Detailed Information on the
Forest Service: Recreation Assessment

Optimize available resources by completing business plans for each National Forest or Grassland recreation area.

Improve revenue and cost data for the program, using actual utilization and service delivery cost data, and implementing key recommendations on data reliability and use.

Amend the Forest Service strategic plan to include Recreation Program performance measures that better link improvements in program performance with achievement of strategic goals.

Measure: Number of NFS travel management plans completed.

Explanation:Travel management plans will guide NFS management of OHV and on-road vehicle traffic for user safety and resource protection.

Measure: Number of wild and scenic rivers meeting statutory requirements

Explanation:This measure tracks agency management under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The agency is developing baseline and target data for this measure and expects that by the Fall of 2006 it will be available.

Measure: Number and percentage of outdoor recreation facilities maintained to standard.

Explanation:Facilities maintained to standard should have a facility condition index of .10 or less meaning in good or fair condition.

Measure: Cost per visitor at developed and recreation fee sites.

Explanation:This is a new measure creating a ration between program funding and contacts with visitors at developed and recreation fee sites.

Measure: Percentage of Research and Development products and services that meet customer expectations.

Explanation:R&D in the Forest Service seeks to provide quality products and services as assessed through targeted, standardized evaluations from their customers.

Measure: Cost per visitor contact.

Explanation:This is a new measure creating a ratio between program funding and the number of National Forest recreation visits.

Measure: Percent of road and trail rights-of-way acquired that provide public access through easement acquisitions or land adjustments.

Explanation:Legal ROWs enable needed maintainance of roads and trails for public safety, resource sustainability and fire prevention.

Measure: Percent of recreation site capacity operated and maintained to standard.

Explanation:Percent of recreation capacity is measured over the course of a season and consists of a myriad of facilities (the components of the site). Beginning in FY 2008, the FS expects to begin decommissioning some capacity so the percentages will begin to increase.

Measure: Percent of NFS visitors participating in outdoor based physical activities.

Explanation:In support of the HealthyUS initiative under E.O. 13266 the FS promotes participation in outdoor based physical activities.

Measure: Number of wilderness areas managed to minimum stewardhsip level.

Explanation:The measure provides a qualitative tracking of designated wilderness areas managed to the minimum stewardship level that is the FS standard.

Measure: Percent of recreation customers satisfied with outdoor recreation services and facilities provided in a sustainably managed natural setting.

Explanation:This measure is based on the National Visitor Use Monitoring system (NVUM) that measures visitor satisfaction using 14 elements of setting, services and facilities.

Measure: Percentage of NFS lands covered by travel management plans resulting in visitor safety, resource protection using best management practices and less visitor conflict with off-road vehicle useage.

Explanation:When the proposed OHV rule is finalized, all national forests will complete route designation process and associated travel management plans.

Measure: Number of rights-of-way acquired to provide public access

Explanation:ROWs support effective public service through appropriate access to Federal lands.

Measure: Percent of National Forest route designations completed.

Explanation:Under travel management plans each national forest will designate catagories of routes for OHV use and for on-road vehcile use.

Measure: Customer satisfaction with value for fee paid.

Explanation:Indicates whether visitors to fee locations are satisfied with their paid recreational experience.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: "The Forest Service (FS) has a clear mandate to manage a broad spectrum of recreational activities and uses on the National Forests based upon authorizing legislation and FS strategic goals. Further, E.O. 11644 directed the federal agencies to ensure that off-road vehicle use would be controlled and directed to protect resources, promote public safety and minimize conflicts. These authorities and agency guidance to its field have established that the National Forests and Grasslands are to be administered for high quality outdoor recreation while sustaining natural resources. As such, the program is well-aligned with the FS GPRA strategic plan Goal 3: ""Provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities on forests and grasslands while sustaining natural resources."" "

Evidence: "▪ Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960 (MUSYA) (P.L.86-517) ▪ E.O. 11644, Signed Feb. 8, 1972, Sec.1 ▪ Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577, as amended) ▪ Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) ▪ Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 ▪ 1966 National Historic Preservation Act ▪ Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 ▪ USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 ▪ FS Manual Direction 2340-Recreation Management ▪ Recreation Fee Leadership Council Charter ▪ Federal Interagency Council on Interpretation-Charter ▪ Recreation Fee Policy Council-Charter ▪ Interagency Wilderness Policy Council Charter (May 2000) ▪ Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Charter (February 1995) "

