the percentage of these acres that are in unsatisfactory condition.
Hazardous Substance Sites (Objective 1.4)
Contamination of terrestrial and aquatic resources, primarily from non-reclaimed mine sites, is a concern for a few respondents. Because of the costs associated with restoration and protection efforts, some respondents argue that the Forest Service needs to prioritize which unreclaimed mine sites will be restored first. These individuals feel the Strategic Planning Team will need to address a number of pressing concerns, including some of the differences between unreclaimed, inactive and abandoned mines. Because these sites contribute to long lasting danger to soil and aquatic resources, a number of people believe they should be addressed immediately.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Recovery (Objective1.5)
Simply creating laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is not enough for a number of the people concerned with threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. A few people believe that past Forest Service attempts of applying the ESA have been weak at best. As one individual states, ``real service rather than lip service'' should be given to endangered species.
One component of the Strategic Plan, many believe, should be careful consideration of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species recovery. Proponents of an ecosystem based strategy argue that this type of management is more efficient than a single species approach and that it will optimize ecological diversity and yield healthy ecosystems. Collaboration across national forest boundaries, some argue, is crucial to successful species recovery management. Along with this recognized need for protection is concern for creating and protecting viable habitat for species at risk. For some, a way to assess the efficacy of any threatened, endangered, and sensitive species recovery is to focus on population numbers and insure that species numbers are either stable or increasing. Others believe the Strategic Plan should give sole priority to species listed as at risk. While many individuals note the need for protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, some are concerned with the necessity and difficulties of balancing this goal with multiple use.
Disturbance Processes and Noxious/Invasive Species Management
Disturbances such as fire, weeds, and disease and insect control are highlighted as important concerns for a number of respondents. Often times, these individuals point out, disturbances are not only natural but necessary. As one individual notes, disturbances such as disease outbreaks can serve as important indicators of forest health.
Defining the role of fire should proceed management decisions, according to a few respondents. Some people urge that fire as a naturally occurring event or disturbance needs to be a part of National Forest management. One suggestion for restoring fire includes periodic burning to eliminate built up slash concentrations and reduce the possibility of large, more catastrophic fires. Suggesting that the Forest Service may need to look at some of their past suppression tactics, some people believe these former policies may have contributed to the heavy back log of slash in the forest. A few others point out that a number of these past tactics have been successful, and that it would be beneficial if the Forest Service returned to some of their old fire suppression techniques.
A further public concern with regard to disturbances includes the need to focus on insect and disease control. More specifically, several people suggest using insect and disease control to help create a more healthy forest ecosystem.
Inclusive of but not limited to exotic weed infestations on national forest land, a few people urge the Forest Service to examine their use of pesticides and herbicides. According to some, these chemicals should be phased out, and more natural methods of pest control be used. Others believe weed infestation has become so prevalent, that not eradicating them by any means necessary would be a ``crime.''
GOAL 2: PROVIDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WITHIN ECOSYSTEM CAPABILITIES
Introduction to Goal 2
The Forest Service's first priority, people generally agree, should be to provide the most good for the most people. This widely shared viewpoint reflects the common belief that national forests should focus on providing multiple benefits to the public. Interpretations of which activities are beneficial to the greatest number of people vary widely. Some respondents express confusion on whether Goal 2 represents a departure from past management goals.
Comments on multiple use management fall into two general categories characterized by responses supporting or opposing goals and initiatives in the Strategic Plan. Those opposed define natural systems as untouched by humans and do not want resource extraction practiced on national forests. In contrast, people in favor of a multiple use concept equate the term with a diversity of environmental and social benefits. The majority of respondents commenting on this objective, however, do not completely support or oppose a multiple use mission; rather they want national forest planning to better account for or clarify multiple use mandates. They believe proper forest management can effectively balance diverse needs.
A number of respondents recommend the development of specific standards to measure the success of land management strategies. Others believe the Strategic Plan should include provisions to ensure Congressional multiple use orders are met. The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, one person argues, does not require national forests to provide for all uses. This person contends that forests need only contribute their greatest values relative to the availability of resources on other lands. It is difficult for all areas to provide for all uses, some respondents feel, and they ask managers to designate land uses on a site-by-site basis.
People who believe the Forest Service should emphasize healthy ecosystems and those who want an emphasis on human economic benefits express concern that the agency is not considering resource uses equally. Both groups believe the Forest Service favors the other's agenda. Wary of the power of money, some conservationists worry that business interests and advocates of consumptive forest uses exercise a disproportionate influence on managers. Conversely, many feel environmental regulations are already too restrictive and limit the capability of public lands to provide economic benefits.
Regardless of their land use ethics or beliefs, many who respond to goal 2 agree the public's need for access to federal lands must be addressed in the Strategic Plan. Some prefer a ``hands off'' attitude and believe in free entry for people to pursue their livelihoods and personal interests in national forests. Others would like to see limits on access for activities which foster ecosystem degradation and compromise what they see as the greatest good.
The Forest Service, several people claim, needs to provide education on the impacts of resource use on forests. One respondent would like emphasis placed on the positive role of resource utilization in fostering stewardship.
Recreation (Objective 2.1)
Recreation on public lands is a precious commodity for many. The importance of recreation, people feel, is not adequately addressed in the Strategic Plan. Given recreation's high public value, they believe it should be a goal rather than an objective.
Increasing populations, many contend, place increasing recreational demands on the forests. Some ask the Forest Service to address the effects of population growth on future recreation management.
General Management
As the popularity of recreation on public lands increases, a number of respondents argue, the Forest Service needs to weigh the relative costs and benefits of recreation and resource extractive activities on the national forests. These people assert the value of recreation now exceeds the value of timber, grazing, and mineral extraction, and the Forest Service should move to decrease timber-dependent management practices.
The needs of all traditional recreational user groups, some respondents assert, should be addressed in a multiple use management framework. Claiming Forest Service land management policies restrict their access and activities in response to misuse of land by a small minority of recreational users, some advocate uncontrolled access for all forest users. Others believe forests should manage for nationwide standardized recreational opportunities.
