To identify legal and other barriers that may preclude the Forest Service from implementing similar efforts on its lands, we relied extensively on prior GAO reports and testimonies. While not always attaining financial self-sufficiency, these nonfederal land managers are employing a variety of sometimes innovative approaches and techniques to generate revenue or reduce costs from the sale or use of natural resources on their lands. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach or technique, the managers have (1) usually tailored their efforts to meet either a clear mission to make a profit over time or an incentive to generate revenue for other mission-related goals and objectives and (2) often been delegated the discretion and flexibility to make choices while being held accountable for their expenditures and results. Nonfederal Land Managers Are Using Innovative Approaches and Techniques

Although most of the nonfederal land managers whose efforts we reviewed are attempting to increase revenue and/or decrease costs from the sale or use of natural resources on their lands, their success in becoming financially self-sufficient has varied and their revenue has not always covered the costs of providing the goods or services. Accompanying Flexibility With Accountability for Expenditures and Results

Virtually all of the nonfederal land managers whose efforts we reviewed have the discretion and flexibility to (1) explore innovative entrepreneurial ideas or conduct research to increase profits and (2) choose where and when to apply the results. Requirements in environmental and planning laws and their judicial interpretations have increasingly required the Forest Service to shift its emphasis from uses that generate revenue to those that do not. Finally, certain congressional expectations and revenue-sharing provisions serve as disincentives to either increasing revenue or decreasing costs. These barriers—which limit the Forest Service’s ability to move toward financial self-sufficiency and limit managers’ flexibility to make choices—include (1) language in federal statutes implying that maximizing revenue should not be the overriding criterion in managing the national forests, (2) requirements in environmental and planning laws necessitating a shift in the Forest Service’s management emphasis to uses that do not generate revenue, (3) legislative and administrative decisions setting aside an increasing percentage of Forest Service lands for conservation, (4) requirements that the agency continue to provide certain goods and services at less than their fair market value, and (5) disincentives embedded in laws and congressional expectations.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the efforts by nonfederal land managers to generate revenue or become financially self-sufficient from the sale or use of natural resources on their lands; and (2) legal and other barriers that may preclude the Forest Service from implementing similar efforts on its lands.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the nonfederal land managers whose efforts GAO reviewed--while not always attaining financial self-sufficiency--are using a variety of sometimes innovative approaches and techniques to generate revenue or reduce costs from the sale or use of natural resources on their lands; (2) none of the approaches or techniques are legislatively mandated or otherwise required; (3) rather, the land managers have: (a) usually tailored their efforts to meet either a clear mission to make a profit over time or an incentive to generate revenue for other mission-related goals and objectives; and (b) often been delegated the discretion and flexibility to explore innovative entrepreneurial ideas or conduct research to increase profits and to choose where and when to apply the results while being held accountable for their expenditures and performance; (4) generating revenue and reducing costs are not mission priorities for the Forest Service; (5) in keeping with its existing legislative framework, the agency is moving away from, rather than toward, financial self-sufficiency; (6) increasingly, legislative and administrative decisions--such as setting aside an increasing percentage of Forest Service lands for conservation as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and national monuments--and judicial interpretations of statutory requirements have required the Forest Service to shift its emphasis from uses that generate revenue to those that do not; and (7) furthermore: (a) the agency is required to continue providing certain goods and services--such as recreational sites, hardrock minerals, and livestock grazing--at less than their fair-market value; and (b) certain congressional expectations and legislative provisions--including those that require sharing revenue before deducting the costs of providing the goods or services--serve as disincentives to either increasing revenue or decreasing costs.