The Results Act: Observations on the Forest Service's May 1997 Draft Plan
(Testimony, 07/31/97, GAO/T-RCED-97-223).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Forest Service's
draft strategic plan, as required by the Government Performance and
Results Act, focusing on: (1) the need to hold the Forest Service
accountable for its performance; (2) the importance of agreed-upon,
long-term strategic goals to the successful implementation of the act
and the reasons for the current lack of agreement on these goals; and
(3) GAO's observations on how the Forest Service can improve critical
components, including the strategic goals component, of its draft plan,
to make it more informative and useful to the Congress and other
stakeholders.

GAO noted that: (1) its report on the Forest Service's decision-making
identifies an organizational culture of indifference toward
accountability; (2) the agency's historically decentralized management
and recently increased flexibility in fiscal decision-making have not
been accompanied by sufficient accountability for expenditures and
performance; (3) as a result, inefficiency and waste have cost taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars, and opportunities for both ecological
and economic gains have been lost through indecision and delay; (4) past
efforts by the Forest Service to change its behavior have not been
successful; (5) decision-making within the agency is broken and in need
of repair; (6) the Results Act, if implemented successfully, should help
break the existing cycle of inefficiency within the Forest Service; (7)
the strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan form the starting point
and foundation for holding the agency accountable for its performance;
(8) hence, these goals are critical to successfully implementing the act
within the agency; (9) however, agreement has not been reached on the
strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan; (10) this lack of
agreement reflects the controversy, both inside and outside the forest
Service, over: (a) which uses to emphasize under the agency's broad
multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate; and (b) which management
approach can best ensure the long-term sustainability of legislatively
mandated uses on the national forests; (11) as a result, the agency
cannot begin to derive the benefits anticipated from implementing the
act; (12) the consultations with the Congress prescribed by the Results
Act provide an opportunity for the Forest Service to better explain: (a)
its rationale for emphasizing some legislatively mandated uses on the
national forests more than other uses; (b) the logic underlying its
approach to managing natural resources; and (c) the likely effects of
its policy choices on the types, levels and mixes of uses on its lands;
and (13) however, the Forest Service's plan is silent on these issues.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-97-223
     TITLE:  The Results Act: Observations on the Forest Service's May 
             1997 Draft Plan
      DATE:  07/31/97
   SUBJECT:  Accountability
             Program evaluation
             Strategic planning
             Agency missions
             Interagency relations
             Congressional/executive relations
             Reporting requirements
             Forest management
             National forests
             Decentralization

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m.  EDT
Thursday
July 31, 1997

THE RESULTS ACT - OBSERVATIONS ON
THE FOREST SERVICE'S MAY 1997
DRAFT PLAN

Statement of Barry T.  Hill, Associate Director,
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-97-223

GAO/RCED-97-223T


(141084)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  RPA -
  OMB -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (often referred to as
the Results Act or GPRA) within the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service.  My testimony today will discuss (1) the need to hold
the Forest Service accountable for its performance; (2) the
importance of agreed-upon, long-term strategic goals to the
successful implementation of the act and the reasons for the current
lack of agreement on these goals; and (3) our observations on how the
Forest Service can improve critical components, including the
strategic goals component, of its draft plan to make it more
informative and useful to the Congress and other stakeholders. 

To comply with the requirements of the Results Act, Agriculture
submitted a draft strategic plan to the Congress in May 1997. 
Agriculture's draft strategic plan includes a Department-wide
strategic overview, as well as 30 component mission area, subagency,
and staff office plans, including one for the Forest Service.  My
comments today are based primarily on our April 29, 1997, report on
the agency's decision-making\1 and our July 10, 1997, report on
Agriculture's draft strategic plan.\2 In our decision-making report,
we conclude that the Results Act, if implemented successfully, will
strengthen the Forest Service's accountability for performance and
results and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its
decision-making.  In our report on Agriculture's draft strategic plan
we conclude that, overall, the plan does not fulfill the requirements
of the Results Act. 

My comments are limited to the Forest Service's plan and to the
agency's management of the 155 forests that make up the National
Forest System.  They do not address the Forest Service's other
programs, including forest research, state and private forestry, and
international forestry, which are also covered by the Forest
Service's plan. 