Recreation Access
Among people with recreation access concerns, there is a clear division of interest between motorized and non-motorized users. Each user group is firmly committed to advocating continued or improved access for their activities. Other respondents hold to a middle ground, supporting multiple use access as the only practical means of addressing the needs of the greatest number of users. In addition, access under the Americans with Disabilities Act is a concern expressed by both elderly and disabled respondents.
A specific concern for both state agencies and members of the public is concession management. Concession management is not an acceptable delivery system for outdoor recreation in public land management, respondents assert, and should not be included in the Strategic Plan.
User Fees
Recreation fees are a subject of debate among respondents. Some see them as a potential financial boon for recreation management, while others view them as ``pork barrel,'' ``double taxation,'' or ``a policy aimed at punishing the recreation community.''
Supporters of user fees are concerned with the distribution of the resulting profits. Many feel profits should remain in the area where they are collected. Some want to see concession profits used to eliminate deferred road maintenance backlogs. Partnerships between the Forest Service and the public for recreation planning and maintenance, others suggest, would promote goodwill and circumvent recreation budget shortfalls.
Developed Recreation
The environmental effects of large-scale recreation developments such as ski areas, campgrounds, and other facilities form the heart of respondents' concerns regarding developed recreation. Many believe proper maintenance of basic camping facilities and amenities is the most important aspect of Forest Service developed recreation. Basic facilities and amenities are in poor condition and inadequate, some feel, while others assert they are a credit to the Forest Service. One elderly respondent suggests campground seasons should be longer to cater to retired campers who travel after Labor Day.
Special Management Concerns
Managing wildlife habitat for game and fish production is important to several respondents. Balancing management conflicts between recreational and native fish species is a specific concern expressed by one state agency.
Several respondents specifically ask the Forest Service to endorse regulations allowing recreational mineral prospecting on public land.
Performance Measures
Those who responded to performance measures under Recreation Objective 2.1 offer a variety of suggestions for recreation assessment protocols, including a recommendation to employ external specialists to measure customer satisfaction. Additional measures of success or failure recommended by respondents include ecosystem quality, maintaining or increasing public access, and the number of people using an area on a seasonal basis.
Wilderness (Objective 2.2)
For many, wilderness values are cultural, spiritual, economic, or ecological in nature. These perceptions of wilderness, they argue, do not fully agree with the goals for wilderness management identified in the Strategic Plan. Some respondents want the Forest Service to restate the goals of the wilderness objective to include ecosystem values. Others are concerned with vague definitions and omissions in the Strategic Plan, including a request from one respondent for a definition of the ``established baseline'' identified in the Strategic Plan, and a request from another for information on the scientific rationale driving land management decisions.
Wilderness Management
Wilderness management philosophies offered by respondents are diverse. All Forest lands should be returned to active management, one person recommends. Another suggests designating the entire National Forest System as a ``National Forest Preserve and Wilderness System.'' Management solely for wilderness or wildlife values, one contends, should be turned over to more appropriate management agencies. While supporting current wilderness policies, another respondent questions the consistency of wilderness management protocols across federal agencies.
Respondents who make specific wilderness management recommendations support a minimalist management philosophy. Some feel wilderness should be unmanaged and as one person put it, ``left uncontrolled, including fire control and disease control and without access trails or roads.'' Other respondents want roadless areas set aside for non-recreational uses such as ecosystem and endangered species management.
Roadless Area Management
The vulnerability of roadless areas to activities is a concern for many respondents. A number of people recommend permanent protection of all roadless areas. While some respondents request wilderness designation for specific areas, others call for general roadless area protection, noting the percentage of the federal land base protected as wilderness and the importance of wild areas to water quality, wildlife habitat, and ecosystem functions.
Roadless and other primitive non-wilderness areas are seen by one group as an opportunity to diversify recreation. This group advocates backcountry non-wilderness designation as an opportunity to liberalize motorized and non-motorized access policies and provide a wilderness-like experience for those who are unable to travel in designated wilderness.
Performance Measures
Public comments regarding measurement of the success or failure of the wilderness objective are confined to two additional performance measures. Several people recommend using acres retained in roadless and unroaded status as a performance measure. One respondent wants Limits of Acceptable Change included as a wilderness performance measure.
Heritage Resources (Objective 2.3)
Many people express interest in preservation of historic structures, documentation of historic forestry practices, and protection of archaeological resources. Less conventional heritage resources of concern to respondents include historic rights of way, historic land uses as protected by law, and heritage forests. Some believe heritage sites determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places should be available to the public for recreational excavation and metal detecting. Contrary to this view, others feel the Forest Service should utilize volunteers with expertise in areas such as metal detecting to assist in archaeological and historic data recovery projects.
Urban Forests (Objective 2.4)
Enhancing quality of life through protection and maintenance of urban forests is a goal shared by a majority of those responding to the Urban Forests Objective. Conversion of forested land into urban housing developments, some feel, threatens their quality of life. Partnerships between the Forest Service, state and local agencies, and community organizations such as arboretums should be developed, many assert, to facilitate urban forest management and diversity. Research projects such as the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, one conservation organization suggests, should also be conducted to increase public understanding of the numerous benefits of urban forests.
Public understanding of the importance of urban forestry can be achieved, many feel, through increased citizen involvement in stewardship activities such as tree planting, care, and protection. Supportive of the citizen involvement strategy for the Urban Forests Objective, one respondent wants to know how the Forest Service plans to implement this strategy. Others offer their own ideas for how this strategy may be achieved such as technology transfer grants and other technical assistance to enhance public involvement efforts.
Although many people support inclusion of an urban forests section in the Strategic Plan, several offer specific suggestions to help clarify this section. Citing the need to be inclusive of all communities who participate in forest management, one person suggests changing the title of Objective 2.4 from Urban Forests to Community Forests. The distinction between urban national forests and urban forests should also, one respondent feels, be clarified through incorporation of a separate section in the Strategic Plan to address urban national forests. Another individual questions what parameters are used to define wildland, rural, and urban forests in the plan. Improving urban forest health and increasing tree canopy cover in urban areas, some contend, should be addressed to help substantiate the importance of urban forest management in the Strategic Plan.
