United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

FS-734

May 2002

Report of the

Forest Service,

FY 2001

Incorporating Financial and

Performance Accountability
About This Document

This document presents an accountability report for the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Forest Service for fiscal year (FY) 2001, consistent with the Reports Consolidation

Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-531). The consolidated report combines the agency’s Financial

Statement including the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section, the Annual

Performance Report, the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act Report, and selected

information from the Annual Report of the USDA Forest Service. 

Combining these various reports will accomplish the following:

• Present a cohesive and comprehensive picture of USDA Forest Service accountability;

• Eliminate duplicative reporting; 

• Provide a single source for corporate information; and

• Facilitate the integration of financial accountability with performance accountability.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the USDA Forest Service, including who

we are, what we do, and how well we met performance goals set for FY 2001. This

information is relayed through the mission statement, major program area descriptions,

organizational chart, discussion of the major issues facing the USDA Forest Service, and

analyses of the agency’s financial statements and performance goals and results. To provide a

complete picture of how well the USDA Forest Service is doing, the report addresses the

agency’s financial performance and the management controls being taken to ensure accountability. Significant progress in improving the USDA Forest Service’s financial accountability

was achieved in FY 2001. A complete analysis of the USDA Forest Service financial position

from the agency, as well as from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), can be found in

Appendixes A and B, respectively.

A thorough description of each performance goal, the FY 2001 results, and conclusions can be

found in Appendix C. Program details, historically published in the annual Report of the

USDA Forest Service, can be found in Appendix D. Required supplementary information

concerning land stewardship, heritage assets, human capital, research and development, and

deferred maintenance can be found in Appendix E. Finally, a glossary of agency acronyms and

abbreviations can be found in Appendix F.

If you have comments or questions about this report, please send them to 

USDA Forest Service

Attn: CFO Staff

Stop Code 1148

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20250-1148

A copy of this report can be obtained at http://www.fs.fed.us/library/reports.html

ii
iii

Contents

Message from the Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

USDA Forest Service Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Mission, Organizational Structure, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Overview of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Major Issues Facing the USDA Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Community and Land Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Public and Employee Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Recreation in Our National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Watershed Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Financial and Program Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Analysis of Agency Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Analysis of Agency’s Financial Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Budgetary Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Financial Management Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Financial Systems and Controls (FMFIA Report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Management Followup to OIG/GAO Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) . . . . . . . . . . 36

Limitations of Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendixes

A—Principal Financial Statements and Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Consolidated Balance Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Statement of Net Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Statement of Change in Net Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Statement of Budgetary Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Statement of Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Notes to the Principal Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

B—Office of Inspector General Audit Report for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

C—Performance Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

FY 2001 Performance by Strategic Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 

D—Report of USDA Forest Service FY 2001 Program Details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

E—Required Supplementary Stewardship Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Stewardship Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Heritage Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Human Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Deferred Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

F—Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

v

Message from the Chief

This past year presented significant challenges for the USDA Forest Service and the Nation,

including the tragic loss of four firefighters in the Thirtymile Fire and the terrorist attacks on

September 11, 2001. Our lives are forever changed as a result of these events. 

The loss of four firefighters in the Thirtymile Fire is a tragedy that must not be repeated. The

Forest Service must provide effective but safe response to wildland fires. We are committed to

taking every possible action to guarantee the safety of our firefighters. Changes are being

made to improve firefighter safety and reduce risks. 

I am proud of the assistance we provided, through the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, to the recovery efforts in New York City and at the Pentagon after the terrorist attacks

in September. The Forest Service provided incident management teams, fire crews, and other

personnel for logistical, planning, communications, and distribution support. 

As a result of the catastrophic fire season in FY 2000, a National Fire Plan was developed by

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Bipartisan legislation resulted in

significant funding in FY 2001. The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, a framework for

implementing the National Fire Plan, was developed with cooperators at all levels of

government as well as from conservation and commodity groups and community-based

restoration groups. We are also working very hard on recovery, rehabilitation, and prevention

efforts. Work on Federal lands is being coupled with technical and economic assistance to

States, tribal governments, local communities, and individuals to address the numerous

impacts of fire.

We worked very hard in FY 2001 to improve our financial accountability. A major area of

focus was on tracking more than $4 billion of real property managed by the agency. We also

have completed our second full year of operating the Foundation Financial Information

System, a fully compliant and integrated financial management system. Efforts such as these

will enable the Forest Service to be a leader in Federal financial management. 

These activities and many others are moving the agency forward in its mission "to sustain the

health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of

present and future generations." This Report of the Forest Service, FY 2001, provides a

cohesive and comprehensive picture of agency accountability, incorporating both financial and

performance information. As we move forward, we have a tremendous opportunity to apply

what we have learned over the last century of natural resource management. We will build on

our successes to improve our natural resource and public service mission and to ensure that

our Nation’s public lands remain the best in the world. 

Thanks to all who contributed to our success in FY 2001.

DALE N. BOSWORTH

Chief

vii

Executive Summary

This document represents an effort to consolidate three reports previously published as

separate documents. Those reports are the Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion

and Analysis, the Annual Performance Report, and the Report of the Forest Service.

Reviewers of this Report of the Forest Service, FY 2001—Incorporating Financial and

Performance Accountability should find the information helpful in understanding the mission

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, the agency’s major issues, and

how well it accomplished major goals and objectives. 

For more than a century, the USDA Forest Service has served as a world leader in the

management, protection, and utilization of forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. In

addressing many challenges in fiscal year (FY) 2001, the USDA Forest Service:

• Began implementing a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy to reduce wildland fire risks to

communities and the environment and to ensure employee and public safety.

• Addressed the increasing threat of invasive species to the integrity and viability of forest and

rangeland ecosystems. 

• As a continuing priority, continued to meet the Nation’s outdoor recreation needs while

efficiently maintaining the critical infrastructure enjoyed by the public. 

• Continued to emphasize restoration and enhancement of watersheds.

• Addressed financial and performance accountability to maintain momentum towards

obtaining an unqualified audit opinion.

In response to a devastating FY 2000 fire season, the National Fire Plan was implemented.

The plan focuses on reducing the impacts of wildland fire on rural communities, reducing the

long-term threat from catastrophic fires, and ensuring sufficient firefighting readiness. To

achieve these goals, the USDA Forest Service is working with communities to reduce

hazardous fuel buildups, restoring fire-affected ecosystems, and equipping communities with

wildland firefighting tools for reduced fire risk. In addition, the USDA Forest Service is

reducing the risks to life, property, and ecosystems by training employees on how to respond

to incidents that may threaten homeland security or become national disasters and

emergencies. 

Coordinated by State and Private Forestry, Research and Development, National Forest

System, and International Programs, the USDA Forest Service continued an invasive species

program. The program’s goal of reducing adverse social, economic, and ecological impacts of

key invasive pests, insects, plants, and diseases threatening forest, rangeland, wildland, and

urban ecosystems in the United States includes the long-term strategy of using extensive

partnerships with international governmental organizations, other Federal agencies, State and

local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.

To meet outdoor recreation needs and to reduce cost, the USDA Forest Service has focused on

providing recreation opportunities while protecting natural resources, improving visitor

satisfaction of facilities and services, improving USDA Forest Service relationships with

public and private entities, establishing professional partnerships and governmental

cooperative efforts, and completing management plans for wild and scenic rivers.
viii

The USDA Forest Service continues to demonstrate innovative ways to improve watershed,

forest, range, water, and habitat conditions with a number of multiyear projects in partnership

with other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments. Additionally, the USDA

Forest Service is increasing cooperative efforts with States involved in water rights adjudications for developing alternative solutions to maintaining sustainable water supplies. This

will involve the investment of water mitigation restoration projects.

In response to a clear need to improve financial and performance accountability and to obtain

an unqualified audit opinion on its annual financial statements, the USDA Forest Service

reorganized its financial management to focus on issues preventing the attainment of an

unqualified audit opinion. Major issues that were addressed include reliability of the real and

personal property accounting and realigning the year-end closing, financial statement, and

financial audit liaison responsibilities. As a result of these changes, lessons learned from the

FY 2001 year-end process, and assistance from the USDA Office of the Chief Financial

Officer, the USDA Forest Service will further reengineer its processes and focus on account

reconciliations for an improved opportunity of attaining an unqualified audit opinion in 

FY 2002.

In addition to addressing these significant issues, the USDA Forest Service achieved or

exceeded a significant portion of its performance targets in FY 2001. For example, under the

strategic goal of multiple benefits for people within capabilities of ecosystems, the indicator

of number of special use permits administered to standard showed a substantial increase. The

USDA Forest Service administered 12,907 permits, 98 percent more than planned. In other

areas where target definition weaknesses were identified, the agency will prepare a definable,

measureable, and verifiable standard for future year accounting and reporting purposes.
USDA Forest Service 

Management’s Discussion 

and Analysis

The Chief of the USDA Forest Service and the Associate Chief manage the agency from the

Washington Office and provide national-level policy and direction to the field offices in

response to Administration priorities, congressional direction, and other national issues. The

regional offices link the Washington Office to individual units of the National Forest System

(NFS). National forests and grasslands are subdivided into ranger districts and are managed by

district rangers who report to the forest supervisor. As depicted in the organizational chart on

the following page, six deputy chiefs, nine regional foresters, six station directors, one area

director, and the directors of the Forest Products Laboratory and International Institute of

Tropical Forestry report directly to the Chief.

Organizational Structure

1

Mission, Organizational Structure, and Programs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service commitment to land 

stewardship and public service is the framework within which natural resources are managed.

Implicit in this statement is the agency’s collaboration with public, private, and nonprofit

partners.

As one of the lead Federal agencies in natural resource conservation, the USDA Forest Service

provides leadership in the protection, management, and use of the Nation’s forest, rangeland,

and aquatic ecosystems. The USDA Forest Service management approach integrates

ecological, economic, and social factors to maintain and enhance the quality of the

environment to meet current and future needs. Through implementation of land and resource

management plans, the agency ensures sustainable management by restoring and maintaining

species diversity and ecological productivity. These activities support recreation, water, timber,

minerals, fish, wildlife, wilderness, and aesthetic values for current and future generations.

Further, the Research and Development (R&D) division of the USDA Forest Service is one of

the world’s leading forestry research organizations. By conducting and sponsoring basic and

applied scientific research, the USDA Forest Service leads the way in increasing the basic

biological and physical knowledge of the composition, structure, and function of forest,

rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems.

Through technical and financial assistance, the USDA Forest Service supports the States and

private landowners in practicing good stewardship, promoting rural economic development,

and improving the natural environment of cities and communities. The USDA Forest Service

strives to develop and use the best available scientific information to meet agency goals and

objectives. Domestic and international activities are directed at developing values, products,

and services in such a way as to maintain ecosystem health. The USDA Forest Service

Strategic Plan is integral in guiding the agency in meeting its mission objectives.

The mission of the USDA

Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity,

and productivity of the

Nation’s forests and

grasslands to meet the

needs of present and

future generations.

Mission Statement
2

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

ASSOCIATE CHIEF

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION

CIVIL RIGHTS

Deputy Chief,

Office of Finance (CFO)

Associate Deputy Chief

6 Research 

Stations

As of May 2001Supercedes Chart Dated: June 16, 1997Prepared by: Human Resources Management Staff, Washington Office

USDA Forest Service Organizational Structure

The agency manages the 192 million acre National Forest System for many purposes; administers a comprehensive research program; provides for coopeassistance to States, communities, and private forest landowners in the United States; and conducts international forestry activities in cooperation with oth

Forest Products Lab 9 National Forest System Regions S&P Forestry NE Area Internati

Tropi

Financial ManagementFinancial Reports &AnalysisProgram & BudgetAnalysisFinancial ManagementSystems

Acquisition ManagementHuman ResourcesManagementSenior, Youth, &Volunteer ProgramsInformation ResourcesManagement

Legislative AffairsPolicy AnalysisStrategic Planning &Resource Assessment

Science Policy,Planning, Inventory,& InformationResource Valuation& Use ResearchVegetation Management &Protection ResearchWildlife, Fish, Water,& Air Research

EngineeringLandsRecreation, Heritage,& WildernessResourcesMinerals & GeologyMangementForest & RangelandManagementWildlife, Fish,Watershed, Air & RarePlantsEcosystemManagementCoordination

Fire & ManaCoopForesProteConsEduc

Deputy Chief,

Business Operations

Associate Deputy Chief

Deputy Chief,

Programs & Legislation

Associate Deputy Chief

Deputy Chief,

Research & Development

Associate Deputy Chief

Deputy Chief,

National Forest System

Associate Deputy Chief

De

State & 

Associa

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIG
3

The USDA Forest Service is a large, geographically dispersed organization. The NFS is

comprised of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, 5 national monuments, the National

Tallgrass Prairie, and 6 land utilization projects. These units are located in 44 States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and encompass over 192 million acres. The USDA Forest Service

regional boundaries and administrative units are shown on the map on the following page.

Land Management
4

Stanislaus

VALLEJO

ALBANY

DeS

oto

Kootenai

Olympic

 Mt.Baker

Snoqualmie

Trinity

Mendocino

U.S. Department of Agriculture

FOREST SERVICE

Okanogan

Wenatchee Kaniksu

Winema Deschutes Challis

Modoc

Plumas

Tahoe

Sierra

Cleveland

Humboldt

Cache

Wasatch

Prescott

Coronado

Carson

San Juan

Uncompahgre Gunnison

White River

Teton

Bridger

Tongass RIO PIEDRAS

Caribbean

Homochitto

MISSISSIPPI

To

m

big

b

e

e

HollySprings

Mark Twain

MarkTwain

Hiawatha

Hoosier

DanielBoone

Nantahala

National Headquarters

Research Station Headquarters
5

The R&D division of the USDA Forest Service is one of the world's leading forestry research

organizations, conducting and sponsoring basic and applied research and developing

innovative and cost-effective techniques. This research is improving the knowledge base

needed to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems in support of sound decisionmaking

and sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. Further, the R&D division

is committed to providing knowledge and technology to private landowners, enabling them to

better sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of their lands. The USDA Forest Service

R&D program is focused on the following seven functional areas:

• Maintaining and enhancing the productive capacity of forests and rangelands;

• Maintaining and enhancing forest and rangeland health;

• Maintaining forest and rangeland contributions to carbon cycles;

• Maintaining and conserving soil, water, and air resources;

• Maintaining and enhancing long-term, multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the 

needs of society;

• Conserving biodiversity; and

• Monitoring forest inventory and health.

Overview of Programs

Forest and Rangeland

Research
6

State and Private Forestry (S&PF), a division of the USDA Forest Service, is a Federal leader

in providing technical and financial assistance to landowners and resource managers to help

sustain the Nation’s urban and rural forests and protect communities and the environment from

wildland fires. S&PF programs help bring forestry to all landowners—woodlot, tribal, State,

and Federal—in efficient, nonregulatory ways. Through management, protection, conservation

education, and resource use efforts, S&PF helps facilitate sound stewardship across lands of

all ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the flexibility for individual forest

landowners to pursue their objectives. S&PF plays a key role, along with the NFS, R&D, and

the U.S. Department of the Interior in implementing the National Fire Plan to manage 

the impacts of wildland fires on communities and the environment. S&PF operations provide

for the following activities:

• Maintaining healthy and productive forest ecosystems by preventing, detecting,

and suppressing damaging insects and disease;

• Providing technical and financial assistance to States and local fire agencies to 

promote efficient wildland fire protection on Federal, State, and private lands; and

• Engaging in partnerships that improve management, protection, and use of 

forest-based goods and services with States and private landowners.

State and Private Forestry
7

The NFS, another division of the USDA Forest Service, is managed under the principles

articulated in the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act.

Administration of NFS lands uses a multiple-use land management approach that best meets

commodity and resource needs without impairing the ecosystem or damaging the

environment. The natural resources contained within the NFS are managed to meet the needs

of the Nation in a sustainable manner. The aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems comprising the

NFS encompass tropical and boreal forests, grasslands, and 5.4 million acres of important

wetlands. NFS operations provide an array of multiple uses, including, but not limited to, the

following:

• Administering and managing recreation, wilderness, and heritage areas;

• Restoring, recovering, and conserving fish and wildlife and their habitats;

• Sustainably managing forest, rangeland, mineral, and water resources;

• Conducting resource inventories and assessments of NFS lands; and

• Providing a safe environment for the public and for USDA Forest Service employees.

National Forest System
8

The Wildland Fire Management Program protects life, property, and natural resources on the

192 million acres of NFS lands, and covers an additional 20 million acres of adjacent State

and private lands. This program is guided, in part, by the fundamental principles articulated in

the National Fire Plan, as adopted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in 

FY 2001. Among many programmatic functions, funds are used to support actions that help

prevent, detect, and take initial suppression actions on wildland fires. The program also

supports fire operations, including fire suppression efforts and the reduction of hazardous fuels

that minimize the potential for large, destructive wildfires. This program also funds Burned

Area Emergency Rehabilitation projects that restore environments damaged by wild land fires.

Wildland Fire

Management

Program/The National

Fire Plan
9

Capital Improvement and Maintenance provides funding to improve, maintain, and operate the

USDA Forest Service infrastructure. Funding is provided for NFS roads and trails, as well as

for modifying existing facilities or constructing new ones. The emphasis of the program is on

annual and deferred maintenance; when annual maintenance work is not completed during the

fiscal year for which it is funded, it becomes deferred maintenance. The focus of the deferred

maintenance program is the reduction of the maintenance backlog, with priority on critical

health and safety issues.

Through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the USDA Forest Service works

with partners to protect important lands, conserve open space, and preserve forested and

coastal areas, primarily through land acquisition. Many of the acquired lands are located in

congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness areas, national recreation areas, wild and

scenic rivers, and national scenic trails.

Capital Improvement and

Maintenance

Land Acquisition—Land

and Water Conservation

Fund
10

The USDA Forest Service plan for the future will focus on areas of work in which the agency,

in cooperation with its partners, can make tangible contributions to sustainable resource

management. In meeting the emphasis areas described below, the USDA Forest Service will

better demonstrate the value of the work of the organization to its partners and to the Nation as

a whole. The USDA Forest Service plans to meet the following challenges:

• Implement the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy to reduce wildland fire risks to 

communities and the environment; 

• Ensure employee and public safety;

• Improve the timeliness and effectiveness of agency decisionmaking;

• Address the increasing threat of invasive species to the integrity and viability of 

forest and rangeland ecosystems;

• Meet public demand for the use of natural resources in a sustainable manner;

• Meet the Nation’s outdoor recreation needs while addressing increasing maintenance 

and facilities repair costs;

• Restore and manage watersheds; and

• Improve financial management systems and controls to attain better accountability 

and an unqualified clean audit opinion from the Inspector General.

Wildland fire can lead to devastating loss of life and property. If properly managed, however, it

is also one of the best tools for sustaining healthy forests and grasslands. Catastrophic fires in

the first half of the 1900s caused the Nation to adopt a policy of fire prevention and

suppression. Ironically, firefighters became so effective at suppressing fires that small trees and

brush built up to dangerously high fuel levels. The severe fire season of FY 2000 highlighted

the need to find ways to protect life and property and minimize losses of natural resources. This

led to the adoption of the National Fire Plan. The National Fire Plan includes implementing an

ambitious program of work while preparing the longer term foundation to reduce fire risk and

restore healthy, fire-adapted ecosystems on the Nation’s forests and rangelands. The goals of

the National Fire Plan are to (1) reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities,

(2) reduce the long-term threat from catastrophic fires, and (3) ensure sufficient firefighting

readiness. Many management practices, such as thinning, timber stand improvement, and

prescribed burning can be systematically blended to meet site-specific forest needs. To achieve

these goals, the USDA Forest Service will work with communities to reduce hazardous fuel

buildups, restore forested ecosystems impacted by catastrophic fire, and equip those

communities and homeowners with the tools necessary to reduce wildland fire risks. 

While these efforts will help reduce threats to communities at risk, large wildland fires will

not be eliminated. Long-term and comprehensive programs in fire prevention, fire suppression,

and fuel treatments, involving other Federal agencies, States, tribes, and communities, will be

necessary before the current fire environment is changed to one that is less destructive and

costly. To this end, the USDA Forest Service is currently working on improvements to

wildland fire planning systems, focusing fuel treatment in areas where communities are at risk,

working with other Federal and State agencies to plan interagency landscape-level fuel

treatment programs, and expanding fire prevention programs.

Major Issues Facing the 

USDA Forest Service

Community and 

Land Protection 
11

National Fire Plan—Partnerships in Success

In Baker City, OR, the National Fire Plan is making a difference in the watershed

that serves as a source of drinking water for this town and surrounding

communities. In the past 2 years, the Federal Government has spent $2.2 million

for projects intended to protect the 10,000-acre watershed from wildland fire. If 

a fire burned a significant portion of the watershed, the city might have to build 

a water filtration plant. 

The USDA Forest Service is building a shaded fuelbreak at the south end of the

watershed to protect it from a wildland fire. A shaded fuelbreak is a place where

trees are thinned to leave more space between the ones left standing. Workers

haul away or burn the underbrush and fallen limbs, which, if left on the ground,

can keep a fire going.

The safety of the public and USDA Forest Service employees is foremost in everything the

agency does. The USDA Forest Service is committed to ensuring that all changes in

management, policy, training, and operations reflect the goal of improving safety. Consistent

with that goal, the USDA Forest Service will work to reduce risks to life, property, and

ecosystems from high-intensity wildland fires within and adjacent to communities.

Furthermore, agency employees trained in responding to emergency incidents are likely to

play an expanded role in ensuring homeland security and responding to national disasters and

emergencies.

The USDA Forest Service is committed to diminishing the rate of infestation and 

introduction of invasive species on forests and grassland. Invasive species, including animals,

insects, plants, and associated pathogens, are a significant threat to the integrity and viability of

forest and rangeland ecosystems. They contribute to tree mortality and high-intensity wildland

fires, causing billions of dollars in damage annually. Invasive species put many resources at

risk, including wilderness, wildlife, forage, visual quality, reforestation, recreation opportunities, land values, farming, and others. For example, 56 million forested acres are at risk along

the leading edge of a gypsy moth front. In Oregon and California, 27,864 acres of Port-OrfordTreatment of fuels in shaded

fuelbreak

Shaded fuelbreak after treatment

Public and 

Employee Safety

Invasive Species 
12

cedar root disease have been identified on Federal lands. On the 192 million acres of NFS

lands, 3.9 million acres of noxious native and non-native weeds have been identified.

The USDA Forest Service invasive species program is a coordinated effort implemented

through four divisions: S&PF, R&D, NFS, and International Programs. The goal of the

program is to reduce adverse social, economic, and ecological impacts of key invasive pests,

insects, plants, and diseases threatening forest, rangeland, wildland, and urban ecosystems in

the United States. In part, this goal was reached by emphasizing partnerships, operations, and

research and development activities that prevent, monitor, and control invasive species, and

that restore impacted ecosystems. 

To date, USDA Forest Service efforts have focused almost exclusively on insects, plant

pathogens, and terrestrial noxious weeds, such as fire ants, gypsy moths, zebra mussels, Asian

longhorned beetle, Sudden Oak Death disease, purple loosestrife, citrus canker, nutria, and

yellow star thistle. The frequent introduction of invasives, however, requires immediate focus

on other species as well, including aquatic weeds, non-native fish, cogon grass that destroys

habitat of green sea turtles, species that directly impact migratory songbird habitat, and

species that displace valued native animals and plants. One example of the latter is the

bullfrog that is invading the habitat of the Oregon spotted frog. Prevention efforts also need to

be increased, such as preventing the spread of weed seed along travel corridors and in the

back country. 

The long-term strategy of the USDA Forest Service invasive species program includes the use

of extensive partnerships with international government organizations, other Federal agencies,

State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. In conjunction

with these entities, the USDA Forest Service will work to prevent the introduction of invasive

species, eradicate new infestations, manage populations of established invasives, and restore

impacted ecosystems. To effectively address invasive species problems, however, it takes a

strong collaboration with our partners, appropriate resources, and a strong determination.

The USDA Forest Service provides a vast array of recreation, heritage, and wilderness

experience opportunities. The protection and restoration of natural areas, expansion of

accessible recreation opportunities, management of off-highway vehicle use, facilities

maintenance, and safety and security concerns all demand attention. The USDA Forest

Service’s challenge is to meet these demands through emphasis on the following five

interrelated areas:

• Provide recreation opportunities that meet public demand in a sustainable manner; 

• Improve visitor satisfaction with USDA Forest Service facilities and services; 

• Strengthen USDA Forest Service relationships with private entities and volunteer-based 

and nonprofit organizations; 

• Establish professional partnerships and intergovernmental cooperative efforts; and 

• Complete wild and scenic rivers management plans to ensure proper management 

direction for these special areas.

Recreation in Our

National Forests
13

To address these challenges, the USDA Forest Service is taking a number of steps. For

example, the agency estimates its backlog for maintenance and repair of existing facilities

exceeds $800 million. The USDA Forest Service is investing proceeds from the Recreation

Fee Demonstration Program and other revenue-leveraging actions to reduce maintenance

backlog, particularly in the most heavily used areas. In some cases, deteriorating facilities 

will be removed; in other cases, facilities will be repaired or restored. Through the

involvement of communities of interest in national forest plans and the forest planning

process, the USDA Forest Service is managing off-highway vehicle (OHV) use to provide

high-quality motorized opportunities in an ecological and sustainable manner. Further, the

USDA Forest Service is exploring opportunities for designating a system of roads, trails, and

areas appropriate for OHV use.

Partnerships with State, local, and tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations;

landowners; and others enable the USDA Forest Service to provide more services to a wider

spectrum of recreational users. The USDA Forest Service is also exploring opportunities for

long-term private sector investments in existing and future recreation developments that are

consistent with economic and social sustainability. To attain a better handle on USDA Forest

Service impacts on local communities, the agency is committed to increasing the documentation of contributions to community economies, primarily through strategic business

delivery partnerships.

Since 1996, the USDA Forest Service has experimented with numerous user recreation

fee alternatives. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program authority expires on 

September 30, 2004. The revenue generated through user fees exceeds $30 million a year 

and provides critical resources for improving facilities and reducing maintenance backlog. 

As part of the legislative process, the USDA Forest Service is developing clearly stated,

nationally consistent criteria for recreation user fees.
14

Vibrant, self-renewing forests and grasslands cannot exist without plentiful supplies of clean

water. Forests and grasslands feed fresh water into hundreds of municipal watersheds

nationwide—nearly 60 million people depend on these forests and grasslands for drinking

water. Healthy watersheds are the key to sustaining a supply of clean water. Unfortunately,

many watersheds are threatened by air pollution, erosion, and increased diversions of water

from natural channels and aquifers. The USDA Forest Service strives to protect water quality

and aquatic health through the reduction of polluted runoff, the improvement of natural

resources stewardship, and an increase in public involvement in watershed management on

Federal lands.

Large-scale watershed restoration projects demonstrate innovative ways and new approaches

to improving watershed, forest, range, water, and habitat conditions at a landscape scale. A

number of multiyear projects have been developed in partnership with Federal, State, local,

and tribal governments; communities; and nongovernmental entities. Watershed planning

includes assessing and monitoring all watershed conditions to prevent the degradation of highquality waters and sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Streams and adjacent uplands are managed to

ensure continued benefits to fish and wildlife, while providing a broad range of services,

including recreation, forest products, and grazing. 

In addition, the ability of the water supply system in the Western United States to meet the

needs of a rapidly growing urban population is at risk. The supply is stressed to its limits and

is dependent on increasingly complex legal arrangements, water pumping, storage, and

transport engineering corrections. Failure of this complex water supply system will cause

unprecedented economic and social consequences. More research will be conducted to

develop tools and techniques for sustaining high-quality forested watersheds. 

The USDA Forest Service will further increase efforts to cooperate with 11 States involved 

in water rights adjudications to develop solutions to water quantity allocation problems. 

The agency will invest in water quality mitigation programs on NFS watersheds, including

large-scale watershed restoration projects and dozens of watershed assessments, in 

collaboration with hundreds of interested groups. The USDA Forest Service restored 90,800

acres of lands burned in FY 2000, helping to prevent or reduce erosion that would impact

water quality. The USDA Forest Service will continue to pursue effective watershed

management efforts to improve and maintain water quality and quantity.

Watershed Restoration 
15

Financial and program accountability are essential for the USDA Forest Service to achieve its

commitment to land stewardship and public service. Resources must continue to focus on the

steady improvement of financial and program accountability within the agency. Through

relevant, reliable, and accurate information, including budget, accounting, and program data,

Congress, USDA Forest Service managers, and other agency stakeholders can evaluate USDA

Forest Service programs and the results of activities. The agency, through aggressive efforts,

has moved forward on efforts to improve financial and program accountability. These efforts

have included implementing activities to comply with the Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act (FMFIA), Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. The USDA

Forest Service has implemented the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS), a

financial management system that is fully compliant with Federal financial requirements. 

A new field-based Budget Formulation and Execution System (BFES) has also been

implemented. Accounting policies have been updated and an agency-wide effort has been

initiated to improve records for more than $4 billion of real property managed by the USDA

Forest Service. Through implementation of BFES and FFIS, and adherence to GPRA, the

agency is moving forward with development of integrated processes and systems that provide

linkages among the formulation of budgets, the accomplishment of work on the ground, and

the associated cost of the work.

The USDA Forest Service must continue to further improve business and accounting processes

and systems while capitalizing on the strengths of the new systems. A sustained effort is

needed to ensure that employees are fully trained in the use of FFIS; information about USDA

Forest Service operations is readily available using a variety of reporting tools; and critical

processes, policies, and procedures are in place and operating. We have now reached a point

where system availability meets agency requirements. Legacy subsystems that continue to feed

data to FFIS, however, often do not meet current requirements for Federal financial

management and need to be replaced or eliminated. This effort will continue for several years

and require a significant amount of agency resources to complete.

A focused effort in the past several years has greatly improved agency records 

supporting real property managed by the USDA Forest Service as it works toward firmly

establishing its monetary value. In a partnership with the USDA Office of Inspector General

and a private accounting firm, a testing methodology and actual appraisals were implemented 

in FY 2001. When completed, this project will establish an auditable monetary value for real

property assets, providing information absolutely necessary for the management of these assets.

Financial and Program

Accountability
16

Other initiatives under review and scheduled for implementation include the following:

• Implementing a National Fire Plan database to track, monitor, and account for National Fire

Plan spending;

• Initiating commitment accounting;

• Implementing tools to generate financial and performance reports from Web-based 

accounting databases;

• Improving agency performance measurement;

• Continuing to refine and generate quarterly status of funds analyses that track USDA Forest

Service spending; and 

• Evaluating information requirements to reduce the volumes of data maintained in the

USDA Forest Service general ledger system 
17

The USDA Forest Service FY 2001 Revised Annual Performance Plan committed 

the agency to delivering a range of natural resource-based benefits for the American people in

accordance with the 1997 Strategic Plan goals and objectives. The USDA Forest Service 1997

Strategic Goals are as follows:

Goal 1 – Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems

Goal 2 – Provide Multiple Benefits for People within the Capabilities of Ecosystems

Goal 3 – Ensure Organizational Effectiveness

The USDA Forest Service’s responsibility as a natural resource management agency is to

restore and maintain the health of the land. Through various programs, the USDA Forest

Service manages and protects public lands, and provides technical and financial assistance to

other governmental entities, nongovernmental organizations, private landowners, and others.

The agency strives to provide exemplary service to its customers and to track its

accomplishments through the annual performance plans. These plans are the basic

management tools used to direct resources and implement key strategies and efforts in

achieving long-term goals and objectives. 

At the end of this section a table lists performance goals and accomplishments of 

the USDA Forest Service during FY 2001. The performance data in this report are measured

against the goals established in the Revised Performance Plan for FY 2001.

Although far from a complete list, several performance highlights are presented below to

illustrate the progress the USDA Forest Service made during FY 2001 in "caring for the land

and serving people."

The first year of the National Fire Plan (NFP) program provided the USDA Forest Service

with a solid platform for continued success in the coming years. The following paragraphs

provide a brief summary of accomplishments.

The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy was developed in partnership with the Western

Governors’ Association as an integrated framework for implementation of the NFP. 

In developing the strategy, the USDA Forest Service collaborated with a broad group

representing the U.S. Department of the Interior, States, local governments, tribal interests,

conservation and commodity groups, and community-based restoration groups. Oversight

reviews made in FY 2001 provided accountability for the NFP and will be used to make

course corrections for the future.

In FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service hired 3,311 new employees for fire suppression and

related duties. This number is nearly a 30-percent increase over the previous year and

constitutes 97 percent of the hiring goal needed to achieve the Most Efficient Level (MEL) of

preparedness. Equipment, including engines, bulldozers, and other vehicles, was purchased to

strengthen fire suppression capabilities. Many fire facilities were renovated and new facilities

have been planned or built to support the large increase in personnel. Planning and design of

three new air tanker bases was undertaken during the past year.

Analysis of Agency Performance

Highlights

National Fire Plan

Introduction
18

The USDA Forest Service in cooperation with the Department of the Interior collaborated

with tribes and States to establish joint oversight groups to identify and prioritize fuel

treatments. Initially, these groups focused on projects to reduce the wildland fire risk to

wildland-urban interface communities. The focus will eventually expand to include the full

spectrum of hazardous fuel reduction projects, as well as projects to restore and maintain the

sustainability of ecosystems. This effort is designed to bring together Federal and State land

managers, local community leaders, and other partners to develop a cohesive strategy for

protecting people and sustaining natural resources. Additionally in FY 2001, the USDA Forest

Service treated 1,361,697 acres for hazardous fuel, including 611,551 acres treated in the

wildland-urban interface. Overall the USDA Forest Service treated approximately 75 percent

of its planned acres. However, the agency treated over 100,000 more wildland-urban interface

acres than it originally planned.

Research and development projects in FY 2001 supported hazardous fuels reduction. Fuels

reduction research focused on prioritizing areas for treatment; determining the impacts of

treatments on wildlife, fish, and riparian areas; and developing new uses and systems for

harvesting forest undergrowth and small-diameter trees. Other research is underway to

identify improved wood product utilization processes for local entrepreneurs.
19

The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior; the

Environmental Protection Agency; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Army Corps of

Engineers adopted the Unified Federal Policy for Watershed Management on Federal Lands in

2001. This policy provides a framework for a watershed approach to Federal land and

resource management activities. 

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 133 percent of its land treatment goals and 85

percent of the road decommissioning goal necessary for improving watershed conditions. In

addition to the established performance goals above, NFP watershed restoration project plans

were developed and will soon be released for public review. The Burned Area Emergency

Rehabilitation program plays a major role in emergency watershed stabilization where

wildfires destroy ground cover and reduce the ability of the soil to absorb moisture.

Cox Canyon circa 1925 after having been logged in 1903. 

Watershed Restoration—Partnerships in Success

A large-scale, community-based partnership was formed to restore the 200,000-

acre Upper Rio Peñasco watershed in New Mexico. Three-quarters of the watershed is on the Lincoln National Forest.

Local and regional interests are leading this partnership. The project is funded 

at more than $2 million; funding from partnerships increased from 10 percent to 

37 percent from FY 2000 to FY 2001.

Past practices resulted in declining water quantity and quality, and invasive plants

have increased. Initial restoration activities are focusing on treatment of invasive

plants and water quality improvement projects, along with reintroducing fire into the

urban-wildland interface to control hazardous fuels.

The same site in 1995. The Rio Peñasco Wildland/Urban Interface

Project is seeking an ecological balance between these two watershed conditions. 

Watershed Management

and Restoration
20

Forest and rangeland health is threatened by invasive species and noxious weeds. During 

FY 2001, aggressive actions were taken to control insect infestations such as gypsy moths in

the East and Midwest, southern pine beetles in the South, and Douglas-fir tussock moths 

and bark beetles in the West. Treatments and research efforts were also taken to control 

Port-Orford-cedar root disease and Sudden Oak Death disease in the West, as well as white

pine blister rust and other pathogens throughout the country. Control activities have also been

undertaken on aquatic invasive species, such as the zebra mussel. Emergency contingency

funding of $12.4 million was targeted for insect infestation control nationwide.

Invasive Species Success Story—Partnerships in Success

The Highlands Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA), located in

southeast Idaho and southwest Wyoming, is made up of more than 25

cooperators, including Federal and State agencies and private individuals. 

During 2001, the Highlands CWMA hosted a "Bag of Woad Days," in which local

students were paid for every pound of Dyer’s Woad they pulled, bagged, and

delivered to the County Weed Supervisor. A $5,000 grant provided by the Idaho

State Department of Agriculture supported this community effort. Students

collected tons of bagged Dyer’s Woad. Curious landowners, noticing the activity,

asked and were taught about the noxious nature of Dyer’s Woad. Nearly 800

people in several small communities received not only payment for their efforts,

but also a keen understanding of community responsibilities in noxious weed

control. Nearly 400 acres of Dyer’s Woad were treated.

The USDA Forest Service played a key role in the process by distributing

information and handling the money that paid the youth. One USDA Forest

Service office ran out of funds the first day because so much Dyer’s Woad was

brought in. Plans have been made for 2002 to double the efforts for this project,

including a new program similar to the "Adopt a Highway" theme, which will pay

groups (scouts, families, etc.) to keep a portion of a road or town "clean" of

Dyer’s Woad.

Invasive Species
21

Hogback Cabin Success Story

Originally constructed in 1917, the Hogback Homestead cabin had deteriorated to

an unusable condition when it came into Forest Service ownership in 1979. Over

the next 6 years, approximately $130,000 was expended for materials, with

$23,000 of that total contributed by private organizations and individuals. Labor

was provided by both Forest Service historic preservation specialists and a large

number of Passport In Time (PIT) volunteers. The cabin was added to the Lolo

National Forest's cabin rental program in the fall of 1995 and has become the

most popular rental on the forest. The annual occupancy rate of the cabin is

approaching 70 percent, and at a fee of $60/day the cabin has become a selfsustaining undertaking.

Recreation is a major use of national forests and grasslands. The USDA Forest Service hosted

209 million forest visits in FY 2001. Recreation visitors’ activities include hiking, camping,

hunting, fishing, swimming, skiing, boating, driving off-highway vehicles, visiting cultural sites,

and others. More than 26,000 recreation special use permits were administered in FY 2001.

During FY 2001, Recreation.gov, a one-stop Internet site for recreation information on all

Federal lands, received an E-Gov 2001 "Trailblazer" award. The award recognizes

"outstanding electronic Government best practices applications that streamline operations and

improve Government service."

In FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service instituted the National Visitor Use Monitoring Project

to provide statistically valid information on the type, quantity, and location of recreation use

on national forests. Accurate recreation use information will enable the agency to focus

resources to meet visitors demands and improve visitors’ satisfaction with their recreation

experience. As the survey is expanded and improved, the accuracy and statistical validity will

also improve.

Recreation
22

Cooperative landowner assistance efforts, such as the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and the

Forest Stewardship Program, have resulted in protection and wise management practices for

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners and others outside the NFS lands. In FY 2001,

the USDA Forest Service helped protect over 84,000 acres from development in 24 States.

Participating States worked with landowners to initiate the process on an additional 720,000

acres. NIPF landowners were given financial and technical assistance in preparing more than

12,800 forest management plans and in treating more than 1.6 million acres.

More than 10,650 communities participated in urban environment projects through the Urban

and Community Forestry Program. More than 4 million hours of volunteer assistance were

generated for local projects such as Revitalize Baltimore, Chicago Wilderness, and many

others in both large and small communities.

In FY 2002, the USDA Forest Service will begin to move toward to a new, outcome-oriented

budget and planning structure that shows linkages among resources, program activities, and

results. This process will formally debut in the FY 2003 budget cycle. Future budgets will

integrate data from the strategic goals and objectives and will demonstrate the impact of

funding on actual on-the-ground work accomplished. A results-oriented budget and planning

structure will provide Congress and the public with a clearer understanding of the benefits

attained through taxpayers’ dollars that finance the management of the Nation’s forests. 

The ability of the USDA Forest Service to effectively integrate budget and performance

management depends on having appropriate measures and collecting high-quality data to

support these measures. In FY 2002, the USDA Forest Service will continue to refine

accomplishment reporting requirements and its ties to both the Budget Formulation and

Execution System and the Foundation Financial Information System. The agent will focus on

the relevancy, accuracy, and burden associated with data collection efforts and accounting

codes used to charge costs of various activities.

The tables on the following pages depict the revised performance measures for the FY 2001

Annual Performance Plan. The FY 2001 Performance Plan is based on the USDA Forest

Service 1997 Strategic Plan.