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

Explanation: While recreation can be accessed in many places, the need for a variety of open space and dispersed site-specific outdoor recreation available only on National Forest System lands is recognized in authorizing legislation, executive orders and FS strategic planning. Concession permitting and other agency guidance works to ensure the types and locations of FS recreation are otherwise be addressed by the market. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment provides a means to monitor shifts in recreation trends, guide regional planning, and utilize research findings and is used for FS to adjust program management. This permits FS to fulfill a unique market niche that minimizes competition with the private sector. The program assists in the protection of historic structures through its implemention of the Preserve America plan of Executive Order (E.O.) 13287. The program also supports E.O. 13266, the HealthierUS Initiative, by providing outdoor recreation opportunities that promotes activity and personal fitness.

Evidence: "▪ www.Recreation.gov ▪ Recreation One-Stop OMB 300. ▪ Executive Order 13266, the HealthierUS Initiative. ▪ Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America-A Report to the Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. H. Ken Cordell, Principal Author. ▪ FS Manual Direction 2340-Recreation Management ▪ Recreation Fee Leadership Council Charter ▪ Federal Interagency Council on Interpretation-Charter ▪ Recreation Fee Policy Council-Charter ▪ Interagency Wilderness Policy Council Charter (May 2000) ▪ Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Charter (February 1995) "

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

Explanation: "Although there are many opportunities for outdoor recreation, the FS exclusively manages 191 million acres of public lands, many of which are highly valued for recreation. FS uses a ""one-government"" concept to provide recreation services that prevent redundancy and ensure maximum user benefits by coordinating with the Dept. of the Interior (DOI) and the Dept. of the Army recreation agencies through Recreation One-Stop e-government services for recreation trip planning; the Recreation Fee Council for fee policy and program implementation between the USDA and the DOI; and interagency wilderness and wild and scenic rivers coordination committees. Booz-Allen-Hamilton completed a 2005 study to define the core program focus and to refine the agency recreation niche. No other federal research programs focus on outdoor recreation other than FS research and development, which collaborates with Universities, States, Tribes and others. "

Evidence: "▪ FS Manual Direction 2340-Recreation Management ▪ Recreation Fee Leadership Council Charter ▪ Federal Interagency Council on Interpretation-Charter ▪ Recreation Fee Policy Council-Charter ▪ Interagency Wilderness Policy Council Charter (May 2000) ▪ Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Charter (February 1995) "

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

Explanation: "A 2003 independent program evaluation indicated the FS demonstrates 7% recovery of operations and capital assets, compared to 30% at the State level. The report indicated the need for improved revenue and costing data for the program as well as actual utilization and service delivery cost data. Key recommendations for improving data reliability and the FS decision framework have largely not been implemented, however. In addition, although each Recreation Fee Demonstration Project completed a business plan prior to implementation, not all National Forests have completed business plans for recreation areas. This may lead to situations where resources are not effectively targeted due to program design issues or inconsistent data. Therefore some users arguably pay less for services than they should relative to other users and/or the impacts of their activities on the natural resources of the National Forests. "

Evidence: "▪ FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction ▪ The National Visitor Use Monitoring System-www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum ▪ Price Waterhouse Coopers Report- Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program Phase I and Phase II 2002, 2003; "

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

Explanation: "Through public participation in the land use planning process and customer surveys, the FS largely responds to specific public demand for recreation opportunities. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment provides a means to monitor shifts in recreation trends, guide regional planning, and utilize research findings and is used for FS to adjust program management. Recreation Resource Advisory Committees authorized under the Recreation Facility Enhancement Act will be implemented to receive targeted public feedback on recreation fees for facility operations and services. FS recreation policy provides that FS is to not provide facilities that the private sector could provide, but rather openly encourage the private sector. Business plans implemented on many National Forests recommend cost reductions, optimizing concessionaire management and fee revenues, partnerships and use of volunteers. The Recreation R&D Program conducts research based on the R&D Investment Criteria: relevancy, quality, and performance. "