In contrast to many respondents who support Forest Service involvement in urban forestry issues, others strongly believe it is not the responsibility of the Strategic Plan team to create management strategies for urban forests. State and local agencies, these people assert, already implement urban forestry programs and should retain this responsibility.
Rural Communities (Objective 2.5)
Greater attention to socio-economic needs of local communities, many people feel, is needed to facilitate the diversification and development of rural economies. Given many rural communities' dependence on national forests as a source of raw materials such as timber and minerals and land for livestock grazing, they believe these communities must be given primary consideration in the Strategic Plan. This strong reliance on resources from national forests, many assert, makes rural economies particularly vulnerable to changes in public land use that limit access for extractive uses. Economic impacts of changes in land management direction, they contend, must be assessed in the Strategic Plan. A failure to prioritize for the economic and social health of resource dependent communities will, as one individual writes, ``destroy the social fabric of the communities that depend on our national forests for their historical way of life.''
Economic Diversity and Community Resiliency
Although respondents generally agree that a planning objective focusing on economically healthy and diversified rural communities is necessary, many disagree on the specific strategies for realizing this objective. Economic development support in rural communities, some believe, should be a cooperative effort between the Forest Service and community members. Marketing plans advertising community amenity values, local preferences in awards of business contracts, and training programs in contracting for local residents are several suggestions for attracting business and empowering individuals to assume responsibility for the long-term sustainability of their communities. Others recommend creating a restoration job corps and economic opportunities for younger sectors of rural populations. In contrast to the call for increased agency assistance, some respondents argue that access to national forests for raw materials is the key to ensure the economic health of rural communities. While most respondents do not directly reference Objective 2.5 as written in the Strategic Plan, one individual inquires about the rationale for choosing the specific percentage goals for rural community assistance.
Instead of focusing on community development within the current framework of extractive industries, many respondents support a shift from emphasis on these uses to non-extractive industries such as tourism and recreation. Claiming that non-consumptive industries are both more financially secure and less environmentally destructive than traditional uses of the forests, they believe the Strategic Plan should reflect a non-extractive forest use paradigm. Others fear this type of change in forest management will exacerbate economic decline because recreation jobs, they claim, simply do not provide salaries comparable to logging and mining jobs. Recreation and tourism jobs, they further assert, have not replaced industrial jobs lost as a result of decreasing timber sales in many areas.
As another alternative to extractive industries, namely timber-dependent management practices, one respondent suggests a transition to small-scale, high value-added industries such as finished wood products. A strategy such as this creates more employment opportunities for communities, as timber processing and creation of wood products can be done locally, this individual contends.
Receipts to Local Governments
Uncertainty in current forest policies and community funding sources, several assert, also contributes to unhealthy economies and should be addressed in the Strategic Plan. These people believe funding programs such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes and 25 percent county payments from timber receipts rely too heavily on what they feel is an unpredictable timber industry. While some respondents advocate decoupling the 25 percent county payments from timber revenues to eliminate dependence on logging sales, others want these types of assistance payments eliminated altogether in favor of strategies such as diversification grants.
Property Rights and the Role of Private Land
Public access to national forests and the management role of the Forest Service regarding private lands are concerns highlighted by those who respond to property rights and the role of private land. A dichotomy exists among those who call for the Forest Service to direct private landowners to manage for the public good and those who want the agency to concentrate management efforts on Federal rather than private lands. While some respondents are cautious of federal management plans that may limit access to private inholdings on federal land, others feel these inholdings hinder public access to national forests and suggest the Strategic Plan address the role of private lands in national forest management.
Environmental Justice
The Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires that Forest Service public involvement efforts specifically target minority populations. Concerned with environmental justice for rural communities, one Forest Service employee suggests adding an objective, strategies, and performance measures to address what this person feels are disproportionately high and adverse environmental and human health effects of Forest Service actions on low-income or minority populations. Research is needed, this respondent asserts, to determine the magnitude and characteristics of these negative community effects.
Performance Measures
The Strategic Plan defines achievement of Objective 2.5 as a 3 percent yearly increase in the number of assisted communities operating under local strategic plans until 50 percent of all assisted communities are operating under these plans. While most respondents do not respond to the text of this performance measure explicitly, they do offer a variety of management parameters for assessing the social and economic health of rural communities. Many believe the Strategic Plan should evaluate success or failure of the Rural Communities Objective by the extent to which forest uses provide social and economic benefits for communities. Some suggested socio-economic performance measures include stability of communities' populations, import and export volumes, stability of product outputs from rural lands, mill closures, income and poverty levels, increases and decreases in child abuse rates, substance abuse, mental health, unemployment rates, and the extent of active participation by local residents in planning and other Forest Service activities.
Forest Products (Objective 2.6)
Timber extraction policies and Forest Service management priorities are primary sources of contention among a majority of people who responded. Many believe logging practices must be continued or increased to enhance forest health and provide a sustainable supply of timber. In contrast, others want Forest Service policies to reflect what they see as a shift in public values from forest commodity production to forest ecosystem health. The variety of strategies offered by those who respond to forest products management reflect the complexity of both management methods and public sentiment.
Management Emphasis
Forest product management emphasis is a controversial subject for many respondents. Debate concerning how national forests should be managed is informed by fundamental differences in how people value forests. Several people who support timber extraction believe a forest left uncut is an ``indefensible loss of a national resource.'' They contend the historic role of national forests in timber production, creation of jobs, stability of the national wood supply, and active management for forest health all justify continuing timber extraction. Specifically, the Strategic Plan should, one respondent feels, present a target number of national forest acres suitable for timber production.
Conversely, others argue that logging and road building are hardly justifiable given what they believe is a causal relationship between these activities and adverse ecosystem impacts such as habitat degradation and impaired watersheds. This conflict between providing forest products and ensuring sustainable ecosystems, they further suggest, must be addressed in the Strategic Plan. A framework for monitoring and regulating timber harvest activities, others claim, is needed to stop harmful practices. Valuing the health and integrity of national forests, several respondents believe the Forest Service should shift its management focus from resource extraction to forest preservation.
