Detailed Information on the
Forest Service: Energy Resource Needs Assessment

Refine performance measures to include compliance and remediation.

Improve coordination with the Bureau of Land Management to enhance program efficiency.

Reduce the backlog of lease applications by implementing authorities provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Measure: Percentage of backlog (existing at the end of FY 03) in APDs reduced.

Explanation:This measure indicates agency efficiency and effectiveness in processing the existing backlog of APDs and supports output measure 1. Agency expects to eliminate the FY 2003 backlog by the end of FY 2007.

Measure: Percentage of lease applications processed within prescribed timeframes.

Explanation:The measure indicates agency responsiveness to processing lease applications within established timeframes. Prompt processing of lease applications permits timely access to exploration and development of energy resources in National Forest System lands. The measure is revised from that of the Agency FY 2004-2008 Strategic Plan, Goal 4, objective 1, measure a. The percentage reflects the number processed withn the prescribed timeframes over the total of (new and backlog) lease applications.

Measure: Percentage of backlog (existing at the end of FY 2003) in lease applications reduced.

Explanation:This measure indicates agency effectiveness and efficiency in reducing the backlog of lease applications and supports output measure 2. As FY 2003 APD backlog is reduced, increased resources will be devoted to the elimination of lease applications backlog.

Measure: Number of new applications for permit to drill (APDs) processed within prescribed timeframes.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of new lease applications processed within prescribed timeframes.

Explanation:This table represents the annual "turn-over" leases where there is existing NEPA documentation that is current and has been through any appeals and litigation.

Measure: Number and percentage of operations administered to standard.

Explanation:The agency inspects 1,000 energy operations annually or 20% of the national total, to ensure ecosystems are protected and for monitoring of any environmental remediation if needed, and that appropriate reclamation bond coverage exists. The 80% of operations not inspected annually are inspected during the subsequent four years.

Measure: Percentage of applications for permit to drill (APDs) processed within prescribed timeframes.

Explanation:The measure indicates agency responsiveness to processing APDs with established timeframes. The measure is revised from that of the Agency FY 2004-2008 Strategic Plan, Goal 4, objective 1, measure a. The percentage reflects the number processed within the prescribed timeframe over the total of (new and backlog) APDs.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act authorized the Forest Service to manage oil and gas operations on National Forests. The Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008 includes goal 4 which is: "Help Meet Energy Resource Needs" which supports USDA strategic objective 5.1 "Implement the President's Healthy Forests Initiative and Other Actions to Improve Management of Public Lands as well as implementation of the National Energy Plan. The program oversees exploration and development of energy resources in National Forest System lands. The program does not extract such resources itself but provides leases to private parties to do so.

Evidence: 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act; Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008; FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program implements the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act requirenments applicable to the National Forest System. Thereby the program addresses the nation's demand for energy and helps implement the National Energy Plan. The National Forest system contains lands with high potential for the occurrence of conventional fuels such as oil and natural gas. Currently 4.5 million acres of the 192 million acres in the National Forest System are under oil and gas leases and applications are pending on an additional 2.5 million acres. The National Energy Plan identifed reducing the backlog in processing oil and gas applications as a critical need. Accordingly, while the program manages a variety of energy resources, it is focusing on addresing the identified concern for oil and gas applications.

Evidence: 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act;-FY 2004 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Forest Service shares the management of Federal oil and gas resources occuring on the National Forests with the Department of the Interior. There are two interagency agreements, between the Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management in effect that clearly delineate tasks, responsibilities, and eliminate duplication.

Evidence: Interagency Agreement between the FS and the BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing; Interagency Agreement between the FS and the BLM for Oil and Gas Operations.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: For effective energy development on federal lands leasing of development rights is the only means available to the private sector today. The consideration of ownership transfer of developable energy lands by sale would be greatly opposed by the general public.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008; FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Program Direction Chapter on Accomplishment Reporting Requirements.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: In FY 2002, the Forest Service conducted a national survey of the status of all energy related programs covering National Forest System lands. Results showed that to the extent there were known problems and numerous opportunties to address the problems, 95 percent of all energy applications requiring processing were for oil and gas so the program has focused on that need. Additionally, the second finding that supported program focus on oil and gas was that this is the only energy resource for which the Forest Service has direct authority to conduct management. A strategy was then developed to reduce the large backlog in applications for permit to drill on existing oil and gas leases and on the backlog in applications for new leases. In FY 2004 the agency eliminated approximately 82 percent of the backlog with additional appropriated funds to allow an increase in staffing and productivity. This has supported the National Energy Plan direction for Federal Agencies to invest in infrastructure through energy project permitting efficiencies.