Evidence: "▪ National Visitor Use Monitoring- www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum ▪ FY 2006 Congressional Justification ▪ FS Manual Direction 2303-Recreation Management Policy ▪ Recreation Fee Policy Council-Charter ▪ Recreation Fee Leadership Council Charter ▪ Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America-A Report to the Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. H. Ken Cordell, Principal Author. "

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: FS program measures provide tangible indications of agency accomplishment of program purposes through long-term outcome measures. These include measures of customer satisfaction within the limits of resource sustainability; access to recreational opportunties; the percent of customers satisfied with outdoor recreation services and facilities provided in a sustainably managed natural setting; resource protection using best management practices and reducing visitor conflict with off-road vehicle use; and utility of recreation research. While these measures generally focus on desired program outcomes, the FS strategic plan goals do not include sufficient outcome-based measures of customer use, activity, research or sustainability. FS work with OMB on improvements and/or expansion upon these goals is essential.

Evidence: "▪ USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 ▪ FY 2006 Congressional Justification "

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

Explanation: "FS has established baselines and targets for the longterm performance measures in the recreation program. Improvement in visitor satisfaction will be difficult, given the high levels currently achieved, but FS does have targets to increase this measure. A key data source is the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM Program). The recreation program has identified a target level for the customer satisfaction index that is at or above standards used either in Criterion 6 of the Montreal Process or by other governmental providers of outdoor recreation opportunities. "

Evidence: "▪ USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 ▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification ▪ Price Waterhouse Coopers Report- Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program Phase I and Phase II ▪ 2002, 2003 ▪ NVUM, a customer satisfaction index is derived from responses to 11 questions on satisfaction with facilities and services from thousands of visitors contacted across all National Forests during a stratified random sample of about 5,800 days. "

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: "Annual measures focus on National Forest access, travel management, special use administration, protection of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, heritage resources, scenery and safe, accessable facilities. These outputs represent the products and services the public receives and when managed to standard, describes the quality of the product received. The Forest Service will establish a new output measure for acres under a designated route system once the proposed travel management rule becomes final and is developing an efficiency measure that reflects the ratio of the program's outcome or output to its input. "

Evidence: "▪ FY 2005 Forest Service Program Direction ▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification "

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

Explanation: Forest Service managers utilize, track and are accountable for work activities that contribute to accomplishment of annual output measures supporting the accomplishment of long-term outcomes. Annual measures focus on public access to National Forests, travel management, special use administration, protection of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, heritage resources, contribute to the health of the American public, cost effeciency of recreation provisions including scenery, and safe, accessible facilties.

Evidence: "▪ FY 2004 Forest Service Budget Justification, Recreation Narrative "

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 FS recreation partnership program is long-standing and one of the strongest in the federal recreation system. The FS has structured partnerships to ensure that high priority recreation work is accomplished, and would be unable to meet targets without the help of partners and volunteers. For example, 75% of non-contract workers operating recreation sites were leveraged in 2003. The 2002 workforce was 30% volunteers, 23% concessionaires, 22% SCSEP, and 25% Forest Service employees. Partners support program goals and report accomplishment in furtherance of those goals. Volunteers contribute significantly to achieving annual targets. In FY 2003 some 89,698 volunteers participated agency-wide and 75 percent of these volunteers contributed to recreation projects worth an estimated $32 million. Interagency governmental partners meet regularly and identify key priorities to achieve long term goals of the recreation program. R&D ensures commitment from academic and state organizational partners when establishing cooperative agreements that support the program. "

Evidence: "▪ Centennial Challenge Project List ▪ Volunteer Program Annual Report ▪ National Forest Foundation 2005 Wilderness Stewardship Challenge Guidelines for Grant Proposals "

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: "Although independent evaluations have been conducted on recreation business systems and the recreation fee demonstration program by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) in 2002 and 2003, and while Booz-Allen Hamilton recently completed ""A Capacity Building Model for Sustainable Recreation,"" these evaluations do not appear to meet the frequency criteria. The PWC 2002 evaluation identified business system information data gaps and the need to improve data quality for informed financial and managerial decision making. The FS generally conducts a variety of annual and periodic evaluations to ensure program effectiveness and continual improvement, but these evaluations do not appear to meet either the independence or scope criteria. "

Evidence: "▪ Price Waterhouse Coopers Report- Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program Phase I and Phase II 2002, 2003. ▪ Capacity Model for Sustainable Recreation-Booz Allen Hamilton, March 2005 ▪ Forest Service Manual Direction 1410 for Management Reviews "

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 progressed 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: "▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification ▪ GAO Performance Accountability Report, May 2003."