Financial accountability for timber harvests, many assert, is lacking in both the Forest Service and private timber companies. Charging fair market prices for national forest timber would, these people feel, prevent the timber industry from making profits at the taxpayers' expense. They strongly believe below-cost timber sales and subsidized road building should be eliminated in the Strategic Plan. Timber companies that harvest the trees, many contend, should also fund reforestation of logged areas. Others argue timber management was never intended to be a profit-making enterprise, and this original purpose should be reflected in the Strategic Plan.
Given what some see as the negative results of timber extraction such as adverse ecosystem effects and taxpayer subsidies, many respondents call for an end to timber extraction in national forests. The commercial timber sale program, several assert, should be eliminated because subsidized national forest timber competes against private woodlot owners, lowering the price of their timber. One respondent suggests a ban on all timber exports from federal lands.
Favoring the termination of commercial logging activities, many offer a wide array of alternative practices. As one person suggests, ``other ways of making a living from the woods--such as recreation, restoration, and education--should be aggressively explored and funded.'' State and private forest production, some assert, is another alternative to timber extraction on national forests. Where timber harvesting must occur for prescriptive thinning purposes, others feel only the Forest Service should be responsible for these tasks, and the proceeds should be used to fund further protection of the forests.
As stated in Objective 2.6 of the Strategic Plan, part of the duty of the Forest Service is to encourage landowners to provide a sustainable supply of forest products while maintaining and restoring healthy forests. This objective evokes concern and ideas for collaboration from some respondents. Citing that the Strategic Plan includes no mention of how the Forest Service will encourage landowners to fulfill this objective, one individual suggests implementation occur through state agencies and incentive programs. Other suggestions for collaboration offered by respondents include incorporating local community members into small logging sales and building partnerships to provide alternative sources of fiber, wood, and non-wood resources.
Harvest Levels
Sustainable harvest of wood products, many respondents believe, should be a management priority on national forests. These people support active management for timber production over passive approaches. In their view, harvested timber is more valuable than dead or dying trees. In order to implement a sustainable logging rate, some suggest an objective be included in the Strategic Plan to continue timber extraction at Forest Plan Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) levels. Citing a decrease in timber sale volume from 1995-56, one individual claims management for forest health and other multiple uses such as wildlife habitat will be increasingly difficult if timber harvests remain at these low levels.
Harvest Methods and Prescriptions
The two primary concerns identified by respondents regarding harvest methods are the magnitude and location of logging activities on national forests. The practice of clear cutting arouses both strong support and opposition from many. Claiming that clear cutting is a proven scientific technique used to manage for specific forest types and wildlife habitats, some believe it is a necessary tool in forest management. Others want clear cutting eliminated on national forests, specifying that recreational users do not want to see the unpleasant aesthetic impacts of timber operations.
Small tree harvests and thinning activities, some people feel, should also be a management priority in the Strategic Plan. Asserting new jobs and improved forest health can be created, they urge the Forest Service to guarantee a continuous supply of small-diameter trees for the timber industry. Other specific management parameters such as prohibiting timber extraction in critical watershed areas and managing for multiple age classes of trees are offered by a few concerned by forest health.
Regardless of which harvest methods are included in the Strategic Plan, the language describing these activities, one respondent asserts, must be clearly presented to ensure the public understands them. The use of silvicultural terms such as reserves and shelterwood, this person feels, fails to comply with the NEPA requirement for straightforward presentation of the facts.
Management for Special Forest Products and Non-timber Forest Resources
As demand increases for special forest products, some respondents question how the Forest Service will handle existing and potential management conflicts associated with competing uses of forest resources. Concerned with management for special forest products, one respondent asks, ``how will permitting procedures be utilized and will this become a significant revenue generator?'' Destruction of Pinon pines is a concern for one person who wants this activity to stop, claiming these particular trees are a historically important food resource for both humans and wildlife.
Performance Measures
Performance measures included in the Strategic Plan for Objective 2.6 are inadequate, according to some respondents who offer their own suggestions for indicators of success or failure. These recommendations generally reflect the dichotomy of people's priorities regarding timber management. Those who support forest preservation recommend using measurements of ecosystem integrity such as habitat restoration, percentage of living versus dead trees, and number of regrown forest acres. In contrast, some supporters of sustainable timber production feel forest product levels and a profiting timber economy should be the principal indicators of Forest Service performance.
Minerals, Oil and Gas Management (Objective 2.8)
No public consensus exists on whether the management of minerals and fuels fits into the Forest Service's multiple use mission. A number of respondents see mining and energy production on public lands as essential to the continued economic well being and security of the nation. Mining, they believe, is a valid part of the Forest Service's land management program and should be managed in concert with other resource concerns. Others who insist mining is incompatible with the Forest Service's responsibility to protect public land call for the agency to examine the shortcomings of the Mining Law of 1872.
Proper management of existing and historic mines is a concern for both those opposed and in favor of minerals production on federal lands. Mining standards in the Strategic Plan, one individual points out, are imprecise and need to be clarified. Others are concerned that the current staffing and funding levels of the minerals program are inadequate to efficiently or responsibly administer existing and proposed claims. Industry proponents worry about the long delays and bureaucratic hassles they associate with obtaining permits, and would like to see a revised and expedited legal process. Multinational corporations and big business, some people argue, should not have greater opportunity to stake claims than small operators.
It is recognized by most people that mitigating the ecological costs and risks associated with minerals development is necessary to ensure environmental integrity. However, respondents wonder how the agency will prioritize multiple cleanup activities on current and closed mines. Members of the mining industry claim there is no need for an exhaustive inventory of problem sites before restoration efforts are started. Historic mining sites, others assert, jeopardize ecosystems more than current operations and should be cleaned up first.
Tribal Treaty Rights and Interests
Relationships between Native American tribes and the Forest Service, many state, needs improvement and the Strategic Plan should work towards that goal. They maintain that Forest Service managers lack adequate understanding of tribal treaty rights and should receive training in collaboration techniques and tribal government relations.
Citing rights guaranteed to Native Americans by treaties, such as utilization of natural resources and traditional forest uses, people are concerned current management does not always honor tribal agreements. Some suggest managers show more sensitivity to Native American cultural and spiritual practices. Cooperative management of cultural resources with tribal governments, several people contend, will help alleviate conflicts.