Performance

Management 

in the Future 

Summary of FY 2001

Performance Measures

Cooperative Forestry
23

1. Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems

Performance Measures# acres of land treatments to protect and improve watershed conditions on NFS lands# miles of roads decommissioned# acres of lands restored by reforestation# acres of treatment of harvest-related woody fuels—brush disposal# acres of noxious weed treatment to protect and restore forest and grassland 

ecosystems on NFS lands

# acres of rangelands treated to protect and restore forest and grassland ecosystems 

on NFS lands

# acres of timber sales to protect and restore forest and grassland ecosystems on

NFS lands

# acres of forest lands maintained or enhanced by stand improvement# acres of hazardous fuels reductionpercent of most efficient level for firefighter production capability# acres of land ownership consolidated through acquisition and exchange to facilitate 

restoration and protection

# acres of NIPF lands under approved stewardship management plans# acres of legacy project acquisition# million acres of forest health surveys and evaluations on Federal and cooperative 

lands

# miles of inland stream improved for fish habitat# miles of anadromous stream improved for fish habitat# miles of aquatic TES stream improved for fish habitat# acres of inland lake to improve forest, rangeland, and lake habitat for wildlife and 

fish species

# acres of anadromous lake to improve forest, rangeland, and lake habitat for wildlife 

and fish species

# acres of aquatic TES lake habitat to improve forest, rangeland, and lake habitat for 

wildlife and fish species

# acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat restored or enhanced to improve forest, 

rangeland, and lake habitat for wildlife and fish species

FY 1999

Actual

35,562

2,907

267,013108,896

87,000

5,000,000

448,746262,786

1,412,281

69

488,835

1,866,000

19,281

788

1,164

715315

11,362

4,939

45

184,527

FY 2000

Actual

29,899

2,545

217,215

93,459

121,946

4,074,880

340,148223,634772,375

74

214,740

1,437,360

29,614

737883601203

11,321

6,748

78

132,580

FY 2001

Revised

Target

23,946

2,560

185,002109,982

85,000

5,000,000

400,000205,721

1,800,000

100

129,686

1,579,600

200,000

788

1,492

623240

9,3615,729

90

155,860
24

Performance Measures# acres of terrestrial TES habitat restored to improve forest, rangeland, and lake 

habitat for wildlife and fish species

# signed conservation agreements, strategies, and recovery plans# of research products, tools, and technologies transferred to users% forest land covered by the Annual FIA and FHM Programs# million acres of above-project inventory completed*# assessments completed*# acres of wilderness meeting forest plan standards for physical and social conditions

FY 1999

Actual

82,247

269

5,715

21

63.8

169

31,300

FY 2000

Actual

59,793

314

6,719

47.558.7

130

**

FY 2001

Revised

Target

90,690

375

5,704

62

110

160

31,450

* A change to how these measures were calculated occurred during FY 2001. ** A definition problem was discovered in FY 2000. Clarifying guidance to correct this definition was not in place a sufficient amount of time 

2001 reporting purposes.
25

2. Provide Multiple Benefits for People within Capabilities of Ecosystems

Performance Measures# annual education contacts# permits administered for recreation special uses# heritage sites preserved/ protected# heritage sites interpreted# participating urban communities# communities and volunteer fire departments assisted# communities working under broad-based local strategic plans# million cubic feet of timber volume offered# thousand animal unit months of livestock forage# mineral operations processed# mineral operations administered to standard# forests and grasslands initiating or completing new LRMPs or revisions# scheduled monitoring reports% of enforcement capability% of investigative capability# miles of boundary line located and maintained# cases resolved to provide and protect public access# special use permits administered to standardRoad Condition Index rating% roads without critical deferred maintenance needs% roads open to intended trafficAccident frequency on roads managed and maintained for passenger cars% bridges inspected as scheduledAverage bridge sufficiency rating% facilities maintained to meet standard# capital improvement projects accomplished# million PAOT days of seasonal recreation capacity available# miles of trails maintained and improved

FY 1999

Actual

551,000

23,792

4,345

593

10,514*

2,450

740437

8,903

12,247

9,189

11

101

2849

3,102

332

18,726

—

409040

———

62

203

33,049

FY 2000

Actual

568,658

24,541

4,430

674

10,547

2,990

916322

7,970

11,171

****

5

883051

2,880

263

12,108

305

42964067

——

73

198

25,575

3

FY 2001

Revised

Target

555,000

23,700

3,096

421

11,100

4,332

925

720**

8,000

******

15

128

3051

3,282

440

6,522

337

419640

100

602079

200

42,045

* Corrects FY 2000 Annual Performance Report.**USDA Forest Service capability does not reach the target of 3.6 billion board feet (720 million cubic feet) of combined green and salvage timbeInterior and Related agencies Appropriations Act. The USDA Forest Service estimates that its capability is 1.4 billion board feet (284 million cubic *** Targets were not established for FY 2001.****Data is not available due to misinterpretation of measure definition.+ Deleted— Data not available.
26 3. Ensure Organizational Effectiveness

Performance Measures% total workforce who are minorities, women, and persons with disabilities% leadership positions (GS-13 and above) held by minorities, women, and persons 

with disabilities

# persons served in Youth Conservation Corps# persons served in Job Corps# persons served in Senior Community Service Employment Program% of related indicators for implementation of USDA civil rights initiative% of employees in workforce participating in CIP surveyOffer to all customers, contractors, suppliers, and vendors opportunity to conduct electronic financial transactionsEstablish internal enterprise teams to improve management efficiency of nationalforests in CaliforniaOffer toll-free telephone, World Wide Web, and automated applications to all permittees and applicants of most frequently requested special use permitsImprove service to public land users by providing one-stop shopping for information, permits, and other frequently requested over-the-counter products and services at BLM and USDA Forest Service facilities# customer satisfaction surveys completed# followup analyses

FY 1999Actual

48.7

34.5

717

8,6235,221

78.4

46

Electronic paymentsby agencyavailableEvaluationof initialeffortscompleteAll but toll–free telephoneaccess isavailable"ServiceFirst" planscompletedon aState-widebasis

5

24

FY 2000Actual

48.835.6

705

8,8185,410

80

—

Electronic funds transferprimarymethod ofpaymentCorrectiveaction takenbased uponevaluations1 new Web-basedapplicationadded"ServiceFirst" plansimplementedon a localbasis

30

FA

DDaoo1 Waapre3Fpim

FY 2001RevisedTarget

48.937.2

735

8,0005,000

8550

Deleted since goalwasachieved25 newteamsestablishedNew Web-basedapplicationsadded asthey arereengineeredAll "ServiceFirst" locationsadopt modelfor informationdeliveryprocess

44
27

Performance MeasuresReal Property Inventory completedTimber Sale Accounting system implementedFinancial management reports developedUnqualified audit opinionAudit items from the Secretary’s Management Report eliminated% of delinquent debts referred to Treasury for offset and cross-servicing

FY 1999ActualYes,partiallyNoPrototypeset partiallycompletedNoYes, partiallyNA

FY 2000ActualYes,partiallyNopartiallycompletedNoYes, partiallyNA

FY ActYespartpartcomNoYespartNA

FY 2001RevisedTargetYesNoCompletedagencywideYesYesNA

- - - Accomplishment cannot be reported as a percentage.— Data not available
28

Analysis of Agency’s

Financial Position

The USDA Forest Service annually produces a series of financial statements to summarize the

financial activity and associated financial position of the agency. Five principal statements are

shown in Appendix A. They include a Consolidated Balance Sheet, a Statement of Net Cost, a

Statement of Change in Net Position, a Statement of Budgetary Resources, and a Statement of

Financing. The agency’s goal in producing these statements is to provide relevant, reliable, and

accurate financial information related to USDA Forest Service activities. Through analysis of

the agency’s FY 2001 financial statements, the following key points are highlighted.

The USDA Forest Service reports $8.5 billion in assets for FY 2001, 98 percent of which are

classified in three major categories. First, 58 percent are General Property, Plant and

Equipment (General PP&E)—primarily forest road surface improvements, culverts, bridges,

campgrounds, administrative buildings, other structures, and equipment purchased for $5,000

or more. Second, 35 percent are fund balances with the Department of the Treasury—

primarily funds derived from congressional appropriations and funds held in trust for

accomplishing purposes specified by law. Third, 5 percent, or approximately $412 million, are

accounts receivable—primarily amounts due from other Federal entities or the public as a

result of the delivery of goods, services, specific activities performed by the Forest Service.

Assets

Dept. of Treasury 

Fund Balances

2%

All Other Intragovernmental

and Governmental Assets

Accounts Receivable

Governmental

General Property

Plant & Equipment

58%

5%

35%
29

The approximately $5 billion for General PP&E includes assets acquired by the USDA Forest

Service to be used for conducting business-like activities, such as providing of goods or

services. General PP&E does not include the value of heritage assets (agency assets that are

historical or significant for their natural, cultural, aesthetic, or other importance and generally

are expected to be preserved indefinitely) or the value of stewardship assets (primarily land

held by the agency as part of the NFS and not acquired for, or in connection with, other

General PP&E). Although heritage and stewardship assets may be considered as priceless,

they do not have a readily identifiable financial value and are not recorded within the Annual

Financial Statements of the USDA Forest Service. An in-depth discussion of stewardship

assets is presented in the Required Supplementary Stewardship Information section of this

report, Appendix E.

Fund balances of approximately $3 billion with the Department of the Treasury (congressional

appropriations and trust funds) are available to the agency to pay authorized expenses and

finance purchase commitments. In addition, cash assets for the USDA Forest Service at the

end of FY 2001 decreased nearly 100 percent from FY 2000, from $61.4 million to $.2

million. This dramatic decrease was due mainly to aggressive work nationwide to resolve

issues associated with unreconciled bank deposits. The prompt deposit of cash assets results 

in funds that are immediately available for other governmental purposes.

The USDA Forest Service had budget authority of just over $5.3 billion in Federal appropriations during FY 2001, a $1.4 billion (36 percent) increase over FY 2000. These are general

Government funds administered by the Department of the Treasury and appropriated for the

agency’s use by Congress. The majority of the increase was, by far, related to agency

emergency wildland fire management activities. These activities include preparing for or

managing wildland fires as well as related work, such as reducing hazardous fuels to lower the

danger of wildfires in selected areas. A portion of this increase, $276 million, was designated

by Congress to repay agency funds "borrowed" from other accounts in prior fiscal years to

conduct emergency wildland fire management activities. The agency routinely exercises its

statutory authority to borrow from any other funds available to the agency on a short-term

basis to fight wildland fires. When such borrowing takes place, the agency then requests

additional appropriations from Congress to repay such amounts and thereby accomplish the

purpose for which the funds were first provided.

The USDA Forest Service collected approximately $1.4 billion of earned revenue during 

FY 2001, compared to $700 million during FY 2000, a 100 percent increase. This increase

was derived primarily from activities associated with S&PF ($316 million) and the NFS ($214

million). The majority of earned revenues received by the USDA Forest Service arise from

two sources: providing goods and services and reimbursable activities. Goods and services

include such items as the sale of forest products (timber and firewood), recreational opportunities (campgrounds), mineral resources, livestock grazing, and special land use fees for power

generation, resorts, and other business activities conducted on NFS lands. Reimbursable

activities include work completed for individuals and businesses cooperating with the agency,

as well as work completed mainly in accordance with the Economy Act for other Federal

agencies.

Budgetary Resources

Revenues
30

The USDA Forest Service distributes a portion of earned revenues to eligible States in

accordance with existing law. Of such revenues for FY 2001, $384 million was distributed to

41 States in accordance with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act of 2000. This funding will benefit public schools and roads in communities hosting

national forests and pay for local forest stewardship projects.

The FY 2001 Net Cost of Operations for the USDA Forest Service indicates the impact of

deducting earned revenues from program costs. While total gross program costs increased by

8 percent over FY 2000, the net operating costs decreased by approximately $400 million,

from $4.2 billion to $3.8 billion. An analysis of the $5 billion of total gross program costs

shows that approximately 58 percent ($2.9 billion) was associated with the NFS. The S&PF

program accounted for approximately 36 percent ($1.8 billion), and the balance was related to

R&D ($244 million) and Working Capital Fund (WCF) program costs ($148 million).

Expenses

0

$ 2,000,000,000

$ 4,000,000,000

$ 6,000,000,000

$ 8,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

Program 

Costs

Earned

Revenues

Budgetary 

Resources

Assets

$8,475,921,000

$6,540,678,000

$5,045,989,000

$1,377,171,000
31

The USDA Forest Service identified $2.2 billion in liabilities at the end of FY 2001,

representing probable future expenditures arising from past events. Federal agencies, by law,

cannot make any payments unless Congress has appropriated funds for such payments. A

portion of liabilities reported by the USDA Forest Service for FY 2001, however, is currently

not funded by congressional appropriations. For example, 28 percent ($606 million) consists

of unfunded amounts needed to pay employees for annual leave they have earned but not yet

taken and Federal Employees’ Compensation Act benefits that have accrued to employees for

death, disability, medical, and other approved costs that have not been paid. An additional 1

percent of reported liabilities ($12 million) are custodial liability funds that belong to 

non-USDA Forest Service entities. These amounts are held by the agency in special receipt

accounts pending transfer to an appropriate party.

In addition, liabilities disclosed on the agency’s balance sheet do not include estimated costs

to clean up hazardous materials arising from the activities of potentially responsible parties

(PRPs). Such activities include abandoned mines, landfills, or other sites located on lands

administered by the USDA Forest Service. A discussion of the current estimated cost of

cleanups ($2.5 billion) is included in Note 11 to the Principal Financial Statements in

Appendix A of this report. The agency is still discovering sites with hazardous materials that

will require cleanup. Therefore, the actual number of sites, as well as total cleanup costs, will

likely change. In many cases, collection actions are initiated against PRPs to recoup sitespecific cleanup costs as they are identified.

A net position of $6.3 billion is reported for FY 2001, consisting of 44 percent ($2.8 billion)

for unexpended appropriations and 56 percent ($3.5 billion) as the cumulative results of

operations. Unexpended appropriations reflect spending authority made available by congressional appropriation that has not yet been used. Cumulative results of operations reflect the

cumulative effect of excess financing over expenses for a budget account since its inception.

Liabilities and Net

Position
32

Financial Management Controls

This section provides information on the USDA Forest Service’s compliance with the

following:

• Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA);

• Inspector General Act Amendments (Audit Followup);

• Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA); and

• Biennial review of users fees.

The FMFIA requires agencies to annually provide a statement of assurance regarding the

effectiveness of management, administrative and accounting controls, and financial

management systems. The USDA Forest Service believes that maintaining integrity and

accountability in all programs and operations is critical for good government and demonstrates

responsible stewardship over assets and resources entrusted to the agency’s care.

The USDA Forest Service continues to make significant progress in correcting 

previously reported material weaknesses, system nonconformances, and timely implementation and closure of audit recommendations. For FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service reports

the following:

• One new material weakness; i.e., Timber Sale Environmental Analysis;

• The status of seven open material weaknesses under Section Two of the FMFIA; and 

• One instance of system nonconformance under Section Four of FMFIA.

As shown in the following table, significant progress has been made to correct and close

previously reported accounting system nonconformances. The USDA Forest Service, in

partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, continues to aggressively pursue

initiatives to fully integrate the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS).

Financial Systems 

and Controls
33

Section Two

Material Weaknesses

Timber Sale Administration

Financial System

Special Use Permits

Encroachments

Personal Property

Contracting

Performance Reporting

Timber Sale Environmental

Analysis Requirements

Closed FY 2002

Open 

Open 

Closed FY 2002

Open 

Open 

Open 

Open

N/A

FY 2003

FY 2002

N/A

FY 2002

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

Status Anticipated

Correction

The following tables highlight reported material weaknesses and system nonconformance with

general accounting standards.

Section Four

System Nonconformances

Real Property Management

Information System

Central Accounting Subsystem:

Credit and Cash Management

Unpaid Obligations Subsystem

Open

Closed FY 2001

Closed FY 2001

To Be Determined

N/A

N/A

Correction Date Anticipated

Correction

Management Controls:

Federal Managers’

Financial Integrity Act
34

The USDA Forest Service continues to resolve open audit recommendations. As of 

March 31, 2002, the USDA Forest Service has 25 audits with 84 open recommendations that

are 1 year old and older. Of the open audit recommendations, 29 (35 percent) have been

completed or will be submitted for closure by the next reporting period. 

The following table displays open audits and an estimate of when the agency anticipates

completed required work to close each open audit.

Audit Number 

Date Issued 

Estimated Closure Date (ECD)

08099-37-AT

08/24/92

09/30/02

08099-42-AT

08/03/93

09/30/02

08099-47-AT

12/15/93

04/30/02

08099-49-AT

06/10/94

09/30/02

08401-1-AT

06/20/95

09/30/02

08601-7-SF

05/23/95

10/01/02

08801-4-HQ

08/19/98

09/30/02

08001-1-HQ

06/28/00

09/30/02

08099-130-SF

09/30/93

06/30/06

08099-146-SF

05/05/94

05/30/02

FY 91 Financial Statements

FY 92 Financial Statements

FS Management Report

FY 93 Financial Statements

FY 94 Financial Statements

Controls Over Research Services

Provided to External and USDA

Forest Service Clients

Review of USDA Forest Service

Retroactive Redistribution

USDA Forest Service

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act

USDA Forest Service Timber Sale

Cruising Controls

Influence of Interest Groups on

Timber Sales Management

Audit Title

Management Followup 

to OIG/GAO

Recommendations

Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) Audits

Older than 1 Year
35

Audit Number 

Date Issued 

Estimated Closure Date (ECD)

08601-1-AT

03/29/96

12/31/02

08801-4-TE

09/29/97

06/30/02

08601-4-AT

03/31/98

04/30/02

08601-5-SF

09/30/93

09/30/03

08801-5-SF

04/30/99

10/31/02

08003-2-SF

08/05/98

05/01/02

08003-6-SF

07/14/00

05/01/02

08801-6-SF

01/19/00

05/01/02

08801-13-AT

03/31/00

10/01/02

08017-13-SF

09/19/00

In-Litigation

08801-3-SF

06/16/00

04/15/02

08002-2-SF

11/28/00

09/30/02

Hazardous Waste at Active or

Abandoned Mines

USDA Forest Service Collection on

Royalties on Oil and Gas

Production

USDA Forest Service Wildlife and

Fisheries Habitat Management

Graduate Rate Fee System

Thunderbird Lodge Land

Exchange

Toiyabe/Humboldt National Forest

Land Adjustment Program

Zephyr Cove Land Exchange

USDA Forest Service Land

Adjustment Program San

Bernardino National Forest 

and South

USDA Forest Service National Fire

Cache System

Equitable Adjustment Claim

Environmental Consulting,

Planning, and Design

Review of the Confidential

Financial Disclosure System

Valuation of Lands Acquired in

Congressionally Designated Areas

Audit Title
36

The USDA Forest Service has aggressively acted to correct the agency’s financial systems,

improving the quality of financial data. FY 2001 marks the second year of FFIS, which is

fully compliant with Federal financial requirements and incorporates the U.S. Standard

General Ledger. 

The FFMIA of 1996 requires that Federal agencies use the U.S. Standard General Ledger,

comply with Federal accounting standards, and establish financial management systems that

support full disclosure of financial data, including the full cost of Federal programs and

activities. If an agency is not in compliance with these requirements, the FFMIA requires that

the agency head establish a remediation plan to bring the agency’s financial management

systems into substantial compliance.

For FY 2000, the USDA-OIG reported that the agency’s financial management 

systems did not comply with Federal requirements in several areas. The following table

highlights areas of noncompliance and a closure date.

FFMIA Requirement

1. All feeder systems are 

integrated or 

electronically interfaced 

with the core financial 

system.

2. Internal controls over 

data entry, transaction 

processing, and reporting

shall be applied 

consistently throughout 

the system to ensure 

the validity of information

and the protection of 

Federal Government 

resources.

The INFRA Real Property 

subsystem is not interfaced with

the FFIS.

2a. General ledger adjustments 

were made so that FFIS 

account balances would 

agree with Treasury records.

2b. Inaccurate posting models, 

which were established by 

the USDA Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO), 

Associate CFO for Financial 

Systems, resulted in erroneous

general ledger account balances.

2c. Invalid obligations and 

payables were entered into 

FFIS.

2d. Audit trails and support for 

billings and receivables is 

inadequate. Field units did not

obtain monthly listings to verify

the accuracy and validity of 

accounts receivable. Amounts

were reported as accounts 

receivable even though not 

valid. Some accounts 

receivable transactions were 

duplicated.

Original Target of December

2001 revised to September

30, 2002

TARGET COMPLETED

May 31, 2002

TARGET COMPLETED

TARGET COMPLETED

Area of Noncompliance Target Completion Date

Financial Management

Federal Financial

Management

Improvement Act

FY 2001 USDA Forest

Service Remediation Plan
37

FFMIA Requirement

3. Agency financial 

management systems 

shall enable the agency

to prepare, execute, 

and report on the 

agency’s budget in 

accordance with OMB 

Circulars A-11 and 

A-34, and other OMB 

circulars and bulletins.

4. Adequate training and 

user support shall be 

provided to the users 

of financial 

management systems.

5. Financial management 

systems shall provide 

financial reports in a 

timely and useful 

fashion.

USDA Forest Service violated the

Anti-Deficiency Act in FY 2000 by

overobligating Wildland Fire

Management Appropriations.

USDA Forest Service users

lacked specific training on setting

up agreements in the Project

Cost Accounting System and processing billings and advance liquidation documents.

USDA Forest Service should

develop and use monthly reports

that are more helpful to field

units.

May 31, 2002

TARGET COMPLETED

TARGET COMPLETED

Area of Noncompliance Target Completion Date

The FY 2001 auditor’s opinion on the agency’s annual financial statements has been

disclaimed. A remediation plan for FY 2002 is being developed.

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 requires biennial reviews by Federal agencies

of fees, rents, and other charges imposed for goods or services provided to others. The

objective of these reviews is to identify such activities and begin charging fees, if permitted by

law, and to periodically adjust existing fees to reflect current costs or market value. 

Approximately one-half of the agency’s users fee inventory is reviewed in any given year. As

part of the agency’s FY 2001 Financial Analysis Program, a review of users fees was

conducted, which indicated that the reviewed fees reflected current costs or market values, or

were consistent with legislative mandates.

FY 2002 

Remediation Plan

Biennial Review of 

Users Fees
38

Pursuant to the requirements of the CFO Act of 1990, as amended by GPRA, the USDA

Forest Service prepared the financial statements that follow to report the financial position and

results of USDA Forest Service operations. The FY 2001 financial statements consist of the

Consolidated Balance Sheet, Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Financing, Required

Supplementary Stewardship Information, and Required Supplementary Information. The

following limitations apply to the preparation of the FY 2001 financial statements:

• The USDA Forest Service prepared the financial statements to report the financial position

and results of operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515 (b).

• While the agency prepared the statements from the books and records of the entity in

accordance with the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

the statements are different from the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary

resources that are prepared from the same books and records.

• The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of a

sovereign entity. Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources cannot be liquidated

without the enactment of an appropriation. Payment of all liabilities other than for contracts

can be abrogated by the sovereign entity.

Limitations of 

Financial Statements
Appendix A—Principal Financial Statements and Notes, FY 2001 

Consolidated Balance Sheet 

Statement of Net Cost 

Statement of Change in Net Position 

Statement of Budgetary Resources 

Statement of Financing 

Notes to the Principal Financial Statements 
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Notes to the Principal Financial Statements

FY 2001 (Audited)

Note 1. Significant

Accounting Policies

A. Reporting Entity

The Forest Service was established on February 1, 1905, as an agency of the United States

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for the purpose of maintaining and

managing the Nation's forest reserves. It operates under the guidance of the Under Secretary

for Natural Resources and Environment. USDA Forest Service policy is implemented through

9 regional offices, 6 research offices, and 1 State and Private Forestry area office, with 868

administrative units functioning in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

The USDA Forest Service's mission includes the following activities:

• Protection and management of approximately 192 million acres of National Forest 

System land, which includes 34.8 million acres of designated wilderness areas;

• Research and development of forestry and rangeland management practices to provide

scientific and technical knowledge for enhancing and protecting the economic productivity

and environmental quality of the Nation's 1.6 billion acres of forests and associated

rangelands;

• Utilization of cooperative agreements with State and local governments, forest industries,

and private landowners to help protect and manage non-Federal forests and associated

rangeland and watershed areas;

• Partnering with other nations and organizations to foster global natural resource

conservation and sustainable development of the world's forest resources; and

• Execution of human resource programs that employ, train, or educate the young,

unemployed, underemployed, economically disadvantaged, disabled, and elderly.

The accompanying financial statements of the USDA Forest Service include the accounts of

all funds under the USDA Forest Service's control.

These financial statements were prepared to report the financial position and results of

operations of the USDA Forest Service, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of

1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. They have been prepared from

the books and records of the USDA Forest Service in accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles (GAAP). The USDA Forest Service follows the Federal GAAP

hierarchy of accounting policies, which is presented below.

1. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), Statements of Federal

Financial Accounting Standards (SFFASs), and Interpretations plus American Institute of

Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)

pronouncements specific to Federal entities;

2. FASAB Technical Bulletins, AICPA Industry Audit and Accounting Guides, and 

Statements of Position (SOP) specific to Federal entities;

B. Basis of Accounting
47

3. AICPA Accounting Standards Executive Committee (ACSEC) Practice Bulletins 

when specifically made applicable to Federal governmental entities and cleared by the

FASAB, and Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC) technical releases of

the FASAB;

4. FASAB Implementation Guides and widely recognized and prevalent practices in the

Federal Government; and

5. Other accounting literature (including FASAB Concept Statements).

Basis of Presentation: The accounting structure of Federal Government agencies is

designed to reflect both accrual and budgetary accounting transactions. Under the accrual

method, revenues are recognized when earned; expenses are recognized when a liability is

incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash.

The budgetary accounting principles, on the other hand, are designed to recognize the

obligation of funds according to legal requirements, which in many cases exists before the

occurrence of an accrual–based transaction. The recognition of budgetary accounting

transactions is essential for compliance with legal constraints and controls.

On the Statement of Net Cost and Balance Sheet, all significant intra-entity balances and

transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. No such eliminations have been made on

the Statement of Budgetary Resources. 

The Statement of Financing contains eliminations of proprietary intra-entity amounts.

Budgetary intra-entity amounts, however, have not been eliminated.

The preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and

assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of

contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported

amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from

those estimates.

Exchange and Nonexchange Revenue: In accordance with Federal Government

accounting guidance, the USDA Forest Service classifies revenue as either "exchange

revenue" or "nonexchange revenue." Exchange revenue arises from transactions that occur

when each party to the transaction sacrifices value and receives value in return. In many

cases, the USDA Forest Service is required to remit exchange revenue receipts to the U.S.

Department of the Treasury (Department of Treasury). In other instances the USDA Forest

Service is authorized to use a portion of its exchange revenues for specific purposes.

Nonexchange revenue is revenue the Federal Government is able to demand or receive

because of its sovereign powers.
48

Full Cost: In accordance with Federal Government accounting guidance, the USDA Forest

Service measures and reports the full cost of products and services generated from the

consumption of resources. Full cost is the total amount of resources used to produce a product

or provide a service unless otherwise noted. For FY 2001, Treasury Judgment Fund costs not

associated with a particular mission area (responsibility segment) are presented in an

adjustment column on the Statement of Net Cost.

Imputed Pension and Other Retirement Benefits: In accordance with Federal

Government accounting guidance, the USDA Forest Service recognizes the liability and

associated expense for employee pensions and other retirement benefits (including health care

and other post-employment benefits) at the time the employee’s services are rendered.

Pension expenses, retirement health benefits, and related liabilities are recorded at estimated

actuarial present value of future benefits, less the estimated actuarial present value of normal

cost contributions made by, and for, covered employees. Other post-employment benefit

expenses and related liabilities are recognized when the future outflow of resources is

probable and measurable on the basis of events occurring on or before the reporting date.

Workers’ Compensation Liability: The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA)

provides income and medical cost protection to Federal civilian employees injured on the job,

employees who have incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of

employees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease.

Consequently, the USDA Forest Service recognizes a liability for this compensation that is

composed of two components: (1) an accrued liability that represents money owed for claims

paid through the current fiscal year and (2) an actuarial liability that represents the expected

liability for approved compensation cases beyond the current fiscal year. Claims incurred for

benefits for the USDA Forest Service’s employees under FECA are administered by the U.S.

Department of Labor (DOL) and are ultimately paid by the USDA.

The USDA Forest Service is funded principally through congressional appropriations and

other authorizations from the Budget of the United States. The USDA Forest Service receives

both annual and multiyear appropriations that are used, within statutory limits, for operating

and capital expenditures. Other funding sources are derived through reimbursements for

services performed for other Federal agencies, sale of goods to the public, gifts from donors,

and interest on invested funds. 

Appropriations are recognized as revenues at the time the related programs or administrative

expenses are incurred. Appropriations expended for property and equipment are recognized as

expenses when an asset is consumed in operations. Other revenues are recognized when

earned; that is when goods have been delivered or services rendered.

C. Revenues and Other

Financing Sources
49

The Department of Treasury processes cash receipts and disbursements. Funds with the

Department of Treasury are primarily trust and appropriated funds that are available to pay

current liabilities and finance authorized purchase commitments. Cash and Other Monetary

Assets consist of undeposited collections, imprest funds, and unrequisitioned authorized

appropriations.

General Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) purchases of $5,000 or more and having a

useful life of 2 or more years are capitalized. Major additions, replacements, alterations, and

road prisms (roadbeds) costs are also capitalized. Normal repairs and maintenance costs are

expensed as incurred. General property and equipment is depreciated over its net service life

on a straight-line basis.

Payments in advance of the receipt of goods and services are recorded as advances and

prepayments at the time of payment and recognized as expenditures/expenses when the

related goods and services are received.

Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the

USDA Forest Service as a result of a transaction or event that has occurred. The USDA Forest

Service cannot satisfy a liability, however, without an appropriation. Liabilities for which

there is no appropriation, and for which there is no certainty that an appropriation will be

enacted, are classified as unfunded liabilities. The Government, acting in its sovereign

capacity, can abrogate liabilities. 

Other Liabilities segregates other liabilities between those covered by budgetary resources

versus not covered by budgetary resources.

Probable and estimable unsettled litigation and claims against the USDA Forest Service are

recognized as a liability and expense for the full amount of the expected loss. Expected

litigation and claim losses include settlements to be paid from the Treasury Judgment Fund on

behalf of the USDA Forest Service and from other appropriations. The USDA Forest Service

is a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions, environmental suits, and claims

brought by or against it. In the opinion of USDA Forest Service management and legal

counsel, the ultimate resolution of these proceedings is currently indeterminable.

Annual leave is accrued as it is earned and the accrual is reduced as leave is taken. Each year,

the balance in the accrued leave account is adjusted to reflect current pay rates. To the extent

current or prior year appropriations are not available to fund annual leave earned but not

taken, funding will be obtained from future financing sources. Sick leave and other types of

leave are expended as taken.

D. Fund Balance with the

Department of Treasury

and Cash and Other

Monetary Assets

E. General Property, Plant

and Equipment

F. Advances and

Prepayments

G. Liabilities

H. Commitments and

Contingencies 

I. Annual, Sick, and Other

Leave 
50

Most of the USDA Forest Service employees participate in the Civil Service Retirement

System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). For employees covered

under the CSRS, the USDA Forest Service withholds 8.51 percent of their gross earnings. The

USDA Forest Service matches the employees’ contribution and the sum is transferred to CSRS.

The USDA Forest Service does not report CSRS assets, accumulated plan benefits, or

unfunded liabilities (if any) applicable to its employees. Reporting such amounts is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management. FERS became effective January 1, 1987,

pursuant to Public Law 99-335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by FERS and Social Security. For employees covered under FERS, the USDA

Forest Service withholds, in addition to Social Security, 1 percent of gross earnings.

On April 1, 1987, the Federal Government initiated the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which is a

retirement savings and investment plan for Federal employees covered by either FERS or

CSRS. FERS employees may contribute up to 11 percent of their gross pay to the TSP. The

USDA Forest Service automatically contributes 1 percent of a FERS employee's gross salary

to the TSP. For the first 3 percent of gross pay contributed by a FERS employee, the agency

will match the contribution dollar for dollar. For the next 2 percent contributed, the agency

will match 50 cents per dollar contributed. CSRS employees may contribute up to 6 percent 

of their gross pay, but there is no matching contribution.

Ceilings for employee contributions to the TSP are established on a calendar year basis. The

maximum amount that FERS employees could contribute to the TSP in calendar year 2001

was the lesser of $10,500 or 11 percent of their gross pay. The maximum amount that CSRS

employees could contribute to the plan in calendar year 2001 was the lesser of $10,500 or 6

percent of their gross pay. The sum of employee and agency contributions is transferred to the

TSP, which is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

J. Retirement Plans 
51

Note 2. Fund Balance

with Treasury

The Department of Treasury processes cash receipts and disbursements. Funds with the

Department of Treasury are primarily trust and appropriated funds that are available to pay

current liabilities and finance authorized purchase commitments. Fund balances with the

Department of Treasury include both entity and nonentity fund balances. 

Fund balances as of September 30, 2001, consist of the following:

Note 3. Cash and Other

Monetary Assets

Cash and Other Monetary Assets amounting to $222,178 as of September 30, 2001, consist

of undeposited collections, imprest funds, and unrequisitioned authorized appropriations.

In accordance with a consent decree and settlement agreement issued in FY 1998, Crown

Butte Mines, Inc., paid $22.5 million to the U.S. Government. The consent decree called for

the amount to be held in an interest-bearing escrow account in a private, federally chartered,

financial institution, to be used by the Secretary of Agriculture for environmental cleanup of

the New World Mine in Park County, MT. The Secretary of Agriculture delegated oversight

authority for the restoration plan to the USDA Forest Service. Because this authority excludes

authorization to expend monies from the account, the funds are not included in the financial

statements of the USDA Forest Service.

(In Thousands)

Fund Type

(1) Trust Funds

(2) Revolving Funds

(3) Appropriated Funds

(4) Other Fund Types

Total

$ 420,766

152,666

2,284,523

22,102

$ 2,880,057

$ -

-

115,458

-

$ 115,458

$ 420,766

152,666

2,399,981

22,102

$ 2,995,515

Entity Nonentity Total

(In Thousands)

A. Cash

B. Foreign Currency

C. Other Monetary Assets

(1) Gold

(2) Special Drawing Rights

(3) U.S. Reserves in International 

Monetary Fund

(4) Other

(5) Total Other Monetary Assets

D. Total Cash, Foreign Currency, and

Other Monetary Assets

$ 222

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

$ 222

$ -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

$ -

Entity Assets Nonentity Assets
52

NOTE 4. Investments As of September 30, 2001, the USDA Forest Service retained $2,795,000 in other investments

that consist of securities deposited in the Federal Reserve System by timber purchasers on

behalf of the USDA Forest Service in lieu of furnishing sureties on bid, performance, and

payment bonds.

Note 5. Accounts

Receivable Net

Federal receivables can rise from a variety of sources and purposes and must be recognized

when the entity establishes a claim to cash or other assets (1) based on legal or contractual

provisions; (2) as a result of tax, fee, or penalty assessment; or (3) as a result of delivery of

goods, services, or performance that is binding on the Federal entity. Accounts receivables of

Federal entities must be classified as either entity receivables (amounts claimed as due from

other Federal entities or the public, which may be included in the entity’s obligational

authority) or nonentity receivables (amounts to be collected on behalf of the U.S.

Government, but which the Federal entity is not authorized to spend). An allowance for

estimated uncollectible receivables is recognized to reduce outstanding receivables to the net

realizable value.

A. Intragovernmental 

Securities:

(1) Marketable

(2) Nonmarketable:

Par value

(3) Nonmarketable:

Market-based

Subtotal

(1)

Cost

$ - 

$ - 

$ 2,795 

$ 2,795

$ 2,795

(2)

Amortization 

Method

N/A

N/A

(3)

Unamortized

(Premium)/

Discount

$ -

$ - 

$ -

$ -

(6)

Required

Market Value

Disclosure

$ -

$ - 

$ -

$ -

(4)

Market Value,

Net

$ - 

$ - 

$ 2,795 

$ 2,795

$ 2,795

(5)

Investment,

Net

$ - 

$ - 

$ 2,795 

$ 2,795

$ 2,795

B. Governmental 

Securities:

(1) Certificate of Deposit

(2) Other

(3)

Subtotal

Total

C. Other Information:

(In Thousands)
53

Entity Accounts Receivable, Intragovernmental: The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. §1535

- 1536), the Granger-Thye Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. § 572), and other authorities authorize

Federal agencies to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to acquire needed

expertise or to more efficiently achieve goals and objectives. The USDA Forest Service has

provided services to other agencies and departments through programs such as the Forestry

Incentives Program, the Agricultural Conservation Program, and the Senior Community

Service Employment Program. 

Entity Accounts Receivable, Governmental: Receivables in this line item are 

composed mainly of reimbursements and refunds of fire prevention and suppression funds.

Under joint agreements with the States, the USDA Forest Service invoices for firefightingrelated services it performs.

Governmental nontimber-related receivables are reduced by an allowance for doubtful

accounts of 20 or 80 percent according to the age. Governmental timber-related receivables

(defaulted timber sales) are reduced by an allowance for doubtful accounts based on USDA

Forest Service estimates. The estimates of doubtful accounts are based on management's

analysis of the accounts and on current economic conditions. No allowance for doubtful

accounts is computed for intragovernmental receivables.

Nonentity Accounts Receivable: The USDA Forest Service does not have Nonentity

Accounts Receivables.

Accounts Receivable, Net, as of September 30, 2001, consists of the following:

Gross

Accounts

Receiveable

Intragovernmental 

Governmental

Total Entity

Total

$ 53,656

490,696

544,352

$ 544,352

$ -

(78,491)

(78,491)

$ (78,491)

$ 53,656

412,205

465,861

$ 465,861

Allowance

Net Accounts

Receivable

(In Thousands)

Entity
54

Note 6. Other Assets Other assets as of September 30, 2001, consist of the following:

Note 7. Credit Programs The USDA Forest Service does not participate in guaranteed loan programs and has no Credit

Reform Act activity; therefore, this note is not applicable to the agency.

Note 8. Inventory and

Related Property, Net

As of September 30, 2001, Inventory and Related Property, Net, consist of the following:

Other entity assets consist primarily of advances and prepayments for the receipt of goods and

services before actual receipt, and also include $3.9 million in appropriations available for

USDA Forest Service requisition in the Federal Highway Fund.

Other nonentity assets consist entirely of advances and prepayments.

A. Other Entity Assets 

1. Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments

Unrequisitioned Authorized Appropriations

Total

2. Governmental

Advances and Prepayments

Total

B. Other Information:

C. Other Nonentity Assets

1. Intragovernmental

Total

2. Governmental

Advances and Prepayments

Total

D. Other Information:

$ 1,007

(3,900)

$ (2,893)

$ 19,210

$ 19,210

$ -

-

(206)

$ (206)

(In Thousands)

Items held for use

Items held in reserve for future use

Excess, obsolete, and unserviceable items

Total Operating Materials and Supplies

$ 40,236

-

-

$ 40,236

(In Thousands)
55

Inventory and Related Property is composed of (1) Working Capital Fund (WCF) materials

and supplies and (2) materials and supplies for agency operations. WCF materials and

supplies (for example, raw materials, stock, and tree seedlings) are maintained to facilitate

distribution of certain stock items to users who are subsequently billed commensurate with

items used. Thus, costs of providing these items are recovered.

Materials for agency use consists primarily of supplies for fleet equipment rental and are

adjusted to reflect the results of periodic physical inventories. The USDA Forest Service does

not hold inventory for current or future sale. 

Beginning in FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service changed its accounting policy regarding Fire

Cache inventory. This property had been capitalized in prior years, but is now expensed. The

remaining capitalized Fire Cache inventory of approximately $54.2 million was removed from

the balance sheet.

Materials for agency use consist primarily of supplies for fleet equipment rental and are

adjusted to reflect the results of periodic physical inventories.

Valuation Methods: Inventories in the WCF and materials for agency use are valued based

on the cost-basis method.

Allowance: Management has established no allowance against these balances because

operating materials and supplies that are not usable because of spoilage, obsolescence,

damage, etc., are considered immaterial.

Note 9. General Property,

Plant and Equipment, Net

As of September 30, 2001, General PP&E, Net, consists of the following:

Personal Property

ADP Hardware

Equipment

Internal Use Software

Vehicles

Other

Real Property

Buildings

Dam Systems

Developed Sites

Land

Roads and Bridges

Other

Total

5 -15

3 -10

4 -20

30

50

20

N/A

10 -50

15 -30

$ -

936,526 

97,994 

10 

$ 822,731 

49,216 

6,055,371

3,174,592 

$11,136,440

$ -

459,216 

21,957 

$ 447,503

3,437,663

1,814,920

$ 6,181,259

$ - 

477,310 

76,037 

10 

$ 375,228

49,216 

2,617,708 

1,359,672 

$ 4,955,181

(In Thousands)

Classes Useful Life

(Years)

Cost Accumulated

Depreciation

Book Value
56

General PP&E consists of general-purpose real property; road surface improvements to land;

buildings; other structures and improvements, including culverts and bridges; and equipment

at a threshold at or above $5,000. General PP&E is recorded at acquisition cost and is

reported net of accumulated depreciation. 

To address previously reported documentation deficiencies, during FY 2000, the USDA Forest

Service issued property inventory instructions that provided detailed direction for the physical

verification of assets and the verification of accounting data to the supporting documentation.

The USDA Forest Service also revalued its road prisms, which represent land that has been

leveled or filled to fit the contour of the earth to prepare for construction of a road. This

revaluation was performed in accordance with FASAB guidance.

Additionally, in FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service in partnership with the Office of Inspector

General and KPMG, Inc., undertook an effort to properly value and record all of its real

property assets. This effort involves a methodology that uses a combination of existence,

valuation and completeness testing, and appraisals to estimate the total net book value for the

USDA Forest Service real property assets. At the conclusion of this effort, the USDA Forest

Service financial statement real property values for assets acquired before FY 2002 will be

considered proper and final for audit purposes.

