Laws guiding the management of the 155 national forests require the Forest Service to manage its lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield to meet the diverse needs of the American people. Under these principles, the Forest Service is required to manage its lands to provide high levels of six renewable surface uses—outdoor recreation, rangeland, timber, watersheds and water flows, wilderness, and wildlife and fish—to current users while sustaining undiminished the lands’ ability to produce these uses for future generations. In addition, the Forest Service’s guidance and regulations require the agency to consider nonrenewable subsurface resources—such as oil, gas, and hardrock minerals—in its planning efforts. The Forest Service has prepared two draft plans—one in May 1997 under the Results Act and another in October 1995 to comply with the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (known as RPA). The Results Act is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for the programs’ performance and to measure results. Specifically, the act requires executive departments and agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. As a starting point, the act requires virtually every executive department and agency to develop a strategic plan covering a period that extends at least 5 years beyond the fiscal year in which it is submitted. These strategic plans are to include six critical components: (1) a comprehensive statement of the department’s or agency’s mission, (2) the department’s or agency’s long-term general goals and objectives—or strategic goals—for all major functions and operations, (3) a description of the approaches (or strategies) for achieving the goals and the various resources needed, (4) an identification of key factors, external to the department or agency and beyond its control, that could significantly affect its achievement of the strategic goals, (5) a description of the relationship between the long-term strategic goals and annual performance goals, and (6) a description of how program evaluations were used to establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule for future evaluations. In developing their strategic plans, departments and agencies are to consult with the Congress and to solicit the views of other stakeholders. They are to submit their first strategic plans to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress by September 30, 1997. A letter transmitting a strategic plan to OMB and the Congress should include, among other things, a summary of stakeholders’ views that “disagree, in a substantive and germane way, with the programmatic, policy, or management courses of action presented in the plan.” Next, the Results Act requires executive departments and agencies to develop annual performance plans covering each program activity set forth in their budgets. The first annual performance plans, covering fiscal year 1999, are to be provided to the Congress after the President’s budget is submitted to the Congress in January or February 1998. An annual performance plan is to contain the department’s or agency’s annual goals, its measures to gauge its performance toward meeting those goals, and the resources that it will need to meet its goals. Finally, the Results Act requires executive departments and agencies to prepare annual reports on program performance for the previous fiscal year. The performance reports are to be issued by March 31 each year, with the first (for fiscal year 1999) to be issued by March 31, 2000. In each report, a department or agency is to compare its performance against its goals, summarize the findings of program evaluations completed during the year, and describe the actions needed to address any unmet goals. RPA requires the Forest Service to, among other things, prepare a long-term strategic plan every 5 years that recommends a level of future outputs and associated costs. This plan is to be transmitted to the Congress along with a presidential statement of policy, which indicates the President’s intention to implement the plan through the annual budgeting process. The Congress may accept or revise the statement of policy. Once approved, the statement of policy and the RPA strategic plan serve as a guide to the Forest Service’s future planning and as a basis for future budget proposals. Finally, the agency prepares an annual report assessing its accomplishments and progress in implementing the plan. The department-wide strategic overview—included in Agriculture’s draft strategic plan submitted to the Congress in May 1997—contains its overall mission and goals. The overview refers the reader to the 30 component mission area, subagency, and staff office plans for information on the six critical components. The Forest Service had pilot-tested the Results Act’s performance planning and reporting requirements during fiscal years 1994 through 1996. The agency has, over the past several weeks, briefed cognizant congressional committees and subcommittees on the plan. The Forest Service’s plan will be included in Agriculture’s final plan to be submitted to OMB and the Congress by September 30, 1997. The strategic goals in the Forest Service’s May 1997 plan are based on the strategic goals in a draft RPA strategic plan, that the Forest Service issued for public review and comment in October 1995. In May 1997, the Chief of the Forest Service announced that the plan would be delayed for approximately 10 more months to ensure that it fully reflects the most appropriate paths and priorities to care for the land and provide benefits for the American people. He continued that during this period, the Forest Service will conduct additional analysis related to a number of important issues. As a result, the Congress has not had an opportunity to accept or revise the statement of policy, as required by RPA. The draft RPA plan included four long-term strategic goals: (1) protecting ecosystems by ensuring their health and diversity while meeting people’s needs; (2) restoring deteriorated ecosystems to improve the likelihood that biological diversity, long-term sustainability, and future options are maintained; (3) providing multiple benefits to meet people’s needs for uses, values, products, and services within the capabilities of ecosystems; and (4) ensuring organizational effectiveness by creating and maintaining a multidisciplinary and multicultural workforce, respecting expertise and professionalism, and empowering people to carry out the agency’s mission while holding them accountable for achieving negotiated objectives. The May 1997 plan combines the first two strategic goals in the draft RPA plan into a single goal of restoring and protecting ecosystems, and it retains the other two draft RPA goals (providing multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems and ensuring organizational effectiveness). Each of the three long-term strategic goals in the May 1997 plan is subdivided into objectives that the Forest Service believes are quantifiable and can be linked to the current budget structure. For example, the strategic goal of restoring and protecting ecosystems has been subdivided into objectives for aquatic, forestland, and rangeland ecosystems; for National Forest System lands and waters; and for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Similarly, the strategic goal of providing multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems has been subdivided into objectives for specific multiple uses, such as outdoor recreation, wilderness, forage, timber, and mineral resources. Madam Chairman, let me briefly discuss why it is important to hold the Forest Service accountable for its performance. Our report on the Forest Service’s decision-making identifies an organizational culture of indifference toward accountability. The agency’s decentralized management and recently increased flexibility in shifting funds within a simplified budget structure have not been accompanied by sufficient accountability for expenditures and performance. The result is inefficiency and waste. For example, according to a November 1995 internal Forest Service report, inefficiencies within the agency’s decision-making process cost up to $100 million a year at the individual project level alone. These costs are not borne by the Forest Service, but by the American taxpayer, since the agency accomplishes fewer objectives with its yearly appropriations. Moreover, as we pointed out in our report and in our April 29, 1997, testimony on the Forest Service’s process for revising the Tongass National Forest plan, the increased costs of inefficiency at every decision-making level within the Forest Service should be measured not only in dollars but also in lost ecological and economic opportunities. A deteriorated aquatic or riparian ecosystem cannot be restored and the critical habitat of an endangered species cannot be protected until a decision is made. Similarly, a livestock grazing permit cannot be renewed and a timber sale cannot be offered until the agency reaches a decision. However, the most likely outcomes of the Forest Service’s current decision-making process are indecision and delay. Delays in finalizing forest plans, coupled with delays in finalizing agencywide regulations and reaching individual project decisions, can total a decade or longer. For example, the agency spent almost 10 years revising the Tongass forest plan, and preparing a timber sale usually takes another 3 to 8 years. As a result, those who are economically dependent on the national forests are precluded from forming reasonable expectations about the future availability of the forests’ uses. In addition, the forests’ health and productivity over time—whether measured by the diversity of species, the availability of commodities, or any other indicators of performance—are affected by the missed opportunities for improvement. Past efforts by the Forest Service to improve its performance have been stymied by the organization’s highly decentralized management. At every level, managers have considerable autonomy and discretion for interpreting and applying the agency’s policies and directions. For example, in response to congressional concerns about the Forest Service’s inability to deliver what is expected or promised, the Chief, in the fall of 1991, formed an agencywide task force to review the issue of accountability. The task force’s 1994 report set forth a process and recommended changes to strengthen accountability. However, the task force’s recommendations have never been implemented throughout the agency.