GOAL 3: ENSURE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
General Comments
Many respondents people urge the Strategic Plan team to consider redefining the scope of Goal 3. Ensuring organizational effectiveness, some believe, should be the basic mode of operation rather than a long-term target. As one person states, organizational effectiveness ``is a means rather than an end.'' The planning team should redefine Goal 3, another individual suggests, to incorporate organizations outside of the Forest Service as partners in achieving an effective delivery of agency programs. Noting there are challenges to achieving organizational effectiveness, a few respondents feel the Year 2000 Revision should explicitly recognize the restrictions placed upon the agency by Congress.
A bureaucratic management style, some insist, is thwarting Forest Service attempts to achieve organizational effectiveness. Several respondents encourage the Strategic Plan team to establish objectives for reorganizing internal decision-making structures. Some promote a less hierarchial management framework. The elimination of forest-level supervision in favor of district-level direction, one person asserts, will achieve greater agency effectiveness and improve working relationships with Forest Service clients.
Scientific Information (Objective 3.1)
Management direction based on ``measurable scientific values,'' as one person states, reflects a call from many members of the public for an emphasis on science-based land management decisions. This rationale should be the basis for Forest Service decision-making, some declare, rather than catering to political interests or the opinions of a subset of the larger population. Respondents also warn the agency against falsifying science to support management practices. The Strategic Plan should be reviewed and include recommendations by the Committee of Scientists, a few individuals believe. Some respondents note that minority opinions should be included in the report to the public.
Questioning if the Forest Service can meet science-based management needs in light of declining agency budgets, many call for a Strategic Plan that emphasizes cooperative scientific research efforts with experts from other federal and state agencies, universities, and other scientific organizations. Before this can occur, some claim, the Forest Service needs to identify what research and development is required to support scientifically sound decisions. Research without better scientific communication is not a satisfactory means of moving the agency into more effective land management, some of these respondents state. Information from researchers, they assert, should transfer to those who can review and implement management decisions based on these findings.
While not condemning the performance measures listed in the draft Strategic Plan, some respondents feel publishing 1,000 papers should neither be the focus nor an appropriate indicator of achieving a goal. They are concerned the science developed in these papers may not be appropriate for needed management decisions. Some of these people insist the Forest Service should focus instead on finishing regional assessments and collecting forest inventory data prior to making any decisions.
The incorporation of science into decision-making, other respondents contend, can only be implemented within an effective monitoring protocol. They call for the agency to establish and conduct long-term, in the field analysis, and not simply rely on historical data. Other individuals believe much current research does little to help resolve debated issues in the public arena. They request that agency management direction be more responsive to research findings. To foster innovative research, others suggest the Forest Service should offer incentives or rewards to scientists for high-quality work.
Public Safety (Objective 3.2)
The Strategic Plan team should develop specific guidelines, many respondents suggest, for how the agency intends to ensure public safety on national forest lands. A few people recommend that chronically violated forest regulations be re-evaluated. They believe alternative policies, including volunteer-led educational programs, will achieve the desired outcome without an increase in enforcement activity. Others question the availability of adequate funding to achieve the objective as envisioned in the strategic vision. Poaching activities and illegal off-highway vehicle use, a few individuals assert, present an imminent threat to forest resources and ecosystem health. They want these concerns to be explicitly addressed within the Strategic Plan. Insisting timber theft concerns are misrepresented in the existing plan, one respondent urges the planning team to clarify this issue in the Year 2000 Revision. The plan, some believe, should stress cooperative efforts with local organizations and place police training facilities near national forests in order to reduce criminal activities. The mitigation of abandoned mines, according to other respondents, must be a public safety priority for Forest Service management.
Permit Administration (Objective 3.3)
Though few respondents refer specifically to the Permit Administration Objective, those who do believe federal agencies should work cooperatively to ensure a unified permit administration program. Claiming current permit administration processes cause confusion for permit-holders on multi-agency jurisdictions, some respondents suggest a unified interagency permit program will reduce complications and duplication of procedures. A unified plan, others note, should also encourage cooperative agreements through the removal of fee collection programs.
Boundary and Title Management (Objective 3.4)
The Strategic Plan, many respondents suggest, should enable the Forest Service to pursue innovative strategies in meeting the Boundary and Title Management Objective. Some encourage the Forest Service to accentuate a cooperative approach to meeting objectives within mixed ownership zones. Believing state and local governments can more effectively ensure a sustainable rate of multiple benefits from forest resources, others encourage the planning team to incorporate programs enabling the transfer of forestlands from federal to state or local management jurisdiction. A few respondents insist the plan must address the agency's fiscal and administrative capabilities to achieve the boundary-marking performance measure.
More active mechanisms to inform the public of local boundary and title management issues, several people feel, will generate broad-based support for agency land management actions. Proposals for public information systems include greater use of educational signs in management activity areas, wider publication of Forest Service priorities in land exchange initiatives, and regularly scheduled public meetings in areas potentially affected by land exchanges.
Although land exchange programs are not addressed in the existing plan, many respondents believe they should be. They offer several recommendations for land exchange goals. People urge the Forest Service to consolidate land ownership through exchange programs as a means to improve land management. The use of Land and Water Conservation Funds is frequently recommended as a means to finance such programs. Some support exchange programs but caution against the use of condemnation as a technique to achieve consolidated Forest Service ownership. Insisting the public's best interests and the financial needs of local governments are not being satisfied, other respondents believe current exchange policies must be reevaluated before any subsequent proposals are initiated.
Capital Infrastructure (Objective 3.5)
Road management and transportation policy issues are the focus of the majority of responses to the Capital Infrastrucure Objective in the Strategic Plan. Although comments refer primarily to road-related issues, respondents are also concerned with the proper management of structures other than roads. Adequate funding and management for wilderness area trails, dams, and campgrounds are issues that they feel warrant attention and proper guidance from the Forest Service.