Note 10. Debt As of September 30, 2001, the USDA Forest Service did not hold debt, current or long term.
57

Note 11. Other

Liabilities

The components of Other Liabilities as of September 30, 2001, consist of the following:

Intragovernmental

Other Accrued Liabilities

Advances from Others

Trust and Deposit Liabilities

Custodial Liability

Other Liability

Total Intragovernmental

Governmental

Other Accrued Liabilities

Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits

Employer Contribution and Payroll Tax

Advances from Others

Purchaser Road Credits

Trust and Deposit Liabilities

Custodial Liability

Other Liabilities

Total Governmental

$ -

-

-

-

-

$ -

$ -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

$ -

$ 63,141

23,467

(160,230)

267,502

(6,470)

$ 187,410

$ 228,791

410,369

14,771

78,857

14,130

420,112

(255,294)

9,624

$ 921,360

$ 63,141

23,467

(160,230)

267,502

(6,470)

$ 187,410

$ 228,791

410,369

14,771

78,857

14,130

420,112

(255,294)

9,624

$ 921,360

(In Thousands)

Other Liabilities Covered By Budgetary Resources

Noncurrent Current Total

Intragovernmental

Contingent Liabilities

Total Intragovernmental

Governmental

Other Actuarial Liabilities

Contingent Liabilities

Total Governmental

$ -

$ -

$ -

-

$ -

$ 149,401

$ 149,401

$ 4,431

28,400

$ 32,831

$ 149,401

$ 149,401

$ 4,431

28,400

$ 32,831

(In Thousands)

Other Liabilities Not Covered By Budgetary Resources

Noncurrent Current Total

Purchaser Road Credits: Purchaser Road Credits (PRCs) are liabilities arising under

timber sales contracts issued through April 1999 that are still in effect. Under the terms of

certain timber sales contracts, timber purchasers are allowed to construct roads to gain access

to timber. If the USDA Forest Service has a use for the roads upon contract completion, the

timber purchaser is given a credit, referred to as a PRC, for the value of the roads, to the

extent their service lives exceed the contract’s duration. Effective April 1999, in accordance

with 16 U.S.C. § 535a, such PRCs are prohibited on newly issued timber contracts.
58

The amount of the PRC granted to contractors in connection with pre-April 1999 contracts is

based on a USDA Forest Service engineering estimate made at the time of the timber sale. 

A PRC is established when the USDA Forest Service accepts the road. At that time, an asset

(a component of PP&E) and a liability (Unearned Revenue, Governmental) are recorded for

the amount of the PRC established.

On applicable contracts, the timber purchaser can use the PRC as an offset to payments on

timber harvested. As the PRC is used in lieu of cash in paying for timber harvested, the

amount in unearned revenue is reduced and current year revenue is recognized. If all PRCs

have not been applied when the contract is closed, they are canceled and the amounts are

removed from the unearned revenue account. PRCs that are not applied against the timber sale

contract price are, in effect, donated to the Federal Government. 

With the prohibition of PRCs pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 535a, the method of accounting for

these costs changed from recording PRCs to recording specific road construction (SRC) as

revenue.

Advances From Others: Advances from Others consist of monies on deposit for

cooperative work project agreements with the public.

Trust and Deposit Liabilities: The Trust and Deposit Liabilities include liabilities that

have been temporarily included in suspense accounts. Trust and Deposit Liabilities,

Governmental, consists primarily of cash prepayments and deposits from timber purchasers

before the actual harvest of timber. Advances remain a liability until the timber is cut.

Custodial Liability: Custodial Liability consists of amounts held in special receipt accounts

that belong to non-USDA Forest Service entities. (See Note 21 for more on custodial

liability.)

Firefighting Liability: The USDA Forest Service is permitted by Federal law (16 U.S.C. §

535d) to advance money from any USDA Forest Service appropriation to the firefighting

appropriation for the purpose of fighting fires. Upon requesting and receiving a supplemental

appropriation for these expenses, the USDA Forest Service must repay the appropriation from

which the funds were obtained.

During FY 1988 through 1997, the USDA Forest Service incurred obligations to fight fires

that had not been funded in advance by appropriations. The USDA Forest Service used

unobligated balances in the Knutson-Vandenburg (K-V) Trust Fund to pay these expenses.

The amount to be repaid to the K-V fund fluctuates depending on the severity of the fire

season in a given fiscal year. As a result of the record fire year in FY 2000, approximately

$200 million was transferred to the Wildland Fire Management fund from the K-V fund to

pay for expenses incurred but not funded by appropriations. As of September 30, 2001, the

trust fund had not been reimbursed $628.5 million. This amount will not be recognized until

such time as Congress authorizes supplemental funding to repay the trust fund loan.
59

Additionally, during FY 2001 the USDA Forest Service transferred approximately $161

million to the Wildland Fire Management fund from various funds to pay for expenses

incurred but not funded by appropriations. The $161 million will be repaid to the various

funds during FY 2002 when Congress authorizes appropriations for this purpose. 

Annual Leave and Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Liabilities: Liabilities

under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) are incurred as a result of workers'

compensation benefits that have accrued to employees, but have not yet been paid by the

USDA Forest Service. Workers' compensation benefits include the current and expected future

liability for death, disability, medical, and other approved costs. The DOL actuarially

determines the current and expected future liability for the USDA as a whole, including the

USDA Forest Service. The USDA Forest Service is billed annually as its claims are paid by

the DOL. Payment to the DOL is deferred for 2 years so that the bills may be funded through

the budget process. Payments to the DOL are recognized as an expense in the Statement of

Net Cost. The amounts of unpaid FECA billings constitute the accrued FECA payable.

Public Law 104-180, dated August 6, 1996, authorized USDA to provide voluntary separation

incentive payments (VSIPs) to any employee to the extent necessary to eliminate positions

and functions identified in the agency’s strategic plan. The authority was effective until

September 30, 2000. The USDA Forest Service did not request buyout authority from the

Department for FY 2001. Therefore, no liability is recognized in FY 2001 for future VSIPs.

The total annual leave and components of accrued FECA payable as of September 30, 2001,

are as follows:

(In Thousands)

Not Covered By Budgetary Resources, Intragovernmental

Current Liabilities for FECA $ 61,370

Not Covered By Budgetary Resources, Governmental

Expected Future Liability for FECA 380,957

Annual Leave 163,343

Total $ 544,300

Liabilities for Environmental Cleanup Costs: Under the provisions of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the

Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the

USDA Forest Service anticipates cleaning up hazardous materials on USDA Forest Service

lands. The USDA Forest Service estimates cleanup for sites on National Forest System lands

to be $2.5 billion. Of this amount, approximately $1.8 billion relates to abandoned mine lands

and $200 million relates to landfills and miscellaneous sites. The remaining $500 million is

attributed to costs relating to RCRA.
60

These estimates are sensitive to changes in remedy standards and new technology. The site

discovery and assessment process will continue for several more years. The actual number of

sites discovered and cleanup costs will continually change as the process continues. This

estimate also does not reflect anticipated cost recovery from or contribution to clean-up costs

by responsible parties because the amounts are indeterminable. There is a reasonable

possibility, however, that parties other than the USDA Forest Service will pay some of the

clean-up costs.

Contingent Liabilities: A loss contingency is an existing condition, situation, or set of 

circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity. The uncertainty should

ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The likelihood

that the future event or events will confirm the loss or the incurrence of a liability can range

from probable to remote.

Treasury Judgment Fund: The USDA Forest Service pays small tort claims out of its own

funds. Other legal actions exceeding $2,500, however, fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

These are paid from the Claims, Judgments, and Relief Acts Fund (Judgment Fund)

maintained by the Department of Treasury. Absent a specific statutory requirement, the USDA

Forest Service is not required to record a liability or reimburse the Judgment Fund for

payments for tort claims made on its behalf. These payments, however, are recognized as an

expense and an imputed financing source in the Statements of Net Cost and Changes in Net

Position. Payments reported from torts and court of claims for FY 2001 amounted to

$3,443,278.

The Contract Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) governs litigation arising from contract 

disputes (such as from timber sales contracts). Subsection 612(c) provides that CDRA

payments made on behalf of Federal agencies by the Judgment Fund shall be reimbursed to

the fund. Consequently, the debtor Federal agency is required to record a payable to the

Judgment Fund. Those amounts remain a receivable on Financial Management Service's

(Department of Treasury) books and a payable on the debtor agency's books until

reimbursement to the fund is made by the agency. At September 30, 2001, the Department of

Treasury indicated that the USDA Forest Service is liable for $178.6 million.

Pending Litigation and Unasserted Claims: As of September 30, 2001, the USDA

Forest Service has two legal actions pending, which management believes—based on

information provided by legal counsel—may produce a probable adverse decision. The

potential loss is estimated at $38.4 million ($28.4 million accrued in FY 2000). In light of the

adverse decision, the USDA Forest Service will seek appellate action. This amount has been

reported on the financial statements. 

The USDA Forest Service has other pending legal actions for which the likelihood of adverse

outcomes is reasonably possible. The potential loss is estimated at $1.6 billion.
61

Note 14. Life Insurance

Liabilities

Note 12. Lease

Liabilities

A. USDA Forest Service

as Lessee

B. USDA Forest Service

as Lessor

Note 13. Pensions, Other

Retirement Benefits, and

Other Post-employment

Benefits

USDA Forest Service lease agreements as of September 30, 2001, are as follows:

Capital Leases: None exist.

Operating Leases: The USDA Forest Service leases buildings and office space as well as

land. Facilities are leased for terms that range from 1 to 20 years. Land is leased for terms

that extend from 1 to 99 years. Future payments due are as follows:

Capital Leases: None exist.

Operating Leases: None exist.

The USDA Forest Service is not responsible for administering pension, other retirement

benefits, and other post-employment benefits. As such, this note is not applicable to the

agency.

The USDA Forest Service does not provide whole life insurance. As such, this note is not

applicable to the agency.

Fiscal Year (In Thousands)

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007 and Thereafter

Total Future Lease Payments

$ 77,275

83,500

84,300

85,900

88,400

1,975,000

$ 2,394,375
62

Note 15. Unexpected

Appropriations

Note 16. Commitments

and Contingencies

A. Commitments

B. Contingencies

The USDA Forest Service’s Net Position consists of unexpended appropriations and

cumulative results of operations. Unexpended appropriations consist of appropriated spending

authority that is unobligated and has not been withdrawn by the Department of Treasury, as

well as obligations that have not been paid. Cumulative results of operations are the excess of

financing sources over expenses for a budget account since its inception.

Unexpended Appropriations: Unexpended appropriations represent the amount of spending

authorized as of year-end that is unliquidated or unobligated and has not lapsed, been rescinded,

or been withdrawn. This amounted to approximately $2.85 billion at the end of FY 2001.

Cumulative Results of Operations: Cumulative results of operations are the net results of

operations since inception, plus the cumulative amount of prior period adjustments.

Hazardous Waste Cleanup: See Note 11—Liabilities for Environmental Cleanup Costs.

Most legal actions that affect the USDA Forest Service and involve an amount in excess of

$2,500 fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act and are paid from the Claims and Judgments

Fund maintained by the Department of Treasury. The USDA Forest Service is not required to

reimburse this fund for payments made on its behalf. Pursuant to the guidance contained in

SFFAS Number 5, the USDA Forest Service recognizes an expense and liability for all

contingent liabilities determined to be probable. Those contingent liabilities that meet the

requirements for disclosure, but not recognition, are disclosed below. Once the claim is settled

or court judgment is assessed against the USDA Forest Service, and the Judgment Fund is

determined to be the appropriate source for payment of claims, the USDA Forest Service

records an imputed financing source. As of September 30, 2001, the USDA Forest Service has

two legal actions pending, which management believes, based on information provided by

legal counsel, may produce a probable adverse decision. The potential loss is estimated at

$38.4 million ($28.4 million was accrued in FY 2000).

The USDA Forest Service has other pending legal actions for which the likelihood of adverse

outcome is reasonably possible. The potential loss is estimated at $1.6 billion.

(In Thousands)

Unobligated:

Available $ 850,764

Unavailable 492,064

Undelivered Orders 1,504,834

Total $ 2,847,662
63

The USDA Forest Service in the Natural Resources Environment mission area assesses fees

for grazing, land uses, mineral leases, recreation use, recreation special uses, and sales of

timber and timber byproducts. Most fees are based on full cost, except some land use fees that

are established based on market value.

The USDA Forest Service reflects costs through four primary responsibility segments:

National Forests and Grasslands, State and Private Forestry, Forest Research, and the Working

Capital Fund. Each segment is further broken down into various programs. By portraying

costs and revenues in this manner, the USDA Forest Service is better able to identify where

costs are spent and revenues are earned. Revenues are then used to offset costs. 

The supporting schedules are presented on the following pages.

Note 17. Disclosures

Related to the

Statement of Net Cost

Supporting Schedules for

the Statement of Net Cost
64
65
66
67
68

Note 18. Disclosures

Related to the Statement

of Changes in Net

Position

The USDA Forest Service has undertaken an aggressive agency-wide project to verify its

PP&E, inventory balances, and asset valuation. As a result of this project, and so that the

general ledger would be supported by subsidiary asset systems, adjustments were made to

general PP&E and stewardship land.

Prior period adjustments for the fiscal year include the following:

USDA Forest Service has the following major permanent indefinite appropriations:

Recreation Fee Collection Costs; Timber Roads—Purchase Election Program, Roads and Trails

for States, Timber Salvage Sales, Brush Disposal, Licensee Programs; Smokey Bear/Woodsy

Owl; Restoration and Improvements of Forest Lands; Operation and Maintenance of Quarters;

Timber Sales Pipeline Restoration Fund; Recreation Fee Demonstration Program; Midewin

National Tall Grass Prairie; Land Between the Lakes Management Fund; Payment to

Minnesota; Payments to Counties—National Grasslands Fund; Payments to States—National

Forest Fund; Payments to States—Northern Spotted Owl Guarantee; Knutson-Vandenburg;

Cooperative Work; Land Between the Lakes; and Reforestation.

Monies received under the above appropriations are appropriated and made available until

expended by the USDA Forest Service to fund the costs associated with their appropriate

purpose. Federal law (16 U.S.C. Section 556d) provides that the USDA Forest Service may

advance money from any USDA Forest Service appropriation to the firefighting appropriation

for the purpose of fighting fires.

Note 19. Disclosures

Related to the Statement

of Budgetary Resources

Description of Terms of

Borrowing Authority Used

Prior Period Adjustments (In Thousands)

PP&E Ledger Adjustment

Payroll Correction

FECA-related Adjustments

Change in Fire Cache Capitalization Policy

Other

Total Prior Period Adjustments

$ 407

630,641

25,460

(54,192)

(194,675)

$ 407,641

(In Thousands)

Budgetary Resources Obligated for Undelivered Orders, 

End of Period $ 1,504,834 

Available Borrowing and Contract Authority, End of Period $ 3,635
69

Note 20. Disclosures

Related to the Statement

of Financing

(In Thousands)

A. Other Nonbudgetary Resources Used To Finance 

Operations

1. Obligations Incurred

2. Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections

3. Donations Not in the Entity’s Budget

4. Others

Total

B. Other Resources Used To Fund Items Not Part of the 

Net Cost of Operations

1. Change in Amount of Goods/Services Ordered

2. Change in Unfilled Customers Orders

3. Costs Capitalized on Balance Sheet

4. Others

Total

C. Other Net Cost Components Not Requiring or 

Generating Resources During the Reporting Period

1. Depreciation and Amortization

2. Bad Debts Related to Uncollectible Credit Reform

3. Loss on Disposition of Assets

4. Other

Total

$ 5,197,850

(698,218)

4,450

(1,278,973)

$ 3,225,109

$ 80,524

129,657

(278,092)

173,799

$ 105,888

$ 377,612

49,067

1,097

(2,887)

$ 424,889
70

(In Thousands)

A. Sources of Collections

1. National Forest Receipts

2. National Grasslands Receipts

3. General Fund Miscellaneous Receipts

4. FNCS Accrual

5. Other

Total Revenue Collected

B. Disposition of Collections

1. Amount Transferred to Treasury

2. Amounts Retained by Agencies

3. Amounts Transferred for Payments to States

Total Disposition of Revenue

C. Less: Amounts Retained by the Agency

D. Net Custodial Activity

$ 145,336

22,985

4,899

1,889

175,109

5,618

9,942

159,549

175,109

$ -

Special Fund Receipts: National Forest Fund Receipts represent revenue from the sale of

timber and other forest products. Twenty-four percent of the counties elected to receive the

traditional 25-percent payment, while 76 percent elected to receive a full payment under the

new law, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self –Determination Act of 2000. The

USDA Forest Service disbursed payments to the States in December 2001. National Grassland

Receipts represent revenue from the use of national grasslands. Twenty-five percent of these

receipts are used to make payments to counties, on a calendar year basis, in accordance with 

7 U.S.C. 1010-1012. After the payment is made, the remaining receipts are disbursed to the

Department of Treasury.

The USDA Forest Service, as of September 30, 2001, collected the following funds, of which

portions are due to the Department of Treasury. These amounts are included in Other

Liabilities as custodial liability:

Note 21. Custodial

Activity
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page A

Appendix B—U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of Inspector General Audit Report

71

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Southeast Region - Audit

401 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2328

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

TEL: 404-730-3210 FAX: 404-730-3221

DATE: February 26, 2001

REPLY TO

ATTN OF: 08401-12-At

SUBJECT: Forest Service Fiscal Year 2001 Financial Statements Audit

TO: Dale Bosworth

Chief

Forest Service

ATTN: Mary Sally Matiellia

Chief Financial Officer

Forest Service

This report presents the results of our audit of the U.S. Forest Service’s financial 

statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001. The report contains our 

disclaimer of opinion and the results of our assessment of the Agency’s internal control

structure and compliance with laws and regulations.

In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within 

60 days describing the specific corrective actions taken or planned, including the 

timeframes on our recommendations. Please note that the regulation requires a 

management decision to be reached on all findings and recommendations within a

maximum of six months from report issuance.

JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN

Acting Inspector General

73
Page ii USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

Forest Service

Audit of Fiscal Year 2001

Financial Statements

Audit Report No.

08401-12-At

February 2002

74
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FOREST SERVICE

AUDIT OF FISCAL YEAR 2001

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AUDIT REPORT NO. 08401-12-AT

PURPOSE

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended, requires

the annual preparation and audit of Federal financial statements. The

purpose of this audit is to determine whether the financial statements

present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Forest

Service in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in

the United States of America. In conjunction with the audit of financial

statements, we are required to consider Forest Service’s internal control

structure to assess whether the Agency’s plan of organization and adopted

methods and procedures were sufficient to ensure that (1) reliable financial

information was obtained, maintained and fairly disclosed in Forest

Service’s reports and(2) resources were sufficiently safeguarded against

waste, loss and misuse. We are also required to test Forest Service’s

compliance with laws and regulations that could directly affect the financial

statements.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Due to limitations on the scope of our examination, we are unable to

express, and do not express, an opinion on the Forest Service

Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2001, and the related

Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, Budgetary Resources,

and Financing for the period then ended.

United States (U.S.) Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

(GAGAS) require that we obtain sufficient, competent evidential matter to

render an opinion on the financial statements. The Forest Service was

not able to provide us with such information. Therefore, we were not 

able to perform all procedures necessary to render an opinion within the

timeframes prescribed by the CFO Act of 1990, as amended. As a result, 

75
Page iv USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

we are unable to give an opinion on the fiscal year (FY) 2001 Financial

Statements of the Forest Service because of limitations on the scope of

our work. Thus, the financial statements are unreliable.

Material internal control weaknesses existed in Forest Service’s overall

financial statement compilation process and in its procedures for compiling

the balances for Fund Balances with the U.S. Treasury (FBWT) and

General Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E). Because of these 

weaknesses, the Agency was not able to provide timely, sufficient and

competent evidential matter to support amounts in the financial statements.

The material weaknesses in internal controls, along with the lack of 

sufficient, competent evidential matter to support amounts in the financial

statements, prevented us from performing the audit in accordance 

with GAGAS and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 

No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.

Our examination of Forest Service’s internal control structure disclosed

that (1) overall financial management controls were not adequate to

ensure the collection of timely, complete, and reliable financial information

and (2) controls were not sufficient to adequately safeguard assets.

Forest Service had not performed sufficient analyses and reconciliations

of its financial system to ensure the accuracy of amounts recorded in the

general ledger and the subsidiary (detailed) ledgers prior to submitting

the unaudited statements to the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Therefore, the unaudited financial statements provided to us on 

November 15, 2001, contained numerous errors and the accompanying

footnotes were incomplete. Additionally, significant control weaknesses in

the general ledger and the subsidiary systems significantly reduced the

reliability of account balances reported on the financial statements.

While comparing a detailed trial balance with a summary level trial balance,

we noted differences in 41 general ledger accounts that resulted in a net

out-of-balance condition of $6.5 million between budgetary and proprietary

accounts. Forest Service officials explained that, while preparing the

financial statements, they discovered that the budgetary accounts did not

balance to the proprietary accounts. Rather than determining the reason

for the differences, Forest Service made adjustments to the trial balance

to bring the budgetary and proprietary accounts into balance.

Subsequently, the Agency found that 75 general ledger posting entries,

totaling almost $941 million, were not included in the Foundation

Financial Information System (FFIS) data warehouse until after the

preparation of the financial statements. The missing transactions were

the actual cause for budgetary and proprietary accounts not to balance.

76
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page v

1 TFM Vol. 1, Part 2, Chapter 3900 - Section 3915, Chapter 5100, Section 5130, and Appendix 2.

As of the date of this report, we were unable to identify the specific cause

for the entries not being posted timely.

At the end of the FY, Forest Service made 15,337 entries (debits and

credits) totaling $11 billion that affected FBWT, many of which were 

made to adjust the general ledger to the U.S. Treasury (Treasury)

records. In contrast, the FBWT line item reported on the Consolidated

Balance Sheet was $3 billion. We judgmentally selected 144 adjustments

comprising approximately $7.9 billion of the $11 billion in debits and credits,

and found that 105 of the adjustments totaling $4.7 billion were not 

sufficiently justified by the supporting documentation. Additionally, 29

adjustments, totaling $2.9 billion, had no supporting documentation. The

unsupported adjustments were made because Forest Service had not

performed required monthly reconciliations of their fund balance accounts.

Forest Service did not have controls in place to ensure the accuracy of

reports sent to the Treasury. Additionally, the Agency was not performing

timely or complete reconciliations of FBWT as required by the Treasury

Financial Manual (TFM).1 As a result, there is an increased risk of fraud,

waste and abuse related to Forest Service funds. As of September 30,

2001, the net out-of-balance condition between Treasury records and the

Forest Service general ledger as reported on Treasury’s Financial

Management Service (FMS) report 6652, Statement of Differences, was

approximately $91 million for disbursements and $152 million for deposits.

Forest Service had not performed monthly reconciliations required by 

the TFM, and continued to work on the September 30, 2001, reconciliation after we were provided the unaudited financial statements on

November 15, 2001.

Forest Service did not ensure that all collection and disbursement activity

was accurately reported to Treasury during FY 2001. This occurred because

Forest Service had not established procedures to routinely reconcile fund

balance accounts in the general ledger with data downloaded into journals

used to prepare the Standard Form (SF) 224 Report. As a result, Forest

Service failed to report 139,697 collection and disbursement transactions

totaling $18.4 million to Treasury during FY 2001.

As reported in prior years’ audits, controls over PP&E continued to be

deficient. Despite representations from management that this account

was auditable in fiscal year 2001, we found that, although a massive and

costly contract to statistically sample property items was undertaken, the

lack of adequate documentation supporting valuations was so pronounced

the audit could not be conducted. Therefore, accurate and reliable balances

could not be determined for the FY 2001 reporting period. This year's

77
Page vi USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

audit revealed that the real property is overstated by at least $570 million

(capitalized value). Additionally, our analysis of the Infrastructure (INFRA)

real property inventory universe provided on January 3, 2002, revealed

587 assets with negative book values of almost $20 million. Forest

Service units did not provide timely or adequate documentation to support

amounts recorded in the property feeder systems including INFRA,

Personal Property System (PROP) and Equipment Management

Information System (EMIS), and the subsidiary ledgers were not providing

timely or accurate depreciation expense calculations. Interfaces between

the general ledger and thesubsidiary systems were not working properly,

and the Agency had not performed reconciliations to ensure the accuracy

of amounts recorded in its financial systems. 

Our examination of Forest Service’s compliance with laws and regulations

disclosed that the Agency’s financial systems did not fully comply with the

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

(FFMIA) of 1996. Forest Service’s financial systems did not (1) provide

for the collection of timely, complete and reliable information; (2) provide

for adequate Agency management reporting; (3) adequately support 

governmentwide or Agency-level policy decisions; (4) efficiently or 

effectively facilitate the preparation of financial statements, or other 

financial reports in accordance with Federal accounting and reporting

standards; or (5) provide a complete audit trail to facilitate audits.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis, requires supplementary 

information (including stewardship information), and other accompanying

information, that contain a wide range of data, some of which does not

directly relate to the financial statements. We do not express an opinion

on this information. Based on our limited work, we found no material

inconsistencies with the financial statements or nonconformance with

OMB guidelines.

Based on the deficiencies identified during this audit, we made a series

of recommendations to Forest Service to improve its financial

management system and internal control structure. Regarding its

financial management system, we recommended that Forest Service 

(1) develop and implement a sustainable financial management plan that

includes training, and (2) establish a reliable business process for

preparing and validating the financial statements. 

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

78
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page vii

We recommended that Forest Service establish and implement internal

controls to ensure that assets are adequately safeguarded by assigning

sufficient, knowledgeable staff and performing required reconciliations

and quality control checks.

79
Page viii USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

AGENCY POSITION

Forest Service agreed with our findings and recommendations. On

January 23,2002, Forest Service initiated six strike teams with the 

objective of developing or modifying financial polices and procedures 

to achieve sustainable processes that address the following.

1. FBWT,

2. PP&E,

3. Accounts Receivable,

4. Accounts Payable,

5. Other Liabilities, and

6. the relationship between budgetary and proprietary accounts.

In addition to developing or modifying policies and procedures, each

strike team is charged with reconciling subsidiary ledgers with the FFIS

general ledger; cleaning up any erroneous historical data in the ledgers;

identifying and correcting technical problems in Forest Service’s automated

accounting systems (e.g., FFIS, INFRA, PROP, EMIS, etc.); identifying

and resolving technical problems with reporting software programs 

(i.e., Automated Cash Reconciliation Worksheet System (ACRWS)); 

and developing appropriate training material and training Forest Service

personnel to carry out sustainable accounting processes.

80
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

PURPOSE iii

RESULTS IN BRIEF iii

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS vi

AGENCY POSITION viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ix

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 1

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ON INTERNAL

CONTROL STRUCTURE 4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

CHAPTER 1 5

OVERALL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONTROLS WERE NOT

ADEQUATE TO ENSURE THE COLLECTION OF TIMELY, 

COMPLETE AND RELIABLE FINANCIAL INFORMATION 5

FINDING NO. 1 5

RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 8

RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 9

CHAPTER 2 10

CONTROLS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAFEGUARD ASSETS 10

81
Page x USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

FINDING NO. 2 10

RECOMMENDATION NO. 8 14

RECOMMENDATION NO. 9 14

RECOMMENDATION NO. 10 14

FINDING NO. 3 14

RECOMMENDATION NO. 11 18

RECOMMENDATION NO. 12 18

RECOMMENDATION NO. 13 18

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ON 

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS 19

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21

CHAPTER 3 21

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DID NOT FULLY COMPLY WITH FFMIA

REQUIREMENTS 21

FINDING NO. 4 21

ABBREVIATIONS 25

82
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Washington, D.C. 20250

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TO: Dale Bosworth

Chief 

Forest Service

We attempted to audit the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet of the Forest

Service as of September 30, 2001, and the related Statements of Net Cost, Changes

in Net Position, Budgetary Resources, and Financing, for the FY then ended. The

financial statements are the responsibility of Forest Service management.

GAGAS require that we obtain sufficient, competent evidential matter to render an

opinion on the financial statements. However, the Forest Service was unable to provide

such information. Therefore, we were not able to perform all procedures necessary to

render an opinion within the timeframes prescribed by the CFO Act of 1990, as

amended. As a result, we are unable to render an opinion on the FY 2001 Financial

Statements of the Forest Service because of limitations on the scope of our work.

Thus, the financial statements are unreliable.

Because material control weaknesses existed in Forest Service’s overall financial

statement compilation process and its procedures for compiling the balances for FBWT

and PP&E, the Agency was not able to provide timely, sufficient and competent evidential

matter to support amounts in the financial statements. The material weaknesses in

internal controls along with the lack of sufficient, competent evidential matter to support

amounts in the financial statements prevented us from performing the audit in accordance

with GAGAS and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02.

Forest Service had not performed sufficient analyses and reconciliations of its financial

systems to ensure the accuracy of amounts recorded in the general ledger and 

the subsidiary (detailed) ledgers prior to submitting the unaudited statements to OIG.

Therefore, the unaudited financial statements provided to us on November 15, 2001,

contained numerous errors and the accompanying footnotes were incomplete. Many 

of the conditions observed during this year’s audit were reported in our FY 2000 financial

statement audit, and have yet to be adequately addressed by the Forest Service.

83
Page 2 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

During our attempts to perform interim testing, we were not able to obtain reliable data

extracts to test items such as revenue, accounts receivable, accounts payable and

undelivered orders. Forest Service does not utilize FFIS to generate standard reports

such as accounts receivable and accounts payable listings at the Agency-level as of a

period of time. Because of the complexities of the system and Forest Service’s business

processes such as that used for cost distribution, Forest Service, the Office of Chief

Financial Officer, and OIG spent much time and effort attempting to extract information

from FFIS, resulting in delays in completing fieldwork at 41 selected Forest Service

units. Since these delays made it impossible for us to complete interim testing before

yearend testing started, we refocused our work on FBWT and PP&E because of their

importance to the Department's consolidated statements. However, ultimately, Forest

Service units were unable to provide timely, adequate documentation to support those

amounts either.

Forest Service did not have controls in place to ensure the accuracy of reports sent 

to the Treasury. Additionally, the Agency was not performing timely or complete 

reconciliations of FBWT as required by the TFM. As a result, there is an increased 

risk of fraud, waste, and abuse related to Forest Service funds. As of September 30,

2001, the net out-of-balance condition between Treasury’s records and the Forest

Service general ledger, as reported on Treasury’s Report FMS 6652, Statement of

Differences, was approximately $91 million for disbursements and $152 million for

deposits. Forest Service had not performed monthly reconciliations required by the

TFM, and continued to work on the September 30, 2001 reconciliation after we were

provided the unaudited financial statements on November 15, 2001.

As reported in prior years’ audits, controls over PP&E continued to be deficient, and

accurate and reliable balances could not be determined for the FY 2001 reporting period.

Forest Service units did not provide a) timely or adequate documentation to support

amounts recorded in the subsidiary ledgers, and property feeder systems, including

INFRA, PROP and EMIS, or b) timely or accurate depreciation expense calculations.

Interfaces between the general ledger and the subsidiary systems were not working

properly, and the property subsidiary systems were not accurately computing depreciation

expenses or accumulated depreciation.

Due to the extent of the limitations noted above, we were not able to satisfy ourselves

as to the value of Forest Service’s assets, liabilities and net position as of September

30, 2001, as well as its net costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, and

reconciliation of net costs to budgetary obligations for the FY then ended. Therefore,

we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on these financial statements.

84
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 3

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of Forest

Service, OMB, and Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by

anyone other than these specified parties.

JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN

Acting Inspector General

February 14, 2002

85
Page 4 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

TO: Dale Bosworth

Chief 

Forest Service

We attempted to audit the accompanying financial statements of the Forest Service, as

of, and for the FY ended September 30, 2001, and have issued our report thereon,

dated February 14, 2002. In planning and performing our audit, we considered Forest

Service’s internal control over financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the

Agency’s internal control structure, determined whether internal controls had been

placed in operation, assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls in order to

determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the

financial statements. We limited our internal control testing to those controls necessary

to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. We did not test all

internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982, such as those controls relevant to

ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our audit was not to provide assurance

on internal control. Consequently, we do not provide an opinion on internal control.

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily

disclose all matters that might be reportable conditions. Under standards issued by the

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, reportable conditions are matters

coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of

the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the Agency’s

ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the

assertions by management in the financial statements. Material weaknesses are

reportable conditions in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal

control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements

in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited

may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal

course of performing their assigned functions. Because of inherent limitations in internal

controls, misstatements, losses, or noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be

detected. However, we noted certain matters discussed in the following findings involving

the internal control and its operation that we considered to be reportable conditions

and material weaknesses.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Washington, D.C. 20250

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE

86
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 5

Our review of Forest Service's FY 2001 financial statements disclosed

that internal controls over the Agency's financial reporting process were

not adequate to ensure the collection of timely, complete and reliable

financial information. Specifically, we could place no reliance on the trial

balances used to generate the financial statements because Forest

Service failed to provide us with a single, approved, reliable trial balance

taken directly from the FFIS general ledger to support the financial 

statements. This occurred because Forest Service management had not

established a reliable and effective business process to prepare the

financial statements. Further, we could place no reliance on data in the

FFIS general ledger because Forest Service made 98,445 entries (debits

and credits) to the general ledger totaling in excess of $69.4 billion; many

of which were unsupported, unapproved, or erroneous. Significant 

adjustments that were not part of a normal yearend closing were made in

a very short period of time after the end of the FY to compensate for the

lack of controls over financial reporting throughout the entire year. (See

Finding Nos. 2 and 3.)

Unreliable Trial Balances

We could place no reliance on the trial balances used to generate the

financial statements because Forest Service failed to provide us with a

single, approved, reliable trial balance taken directly from the FFIS 

general ledger to support the financial statements. In fact, Forest Service

provided us with multiple versions of its trial balance; none of which

could be traced directly to the statements.

During our review of the unaudited financial statements, Forest Service

provided us with seven different trial balances to support the statements.

We could place no reliance on spreadsheets Forest Service purported to

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING NO. 1

OVERALL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

WERE NOT ADEQUATE TO ENSURE THE 

COLLECTION OF TIMELY, COMPLETE AND 

RELIABLE FINANCIAL INFORMATION

CHAPTER 1

87
Page 6 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

represent its general ledger balance because the trial balances provided

were not taken directly from the general ledger and the Agency made

unsupported changes and inappropriate adjustments to "plug" the

accounts into balance. 

While comparing a detailed trial balance with a summary-level trial balance,

we noted differences in 41 general ledger accounts that resulted in a net

out-of-balance condition of $6.5 million between budgetary and proprietary

accounts. Forest Service officials explained that, while preparing the

financial statements, they discovered that the budgetary accounts did not

balance to the proprietary accounts. Rather than determining the reason

for the differences, Forest Service made adjustments to the trial balance

to bring the budgetary and proprietary accounts into balance.

Subsequently, the Agency found that 75 general ledger posting entries,

totaling almost $941 million, were not included in the FFIS data 

warehouse until after the preparation of the financial statements. The

missing transactions were the actual cause for budgetary and proprietary

accounts not to balance. As of the date of this report, we were unable to

identify the specific cause for the entries not being posted timely.

Unreliable General Ledger

We could place no reliance on data in the FFIS general ledger because

Forest Service made 98,445 entries (debits and credits) to the general

ledger totaling in excess of $69.4 billion. Many of these significant 

adjustments were unsupported, unapproved, or erroneous, because they

(1) were not part of a normal yearend closing and (2) were made shortly

after the end of the FY to compensate for having no controls over financial

reporting throughout the entire year. 

• At the end of the FY, Forest Service made 15,337 entries (debits 

and credits) totaling $11 billion that affected FBWT, most of which 

were made to adjust the general ledger to Treasury records. In 

contrast, the FBWT line item reported on the Consolidated Balance 

Sheet was $3 billion. We judgmentally selected 144 adjustments 

comprising approximately $7.9 billion of the $11 billion in debits and 

credits, and found that 105 of the adjustments totaling $4.7 billion 

were not sufficiently justified by the supporting documentation. 

Additionally, 29 adjustments, totaling $2.9 billion, had no supporting 

documentation. The unsupported adjustments were made because 

Forest Service had not performed required monthly reconciliations of

their fund balance accounts. (See Finding No. 2.)

88
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 7

• We concluded that the adjustments had caused material misstatements

in some accounts. For example, Forest Service made three adjustments

totaling approximately $200 million to increase accounts receivable 

and decrease FBWT in order to "plug" the general ledger into 

agreement with Treasury records, rather than determine the reason 

for the differences. We concluded that the entries resulted in a $200

million overstatement of Accounts Receivable because there was no

evidence that any entity or entities owed Forest Service this amount.

Supporting documentation disclosed that the adjustment would be 

reversed in FY 2002 and further researched. This condition was also

reported in last year’s audit when we identified a $261 million 

overstatement in the Balance Sheet line item titled Cash and Other 

Monetary Assets caused by Forest Service’s attempt to adjust 

FBWT to Treasury records without determining the reasons for the 

differences. Although Forest Service reversed the erroneous entry to

Cash and Other Monetary Assets during FY 2000, the Agency never

researched the differences during FY 2001.

• Forest Service did not ensure that large dollar adjustments were 

posted accurately to FFIS. For example, on August 29, 2001, Forest 

Service made two adjustments to balance the FFIS general ledger 

with the INFRA subledger as of September 30, 2000. Forest Service

intended to decrease the total capitalized value in FFIS by almost 

$1.4 billion and to decrease the accumulated depreciation by 

approximately $1.3 billion. The purpose of these two adjustments 

was to force FFIS to match INFRA. However, the adjustments 

entered into FFIS were truncated and the capitalized value was only 

decreased by approximately $14 million and the accumulated 

depreciation only decreased by approximately $12.7 million. Forest 

Service did not become aware that the adjustments were posted 

incorrectly until December 18, 2001, after repeated requests from 

OIG that the FFIS general ledger be reconciled to the INFRA subledger.

• Forest Service overstated accounts receivable and earned revenue 

by approximately $21.7 million by twice entering an adjustment to 

create an unbilled receivable for a reimbursable agreement.

Because of the deficiencies noted above, we could place no reliance on

the Forest Service's general ledger and trial balance. Therefore, Forest

Service should develop and implement a sustainable process to improve

financial management that incorporates the following recommendations.

89
Page 8 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

RECOMMENDATION NO. 1

Identify key financial and nonfinancial managers and staff, at both the

Washington Office and field locations, whose support is critical to the

success of financial management improvement and make them 

accountable for improving financial management.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2

Provide training to change the Agency’s culture in order to make financial

management improvement an Agency-wide priority. Educate nonfinancial

managers on how to use financial information to improve operational

planning and decision-making.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 3

To establish a reliable and effective business process for preparing 

the financial statements, identify all major functions performed by the

financial management team (e.g., FBWT, accounts receivable). For each

major function, develop and implement written procedures to establish

management controls and efficient business processes over all financial

activities, including adjustments to the general ledger.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 4

Prepare financial statements from a single, official trial balance that has

been verified for accuracy and approved by Forest Service management.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 5

Establish a procedure to validate that the general ledger is in balance for

budgetary and proprietary accounts and includes all recorded transactions

prior to preparing yearend financial statements.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 6

Ensure that all accounting adjustments are adequately supported and

have been reviewed and approved by Forest Service management.

Adjustments should be supported by documentation sufficient to enable

auditors to independently verify that the transactions are proper.

90
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 9

RECOMMENDATION NO. 7

Ensure that all system deficiencies are documented, forwarded to the

system owner and monitored for correction.

91
Page 10 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

FINDING NO. 2

CONTROLS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO 

SAFEGUARD ASSETS CHAPTER 2

We found that controls were not sufficient to safeguard assets. Internal

control improvements are needed for FBWT and PP&E to ensure that

Forest Service assets are adequately safeguarded. Internal controls over

the safeguarding of assets relates to the prevention or timely detection of

unauthorized transactions and unauthorized access to assets that could

result in losses that are material to the financial statements. Good internal

controls are necessary to help prevent or detect material losses that

could result from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of assets. 

Forest Service’s Consolidated Balance Sheet, as of September 30,

2001, reported total assets of approximately $8.48 billion. The total

FBWT and PP&E comprise a combined total of $7.95 billion or 94 percent

of Forest Service total assets.

We have reported since 1992, and continue to report this year, that the

Forest Service’s FBWT accounts have not been properly reconciled with

Treasury records. We attribute the FY 2001 deficiencies to Forest

Service's failure to establish and/or follow adequate internal control and

business processes, and not assigning sufficient, knowledgeable staff to

this task. Forest Service's balance sheet, as of September 30, 2001,

reported total FBWT of approximately $3 billion; 35 percent of its total

assets. We extended our review of FBWT until January 31, 2002, but as

of that date, we were still unable to determine the correct FBWT amount.

The FBWT account is an asset account representing the future economic

benefit of monies that can be spent for authorized purposes. Forest

Service accumulates its fund balance from numerous disbursement and

receipt transactions, which are recorded in its Standard General Ledger

(SGL) and related sub accounts. Forest Service is required to report

monthly its disbursement and receipt activities to Treasury on a SF 224,

Statement of Transactions. Treasury then takes this report and compares

the data against comparable data submitted by financial institutions and

Treasury Regional Finance Centers, and notifies Forest Service of any

differences on a Statement of Differences Report (FMS 6652). Forest

Service is then required to investigate and reconcile these differences,

and report any required adjustments. Additionally, Treasury reports to

92
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 11

Forest Service its month-end account balance on an Undisbursed

Appropriation Account Ledger (FMS 6653). Forest Service must also 

reconcile its FBWT accounts to this closing balance. These reconciliations

and verifications of financial information are critical internal controls that

ensure the integrity of the Forest Service’s accounting system. Although

there are several reports and forms used by Forest Service and Treasury

in the reconciliation process, the most critical are the SF 224 and the

FMS 6652.

Prior to April 2000, Forest Service shared functions with the National

Finance Center (NFC) for reconciling its FBWT. Since then, Forest Service

has assumed sole responsibility for this function. However, when Forest

Service assumed this responsibility, it did not establish and/or follow

required processes and controls to ensure that the reconciliations were

done timely and properly, and that reports to Treasury were accurate.

This breakdown of management control is illustrated by the following

examples.

• As of January 31, 2002, Forest Service had not resolved FY 2001 

FBWT transaction differences of $152 million in deposits and $91 

million in disbursements between its records and Treasury’s 

records as reflected on the FMS 6652 report.

• Forest Service did not accurately report all activity on its SF 224 to

Treasury because it did not routinely reconcile the SF 224 to its 

general ledger. Specifically, throughout FY 2001, it did not report a

total of 139,697 collection and disbursement transactions on the 

SF 224’s. These transactions totaled $18.4 million.

• Forest Service did not reconcile differences of $26.4 million 

between the FMS 6653, Appropriation Account Ledger, and its 

general ledger, and differences of $82 million between the FMS 

6655, Receipt Account Ledger, and its general ledger.

Differences on the FMS 6652 Report were not resolved.