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

Explanation: "The FS Strategic Plan Goal 3 states the outcome "Provide high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities on forests and grasslands, while sustaining natural resources, to help meet the Nation's recreational demands."" The recreation program's goals and measures align with this strategic goal. However, Strategic Plan Goal 3 does not contain any outcome-based measures nor any measures that reflect either the goals or measures of the recreation program. Instead, Strategic Plan performance measures are focused upon access to NFS lands, safety, and facilities. Accordingly, although the recreation program has a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that reflect the program's purpose, the strategic plan does not reflect their use in demonstrating progress in the achievement of the recreation strategic goal. The FS to date has not engaged in efforts to address this strategic planning deficiency. "

Evidence: "▪ FS Strategic Plan for FY 2004 to FY 2008 ▪ Decision Memorandum for Chief-Performance Accountability System Integrated Goal Strategy Team Charter 12/04 ▪ Forest Service Social Science Research Agenda "

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: Forest Service recreation research scientists have the opportunity to assess and compare efforts in other programs when participating in professional organizations and related meetings. For example, recreation research scientists meet annually with different federal, state, and local agencies, universities, and other recreation-related organizations to analyze and compare potential benefits and research products in a regional forum that fosters independent verification. FS recreation researchers also work with researchers in other programs to compare primarily through cooperative efforts. For example, since the 1980's Forest Service Recreation R&D has managed a large national survey of Outdoor Recreation participation, the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). This survey is conducted in partnership with numerous government agencies and universities.

Evidence: ▪ Cordell, H. Ken. 2004. Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America. Venture Publishing Inc.: State College PA' ▪ Forest Service Social Science Research Agenda.

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: Prioritization for the Recreation R&D program is accomplished through the R&D-wide strategic planning and budget processes involving the Research Executive Team (FSRET). FS research and development (R&D) prioritizes research annually according to the nature and magnitude of current and anticipated issues and information needs required by land managers for effective natural resource management. Development of research priorities is based upon OMB R&D investment criteria for relevance and applicability; support of technology development needed to produce forest sustainability; and addressing of National Forest System priority science and information needs. The Forest Service annual program direction documents R&D priorities each year and includs research on recreation as one of three national priorities. Recreation R&D priorities are: recreation program demand and planning, public communication and collaboration, recreation user conflicts, recreation use impacts, the role of public lands in tourism and rural community development and recreation policy development. Requests and allocations reflect this process and these priorities.

Evidence: ▪ Forest Service Research Executive Team Directions to Staff and Stations

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 Recreation One-Stop National Recreation Reservation System is a performance based contract with regularly collected performance information from customers and field level managers. Performance improvement information is annually collected from meetings with key program partners. For example: The National Visitor Use Monitoring System conducts an independent annual survey of 20% of National Forests annually to determine customer satisfaction with 14 elements related to facilities, settings and services. This information is used to monitor performance and for improving program management. In addition, Forest Service managers utilize quarterly surveys to assess performance toward goals. Initial low scores (ordinal scale from 1.00 indicating low performance to 5.00 indicating high performance) are identified and addressed by managers. This process allows managers to adjust resources and take other actions that have led to sustained performance improvements as reflected in higher quarterly survey scores. R&D is pilot testing a statistically rigorous customer survey to provide external feedback on relevance and performance of the products of R&D. The survey will be implemented nationwide in FY 2006. "

Evidence: "▪ FY 2004 Agency Performance and Accomplishment Report "

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: "Agency managers are accountable for costs, schedules and performance results in the project budget and performance accountability "Workplan" data system and in performance evaluations that assess performance under GPRA strategic goals, including recreation. R&D line officer performance standards and evaluation criteria include requirements on GPRA goals, and the attainment of annual performance targets. Cost, schedule, and results of research work units are evaluated every 5 years. Recreation campground concessionaires are held accountable for fee investments through the Granger-Thye Act fee offset program through operating plans and annual fiscal accounting of program accomplishments. Performance of special uses permittees is monitored annually by the agency. Challenge cost-share agreement financial plans are monitored for performance results prior to paying invoices for products and services. R&D cooperative agreement instruments outline performance standards and require periodic status reporting in order to obtain funding. "

