I for a map of the Recreation Area.) The SNRA’s budget for 1993 was part of a 2-year funding peak brought about by the funding of several special projects. Our analysis shows that if these types of funds are consistently excluded from the 1993 and 1997 budgets, the decrease in the SNRA’s budget from 1993 through 1997 was about 26 percent. Our analysis of agency data shows that the SNRA’s spending for these programs for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 decreased—57 percent for enhancing recreation, 21 percent for preserving conservation values, and 44 percent for managing commodity programs. Enhancing Recreation

The SNRA’s spending for enhancing recreation decreased from $1.8 million in 1993 to $783,100 in 1997—a decrease of about 57 percent. Preserving Conservation Values

The SNRA’s spending to preserve conservation values decreased 21 percent, from $586,200 in 1993 to $461,200 in 1997. As with the recreation and conservation programs, officials said that the reduction in funds for other programs has an impact on the accomplishments and unmet needs in the commodity programs. We found no instances in which funds were allocated to the SNRA and subsequently taken back by the forest or region for other projects. Overall, representatives of the communities that are affected by the SNRA’s management said that the Forest Service had done a good job of preserving the values that the SNRA was created to preserve. We did not determine the amount of these costs. Horse-pack outfitters on the SNRA also have stated that the Recreation Area’s actions are hurting their operations economically and reducing the number of people they can serve. The SNRA reduced the size of horse-pack groups to meet specific objectives of the Wilderness Act that provide that wilderness lands are to be managed so that they generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature and that they provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. These reductions have closed grazing areas, shortened grazing seasons, and increased ranchers’ grazing costs. In addition, the Forest Service also commented that we did not fully disclose the Sawtooth National Recreation Area’s accomplishments and unmet needs in three areas discussed in the report—recreation, conservation, and commodities. As the report points out, the Recreation Area’s overall budget decreased by 54 percent and its budget for enhancing recreation decreased by 57 percent from 1993 through 1997. In computing these decreases, we included funds for recreation construction. To determine whether regional or forest funds had not been allocated to the SNRA or whether funds had been allocated and then taken back during fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and what was done with those funds, we obtained and compared final budget allocations with expenditures. To identify examples of potentially adverse effects of the SNRA’s actions on individuals, companies, and communities economically dependent on the area, we reviewed and analyzed the testimony presented at the February 16, 1998, hearing on the SNRA before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. SNRA budget (millions)
SNRA budget without special funds (millions)
Percentage change (1993-97)
1997 constant dollars in millions Percentage change (1993-97)

Funds the SNRA Spent for Recreation, Conservation, and Commodity Programs From 1993 Through 1997

Table IV.1 shows the funds the SNRA spent to enhance recreation, preserve conservation values, and manage commodity programs for fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The figures shown in the table include those from funds allocated for special projects, such as the funds for the multiyear recreation initiative and for the construction of recreation facilities. If these items are excluded from the analysis, the decrease in spending for enhancing recreation is about 19 percent rather than 57 percent. The figure for fiscal year 1993 is for the Snake River Adjudication project.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area's (SNRA) funding, its accomplishments and unmet needs, and on agency actions that have adverse impacts on the area, focusing on: (1) the funds allocated to the SNRA for fiscal years 1993 through 1997; (2) spending for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 to enhance recreation, to preserve conservation values, such as fish and wildlife, and to manage commodity programs, such as grazing, and the accomplishments and unmet needs in these areas; (3) the funds not allocated or the funds allocated and then taken back from the Recreation Area for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and what was done with those funds; and (4) some examples of potentially adverse effects of how the Recreation Area is managed on individuals, companies, and communities economically dependent on the area.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) SNRA's overall annual budget allocation decreased in constant dollars from about $4.88 million in 1993 to about $2.25 million in 1997--a decrease of about 54 percent; (2) this rather large decrease is somewhat misleading--1993 was the second year of a 2-year funding peak in the Recreation Area's budgets; (3) these peak budgets contained: (a) special funding for recreation management that dramatically decreased in the 1994 budget; (b) funds for the construction of recreation facilities; and (c) funds for land aquisition; (4) SNRA reduced spending between fiscal years 1993 and 1997 for activities such as enhancing recreation, preserving conservation values, and managing commodity programs; (5) spending for enhancing recreation decreased about 57 percent from 1993 through 1997; (6) similarly, spending to preserve conservation values decreased 21 percent from 1993 through 1997; (7) spending for commodities programs decreased 44 percent from 1993 through 1997; (8) however, the size of these decreases is somewhat misleading because of the funds included for special projects and construction in the 1993 budget; (9) if the funds for these special projects and construction are excluded, spending decreased 19 percent for enhancing recreation, and expenditures for preserving conservation values decreased by 9 percent; (10) SNRA officials stated that because of funding shortages, a number of needs were still unmet; (11) GAO did not identify any instances in which funds that were allocated to the Recreation Area were subsequently taken back for use by other Forest Service units; (12) overall, representatives from local governments affected by how the SNRA is managed said that the Forest Service has done a good job of preserving the values that the Recreation Area was created to preserve; (13) however, they said that the declining budgets for the Recreation Area have reduced its ability to meet recreational needs; (14) the Recreation Area placed restrictions and increased requirements on river outfitters, limited the size of groups that horse-pack outfitters can take on wilderness trips, and reduced the amount of grazing allowed on its lands; (15) GAO found that the actions taken by the Recreation Area that affected these groups were taken to protect endangered salmon, rangelands, and wilderness--rather than because of funding reductions; and (16) except for the effects on some ranchers who had large reductions in their grazing privileges, from a monetary standpoint, the adverse impacts on these groups appeared to be small.