Forest Service did not adequately resolve differences on the FMS 6652

report. Forest Service had not performed required monthly reconciliations

during the FY and had not adequately investigated and cleared the 

differences as of the end of our fieldwork. Since assuming the responsibility

for the reconciliations in April 2000, Forest Service had not assigned 

sufficient, knowledgeable staff to complete the reconciliations. Even

93
Page 12 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

though we have reported the lack of adequate reconciliations as a material

internal control deficiency for several years, Forest Service management

failed to properly monitor the reconciliation process, underestimated the

resources needed to accomplish this critical task, and did not ensure that

appropriate corrective actions were taken throughout FY 2001.

A November 29, 2001, letter to Forest Service from Treasury Financial

Management Service’s Cash Analysis Branch expressed concern that

Forest Service had not cleared unreconciled Statements of Differences

for six or more months. The letter emphasized that

Timely reconciliation guards the Government’s cash assets from

waste, fraud and abuse. Timely reconciliation assures that your agency

is properly managing the budget authority granted by Congress and

reduces the Treasury’s need to borrow from the public.

Treasury also offered to provide training or long-term on-site assistance

to Forest Service in performing the reconciliations.

During FY 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented a new

reconciliation tool, ACRWS, to support the Department's cash reconciliation

efforts. Detailed transactions from the FFIS general ledger and from

Treasury’s Government On-line Accounting Link System (GOALS) are

loaded into ACRWS, and matched to produce listings of unmatched 

collection and disbursement transactions so that the Agency can more

efficiently identify and research the reasons for the differences reported

on the FMS 6652. Implementation issues involving the set up and use of

ACRWS hampered Forest Service’s reconciliation efforts. According to

Agency officials, data downloaded to ACRWS during FY 2001 was not

timely, accurate, and complete for the following reasons.

• For the first three months of the FY, Forest Service did not have 

security clearances to download data from GOALS. NFC had 

downloaded Treasury information from GOALS for Forest Service 

during those three months. However, the data files were overwritten

before the information was loaded into ACRWS.

• Nightly download files from the general ledger were not always 

created.

• Transmission errors occurred while the data was being downloaded

from the general ledger.

• Periodically, download routines would crash, and the database 

administrators would not always restart the downloads properly 

(i.e., steps in the download were skipped).

94
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 13

The lack of accurate and complete data in the ACRWS tool impeded

Forest Service’s ability to identify and timely correct differences between

their records of collections and disbursements and Treasury records. 

If Forest Service had established quality assurance checks to reconcile

data downloaded to ACRWS with fund balance accounts in the general

ledger, the Agency would have discovered that all transactions had not

been downloaded from FFIS to ACRWS. 

All activity was not reported to Treasury on the SF 224

Forest Service did not ensure that all collection and disbursement activity

was accurately reported to Treasury during FY 2001. This occurred

because Forest Service had not established procedures to routinely 

reconcile fund balance accounts in the general ledger with data downloaded

into journals used to prepare the SF 224 report. The downloads from the

FFIS general ledger to the SF 224 journals are performed using the

same software routine as downloads from the general ledger to ACRWS.

Therefore, the same issues that caused inaccurate and incomplete 

downloads from the FFIS general ledger to ACRWS also caused the SF

224 reports to be inaccurate and incomplete. As a result, Forest Service

failed to report 139,697 collection and disbursement transactions totaling

$18.4 million to Treasury during FY 2001. If reconciliations had been 

performed, Forest Service would have discovered the errors before

reporting to Treasury.

Amounts on the FMS 6653 and FMS 6655 reports were not reconciled to

the general ledger.

Forest Service did not reconcile differences of $26.4 million between the

FMS 6653, Appropriation Account Ledger, and its general ledger, and differences of $82 million between the FMS 6655, Receipt Account Ledger,

and its general ledger. These reconciliations are also required by

Treasury, and serve important functions.

• Reconciliations between the FMS 6653 and the Agency’s general 

ledger are important to help identify spending transactions 

originating from other agencies’ that impact Forest Service’s FBWT.

• Reconciliations between the FMS 6655 and the Agency’s general 

ledger are important to help ensure that all of Forest Service’s 

collections and deposits are properly recorded.

95
Page 14 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

The lack of reconciliations between the Agency’s general ledger and the

FMS 6653 and FMS 6655 reports also hinders the Forest Service’s ability

to effectively monitor its budgetary resources and allocate the resources

to program operations.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 8

Develop and implement written procedures for performing routine 

reconciliations as required by Treasury.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 9

Assign sufficient, knowledgeable staff to perform the reconciliations.

Accept Treasury's offer to provide training and assistance with the FBWT

reconciliation process.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 10

Establish quality control checks to ensure that all collection and 

disbursement transactions in the general ledger are reported to 

Treasury on the SF 224 reports and loaded to ACRWS.

As reported in prior years’ audits, controls over general property, plant

and equipment were deficient to the extent that accurate balances could

not be determined. The control weakness continued for the FY 2001

reporting period. Forest Service units did not have adequate documentation

to support amounts recorded in the property inventory feeder systems

including INFRA, PROP, and EMIS, and the subsidiary ledgers were 

not providing timely or accurate depreciation expense calculations.

Interfaces between the general ledger and the subsidiary systems 

were not working properly, and the Agency had not performed timely 

reconciliations between the general ledger and subsidiary systems to

ensure the accuracy of amounts recorded on its financial statements.

Even though much effort has been placed in attempting to improve the

recording and reporting of property assets, we continue to find deficiencies

in Forest Service’s controls over recording and reporting asset values to

the extent that we cannot opine on, but do question, the accuracy of the

$4.96 billion value reported on the September 30, 2001, balance sheet

for general property, plant, and equipment.

FINDING NO. 3

96
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 15

As of September 30, 2001, Forest Service reported on its balance sheet

general property, plant, and equipment values totaling $4.96 billion or

58 percent of total assets. Of the $4.96 billion, real property assets were

valued at $4.4 billion and personal property assets at $553 million. 

Real Property Assets

Forest Service accounts for real property as either individual items such

as a single building or pools of like assets such as roads. Our review of

the pooled and individual asset account balances as of September 30,

2001, disclosed (1) values for many assets were not properly supported, 

(2) material differences between values recorded in the general ledger

and those recorded in the property inventory records were not reconciled

and properly adjusted, (3) material negative book balances were not

investigated to determine their causes and to correct the account balances,

and (4) values for pre-1995 pooled assets were duplicated. Because of

the deficiencies, we question the accuracy of the $4.4 billion value for real

property assets as reported on the September 30, 2001, balance sheet.

Pooled assets - During FY 2000, Forest Service, in cooperation with OIG,

developed a methodology for valuing pre-FY 1995 road cost. Forest

Service developed cost matrices to estimate road prism and surfacing

costs. Our review of the FY 2000 financial statements found that the cost

matrices were supportable and properly applied to roads constructed

prior to FY 1995; therefore, the values recorded for pre-FY 1995 assets

were reliable. However, this year's audit revealed that the pre-FY 1995-

pooled assets were overstated by at least $570 million (capitalized

value). Forest Service's accounting practices provides for charging road

costs to the road prism, road surfacing, or minor culverts accounts.

Because minor culverts are considered part of road prism/surface cost,

the accounting practice calls for closing out, at yearend, the minor culvert

costs to one of the other two accounts as appropriate. Although the $570

million was divided, as appropriate, and transferred to the other two

accounts, Forest Service overlooked closing (zeroing) out that amount

from the minor culverts account resulting in a duplication of capitalized

costs and overstatement on the balance sheet.

In this year's audit, we found that the values for some roads constructed

during and after FY 1995 were not adequately supported. At 35 Forest

Service units visited, auditors judgmentally selected the year with the

largest expenditures for road prism, road surfacing, and culverts. 

As of January 31, 2002, the units were not able to provide supporting

documentation for almost $6 million (15 percent) of the $40.5 million in

costs recorded for the selected years. For example, one National Forest

97
Page 16 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

had erroneously capitalized $1.6 million received in FY 1997 for repair

and replacement of road culverts damaged during a flood. However,

repairs were not made, and this money was not used, as of our fieldwork

in September 2001.

Individual Real Property Assets - Our prior audits of Forest Service’s

financial statements dating back to FY 1992 have reported longstanding

deficiencies in values recorded for individual real property assets. Such

assets consist of Buildings, Administrative Sites, Recreation Sites,

Improvements to Recreation Sites, Dams, and Utility Systems.

In FY 1996, Forest Service and OIG worked together to determine ways

to value assets for which no documentation existed to support the costs.

The assets may have been acquired decades ago and their cost either

was never documented or documentation was not retained. A hierarchy

was developed for property acquired prior to FY 1995 so that it could 

be valued utilizing acceptable information in prior Forest Service accounting

records or utilizing valid appraisals or cost estimates. Actual documentation

was required for assets acquired during or after FY 1995. However, our

financial statement audits for FY’s 1997 through 2000 disclosed that the

Forest Service field units were not following the documentation requirements

and that the Agency’s records still contained significant errors and many

values were not supported with sufficient documentation.

To evaluate the propriety of the reported property value as of September

30, 2001, we statistically sampled 400 individual real property assets

recorded in the property inventory system. An additional sample of 

187 assets was randomly selected during field visits to check back to the

property inventory records to evaluate completeness of the records. Of

the total 587 sampled assets, we questioned the values associated with

288. For example, the auditors sent 107 of the 288 questioned sample

assets to independent appraisers for valuation because there was no

documentation to support the values or the documentation provided 

obviously misstated the assets' values. Because of the extent of valuation

errors, and lack of reliable information, we could not determine the effect

on the balance sheet at the completion of fieldwork.

Our analysis of the INFRA real property inventory universe provided on

January 3, 2002, revealed 587 assets with negative book values of

almost $20 million. Therefore, the total net book value of the real property

assets was understated by $20 million on the balance sheet. Forest

Service had not performed analyses on the property records to determine

the cause of the irregularities. Therefore, proper adjustments to the

inventory account balances were never made.

98
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 17

We also found inaccurate reporting for Construction in Progress (CIP) 

of real property assets. Forest Service reported, as of September 30, 

2001, $47 million as CIP. Forest Service provided us a reconciliation

showing $23 million recorded in INFRA as CIP as of September 30,

2001. Our analysis of the INFRA data showed only $15 million recorded

in CIP. On February 6, 2002, Forest Service advised us that they were

unable to provide a firm CIP value. The difference occurred because

Forest Service units had improperly (1) established job codes to capture

CIP costs, (2) included reconstruction of individual real property assets

as CIP, (3) included pooled assets such as road costs as CIP, and

(4) recorded CIP costs directly into an asset account even though the 

assets had not been placed into service. Also, a posting model error in

FFIS resulted in some CIP transactions not being fed from FFIS into the

INFRA subledger.

Personal Property Assets

Forest Service had not reconciled values in its personal property feeder

systems with the FFIS general ledger and made necessary adjustments.

When reconciliations were attempted in December 2001, the Agency found

significant differences between the EMIS and PROP feeder systems and

FFIS. These out-of-balance conditions were not fully reconciled and properly

adjusted. Therefore, we question the accuracy of the $553 million value

for personal property reported on the September 30, 2001, balance sheet.

Personal property assets consisted of primarily vehicles and computer

equipment. Forest Service records its personal property in one of two

systems, PROP for General Fund property or EMIS for Working Capital

Fund Property (e.g., vehicles, nursery assets, and computer systems).

PROP and EMIS are subsystems of the Property Management

Information System that integrates fiscal accounting with property

accountability. PROP and EMIS were interfaced with FFIS during FY

2000, so that all Agency financial data would be reflected in one system.

After repeated requests from OIG for the PROP and EMIS reconciliations,

Forest Service identified the following differences between the property

systems and general ledger that had not been resolved and adjusted as

necessary.

• EMIS had over $57 million more in capitalized value and $62 

million more in accumulated depreciation than was recorded in FFIS.

• NFC reconciliations disclosed that there were other differences 

between PROP and FFIS. PROP showed $4 million more 

99
Page 18 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

RECOMMENDATION NO. 11

Prior to preparing the balance sheet perform frequent analyses of 

property records to identify abnormal book balances and make 

necessary corrections.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 12

Reconcile differences between property inventory records and the general

ledger routinely and make necessary fiscal adjustments.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 13

Update property procedures and the desk guide to include current standard

accounting requirements and ensure staff is properly trained.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of Forest

Service, the OMB and Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by

anyone other than these specified parties.

JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN

Acting Inspector General

February 14, 2002

capitalized value than FFIS for equipment and $10.3 million less in 

capitalized value than FFIS for software. The reconciling differences

(absolute value of $86 million) were due to (1) duplicate recording,

(2) not recording assets in one of the systems, and (3) use of 

incorrect document types.

We also found that 30 aircraft acquired as Heritage Assets were improperly

recorded in the general ledger at a capitalized value of approximately

$11.8 million, with a book value of approximately $5.4 million. Values

should not be recorded for Heritage Assets.

100
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 19

TO: Dale Bosworth

Chief 

Forest Service

We attempted to audit the accompanying financial statements of the Forest Service as

of and for the FY ended September 30, 2001, and have issued our report thereon

dated February 14, 2002.

The management of Forest Service is responsible for compliance with laws and 

regulations applicable to the Department. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance

about whether the Principal Financial Statements are free of material misstatement,

we performed tests of Forest Service’s compliance with certain provisions of laws and

regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the

determination of financial amounts and certain other laws and regulations specified in

OMB Bulletin 01-02, including the requirements referred to in the FFMIA of 1996. We

tested compliance with: 

• Antideficiency Acts of 1906 and 1950;

• Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950;

• Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended;

• Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996;

• Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996;

• FMFIA of 1982; and

• Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

As part of the audit, we reviewed management's process for evaluating and reporting

on internal control and accounting systems, as required by the FMFIA, and compared

the Forest Service's most recent FMFIA report, with the evaluation we conducted of

the Forest Service's internal control structure. Providing an opinion on compliance with

certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an objective of our audit, and

accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Washington, D.C. 20250

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

101
Page 20 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Forest Service's financial management systems substantially comply with (1) the Federal Financial Management

System Requirements, (2) applicable accounting standards, and (3) the SGL at the

transaction level. To meet this requirement, we performed tests of compliance with

FFMIA, Section 803(a).

The results of our tests disclosed instances, described in our "Findings and

Recommendations" section, where the Forest Service's financial management systems,

as a whole, did not substantially comply with two of the three requirements in the 

preceding paragraph. Our review did not disclose any material instances of 

noncompliance with the SGL at the transaction level.

Material instances of noncompliance are failures to follow requirements, or violations

of prohibitions, contained in law or regulations that cause us to conclude that the

aggregation of the misstatements resulting from those failures or violations is material

to the financial statements, or the sensitivity of the matter would cause it to be perceived as significant by others. The results of our tests of compliance with the laws

and regulations described in the preceding paragraphs exclusive of FFMIA disclosed

instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government

Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin 01-02. Material instances of noncompliance

noted during our audit are presented in the "Findings and Recommendations" section

of this report.

102
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 21

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING NO. 4

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DID NOT FULLY COMPLY

WITH FFMIA REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 3

Forest Service’s financial systems did not substantially comply with the

FFMIA because they did not (1) provide for the collection of timely, 

complete, and reliable financial information; (2) provide for adequate

Agency management reporting; (3) adequately support governmentwide

or Agency-level policy decisions; (4) efficiently or effectively facilitate the

preparation of financial statements, or other financial reports in accordance

with Federal accounting and reporting standards; or (5) provide a complete

audit trail to facilitate audits.

The FFMIA of 1996 was passed to improve Federal financial management

by ensuring that financial management systems could provide reliable,

consistent disclosure of financial data. FFMIA requires each Agency to

implement and maintain systems that comply substantially with:

• Federal financial management system requirements,

• Applicable Federal accounting standards, and

• SGL at the transaction level.

FFMIA requires, among other things, that agencies implement and maintain

financial management systems that substantially comply with federal

financial management system requirements. These requirements are

detailed in the Financial Management Systems Requirements series

issued by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program and 

in OMB Circular A-127, Financial Management Systems, and OMB’s

Implementation Guidance for the FFMIA, issued September 9, 1997.

The financial management systems in the Federal Government must be

designed to support the vision articulated by the Government’s financial

management community. This vision requires financial management 

systems to support the partnership between program and financial 

managers and to assure the integrity of information for decision-making

and measuring of performance, including the ability to:

103
Page 22 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

• Collect accurate, timely, complete, reliable, and consistent information;

• Provide for adequate Agency management reporting;

• Support governmentwide and Agency level policy decisions;

• Support the preparation and execution of Agency budgets;

• Facilitate the preparation of financial statements, and other 

financial reports in accordance with Federal accounting and 

reporting standards;

• Provide information to central agencies for budgeting, analysis, 

and governmentwide reporting, including consolidated financial 

statements; and

• Provide a complete audit trail to facilitate audits.

Collection of Timely, Complete, and Reliable Information

Because Forest Service management had not established a reliable and

effective business process to prepare the financial statements, and

because material unsupported, unapproved, or erroneous yearend

adjustments were made to compensate for the lack of controls over

financial reporting throughout the year, the Agency could not generate

timely, complete, and reliable financial information. (See Finding No. 1.)

As a result, the financial statements are unreliable. 

Adequate Agency Management Reporting

Forest Service had not established procedures to facilitate adequate

Agency management reporting. As a result, the Agency did not accurately

report all disbursement and collection activity on the Treasury SF 224,

Statement of Transactions, reports and did adequately resolve and report

back on whether Treasury needed to make adjustments based on the

FMS 6652, Statement of Differences. (See Finding No. 2.)

Additionally, the General Accounting Office (GAO), based on a request

from a member of Congress, had prepared a response, dated September

21, 2001, stating that GAO was "precluded from making an accurate

determination of the total federal costs associated with timber sales 

program for fiscal years 1998 and 1999", because of "serious accounting

and financial reporting deficiencies" that existed at Forest Service during

that period. The report pointed out that OIG had not been able to render

104
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 23

an opinion on the Agency’s annual financial statements because its 

financial systems did not produce timely and reliable financial 

management information. As reported in Finding Nos. 1 through 3 of 

this report, those conditions still exist.

Support of Governmentwide or Agency-Level Policy Decisions

Forest Service was not performing timely or complete reconciliations of

the differences on the FMS 6652 for FBWT as required by Treasury, 

As Treasury officials pointed out in a November 29, 2001, letter to Forest

Service: "Timely reconciliation assures that your Agency is properly 

managing the budget authority granted by Congress and reduces the

Treasury’s need to borrow from the public." Additionally, the lack of 

reconciliations between the agency’s general ledger and the FMS 6653

and FMS 6655 reports hinders the Forest Service’s ability to effectively

monitor its budgetary resources and allocate the resources to program

operations. (See Finding No. 2.)

GAO’s September 21, 2001, response regarding the timber sales program

also pointed out that there is a need for an accurate accounting of timber

costs to help ensure proper program management and accountability and

to serve as a basis for estimating future costs when preparing budgets, and

Forest Service had in the past produced the reports based on responses

to the directions and expectations of certain committees in Congress.

Efficiently and Effectively Facilitate the Preparation of Financial Reports

Forest Service had not timely performed analyses and reconciliations

necessary to ensure the accuracy of amounts recorded in the general

ledger, recorded in subsidiary (detailed) ledgers, or amounts reported to

the Treasury. We could place no reliance on the trial balances used to

generate the financial statements because Forest Service was unable to

provide us with a single, approved reliable trial balance taken directly from

the FFIS general ledger to support the financial statements. Additionally,

we could place no reliance on data in the FFIS general ledger because

Forest Service made material unsupported, unapproved, and erroneous

adjustments at yearend to compensate for the lack of controls over 

financial reporting throughout the entire year. (See Finding No. 1.)

Complete Audit Trail 

Forest Service did not provide sufficient documentation to allow OIG to

trace trial balance summary totals back to originating general ledger

account balances. 

105
Page 24 USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of Forest

Service, the OMB and Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by

anyone other than these specified parties.

JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN

Acting Inspector General

February 14, 2002

All issues discussed in this finding have been discussed and related 

recommendations made, in our Report on Internal Control Structure.

106
USDA/OIG-A/08401-12-At Page 25

ABBREVIATIONS

A

ACRWS: Automated Cash Reconciliation Worksheet System viii

C

CFO: Chief Financial Officers Act iii

CIP: Construction in Progress 17

E

EMIS: Equipment Management Information System vi

F

FBWT: Fund Balance with the U.S. Treasury iv

FFIS: Foundation Financial Information System iv

FFMIA: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act vi

FMFIA: Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 4

FMS: Financial Management Service v

FY: Fiscal year iv

G

GAGAS: Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards i

I

INFRA: Infrastructure iii

O

OIG: Office of the Inspector General vi

OMB: Office of Management and Budget iv

P

PP&E: Property, Plant and Equipment iv

PROP: Personal Property Management System vi

S

SF: Standard Form v

SGL: Standard General Ledger 10

T

TFM: Treasury Financial Manual v

Treasury: U.S. Treasury v

U

U.S.: United States iii

107

109

Appendix C—Performance Information
110

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service FY 2001 Revised Annual

Performance Plan committed the agency to delivering a range of natural resource-based

benefits for the American people based on the 1997 USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan goals

and objectives. The USDA Forest Service’s 1997 strategic goals are:

Goal 1. Ensure sustainable ecosystems.

Goal 2. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems.

Goal 3. Ensure organizational effectiveness.

For each strategic objective, agency leadership and program staffs developed annual

performance goals to attain the long-term goal in the strategic plan. The performance data in

this report is measured against the goals established in the Revised Annual Performance Plan

for FY 2001.

The USDA Forest Service put a new system in place for field-based reporting starting with the

FY 2001 end-of-year accomplishment reports. Individual forests enter data into spreadsheets

and provide reasons if performance data is outside of a +/- 5 percent range of the targets.

Individual forest data is consolidated into a national database for regional and national review,

validation, and analysis. This system is intended to incorporate a USDA Office of Inspector

General (OIG) recommendation (from report 08-001-0001-HQ June 2000) for implementing

reasonableness checks into the reporting process.

In October 2000, the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) was published and

describes what the agency intends to accomplish during the next 5 to 10 years. The goals and

objectives of this revised strategic plan will provide the basis for the FY 2002 Annual

Performance Plan and subsequent reports. The FY 2002 performance management process

begins to move the agency toward measuring outcomes (changed conditions) rather than

outputs (work activities). In FY 2002, the focus items are (1) Public and Employee Safety,

(2) Benefits to Communities, (3) Forest and Rangeland Health, (4) Recreation/Wilderness/

Heritage Resources, and (5) the National Fire Plan (NFP).

The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, and budget each play an

important role in performance management. The USDA Forest Service budget provides a

framework for meeting the goals by describing the actual "on-the-ground" work that needs to

be done. In FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service defined a set of corporate-wide activities that

will better define on-the-ground work. The USDA Forest Service continues to work on

improving the quality of the data that measures its work activities.

The following pages provide narratives of each annual performance goal for FY 2001.

Performance Information

Introduction
111

* Management Attainment Reporting 

** National Forest System

*** Roads Accomplishment Report

Objective 1.1. Healthy, biologically diverse and resilient aquatic ecosystems 

restored and protected to maintain a variety of ecological conditions and benefits.

Overview 

Many activities, including land treatments and road decommissioning, contribute to the

improvement of watershed conditions and fisheries habitat. Protection and rehabilitation of

the soil resource contribute to sustainable fish populations by reducing the amount of soil

transported to lakes and streams. Returning unnecessary roads to forest through decommissioning also lessens adverse impacts to forest resources such as water quality and fish

habitat. 

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 133 percent of its land treatment goals and 85

percent of road decommissioning necessary for improving watershed conditions. The need to

conduct a project-level roads analysis, allowing for a public review and comment period, and

the publication of an environmental assessment prevented full accomplishment of the

decommissioned roads target. Because of these requirements, some level of variance in the

projection of targets will always be present.

Annual Performance Goal 1.1.1. Improve and protect wetland, riparian, and aquatic

functions, processes, and associated values by restoring impaired soil and water

conditions and improving inland and anadromous fish habitat in unsatisfactory condition.

Performance

Measures

# acres of land

treatments to 

protect and

improve watershed

conditions on

NFS** lands

# miles of roads

decommissioned

MAR*

RAR***

35,562

2,907

29,899

2,545

23,946

2,560

31,863

2,164

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual

FY 2001 Performance by

Strategic Goals

Goal 1. Ensure 

sustainable ecosystems
112

The implementation of the National Fire Plan (NFP) is well under way. Many watershed

restoration project plans were developed and will be out for public review. The Burned Area

Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) program plays a major role in emergency watershed

stabilization where wildfires destroy ground cover and reduce the ability of the soil to absorb

moisture. Many BAER projects were completed after the fires of 2000, especially in the

Northern Rockies and in New Mexico. 

Program Evaluations

The BAER review examined exigency stabilization efforts from the fires of 2000. The review

team developed several findings. Concerns from the findings include (1) understanding the

essential emergency and avoiding mission creep (solving problems that were there before the

fire and the solution of which is not really the responsibility of the fire), (2) the shortage of

local experienced BAER team leaders and personnel, (3) effectiveness of the Region 1 and

Region 4 BAER Area Coordination Team, (4) coordination with fire management organizations and other agencies, (5) financial tracking, (6) BAER treatment effectiveness and

predictions, and (7) personnel safety.

Conclusions and Challenges

The ability of the water supply system in the Western United States to meet the needs of a

rapidly growing urban population is at risk. Future efforts at watershed restoration will need to

incorporate innovative approaches and methods. As part of the community-based, Large-Scale

Watershed Restoration Program,15 projects across the continental United States were

developed. These multiyear projects were developed in collaboration with Federal, State,

local, and tribal governments and nongovernment entities.

To successfully implement watershed improvement projects, resources are required to

complete the basic soil survey inventory on some national forests, define landscape problems,

and prioritize land management activities. Finally, the USDA Forest Service must develop and

integrate effective actions that are responsive to a variety of independent acts and concerns.

By focusing on management activities and investments, the USDA Forest Service will comply

with the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, NFP, and other legislative requirements.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

The roads accomplishment data is the result of reporting actual work accomplished at the

forest level. The data is collected at the forest level and aggregated first at the regional level

and finally into a national accomplishment. At the forest level the data is collected by road

program managers and verified by budget personnel. The forest data is reviewed at the

regional and Washington levels for reasonableness. In addition, road monitoring activities are

conducted on approximately 25 percent of the 382,000 miles of road in the National Forest

System (NFS) each year. Limited budgets prevent additional monitoring.
113

1 Accomplishments from all funding sources, including contributed funds.

2 Timber Activity Control System

3 This corrects the accomplishment incorrectly reported in FY 2000. 

Objective 1.2. Ecological integrity of forest and rangeland ecosystems restored 

or protected to maintain biological and physical components, functions and 

interrelationships, and the capability for self-renewal.

Annual Performance Goal 1.2.1. Restore forest land identified as needing restoration; use a variety of treatments to maintain, improve, and restore forest land to

ensure ecological integrity; and aggressively treat noxious weed infestations that

pose a threat to rangeland health.

Performance

Measures

Land restored by 

reforestation (acres) 1

Forest land maintained or

enhanced by stand 

improvement (acres) 1

NFS forest and grassland

ecosystems protected and

restored using timber sales

(acres)

Treatment of harvest-related

woody fuels—brush 

disposal (acres)

NFS forest and grassland

ecosystems protected and

restored using noxious

weed treatments (acres)

NFS forest and grassland

ecosystems protected 

and restored by treating

rangelands (acres)

Hazardous fuels reduction

(acres)

Percent of most efficient

level (MEL) for firefighter

production capability

Land ownership consolidated

through acquisition and

exchange to facilitate

restoration and protection

(acres)

TRACS2

Silva

TRACS

Silva

TRACS

Silva

MAR

MAR

MAR

NFP Info

NFMAS

MAR

267,013

262,786

448,746

108,896

87,000

5,000,000

1,412,281

69

488,835

217,2153

223,634

340,148

93,459

121,946

4,074,880

772,375

74

214,740

185,002

205,721

400,000

109,982

85,000

5,000,000

1,800,000

100

129,686

195,593

283,855

248,471

90,682

143,938

4,539,798

1,361,697

97

164,035

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual
114

Overview 

Forest and grassland ecosystems on NFS lands are protected and restored through various land

treatment efforts. Timber stand improvement and reforestation provide watershed

improvement benefits by preventing unnecessary stream sedimentation, providing cover for

wildlife, and improving the resilience of ecosystems. Timber stand improvements also benefit

forest health by reducing stand density or eliminating unwanted vegetation, thereby allowing

desired vegetation to grow more vigorously while reducing the potential for insect and disease

outbreaks and high-intensity fire. Noxious weed treatment returns the vegetative community

to a more natural state and restores land productivity by treating invasive weeds that threaten

native plant communities. Prescribed fire and other fuel-reduction treatments enhance forest

and range health by reducing the intensity of wildfires, protecting vulnerable wildland-urban

interface areas, promoting forage production, and maintaining fire-dependent ecosystems.

Finally, firefighting capability is necessary to ensure that fires are controlled for firefighter and

public safety, for property and resource protection, and to minimize large wildland fire

suppression costs.

Land ownership consolidation, through acquisition or exchange, enables the agency to better

manage Federal lands within or adjacent to NFS boundaries and focus its efforts on improving the

aquatic, forest, and rangeland ecosystems. The land acquisition program centers on acquisitions

that will improve outdoor recreation, protect critical wildlife habitat, and preserve cultural

resources. Many of the lands acquired are private inholdings within congressionally designated

areas such as wilderness, wild and scenic river corridors, and national recreation areas.

Historically, timber sale receipts under the Knutson-Vandenburg (K-V) trust fund have, in

part, supported reforestation and timber stand improvement activities. The K-V fund is used

for reforesting timber sale areas to improve timber growth and product quality. K-V funding is

declining, however, because of a reduction in timber sales. The challenge is to find other

sources of funding so that these critical programs can be continued at the levels necessary to

meet agency priorities for reforestation and timber stand improvements. In FY 2001, the

USDA Forest Service successfully increased total reforestation and timber stand improvement

accomplishments despite the decline in K-V funds. Protection and restoration of ecosystems

are enhanced through noxious weed treatment, which returns the vegetative community to a

more natural state and restores land productivity by treating invasive weeds that threaten

native plant communities. Direction for implementing these activities and others is found in

forest plans, project plans, and biological opinions. 

FY 2001 Performance

Restoring forest land is accomplished through many activities. The following paragraphs

describe specific actions taken to maintain, improve, and restore forest lands to ensure

ecological integrity. When evaluated in the aggregate, the USDA Forest Service accomplished

the annual goal set for FY 2001.

Nationally, the USDA Forest Service accomplished 106 percent of the goal for lands restored

by reforestation. Favorable spring moisture conditions contributed to greater success

throughout the West.
115

Timber stand improvement accomplishments were 127 percent of plan because additional

funds from the NFP were available to do precommercial thinning and release work. In

addition, the contributed funding component of the USDA Forest Service’s service-wide total

exceeds 42,000 acres—much higher than has historically been the case.

Brush disposal accomplishment was 82 percent of the target. Successful brush disposal

accomplishment depends on several conditions so that burning can be conducted safely. For

this reason, some level of unpredictability in setting targets is always present.

Noxious weed treatment activities accomplished 169 percent of the target in FY 2001. In

addition, another 27,237 acres of treatment were accomplished with contributed funds. This

reflects the priority that the national forests are putting on this very important program. The

fires of FY 2000 created a situation that allowed for an increase in noxious weeds on Federal

lands. More emphasis was placed on this program to alleviate problems that stemmed from

the previous fire season.

The amount of rangelands restored and protected was 91 percent of the target in FY 2001.

Rangeland treatments can be accomplished only after National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) reviews are completed. Because of limited resources, implementation of NEPA-based

decisions often cannot be made by the end of the fiscal year. With personnel assigned to other

duties, implementation was less than originally planned. 

The number of acres treated using timber sales declined because of lower market prices for

logs on new sales and decisions in the marketplace to delay harvesting of sold timber until

prices for logs increase. The FY 2001 target for acres treated using timber sales was based on

historical accomplishments and trends rather than on an analysis of expected market

conditions. External market factors cannot be reliably predicted; consequently, variability will

always exist. Actual accomplishments were also different because this is a relatively new

measure for which the agency has little experience in setting targets. 

The hazardous fuels reduction accomplishment was below target, primarily because of

increased treatment costs directly related to additional complexities and restrictions when

treating hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface. Additional protective measures must

be taken to ensure safe execution, quick mop-up, and extinguishment of prescribed burns. It is

also important to apply the right intensity of fire, during the right season of the year, under the

right weather and fuel conditions, to ensure achieving prescribed fire plan objectives. Burns

were not conducted when all of these factors did not coincide.

The agency was able to implement firefighter production capability at 97 percent of its most

efficient level (MEL). This accomplishment equates to an availability of 10,750 firefighters;

1,107 engines; 502 prevention units; 65 Type I Hot Shot crews; 39 air tankers; 98 helicopters;

and 277 smokejumpers.

The agency accomplished 126 percent of its target for land ownership consolidated through

land acquisition and exchange.
116

Program Evaluations

The Washington Office conducted a nursery program review in FY 2000. The main finding of

this review was that anticipated USDA Forest Service reforestation needs for the next 3 to 5

years would be insufficient to provide for economically viable nursery operations. The review

explored a number of management options to overcome this situation and a final action plan

was approved in FY 2001. This plan outlines a variety of actions that will more fully use the

capabilities of USDA Forest Service nurseries toward meeting the needs of its customers.

A national team conducted land ownership adjustment program oversight evaluations for all

regions in FY 2001. Evaluations were completed to ensure that land exchanges are processed

consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Evaluations were also conducted to

ensure that regions demonstrate proper management of delegations and third party activities,

and provide regional oversight for their land ownership adjustment program. 

The Washington Office conducted a review of the noxious weed program within the Northern

and Intermountain Regions of the USDA Forest Service. While the review found that partners

at the Federal, State, and local levels are working collaboratively on cooperative weed

management projects, it identified significant challenges to overcome. These challenges are

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

As a result of the severe fire season in FY 2000, the FY 2001 U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI) and related agencies appropriation increased the USDA Forest Service’s funding to

combat wildland fires, to hire additional firefighters, and to take proactive steps that reduce the

risk of catastrophic damage. Oversight reviews have provided both on-the-ground accountability

and a tool to make course corrections for the NFP in the future. The following bullet points

provide a sampling of oversight mechanisms used to evaluate the implementation of the NFP.

• National Fire Plan Overview. An interdisciplinary USDA Forest Service team with DOI

representatives made visits to all regions and many communities, counties, and States. The

purpose was to offer a general oversight, assess the successes and failures, and identify

compliance issues. The intention is to identify changes in national direction or policy

needed to better implement the NFP.

• Large Fire Cost Reviews. The USDA Forest Service and DOI conducted large fire cost

reviews in regions that experienced large fires to assess the effectiveness of fire suppression

actions and cost efficiency.

• Performance Measures. Joint performance measures are currently being developed for the

goals identified in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy.

• Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) Activity Reviews. These reviews were conducted in

Regions 1, 5, and 10, and took a comprehensive look at regional FAM program

management. 
117

• National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Report. The report concentrates on the

following six areas from the 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy:

* Management accountability;

* Interagency coordination;

* Intergovernmental coordination;

* Risk management improvement;

* Workforce management; and

* Lessons learned institutionalization.

Conclusions and Challenges

Reforestation work arising from wildfires occurring during the summer of 2000 has created

additional demands. A challenge the agency faces is in completing the required analysis and

planning steps and consultation with other agencies in a timely manner to promptly reforest

areas in need. Where it is necessary to remove dead and damaged timber, the timely removal

of this material represents an additional challenge to achieving reforestation goals. 

One of the primary challenges for the timber stand improvement (TSI) program is to secure a

significant amount of additional funding to stabilize or reduce the growing number of acres in

need of thinning or release treatments. At current rates of accomplishment, it will take more

than 10 years to complete the current TSI needs; with each passing year, the need for TSI

treatment continues to grow. At some point, all stands will progress to a condition in which

the needed TSI treatments will no longer meet treatment objectives. When that happens, TSI

treatments may no longer be effective and, because of insects, disease, wildfire, and other

disturbance events, stands will become more susceptible to loss.

USDA Forest Service nursery production has been declining for several years because of

reduced timber harvests, a shift in emphasis to intermediate treatments rather than

regeneration harvests, and increased reliance on natural regeneration rather than planting to

achieve reforestation objectives. In addition, more emphasis is being placed on the production

of a more diverse mix of species to meet multiple project needs.

Findings and conclusions from the USDA Forest Service Washington Office review 

of the noxious weed program suggest available funding falls short of the needs to accomplish

the job that exists in the field. In addition, the accounting and accomplishment reporting

system at the national level may not be adequate to identify and track the agency’s

accomplishments under NFP funding. The review also found that forests have not received

letters of concurrence to continue the use of herbicides for the treatment of noxious weeds

from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The review concluded that to win the

"war" on noxious weeds, new, more effective biocontrol agents are needed. 

A significant increase in noxious weeds occurred on areas burned in FY 2000; in general,

treatments were undertaken with NFP funds. 
118

The purpose of making land ownership changes is to facilitate management of the system or

reduce administrative costs by obtaining an optimum pattern of land ownership and resources

to meet the public’s current and future needs. Over the next several years, key opportunities

will come about to exchange or purchase lands from industry and other private landholders for

NFS purposes. Many areas within or immediately adjacent to existing national forests contain

important resources that, if acquired, will help the USDA Forest Service meet critical

objectives related to public outdoor recreation opportunities, critical wildlife habitat,

wilderness, or other congressionally designated areas, and improve management efficiency

and decrease administrative costs associated with property management. 

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

into the Silva database of the Timber Activity Control System (TRACS). This system is

managed in conformance with the direction provided in the Timber Management Information

System Handbook (FSH 2409.14), Chapter 60, Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement.

National reports are generated from this database.

Land ownership case information is entered on Land Exchange or Purchase Digest Sheets

(forms FS-5400-10 or FS-5400-9) at the field level in conformance with direction provided in

the Land Acquisition Handbook (FSH 5409.13). The acquired acreage reported on these

digest sheets is then entered into the Management Attainment Reporting (MAR) system by

each unit for national reporting.

Hazardous fuel treatment data are reported initially by national forests to regional offices

where data is reviewed for accuracy and correlation with assigned targets. Upon review and

verification, data is submitted to the Washington Office where further review and verification

of regional data occur prior to compilation for national totals. For FY 2001, all data was

compiled through the NFP reporting procedures.
119

* Performance Measurement Accountability System

** Forest Health Protection

Annual Performance Goal 1.2.2. The USDA Forest Service will encourage

restoration efforts on non-industrial private forest (NIPF) lands through stewardship

management plans, stewardship practices, and watershed restoration activities.

Overview

The 9.9 million NIPF landowners control 48 percent of the Nation’s forests, but less than 10

percent of them have written forest management plans. Stewardship management plans and

multiresource practices on these non-Federal forest lands help enhance forest and rangeland

health across the entire landscape. 

Acquisitions under the Forest Legacy Program help protect environmentally important forests s 

threatened by con ersion to non-forest uses. v Forest Legacy Program accomplishments are

tracked by acres of land acquired through full fee or conservation easements resulting from

real estate transactions that typically run 12 to 24 months from initiation to closing. Therefore,

budget allocations in a fiscal year may not result in acres acquired in the same fiscal year. In

addition, the voluntary nature of the program is an external factor that creates a wide margin

of uncertainty in setting targets. If transactions are delayed or if they fail, fewer acres will be

accomplished in that year.

Forest health surveys and evaluations generate important information on both Federal and

cooperative lands. This information allows treatment priorities to be refined to address critical

needs, such as reducing insect, disease, and invasive species threats. The biggest challenges

facing the Forest Health Protection (FHP) Program are the identification and protection of

acres at risk to insects, diseases, and exotic plants.

Performance

Measures

NIPF lands under approved

stewardship management

plans (acres) 

Legacy Project Acquisition

(acres)

Forest health surveys and

evaluations, Federal and

cooperative lands (million

acres)

PMAS*

PMAS*

FHP**

1,866,000

19,281

788

1,437,360

29,614

737

1,579,600

200,000

788

1,616,986

84,709

615

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual
120

FY 2001 Performance

Forest stewardship plans prepared in FY 2001 covered 1,616,986 acres—102 percent of the

acreage target—in 16,585 plans. This is a reversal of the recent downward trend in number of

plans prepared, indicating that efforts to reach more landowners may be starting to be

successful. 

The Forest Legacy Program continues to meet its objectives. By purchasing conservation

easements and fee simple titles from willing owners, the program fosters protection and better

use of forested lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses. It also results in new and

enhanced partnerships with State agencies and nongovernmental organizations and provides

them with the capacity to conserve important and sensitive forests.

The number of acres acquired under the Forest Legacy Program was below target because of

an error in establishing the target figure. The target reported in the FY 2001 plan was

erroneously set at the cumulative number of acres acquired up to and including FY 2001

(including prior year acquisitions) instead of expected acres to be acquired with FY 2001

appropriations. At the completion of FY 2001, the Forest Legacy Program has protected more

than 207,000 acres, exceeding the cumulative target of 200,000. Future reports will reflect the

best estimate of accomplishment in a given fiscal year. Cumulative totals will be reported in

the narrative section to track overall progress of the program.

The FHP Program surveyed 78 percent of the targeted acres on Federal and cooperative lands.

Resources for prevention and control of exotic invasive species were redirected to emergency

invasive species and bark beetle suppression issues. In addition, fewer acres were surveyed

because survey planes were used for firefighting, some flights were cancelled because of

inclement weather, and flights were restricted after September 11, 2001, due to national

security issues. 