Effects on Access
The idea of undue restriction of access to National Forests characterizes a sentiment common among respondents. Some of these people interpret road closures as an indirect creation of de facto wilderness areas. Road closures and resultant loss of road access, they add, will lead to additional crowding in smaller, restricted areas and increase environmental impacts. To alleviate perceived crowding, a few individuals recommend that closed roads be re-evaluated for recreation access suitability. Reducing access, they contend, will impose a management direction that contradicts the goals of the objective. An incomplete survey of roads, some note, is the basis of this problem. These respondents call for a ground-based inventory of roads within the national forests, including ``ghost roads.'' Other calls for a road inventory stress the importance of decommissioning or obliterating roads if environmental standards are not upheld.
Capital Infrastructure Closure, Maintenance, and Restoration
The discussion of road access is a sensitive issue for many respondents. Road closure, maintenance, and restoration concerns are also of importance to people commenting on the Capital Infrastructure Objective. They want the Strategic Plan to answer what maintenance is needed, how roads and trails are evaluated, and which criteria should be employed. Many feel road closure and maintenance needs should be prioritized in the Strategic Plan.
Citing forest roads as the primary cause of wildlife habitat fragmentation, soil erosion, and degraded water quality, other members of the public call for the Strategic Plan to phase out new road construction on national forests. Building on this sentiment, many argue the Forest Service should pursue an active approach for road closures to restore ecosystem integrity. Rather than supporting the construction of new roads, they urge the agency to focus on the restoration of roaded landscapes. Believing the current number of roads is sufficient for commercial activity to continue, other individuals go further and ask the Strategic Plan team to adopt the recent Interim Rule Moratorium on Road Construction.
The obliteration of road systems, some of those in favor of road closure argue, is not the best answer for road decommissioning. Noting that obliteration is a costly process, they recommend the agency simply abandon roads. Instead of closing roads, trails, and campgrounds, other respondents encourage, the Forest Service should emphasize maintenance programs within the Strategic Plan.
``Too many roads are being closed,'' many motorized recreation users believe, and some ask for community participation in road closure management decisions. Performance measures centered on obliteration of roads are irresponsible, according to several respondents, especially when the agency is promoting, in their view, a move towards recreation-based local economies. Suggesting the Forest Service should consider long-term effects of road closures, other people question if closures sufficiently remedy the problems associated with roads to justify such action.
Funding and Management Scale
Claiming the present road system is in disrepair and too expensive to adequately maintain, many believe the Strategic Plan should adopt a roads policy that is financially feasible and will, as one person notes, ``carefully consider federal budgetary realities.'' With these funding parameters in mind, some suggest that a cost analysis be included in the Strategic Plan to reveal whether maintenance costs are equal to the recreational and use benefits derived from roads.
Because a large number of forest roads are used as recreation areas, some people suggest, the road system should be managed under Forest Service recreation management standards, not transportation system guidelines. Management jurisdiction and the scope of the Capital Infrastructure Objective are also concerns raised by some, who believe management standards and guidelines in one forest or region may not be appropriate in another.
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
Initiative 1: Workforce Management
Respondents feel the Forest Service is losing the respect of the public and the self-esteem of its workforce. Additionally, lack of accountability within the Forest Service and in relation to Congress also concerns many people. While some respondents urge for a plan to boost employee morale and organizational pride, others recommend a complete reorganization of the agency 's infrastructure.
Public Trust
Public trust in the Forest Service has plummeted in the opinion of both the responding public and agency personnel. One employee laments, ``We are lambasted for almost everything we are doing.'' Some feel the seemingly constant state of reinvention and planning serves to confuse the public and the workforce, causing what they perceive as the recent decline of public trust and staff morale. Causes for the loss of public trust, one individual asserts, include too much influence from outside interests and not enough reliance on science and the agency 's competent workforce in decision-making. The practice of frequently transferring employees, according to some, is prohibitive to the establishment of familiarity and trust between Forest Service personnel and the communities where they live. In addition, a few people think managers ought to be responsible for employee retention by recognizing employee morale in management goals. Frequently changes in management direction and the myriad of environmental laws to which the Forest Service must adhere have caused the agency's loss of credibility and pride, according to some people.
Close ties between some Forest Service officials and the timber industry disturb many respondents, and they request that these ties be severed. Citing a recent court case where the Forest Service sought the assistance of the timber industry in filing a brief supporting a proposed timber sale, a conservation organization calls for change in the agency 's preferential treatment of timber interests over environmental groups and the public. One respondent considers the Forest Service an ``out-of-control rogue agency, corrupted by its close association with the timber industry,'' while others think the agency bends too much to the political influence of environmental special interest groups in making management decisions. Additionally, many feel that there should be fewer administrators and more on-the-ground workers in the agency, referring to the Forest Service as a top-heavy bureaucracy.
Workforce Infrastructure
Individual employees should be held more accountable for their job performance or lack thereof, a few suggest. Others, referring to what they see as the current trend of dismal operational achievement, lack of predictable leadership, and apathy within the ranks of the Forest Service, ask for immediate action regarding the situation. Several people advocate firing individuals who are not performing their duties. Managers should either do their job responsibly and in the best interest of the forests, or be let go, these people believe. Others merely suggest that the agency would be improved by bringing in younger staff with fresh ideas about land management. There should be more on-the-ground managers and fewer Washington and regional office staff, according to a few individuals. Accountability between the Forest Service and Congress is a key concern for a few respondents. One specifically asks that an objective be added to address annual performance accountability for the Forest Service and its line officers. Others suggest that field staff and researchers be consulted for ways to streamline on-the-ground management.
Initiative 2: Customer Service
Few comments in this section reference the Customer Service Initiative specifically. Instead, responses show a variety of public concerns regarding the Forest Service's responsiveness to the needs of the public, including issues of public education, involvement, and collaboration. People with an interest in this area feel the Forest Service should do more to engage the public in the use and management of national forests and natural resources. Many respondents would also like to see the agency collaborate more with local and state governments, as well as other federal agencies.
General Comments and Management Emphasis
The Forest Service should make its vast stores of information more accessible to the public, some respondents assert. The agency should respond more quickly to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of documents that belong to the public anyway, one person argues. Another person suggests redesigning the annual report data to make it easier for the public to understand.