In summary, Madam Chairman: 

  -- Our report on the Forest Service's decision-making identifies an
     organizational culture of indifference toward accountability. 
     The agency's historically decentralized management and recently
     increased flexibility in fiscal decision-making have not been
     accompanied by sufficient accountability for expenditures and
     performance.  As a result, inefficiency and waste have cost
     taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and opportunities for
     both ecological and economic gains have been lost through
     indecision and delay.  Past efforts by the Forest Service to
     change its behavior have not been successful.  Decision-making
     within the agency is broken and in need of repair. 

  -- The Results Act, if implemented successfully, should help break
     the existing cycle of inefficiency within the Forest Service. 
     The strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan form the
     starting point and foundation for holding the agency accountable
     for its performance.  Hence, these goals are critical to
     successfully implementing the act within the agency.  However,
     agreement has not been reached on the strategic goals in the
     Forest Service's plan.  This lack of agreement reflects the
     controversy, both inside and outside the Forest Service, over
     (1) which uses to emphasize under the agency's broad
     multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate and (2) which
     management approach can best ensure the long-term sustainability
     of legislatively mandated uses on the national forests.  As a
     result, the agency cannot begin to derive the benefits
     anticipated from implementing the act. 

  -- The consultations with the Congress prescribed by the Results
     Act provide an opportunity for the Forest Service to better
     explain (1) its rationale for emphasizing some legislatively
     mandated uses on the national forests more than other uses, (2)
     the logic underlying its approach to managing natural resources,
     and (3) the likely effects of its policy choices on the types,
     levels, and mixes of uses on its lands.  However, the Forest
     Service's plan is silent on these issues. 


--------------------
\1 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71). 

\2 USDA's Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-97-196R, July 10, 1997). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

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. 


         STRATEGIC PLANNING
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 0:1.0.1

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.\3

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. 


--------------------
\3 See Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-11, Part 2 ( Sept.  1995) and
Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA:  Key Questions to Facilitate
Congressional Review (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997). 


         STATUS OF THE RESULTS
         ACT'S IMPLEMENTATION
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 0:1.0.2

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.\4 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. 


--------------------
\4 The Forest Service Program for Forest and Rangeland Resources:  A
Long-Term Strategic Plan, Draft 1995 RPA Program, U.S.  Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office (Oct.  16, 1995). 


   THE FOREST SERVICE HAS NOT
   GIVEN ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO
   IMPROVING ITS PERFORMANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

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,\5 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. 


--------------------
\5 Tongass National Forest:  Lack of Accountability for Time and
Costs Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153). 


   AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REACHED
   ON THE FOREST SERVICE'S
   STRATEGIC GOALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The Results Act, if implemented successfully, should help break the
existing cycle of inefficiency within the Forest Service, strengthen
the agency's accountability for performance and results, and improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making.  The
strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan form the starting point
and foundation for holding the agency accountable for its
performance.  Hence, these goals are critical to successfully
implementing the act within the agency.  However, agreement has not
been reached on the strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan, and
the agency cannot begin to derive the benefits anticipated from
implementing the act. 

The lack of agreement on the Forest Service's strategic goals
reflects the controversy, both inside and outside the agency, over
(1) which uses the agency is to emphasize and (2) which management
approach can best ensure the long-term sustainability of
legislatively mandated uses on the national forests.  The strategic
goals in the Forest Service's plan reflect (1) an ongoing shift in
emphasis under the agency's broad multiple-use and sustained-yield
mandate from consumption (primarily producing timber) to conservation
(primarily sustaining wildlife and fish) and (2) a significant change
in the way the Forest Service considers and manages natural resources
(from managing primarily along administrative boundaries to analyzing
environmental issues and concerns along the boundaries of natural
systems, such as aquatic, forestland, and rangeland ecosystems and
the habitats of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species).  The
increasing emphasis on conservation and ecosystem management
conflicts with the agency's older emphasis on producing timber and
other commodities and will likely constrain future uses of the
national forests, such as recreation. 

The Forest Service has been aware for some time of the controversy
surrounding its increasing emphasis on conservation and ecosystem
management and the likely effects of these changes in its management
on the types, levels, and mixes of legislatively mandated uses on the
national forests.  These issues surfaced immediately after the Forest
Service conducted a briefing in January 1996 on its October 1995
draft RPA plan (which includes the same strategic goals as the
agency's May 1997 plan).  The day after the briefing, the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands, House
Committee on Resources, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Forests and Public Land Management, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture stating,
among other things, that (1) the justification for the plan was
"woefully inadequate," (2) the plan represented an abandonment of the
agency's multiple use and sustained yield principles, (3) the
Chairmen would not endorse the goals contained in the draft plan, and
(4) the final plan would require substantial changes to address their
concerns. 