It is difficult to identify a single measure of "Forest Health Acres Protected" as a result of 

on-the-ground activities. We continue to develop a measure that adequately captures the

outcomes these efforts are intended to achieve. Several examples that illustrate the benefits

achieved from these activities are as follows:

• During 2001, the FHP Program reduced acres at risk from insects and diseases by

protecting more than 1 million acres on Federal lands and 700,000 acres on 

cooperative lands. 

• The gypsy moth Slow the Spread (STS) Program was implemented on more than 89 million

acres in nine States. 

• Pest management suppression funding was used to deal with outbreaks of invasive weeds in

Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana; hemlock woolly adelgid infestations in the Northeast; and

bark beetle infestations in the Rocky Mountain States. Funding was also used to conduct a

risk assessment for and eradication of Sudden Oak Death disease in California. 

The FHP Program also cooperated with the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) on a pest risk assessment for eucalyptus logs and chips in Australia and on a

successful pilot test for the early and rapid detection of exotic bark beetles near nine ports and

for detecting nun moths near ports in Oregon and New Jersey. 
121

The Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) component of FHP is the only program focused solely

on monitoring forest health in the United States. The FHM program enables the early

detection and evaluation of changes in health conditions, and their timely consideration in

resource policy decisions. FHM is now operational on 72 percent of the plot component and

97 percent of the survey component in the 50 States. Reports produced by FHM include three

national technical reports, three regional assessments, and many State reports. Funds from

FHP were used for about 25 evaluation monitoring projects nationally, including evaluations

of potential and emerging problems based on FHM detection monitoring data, and on firerelated forest health concerns based on a national competition. Urban forest health monitoring

was pilot tested in three cities in three States.

Program Evaluations

No Forest Stewardship or Forest Legacy Program evaluations were undertaken at the national

or regional level during FY 2001. Regional offices are on a regular schedule to evaluate all

programs delivered by State forestry agencies; they conducted some reviews in FY 2001.

Conclusions and Challenges

A major challenge for the landowner assistance programs is to continue to provide highquality assistance to NIPF landowners, while at the same time reaching far more landowners

than have been reached in the past. NIPF lands provide more than 60 percent of the Nation’s

timber supply, yet are generally managed without the benefit of technical assistance and

knowledge. Increasing pressure on these lands heightens our responsibility to ensure

knowledgeable stewardship. Another challenge is to focus the scarce resources for this

program on high-priority areas. The USDA Forest Service has been working with State

forestry agencies to focus technical assistance on landowners with high-priority areas and will

continue this trend in the future.

The growing Forest Legacy Program has expanding appeal to States, nongovernmental

partners, and Congress. Increases in program funding to $65 million for FY 2002 and the

introduction of seven additional participating States bode well for future accomplishments.

The uncertainty associated with real estate transactions and voluntary participation by private

landowners, however, inherently makes target setting more art than science.

This year, overall, the FHP Program was highly successful in obtaining financial assistance to

support Sudden Oak Death disease investigations in California, obtaining emergency

suppression funding to contain bark beetles in the South and West, and implementing the STS

Program. The FHM component has successfully moved to a new phase by targeting its efforts

on evaluation monitoring in urban forests, and potential and emerging problems such as

monitoring invasive weeds. The FHP Program also conducted a successful pilot test for

detecting exotic insects near nine ports of entry to prevent the spread of exotics at U.S. borders. 
122

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Data for these indicators is collected yearly through the USDA Forest Service Performance

Measurement Accountability System (PMAS). The data collection starts at the State forestry

offices, is verified and validated at the USDA Forest Service regional offices, and then is

summarized at the USDA Forest Service Washington Office. This process depends on the

priorities of State forestry personnel, often superseded by State priorities such as wildfires. 

The Forest Legacy Program has initiated a national database through the National Information

Center in St. Paul, MN, associated with the Northeastern Area. This Web-based system provides

the information technology to frequently update information and improve knowledge of project

status. This enhanced data flow will increase the ability to estimate project completion dates and

to form accurate target estimates in future years.
123

* Threatened, endangered, and sensitive.

Objective 1.3. An increased amount of habitat capable of supporting viable 

populations of all native species and support desirable levels of selected species.

Annual Performance Goal 1.3.1. The USDA Forest Service will work with 

regulatory agencies and others to conserve species listed as threatened or 

endangered or identified as sensitive.

Overview 

Stream and lake improvements are designed to restore and improve habitats for inland,

anadromous, and threatened and endangered aquatic species. Examples of habitat

improvements include (1) reducing sediment input and streambank erosion through structural

and nonstructural in-stream, riparian, and upland treatments; (2) restoring riparian habitat

functions for the natural recruitment of large wood; (3) creating pools within streams,

providing hiding cover for fish; (4) accumulating spawning gravel; (5) removing or modifying

human-made barriers to allow free movement of aquatic life throughout the stream; and (6)

increasing lake fertility. 

Performance

Measures

# miles of inland stream

improved for fish habitat

# miles of anadromous

stream improved for fish

habitat

# miles of aquatic TES*

species stream improved for

fish habitat

# acres of inland lake 

habitat improved 

# acres of anadromous lake

habitat improved

# acres of aquatic TES

species lake habitat

improved

# acres of terrestrial wildlife

habitat restored or

enhanced

# acres of terrestrial TES

species habitat restored or

enhanced

MAR

MAR

MAR

MAR

MAR

MAR

MAR

MAR

1,164

715

315

11,362

4,939

45

184,527

82,247

883

601

203

11,321

6,748

78

132,580

59,793

1,492

623

240

9,361

5,729

90

155,860

90,690

1,090

618

485

12,526

4,406

1,496

166,785

74,338

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual
124

Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement efforts focus on a variety of species

including threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES), management indicator, and focal

species. These programs help restore and improve habitats to maintain the diversity, viability,

and productivity of wildlife and rare plant species, and thus provide for their use and

enjoyment by current and future generations. Examples of habitat improvements include using

prescribed fire; maintaining early successional habitats, such as savannahs and grasslands;

regenerating aspen and oak; planting and seeding to improve forage conditions; developing

water in arid lands; and reintroducing species. 

Conservation and recovery of wildlife, fish, and TES species and their habitats continue to be

major challenges, both on NFS lands and jointly through partnerships with other land

managers. Challenges to achieving conservation and recovery objectives include identifying

important habitats for non-TES species and applying the most effective activities to maintain,

improve, or restore these habitats.

Wildlife, fish, and rare plant programs need to be better identified and objectives set in

national forest land and resource management plans. A lack of focus and clarity can hinder the

accomplishment of these programs.

Another challenge facing the USDA Forest Service is to recruit and train field biologists

necessary for completing district, forest, and regional programs of work.

FY 2001 Performance

The national forests accomplished 93 percent of their targets in improving stream habitats,

121 percent of their goal in improving lake habitats, and 107 percent of their goal in

improving terrestrial habitats.

Program Evaluations

An extensive review took place in Region 10 (Alaska) with fisheries partners (FISHNET).

Several recommendations were developed to improve the fisheries program, including

improvements for staffing levels, priority setting, monitoring, opportunities to better

coordinate with recreation, accountability, subsistence management, and more. A 

followup review to measure progress is scheduled to occur within 2 years.

Conclusions and Challenges

The USDA Forest Service is challenged with providing more resources (funding and qualified

personnel) to manage habitat to maintain viable populations and provide for diverse and

sustainable wildlife, fish, and rare plant species. For example, NFS lands provide habitat for

415 listed species and 2,900 sensitive species. The USDA Forest Service must increase

knowledge of management needs; develop or adopt conservation and recovery strategies and

implement strategies to achieve recovery objectives; and meet appropriate statutory,

regulatory, and policy requirements that apply. The agency will continue to work well with

State, Federal, and nongovernmental partners, who are cornerstones of these programs. 
125

Concern exists regarding agency performance in providing ecological conditions, habitats, and

desirable trends for TES and non-TES terrestrial and aquatic species. If priorities for

protecting, restoring, and maintaining important habitats are not accomplished, more

population declines may occur, resulting in additional species becoming listed as threatened,

endangered, or sensitive. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported the need to

address fish passage to ensure progress in aquatic species conservation and recovery. 

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data entry

sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range 

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing "reasonableness" checks in the reporting process.
126

Annual Performance Goal 1.3.2. Prepare conservation agreements or strategies

to guide resource management efforts for a portion of the approximately 2,100

identified sensitive species.

Overview 

Conservation and recovery of TES animal and plant species and associated habitats is a basic

and challenging management goal. More than 410 species listed as threatened or endangered

depend on national forests and grasslands, and an additional 2,900 species have been

designated by the USDA Forest Service as "sensitive" because of concerns for their viability.

Recovery plans and species management strategies provide the direction for habitat

protection, improvements, and mitigation measures essential to species recovery. Providing

appropriate ecological conditions for these species is integral to meeting the agency’s mission

and legal requirements to provide for plant and animal community diversity, species viability,

and species recovery.

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service accomplished significant recovery and conservation results for 354

sensitive species and 218 threatened and endangered species. The total number of agreements,

strategies, and recovery plans exceeded the target by 53 percent. 

Program Evaluations

No program evaluations were conducted in FY 2001. 

Conclusions and Challenges

A key milestone for the future is providing the ecological conditions needed by TES and other

management indicator species or focal species on national forests and grasslands. In addition

to developing and implementing recovery and conservation actions, the agency will track

status and trends in population, habitats, and ecological conditions for selected species.

During FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service continued this process on all national forests and

grasslands. For each of these species, priority management actions are being identified,

including management needs for essential habitats. Information management database

modules are being developed to facilitate identification of priority management actions at

bioregional, landscape, and project levels.

# signed conservation

agreements, strategies, and

recovery plans

MAR 269 314 375 572

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual

Performance

Measures
127

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. 

The new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range of

the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing "reasonableness" checks in the reporting process.
128

*Research Budget Attainment Information System

Objective 1.4. Better ecosystem management decisions based on the best available

scientific and management information.

Overview

The mission of USDA Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) is to develop,

demonstrate, and disseminate scientific information and technologies to protect, manage, and

sustainably use those renewable resources in rural, suburban, and urban areas. The knowledge

and research products provided by the agency’s R&D scientists contribute considerably to

maintaining and improving the health and productivity of forest, rangeland, and aquatic

ecosystems, as well as providing important information for USDA Forest Service policies and

programs. With a wide-ranging and inclusive knowledge base, land managers are afforded

improved management alternatives, the benefits of which extend across all 50 States and U.S.

territories, covering both public and private lands.

FY 2001 Performance

USDA Forest Service R&D surpassed its performance target in FY 2001, producing 8,021

research products, tools, and technologies transferred to users. A simple tabulation of the

numbers of research products, however, clearly is not sufficient to convey the breadth and

depth of the agency’s R&D program. Several accomplishments are highlighted in the

following paragraphs, while others are featured throughout this annual report to demonstrate

how scientific knowledge and research products contribute to resource sustainability.

Progress is being made in enhancing the economic value of small and

underutilized timber. In the inland West, millions of acres of forest land are overstocked

with small and underutilized material that historically has not been worth enough to cover the

cost of its removal. The trees growing in these overstocked conditions, which are in part a

result of past policies favoring immediate suppression of all wildfires, are now accentuating

fire risk and are subject to insect and pathogen attacks. Scientists in USDA Forest Service

R&D, working in cooperation with USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry (S&PF),

have been investigating ways to make treatment of small diameter and underutilized material

economical. Because this material is so abundant, this research will benefit not only forest

owners, but also many local resource-dependent communities. 

Annual Performance Goal 1.4.1. Develop and provide to managers the scientific

and technical information needed to manage and sustain the forests and 

rangelands of the Nation.

# research products, 

tools, and technologies

transferred to users

RBAIS* 5,175 6,719 5,704 8,021

Data

Source

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2001

Actual

Performance

Measures
129

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide may promote tree growth, but only

temporarily. Agency scientists and cooperators showed forests growing under increased

atmospheric carbon dioxide grow faster for only short periods in fertile soils; there is no

increase where soils are infertile due to nutrient and water limitations. Results indicate active

resource management, including fertilization, is necessary to continue benefits from increased

carbon dioxide. Older models projecting plant use of atmospheric carbon as a partial solution to

global warming must at least be reevaluated to incorporate the new information. Policymakers

should not assume that plant growth constantly increases because of increasing carbon dioxide.

New tools and knowledge for risk assessment, detection, and management of

nonnative invasive species. Two threats, the Asian longhorned beetle and Sudden Oak

Death pathogen, have killed thousands of trees in the United States and are a major concern in

Europe. These pests are subject to emergency eradication and regulatory action. Scientists

studying Asian longhorned beetle movement successfully tested an acoustical detection device

that finds and identifies the pests in trees before the infestation is otherwise evident. Tests of

chemical and microbial agents show promise for controlling the pest. Assessment of risk from

Sudden Oak Death disease has been a priority for national and international regulatory and

management decisions. USDA Forest Service scientists and university cooperators determined

that tree species common in eastern oak forests are susceptible to the disease organisms, a

finding having far-reaching implications for trade and forest health.

Fire research is fundamental in a national initiative to aggressively prevent and

suppress wildfires. More than 200 studies by USDA Forest Service scientists were begun

in 41 States to address knowledge and technology gaps in fire management and restoration of

burned lands. Early results from studies are being conveyed quickly and effectively to users;

76 percent of research findings in FY 2001 were provided to land managers in the form of

bulletins, training, and consultations.

The estimated rate of carbon sequestration derived from land inventories is

validated. The Forest Service Global Change Research Program analysis of Forest Inventory

and Analysis (FIA) data, compared and reconciled with independent atmospheric

measurements, revealed the causes of historic changes in carbon stored in forests throughout

the Nation. This advance in carbon cycle science is relevant to national policy formation

regarding management of greenhouse gases because of the significant role for forests in

regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

New knowledge prevents the introduction, spread, and impact of invasive

species. In FY 2001, research revealed the landscape level impacts of balsam woolly adelgid

on plants other than its host in the Willamette Valley, the Puget Sound trough, and along

coastal streams. Other monitoring tests were aimed at urban-based early detection of invasive

pests escaping from ports into nearby forests, and rangeland protocols to monitor invasive

plants associated with the degradation of natural areas. Special emphasis was placed on those

species that increase disturbances such as wildland fires.
130

Findings on elk-cattle riparian interactions help guide forest planning. It was

demonstrated that grazing by cattle and elk in streamside meadows could reduce riparian

habitat critical for the survival of threatened and endangered fish and rare plants in the

Southwest. These results were used by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest to modify

guidelines for grazing permitted in the land management plan. The Arizona Game and Fish

Department also used these findings to protect and restore important riparian habitat on

department lands by changing the way elk populations are managed.

Improved approach helps in weighing the benefits and costs of urban forests.

Scientists have developed and tested an improved method for evaluating the benefits and costs

associated with urban forests. The method, besides providing baseline data that can be helpful

for future management, enables city officials to make more informed decisions about

appropriate levels of funding for urban forestry programs. Benefits recognized by the

community include reduced energy consumption, enhanced air quality, and improved control

of storm water runoff, carbon sequestration, climate modification, and aesthetics. Recognized

costs include the expenses associated with planting, watering, trimming, cleaning up litter,

repairing sidewalks and curbs, and removing trees and stumps.

The FIA Program conducts the Nation’s forest census. FIA monitors the extent,

condition, uses, impacts of management, and health of forests across all ownerships in the

United States. The program’s long-term monitoring effort maintains an ecological record of

the Nation’s forests, providing snapshots over time that show how forests are growing and

changing. The agency exceeded its goal of having 65 percent of forest land covered by the

Annual FIA and FHM programs. Twenty-eight States, comprising in excess of 65 percent of

the national forest land area, were fully implemented in FY 2001 under the FIA Program.

Annual survey results are available through the FIA National Presentation Database and

National Data Distribution.

Program Evaluations

To ensure the relevance and quality of information, technologies, and products, USDA Forest

Service R&D, with assistance from cooperating State and Federal agencies, universities,

industries, private organizations and individuals, and other research users, reviewed the

missions and charters of 20 percent of the research work units during the fiscal year.

In FY 2001, the Deputy Chief for USDA Forest Service R&D reestablished reviews of the

research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, and the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and instituted a new streamlined process for the Deputy Chief’s reviews. Five station

reviews took place in FY 2001. Program and operation improvements will result from the

reviews.
131

Conclusions and Challenges

Our Nation depends on public and private forests and rangelands to meet many needs.

Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean water, wildlife habitat,

recreation, and many other values, and can be more effectively managed to reduce risks from

fire and pests. Key to sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying

integrated resource management systems based on understanding natural and manipulated

biological processes. As highlighted in the previous paragraphs, accelerated research and

development by USDA Forest Service R&D scientists is helping to better manage, restore,

conserve, and enhance the productivity of the Nation’s public and private forests.

USDA Forest Service R&D judges its research and development performance considering

three complementary criteria. The first is a managerial and oversight function, such as the

Deputy Chief’s reviews highlighted. The reviews focus on how well a station is conducting

research and development in compliance with its mission, objectives, and contributions to the

agency’s mission, goals, and program.

The second criterion evaluates, through rigorous review, the scientific and technical quality 

of knowledge and products produced, as well as the agency’s standing in the national and

international research and development community. This function supports agency requests 

for funding by pointing to the high standards in disciplines that are relevant or critical to the

agency and the country. The agency will continue to add to the knowledge base, including a

scientific understanding of ecosystems and their use by humans, through a continued

commitment to quality in USDA Forest Service R&D research activities, products, and

technologies. Integral to the agency’s success is peer review of experimental designs and

analyses, and interpretation of the results. Adequate capital and human resources are needed to

support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and grasslands.

The third criterion examines USDA Forest Service R&D compliance with all Federal rules,

regulations, legislation, and expectations. Compliance issues include the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), technology transfer and cooperation with industry and

universities, project and information security and confidentiality, other regulations regarding

human resources and the management of funds, and difficulties within the Federal structure.

Due in part to instant communication of current events and the accessibility of substantial

volumes of documentation via the Internet, the public expects quick and accurate responses to

requests for information and assistance. The Government strives to meet these expectations;

where products and technologies are already available, it is able to do so. For example, USDA

Forest Service R&D has simplified the distribution of research publications to an everexpanding audience via electronic media.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

In the physical sciences, measurement is a relatively straightforward activity. Quantities such

as length, temperature, and mass may be measured using single standard units; the adequacy

of each measurement depends on the qualities of the instrument, but the standards are well

defined and widely accepted.
132

In contrast, research and development are complex and unstructured processes with 

‘unquantifiable’ dimensions and variables. The creative aspects of research and development

make direct measurement impossible. The dilemma is balancing objectivity with the

subjective selection and interpretation of measurement indicators, recognizing the cognitive

and social structure of science. Three dimensions of research and development—concept

generation, product development, and leadership—are distinct phenomena with unique 

characteristics within the innovative process of research. These dimensions are not amenable

to forced correlations and patterns, which can result in comparing apples and oranges.

Alternatively, indicators may be used as surrogates to stand for certain aspects. The degree to

which such indicators "measure" research and development performance depends on their

accuracy and quantity, and on whether any one indicator may be aggregated with others for

indexing. Empirically, this means one measure will be inherently insufficient to capture all the

information required.

The current single measure of USDA Forest Service R&D performance—number of

products—has a reasonably high bias for accuracy, precision, and repeatability. A more

plausible approach would be to use a set of performance measures that can be linked to

outcomes. A systematic design and understanding of the process by which USDA Forest

Service R&D impacts agency performance, and to which the agency remains committed to

working with users and the science community, will enable the USDA Forest Service to

identify and define meaningful performance measures for the future.
133

Annual Performance Goal 1.4.2. Provide forest land inventory on a 10-year

cycle. Conduct resource assessments at several scales on and affecting NFS

lands to support formulation of policy and programs, and to support forest-level

and project-level decisionmaking.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

% forest land FIA Annual 21 47.5 62 78 

covered by the Business

annual FIA and Report

FHM programs

Million acres of MAR 63.8* 58.7* 110.0* 124.0

above-project 

inventory 

completed

Assessments MAR 169* 130* 160* 154

completed 

*A change to how these measures are calculated occurred during FY 2001. The change corrects data provided in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan to reflect the new definition. 

Overview

The FIA Program, now in its 71st year of continuous operation, conducts the Nation’s forest

census. FIA monitors the extent, condition, uses, impacts of management, and health of

forests across all ownerships in the United States. The program’s long-term monitoring effort

maintains an ecological record of the Nation’s forests, providing snapshots over time that

show how forests are growing and changing. The record reveals that—after aggressive

clearing and cutting of the Nation’s forests from settlement through the late 19th century—the

total area of forest has recovered and stabilized.

The location, composition, and health of our forests are changing dramatically in response to

current human and environmental impacts. Assuring sustainable management of forests

requires consistent, comprehensive information on forest extent, condition, and trends across

the landscape. To rapidly track forest information at the local level and incorporate that

information into resource policy and management decisions, Federal, State, local, and private

landowners need a complete inventory on a 5-year national cycle. As a result, the FIA

Program is rapidly moving toward innovative, annual inventories.
134

The other two performance measures—integrated inventories and assessments completed—

reflect work in the Inventory and Monitoring Program managed by the Ecosystem

Management Coordination Staff. Integrated inventories meet multiple information needs for

national forests and grasslands management. 

Assessments also occur at multiple scales and provide information relevant to a broad range

of resource management activities. Broad-scale assessments are used to evaluate ecosystem

composition, structure, and processes and to evaluate indexes of ecological, social, and

economic sustainability. Findings associated with assessments are used to identify topics of

general interest or concern to be addressed in land and resource management plans.

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service exceeded its goal of having 62 percent of forest land covered by

the annual FIA and FHM Programs. Seventy-eight percent of the Nation’s forest land area

was fully covered in FY 2001 under the FIA Program. Annual survey results are available

through the development of the FIA National Presentation Database and National Data

Distribution.

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 113 percent of its target for above-project inventories

and 96 percent of its goal for number of assessments completed. Broad-scale assessments are

generally conducted for specific purposes on a forest within a defined multiforest area.

Because the purposes and sizes vary considerably, flexibility is necessary for planning,

developing, implementing, and reporting on the results of these assessments. Each successive

broad-scale assessment benefits from lessons learned from previous efforts. The Southern

Appalachian Assessment was recently completed in 2 years at relatively low cost, and the

results have been shared by a number of Federal and State agencies and have proven

invaluable in support of land and resource management planning for the region.

Program Evaluations

The FIA Program conducted continuous program evaluations through annual FIA User Group

meetings at the regional and national level, as well as through presentations and participation

in national professional meetings. The production of the annual business report that

documents program finances, staffing, outputs, and outcomes is also used in program

evaluation. In FY 2001, the program implemented an online customer survey mechanism to

help guide continuous improvement in program delivery.

Conclusions and Challenges

The FIA Program has completed 3 years of a 5-year transition plan and is on track for full

program implementation as planned by FY 2003. The growing challenge facing the program

is to ensure that agency budget requests incorporate the funding needed to fully implement the

FIA Program. These funding needs are documented in the February 2000 Memorandum of

Understanding signed between the USDA Forest Service and National Association of State

Foresters. To achieve further progress, the program will develop protocols for implementation

of the Inventory and Monitoring Framework by September 30, 2002. Additionally, the

complete annualized inventory will be initiated in all 50 States by September 2003, with State

analytical reports produced not more than 5 years after a State has implemented the

methodology, and every 5 years thereafter.
In FY 2002, the agency will revise the definitions of its inventory indicators, prepare

inventory and monitoring program plans and schedules, and develop and test protocols and

accomplishment tracking tools.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

The FIA Program includes as part of its normal operations an extensive quality assurance and

quality control (QA/QC) program to ensure that data is collected, analyzed, and reported in a

scientifically rigorous fashion. Details about the FIA QA/QC program are available on the

FIA Program Web site at http://fia.fs.fed.us. Statistical reports include analyses of QA data.

Program oversight is accomplished through peer review; technical assistance visits, including

research managers and users; and publication of an annual FIA business report.

The method for calculating the performance measure “million acres of above-project

inventory completed” was changed to better reflect the MAR data collected at the field level.

This measure represents all above-project inventories related to acres inventoried. Also, the

measure “assessments completed” now represents only landscape/watershed scale

assessments.

135
136

Objective 1.5. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of

ecosystems.

Annual Performance Goal 1.5.1. Ensure that congressionally designated

wilderness areas and their associated ecosystems are influenced by natural

processes and protected from human-caused degradation.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Overview 

The USDA Forest Service monitoring of wilderness physical and social conditions includes

soil and water chemistry, lichens, ozone damage, social surveys, wilderness use, and visibility

effects caused by air pollution. Several definitions of performance measures to account for

some or all of these disparate types of monitoring have been tried, but the results have not

provided an accurate description of the agency’s efforts. The agency will continue to refine the

definition so that its accomplishments are accurately reflected in the performance measure.

The visibility program does have a measure that represents a consistent subset of wilderness

monitoring and has been described below.

FY 2001 Performance

In FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service implemented the national network called Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). This network was funded by

various Federal, State, and tribal agencies. The program defines regional haze in all mandatory

class I areas across the country. Long-term trends are available for many sites.

The USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

published the Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Group Report. Based on 2

years of joint effort, this report sets out common approaches to visibility, ozone, and acid

deposition for the agencies. It enumerates key monitoring sites, data analysis expectations, and

contacts for air pollution sources planning to build large, new facilities. 

# acres of Class I

wilderness monitored

for physical and social

conditions

MAR 31,300 * 31,450 * 

* A definition problem was discovered in FY 2000. The clarifying guidance was not in place for a sufficient

amount of time to correct the data discrepancy for FY 2001 reporting purposes.
The USDA Forest Service has been at the formation meetings of the regional planning organizations. These groups, composed of the environmental commissioners or governors’

representatives from multiple States and tribes, are charged with developing strategies to

improve visibility and regional haze in Class I areas. This may be the single most important

and integrated approach to improving the air across the country. Only one group was active in

FY 1999; in FY 2001, the creation, staffing, by-law acceptance, and committee chartering

was completed for three others, and the first steps were taken for the fifth one. 

Program Evaluations

No program evaluations were conducted in FY 2001. In May 2001, the USDA Forest Service

reviewed the number of permit reviews with all regions. The agency evaluated the new

activity code for air quality in the budget to see if regions had requested sufficient money.

Their constraint was too limiting to allow such a change in this program. We looked at a

“swat” team approach to address the very technical issues, but it is currently not possible with

the resource constraints in the Washington Office.

Conclusions and Challenges

In the 1990’s, Congress frequently asked what percentage of the Class I wilderness areas was

being monitored. Except for one site in New Mexico, collaboration with other agencies has

allowed the USDA Forest Service to achieve almost 100 percent coverage for visibility. The

regional haze rule has as its goal the improvement of visibility on the 20-percent dirtiest days

and the prevention of impairment on the 20-percent cleanest days. Sufficient data now exists

at many sites to look at a 10-year trend in these two outcomes. The first analysis done by the

USDA Forest Service shows improving trends on 75 percent of the sites that have the

requisite data records.

The USDA Forest Service has also looked at trends for another national data set—the

National Acid Deposition Protocol network—operated by a multiagency partnership. The

trends for nitrate and sulfate deposition across the country also show some improvement from

the major air pollution efforts, especially the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. All USDA

Forest Service Class I wilderness areas in the East showed improvements over the last 10

years. The improvements are just the beginning in the East.

The regional haze rule recognized that transport of air pollution across State lines and the

interaction of different chemicals under different conditions require a more integrated look at

the pollution controls necessary to address regional haze. The Grand Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission, followed by the Western Regional Air Partnership, has worked out

many of the integrated solutions that are needed in the West. In the East, four similar groups

have been formed to do the same consideration, analysis, and pollution control strategy

development to address a much more complex (and dirtier) problem.

137
138

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. 

The new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.
Objective 2.1. Quality recreation experiences with minimal impacts to

ecosystem stability and condition.

Annual Performance Goal 2.1.1. Offer outstanding opportunities for solitude

and primitive or unconfined outdoor recreation.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# annual education MAR 551,000 568,658 555,000 411,589

contacts

Overview

The USDA Forest Service manages 63 percent of the wilderness system in the lower 48

States, and a much larger percentage of backcountry experiences. Providing high-quality,

undeveloped outdoor recreation opportunities depends upon a number of factors that must all

come together at the national forest and ranger district level. Factors that contribute to the

quality of the recreation experience include improved education and outreach on land

stewardship, land ethics, and responsible recreation. 

139

Goal 2. Provide multiple

benefits for people within

the capabilities of

ecosystems.
140

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 74 percent of the targeted annual education contacts.

While rangers are the primary point of contact for wilderness visitors, the international “Leave

No Trace” program is also used to educate visitors about minimum impact camping and other

stewardship messages. This effective tool reaches the public in a wide variety of settings. 

Wilderness rangers and other USDA Forest Service employees provided “Leave No Trace”

messages to visitors in the field and at public gatherings, such as fairs and special events.

With limited wilderness funds, managers continue to emphasize partnerships with likeminded organizations for high-quality contacts with the recreating public. 

Program Evaluations

On-site, general recreation program evaluations were conducted in Region 8 and Region 9.

No specific recommendations or findings were identified.

Conclusions and Challenges

People are visiting the forests and grasslands in record numbers. Our challenge is to meet the

soaring demand for nature’s amenities while safeguarding the health of the lands. Education

efforts must involve more partnerships to reach the growing number of users seeking 

opportunities for solitude. The USDA Forest Service will continue to refine the measures and

performance goals to accurately monitor the efforts to educate visitors and gauge their

satisfaction and preferences.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.
Annual Performance Goal 2.1.2. Provide additional recreation opportunities,

including special uses such as outfitter, guide, and concessionaire operations.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Overview

To increase its capacity to deliver high-quality, safe, and responsible recreation programs, the

USDA Forest Service relies on cooperators in the private sector. The private sector provides

recreation opportunities, authorized and administered by USDA Forest Service recreation

specialists, under recreation special use permits. Examples include organized horseback rides,

mountain bike races, boat rentals, guided backpacking trips, overnight camping, and alpine

snow skiing. Because recreation special use permits result in increased recreation opportunities, the number of such permits is tracked annually. While the number of permits is

indicative of the number of opportunities available to the public, it is also indicative of the

level of resources required to offer such a program.

FY 2001 Performance 

The special uses program administered more than 26,000 permits, exceeding the goal by 

10 percent. This increase from the target reflects the implementation of a Special Uses Data

System. As old data is reconciled and transferred, the new system will provide information

for program administration that will have a higher level of confidence. The agency released

the draft cost recovery regulation, conducted numerous training programs around the NFS to

improve permit administrator competencies, and began a relationship with the Small Business

Development Center to create a program to educate agency administrators and permittees on

the usefulness of business plans. More than 300 employees and small business prospectors

have been trained.

Program Evaluations

New performance measures that establish standards for administering permits have been

developed and baseline data for implementing them has been established. Future performance

measures will include the performance goal and measure “managing special use permits to

meaningful measures standards”—standards that are accepted and in place throughout the

regions. The agency also continues to implement recommendations made by the Special Uses

Reengineering Team. Recommendations focused on streamlining administrative systems and

improving permit administrator competencies with the overall goal of improving services to

customers. 

141

# permits

administered for

recreation special

uses 

MAR 23,792 24,541 23,700 26,178 
142

Conclusions and Challenges

Overall, the Special Uses Program continues to suffer from lack of trained personnel, which

not only affects the quality of on-the-ground permit administration, but also stifles needed

policy changes. Permit administrators continue to be asked to perform jobs not related to

permit administration. A continued downward trend in resources, along with a focus on

increasing involvement of the private sector in supplying recreation services, will lead to

increasingly poor customer service. The agency recognizes the need to develop additional

human and financial resources for special use administration.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. 

The new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review 

of accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.
Annual Performance Goal 2.1.3. Identify sites for future scientific evaluation,

protection, and interpretation efforts, and maintain visitor satisfaction through

awareness and participation in heritage site inventory, site evaluation,

restoration, and protection from vandalism.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# heritage sites MAR 4,345 4,430 3,096 4,808 

preserved/protected

# heritage sites MAR 593 674 421 601

interpreted

Overview

Heritage resources provide numerous benefits to the American people, including key

connections to the Nation’s historic and prehistoric past. Heritage resources cover a broad

spectrum, including the physical remains of prehistoric and historic cultures, locations of

cultural or religious significance, written records, and oral histories. Interest in heritage

tourism is increasing and is being accommodated through increased protection, interpretation,

and hands-on opportunities to experience cultural resources on NFS lands. 

FY 2001 Performance

While the number of heritage sites preserved/protected in FY 2001 exceeded the target by 

55 percent, this number is down from the high of 6,795 sites in 1998. The decline in the

number of sites preserved/protected is partly the result of a flat program budget over the last

several years. The western fire situation in FY 2000 and 2001 also played a role in reducing

the number of sites protected because of heritage personnel shifted to duties on fire details.

The number of sites interpreted is steady, due in part to public demand for heritage information.

In many cases, partnerships contribute heavily to increased evaluation and interpretation of sites.

Partnerships provide us with expanded abilities to accomplish our performance targets. The use

of volunteers and partnerships has provided the USDA Forest Service with the means to keep at,

or near, performance target levels. In some regions, members of the public who volunteer as site

stewards provide a pivotal role in protecting heritage sites. The Passport in Time (PIT) Program

has been instrumental in protecting sites and continues to accomplish as much as 25 percent of

the preservation work on national forests.

143
144

Program Evaluations

New performance goals and measures are being developed to reflect the increased interest in

the Heritage Program. Standards are now being put in place to consistently measure

performance and customer satisfaction with the management of their cultural resources. 

Conclusions and Challenges

The FY 2001 performance demonstrates a trend of declining ability to adequately protect

heritage sites and resources. Although the agency continues to find ways to use outside

partnerships and assistance to even greater degrees, a limited number of heritage personnel

are available to initiate these actions. The USDA Forest Service also faces growing public

demand for heritage tourism types of activities and information. Catastrophic events such as

the fires of FY 2000 and 2001 resulted in a reduced heritage workforce because of great

amounts of restoration and compliance work associated with all the fire-related activities.

New regulatory frameworks also result in more work activities and consultation with Native

American Tribes. Better agency integration and support are the key elements to improving

performance.

By law, the agency is obligated to conduct inventories to survey all heritage-related resources

and evaluate and manage those with significance to the American people. About 300,000 sites

still need to be inventoried. At the current rate of 3,200 inventories conducted per year, this

task will take about 90 years to complete. The USDA Forest Service is conducting research

and developing costing tool factors to help prioritize sites for inventory work.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review 

of accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.
Objective 2.2. Improved urban environments and enhanced community

livability through healthy landscapes.

Annual Performance Goal 2.2.1. Increase assistance to eligible communities

to increase local capacities to assess, expand, and improve urban

environments.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Overview 

The USDA Forest Service S&PF’s Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program

provides leadership in improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems. The U&CF

Program helps local communities recognize the value of their forests, build capacity to

manage community forest resources, and support community vitality through public

involvement, commitment, and action. Programs to encourage strategic use of tree planting

and urban forest management help mitigate the effects of air, water, soil, and noise pollution

and flood hazards, as well as help reduce energy use and beautify communities. These efforts

also improve the economic climate by increasing real estate values and helping communities

attract and retain businesses. 

The U&CF Program also leads communities to provide better stewardship of urban natural

resources. The program offers expert advice, innovative technology, and financial assistance to

ensure that healthy trees and forests grow where people live, work, and play. Metropolitan

areas collectively support nearly one-quarter of the Nation’s total tree canopy cover. Program

funding contributes to community economic stability, natural beauty, public health, and quality

of life. The U&CF staff works cooperatively with State foresters and other partners to

effectively deliver the Federal program and develop urban and community forestry programs at

the State and local levels. The program currently places emphasis on strengthening State and

local capacity, helping make cities more livable to reduce urban sprawl, assessing the condition

of urban natural resources, and strengthening applied research and technology transfer.

145

# participating PMAS 10,514* 10,547 11,100 11,021 

communities

* Correction to the FY 2000 Annual Performance Report.
146

FY 2001 Performance

Based on FY 2001 reports by the States, 11,021 communities participated in U&CF programs

nationwide, which is approximately 40 percent of all communities eligible for U&CF

technical or financial assistance. The USDA Forest Service and State partners supported

U&CF projects in communities and city neighborhoods. These efforts resulted in more than 4

million volunteer hours, greatly exceeding the 1.2 million hours of volunteer assistance

projected for 2001.

In 2001, the tree program of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter

Games of 2002 used U&CF funding to plant trees at different venues around Salt Lake City.

In cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Olympic Committee announced at a

Millennium Green event at the White House that its environmental program would focus on

urban and community forestry through a Plant it GreenTM program.

Urban watershed stewardship activities around the country continued to receive U&CF

support in FY 2001. Regions and State partners provided technical assistance and grants to

communities and Native American Tribes to undertake collaborative efforts to manage,

protect, restore, and maintain natural resources and watersheds in their communities. Some

projects engaged under-represented groups and youth organizations in community-based

watershed restoration efforts. The program works with States to define and implement natural

resources protection and restoration efforts within large urban areas and to address issues of

environmental justice and urban sprawl in project design and implementation.

The U&CF support to the Chicago Greenstreets program, which ended in 2001, helped restore

deteriorated neighborhoods and enhance public open space through tree planting and care,

recycling, and open space revitalization. Greenstreets was instrumental in the cooperative

efforts to reforest Chicago neighborhoods devastated by the Asian long-horned beetle.

The USDA Forest Service also continued to provide assistance to and participate in the

Chicago WildernessTM coalition, consisting of more than 120 Federal, State, and local

government agencies and conservation organizations. These partners have agreed to work

together to restore, connect, and manage more than 200,000 acres of protected natural areas

in public and private ownership, extending from northwestern Indiana through northeastern

Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin. These lands are in the backyard of the 8 million residents

of the Chicago metropolitan area.

In recent years, the U&CF Program has expanded outreach to underserved communities in

large metropolitan areas. Urban forestry projects in support of local efforts to revitalize older

neighborhoods are under way or completed in Seattle; San Francisco; Los Angeles; Las

Vegas; Denver; Chicago; Buffalo; Boston; New York; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Washington,

DC; Atlanta; and South Florida. 
In 2001, the Congress appropriated $4 million of land conservation, preservation, and

infrastructure improvement funding for U&CF programs in metropolitan statistical areas.

Using a competitive grant process, the program initiated projects throughout the United States

to analyze and address the impacts of increasing population density and unplanned growth on

natural resources in metropolitan areas and to study ways to revitalize declining older cities.

The U&CF Program provides assistance to the Revitalizing Baltimore project that works with

culturally diverse communities to help residents plant trees along neighborhood streets and

streams, convert vacant lots into community green space, improve neighborhood parks, and

support youth education programs to foster stewardship. The project has assisted the city’s

efforts to engage residents in helping monitor water quality, restore riparian areas in

neighborhood streams, and develop urban watershed restoration plans.

The USDA Forest Service completed geographic information system (GIS)-based urban

ecosystem analyses in the rapidly urbanizing Colorado Front Range; Houston, TX; and the

Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA, metropolitan areas. In addition, the U&CF Program continued

to support development and delivery of GIS planning tools for integrated forest ecosystem

analysis, such as the American Forests’ CITY Green analysis package and TreePeople’s

T.R.E.E.S. These cost-benefit programs help State and local governments improve land use

planning and management in rapidly growing communities. 

The agency established the U&CF Technology Transfer Team to strategically integrate

research to address regional urban forestry issues and provide practical results at the local

level. In 2001, the team completed a national strategy to dramatically improve delivery of new

urban forestry research to forestry professionals, practitioners, and other end users. The team

also initiated special communication tools, such as the monthly “urban forestry technology

transfer highlights” and new products on CD-ROMs to provide practitioners with current tools

to help better manage the natural urban environment. Tools are developed through USDA

Forest Service research stations and urban forestry technology transfer centers.

Program Evaluations

No program evaluations were conducted in FY 2001.

Conclusions and Challenges

The U&CF Program has been funded for 10 years and has shown exciting accomplishments

and increasing public awareness and participation in State and local urban and community

forestry programs. Financial support to State and local programs has built a structural

capacity leading to greater numbers of self-sustaining efforts; every dollar of Federal funding

leverages another 4 dollars invested by local public investments in tree planting and

maintenance. 

147
148

A need continues for greater scientific understanding and applied research in urban forest

health, structure, and function within the landscape to better monitor and sustain the longterm benefits provided by these forests. As urbanization spreads into less developed rural

areas, a growing percentage of the Nation’s natural resources—including key national

forests—will merge with urban forest ecosystems. For this reason, it is critical that we begin

to look at and influence vital connections on the landscape. From declining inner-city

neighborhoods to increasingly fragmented rural forests, a new emphasis on linking and

managing the Nation’s “green” infrastructure will enable the agency and the U&CF Program

to work effectively across the landscape with other Federal, State, and local partners to

contribute to and build more sustainable communities.

The USDA Forest Service will continue to track trends in participating communities,

volunteer participation in U&CF programs, and sustainability of local programs. Various

cities are using new tools, developed by USDA Forest Service R&D and other partners, to

help assess urban forest values, structure, and functions (for example, air pollution removal

and carbon sequestration). With these tools, communities are improving management of urban

forests to improve human health and environmental quality. The agency has also begun to

assess urban tree canopy cover and green space every 10 years. By 2006, the agency will

complete the second assessment and report on which urban areas have increased tree cover by

5 percent nationwide.

The U&CF Program adopted an updated action strategy for the next 3 years based on the 

July 1996 USDA document Urban and Community Forestry on Course into the Future. The

revised strategy will guide U&CF Program activities through FY 2004. 

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

State agency coordinators provide annual accomplishments online using PMAS, a Webaccessed database. Regional coordinators and the Washington Office review all State

submissions before accepting the data. Because reorganization is under way for the U&CF

Program area, the USDA Forest Service did not conduct program reviews during FY 2001 to

validate supporting documentation for these numbers. 
Objective 2.3. Economically healthy and diversified rural communities

operating under strategic plans for sustainable development.