A few people believe the Forest Service has a public relations problem and needs a campaign that will ``capture the public like Smokey did.'' Instead of focusing on public relations, others believe, the agency should place emphasis on educating the public about forest management issues. In particular, these people would like to see the agency provide better explanations to the public regarding endangered species, the role of fire, ecosystem health, logging, and forest management practices. As large mammals are reintroduced back into the wild, one person recommends, the Forest Service put an emphasis on educating people who live near national forest lands on how to coexist with these animals.
Road and trail signs are often inaccurate and inconsistent with Forest Service maps, some respondents complain, causing confusion over the location of boundary lines, trails, and roads. These people would like to see the agency update its maps and signs to make them more consistent from forest to forest and more useful for public land users.
One person worries that in the agency 's push to provide customer service, the rights of users will be forgotten. Grazing permits, mining claims, and hunting and fishing on public lands, this person asserts, are rights and not just customer services. The Forest Service should aim to please only the American public, one person argues, and not the United Nations. Another person asks that contractual procedures for Forest Service contracts be changed to allow both sides to make changes to the contract.
To help compensate for the closure of small district offices and increased public involvement, a federal employee suggests establishing mobile units that can provide information and various permits to communities near Forest Service lands on a rotating basis. Another person believes that definite targets need to be established on how to serve low-income, minority, and historically underserved communities.
Collaborative Planning
Collaboration and consultation with state and local governments and other federal agencies is a concern for many respondents. Success of the Strategic Plan, in the opinion of many of these people, lies in how well the agency collaborates with all involved government agencies. An advisory board or ``national dialogue,'' in the words of one, should be established in the Strategic Plan among federal, state, and county agencies, industry and environmental organizations, scientists and the general public.
Several respondents ask that the Strategic Plan empower local governments in having a larger say in forest planning and management, since those communities are often deeply affected by Forest Service. Much can be gained, a few people suggest, by sharing information and research between the Forest Service and state forestry agencies. Since state agencies carry the responsibility of fish and wildlife management on Forest Service lands, some stress the importance of cooperative relationships between the agencies.
One individual believes the Forest Service should work more closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This person also asserts that increased collaboration among local, state, and federal agencies will also help the Forest Service's position in Congress. At the same time, a recreation organization argues there should be more communication between the Washington Office and local forests regarding policy decisions. Changes in administrative procedures, including rules for public comment and appeal, should be made, some people believe, to alleviate the Forest Service's susceptibility to lawsuits and appeals that bog down the agency 's ability to collaborate and manage lands under its control.
A few respondents would like the Strategic Plan to encourage interaction with the school systems. Because today's children will be tomorrow's national forest users, they need to learn about conservation issues, these people argue. In addition, the Forest Service has a responsibility to facilitate understanding among the diverse groups that use public lands, many respondents believe. To that end, these people would like to see the Strategic Plan emphasize the agency 's role in bringing various user groups together to hash out agreements when possible on how national forest lands should be used.
Public Involvement Strategies
Public involvement is a crucial element to the success of many of the Forest Service's goals and objectives, many respondents believe. Some have the perception that the agency listens to public concerns, but does little to respond. These people call for a ``two-way conversation'' between the agency and the public. Others see public involvement moving towards a vote or tally. This is detrimental, they believe, to the scientific and interdisciplinary research that goes into much of the decision-making process. The Forest Service leadership needs to be more involved in the public involvement process, some respondents argue. In the words of one person, the leadership asks for greater public involvement, but ``at the receiving level, the public is left confused with decreasing budgets, targets and additional lengthy planning processes.''
Information Management
Comments for this initiative are mainly concerned with the Strategic Plan's objective to change the entire agency over to an IBM information management system and upgrade database and GIS capability. Many respondents feel antiquated computer systems and databases are a hindrance to Forest Service employees doing their jobs effectively. Constant changes in personal computer applications, a federal employee argues, makes information access difficult. In addition, databases should be networked and digital, several people assert. Centralized databases will make information more accessible to the public as well as helping employees track and updated information, they believe. One person suggests that the agency choose a standard GIS platform instead of obscure software; doing so, this person points out, could make collaboration with other government agencies, particularly counties, easier and more productive.
Initiative 4: Financial Management
An overall sentiment of dissatisfaction with the Forest Service's financial management is expressed by both federal employees and the public. From lack of funding to inefficient and top-heavy distribution of the budget, people identify flaws in the agency 's current financial management. Some suggest ways to remedy the situation, such as instituting fiscal accountability, while others point to clarifying and addressing inconsistencies in the handling and distribution of program funding.
Budget Process
Many people emphasize the need for a more consistent and structured budget. Others would like to see more effort given to determining total funds needed to fully accomplish program goals and objectives. After considering budget constraints, these respondents think, the Forest Service should determine how much progress is expected toward meeting those goals. A third major concern for some is the ``piecemeal way'' in which funds are allocated for special projects. Giving small sums to many districts and projects instead of giving the entire amount to a few projects makes for many incomplete projects and much job dissatisfaction, according to some.
Budget Allocation
Many people would like to see the management focus change from timber and extractive resource management to ecological restoration and land stewardship, and ask that more funds be allocated to ecosystem management activities than timber management. Still others would like to see national forest lands managed in a way that is financially self-sustaining. Suggestions range from charging market value for forest commodities to collecting more user fees from recreationists and other commercial uses, so that dependence on vast timber sales can be reduced.
Funding Sources
People have mixed opinions regarding the collection and use of off-budget funds, like Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) funds (trust funds generated by timber sales receipts). One person asks that their collection be continued, but that the money go toward timber management, and not be used as a slush fund for miscellaneous expenses. Others feel the use of K-V funds should be halted, disagreeing altogether with the concept of off-budget funds. Consequently, many believe Congress should be responsible for providing adequate funding for Forest Service budget needs.
Some respondents advocate ``incentive'' planning. These people suggest user fees collected on a forest should be contributed to the management funding for that forest. They and others feel that too much money is lost to overhead costs, and not enough makes it back to the forests to be used for on-the-ground management.
Fiscal Accountability
Fiscal accountability in the Forest Service, or lack thereof, incites a significant response. Many think the Forest Service does a poor job managing its budget, and feel that audits should be performed at all levels. Others want to see the Forest Service held responsible for its financial actions, and want these issues brought to light so that the public may understand the costs of Forest Service programs. Some feel there is a lack of clarity and understanding of budget categories between Forest Service and Congress, and they suggest developing a simpler system.