   THE FOREST SERVICE'S PLAN DOES
   NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS MANY
   CRITICAL COMPONENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

We recognize that Agriculture's final plan--which will include the
Forest Service's plan--is not due to the Congress and OMB until
September 30, 1997, and that the Results Act anticipates that the
final plan will be continually refined as future planning cycles
occur.  We also recognize that a strategic plan is dynamic and that
Forest Service, Agriculture, OMB, and congressional staff are
continuing to revise the draft.  However, given both the importance
of strategic goals to the successful implementation of the act and
the disagreement over the goals in the Forest Service's plan, we
believe that the agency should have taken the opportunity presented
by the act to consult with the Congress to better articulate its
positions on controversial issues.  Specifically, the Forest Service
should have set forth (1) its rationale for emphasizing some
legislatively mandated uses on the national forests more than other
uses, (2) the logic underlying its reliance on ecosystem management,
and (3) the likely effects of its policy choices on the types,
levels, and mixes of multiple uses on its lands. 

The Forest Service seems to recognize the importance of reaching
agreement on its strategic goals to the successful implementation of
the act.  For example, as the agency was drafting its plan, the Chief
commented on a draft of our decision-making report, stating that (1)
clarifying the agency's mission was one of the Forest Service's
"highest priorities," (2) the agency was taking actions to clarify
its long-term strategic goals, and (3) the Forest Service intends to
use the Results Act to articulate these "mission principles."
However, the May 1997 plan does less than the draft RPA plan to
articulate the rationale for the agency's strategic goals and
management approach.  Furthermore, the May 1997 plan is silent on the
likely effects of the goals and management approach on the
legislatively mandated multiple uses on the national forests. 

In addition, we believe that the Forest Service's May 1997 plan falls
short of adequately addressing critical components required by the
Results Act, especially in identifying key external factors that
could affect achievement of the plan's strategic goals and
objectives. 


      A COMPREHENSIVE AGENCY
      MISSION STATEMENT AND
      AGENCYWIDE LONG-TERM
      STRATEGIC GOALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

The May 1997 plan captures the Forest Service's broad multiple-use
and sustained-yield mandate, stating that the agency's mission is to
"achieve quality land management under sustainable multiple use
management concepts to meet the diverse needs of the land and
people." This mission allows the agency to be all things to all
people.  However, the Forest Service is increasingly unable to avoid,
resolve, or mitigate conflicts among competing uses on national
forests by separating them among areas and over time.  As a result,
the agency must make hard policy choices concerning which of the
competing multiple uses to emphasize and how to resolve conflicts or
make choices among these uses on its lands. 

The multiple-use laws which guide the management of the nation's
forests provide little guidance for the Forest Service in resolving
conflicts among competing uses.  Often, the emphasis that the agency
gives to particular uses responds to factors supplementing these
acts, such as requirements in planning and environmental laws and
their judicial interpretations.  For example, section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act represents a congressional design to give
greater priority to the protection of endangered and threatened
species than to the current primary missions of the Forest Service
and other federal agencies.  When proposing a project, the Forest
Service bears the burden of demonstrating that its actions will not
likely jeopardize listed species. 

The strategic goals included in the plan reflect hard policy choices
that the Forest Service has made among competing uses.  For example,
in his April 21, 1997, written comments on a draft of our
decision-making report, the Chief of the Forest Service stated that: 
"Simply stated, the Forest Service believes that without first
securing the health, diversity, and productivity of the land, we [the
agency] simply cannot meet the needs of people." Hence, the goals are
controversial.  Had the Forest Service not only made the hard choices
but also articulated its rationale for making them, it would have
better equipped the Congress to understand its decisions. 


      AN IDENTIFICATION OF KEY
      EXTERNAL FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

The May 1997 plan does not discuss key external factors that could
affect the achievement of the plan's strategic goals and objectives. 

OMB Circular A-11 instructs that a department's or agency's strategic
plan briefly describe each key external factor that could affect the
achievement of the plan's strategic goals and objectives, indicate
the factor's link with a particular goal or goals, and describe how
the achievement of a goal could be affected by the factor.  Early in
our review of the Forest Service's decision-making, agency officials
voiced concern about the many external factors that affect the
outcomes of the agency's decisions and can prevent the Forest Service
from achieving its objectives.\6 These factors include changes in
natural conditions and in funding, as well as new information and
events, such as the listing of a species as endangered or threatened. 
Because these factors can have such an important effect on its
accomplishments and are largely beyond its ability to control, the
Forest Service has proposed removing from its forest plans measurable
objectives for goods and services, such as quantities of wood for
lumber and forage for livestock and numbers of opportunities for
recreation.  However, the Forest Service discussed none of these
external factors in its draft plan. 