Annual Performance Goal 2.3.1. Increase assistance to rural communities.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# communities and Program 2,450 2,990 4,332 3,062

volunteer fire Staff 

departments assisted

# communities working PMAS 740 916 925 959 

under broad-based local prior to 

strategic plans FY01;

EAPs* in

FY01

*Economic Action Programs

Overview 

Through the State Fire and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs, the USDA Forest Service

provides technical and financial assistance to help States, territories, communities, and

volunteer fire departments implement fire preparedness and wildland fire mitigation activities.

These activities increase the ability of States, territories, and communities to protect the

natural resources and property that small communities rely on for their economic livelihood.

The USDA Forest Service uses the Economic Action Programs (EAPs) to build relationships

with rural communities and provide them with technical and financial assistance. USDA

Forest Service employees across the country work with local elected officials, grassroots

community organizations, community forestry practitioners, and numerous other partners in a

multitude of community-based activities. Partnerships are formed to (1) strengthen, diversify,

and expand local economies; (2) build local capacity to develop, implement, and monitor

community strategic plans; (3) integrate natural resource stewardship with opportunities to

expand and create jobs and locally owned businesses; (4) develop new products and markets

for ecosystem restoration byproducts; (5) improve transportation networks; and (6) increase

access to technology.

In FY 2001, EAPs authorities, networks, and partnerships were also used by the NFP to help

rural communities and organizations seek market-based opportunities for natural resource

businesses and services. Through the additional financial resources of the NFP, the agency

used EAPs to build local capacity in areas at risk from wildfires due to concentrations of

high-hazard fuels.

149
150

FY 2001 Performance

In 2001, the Cooperative Fire Protection Program provided grants to all 50 States and 7

territories, which allowed the States, territories, and rural communities to increase their capacity

to fight wildland fire. The program supplied additional firefighting equipment, safety gear,

communications equipment, and training for both volunteer and governmental firefighters. In

addition, the program provided, for the first time, a significant hazard mitigation program. The

States and territories received grants to address wildfire hazards in the wildland-urban interface

through fuels reduction, community projects, prevention and FIREWISE education campaigns,

and creation of defensible space around property. States and territories responded well to this

challenge and laid the foundation for future effective programs. 

Due to incomplete data reported for communities and volunteer fire departments assisted in

FY 2001, it is unclear to what level this target was accomplished. States and territories were

using a new database to report accomplishments which resulted in inconsistencies that could

not be resolved. These inconsistencies will be corrected in 2002 through fixes to the database

entry process and increased work with the States and territories by the regional Cooperative

Fire Protection Program coordinators. See a further explanation in the Verification, Validation,

and Limitations of Data Sources section.

The number of rural communities working under broad-based local strategic plans is 96

percent of the target. The accomplishment is slightly below target because of an increased

emphasis on implementing the NFP, and regional and local EAPs.

The NFP funding was used to help more than 180 rural communities integrate wildfire

protection/prevention and hazardous fuels management into new or existing local strategic

action plans. Through the assistance of EAP, many more rural communities are in the process

of doing the same. Rural communities use these plans to develop local capacity to actively

engage in sustainable development and resource management through collaborative processes. 

During the summer of FY 2001, a new electronic database was initiated for management of

EAPs. Although system enhancements and report development are still under way, the

database has proven very useful in collecting and reporting information on base EAPs, as well

as the portion of the NFP supported by these programs. This tool is critical to the full

implementation of the USDA Forest Service’s National Strategic Plan for EAPs: Working

Together for Rural America: 2000 and Beyond – Integrating Natural Resource Management

and Rural Community Assistance. Although this new tool is helping with certain aspects of

monitoring and evaluation, more emphasis is needed in FY 2002 to enable rural communities

to measure and evaluate their own progress toward their strategic goals.
Program Evaluations

Program reviews were conducted as part of the Chief’s overview of the NFP and covered all

regions. Program reviews showed that the success of States and territories with Cooperative

Fire Protection programs primarily depended on their ability to respond to the changing

programs with trained personnel and strategic planning. States and territories vary in the level

of planning and partnerships they have created around fire prevention and wildland fire

hazard mitigation before 2001. Those with the most planning and completed risk assessments

were able to effectively expand and modify program direction. Some States and territories

have a limited ability to hire personnel or expend monies beyond the matching funds required

by the program.

Because of the need to implement the EAPs component of the NFP under tight time

constraints, EAPs managers did not conduct any national or regional program reviews in 

FY 2001. Overall program management during FY 2001, however, followed the October

2000 release of the updated and expanded National Strategic Plan for EAPs, which was based

on a substantive national review of program, processes, and services.

Conclusions and Challenges

In 2001, a foundation for bringing Cooperative Fire Protection Program to the community

level was established. Previously, limited funds allowed the States and territories to buy

minimal equipment and finance firefighter training. Funding is now at a level where the

USDA Forest Service, States, territories, and rural communities are entering into more active

partnerships that increase the effectiveness of coordinated firefighting. This results in better

protection of the resources and health of communities. 

Cooperative efforts are maintaining not only community resources, but also those natural

resources the community relies on for its economic health and sustainability. More

communities benefited from the programs and more community-based efforts were initiated

that will be sustained over time. Challenges include sustaining funding levels for fire

protection, hazardous fuels reduction, and fuels utilization.

The results of the first year of implementing the NFP-EAPs has shown again that where

partnerships have had time to grow, where community capacity is in place, and where

problems (such as wildfire risks) and opportunities (such as small-diameter roundwood

products) were more clearly defined, rural communities and their supporting organizations

were able to successfully compete for new resources to revise, update, or implement their

strategic plans. Those communities without local strategic plans were much less ready to

engage in NFP implementation and were more likely to need community-organizing, training,

and other basic assistance before they could consider seeking market-based opportunities

associated with hazardous fuels reduction on public lands.

151
152

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Data for the performance measure, “communities and volunteer fire departments assisted,”

was taken from a new database implemented late in FY 2001. It is clear, based on the results

of the initial input, that there were differences in how States and territories defined

communities assisted. In some cases, the States and territories did not understand the

relevance of the information in the overall accomplishments of the program. At least half of

the entities responding to State Fire Assistance accomplishments and Volunteer Fire

Assistance accomplishments provided incorrect or insufficient information. It is likely that the

accomplishments of States and territories were at least twice what was recorded. In FY 2002,

the database will be improved to more clearly record performance measures. Additional

training will be also be provided to the States and territories.

The data source for communities working under broad-based local strategic plans is 

a new EAPs database used by USDA Forest Service field coordinators for assisting rural

communities and organizations. Program managers in the Washington Office have completed

a review of the database structure, quality and consistency of data entry, and reporting system.

Regional program managers have been monitoring data input for completeness and accuracy;

additional data needs to be entered and some data quality issues need to be addressed. Data

quantity and data quality are adequate for assessing the progress made in FY 2001.

Modifications and enhancements to the database structure and data entry protocols will be

made and will further improve the consistency and reliability for FY 2002 data entry and

reporting. Additional design work will provide the full potential of the database to help

communities and the agency describe and measure progress toward long-term goals. 
Objective 2.4. An improved capability of the Nation’s forests and rangelands to

sustain desired uses, values, products, and services.

Annual Performance Goal 2.4.1. Provide a sustainable supply of forest

products and range forage from NFS lands and encourage and support other

landowners to do the same.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Timber volume offered STARS** 437 322 720 318

(million cubic feet) *

Livestock forage INFRA*** 8,903 7,970 8,000 7,790 

(animal unit months)

* Includes regular and salvage sale volumes.

** Sales Tracking and Reporting System

***Infrastructure database

Overview

Within the context of maintaining and restoring healthy forests and rangelands, the USDA

Forest Service provides a sustainable supply of values, products, and services from NFS

lands and encourages and supports other landowners to do the same. The forest, range, and

minerals management programs provide wood, livestock forage, energy, and minerals for

American consumers; jobs and income to local communities; and revenues for the U.S.

Treasury and the States.

The national forests are an important source of timber from Federal lands. Timber supplied

from national forests has been instrumental in supplementing timber from private lands to

meet the Nation’s growing demand for timber and paper products derived from trees. Today,

most national forest timber sales are designed to incorporate multiple objectives, including

insect and disease prevention and control, wildlife habitat improvement, and fuels reduction.

Even so, there is continuing pressure on the agency to meet strict standards for planning,

preparing, and administering these sales. The controversy surrounding meeting these standards

results in appeals and litigation that increase sale costs and delay sale schedules. These

challenges will not be resolved in the near future.

FY 2001 Performance

The timber sale program achieved 48 percent of its “volume offered” target. The offer target

established by Congress did not reflect actual field capabilities, which were significantly less.

Appeals of timber sale decisions and lawsuits to alter or stop planned agency timber sale

actions continue to be significant. In addition, the agency offered 67.9 million cubic feet

(MMCF) of volume originally planned for offer in FY 2000. This amount is not included in

the table above since it was carried over from the previous year.

153
154

In FY 2001, animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing were 97 percent of target. Grazing AUMs

are expected to again meet target expectations or fall slightly in FY 2002 from the FY 2001

levels. The procedure for measuring AUMs changed in FY 2000. In FY 1999, the agency

counted AUMs under 10-year permits. From FY 2000 forward, AUMs are counted if they are

authorized to graze and be billed in the current year. The current method includes annual

adjustments made for biological opinions and other changes. As more allotment management

plans are reviewed and evaluated using the NEPA process and subsequent decisions are made,

it is expected that AUMs under permit will decline slightly. New livestock grazing permits will

be issued to reflect the decisions that follow allotment analyses under NEPA. The number of

completed NEPA documents is behind the 1995 Rescissions Act schedule; additionally,

allotments where NEPA work was assigned may have changed due to shifting priorities among

allotments. Thus, the schedule as submitted to Congress is not being following exactly. Forty

percent of all grazing allotments are managed to agency standards each year.

Program Evaluations

Timber sale program evaluations in FY 2001 included reviews of the timber sale preparation,

harvest administration, and accountability programs in Regions 1 and 2; one overall forest

products program review in Region 10; and sale appraisal reviews in Regions 1 and 8. 

Conclusions and Challenges

Environmental and species protection provisions are evolving faster than the USDA Forest

Service can react to them. Timber sales being planned and prepared are affected by appeals

and lawsuits on other sales, and the agency no longer has prepared sales in the pipeline to

replace those sales that are delayed or withdrawn because of these challenges. A congressional attempt to address the lack of a timber sale pipeline by establishing the Timber Sale

Pipeline Restoration Fund has potential. Because of the delay in getting the timber sales sold

that would provide the initial funding and the constraint placed on the agency on how the

fund can be used to develop new projects, there has not yet been an increase in the pipeline.

In addition, sale preparation costs are increasing faster than outyear budget plans anticipate;

thus, field units have less ability to meet assigned targets during the implementation year.

Finally, the currently poor market conditions significantly affect the agency’s ability to

accomplish its vegetative management objectives through the timber sale program. 

Considering NEPA responsibilities, the amount of monitoring required, and fire season

assignments, the Grazing Management Program performed extremely well with its limited

personnel and budget in FY 2001. The program’s major challenge in FY 2002 will be to keep

pace with the 15-year schedule for performing NEPA on grazing allotments, as provided by

Congress under the Rescissions Act of 1995. NEPA decisions are being issued more slowly

than anticipated. If the program is fully funded, the agency would increase the level of

monitoring and the pace of NEPA-based decisions. If funding is not fully available, project

implementation and monitoring will not be achieved at the levels that have been prescribed 

in recent decision documents or in biological opinions, or as mandated by the courts. 

At the current pace, the 15-year NEPA schedule will not be completed as planned, leaving

many grazing allotments without updated plans for a period that crosses two planning cycles

of forest land and resource management plans. Additionally, priorities change as new issues
surface each year. Thus, the allotments listed on the 1995 schedule for each 3-year increment

through 2010 may not be the allotments that are in need of immediate decisions today. The

schedule established in 1995 needs to be revised to reflect the changes that have resulted from

dealing with shifted priorities.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Field personnel enter timber volumes offered for sale into the Sales Tracking and Reporting

System, from which accomplishment reports are run. This process is managed in

conformance with the direction provided in the Timber Management Information System

Handbook (FSH 2409.14), Chapter 30, Timber Sale Information. 

155
156

Annual Performance Goal 2.4.2. Complete NEPA analysis on proposed

mineral operations in a timely manner, monitor operations, and ensure that

mineral activities are done in an ecologically acceptable manner.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# mineral operations MAR 12,247 11,171 * 7,934 

processed

# mineral operations MAR 9,189 ** * 8,254 

administered to 

standard 

* Targets were not established for FY 2001. 

** Accomplishments were not reported due to definition problems.

Overview

When mineral operations are proposed on NFS lands, the USDA Forest Service processes the

proposals, which includes preparing NEPA analyses and determining if mitigation measures

are necessary. Approved operations are then administered through monitoring and inspection.

FY 2001 Performance

In FY 2002, the USDA Forest Service will incorporate measurable performance goals from

the agency’s revised strategic plan. During the transition to the new plan, targets were not set

for the performance measures/indicators described above.

Targets for mineral operations processed are estimates of industry demand. The agency

cannot accurately predict the number of proposals that might be submitted. The number of

new proposals in any given year is dependent on market conditions. Targets being set in 

FY 2002 represent field office capability rather than projected accomplishment.

Accomplishments will be dependent on the number of new proposals submitted.

The performance indicator “operations administered to standard” had definition problems in

the past. Because of a misunderstanding of reporting standards and definitions, it was not

reported by all field offices in FY 2000. Consequently, there was no data upon which to base

FY 2001 targets. For FY 2002, targets are again being set, based on a new, more expansive

definition of an “operation.”

Program Evaluations

In FY 2001, one program evaluation was conducted in Region 9. There were no significant

findings or recommendations. 
Conclusions and Challenges

The decline in the number of energy and mineral operations processed will likely continue

unless there is a dramatic change in the price of individual commodities or a change in

perception on the part of industry as to the availability of energy and minerals from NFS lands.

During late FY 2000, the USDA Forest Service adopted a policy of requiring all existing

mineral and energy operations to be properly inspected, monitored, and bonded before new

operations are approved. This action will help eliminate controversy and speed approval of

new operations in the long term by demonstrating that energy and mineral development does

not adversely affect other resources and uses.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review 

of accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.

157
158

Objective 2.5. Better resource management decisions based on the best

available scientific and management information.

Annual Performance Goal 2.5.1. Interpret monitoring results and collect and

analyze information to develop new land and resource management plans or

revisions.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# new LRMPs* or MAR 11 5 15 8

revisions completed 

or initiated 

* Land and resource management plan

Overview 

Land and resource management plans (LRMPs) guide management decisions for all national

forests and grasslands. Plans develop long-term strategies while recognizing the need to make

short-term decisions and provide a framework for making future site-specific project

decisions. Plans are dependent on data and information collected by inventories and

assessments. The development or revision of LRMPs is a multiyear process.

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 53 percent of the LRMPs target. In FY 2002, the

agency will continue to revise its planning rule to improve the revision process and the

quality of resulting plans. These regulations are designed to take advantage of lessons learned

over the past 20 years of forest planning. Setting forth a process that makes sustainability the

foundation of planning and decisionmaking, the new rule will engage the public in defining

the future of NFS forests and create plans with a sound scientific basis. 

Program Evaluations

The agency did not perform any program evaluations for these indicators in FY 2001. 

Conclusions and Challenges

During FY 2002, the USDA Forest Service will require all forests and regions to issue any

uncompleted monitoring and evaluation reports for FY 2000 and FY 2001. Additionally, the

agency will strengthen the relationship between these reports, the strategic plan, and the

annual performance plan.
Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.

159
160

Annual Performance Goal 2.5.2. Acquire, analyze, and interpret information

needed to evaluate implementation of land and resource management plans.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# scheduled MAR 101 88 128 104 

monitoring reports 

Overview 

Monitoring and evaluation reporting occurs at two levels: (1) individual land and resource

management plans and (2) NFS regions. Plan reports describe the monitoring activities and

associated evaluation results of how well plans are being implemented, how effective

management actions are in achieving desired results, and the validity of underlying

assumptions made in the plans. Results are used in adaptive management to keep plans

current and adjust decisions to correct or improve management of the national forests and

grasslands. Regional reports aggregate plan reports and evaluate how respective regions are

managing their composite national forests and grasslands. The performance indicator is the

sum of the number of these two types of reports issued annually.

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service accomplished 81 percent of its target for scheduled monitoring

reports. The Ecosystems Management Coordination Staff has developed plans to complete

these required reports during FY 2002.

Program Evaluations

There were no program evaluations conducted during FY 2001.

Conclusions and Challenges

During FY 2002, the USDA Forest Service will require all forests and regions to issue any

uncompleted monitoring and evaluation reports for FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001. 

A national meeting with regional monitoring and evaluation coordinators and monthly

conference calls will stress compliance with these targets. Additionally, the agency will

strengthen the relationship between these reports with the strategic plan and the annual

performance plan.
Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

To improve the quality of the MAR data, the USDA Forest Service took several actions in 

FY 2001. A new database was designed and implemented for the gathering of this data. The

new system is designed to minimize the risks of errors from manually consolidating data

entry sheets; reduce the amount of time for data entry and tabulation; facilitate field review of

accomplishments reports; and improve data analysis, control, and validation efforts.

Individual forests enter data into a spreadsheet that matches the accomplishments against

targets and provide reason codes when accomplishments are outside of a +/-5 percent range

of the targets. Forests’ spreadsheets are loaded into an ESSBase database, where the forests’

accomplishments are automatically rolled-up to the regional and national level for review,

validation, and analysis of the data. This system incorporates OIG recommendations from a

June 2000 report on implementing “reasonableness” checks in the reporting process.

161
162

Objective 2.6. A safe environment for the public and employees on NFS lands.

Annual Performance Goal 2.6.1. Provide a safe environment for the public

and employees on NFS lands.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Percent of LEI*- 28 30 30 44 

enforcement capability LEMARS**

Percent of investigative LEI-CTS*** 49 51 51 43 

capability 

* Law Enforcement and Investigations

**Law Enforcement Management Attainment Reporting System

***Case Tracking System

Overview

Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) is charged with providing a safe environment for

the public and USDA Forest Service employees on NFS lands. It must also protect natural

resources and other property under the agency’s jurisdiction. Law enforcement cooperates

with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to achieve these goals. LEI

accomplishes its mission through three program elements: (1) enforcement activities,

(2) investigative activities, and (3) drug enforcement. The LEI staff responsibilities are as

follows:

• Provide high-visibility, uniformed, patrol presence and prompt response to public and

employee safety incidents and violations of laws and regulations;

• Conduct criminal investigations;

• Maintain strong relationships with cooperating law enforcement agencies;

• Reduce the production of domestic cannabis and other controlled substances and smuggling

of illegal drugs through NFS lands; and

• Develop and apply new improved technologies and techniques for use in enforcement and

investigative activities.

Increased recreation on NFS lands has led to an increase in visitation and urban

encroachment, causing significant impacts on NFS lands, thereby increasing risks to public

and employee health and safety. Consequently, the demands on agency law enforcement

personnel continue to increase significantly; however, funding, personnel, and cooperative

reimbursement dollars have not kept pace.
Increased visitation has also led to increased criminality. Violations against people and their

property have increased and have become more severe. No longer are law enforcement

personnel just handling minor infractions, petty offenses, and misdemeanors; they are asked

to respond to the following:

• Incidents such as environmental protests, threats to employees and Government property,

eco-terrorist activity, large group events, rave parties, gang activity, and fire emergencies;

• Crimes such as rape, homicide, domestic disputes, assault, robbery, and other serious felony

crimes; and

• Calls to assist in traffic accidents, search and rescue, medical/emergency assistance,

hazardous materials spills, and other first-responder incidents.

FY 2001 Performance

In FY 2001, LEI responded to 215,484 incidents occurring on NFS lands. LEI personnel also

responded to more than 1 million public assists for a variety of reasons, such as providing

general information, obtaining information on criminal matters, assisting with visitors’

problems, and helping with search and rescue efforts. Criminal investigators opened 2,699

resource investigations and closed 1,988; they included incidents such as timber and forest

product theft, archeological resource damage and theft, and arson. In addition, they conducted

172 internal misconduct investigations. 

National forests are a haven for the production of controlled substances and other drug

activity. The USDA Forest Service has primary responsibility for drug enforcement on NFS

lands. LEI personnel eradicated domestic marijuana plants, located clandestine methamphetamine operations, and interdicted illegal drug smuggling along both international borders.

Armed growers, booby-trapped sites, and toxic chemicals pose a tremendous risk to the

public and employees. Additionally, watersheds, vegetation, soils, and wildlife are at great

risk from toxic chemicals, fertilizers, and wildlife poisoning and poaching. 

Program Evaluations

Working collaboratively with external entities enables LEI to better accomplish its mission.

The staff works with (1) the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out the

President’s National Drug Control Strategy; (2) the FBI to coordinate law enforcement

response to terrorist activity, particularly ecoterrorist activity; (3) Department of the 

Interior agencies for support in field operations; and (4) a wide variety of other entities. 

A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted with the National Sheriffs’ Association 

to begin jointly developing crime prevention materials for forest visitors. This effort will help

USDA Forest Service customers better understand the rules and regulations affecting NFS

lands, and the agency hopes, will decrease minor criminal activity.

163
164

Conclusions and Challenges

The USDA Forest Service’s goals are to achieve a 100 percent response rate for both

enforcement and investigative capabilities and to completely eliminate marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug trafficking on NFS lands and activities affecting those lands. To reach

these targets, LEI must obtain additional funding. The base level of LEI’s service is currently

defined as a minimum of one law enforcement officer on each USDA Forest Service unit. LEI

will prioritize enforcement and investigative actions, ultimately limiting response to crimes

against persons and their property instead of natural resource-related crimes. Until the base

level of service is reached, LEI’s goal is to maintain, rather than reduce, its current

enforcement and investigational capabilities.

The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, have affected LEI staff priorities. Currently, LEI is

undertaking efforts in facility security assessments, primarily highly vulnerable research labs,

and defining a national plan for identifying and protecting USDA Forest Service assets,

including those under special use permits. These assets include oil and gas lines, transmission

lines, power grids, dams, bridges, communication sites, water treatment facilities, and

drinking water storage. LEI is establishing a Homeland Security Coordinator to facilitate all

LEI efforts in sharing information; collecting and disseminating intelligence; and preventing,

enforcing, and investigating terrorist acts. In addition, an internal response plan is being

developed for future incidents, which will include response capability, continuity of

operations, and an internal/external contact matrix.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Law Enforcement Management Attainment Reporting System (LEMARS) and Case Tracking

System (CTS) information is entered at the field level as described by the users manuals. The

LEMARS database tracks incident information including violation and warning notices and

incident reports. LEI personnel use the totals from LEMARS to calculate the enforcement

capability. The CTS database tracks serious misdemeanor and felony investigations. LEI staff

use these totals to calculate the investigative capability. The primary limitation to both

systems is lack of personnel to enter data, which can lead to either late data or data not

recorded at all, ultimately resulting in under-reporting. In addition, the CTS database

experienced significant technical difficulties in some regions; therefore, manual data

collection occurred, which increases the potential for inaccurate data collection.

The LEI staff has implemented a new electronic enforcement and investigative database that

will replace the old LEMARS and CTS systems. This new system, the Law Enforcement and

Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS) resides on a GIS

platform and will provide crime trend and analysis capabilities and enable the mapping of

incidents and investigations. 
Objective 2.7. NFS resources and land titles are protected through conflictfree and legally defensible boundary lines and administration of special use

authorizations.

Annual Performance Goal 2.7.1. Survey, mark, and maintain agency boundary

lines to standard.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# miles of boundary line MAR 3,102 2,880 3,282 3,187 

marked and maintained 

# cases resolved to MAR 332 263 440 292 

provide and protect 

public access 

Overview

Boundary lines, established by legal land surveys, which are clearly marked and posted on the

ground, provide the land manager with defined perimeters for land and resource management

activities, while protecting the property rights of adjoining landowners and the public estate.

Marked boundary lines help prevent trespass, encroachment, and unauthorized use of public

land. This program activity often uncovers previously unknown trespass or encroachment.

Trespass and encroachment on national forest land is a problem often requiring costly and

protracted litigation to resolve. 

The lack of necessary and appropriate administrative and public access to national forest land

is an ongoing issue. It is estimated that access is not adequate for approximately 30 percent of

the NFS land. For many locations, limited access prohibits effective management of the land

or public use.

FY 2001 Performance

In FY 2001 the USDA Forest Service met 97 percent of its goal, marking and/or maintaining

3,187 miles of national forest boundary lines. Funds to survey and mark boundary lines, as

well as funds for other lands activities, were combined into one appropriation in 

FY 2001. This action allowed funds previously targeted to support the survey and marking of

boundary lines to be used for other lands activities, which could account for the reduced

accomplishments. The field budget formulation process, planned for partial implementation in

FY 2002, and full implementation in FY 2003, should enable the field units to build budgets

and target levels consistent with actual program needs.

165
166

In resolving 292 trespass and encroachments, the USDA Forest Service cleared and removed

unauthorized use and occupation of public lands from private use or claim of ownership. The

agency did not meet its target of 440 cases, however, primarily because of the season’s

wildfires. 

Program Evaluations

Beginning in FY 2000, the Lands Staff initiated internal examinations of the Boundary

Management and Title Management Programs of the USDA Forest Service. Initial reviews

indicate that boundary management and title management are so closely related and

intertwined, and dependent on the same staff specialist, that administratively these programs

are being combined into a Boundary and Title Management Program. The Boundary and Title

Management Program, currently under design, includes measures of accomplishment and

accountability. The Boundary and Title Management Program is focused on providing

boundary lines that are free and clear of legal challenges of ownership and location, and on

supporting actual field needs. 

Conclusions and Challenges

Increasing labor and fixed costs have a significant impact on the volume of work

accomplished from year to year. In addition, a shrinking workforce and the loss of skilled

lands specialists contribute to declining outputs. The continued evolution in surveying,

mapping, and recordkeeping is offsetting some of the loss in workforce. The evolving

technologies, however, demand that land specialists attain greater technical skills than in the

past. In the next several years the agency must recruit and retain lands specialists with

requisite technical skills.

The increasing relocation of the public into the rural landscape, as well as the exploding

urban/forest interface, is significantly increasing the volume and frequency of encroachments

and unauthorized trespasses on the public lands administered by the USDA Forest Service.

The greatest challenge in this program area is to ensure that boundary lines are marked and

maintained in those areas where populations and public use have increased.

Nationwide implementation of the Boundary and Title Management Program in the USDA

Forest Service is focused on preventing trespass and encroachment before they occur,

including extensive involvement with the land adjustment activities of the agency. This

requires that each USDA Forest Service field unit have access to the appropriate lands

specialist on an as-needed basis to ensure constant monitoring and protection of USDA Forest

Service boundaries and land titles.
Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Individual forests and grasslands track boundary management accomplishments (miles of

boundary line marked and maintained and special management area boundaries marked) in

their respective Corner Status Atlas. This is in conformance with direction provided in the

Forest Service Manual (FSM 7150). These accomplishments are physically marked on hard

copy maps and then reported in the MAR system by each region for national reporting.

Title management information is reported in several formats. Small Tract Act case

information is reported through Form 5500-3, Small Tract Act Parcels Report; land status

information is reported through the Land Areas Report and also in the Automated Lands

Program system; and title claims are reported through the litigation process or through

administrative procedures. These reporting requirements have been in place for several years

and provide an accurate and reliable measurement of the annual accomplishments and the

agency’s progress in resolving access issues. Boundary management accomplishments will

soon be electronically tracked in the Automated Lands Program software.

167
168

Annual Performance Goal 2.7.2. Administer special use authorizations to meet

public health and safety standards.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# special use permits MAR 18,726 12,108 6,522 12,907 

administered to standard 

Overview

Special use authorizations, including communication sites, public and private roads, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license renewals, and energy-related transmission

rights-of-way, are all part of the goods and services that are attributable to NFS lands. These

permits provide support to other Federal, State, and local agencies in fulfilling their missions,

provide statutory rights of access and use, and contribute to local economies.

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service’s FY 2001 accomplishment of 12,907 special use permits

administered to standard represents a 98-percent increase over the assigned target for the fiscal

year. However, the reported accomplishment continues to indicate that there is not a common

understanding of administering a special use authorization to a defined “standard.” The

Washington Office Lands Staff will be working with field staff in preparing a more definable,

measurable, and verifiable “standard” for future year accounting and reporting purposes.

Program Evaluations

No program evaluations were conducted in FY 2001.

Conclusions and Challenges

The USDA Forest Service will develop a clearer definition of the tasks involved in 

administering a special use case to the minimum standards (for health and safety purposes) 

in FY 2002. This effort will help ensure that only those cases in which such tasks have been

performed will be reported in the future. In addition, the agency must conduct an evaluation

of the reporting standards being used by each region to ensure greater understanding and

consistency in the criteria used to report accomplishments of cases administered to standard.

The agency will continue to emphasize full resource integration in the permitting and

administering all special uses necessary for public health, welfare safety, convenience, and

national security, such as pipelines, highways, communications, and telephone lines. The goal

is to have at least one-third of the highest priority non-recreation (lands) special uses cases

administered to a minimal health and safety standard annually so that each of the highest

priority cases is addressed at least once every three 3 years. A priority will be placed on

ensuring that the agency has trained and skilled personnel needed to provide high-quality

customer service in special use administration to those needing an authorization in

conjunction with statutory rights, and to those constructing and maintaining energy and

energy-related facilities.
Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Lands Special Use Authorization (SUA) information is entered into the INFRA Special Uses

Database System (SUDS) at the field level as prescribed in the SUDS User Guide and as

directed in memo(s) from the Washington Office. SUDS provides for data entry to track

scheduled and completed inspections of SUAs. In FY 2002, SUDS will be modified to collect

data of completed inspections into its biannual data collection snapshot. This data entry will

serve as the data source for determining MAR targets. The accuracy of data is dependent, in

part, on whether the inspection is documented in SUDS. 

169
170

Objective 2.8. An efficient and effective infrastructure that supports public and

administrative uses of NFS lands.

Annual Performance Goal 2.8.1. Maintain and restore existing infrastructure to

protect capital investments where they provide safe, efficient, and environmentally suitable support for agency activities and public use.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Road condition index Program 

rating Staff — 305 337 * 

% roads without critical INFRA 40 42 41 10 

deferred maintenance 

needs

% roads open to INFRA 90 96 96 94 

intended traffic 

Accident frequency on Program 40 40 40 ** 

roads managed and Staff 

maintained for 

passenger cars

% bridges inspected INFRA — 67 100 66 

as scheduled

Average bridge INFRA — — 60 *** 

sufficiency rating

% facilities maintained — — — 20   

to meet standard

# capital improvement Program 62 73 79 72 

projects accomplished Staff

# (million) PAOT** *** MAR 203 198 200 230 

days of seasonal 

recreation capacity 

available 

* Due to difficulties in combining various road indicators to calculate an empirical road condition index, this

measure was deleted during FY 2001. 

**This measure was deleted for FY 2001. A new measure is being developed for use in future years.

*** This measure was new for FY 2001. Due to lack of baseline data and the need to develop an accurate

rating, the USDA Forest Service will defer reporting on this measure until finalized.

  The agency is developing a facility condition index to replace this indicator.

** ***Persons at one time

—Data not available
171

Overview 

Facility and road maintenance ensures that legal, environmental, and safety requirements are

met as much as possible within funding constraints and helps provide for the safety of forest

visitors and employees. Maintenance of roads directly affects national forest management,

because the road system provides the access necessary to achieve forest plan objectives.

Maintenance of facilities results in higher employee productivity, improved public image,

lower Workers’ Compensation costs, and improved customer service. Adequate facilities also

increase productivity in environmental resource development and use. Additionally, roads and

facilities that are maintained to an acceptable standard help conserve resources and protect

ecosystems by minimizing adverse environmental impacts.

Public use at developed recreation sites is increasing. A greater emphasis on reconstruction of

existing sites along with higher levels of road maintenance, rather than new construction, will

allow the USDA Forest Service to improve the quality of the recreation experience.

Reconstructing and repairing existing trail tread, bridges, cribbing, water bars, and other

components better serve the backcountry user and allow for increased user capacity.

Most of the recreation infrastructure was built in the 1960s and is in a state of decline. The

current, accumulated cost of the maintenance backlog for recreation facilities, trails, water

systems, and heritage structures is estimated to be $716 million. At the same time, recreation

is the fastest growing use of national forests. The annual maintenance needs of recreation

facilities and trails are estimated to be $130 million, excluding operating costs. The current

annual appropriations for maintenance are a fraction of this need. As long as annual

maintenance is underfunded, deferred maintenance will continue to grow.

Both the recreation facility infrastructure and recreation customers are demanding more

attention. To address these concerns, the USDA Forest Service developed the Recreation

Agenda. The agenda is a framework for defining principles, processes, and priorities for the

long term. It provides a five-point blueprint, which includes providing safe, natural, welldesigned, accessible, and well-maintained recreation opportunities for all visitors.

Implementation began in FY 2001. 

FY 2001 Performance

In FY 2001, only 10 percent of USDA Forest Service roads had no critical deferred

maintenance needs. This number remains constant from the previous year. The percentage of

roads open to intended traffic is 98 percent of target. 

The national average of bridges inspected on schedule is 66 percent of target. Many

inspections are conducted by State engineers, and in some cases the reports are not received

in time to get the results entered into the database. In addition, diversion of staff resources for

fire duty delayed some inspections. Finally, there is a lack of trained and certified bridge

inspectors.
172

The number of capital improvement projects accomplished was 92 percent of target. The

shortfall was due to the fourth quarter rescission of construction funds to support fire

suppression nationwide. 

Seasonal recreation capacity exceeded its target by approximately 30 million persons-at-onetime (PAOT) days. The Fee Demonstration Program, which began in 1996, has provided

nearly $80 million in critical new funding to provide quality recreation services, reduce

maintenance backlogs, enhance facilities, improve safety and security, and conserve natural

resources.

Program Evaluations

A general recreation program review was conducted in Region 8 and Region 9. The absence

of a developed site program manager has created a gap in the information needed to

effectively assess the program. 

The Engineering Staff conducted road programs monitoring trips to Region 5 and Region 

8 during FY 2001. The monitoring revealed that many forests do not have adequate road

management objectives. Forests will be required to develop road management objectives,

however, according to the road management policy issued January 12, 2001.

Conclusions and Challenges

A $716 million backlog in repair and maintenance exists for all buildings, including 

$350 million for existing recreation facilities. The USDA Forest Service must prioritize

facilities to be upgraded to meet health, sanitation, and accessibility standards. At the same

time, the agency must be prepared to remove buildings and infrastructure that no longer meet

our needs, are not in tune with the natural setting, present significant health and safety

problems, or are too expensive to maintain. To protect and ensure the proper care of natural

settings, the agency will need to strengthen some heavily used and fragile sites. New

construction should be limited and will need to focus only on resolving resource impacts,

meeting identified demand, and helping to diversify local economies. 

Appropriations are not sufficient to bring all existing facilities to an acceptable standard or to

construct new facilities that meet changing customer demands or reduce environmental impacts.

The USDA Forest Service is developing a facilities management strategy to address the funding

shortfall that includes a facility master planning process, facility working capital fund, and

guidelines for decommissioning and disposal of unwanted facilities. In addition, the USDA

Forest Service will continue to look at opportunities to partner with volunteers, nongovernmental organizations, other agencies, and private sector businesses to get the job done.

The USDA Forest Service estimates a $10 billion backlog of deferred maintenance and

capital improvement needs on the road system. At current funding levels, the backlog

continues to grow and has extensive adverse impacts on national forest visitors and resources.

In addition, many national forests do not have good road management objectives to define the

intended traffic for each road. Forests that do not have these objectives report operational

maintenance levels equal to objective maintenance levels because they have no basis to report
173

otherwise. When forests develop management objectives as required by the new road policy

(and prior policy), the agency anticipates that the current operational maintenance levels on

many roads will be found to be less than objective levels for those roads. This situation will

result in a lower percentage of roads reported open to intended traffic.

The USDA Forest Service published a new road management policy in FY 2001. The policy

requires all national forests to complete a forestwide roads analysis by January 12, 2003. 

In doing this analysis, national forests will compare their available road maintenance funding

with the funding needed to maintain the road system at its objective level. Alternative

transportation strategies will be developed that, while greatly reducing the number and

maintenance levels of open roads, will result in a road system that can be maintained to

applicable standards within the available budget. As these strategies are implemented, the

percentage of roads maintained to objective maintenance levels will continue to decline.

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Most of the data referenced is obtained through the USDA Forest Service INFRA database.

This database provides access to data that is input at the field level; therefore, accuracy of this

data is limited. Currently, the only active process for data verification and validation is

through condition surveys throughout the year. These surveys provide a cursory look at the

progress of the performance measures, not specific data validation. The USDA Forest Service,

however, is currently in the process of developing strategies to increase the accountability and

validity of data. One way for implementing these strategies is through the new Road

Management Policy.

The percent of roads open to intended traffic measure is limited in its applications.

Monitoring trips to the regions continues to indicate that the forests are over-reporting this

value. The roads analyses discussed above will begin to address this issue.
174

Annual Performance Goal 2.8.2. Reduce the backlog of trail construction

needs.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# miles of trails MAR 33,049 25,575 42,045 44,485 

maintained and 

improved 

Overview 

The USDA Forest Service is responsible for managing approximately 133,087 miles of trails,

thus providing the public a wide variety of outdoor opportunities. Greater emphasis on trail

improvement, along with higher levels of trail maintenance (rather than new construction),

will enable the agency to continue improving the quality of the recreation experience.

Improvement and repairs to existing trail tread, bridges, cribbing, water bars, and other

components better serve the forest user and allow for increased user capacity. 

FY 2001 Performance

The reported miles of trail maintenance and improvement are 105 percent of target. The

USDA Forest Service has emphasized reducing the backlog of trail construction/

reconstruction and trail maintenance. In addition, the agency is completing trail inventories to

determine the existing situation and plan for the future. Project work was supplemented by

volunteer assistance; however, staff shortages and fire emergencies continue to challenge

backlog progress. 

Program Evaluations

General recreation program evaluations were conducted in Region 8 and Region 9. Additional

inventory of trail resources and inclusion in the infrastructure database will improve overall

accountability. Program budgets were supplemented by a variety of partnerships and 

collaborative volunteer efforts to accomplish trails operation and maintenance needs, and such

efforts are expected to continue. Funding levels and other duties, such as fire emergencies,

restricted full staffing of trails positions at local levels. Increased emphasis should result in

improved accomplishment in FY 2002. 

Conclusions and Challenges

The public is becoming increasingly interested in the trails program. Additional resources will

be needed to accomplish inventory and maintenance needs, maintain and continue partnership

outreach efforts, and provide volunteer support. Catastrophic events in some regions from

fires of FY 2001 have added to trail and trail structure damage, resulting in additional rehabilitation needs. The current annual appropriation for trail maintenance is only 35 percent of the

estimated need. As long as annual maintenance is underfunded, deferred maintenance will

continue to grow. 
175

Verification, Validation, and Limitations of Data Sources

Currently, the only active process for data verification and validation is through program

evaluations conducted throughout the year. These evaluations provide only a cursory look at

the progress of the performance measures; they do not provide not specific data validation.

The USDA Forest Service, however, is developing strategies to increase the accountability

and validity of data.
176

Management Initiative 3.1. An innovative, people-oriented work environment

and workforce that is representative of society as a whole and that services all

customers equally.

Annual Performance Goal 3.1.1. Promote an innovative, people-oriented

work environment and workforce that is representative of society as a whole

and that services all customers equally.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

% total workforce DN-714* 48.7 48.8 48.9 49.6 

who are minorities, 

women, and persons 

with disabilities

% leadership positions DN-714 34.5 35.6 37.2 35.8 

(GS-13 and above) 

held by minorities, 

women, and persons 

with disabilities

# persons served in SYVP** 717 705 735 891 

Youth Conservation 

Corps

# persons served in SYVP 8,623 8,818 8,000 9,528 

Job Corps

# persons served in SYVP 5,221 5,410 5,000 5,537 

Senior Community 

Service Employment 

Program

% related indicator DN-714 78.4 80 85 90 

for implementing USDA

civil rights initiative

% employees in DN-714 46   50 — 

workforce participating 

in CIP** * survey 

* The USDA’s National Finance Center produces the DN-714 report, an equal employment opportunity

profile. Because the data is based upon the agency’s national employment records, it is highly accurate.

The data is based upon the number of permanent employees. Temporary employees are excluded

because the data would be highly variable.

**The Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Program (SYVP) tracks data for Job Corps, Youth Conservation Corps,

and Senior Community Service Employment Program accomplishments.

***Continuous Improvement Process

**** The CIP survey was not scheduled for FY 2000.

—Data not available.

Goal 3. Ensure 

organizational

effectiveness.
177

Overview

A key component of an effective USDA Forest Service organization is a workforce that is

representative of the agency’s customers and the diverse American public. The USDA Forest

Service must be able to attract, retain, and provide career opportunities for employees of all

ethnic and cultural backgrounds, as well as for those with disabilities. Building skills and

cultural awareness to better serve low-income, minority, historically underserved communities

and tribal governments is also an area emphasized by the USDA Forest Service. The USDA

Forest Service, in conjunction with USDA, is working to build an innovative, people-oriented

work environment, and to achieve excellence in public service to all customers and all

segments of society.

Programs such as the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), Job Corps, and Senior Community

Service Employment Program (SCSEP) provide opportunities for work, training, and

education for the unemployed, underemployed, young, elderly, and others with special needs.

These performance measurements above indicate the number of people served in each

program, where a “person year” is equivalent to 1,800 hours. Many challenges face these

programs. It is difficult for the YCC to recruit and retain youth and then find forests or

districts that are willing to host and supervise them. The Job Corps is seeking to recruit more

female students to nontraditional trades; and it must track the success of all graduates for 1 to

2 years. The SCSEP must implement the Workforce Investment Act and the reauthorization of

the Older Americans Act.