Evidence: "▪ Recreation Facility Master Planning Process - available at www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures/Prioritize/RS-FMP.htm. ▪ Line Officer Annual Evaluations and Performance Standards ▪ Federal Acquisition Regulations ▪ Appraisal Compliance Inspections. ▪ WORKPLAN, agency direction to guide obligations project performance measures. "

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

Explanation: The Agency has instituted improved federal accounting practices to obligate in a timely fashion and account for dollars spent with the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS), a system that meets applicable Federal financial management standards. Additionally, the WORKPLAN system allows individual work units at all levels to identify funding and link to established performance measures for each project. A prototype is being developed to identify non-appropriated resources in the WORKPLAN system as well. Budget advice, including OMB, Department and Congressional advice and priorities for spending are identified in the annual program direction to the field. Challenge Cost Share projects are accounted for in the INFRA data base system and expenditures are tracked through FFIS.

Evidence: "▪ WORKPLAN, agency direction to guide obligations project performance measures. ▪ FY2006 Program Budget Advice, initial guidance on funding allocations for the field. "

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 FS conducts an annual performance analysis to compare work among Forest Service units in achieving reduced unit costs and maximum output and reflects the ratio of inputs to program outcomes or outputs. The recreation program has developed standards for management of each of the core program areas. Costing tools are part of the standards utilized by program managers. The program has also made IT investments, such as Recreation One-Stop, that identifies financial costs and efficiencies for the consolidated federal information and reservation system. The Forest Service still needs to do more benchmarks against similar programs and competitive sourcing or other cost comparisons.

Evidence: "▪ Recreation One-Stop Exhibit 300; ▪ Booz-Allen Hamilton A Capacity Building Model for Sustainable Recreation ▪ Line Officer Annual Evaluations and Performance Standards ▪ Forest Service Manual Direction 1410 for Management Reviews ▪ FS Manual Direction 2340-Recreation Management "

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: "Federal recreation agency interagency efforts include: Recreation One-Stop e-government services; the USDA_DOI Recreation Fee Council for uniform fee policy and program implementation; the Wilderness Policy Council chairmanship for the 7 agencies that manage Wilderness, participation in the Wild and Scenic River Interagency Group, and Chairmanship, Federal Interagency Council on Interpretation. Another significant federal partnership is with the Department of Transportation, Federal Highways System in the management of the Scenic Byway Program. "

Evidence: "▪ Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (August 1986) "

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "Although the Forest Service has received "clean" financial audits on agency financial statements for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004, it has material weakness in agency financial management (accountability for Undelivered Orders is lacking). Although in early 2005 the Forest Service was removed from the GAO list of "high risk" agencies, restatements of previous ""clean"" finanical audits required reductions in stated unobligated budget authority of over $600 million. Independent evaluations have been conducted on recreation business systems and the recreation fee demonstration program by Price WaterHouse Coopers in 2002 and 2003. This evaluation identified business system information data gaps and information needed to improve financial and management decisions. "

Evidence: "▪ Price Waterhouse Coopers in 2002 and 2003. ▪ Klynveld Reat Marwick Goerdeler (KMPG, LLC) audits FY 2002,FY 2003 and FY 2004, www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsfs.htm; "

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

Explanation: The FS has developed a system of evaluating program management and correcting deficiencies in a timely manner once identified. For example, the FS has recently developed plans for improving Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) management, though work remains in actual implementation. The FS has also used the Recreation Fee Demo authority to improve priority recreation facilities. However, while portions of the program are reviewed at the regional and local forest levels, there is no evidence of regular nation-wide program reviews. Further, there is no evidence the review process either establishes timeframes or uses this process to make necessary corrections within established timeframes. The FS can improve its ability to manage and maintain more recreation sites and provide better visitor services through improved revenue and cost data for the program, as well as actual utilization and service delivery cost data.

