have not followed the Congressional man- 

 dates." If the interpretation stressed through- 

 out this study is correct, and the legisla- 

 tion does in fact provide a clear mandate, as 

 expressed in the FOREST model, such con- 

 cern is misguided. It is the Forest Service it- 

 self that must be concerned to fulfill its legal 

 responsibility. 



The absence of legislatively directed prior- 

 ities has left the Forest Service open to attack 

 by individuals and groups from various direc- 

 tions. Some see the problem as a failure of the 

 legislation — an "empty mandate" — but we 

 have seen that the legislation does provide a 

 limited but clear mandate. Some see the ap- 

 parent failures of management as explained 

 by the impossibility of attaining the necessary 

 technical capability of measurement of com- 

 plex ecological factors. But with goal-oriented 

 management, the required "state of the art" 

 may well be achieved. Again, some charge 

 that every local land manager in the Service is 

 free to set his own priorities. This is true only 

 up to a point, and is becoming less and less 

 true as time passes. One aspect of the problem 

 that does not often figure in public criticism, 

 however, is the budget problem, discussed in 

 the next section. Whatever the successes or 

 failures of the Forest Service in determining 

 their needs, the provision for fulfilling those 

 needs comes from congressional appropria- 

 tions. 



Weighting 

 in the Budget Process 



The preceding discussion of priority setting 

 in practice has pointed out that weights are 

 often established in the budgeting process. In 

 the final analysis the budget allocation deter- 

 mines not only to what extent "back door" 

 priorities can be acted upon, but also which 

 resources, uses, and activities will be given 

 greatest attention in management programs. 

 In the absence of defined priorities, the 

 money that the agency has to spend on its 

 various activities will dictate the extent to 

 which it can reach its goals. 



In the public debate over whether or not 

 Forest Service decisions are optimal, an essen- 

 tial point is often overlooked. Rather than 



aiming their attacks at the agency itself, the 

 individuals and interest groups would do bet- 

 ter to work toward setting clear priorities. 

 That is, their attacks should be aimed not 

 only at forcing the agency to spell out the 

 basis for certain decisions, but also at the 

 budgeting process, because it is there that the 

 weights are being heavily influenced. 



The two prominent aspects of the problem 

 are the total budget and its allocation. First, 

 how is the total budget appropriation related 

 to the actual total needs of the Forest Service 

 in carrying out its operations? An easy ap- 

 proach to budget problems would be to say 

 simply that more money is needed. This study 

 does not take that approach. It does not, in 

 fact, address itself at all to the matter of total 

 budget, since any and all agencies in the gov- 

 ernment could probably make a strong case 

 for increases in funding. Outside interests 

 could put forth strong arguments to cut or re- 

 duce the total budgets of many government 

 agencies. Rather than make a plea for more 

 money, this study urges a close look at the 

 second and more important aspect of the 

 budgeting problem. With the given total ap- 

 propriation, how does the allocation proce- 

 dure relate to the agency's legislative mandate 

 as expressed in the FOREST model? It will be 

 evident that the significant incongruities 

 identifiable in the budgeting process prevent 

 or make extremely difficult full compliance 

 with the legislative mandate. 



To state the question in another way, Does 

 the allocation procedure reflect the ecological 

 and environmental imperatives found in the 

 enabling legislation? Has Congress fulfilled its 

 obligation in providing a balanced allocation 

 of funds that will allow the full pursuit of the 

 objectives that it has established for the 

 Forest Service? Equally important, has the 

 agency shown full awareness of its mission in 

 its budget requests? 



Three possibilities must be considered. 

 First, if it can be shown that the budget re- 

 quests and the final congressional appropria- 

 tions (not in total dollar amounts, but in rela- 

 tive distribution among the various resources) 

 are in line with the agency's objectives, then 

 current criticism must be due to the agency's 

 failure to perform its management job ade- 



55 