The agency’s Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) provides the venue for all employees to

participate in surveys to identify areas within the agency where relative strengths and

weaknesses exist and to effect improvements. These improvements result in a more

productive work environment and better customer service. 

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service achieved its first two indicators relating to minorities, women, and

persons with disabilities. The agency has implemented the strategic Public Outreach Plan to

improve customer service and increase program delivery and outreach to minorities, lowincome, and underserved populations. In FY 2001, the agency conducted the necessary

planning to implement a formal CIP survey for all employees in FY 2002, and has

coordinated with all agencywide CIP coordinators at all organization levels. The FY 2002

agencywide survey was implemented October 15, 2001, through December 15, 2001, with

action planning at all levels of the organization immediately following the survey. In addition

to conducting the survey, the agency has contracted with Gallup Corporation to conduct a

pilot of a newer survey that will be conducted in FY 2002 in the Pacific Southwest Region

and the Southern Research Station.
178

The USDA Forest Service also accomplished the following:

• Significantly reduced the number of formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

complaints backlogged in the agency’s inventory of complaints through the acceptance and

investigative stages of the process.

• Formed the Civil Rights Leadership Team, joining the efforts of field civil rights directors

and EEO counselors to develop strategies to eliminate identified barriers, implement

strategies to decrease complaint filings, and improve resolution rates.

• Exceeded the YCC target by 5 percent, with the program succeeding in serving more

students for shorter amounts of time in the summer.

• Met its target for implementing the USDA Civil Rights initiative. 

Program Evaluations

In FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service Civil Rights Staff conducted a Title VII (employment)

and Title VI (program delivery) compliance review. The reviewers found that better coordination is required and that the agency needs to improve its interpretation of civil rights

responsibilities. The USDA Forest Service provided a FY 2001 Information and Reporting

Requirements report to USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice, indicating servicewide

compliance reviews of federally assisted programs, and the resolution of program complaints

that were accomplished. 

Conclusions and Challenges/Milestones

Overall, the USDA Forest Service witnessed increased employee morale, decreased employee

complaints, increased program complaints, increased organizational capacity to perform at a

higher level, and fewer retention issues. A continuing effort through the CIP program strives

to provide information within the agency to improve workplace performance.

Verification, Validation, and Limitation of Data Sources

Each field unit submits annual accomplishments for each program via an electronic form 

(FS 1800-16). The SCSEP report on a program year basis from July 1 to June 30 due to

funding reasons, while the YCC reports according to the agency’s fiscal year. All data is

compiled at an intermediate level and at the national level, and the data is verified for

consistency and accuracy at each level. Although there is always a chance of human error in

entering the initial data, automated calculation of the electronic forms has eliminated the risk

of calculation errors. There is no significant data limitation to report.
179

Management Initiative 3.2. All customers receive better service.

Annual Performance Goal 3.2.1. Provide better service for all agency

customers.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Offer to all customers, Program Electronic Electronic * * 

contractors, suppliers, Staff payments funds

and vendors by agency transfer

opportunity available primary

to conduct electronic method of

financial transactions payment

Establish internal Program Evaluations Corrective 25 new ** 

enterprise teams Staff of initial action teams 

to improve efforts taken

management completed based on 

efficiency of national evaluations

forests in California

Offer toll-free Program All but One new New Web One new

telephone, Staff toll-free Web-based applications Web-based

World Wide Web, and telephone application added application

automated applications access is added added as 

to all permittees and available part of 

applicants of most www.reserv

frequently requested eusa.com

special use permits

Improve service to Program Service Service All Service 340

public land users by Staff First plans First First Service

providing one-stop completed plans locations First 

shopping for on a implement adopt projects

information, permits, statewide -ed on a model implementand other frequently basis local basis for info ed

requested over-the- delivery

counter products and process

services at BLM*** 

and USDA Forest 

Service facilities

continues on next page
180

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

# customer satisfaction Program 5 3 4 4 

surveys completed Staff

# follow up analyses Program 24 0 4 4 

Staff

*This measure was deleted since the goal was achieved. 

** This measure was deleted as an indicator for this goal.

***Bureau of Land Management

Overview

The USDA Forest Service continues to expand the delivery of programs, products, and

services to customers electronically. Some examples are as follows:

• Electronic Solicitations. Most regions have a procurement business presence on the 

Internet where potential bidders can learn about opportunities and download solicitations.

These sites are linked through the main USDA Forest Service Web page

(http://www.fs.fed.us/business). In addition, national procurements such as uniforms,

radios, and fire-related solicitations are available.

• Debt Collections. As part of the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) initiative,

the agency is implementing an electronic process to transfer uncollected debt to the

Treasury Department for either collection or an electronic administrative offset. 

• National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS). The USDA Forest Service operates the

NRRS, which enables the public to make campground reservations on lands administered by

the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Government, through

a contract with Reserve America, sells reservations to the public via a call center, electronically through computers at field location sites, and through an interactive Internet Web site

(http://www.reserveusa.com). Reservation fees and recreation use fees are collected from the

public and deposited into a U.S. Treasury account. Recreation use fees are returned to the

agency or concession managing the campground, and the contractor is paid from the

reservation fee collected. This site also automated a permitting process in FY 2001.

• Permitting Processes. As part of the USDA Forest Service’s strategy for implementing the

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), the agency inventoried all of its

permitting processes. These include permitting for recreation and public gatherings; small

business use; grazing, utility, and recreation companies; timber and mineral extraction; and

gathering of firewood, Christmas trees, and other natural products. In FY 2001, the agency

identified the need to consolidate several separate efforts aimed at Web-enabling these

various permits into a single, integrated e-Government approach.

• Service First. The USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have

signed an agreement called Service First to share data and coordinate programs wherever

possible. Service First is improving service for public land users by expanding one-stop

shopping opportunities at facilities for both agencies. The goal of Service First is to enable
181

the public to conduct certain BLM or USDA Forest Service business at one agency office.

The primary challenge is moving the Service First program from a local application

(primarily in central Colorado and central Oregon) to a national strategy. To accelerate the

successes of Service First, the agency proposes to implement two new shared locations

annually through 2005.

• FIA. Data and reports for FIA are available to the public from Internet sites.

• Forest Planning Information. The agency is experimenting on the Chugach National Forest

in Alaska with making draft forest planning information available to the public on the

Internet. 

• The agency’s Public Face. The Office of Communication has embarked on a project to

review and update the agency’s “public face” with changes to Web page formats and

reorganizations of materials available. 

Many internal applications are delivered through the Web, specifically the USDA Forest

Service Intranet. The Web is also increasingly becoming the primary means for providing

system documentation, support, and training. Regulatory and policy information is obtained

from USDA’s Web site (http://www.usda.gov/procurement). The USDA Forest Service

currently has nearly 400 automated forms posted on its Intranet site. 

FY 2001 Performance 

During FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service implemented 340 Service First projects, ranging

in scope from program partnering in fire management, records management, and radio

networks, to interagency colocation in a single office. Databases containing information 

about both partnering and colocation are available to the public on the agency Web site at

http://www.fs.fed.us/servicefirst. At the San Juan Public Lands Center in Durango, CO,

a prototype one-stop-shop location using the new e-Government information delivery process

has been successfully implemented. The agency is targeting expansion of this information

delivery model to other sites in FY 2002.

During 2001, the agency targeted completion of five surveys. Four of those five were

completed, giving more information on customer satisfaction with the timber program, special

forest products, drinking water supply, and forest research. The agency also conducted four

followup analyses, which enable the USDA Forest Service to further refine its understanding

of customer needs and viewpoints. 

In 2002, the agency has targeted four surveys. Two of the surveys will evaluate customer

satisfaction on a regional basis. They will be tied in with the Chief’s review process. Region 3

and Region 8 have been selected for pilot testing the new survey approach. The other two

surveys will be programmatic, covering conservation education and law enforcement.

Program Evaluations 

No program reviews were conducted in FY 2001.
182

Conclusions and Challenges 

The USDA Forest Service anticipates having many challenges in providing electronic access

to all its customers. Costs are associated with adding additional methods of providing service,

which means the agency provides resources for multiple ways of doing business. Significant

impacts to budgets and resources abound in implementing GPEA and in transforming the

agency into an e-Government organization. The agency will have the challenges of

determining technical solutions for security and digital signatures and challenges with

interagency standards and processes as it continues to work with its sister agencies as well as

State and local governments. Certainly not the least of the challenges will be the culture

change in the agency of those managing business processes that want face-to-face processes

rather than electronic processes in doing business. 

Many of the customer service initiatives the USDA Forest Service has already started have

their impetus from the interagency collaboration. Much of the agency’s work requires coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private

citizens. A primary example of this type of interagency sharing is the agency’s work with the

BLM through Service First. Collaborative accomplishments include interconnecting the

Intranets of both agencies, establishing a joint records management policy, and coordinating

the development of lands information systems. The two agencies are also colocating selected

field offices and sharing more and more natural resource information between them,

especially in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. In addition, efforts are

being made to interconnect the agencies’ search engines.

The national forest recreation Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation, managed by the

USDA Forest Service, has been enhanced to provide additional tools to help visitors locate

national forests and grasslands, find recreation activities, obtain maps, make reservations,

and find other useful information. The National Recreation Reservation Service, at the Web

site http://reserveusa.com, now provides wilderness permits and reservable campgrounds,

day use areas, and cabins by map or by State. The information can be obtained online or at 

a toll-free number.

The USDA Forest Service now has a newly calculated, accurate, and reliable recreation use

estimate on NFS lands. The National Visitor Use Monitoring Project enabled the USDA

Forest Service to generate, for the first time, statistically valid information on the type,

quantity, and location of recreational uses of national forests. Accurate recreation use

information enables the agency to decide where to focus limited financial and human

resources to meet visitors’ demands and improve visitors’ satisfaction while protecting the

natural environment.
Management Initiative 3.4 – A sound financial system that supports resource

decisions with timely, accurate information and financial expertise.

Annual Performance Goal 3.4.1. Develop a sound financial system supporting

resource decisions.

Performance Data FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001 

Measures Source Actual Actual Target Actual 

Real property Program Yes, Yes, Yes Yes, 

inventory completed Staff partially partially partially

Timber sale Program No No No N/A

accounting system Staff 

implemented

Financial Program Prototype Yes, Completed Yes, 

management reports Staff set; partially agencywide partially

developed partially completed completed

completed 

Unqualified audit Program No No Yes No 

opinion Staff

Audit items from the Program Yes, Yes, N/A Yes,

agreed Secretary’s Staff partially partially partially 

management report completed 

eliminated

% delinquent debts Program N/A N/A * N/A

referred to Treasury Staff

for offset and 

cross-servicing 

* No specific target was established in the FY 2001/2002 Annual Performance Plan published in 

March 2001.

Overview

Agencywide progress in improving USDA Forest Service financial accountability and

reporting was achieved during FY 2001. These improvements directly respond to expectations

and recommendations of Congress, the GAO, and the OIG to provide relevant, accurate, and

reliable accounting information. With such information available for decisionmaking, agency

managers will be aided in providing effective public service for the American public through

the wise management of lands and natural resources entrusted to their care. 

183
184

FY 2001 Performance

The USDA Forest Service successfully completed its second full year operating the FFIS,

a fully compliant U.S. Standard General Ledger (SGL) financial management system.

Aggressive efforts in FY 2001 resulted in a great improvement in the daily operation of FFIS.

Since March 2001, system availability has consistently met or exceeded agency expectations.

This availability is directly improving financial accountability within the agency. Further

system enhancements continue to be an agency priority.

The USDA Forest Service is cooperating with the USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer

and the OIG to improve the reliability of its real and personal property accounting. An

agencywide strategy for valuing real property was instituted in FY 2001, with anticipated

completion in FY 2002. This strategy, conducted in cooperation with the OIG and a private

accounting firm, will enable the agency to firmly establish historical values for real property,

positively contributing to an improved audit opinion on the agency’s annual financial

statements.

The agency postponed work toward the second target, implementation of a revised Automated

Timber Sale Accounting (ATSA) system. Needed resources were assigned to higher priority

projects. The USDA Forest Service will continue to defer this objective, moving the target for

achieving ATSA implementation to FY 2002 or beyond.

Although the OIG issued a disclaimer of opinion for the USDA Forest Service on the 

FY 2001 annual financial statement audit, the USDA Forest Service Chief Financial Oficer is

focusing on having all proprietary accounts reconciled, ensuring that policies and procedures

support accurate and timely recording of assets and liabilities in the accounting system. This

will provide an auditable set of accounting records in FY 2002.

During FY 2001, the USDA Forest Service closed 6 audits that had been initiated by the

GAO and 11 audits initiated by the USDA OIG. Several more audits are ongoing. 

Although the USDA Forest Service is referring eligible delinquent debts to the Treasury

Department, a reporting system that provides the necessary data to calculate the percentage of

eligible debts referred does not currently exist. Existing reports, such as the Treasury Report on

Receivables, will require formatting and content modifications to provide the required data.

Program Evaluations

The agency did not conduct formal program evaluations during FY 2001. Staff efforts focused

on developing new financial performance measures that more accurately reflect the challenges

and goals of the agency.
Conclusions and Challenges

The USDA Forest Service continued to make agencywide improvements in financial

management during FY 2001. A team effort by personnel throughout the agency has directly

contributed to achieving the goal of strengthening USDA Forest Service financial

management to provide effective public service. Completion of the second full year of

implementing FFIS has resulted in great strides in improving its reliability and availability.

The challenge in FY 2002 will be to maintain a concerted effort to resolve remaining issues

and continuously seek improvement, while still providing relevant and reliable financial

information.

185
186

Appendix D—Report of the USDA Forest Service 

FY 2001 Program Details

1. National Forest System lands administered by the USDA Forest Service 

as of September 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

2. Extramural research funded through USDA Forest Service Research 

appropriations—FY 1999-2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 

3. Summary of forest stewardship plans and acres accomplished by State . . 190 

4. Roads decommissioned, reconstructed, and constructed by the 

USDA Forest Service—FY 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 

5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, 

and site productivity class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 

6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as 

satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest – FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . 198 

7 Certification of reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages 

by region—FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 

8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, 

national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment. . . . . . 208 

9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 

10. Payment to States from national forest receipts—FY 1998-2001 . . . . . . . 219 

11. Summary of selected cooperative forest management and processing 

program activities—selected fiscal years, 1945-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

12. Summary of selected cooperative forestry management and processing

activities by region—FY 2001 (NIPF lands). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

13. Summary of selected cooperative forest management and processing 

activities by State—FY 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

14. Timber offered, sold, and harvested by region—FY 2000-2001 . . . . . . . . . 224 

15. Number of sales and timber volume sold and harvested by 

State—FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 

16. Uncut timber volume under contract by region (all products)—

FY 1997-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Table
17. Forest land management funding—FY 1999-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 

18. Sold value of special forest products—FY 2000-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 

19. Energy mineral workload and production—FY 1997-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 

20. Miles of boundary line located, by region—FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 

21. Road maintenance accomplishments—FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 

22 a. Road and bridge construction and reconstruction—FY 2001 from

appropriated roads funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 

b. Road construction and reconstruction—FY 2001 by timber purchasers . . 232 

23. Purchaser election roads constructed by the USDA Forest 

Service—FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

24. Summary of USDA Forest Service senior, youth, and volunteer 

programs —FY 2001/program year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

25. Number and percent of all permanent and excepted-conditional 

employees as of September 22, 2001, by race/national origin and 

gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

26. Workforce EEO profile by pay levels as of September 22, 2001. . . . . . . . 236

27. Number of paid employees by occupational category—FY 1995-2001. . . . 237

28. Number of paid employees by type of appointment—FY 1995-2001 . . . . . 237 

187
188

Table 1. National Forest System lands administered by the USDA Forest Service as of September 30, 2001

State,

Commonwealth, or

Territory

National forests, purchase 

units, research areas, 

and other areas 

(acres)

National 

grasslands

(acres)

Land utilization

projects

(acres)

Total

Acres

National Wilderness

Preservation 

System1/

(acres)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

665,941

21,987,024

11,261,846

2,586,621

20,690,285

13,845,888

24

1,152,872

865,392

1

20,415,333

292,966

198,716

0

804,540

604,256

53,040

2,863,951

2,838,580

1,169,219

1,494,042

16,903,238

257,772

5,835,100

728,225

9,280,170

16,175

1,247,323

743

233,073

351,324

15,549,073

513,359

27,831

616,725

1,145,494

699,814

637,484

8,189,206

385,820

147

1,661,100

9,251,192

1,033,631

1,523,256

8,688,467

188,566,279

18,425

635,541

47,750

108,175

94,480

136,417

1,105,234

46,286

112,347

867,311

117,620

549,099

3,838,685

40

2

240

856

738

1,876

665,981

21,987,024

11,261,846

2,586,621

20,708,710

14,481,429

24

1,152,872

865,392

1

20,463,083

292,966

198,716

108,175

804,540

604,256

53,040

2,863,953

2,838,580

1,169,219

1,494,042

16,903,238

352,252

5,835,100

728,225

9,416,827

16,175

1,247,323

1,105,977

233,073

397,610

15,662,276

513,359

27,831

616,725

2,012,805

699,814

755,104

8,189,206

385,820

147

1,661,100

9,251,930

1,033,631

1,523,256

9,237,566

192,406,840

41,367

5,753,336

1,342,558

116,578

4,430,809

3,165,950

0

74,495

114,537

0

3,961,608

28,732

12,945

0

17,376

8,679

12,000

91,891

809,772

6,046

63,383

3,372,503

7,794

787,085

102,932

1,388,262

0

102,634

0

0

14,543

2,086,438

9,031

0

16,671

9,826

66,349

38,483

773,870

59,421

0

97,635

2,569,372

80,852

42,294

3,111,232

34,789,289

1/ Includes all changes to the Wilderness Preservation System through the 107th Congress. Amounts are included in total acres.
189

Table 2. Extramural research funded through USDA Forest Service Research appropriations—FY 1999–2001

Type of recipient

Domestic grantees

Universities and colleges:

Land Grant research institutions

1890 Land Grant and predominantly

Black institutions

Other non-Land Grant institutions

Subtotal, universities and colleges

Other domestic

Profit organizations

Nonprofit institutions and organizations

Federal, State, and local governments

Private individuals

Small business innovation research

Industrial firms

Subtotal, other domestic

Total, domestic

Foreign grantees

Universities and colleges

Profit & nonprofit institutions and organizations

Private individuals

Total, foreign grantees

Grand total

$ 13,988

291

7,723

$ 22,002

$ 249

1,123

1,771

212

556

0

$ 3,911

$ 25,913

$ 136

110

85

$ 331

$ 26,244

416

7

216

639

7

51

46

10

11

0

125

764

13

10

7

30

794

$ 10,107

453

7,000

$ 17,560

$ 88

1,734

1,656

59

21

32

$ 3,590

$ 21,150

$ 235

212

67

$ 514

$ 21,664

388

11

241

640

4

52

39

5

5

2

107

747

14

12

8

34

781

$ 11,919

294

7,715

$ 19,928

$ 33

1,087

1,796

130

0

17

$ 3,063

$ 22,991

$ 56

72

64

$ 192

$ 23,183

436

4

232

672

5

46

45

9

0

1

106

778

6

13

10

29

807

2001

Dollars

(thousands)

Number

of grants

Number

of grants

Dollars

(thousands)

Number

of grants

Dollars

(thousands)

2000 1999
190

Table 3. Summary of forest stewardship plans and acres accomplished by State

State or Territory Plans Acres Plans Acres Plans1/ Acres

2001 2000 Cumulative (1991-2001)

Alabama

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Commonwealth, N. Marianas

Florida

Federated States of Micronesia

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Palau

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

369

40

37

10

152

95

57

23

57

5

125

0

249

3

33

66

2,983

724

369

64

819

47

603

598

91

202

680

70

80

63

37

19

94

64

38

668

489

152

888

71

43

0

114

31

18

238

7

197

292

65,278

32,509

32

1,137

26,950

25,341

16,988

7,059

2,777

14

28,180

0

53,709

332

7,186

5,242

93,532

30,251

18,331

3,170

76,543

5,107

65,101

20,535

5,841

29,439

75,418

14,026

13,553

24,777

4,353

3,626

15,336

4,458

118,286

80,198

49,157

5,053

42,166

12,798

17,478

0

23,699

1,020

889

63,717

797

35,888

43,394

254

47

33

19

132

2

61

63

27

0

78

0

80

30

23

43

1,470

545

441

51

829

33

1,058

385

135

205

728

27

112

64

31

15

102

84

21

833

350

80

904

96

50

1

123

25

12

224

17

198

295

45,569

63,687

35

2,124

23,412

23,060

31,944

3,889

1,203

0

15,276

0

15,660

509

5,448

1,579

46,572

24,318

25,283

2,145

89,565

5,086

125,931

23,964

10,824

21,287

85,456

6,555

19,805

7,363

9,394

437

20,835

4,200

15,714

83,875

43,093

4,495

44,942

13,749

15,022

1

22,201

449

970

54,107

1,195

27,870

57,342

3,003

804

337

204

2,190

556

1,880

375

607

5

1,322

0

2,821

214

91

1,648

14,152

14,948

7,951

1,355

12,181

1,011

5,251

4,957

2,751

3,416

10,483

863

2,761

963

1,222

209

2,334

624

408

15,111

2,438

1,580

14,410

981

1,237

3

1,963

81

327

2,770

988

2,097

2,621

667,226

3,111,913

1,490

248,389

377,252

306,491

485,942

47,381

38,421

14

458,151

0

826,571

1,801

17,897

121,489

478,020

567,784

285,342

80,588

1,329,001

98,136

548,758

256,960

241,268

461,080

1,037,766

189,344

382,808

509,915

74,093

86,739

455,559

69,493

417,975

1,400,547

351,250

77,832

690,172

241,727

317,466

76

315,964

3,638

14,601

735,219

40,434

366,372

610,898
191

Table 3. Summary of forest stewardship plans and acres accomplished by State

State or Territory Plans Acres Plans Acres Plans1/ Acres

2001 2000 Cumulative (1991-2001)

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

543

30,331

10,113

56,559

20,037

37,628

184,043

7,061

1,616,986 

7

7

49

348

250

239

3,326

185

16,585 

12

4

85

424

229

280

2,366

83

13,919

426

2,750

14,375

59,010

18,821

43,572

138,425

12,541

1,437,360

31

101

1,914

5,923

3,524

3,540

31,855

1,506

198,898

1,149

230,804

287,064

908,125

262,773

543,280

1,636,461

134,760

23,451,669

1/ Landowner forest stewardship plans.
192

Table 4. Roads decommissioned, reconstructed, and constructed by the USDA Forest Service—FY 2001 1/

Region

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total 

438.3 

220.6 

348.0 

328.1 

200.5 

326.3 

138.0 

164.1 

0.0 

2,163.9 

384.7 

135.7 

46.3 

135.2 

92.1 

220.2 

109.1 

129.9 

68.7 

1,321.9 

12.6 

14.5 

3.0 

4.8 

9.1 

5.7 

12.7 

5.7 

1.1 

69.2 

Decommissioned

(miles)

Reconstruction

(miles)

Construction

(miles)

1/ Reconstruction and construction miles accomplished are from Capital Improvement and Maintenance Appropriation, Deferred Maintenance 

Funds, Purchaser Election inventory revisions, and new construction, and Non-USDA Forest Service Funds. Decommisioned miles are 

regardless of funding source.
193

Table 5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, and site productivity class 1/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/ Acres by site productivity class 3/

Alabama

NFs in Alabama (subtotal)

Alaska

Chugach

Tongass

Subtotal

Arizona

Apache-Sitgreaves

Coconino

Coronado

Kaibab

Prescott

Tonto

Subtotal

Arkansas

Ouachita

Ozark-St. Francis

Subtotal

California

Angeles

Cleveland

Eldorado

Inyo

Klamath

Lake Tahoe Basin M.U.

Lassen

Los Padres

Mendocino

Modoc

Plumas

Rogue River

San Bernardino

Sequoia

Shasta-Trinity

Sierra

Siskiyou

Six Rivers

Stanislaus

Tahoe

Toiyabe

Subtotal

255 

0 

267 

267 

3,959 

3,771 

8 

3,251 

89 

1,688 

12,766 

180 

1,210 

1,390 

324 

0 

0 

930 

301 

0 

37 

0 

77 

0 

2,314 

0 

346 

52 

0 

34 

0 

0 

975 

74 

23 

5,487 

1,484 

2,680 

1,412 

4,092 

1,600 

3,076 

0 

1,236 

84 

187 

6,183 

6,338 

9,081 

15,419 

1,841 

87 

75 

289 

2,849 

47 

4,490 

0 

1,008 

3,034 

315 

84 

389 

300 

497 

545 

0 

3 

6,217 

468 

25 

22,563 

1,055 

0 

4,670 

4,670 

197 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

201 

9,023 

6 

9,029 

342 

0 

1,322 

0 

2,164 

727 

1,442 

15 

446 

41,619 

5,660 

0 

29 

814 

622 

1,403 

0 

1,154 

12,745 

7,130 

0 

77,634 

121 

0 

11,568 

11,568 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1,152 

58 

1,210 

7 

0 

2,010 

0 

926 

443 

1,010 

0 

416 

66 

1,591 

0 

0 

1,765 

992 

2,291 

0 

637 

4,647 

3,590 

0 

20,391 

2,915 

2,680 

17,917 

20,597 

5,756 

6,847 

8 

4,491 

173 

1,875 

19,150 

16,693 

10,355 

27,048 

2,514 

87 

3,407 

1,219 

6,240 

1,217 

6,979 

15 

1,947 

44,719 

9,880 

84 

764 

2,931 

2,111 

4,273 

0 

1,794 

24,584 

11,262 

48 

126,075 
194

Table 5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, and site productivity class 1/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/ Acres by site productivity class 3/

Colorado

Arapaho and Roosevelt

Grand Messa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison

Manti-La Sal

Medicine Bow-Routt

Pike and San Isabel

Rio Grande

San Juan

White River

Subtotal

Florida

NFs in Florida (subtotal)

Georgia

Chattahoochee-Oconee (subtotal)

Idaho

Boise

Caribou-Targhee

Clearwater

Idaho Panhandle

Kootenai

Nez Perce

Payette

Salmon-Challis

Sawtooth

Subtotal

Illinois

Shawnee (subtotal)

Indiana

Hoosier (subtotal)

Kentucky

Daniel Boone (subtotal)

Louisiana

Kisatchie (subtotal)

Maine

White Mountain (subtotal)

Michigan

Hiawatha

Huron-Manistee

Ottawa

Subtotal

7,909 

5,711 

0 

2,991 

1,292 

1,186 

2,481 

1,586 

23,156 

459 

0 

4,490 

507 

1,536 

3,567 

21 

566 

517 

4,605 

414 

16,223 

0 

0 

0 

0 

126 

7,346 

7,463 

1,451 

16,260 

438 

2,658 

0 

1,850 

304 

538 

2,184 

225 

8,197 

3 

4 

30,905 

5,232 

476 

2,420 

34 

555 

645 

303 

252 

40,822 

0 

1,033 

5 

79 

110 

3,948 

4,494 

13,842 

22,284 

0 

254 

0 

319 

0 

151 

393 

226 

1,343 

151 

8,139 

6,955 

39 

1,081 

3,983 

18 

2,570 

2,739 

0 

63 

17,448 

0 

158 

65,081 

235 

68 

885 

403 

4,399 

5,687 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

16 

434 

1,421 

2,463 

56 

826 

2,169 

0 

627 

41 

0 

0 

6,182 

0 

110 

628 

253 

24 

23 

0 

209 

232 

8,347 

8,623 

0 

5,160 

1,596 

1,875 

5,058 

2,053 

32,712 

1,047 

9,564 

44,813 

5,834 

3,919 

12,139 

73 

4,318 

3,942 

4,908 

729 

80,675 

0 

1,301 

65,714 

567 

328 

12,202 

12,360 

19,901 

44,463 
195

Table 5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, and site productivity class 1/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/ Acres by site productivity class 3/

Minnesota

Chippewa

Superior

Subtotal

Mississippi

NFs in Mississippi (subtotal)

Missouri

Mark Twain (subtotal)

Montana

Beaverhead-Deerlodge

Bitterroot

Custer

Flathead

Gallatin

Helena

Kootenai

Lewis and Clark

Lolo

Subtotal

Nebraska

Nebraska (subtotal)

Nevada

Humboldt-Toiyabe

Inyo

Lake Tahoe Basin M.U.

Subtotal

New Hampshire

White Mountain (subtotal)

New Mexico

Carson

Cibola

Gila

Lincoln

Santa Fe

Subtotal

New York

Green Mountain (subtotal)

North Carolina

NFs in North Carolina (subtotal)

Ohio

Wayne (subtotal)

81 

987 

1,068 

72 

34 

882 

30,988 

12,435 

476 

275 

2,296 

2,747 

423 

5,788 

56,310 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,110 

1,231 

0 

1,288 

2,806 

22,715 

28,040 

2 

449 

154 

90 

0 

90 

411 

14,311 

292 

8,830 

174 

585 

467 

339 

3,480 

62 

2,167 

16,396 

0 

30 

0 

0 

30 

7,209 

804 

0 

803 

10,970 

5,138 

17,715 

0 

1,743 

109 

209 

941 

1,150 

904 

62 

51 

4,221 

0 

1,422 

0 

57 

4,293 

15 

1,390 

11,449 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

3,508 

30 

0 

62 

751 

20 

863 

11 

0 

810 

11 

145 

156 

421 

17 

0 

735 

0 

0 

0 

0 

729 

0 

231 

1,695 

0 

0 

0 

623 

623 

1,331 

0 

0 

0 

85 

0 

85 

8 

172 

1,381 

391 

2,073 

2,464 

1,808 

14,424 

1,225 

44,774 

12,609 

2,483 

742 

2,692 

11,249 

500 

9,576 

85,850 

0 

30 

0 

625 

655 

14,158 

2,065 

0 

2,153 

14,612 

27,873 

46,703 

21 

2,364 

2,454 
196

Table 5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, and site productivity class 1/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/ Acres by site productivity class 3/

Oklahoma

Ouachita (subtotal)

Oregon

Deschutes

Fremont

Klamath

Malheur

Mt. Hood

Ochoco

Rogue River

Siskiyou

Siuslaw

Umatilla

Umpqua

Wallowa-Whitman

Willamette

Winema

Subtotal

Pennsylvania

Allegheny (subtotal)

Puerto Rico

Caribbean (subtotal)

South Carolina

Francis Marion and Sumter (subtotal)

South Dakota

Black Hills (subtotal)

Tennessee

Cherokee (subtotal)

Texas

NFs in Texas (subtotal)

Utah

Ashley

Dixie

Fishlake

Manti-La Sal

Uinta

Wasatch-Cache

Subtotal

Vermont

Green Mountain (subtotal)

221 

6,787 

2,294 

0 

1,409 

155 

710 

0 

57 

0 

959 

68 

390 

48 

88 

12,965 

352 

0 

0 

28,310 

1 

0 

7,980 

9,938 

125 

149 

61 

495 

18,748 

11 

309 

1,289 

1,223 

0 

2,389 

2,490 

2,461 

926 

44 

0 

4,984 

93 

2,396 

345 

1,006 

19,646 

3,350 

0 

0 

5,616 

154 

1,527 

0 

1,121 

492 

2,182 

106 

254 

4,155 

1,098 

72 

0 

10 

21 

0 

256 

70 

672 

252 

0 

2,809 

350 

396 

524 

1,276 

6,636 

1,746 

41 

0 

0 

585 

5 

0 

0 

5 

19 

218 

84 

326 

346 

307 

0 

0 

19 

0 

113 

0 

0 

217 

122 

164 

95 

30 

3,117 

0 

3,877 

485 

118 

50 

22 

3,021 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

15 

107 

909 

8,076 

3,527 

40 

3,798 

3,014 

3,241 

1,598 

570 

122 

8,916 

606 

3,212 

4,034 

2,370 

43,124 

5,933 

159 

50 

33,948 

3,761 

1,547 

7,980 

11,059 

622 

2,350 

385 

848 

23,244 

1,562 
197

Table 5. Reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, and site productivity class 1/

1/ Data source is Reforestation & TSI Needs Report (2400-K) Table 1. This information is required by the National Forest Management Act of 

1976, Sec. 4(d)1.

2/ Unlisted States had no reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001.

3/ Site productivity class refers to the amount of wood produced in cubic feet per acre per year in a natural unmanaged stand.

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/ Acres by site productivity class 3/

Virginia

George Washington and Jefferson (subtotal)

Washington

Colville

Gifford Pinchot

Idaho Panhandle

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

Okanogan

Olympic

Umatilla

Wenatchee

Subtotal

West Virginia

George Washington and Jefferson

Monongahela

Subtotal

Wisconsin

Chequamegon-Nicolet

Subtotal

Wyoming

Bighorn

Black Hills

Bridger-Teton

Caribou-Targhee

Medicine Bow-Routt

Shoshone

Wasatch-Cache

Subtotal

Total

1,224 

916 

0 

314 

0 

3,745 

0 

14 

25 

5,014 

142 

79 

221 

1,575 

1,575 

1,498 

11,618 

0 

0 

2,565 

111 

65 

15,857 

249,127 

3,738 

756 

93 

4 

163 

48 

0 

13 

4,492 

5,569 

85 

435 

520 

7,333 

7,333 

83 

7,531 

0 

0 

327 

249 

82 

8,272 

241,579 

471 

519 

292 

315 

170 

995 

0 

0 

202 

2,493 

10 

473 

483 

1,971 

1,971 

0 

38 

523 

0 

0 

4 

0 

565 

225,398 

665 

144 

159 

53 

147 

0 

0 

14 

10,008 

10,525 

149 

404 

553 

401 

401 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

68,640 

6,098 

2,335 

544 

686 

480 

4,788 

0 

41 

14,727 

23,601 

386 

1,391 

1,777 

11,280 

11,280 

1,581 

19,187 

523 

0 

2,892 

364 

147

24,694

784,744
198Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

State or Territory 2/

National Forest

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Alabama

NFs in Alabama (subtotal)

Alaska

ChugachTongass

Subtotal

Arizona

Apache-SitgreavesCoconinoCoronadoKaibabPrescottTonto

Subtotal

Arkansas

OuachitaOzark-St. Francis

Subtotal

1,473 

0 

244 244 

0 0 

748 

0 

81 

829 157 934 

1,091 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6,010 1,789 7,799 

644 

0 

4,151 4,151 

149 

114 

521 

0 0 

784 

0 

232 232 

2,117 

0 

4,395 4,395 

149 

114 

0 

1,269 

0 

81 

1,613 6,167 2,955 9,122

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1,054 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4,947 2,259 7,206 

0 0 

4,715 4,715 1,996 

0 0 0 0 

1,996 1,239 

0 

1,239 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1054

0 

4,715 4,715 1,996 

0 0 0 0 0 

1,996 6,186 2,259 8,445 
199

Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

California

AngelesClevelandEldoradoInyoKlamathLake Tahoe Basin M.U.LassenLos PadresMendocinoModocPlumasRogue RiverSan BernardinoSequoiaShasta-TrinitySierraSiskiyouSix RiversStanislausTahoeToiyabe

Subtotal

101 

0 0 0 

2,719 

0 

2,724 

0 0 0 

10 48 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3,500 

0 

9,102 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

610 

0 

976 

0 

2,769 

0 

312 

82 

1,789 

110 

0 0 

115 

4,273 1,513 1,225 

0 

1,684 4,695 4,153 

0 

24,306 

362 

0 

2,242 1,987 5,669 

0 

5,045 

30 

532 169 

4,889 

0 0 

2,087 1,225 1,147 

0 

1,600 1,933 6,282 

0 

35,199 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1,144 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1,144 

303 

0 

229 

0 0 0 

225 

35 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

72 

0 

864 

1,275 

0 

3,447 1,987 8,438 

0 

5,582 

147 

3,465 

279 

4,889 

0 

115 

6,360 2,738 2,372 

0 

3,284 6,628 

10,507 

0 

61,513 

0 0 0 0 

331

0 0 0 0 0 

10

231

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

145

0 

717 

101 

0 0 0 

3,050 

0 

2,724 

0 0 0 

20 

279 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3,645 

0 

9,819

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
200Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Colorado

Arapaho and RooseveltGrand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and GunnisonManti-La SalMedicine Bow-RouttPike and San IsabelRio GrandeSan JuanWhite River

Subtotal

Florida

NFs in Florida (subtotal)

Georgia

Chattahoochee-Oconee (subtotal)

0 0 0 

163 

0 0 

262 

117 

542 

1,198 

740 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,002 

0 

0 

434 

0 

38 

0 0 0 

26 

498 

0 0 

277 104 

0 

541 

9 

1,783 

271 130 

3,115 

0 

84 

277 538 

0 

742 

9 

1,783 

533 273 

4,155 3,200 

824 

137 

0 

16 

0 0 0 

767 

0 

920 

0 

857 

137 

0 

16 

0 0 0 

767 

0 

920 322857 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

322

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
201

Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Idaho

BoiseCaribou-TargheeClearwaterIdaho PanhandleKootenaiNez PercePayetteSalmon-ChallisSawtooth

Subtotal

Illinois

Shawnee (subtotal)

Indiana

Hoosier (subtotal)

Kentucky

Daniel Boone (subtotal)

Louisiana

Kisatchie (subtotal)

Maine

White Mountain (subtotal)

732 

1,559 2,008 5,899 

0 

2,096 

711 

90 

0 

13,095 

0 0 

231 

1,117 

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 

415 

0 

87 

0 

25 

0 0 0 

527 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 7 

496 

0 

49 

0 0 0 

552 

0 0 0 0 0 

732 

1,974 2,015 6,482 

0 

2,170 

711 

90 

0 

14,174 

0 0 

231 

1,117 

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,191 

0 

40 

1,207 

0 0 0 

15 

0 

3,453 

0 0 

159 

0 0 

4,521 1,420 

36 

5,869 

36 73 

2,004 

747 

0 

14,706 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 

578 

2,809 

106 

0 0 0 0 

3,493 

0 0 0 0 0 

6,712 1,420 

654 

9,957 

142 

73 

2,004 

762 

0 

21,724 

0 0 

159 

0 0 

0 0 0 

72 

0 0 0 0 0 

72 

0 0 0 0 0 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
202Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Michigan

HiawathaHuron-ManisteeOttawa

Subtotal

Minnesota

ChippewaSuperior

Subtotal

Mississippi

NFs in Mississippi (subtotal)

Missouri

Mark Twain (subtotal)

Montana

Beaverhead-DeerlodgeBitterrootCusterFlatheadGallatinHelenaKootenaiLewis and ClarkLolo

Subtotal

1,055 

677 187 

1919

225 

1,917 2,142 4,991 

690 240 

1,307 

518 

1,417 1,473 

183 

3,879 

628 

2,230 

11,875 

554 

17 

0 

571 

75 

223 298 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1,668 1,295 1,591 4,554 3,700 

445 

4,145 

429 

10,713 

734 

42 

327 195 135 976 178 867 906 

4,360 

2,096 

737 

7,105 9,938 

201 

4,008 4,209 

0 

357 429 442 155 873 

60 31 

148 404 435 

2,977 

5,373 2,726 8,883 

16,982 

4,201 6,593 

10,794 

5,420 

11,760 

1,403 1,791 1,000 2,485 1,668 1,190 4,205 1,899 3,571 

19,212

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

775 125 336 

1,236 

416 

2,475 2,891 3,176 

22 33 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

60 93 

69 37 

0 

106 

0 0 0 

1,225 2,839 

192 

91 

378 

1,859 

338 

60 

2,450 

171 

1,434 6,973 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

117 

0 0 

117 

96 65 

161 

0 0 0 0 0 

149 

0 0 

661 

0 0 

810 

961 162 336 

1,459 

512 

2,540 3,052 4,401 2,861 

225 

91 

378 

2,008 

338 

60 

3,111 

171 

1,494 7,876 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
203

Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Nebraska

Nebraska (subtotal)

Nevada

Humboldt-ToiyabeInyoLake Tahoe Basin M.U.Toiyabe

Subtotal

New Hampshire

White Mountain (subtotal)

New Mexico

CarsonCibolaGilaLincolnSanta Fe

Subtotal

New York

Green Mountain (subtotal)

North Carolina

NFs in North Carolina (subtotal)

Ohio

Wayne (subtotal)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

199 

40 

0 0 0 

239 

0 

463 

33 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

912 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

474 

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,029 3,000 

0 0 

18 

0 

3,018 

0 0 

19 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,941 3,199 

40 

0 

18 

0 

3,257 

0 

937 

52

0 0 0 0 0 0 

145 

66 

0 0 0 0 

66 

0 

2,716 

107 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

158 

0 0 0 0 

158 

30 

230 

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

180 

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

145 224 

0 0 0 0 

224 

30 

3,126 

107

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
204Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Oklahoma

Ouachita (subtotal)

Oregon

DeschutesFremontKlamathMalheurMt. HoodOchocoRogue RiverSiskiyouSiuslawUmatillaUmpquaWallowa-WhitmanWillametteWinema

Subtotal

Pennsylvania

Allegheny (subtotal)

Puerto Rico

Caribbean (subtotal)

South Carolina

Francis Marion and Sumter (subtotal)

13 

4,872 1,019 

0 

6,581 4,443 

1,117 

496 

0 

1,950 

2,411 

488 

2,296 1,269 

0 

26,942 

0 0 

462 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

223 

118 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20 

0 

389 

0 0 

527 

1,685 

0 0 

0 

2,483 

782 

0 

339 

0 0 

110 

0 0 

3,002 

0 

2,316 

234 

0 

9,266 

105 

0 0 

236 

7,473 1,801 

0 

6,920 4,443 

1,117 

606 

0 

1,950 5,433 

488 

5,001 1,503 

0 

36,735 

1,790 

0 

462 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

38 

0 0 0 0 

196 

1,847 

0 0 0 

278 

0 

2,359 

0 0 

2,950 

0 0 

2,438 

0 

5,877 

32 

642 

0 

171 

1,652 5,763 1,075 3,007 4,641 

0 

25,298 

0 0 

371 

0 0 0 0 0 

601 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1,927 

0 

2,528 

0 0 

609 

0 0 0 0 

178 

0 0 0 

70 

131 

0 

13 

0 

1,334 

0 

1,726 

0 0 0 

0 0 

2,438 

38 

6,055 

633 642 

0 

437 

3,630 5,763 1,088 

3,011 

8,180 

0 

31,915 

0 0 

3,930 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
205

Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

South Dakota

Black Hills (subtotal)

Tennessee

Cherokee (subtotal)

Texas

NFs in Texas (subtotal)

Utah

AshleyDixieFishlakeManti-La SalUintaWasatch-Cache

Subtotal

Vermont

Green Mountain (subtotal)

Virginia

George Washington and Jefferson (subtotal)

Washington

ColvilleGifford PinchotIdaho PanhandleMt. Baker-Snoqualmie

0 

412 

90 

0 

57 32 

0 0 0 

89 

0 

39 

838 347 187 215 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 

486 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

114 

1,950 

0 0 0 0 

11,698 

0 

425 

5,406 

0 0 0 0 

225 

5,631 

18 99 

315 

17 

0 0 

11,698 

898 515 

5,406 

57 32 

0 0 

225 

5,720 

132 

2,088 1,153 

364 187 215 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 

3,748 

0 0 

1,502 

0 0 0 0 

1,502 

3 

389 

0 

11 

20 

0 

1,832 

0 

150 260 300 

0 

591 

0 0 

1,151 

0 

934 

1,050 1,195 

0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

167 

0 0 

1,832 3,748 

150 260 

1,802 

0 

591 

0 0 

2,653 

3 

1,323 1,050 1,373 

20 

0 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
206Table 6. Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages certified as satisfactorily stocked, by State and national forest—FY 2001 1/

1/ Data source is Reforestation & TSI Needs Report (2400-K) Table 1. This information is required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Sec. 4d(1).