Evidence: Forest Service Energy Project Report of May 30, 2002; FY 2004 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Forest Service is tracking two long-term output performance measures related to the timeliness of processing APDs and lease applications. The output measures are related the Forest Service Strategic Plan which called for the agency to track percent of energy facilities and corridor applications approved within prescribed timeframes. The program has also identified long term output measure that tracks how many operations are inspected to ensure environmental protection and appropriate reclamation bond coverage for exsiting leases. The program has not developed outcome measures because the ultimate outcome of this prgoram, energy production, is largely outside of the agency's control and is primarily related to the capability of the companies exploring and developing the energy resources. The agency is focused on making these resources available in a timely and environmentally responsible manner.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008 includes the following FY 2008 target for the energy application processing outcome measure: "approve 50 percent of energy facility and corridor applications within prescribed timeframes." The FY 2002 baseline required a 35 percent processing approval rate. The implementation timeframes for processing in FY 2004 and FY 2005 were provided in the respective Program Direction to the field.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008; FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Forest Service FY 2006 Budget Justification outlines annual output measures for the energy program in support of the agency strategic goal and proposed efficiency measures. Those measures include: number of energy facility corridor applications processed within prescribed timeframes; number of energy facility corridor applications processed that exceed prescribed timeframes; oil and gas applications processed within prescribed timeframes; and oil and gas applications not processed in or pending longer than prescribed timeframes." The Forest Service collects lease and APD (including any necessary ancillary facilities such as a gas pipeline corridor application) data on a biannual basis to complete these reports.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008; FY 2005 Program Direction Chapter on Accomplishment Reporting Requirements; Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: A baseline was established in FY 2002 for permit applications processed within prescribed timeframes at 35 percent. This led to an agency focus on reducing backlog in applications for permit to drill and applications for leases. In 2003 the Forest Service developed a reporting database for tracking the backlog and processing timeframes, which is updated biannually. Annual targets assigned to the field are to reduce the backlog and process applications within prescribed timeframes.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008;FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction; Forest Service Energy Project Report of May 30, 2002; Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Forest Service energy program does not have any grantees or cost sharing partners. However, the Forest Service's federal partner, the USDI Bureau of Land Management, has energy as a national strategic priority as well and has met their obligations under the interagency agreements in a timely and efficient manner.

Evidence: Interagency Agreement between the FS and the BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing; Interagency Agreement between the FS and the BLM for Oil and Gas Operations.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: No independent evaluations are conducted at this time. The Forest Service Washington Office conducts both informal and formal reviews of regional level minerals and geology programs on a cyclic basis. The USDI Bureau of Land Management State Office staff are invited to participate as well for those National Forests within that state. Beginning with the implementation of the new performance and accountability system (PAS) in FY 2006, the agency will focus independent reviews on those organizational units not accomplishing assigned targets. In FY 2007 the FS will contract with an appropriate independent organization to conduct a complete energy program evaluation, and will continue to do so to meet frequency requirements.

Evidence: FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction; Mid-year review of Regional Mineral and Geology Management Program in FY 2002.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Although requests for the FS are goal-driven and take into account all direct and indirect costs and progress on important budget and work-plan systems, the Forest Service has not established linkages between these components of a performance accountability system with its strategic goals and performance results. Until this linkage occurs, the agency will be unable to report how its activities were accomplished at a given cost in an integrated, results-oriented manner.

Evidence: Program Staff Director Responsiblities in Forest Service Manual 1235.5; FY 2005 Congressional Budget Justification; FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008 includes goal 4 "Help meet energy resource needs" for the agency. APD and lease applications backlog has been identified as a deficiency. To address it, the agency has implemented status reporting as well as provided explicit direction to the field units in the annual program direction.

Evidence: Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2004 through FY 2008; FY 2004 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction; FY 2005 Program Direction Chapter on Accomplishment Reporting Requirements; Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Forest Service biannually collects and publishes lease application and application for permit to drill status and backlog reporting data. The data from these reports is used to measure performance and for the agency to take appropriate management action where performance is lacking, ranging from formal management reviews to a functional assistance visit. Steps may include a review of funding levels to ensure region has adequate program management funds and review of training needs for field personnel in energy program administration and managment.

Evidence: Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Forest Service energy program has no grantees or cost share partners. The Forest Service has one Federal partner, the USDI Bureau of Land Management. The BLM has energy as a national priority and has met their obligations under two interagency agreements. The Forest Service's responsibility under the 1987 Federal Oil and Gas Onshore Leasing Reform Act , as reflected in the interagency agreements, require the FS to be the lead federal agency on compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and other environmental law compliance. All agency line officers (Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors and District Rangers) are held accountable for meeting assigned performance targets as well as for supporting implementation and monitoring of agency performance measures in support of the strategic plan. The BLM does not report performance data to Forest Service nor does it contribute to Forest Service's ability to meet its performance goals.

