	Delays and Increased Costs in Revising the Tongass Plan Can Be Traced Primarily to Three Factors

Among its findings, our report notes that inefficiency in the Forest Service’s decision-making process can result when (1) the agency identifies issues but then conducts continual and/or multiple studies to address them without establishing any clear sequence for their timely resolution; (2) stakeholders, both inside and outside the agency, cannot agree on how the Forest Service is to resolve conflicts among competing uses on its lands and needed improvements are delayed; and (3) the Forest Service and federal regulatory agencies cannot agree on an acceptable level of risk to endangered and threatened species, water, air, and other individual natural resources. Agreement on Which Uses to Emphasize Has Been Difficult to Reach

The Forest Service also has had difficulty reconciling its older emphasis on producing timber with its more recent emphasis on sustaining wildlife and fish under its broad multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate. Underlying Issues Contribute to Inefficiency

In the end, the Forest Service hopes to approve a revised Tongass plan that is legally defensible, scientifically credible, and able to sustain the forest’s resources. However, as its experience in revising the Tongass forest plan has shown, developing a forest plan to avoid or prevail against legal challenges has become increasingly costly and time-consuming. On the Tongass, insufficient data and scientific uncertainty have hampered the development of a plan that can ensure the maintenance of viable populations of wildlife. However, the Forest Service has historically failed to live up to its own monitoring requirements, and federal regulatory agencies and other stakeholders continue to insist that the Forest Service front-load the process. This preparation of increasingly time-consuming and costly detailed environmental analyses and documentation before making a decision has helped perpetuate the cycle of inefficiency. The Forest Service Has Not Adequately Monitored the Effects of Its Decisions

An option to avoid the growing delays and increasing costs incurred in attempting to ensure that a decision is scientifically credible and legally defensible may be for the Forest Service to move forward with a decision using the best information available. Why does an agency study and restudy issues without reaching closure? Although the Forest Service is held accountable for developing forest plans that may be scientifically credible and legally defensible, it is not held accountable for developing them in a timely, orderly, and cost-effective manner. The American taxpayer bears the financial costs, while the costs associated with the uncertainty of not having an approved forest plan are borne by members of the public who are concerned about maintaining biological diversity but are precluded from forming reasonable expectations about the forest’s health over time as well as those who are economically dependent on the Tongass but are precluded from forming reasonable expectations about the future availability of the forest’s uses. Process Used to Revise the Tongass Forest Plan

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service has spent almost 10 years revising a land management plan, commonly called a forest plan, for the Tongass National Forest.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed the decisionmaking process being used by the Forest Service to revise the land management plan for the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that its work on the Forest Service's process for revising the Tongass forest plan showed that: (1) the Service originally planned to spend 3 years revising the plan; (2) at the end of 3 years, the agency had spent about $4 million; however, it has spent another 7 years and $9 million studying and restudying issues without establishing a clear sequence or schedule for their timely resolution, attempting to reconcile its older emphasis on producing timber with its more recent emphasis on sustaining wildlife and fish, and attempting to reach agreement with federal regulatory agencies on an acceptable level of risk to individual natural resources; (3) GAO's work identified that these factors have contributed to inefficiency in decisionmaking throughout the agency; (4) in revising the Tongass forest plan, the Service has incurred unexpected delays and high costs to better ensure that the new plan is legally defensible, scientifically credible, and able to sustain the forest's resources;(5) developing a forest plan to avoid or prevail against legal challenges has become increasingly time-consuming and costly; (6) on the Tongass, insufficient data and scientific uncertainty have hindered the development of a plan that can ensure the maintenance of viable populations of animals; (7) as an option to further study and planning without resolution, the Service may be able to move forward with a decision conditioned on an adequate monitoring component and modify the decision when new information is uncovered or when preexisting monitoring thresholds are crossed; (8) however, the Service has historically failed to live up to its own monitoring requirements and, as a result, federal regulatory agencies and other stakeholders continue to insist that the Service prepare increasingly time-consuming and costly detailed environmental analyses and documentation before making a decision, effectively front-loading the process and perpetuating the cycle of inefficiency; (9) while the agency is being held accountable for developing a plan that may be legally defensible, scientifically credible, and able to sustain the forest's resources, it is not being held accountable for making a timely, orderly, and cost-effective decision; and (10) the costs of the Service's indecision in revising the Tongass plan are being borne by the American taxpayer and by the members of the public who are concerned about maintaining the forest's diverse species but are precluded from forming reasonable expectations about the forest's health over time and/or are economically dependent on the Tongass but are uncertain about the future availability of its uses.