News
 | Email to a friend | 
|  |
Comment |  | Reprints |  |
Add to myDJC | Adjust font size |
June 30, 2000
Forest Service unclear if basic goals are met, watch dogs say
By JOHN HUGHES
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal agency that oversees 192 million acres of forests cannot say whether basic goals are being met, such as preventing forest fires and cleaning up streams, government watch dogs said Thursday.
The Forest Service's report last year on whether the agency met its goals was unreliable, based on flawed data and "has likely reinforced the public perception that the agency lacks credibility," according to the Agriculture Department's inspector general.
The General Accounting Office said the Forest Service uses performance measures that are not linked to the agency's goals and do not assess the outcomes the Forest Service wants to achieve.
"The agency is still years away from providing the Congress and the public with a clear understanding of what is being accomplished with taxpayer dollars," said Jim Wells, the GAO's director of energy, resources and science issues.
The criticisms came during a House subcommittee hearing on agency accountability. Forest Service officials said progress is being made.
A new version of a 1997 strategic plan, due in September, will focus on issues such as land health and customer satisfaction rather than past measures of roads built or minerals harvested, said Vincette Goerl, the agency's chief financial officer.
"We realize we don't have it right yet and have a lot of room for improvement," she told the forests and forest health subcommittee. "But we will not back away from strategic planning that is supported by performance-based budgeting and performance accountability."
The government's second largest land manager has long been troubled with financial problems. The inspector general concluded in 1995 and 1997 that the agency's financial statements were unreliable, and the General Accounting Office in 1999 placed the Forest Service on its list of agencies at the highest risk of fraud and abuse.
But while the agency has improved finances, it lags in performance accountability, the watchdogs said. Top agency leaders want to do better, but the Forest Service culture needs to change and field offices must improve, they said.
The GAO said, for instance, that while Forest Service officials track the acres of land where they log and take other steps to prevent fires, they do not measure whether they have actually reduced the risk of fire to nearby communities.
The inspector general said it found errors and omissions in performance evaluations at each of four national forests it visited as part of an audit.
Officials at one forest failed to document fish streams they said they had restored. Upon checking, the inspector found two miles of road repairs had been classified as stream improvement -- in part because the work made it easier to reach a stream and stock it with fish.
At a ranger district, a worker reported spraying five acres of road with a herbicide even though he had sprayed 18 acres. The worker reported the low figure because he had gotten a deal for the herbicide and was able to spray more, and he didn't want to be expected to get the same deal the following year.
Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage, the Idaho Republican who chairs the House Resources Committee panel, said the watchdog group's findings come as the Forest Service "is probably suffering the worst customer satisfaction rating in its history."
When asked what Congress could do to help the agency improve, Goerl said lawmakers were doing the right thing by holding hearings on the issue.
"I'm willing to stand the extra heat because of our past record," she said.