Forest Service officials identified differences in the requirements
of numerous planning and environmental laws, enacted primarily during
the 1960s and 1970s, and differing judicial interpretations of the
same statutory requirements that make it difficult for the agency to
predict when any given decision can be considered final and can be
implemented.  This uncertainty reduces the agency's ability to
achieve its objectives.  In addition, as we emphasized in our April
29, 1997, testimony on revising the Tongass forest plan,
disagreements with federal regulatory agencies over the best
approaches to achieving environmental objectives and implementing
laws and regulations have also delayed forests plans and projects. 
However, the Forest Service's plan does not discuss these external
factors, even though the agency suggested options for changing the
current statutory framework in 1995. 


--------------------
\6 Forest Service:  Issues Relating to Its Decisionmaking Process
(GAO/T-RCED-96-66, Jan.  25, 1996) and Forest Service:  Issues
Related to Managing National Forests for Multiple Uses
(GAO/T-RCED-96-111, Mar.  26, 1996). 


      A DESCRIPTION OF THE
      RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
      LONG-TERM STRATEGIC GOALS
      AND ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

The May 1997 plan does not indicate how the Forest Service intends to
measure progress toward achieving its strategic goals.  For example,
it does not specify how the agency proposes to measure (1) the impact
of ecosystem management on the health of forests and degraded
rangelands and (2) the effects of its policy choices on the types,
levels, and mixes of uses on its lands.  Instead of discussing the
relationship between strategic and performance goals in the plan, as
instructed by OMB Circular A-11, the Forest Service has deferred this
discussion for Agriculture's fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan
that the Department is to submit to the Congress in February 1998. 

According to the Chief of the Forest Service, the agency's
performance measures will result in "tangible social and ecological
benefits." However, the Forest Service has had difficulty
establishing performance measures and annual target levels to assess
its progress.  In its June 1990 Critique of Land Management
Planning,\7 the Forest Service states that "meaningful production
goals for recreation, water, wildlife, and fisheries have yet to be
established, even in theory, and reported accomplishments would be
nearly impossible to evaluate objectively or even verify
independently." An April 22, 1997, draft of the Forest Service's plan
stated that indicators of performance would have to be used to
measure progress toward achieving some objectives until outcome
measures can be fully developed. 


--------------------
\7 Critique of Land Management Planning, Vol.2, National Forest
Planning:  Searching for a Common Vision, Forest Service (FS-453,
June 1990). 


      A DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROGRAM
      EVALUATIONS WILL BE USED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

Our report on the Forest Service's decision-making identifies
problems in the agency's data and information systems dating back 17
years.  These problems include (1) not adequately monitoring the
effects of past management decisions to more accurately estimate the
effects of similar future decisions and to modify decisions when new
information is uncovered or when preexisting monitoring thresholds
are crossed and (2) not maintaining comparable environmental and
socioeconomic data that are useful and easily accessible.  We and
others have recommended steps that the Forest Service could take to
improve its data and systems, but it has deferred action on these
recommendations. 

OMB Circular A-11 instructs that a department's or agency's strategic
plan include a schedule for future program evaluations.  However, the
Forest Service's draft plan defers action, proposing to take
approximately 2 years to develop "a clear and shared understanding of
how to assess results at the corporate level and select the best
methodology." This is consistent with the agency's tendency to study
and restudy issues without reaching closure.  Without these
evaluations, the agency will not be able to produce the reliable
performance and cost data needed to set goals, evaluate results, and
improve performance, and the Congress will lack a potentially
critical source of information to ensure the validity and
reasonableness of the agency's goals and strategies, as well as to
identify factors affecting performance. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.5

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness
of the Forest Service's decision-making, combined with the agency's
reluctance to change, give urgency to implementing the Results Act. 
The agency's plan should provide the starting point for establishing
the measures and annual target levels to be used in assessing the
Forest Service's progress toward achieving strategic goals.  However,
the draft plan's silence on the Forest Service's rationale for its
strategic goals, its management approach, and the likely effects of
its policy choices on multiple uses on the national forests has
contributed to a stalemate on the agency's strategic goals which
threatens successful implementation of this landmark legislation. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  We will be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have. 


*** End of document. ***