Overhead costs are too high in relation to money spent on actual land management, according to a few people. Some federal employees think the Forest Service should observe and compare its financial profile to other agencies and industries to measure its relative performance and cost effectiveness. A few respondents say the Forest Service overlooks a host of possible cooperative relationships, funding opportunities, and programs that are willing to assist the in achieving agency goals.
Organization Management
The Strategic Plan's attempt to create an effective and efficient administrative organization garnered few comments. Lobbying Congress to change the restriction on closing offices that have been open since 1974 should be a priority, some respondents feel, to help with the agency 's budget constraints. Others believe the Strategic Plan should take a more competitive stance and encourage the privatization of services, including, one person believes, forcing the agency to bid along with others to do agency work. Some respondents are leery of privatizing and corporate partnerships, however. Under such circumstances, they perceive the Forest Service as beholden to corporate interests and neglecting its duty to the public.
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is offering public comment, where respondents live, general affiliation to various organizations or government agencies, and the manner in which people respond. The database can be used to isolate specific combinations of information about public comment. For example, a report can include public comment only from people in California who are members of conservation-oriented organizations. The power of the demographic coding combined with the public comment subject categories allows managers to utilize the database to focus on specific areas of public concern linked to types of respondents, geographic area, and how public comment was received.
To better understand the context for public input regarding the Strategic Plan, it can be helpful to review the demographic characteristics of respondents, and how their responses were received. This appendix quantifies public comment.
Numbers should be interpreted with caution. These respondents do not constitute a valid random or representative sample of the general public. While this information can provide insight into the perspectives and values of respondents, it does not necessarily reveal the desires of society as a whole.
The consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and suggestion has value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input was considered, and the analysis team attempted to capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process.
Geographic Representation
A total of 820 responses were received. The responses included 452 letters and 106 petition signatures. Approximately 120 individuals either submitted comments at the public meetings or completed the ``Opportunity to Contribute'' forms distributed at the these meetings.
Comment from October of 1998 to the present is included in this demographic review. Responses came from 46 states. Some letters received electronically via the Internet did provide a mailing address, but the geographic origin of other letters is unknown.
U.S. Distribution Of Responses By Number Per State
Alabama: 2
Alaska: 1
Arkansas: 3
Arizona: 33
California: 40
Colorado: 22
District of Columbia: 7
Florida: 2
Georgia: 11
Idaho: 12
Iowa: 1
Illinois: 190
Indiana: 35
Kansas: 3
Kentucky: 4
Louisiana: 1
Maryland: 10
Maine: 4
Michigan: 6
Minnesota: 10
Missouri: 4
Mississippi: 1
Montana: 39
Nebraska: 2
North Carolina: 6
New Hampshire: 2
New Jersey: 1
New Mexico: 24
Nevada: 2
New York: 9
Ohio: 2
Oklahoma: 2
Oregon: 30
Pennsylvania: 14
Rhode Island: 1
South Carolina: 1
South Dakota: 29
Tennessee: 4
Texas: 4
Utah: 4
Vermont: 1
Virginia: 17
Washington: 33
Wisconsin: 14
West Virginia: 1
Wyoming: 23
APPENDIX B: CONTENT ANALYSIS PROCESS
Public comments on the GPRA 2000 Revision were documented and analyzed using a process called Content Analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling, categorizing, and capturing the full range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding the role of the Strategic Plan in the future of Forest Service management. Information from public and employee meetings, letters, emails, faxes, and other sources are all included in this analysis. Content Analysis is intended to help the Strategic Plan Team clarify, adjust, or use technical information to revise the Strategic Plan.
In the Content Analysis process used for this project, each letter is given a unique identifier number. This letter number allows analysts to link specific comments to original letters. All respondents' names and addresses are entered into a project-specific database program, enabling creation of a complete mailing list of all respondents. The database is also used to track pertinent demographic information special interest group input and federal, state, county, and local government responses.
All input is considered and reviewed, in most cases by two analysts. Each comment is read by an analyst, sorted into issues and themes, and then entered verbatim into the database. In preparing the final summary analysis, public statements are reviewed again using database printouts. These reports track all input and allow analysts to identify a wide range of public concerns and to analyze the relationships between them. The final product includes a narrative description of public comment by topic, a list of public concerns addressed to the proposal, and supporting sample quotes.
This process and the resulting summary are not intended to replace comments in their original form. Rather, they provide a map to the letters and other input on file at the Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment Office in Washington, D.C. Users are encouraged to read public comment firsthand.
It is important for the public and project team members to understand that this process makes no attempt to treat comments as votes. In no way do the results of the content analysis attempt to sway decision-maker towards the will of any identifiable majority. There are many reasons for this, the primary one being a desire to revise the Forest Service GPRA Strategic Plan in a way that protects the land and serves all the people -- not just some. Content Analysis ensures that every comment is considered at some point in the decision process.
APPENDIX C: LIST OF PREPARERS
The following list includes the names of the individuals and area of contribution they made toward the completion of Content Analysis for the USDA Forest Service (GPRA) Strategic Plan.
Content Analysis Enterprise Team
Program Coordination
Jody Sutton - Coordinator
Ginger Hamilton - Assistant Coordinator
Linda Thompson - Assistant
Project Coordination
Michael Schlafmann - Project Manager
Christopher Wall - Assistant Team Leader
Writers/Coders
Leah Burgess
Caitlin DeSilvey
Julie Lue
James MacMillen
Lisa Naas
Roger Poirier
Sarah Pohl
Jack Rowan
Ray Vinkey
Leslie Watson
Tim Westby
Kristen Whisennand
Information Systems
Shari Kappel - Coordinator
Jacqueline Delcomyn
Delisa Denton
Brit C. Doty
Barbera L. Ensor
Barbara Gibson
Patricia Kane
Lee LaRoche
Carol Muir
Beth Ragbourn
Mary Beth Bailey
Kelly Speer
Virginia Waite-Hudiburgh