Evidence: "▪ Forest Service Manual Direction 1410 for Management Reviews ▪ 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (January 2005); ▪ Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Agenda: Free Flowing Forever (January 2004) "

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: All non-competitive funds are allocated by Forest Service research to meet national priorities, which includes recreation research. Non-competitive recreation research is funded through allocations from the agency headquarters to research stations to address the following priorities: recreation program demand and planning, public communication and collaboration, recreation user conflicts, recreation use impacts, the role of public lands in tourism and rural community development and recreation policy development. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) plans provide research performance and financial accountability at both the national and station level. Academic partners, with emphasis on state land grant universities, state research universities, the 1890 Historically Black Colleges and Universities and consortiums of universities provide unique institutional, cultural and scientific capabilities that support and compliment those of the Forest Service, particularly in social science research dealing with outdoor recreation. Specialized capabilities of partner institutions are documented in the cooperative agreement as are performance and reporting requirements. R&D project funding is tracked at the research work unit, station and Washington Office levels. The Washington Office Research staff provides oversight for completion and implementation of individual station QAQC plans. Research proposals for competitive and noncompetitive funding, awards, report and publication funding meet in place standards for performance and accountability.

Evidence: "▪ USDA Scientific Research Guidelines and USFS Northeast Research Station Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. ▪ USFS Science Consistency Review Report and Letter to Stations."

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

Explanation: The Forest Service is tracking fojr long-term outcome measures related to customer satisfaction, public access, reducing visitor conflicts with off-road vehicle use, and the usefulness of research products. Baseline data is established for all long-term measures. Annual accomplishment trends indicate a continuing high level of performance in customer satisfaction, and increasing performance in all other measures.

Evidence: "▪ National Visitor Use Monitoring- www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum; ▪ FS Strategic Plan for FY 2004 - FY 2008 "

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

Explanation: The Forest Service, in cooperation with partners and volunteers annually meets outdoor recreation annual performance goals as reported in the FY 2006 Congressional budget justification and the FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report. Accomplishment reporting is tracked in WORKPLAN and the Performance and Accountability System databases. Additional effort is required on actual utilization and service delivery cost data.

Evidence: "▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification ▪ FY 2004 FS Performance and Accountability Report summary"

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

Explanation: Actual unit costs were below the FY 2003 target level. However, these costs have increased annually between FY 2002-2004 although targets contemplate lower unit costs. Additionally, it's unclear if the use of volunteers, managing campgrounds through concessions, or the use of Recreation One-Stop, while all desirable, demonstrate continued measurable improvements over prior years. FS has not completed a competitive sourcing competition nor does it appear to conduct regular benchmarking against similar programs. Additional effort is required on data for revenue and costing as well as actual utilization and service delivery cost.

Evidence: "▪ Recreation One-Stop Exhibit 300; ▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification ▪ 2004 FS Performance and Accountability Report summary "

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

Explanation: "The Forest Service works with the four participating federal recreation agencies to identify and clarify stewardship issues of national significance and develop and implement coordinated actions to improve consistency that promotes program efficiencies. However, the FS has not implemented program unit cost comparisons such as total cost/visitor as an efficiency measure, nor has not explored other potentially beneficial measures such as timing targets or personnel cost/visitor. The FS has made significant progress in utilizing the internet for recreation planning and reservations through use of private sector capabilities, but has not appeared to have applied methods of optimizing allocations of budgetary resources that could reduce federal costs and administrative work. "

Evidence: "▪ The Forest Service FY2006 Budget Justification ▪ FY 2004 FS Performance and Accountability Report summary "

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

Explanation: "An independent evaluation completed on recreation business systems and the recreation fee demo program by in 2002 and 2003 recommended addressing business system information data gaps needed to provide for improved financial management and decision making. Booz-Allen Hamilton completed a capacity analysis in March 2005. This report proposes a model that builds upon a currently effective program by enhacing business practices, identifying potential resources from appropriated and non-appropriated sources, and suggesting tools and authorities necessary to implement a funding mix to support critical recreation activities. However, proposals have not been fully implemented. The National Visitor Use Monitoring System conducts an independent annual survey of 20 percent of National Forests to determine customer satisfaction with 14 elements related to facilities, settings and services. Findings are provided to participating forests for use in improving program management and services to the public, but it is unclear how these findings inform decision-making to improve results. "

Evidence: "▪ Price Waterhouse Coopers Report- Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program Phase I and Phase II 2002, 2003; ▪ Capacity Model for Sustainable Recreation-Booz Allen Hamilton, March 2005"