Evidence: 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Federal funds are tracked in the Foundation and Financial Information System (FFIS) and obligated as such for intended purposes. The independent accounting firm KPMG completed the audit of the Forest Service financial practices for FY 2003 and FY 2004 as reviewed by the USDA Office of Inspector General in a summary report dated November 10,2004. The agency received "clean audit" opinions for FY 2003 and FY 2004. The GAO also removed the Forest Service from its list of "high risk" agencies in early 2005.

Evidence: FY 2003-FY2004 KPMG Audit Reports - www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsfs.htm; USDA OIG Audit Report on Forest Service Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, Report No. 08401-4-FM, November 2004.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Forest Service biannually collects and publishes lease application and application for permit to drill status and backlog reporting data. The data allows the Forest Service to measure efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program management in support of the effeciency measures listed in the performance measures section.

Evidence: FY 2005 Program Direction Chapter on Accomplishment Reporting Requirements; Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Program Staff Director Responsiblities in Forest Service Manual 1235.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Forest Service collaborates with its one Federal partner, the DOI Bureau of Land Management as both agencies manage energy resources on public lands. The effectiveness of the interagency agreements was formally reviewed in 1995, and informally in March 2005. However, the review from 1995 indicates that many field offices are not aware that these agreements exist. It is therefore likely that programmatic collaboration is sporadic and varies by location. In the summer of 2005, the FS and BLM will send instructional memos to all relevant offices highlighting the two agreements and stating the requirement to adhere to the agreements.

Evidence: Forest Servic and BLM 1995 Memo of Review of Interagency Agreements. No evidence has been provided by the agency that would indicate that changes have been instituted to address issues identified in the 1995 review.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The audit conducted in November 2004 identified one material weakness (accountability for Undelivered Orders is lacking). The agency received clean audit opinions in FY 2002, 2003 and 2004 and is continuously working on material weaknesses. The Forest Service was also removed from the GAO "high risk" list in early 2005.

Evidence: FY 2003-FY2004 KPMG Audit Reports - www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsfs.htm; USDA OIG Audit Report on Forest Service Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, Report No. 08401-4-FM, November 2004.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Agency instituted a reporting system, established performance standards, is tracking performance, and evaluates the Regional Foresters on their performance. The Forest Service has also begun implementation of centralized budget, finance and accounting functions for long-term financial management effectiveness.

Evidence: Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report; Lease Application Status and Backlog Report; FY 2004 FS Program Direction; FY 2005 FS Program Direction; FY 2004 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report; FY 2004 Oil and Gas Lease Application and Application for Permit to Drill End of Year Report; FY 2005 FS Program Direction, Accomplishment Reporting Requirements; http://fsweb.r3.fs.fed.us/asc/bfm/index.shtml - Albuquerque Budget and Finance Service Center

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Forest Service has an energy reporting system in place, is measuring accomplishments and will soon document performance results in PAS and holds Regional Foresters and other line officers accountable for the results. The progress reported in FY 2005 indicate that the agency is on track with the percent of APDs processed but is not meeting its target for the percentage of lease applications processed in prescribed timeframes. The agency has not reported data for its third long term measure, number and percentage of operations administered to standard.

Evidence: FY 2005 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Forest Service has not met any of its targets during FY 2005.

Evidence: FY 2005 Oil and Gas Lease Application and Application for Permit to Drill End of Year.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program met its target for reducing the lease application backlog but has not met its target for reducing APDs in FY 2005. Nevertheless, the agency has made significant progress in eliminating its APD backlog in FY 2004.

Evidence: FY 2005 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The only analog is the USDI BLM energy minerals program and the BLM has an existing backlog with similar emphasis on reducing the backlog. Although some state governments perform similar functions on state lands, they operate under a different set of laws and may not have comparable published data.

Evidence: USDI BLM FY 2005 budget justification; www.blm.gov/budget/2005just/2005mlr.pdf; www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/interior.pdf

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No independent evaluations are conducted at this time. The Forest Service Washington Office conducts both informal and formal reviews of regional level minerals and geology programs on a cyclic basis. Bureau of Land Management state office staff are invited to participate in those reviews when appropriate. All Regional Foresters are evaluated and scored on meeting performance goals which is reported in biannual APD and lease status and backlog reports, WorkPlan and will be a major component of the new PAS database to begin in FY 2006 as well. In FY 2007 the FS will contract with an appropriate independent organization to conduct a complete energy program evaluation, and will continue to do so to meet frequency requirements.

Evidence: FY 2004 Oil and Gas Backlog End of Year Report; FY 2004 Oil and Gas Lease Application and Application for Permit to Drill End of Year;Lease Application Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004; Application for Permit to Drill Status and Backlog Report of October 1, 2004.