2/ Unlisted States had no reforestation needs as of October 1, 2001.

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Washington (continued)

OkanoganOlympicUmatillaWenatchee

Subtotal

West Virginia

George Washington and JeffersonMonongahela

Subtotal

Wisconsin

Chequamegon-Nicolet (subtotal)

Wyoming

BighornBlack HillsBridger-TetonMedicine Bow-RouttShoshoneCaribou-TargheeWasatch-Cache

Subtotal

Total

2,319 

0 0 

50 

3,956 

0 0 0

605 

96 

0 

33 

0 

75 

0 0 

204 

84,826 

00 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,881 

0 0 0 

84 84 

225 581 806 

2,447 

2 0 

11 

45 

0 0 0 

58 

42,791 

1,716 

0 

1,086 3,191 6,325 

0 

24 24 

4,409 1,035 1,538 

0 

46 

115 

0 0 

2,734 

73,560 

4,035 

0 

1,086 3,325 

10,365 

225 605 830 

7,471 1,133 1,538 

44 91 

190 

0 0 

2,996 

204,058 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 

0 0 0 0 

31 

0 

1,068 1,068 

975 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

59,977 

1,419 2,724 

709 

1,212 8,309 

210 

0 

210 

0 0 0 0 

930 

0 0 0 

930 

110,378 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4,533 

129 

0 0 

324 620 

0 0 0 

86 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7,877 

1,548 2,724 

709 

1,536 8,960 

210 

1,068 1,278 1,061 

0 0 0 

930 

0 0 0 

930 

182,769 

State or Territory 2/

National Forest
207

Table 7. Certification of reforestation and timber stand improvement acreages by region—FY 2001 1/

1/ Data source is Reforestation & TSI Needs Report (2400-K) Table 21. This information is required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Sec 4d(1).

Reforestation

Artificial regeneration Natural regeneration

Total

(Acres) (Acres)

Total

Planted

Seeded

ithW

site preparation

ithoutW

site preparation

Cleaning

Release

Precommercial

thinning

Fertilization

Pruning

Timber Stand Improvement

Northern (R-1)Rocky Mountain (R-2)Southwestern (R-3)Intermountain (R-4)Pacific Southwest (R-5)Pacific Northwest (R-6)Southern (R-8)Eastern (R-9)Alaska (R-10)

Total

22,065 

713 

1,068 3,214 9,054 

30,759 12,320 

5,389 

244 

84,826

0 0 0 0 0 0 

2,002 

879 

0 

2,881 

4,472 

545 

0 

426 

0 

611 

11,586 

25,151 

0 

42,791

3,529 

17,547 

3,802 5,631 

486 

15,822 

1,484 

21,108 

4,151 

73,560 

30,066 18,805 

4,870 9,271 9,540 

47,192 27,392 52,527 

4,395 

204,058

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 

4 

1,360 

0 

66 

3,708 

24,344 

2,332 

21,720 

6,447 

0 

59,977

12,987 

3,666 2,154 9,859 

35,199 33,607 

5,216 2,975 4,715 

110,378

72 

0 0 0 

1,144 2,528 

789 

0 0 

4,533 

4,303 

0 0 0 

864 

2,346 

0 

364 

0 

7,877 

18,722 

3,666 2,220 

13,567 61,551 40,817 27,725 

9,786 4,715 

182,769 

Region
208Table 8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment 1/

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/

Alabama

NFs in Alabama (subtotal)

Alaska

ChugachTongass

Subtotal

Arizona

Apache-SitgreavesCoconinoCoronadoKaibabPrescottTonto

Subtotal

Arkansas

OuachitaOzark-St. Francis

Subtotal

California

AngelesClevelandEldoradoHumboldt-ToiyabeInyoKlamathLake Tahoe Basin M.U.LassenLos PadresMendocinoModocPlumasRogue RiverSan BernardinoSequoiaShasta-TrinitySierraSiskiyouSix RiversStanislausTahoe

Subtotal

582

0

1,4351,435

14,91315,337

6

19,713

56

6,070

56,095

275986

871

00

682

0

718800

6,765

0

122

52

80

246178373279

00

37

6,888

18,019

3,144

13

711

724

2,9861,907

64

13,402

0

1,787

20,146

4,5416,302

10,843

2,159

687

24

1,213

846

16,875

2,329

19,147

209

14,06310,812

2,905

130

2,5261,326

13,740

2,681

0

144

2,6979,045

103,558

6

374

3,8764,250

81

00

999

0

31

1,111

3,577

73

3,650

740

0

2,287

30

0

17,138

2,962

18,355

30

8,6374,415

12,071

0

92

4,057

16,121

9,6001,5344,779

19,89422,021

144,763

544

0

23,18923,189

0000000

539151690

00

8,728

90

0

11,441

369

6,308

0

20,115

499

9,555

0

66

9,864

15,17116,927

0

9,5285,668

20,705

135,034

4,276

387

29,211

29,59817,98017,244

70

34,114

56

7,888

77,352

8,6846,585

15,269

3,770

687

11,039

2,015

846

46,172

6,460

50,575

239

42,93715,77824,539

130

2,930

15,42545,40529,487

1,534

14,45128,29658,659

401,374

4,195

13

150163144

1,624

00

56

7,3439,1675,0181,8946,9121,696

422

8,506

0

19

14,819

3,6353,158

143

18,507

8,2585,562

130

1,1957,425

11,240

14,338

680

8,640

15,119

29,021

152,513

81

374

28,63529,00917,83615,620

70

34,114

0

545

68,185

3,6664,6918,3571,095

181

2,5332,015

827

31,344

2,825

47,417

71

21,395

6,778

18,977

0

1,7006,853

33,04514,690

655

5,811

13,17729,333

240,722

00000000000000000000000

3,032

727

000

672

00

199

00

275

4,905

00

426426

0000000000

979

84

000900

25

3

15

00

35

475

1,120

459

000

30

3,234

Cubic foot productivity classes 3/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

Release

subtotal

Thinning 

subtotal

Fertilization

subtotal

Pruning

subtotal
209

Table 8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment 1/

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/

Colorado

Arapaho and RooseveltGrand Mesa, Uncompahgre, GunnisonManti-La SalMedicine Bow-RouttPike and San IsabelRio GrandeSan JuanWhite River

Subtotal

Florida

NFs in Florida (subtotal)

Georgia

Chattahoochee and Oconee (subtotal)

Idaho

BoiseCaribou-TargheeClearwaterIdaho PanhandleKootenaiNez PercePayetteSalmon-ChallisSawtooth

Subtotal

Illinois

Shawnee (subtotal)

Indiana

Hoosier (subtotal)

Kentucky

Daniel Boone (subtotal)

Louisiana

Kisatchie (subtotal)

Maine

White Mountain (subtotal)

Michigan

HiawathaHuron-ManisteeOttawa

Subtotal

5,2333,388

10

8,147

926379

1,827

334

20,244

788

0

1,9263,5251,995

44,522

36

790

411

12,117

414

65,736

00

24

06

162

1,201

48

1,411

162344

114

1,682

295208

1,0642,0625,931

842322

7,1805,547

518

11,771

6

1,3882,619

986

41

30,056

50

805

110

1,471

36

4,5661,866

190

6,622

00

9550

000

708853464

4,423

6,110

47

1,477

56,749

17

5,9522,587

00

72,939

453200

2,7354,083

15

3,204

275148

3,627

000000000

41

2,5811,143

0

3,076

50,583

35

4,077

22

00

58,936

00

364

4,325

13

00

4141

5,3953,732

219

9,8791,221

587

2,8913,104

27,028

2,1357,326

16,359

9,119

7,066

163,625

94

12,207

5,639

13,103

455

227,667

503

1,0053,2339,879

70

7,9323,342

427

11,701

912589

0

2,840

899413

2,7212,950

11,324

883

2,0321,671

0

556

7,266

0

237

1,1429,475

152

20,499

450

1,005

381

4,657

11

2,471

695427

3,593

4,4833,143

219

7,039

322174170154

15,704

192

4,194

14,688

9,119

4,720

114,578

94

11,970

4,4973,628

303

163,597

00

2,8205,222

59

575

2,588

0

3,163

000000000

1,0601,100

000

2,136

00000

2,136

000000000

0000000000000

1,790

39,645

00000

41,435

53

0

32

00

4,886

59

0

4,945

Cubic foot productivity classes 3/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

Release

subtotal

Thinning 

subtotal

Fertilization

subtotal

Pruning

subtotal
210Table 8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment 1/

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/Minnesota

ChippewaSuperior

Subtotal

Mississippi

NFs in Mississippi (subtotal)

Missouri

Mark Twain (subtotal)

Montana

Beaverhead-DeerlodgeBitterrootCusterFlatheadGallatinHelenaIdaho PanhandleKootenaiLewis and ClarkLolo

Subtotal

Nebraska

Nebraska (subtotal)

Nevada

Humboldt-ToiyabeInyoLake Tahoe Basin M.U.

Subtotal

New Hampshire

White Mountain (subtotal)

New Mexico

CarsonCibolaGilaLincolnSanta Fe

Subtotal

New York

Green Mountain (subtotal)

North Carolina

NFs in North Carolina (subtotal)

736

2,1782,914

366

0

20,747

4,7722,187

13,767

1,4881,080

91

10,071

4,7509,666

68,619

02002

229

4,364

743

2,8941,9938,847

18,841

0

425

9,966

0

9,966

333

10,53312,626

9,530

158

11,627

5,333

777

0

53,644

1,674

18,165

113,534

0

185

00

185376

1,896

0

536

3,437

891

6,760

42

1,740

3,347

0

3,3473,295

166977

4,527

85

40,135

0

615230

60,785

798

10,741

118,893

00000

86

141

00

259

0

400653414

216

0

216

3,614

0

141199

46

7,479

0

70

347

1,387

6

2,445

12,120

000

195195

9000

68

0

68

0

2,893

14,265

2,178

16,443

7,608

10,69934,49119,028

2,476

73,008

6,8212,542

668

125,887

7,228

41,017

313,166

0

187

0

195382700

6,401

743

3,4305,7579,738

26,069

695

5,472

2,1252,1784,3035,753

50

107

2,551

110

686212

36

0

7852

629

4,461

00000

444496

00

1,081

489

2,066

58

3,191

000

1,577

10,57434,38416,477

2,366

70,873

6,6092,496

668

123,666

7,176

40,381

305,096

0

187

0

195382256

5,905

743

3,4304,6769,249

24,003

637

1,686

000

278

000000

10

0000

10

0000000000000

595

12,140

0

12,140

0

75

000

1,449

000

2,143

07

3,599

00000000000000

Cubic foot productivity classes 3/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

Release

subtotal

Thinning 

subtotal

Fertilization

subtotal

Pruning

subtotal
211

Table 8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment 1/

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/Ohio

Wayne (subtotal)

Oklahoma

Ouachita (subtotal)

Oregon

DeschutesFremontKlamathMalheurMt. HoodOchocoRogue RiverSiskiyouSiuslawUmatillaUmpquaWallowa-Whitman

WillametteWinema

Subtotal

Pennsylvania

Allegheny (subtotal)

Puerto Rico

Caribbean (subtotal)

South Carolina

Francis Marion and Sumter (subtotal)

South Dakota

Black Hills (subtotal)

Tennessee

Cherokee (subtotal)

Texas

NFs in Texas (subtotal)

Utah

AshleyDixieFishlakeManti-La SalUintaWasatch-Cache

Subtotal

26

0

26,99717,432

12

2,647

0

25,186

0

68

0

3,878

0

13,699

81

2,027

92,027

65

00

3,094

60

10,035

4,550

570

00

171

15,326

389

35

17,44215,401

187

2,369

15,38512,283

3,385

629

0

10,832

5,919

57,171

6,197

11,269

158,469

838300

0

257675707

0

1,206

562226

0

526

2,520

656227

1,338

211

333

0

9,699

12

21,89916,207

0

3,188

16,959

4,306

72,399

3,550

150,101

801798

3,619

05

1,947

000

1,331

45

0

1,376

2,628

782896

0

562

0

1,145

0

1,0662,991

33,137

1,4703,928

0

96,428

0

141,623

506

000

1,7261,334

000

200

00

200

3,6991,044

46,67333,044

1,0945,016

26,22937,48126,35019,89533,13719,36826,80675,176

175,105

16,846

542,220

2,2101,0983,6193,3512,4123,988

10,035

5,7561,1321,757

45

697

19,422

1,069

877

5,3662,171

415

1,010

0

568

4,2543,0831,515

662766

7,913

11,402

890

40,015

2,210

498

3,000

34

1,5593,482

0

1,1551,132

0

45

146

2,478

1,292

167

35,92430,873

679

4,006

15,42236,56316,893

4,076

30,90318,64723,44766,31732,71215,686

332,148

0

600149

3,317

853506

10,035

4,601

0

1,757

0

551

16,944

00

71

000

8,935

0

222

6,127

0000

91,727

0

107,082

00

470

0000000000

1,338

0

5,312

000

1,872

350

4,9816,609

719

59

2,593

946

39,264

270

62,975

0000000000000

Cubic foot productivity classes 3/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

Release

subtotal

Thinning 

subtotal

Fertilization

subtotal

Pruning

subtotal
212Table 8. Timber stand improvement needs as of October 1, 2001, by State, national forest, cubic foot productivity class, and type of treatment 1/

1/ Data source is Reforestation & TSI Needs Report (2400-K) Table 1. This information is required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Sec. 4d(1). 

2/ Unlisted States had no TSI needs as of October 1, 2001.3/ Cubic foot productivity class refers to the cubic feet of wood produced per acre per year in a natural unmanaged stand.

State, Commonwealth, or Territory 2/

Vermont

Green Mountain (subtotal)

Virginia

George Washington and Jefferson (subtotal)

Washington

ColvilleGifford PinchotIdaho PanhandleMt. Baker-SnoqualmieOkanoganOlympicUmatillaWenatchee

Subtotal

West Virginia

George Washington and JeffersonMonongahela

Subtotal

Wisconsin

Chequamegon-Nicolet (subtotal)

Wyoming

BighornBlack HillsBridger-TetonCaribou-TargheeMedicine Bow-RouttShoshoneWasatch-Cache

SubtotalTotal

667567487

0

1,012

0

34,740

0

159

1,136

37,534

202

41

243124

9,241

688

0

43

6,8033,212

232

20,219

425,720

777

7,5855,199

21,125

417

18

4,836

532

5,063

62,21099,400

677357

1,034

280362322

3698

162384

27

1,391

602,786

194

1,3147,469

22,692

6,4081,077

769

14,117

0

12,79165,323

0

210210268

00

579

0

13

00

592

598,257

0

1,8681,0919,3993,1421,654

0

828

24

14,95731,095

344169513

53

00000000

427,201

1,638

11,334

14,24653,21610,979

2,749

40,34515,477

5,246

91,094

233,352

1,223

777

2,000

725

9,6031,010

615141

6,9783,596

259

22,202

2,053,964

378

3,1021,480

67

161

19

3,564

84

100

3,3408,8151,040

247

1,287

249

2,683

000

369153

0

3,205

310,369

1,2588,109

12,38644,985

9,689

948

35,75514,523

4,792

59,448

182,526

183530713223

6,9201,010

615141

6,6093,443

259

18,997

1,453,318

000

6,275

0

1,488

0

795

0

7,612

16,170

000000000000

133,806

2

123380

1,8891,129

294

1,026

75

354

20,69425,841

000

253

00000000

156,471

Cubic foot productivity classes 3/

National Forest 0-49 50-84 85-119 120+ Total acres

Release

subtotal

Thinning 

subtotal

Fertilization

subtotal

Pruning

subtotal
213

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Fungicides and Fumigants

Basamid

Benomyl

Borax

Borax

Borax

Borax

Carboxin-thiram

Chloropicrin

Chloropicrin

Chlorothalonil

Chlorothalonil

Chlorothalonil

Dazomet

DCNA

Dicloran

Dicloran

Dicloran

Dodine

Iprodione

Iprodione

Mancozeb

Metalaxyl

Metalaxyl

Methyl bromide

Methyl bromide

Pentachloronitrobenzene

Propiconazole

Propiconazole

Sodium hypochlorite

Thiophanate-methyl

Thiophanate-methyl

Thiram

Triadimefon

Triadimefon

Vinclozolin

Total 2000 Fungicides 23,114 Acres 59,371 Pounds

and Fumigants 14 Acre Feet 17 Gallons

67 Pounds of Seed

55,000 Seedling

24,056 Nursery Sq Feet

1,200 Trees

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Disease Control

Fungus Control

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Recreation Improvement

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Soil Fumigation

Disease Control

Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Soil Fumigation

Recreation Improvement

Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Fungus Control

Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Nursery Disease Control

Recreation Improvement

Nursery Disease Control

3.10

9.30

11749.00

10830.00

40.00

58.00

67.00

18.40

0.00

47.00

1200.00

26.60

39.40

4.20

11.60

55000.00

4576.00

5.00

0.20

12.20

14.70

0.20

16600.00

32.50

5.90

1.00

2.00

121.60

14.40

0.10

74.60

2.00

4.00

2.00

2880.00

1386.00

9.30

14905.50

15361.00

15.00

27.00

6.70

4234.00

817.00

42.28

15.00

62.62

14275.00

3.10

30.00

0.09

1.98

6.50

6.70

6.10

17.60

0.25

0.42

6984.00

1083.00

21.50

0.36

6.16

16.48

0.30

36.41

1.58

0.97

6.50

0.75

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Lbs/Seed

Acres

Acres

Acres

Trees

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Seedlings

Square Feet

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Square Feet

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acre Feet

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Square Feet

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure
214

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Herbicides, Algicides, and Plant Growth Regulators

2,4-D

2,4-D

2,4-D

Aphthona flava

Aphthona lacertosa

Bensulide

Bromacil

Bromacil

Calophasia lunula

Ceutorhynchus litura

Ceutorhynchus litura

Chlorsulfuron

Chlorsulfuron

Clopyralid

Clopyralid

Dicamba

Diglycolamine®

Dimethylamine

Diuron

Diuron

Diuron

Ferric sulfate

Fluazifop

Fluridone

Fosamine ammonium

Fosamine ammonium

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Grassland Restoration

Noxious Weed Control

Nursery Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Recreation Improvement

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Site Preparation

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Recreation Improvement

Grassland Restoration

Agricultural Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Agricultural Weed Control

Aquatic Weed Control

Conifer and Hardwood Release

Conifer Release

Conifer Release

Grassland Restoration

Hardwood Release

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Nursery Weed Control

Recreation Improvement

Research

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Seed Orchard Protection

Site Preparation

50.00

18763.80

12.00

46.00

185.00

1.00

2.00

0.00

10.00

95.00

42.00

81.40

30.60

2614.60

23.50

3207.80

373.00

103.00

0.00

468.00

192.50

0.10

63.00

12.00

12.00

374.00

165.60

2.00

1536.00

45.00

6007.00

151.00

178.00

68.10

40.00

1649.10

167.60

149.20

112.50

389.30

83.00

6434.00

10.00

15487.77

12.00

173800.00

142500.00

12.50

0.45

0.00

1513.00

640.00

2100.00

7.38

1.45

658.14

8.82

2244.26

119.87

4.26

0.45

16.00

231.60

1.40

30.00

12.00

49.69

748.00

579.36

0.75

2724.00

46.00

15448.51

283.80

118.00

55.75

0.50

1905.73

461.82

38.80

74.00

388.50

38.38

18406.50

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Insects

Insects

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Insects

Insects

Insects

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

PIB*

Pounds

Pounds

PIB*

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure
215

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Herbicides, Algicides, and Plant Growth Regulators

Glyphosate

Glyphosate

Halosulfuron-methyl

Hexazinone

Hexazinone

Hexazinone

Hexazinone

Hexazinone

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Imazapyr

Metsulfuron-methyl

Metsulfuron-methyl

MSMA

MSMA

Oxyfluorfen

Oxyfluorfen

Oxyfluorfen

Oxyfluorfen

Pendimethalin

Picloram

Picloram

Picloram

Picloram

Sethoxydim

Simazine

Sulfometuron-methyl

Sulfometuron-methyl

Sulfometuron-methyl

Sulfometuron-methyl

Tebuthiuron

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Nursery Weed Control

Agricultural Weed Control

Conifer Release

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Site Preparation

Conifer and Hardwood Release

Conifer Release

Noxious Weed Control

Recreation Improvement

Research

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Site Preparation

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Agricultural Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Noxious Weed Control

Nursery Weed Control

Research

Recreation Improvement

Insect Suppression

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Nursery Weed Control

Nursery Weed Control

Conifer Release

Noxious Weed Control

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Site Preparation

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Conifer and Hardwood Release

Conifer Release

Grassland Restoration

Hardwood Control

Hardwood Control

Hardwood Release

12.00

3851.90

0.10

0.20

1302.00

1.50

16.00

1729.00

2389.00

1988.00

1355.70

2.00

30.00

271.20

1588.00

110.00

3339.80

14.80

1.00

15.00

2.00

110.00

227.90

55.00

15.00

184.00

160.00

37274.00

17.10

1.80

2.10

2007.00

36.00

54.00

513.00

200.00

2956.00

3565.00

50.00

26.00

108.00

98.00

10.00

341.40

0.06

2.76

662.30

0.07

13.60

5414.00

63.00

396.00

332.18

0.06

2.25

10.50

594.50

10.00

610.66

0.85

1.00

0.12

2.20

83.70

212.85

56.00

21.50

6.00

7.50

8418.43

0.10

0.71

28.13

113.30

1.88

8.60

47.00

0.50

2346.00

2953.00

5.00

17.50

38.00

15.00

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

PIB*

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Gallons

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure
216

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Herbicides, Algicides, and Plant Growth Regulators

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triclopyr

Triasulfuron

Urophora species

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

Nursery Weed Control

Recreation Improvement

Research

ROW Vegetation Mgmt

Seed Orchard Protection

Site Preparation

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Noxious Weed Control

Noxious Weed Control

43.00

200.00

381.60

3500.00

400.00

0.00

2.00

6.00

495.10

42.00

7310.00

500.00

40.00

45.00

9.00

5.00

622.09

25.00

3.00

0.03

4.00

5.00

945.60

162.25

7233.00

562.60

37.80

630.00

Acres

Acres

Acres

Tree Grps

Trees

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Galls

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure

Total 2000 Herbicides, Algicides, and Plant Growth Regulators 118,683 Acres 92,478 Pounds

3,500 Tree Groups 320,553 Insects

400 Trees 630 Galls

36 Gallons

174 PIB*

* Poly-Inclusion Bodies
217

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Insecticides, Acaricides, and Pheromones

Acephate

Acephate

Acephate

Avermectin

Bacillus thuringiensis

Carbaryl

Carbaryl

Carbaryl

Carbaryl

Carbaryl

Carbaryl

Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos

Cyfluthrin

Cypermethrin

Diazinon

Diazinon

Dienochlor

Dimethoate

Disparlure

Esfenvalerate

Esfenvalerate

Esfenvalerate

Fenbutatin-oxide

Hercon luretapes

Hexazinone

Hydramethylnon

Malathion

Malathion

Permethrin

Permethrin

Permethrin

Pheromone

Pheromone

Potassium salts of fatty acids

Potassium salts of fatty acids

Pyrethrin

TM-Biocontrol—DFTM

Insect Eradication

Nursery Insect Control

Nursery Insect Control

Insect Eradication

Nursery Insect Control

Insect Suppression

Nursery Insect Control

Nursery Insect Control

Nursery Insect Control

Research

Research

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

Nursery Insect Control

Recreation Improvement

Insect Eradication

Insect Eradication

Nursery Insect Control

Vector/Plague Suppression

Nursery Insect Control

Nursery Insect Control

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

Nursery Insect Control

Seed Orchard Protection

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

Insect Eradication

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

Nursery Insect Control

Insect Suppression

Research

Research

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

Insect Eradication

Nursery Insect Control

Insect Eradication

Insect Suppression

488.00

6.00

58530.00

446.00

0.60

10.00

8.50

50.00

1408.00

2.00

32.00

6.00

10.00

19.40

5.00

6.00

6.00

4.00

193.00

778.00

18.00

492.00

59.90

43.30

30.00

576.00

38.00

360.00

24.00

0.50

24344.00

2.20

6.00

4994.00

246.00

8.00

15.00

6336.00

2.00

34392.00

0.04

4.50

0.18

0.11

5.75

15.00

10.40

0.02

0.88

20.00

6.00

0.39

10.00

19.38

37.50

0.06

0.43

16.00

35.95

0.08

9.00

0.20

4.54

1.73

6.27

0.38

0.25

0.02

0.96

0.04

8.70

2.50

5.20

0.06

0.15

1.40

128.00

12.27

0.02

2.407E15

Square Feet

Acres

Seedlings

Square Feet

Acres

Acres

Acres

Seedlings

Square Feet

Acres

Trees

Buildings

Acres

Acres

Acres

Buildings

Buildings

Acres

Acres

Seedlings

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Square Feet

Acres

Square Feet

Acres

Acres

Square Feet

Acres

Acres

Seedlings

Acres

Acres

Acres

Square Feet

Buildings

Acres

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

BIU*

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Pounds

PIB**

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure
218

Total 2000 Insecticides, Acaricides, and Pheromones 35,633 Acres 231 Pounds

20 Buildings 128 Gallons

95 Pheromone Traps 6 BIU*

64,352 Seedlings 2.407E15 PIB**

33,958 Nursery Sq. Feet

32 Trees

Pesticide Common Name

Predacides, Piscicides, and Repellents

Antimycin

Denatonium benzoate

Putrescent egg solids

Putrescent egg solids

Rotenone

Rotenone

Rotenone

Fish Eradication

Animal Damage Control

Animal Damage Control

Conifer Release

Fish Eradication

Fish Eradication

Fish Eradication

18.00

1436.00

9496.00

1698.00

15.00

20.00

1.00

8.90

11.40

1207.40

1604.00

0.50

2.00

2.00

Stream Miles

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acre Feet

Acre Feet

Acres

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Gallons

Pounds

Gallons

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure

Total 2000 Predacides, Piscicides, and Repellents 12,631 Acres 2,834 Pounds

35 Acre Feet 3 Gallons

18 Stream Miles

Pesticide Common Name

Rodenticides

Bromadiolone

Diphacinone

Strychnine

Strychnine

Strychnine

Housekeeping/Facilities Maint

Seed Orchard Protection

Animal Damage Control

Conifer Release

Seed Orchard Protection

23.00

1.00

30656.00

3013.00

126.00

0.06

0.00

676.34

5.73

0.34

Buildings

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Pounds

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure

Total 2001 Rodenticides 33,796 Acres 683 Pounds

23 Buildings

Grand total 2000 pesticide use 223,858 Acres 155,596 Pounds

58,014 Nursery 320,553 Insects

Square Feet

43 Buildings 630 Galls

49 Acre Feet 184 Gallons

3,500 Tree Groups 6 BIU*

119,352 Seedlings 2.407E15 PIB**

67 Pounds 

of Seed

18 Stream Miles

1,632 Trees

Table 9. Pesticide use report—FY 2000

Pesticide Common Name

Insecticides, Acaricides, and Pheromones

Treatment Purpose Treated Units Amount Measure

* Billion International Units

** Poly-Inclusion Bodies
219

Table 10. Payment to States from national forest receipts—FY 1998-2001 1/

State, Commonwealth,

or Territory

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

2,032,381.86

8,795,864.26

7,002,294.71

6,409,693.90

61,908,621.54

5,594,779.67

2,381,295.26

1,221,004.87

20,201,987.32

285,058.20

121,965.20

418,498.72

3,643,760.96

38,797.87

3,035,938.64

3,908,437.92

7,619,052.68

2,386,666.48

13,446,251.04

39,654.35

422,434.92

445,378.25

1,893,635.11

7,675.72

956,170.69

101.18

39,827.02

1,302,515.40

141,075,407.15

4,830,500.70

21,405.93

3,079,722.56

3,669,187.27

524,734.00

4,446,516.84

1,864,827.94

335,933.11

789,666.80

41,228,762.75

1,861,226.98

2,230,103.65

2,184,148.88

363,701,888.30

617,397.86

2,303,713.60

1,781,330.09

6,706,795.00

26,418,432.59

4,529,946.60

944,899.27

52,789.87

7,583,715.99

167,477.56

4,998.48

71,621.56

1,838,578.45

26,916.05

3,856,191.57

4,072,016.11

6,504,457.90

1,168,241.10

7,051,084.69

34,498.36

295,414.67

397,181.83

681,387.49

8,478.33

455,485.20

71.98

-3,116.76

1,249,725.06

76,322,960.34

2,981,650.71

20,919.28

576,821.66

3,070,194.20

373,512.99

665,807.17

1,900,307.57

327,618.58

486,902.27

24,658,286.13

1,284,519.47

1,788,238.51

1,591,933.42

194,869,402.80

627,141.11

1,990,437.05

1,744,657.63

8,139,548.73

28,607,060.72

4,136,063.23

655,096.72

284,914.07

7,519,223.34

214,271.62

27,552.52

68,621.37

2,169,658.42

37,579.88

3,115,660.35

4,122,815.01

8,191,796.44

1,213,797.62

6,180,745.51

34,203.49

290,104.41

554,530.04

912,360.79

5,116.94

782,161.27

144.91

22,984.30

1,514,294.85

80,791,483.46

2,769,989.07

14,439.55

1,664,342.08

3,318,229.60

536,567.09

2,304,128.26

1,437,451.69

395,630.14

652,651.00

25,728,245.67

1,823,553.49

1,805,834.32

1,700,935.82

208,106,023.58

1,132,837.61

1,820,091.50

2,112,822.86

6,583,562.29

30,533,384.80

5,045,264.85

1,434,607.96

328,311.76

12,468,422.21

394,100.70

138,294.11

254,852.82

2,360,550.67

37,218.91

2,995,680.41

3,412,495.17

5,399,465.46

1,237,033.09

10,366,665.72

33,188.25

329,556.48

548,524.95

854,154.64

2,215.54

594,302.06

57.33

2,241.43

1,034,363.08

85,505,449.53

5,800,446.38

24,408.87

557,227.68

3,663,436.84

326,855.64

5,620,631.20

1,511,626.92

435,564.94

767,354.09

27,073,257.08

1,944,308.51

2,165,773.84

2,184,110.74

229,034,718.92

FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 1999 FY 1998

1/ Data source: All Service Receipts - ASR-09-3.

Actual Dollars
220

Table 11. Summary of selected cooperative forest management and processing program activities—selected fiscal years, 1945–2001

Fiscal Year

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1976-77 (T.Q.) 2/

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

8,093 

22,828 

34,828 

82,188 

99,074 

115,197 

127,828 

274,001 

106,422 

117,990 

140,940 

105,184 

25,253 

133,619 

165,329 

183,585 

176,385 

164,279 

141,472 

136,265 

151,539 

134,338 

137,753 

158,353 

167,432 

153,855 

148,673 

153,090 

190,211 

190,256 

152,189 

192,618 

214,517 

186,824 

146,746 

234,907 

189,040 

190,929 

411,330 

518,566 

549,373 

569,178 

716,950 

1,225,520 

860,950 

955,627 

1,578,664 

907,311 

677,532 

596,599 

220,649 

921,171 

1,120,743 

755,103 

870,964 

683,181 

841,475 

872,125 

1,033,440 

913,411 

855,813 

1,225,896 

890,581 

1,242,564 

1,597,931 

1,697,861 

791,462 

950,178 

1,313,946 

1,274,902 

1,372,380 

1,864,805 

2,380,079 

4,206,261 

6/

1/

3/

4/

5/

0 

0 

8,182 

8,099 

9,248 

13,620 

14,627 

5,290 

4,855 

5,353 

5,405 

15,318 

5,849 

29,101 

12,749 

11,393 

11,582 

18,609 

15,470 

8,717 

10,082 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Woodland 

owners 

assisted

Timber sale 

assistance-volume

marked 1/

Loggers and 

processors 

assisted

1/ MBF = thousand board feet through 1998; in 1999 volume is reported in thousand cubic feet (MCF)

2/ Transition quarter.

3/ Not all States reported.

4/ - = inadequate data due to lack of State grants in wood utilization program.

5/ PMAS fields 14039 and 14040.

6/ Data no longer collected.

(Number) (Number) (MBF 1/)
221

Table 12. Summary of selected cooperative forestry management and processing activities by region—FY 2001 (NIPF 1/ lands) 

1/ Nonindustrial private forest lands2/ Entire State of Idaho shown in Region 1.3/ PMAS fields 14039 + 140404/ PMAS field 140115/ Forest stewardship program plans and acres separately recorded in table 3.6/ PMAS field 140107/ PMAS field 14071 minus 140728/ PMAS field 140729/ PMAS field 1407310/ PMAS field 1413111/ PMAS field 14040

Assistance activity Unit of Measure

R-1 2/

Northern

R-2

Rocky

Mountain

R-3 

Southwestern

R-4

InterMountain

R-5

Pacific 

Southwest

IF

Puerto

Rico

R-6

Pacific

Northwest

R-8

Southern

R-10

Alaska

NA

Northeastern

Area

Total

Woodland ownersassistedForest managementplans prepared 5/Reforestation

PlantingSeeding

Timber stand improvement Urban forestry assistance activitiesReferrals to consulting foresters

Number 3/

Plans 4/Acres 6/Acres 7/Acres 8/Acres 9/# Urban areasassisted 10/Number 11/

2,865

483

119,650

16,819

20

140,322

403200

3,464

378

122,449

17,742

47

3,501

710318

393

67

43,112

553

0

10,523

237

45

824

5

120,046

892

0

631126

14

2,404

272

45,495

14,115

3

340680481

665349

2874

4

187813

33

103

24

4,506

626

42,55244,404

6968

29,701

267699

86,48931,778

1,647,5901,131,416

1,139

496,313

1,6319,560

46

00

1901

07

13

6

89,273

6,407

466,824

114,523

4251

83,642

4,640

13,628

190,929

40,365

2,610,5921,342,369

200,241765,013

8,810

24,975
222

Table 13. Summary of selected cooperative forest management and processing activities by State—FY 2001

State,

Commonwealth,

or Territory

Woodland 

owners 

assisted

Number 1/

Reforestation

assistance

Acres 2/

Timber stand

improvement

assistance

Acres 3/

State nursery 

production

1,000 trees 4/

Alabama

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Commonwealth, N. Marianas

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Federated States of Micronesia

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Palau

14,519 

46 

335 

117 

7,844 

1,626 

1,277 

105 

305 

627 

5,044 

8 

7,300 

40 

200 

1,981 

15,077 

4,520 

2,191 

570 

1,741 

3,361 

13,806 

3,496 

2,167 

474 

5,116 

22,328 

3,534 

576 

793 

424 

1,994 

1,180 

276 

3,432 

8,865 

308 

4,196 

1,057 

2,358 

90 

136,000 

1,901 

12 

400 

15,861 

12,457 

2,759 

14 

43 

2,863 

66,182 

18 

267,031 

100 

1,487 

1,763 

38,738 

8,881 

8,072 

1,716 

3,812 

105,431 

279 

4,950 

39 

1,480 

15,720 

209,672 

12,954 

563 

4,083 

350 

215 

75 

153 

1,175 

99,419 

14,513 

2,807 

6,270 

24,592 

30 

42,000 

7 

0 

293 

724 

0 

2,200 

0 

2,716 

383 

24,651 

0 

110,000 

0 

340 

140,142 

7,179 

8,328 

8,940 

212 

0 

6,461 

4,170 

4,295 

2,971 

185 

6,009 

22,432 

2,019 

180 

169 

251 

4,523 

0 

10,230 

2,904 

13,567 

0 

901 

2,500 

15,141 

0 

19,000 

0 

0 

0 

21,000 

0 

2,623 

13 

656 

0 

30,000 

0 

94,044 

46 

143 

551 

6,098 

5,800 

3,957 

125 

10,500 

42,493 

0 

6,518 

0 

3,435 

11,451 

36,880 

6,700 

1,101 

0 

97 

0 

315 

154 

1,216 

31,854 

1,360 

4,368 

8,227 

13,534 

25 
223

Table 13. Summary of selected cooperative forest management and processing activities by State—FY 2001

State,

Commonwealth,

or Territory

Woodland 

owners 

assisted

Number 1/

Reforestation

assistance

Acres 2/

Timber stand

improvement

assistance

Acres 3/

State nursery 

production

1,000 trees 4/

Pennsylvania

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

1,894 

455 

127 

3,760 

484 

1,734 

1,656 

400 

4,814 

210 

7,280 

2,148 

2,603 

17,720 

340 

190,929 

643 

0 

187,649 

0 

79,835 

8,479 

8,063 

55,320 

542 

0 

168 

79,659 

26,780 

1,407 

18,433 

752 

1,542,610

595 

0 

33 

0 

144,600 

146 

292 

54,000 

380 

17,780 

0 

75,086 

14,560 

1,554 

8,190 

774 

765,013

4,368 

0 

1,205 

0 

21,609 

0 

25,000 

16,362 

862 

0 

0 

40,000 

9,994 

1,928 

20,466 

0 

506,078 

1/ PMAS Fields 14039, 14040

2/ PMAS Field 14071, NIPF lands only

3/ PMAS Field 14073, NIPF lands only

4/ PMAS Field 14090
224Table 14. Timber offered, sold, and harvested by region—FY 2000-2001

MMBF = million board feet; MMCF = million cubic feet.Sold and offered will not be equal since some sales were not sold (awarded) in the same fiscal year in which they were offered. Some sales did not receive any bids, or were withdrawn. Sold data comes from the cut and sold report. Conversion is 5 BF per CF for FY 2000 only.

1/ Sales offered for the fiscal year being displayed. Offer data comes from the Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Report.

FY 2001 offered volume does not include FY 2000 carryover of 341.5 MMBF and 67.9 MMCF per Congressional direction.

2/ Includes sales offered in prior fiscal years and sold in the fiscal year being displayed, and miscellaneous small sales that were previously offered and/or sold and were reoffered and sold in the 

fiscal year being displayed. Does not include the volume of long-term sales released for harvesting.

3/ Includes the volume harvested on long-term sales. Harvest data comes from the cut and sold report. Conversion is 5 BF per CF for FY 2000 only.

2001

Offered 1/

Northern (R-1)Rocky Mountain (R-2)Southwestern (R-3)Intermountain (R-4)Pacific Southwest (R-5)Pacific Northwest (R-6)Southern (R-8)Eastern (R-9)Alaska (R-10)

Total

211.9 

134.3 

115.4 

91.7 

333.2 197.3 256.0 310.7 

23.0 

1,673.6 

43.4 27.3 20.6 16.9 69.4 39.1 46.4 50.4 

4.5 

318.0

177.3 

61.6 81.3 

101.4 228.0 268.8 243.9 321.9 

49.9 

1,534.1

37.6 12.4 14.1 18.7 35.6 53.8 44.5 52.5 

9.6 

278.8

190.2 140.5 

70.5 87.5 

344.2 307.0 287.0 463.1 

48.2 

1,938.2

39.8 28.9 12.0 16.1 57.5 61.2 52.4 74.8 10.3 

353.0

189.7 

59.2 94.8 55.5 

270.7 255.4 342.4 361.1 

85.6 

1,714.4

38.2 12.5 16.7 10.5 56.6 49.5 61.3 58.5 18.3 

322.1

189.0 

99.6 68.7 59.1 

214.5 242.3 381.8 319.0 170.7 

1,744.5 

37.8 19.9 13.7 

11.8 

42.9 48.5 76.4 63.8 34.1 

348.9 

257.6 134.1 

65.3 

123.9 389.0 409.2 468.3 547.9 147.1 

2,542.4

51.5 26.8 13.1 24.8 77.8 81.8 93.7 

109.6 

29.4 

508.5

MMBF MMCF MMBF MMCF MMCF MMBF MMBF MMCF MMBF MMCF MMCF MMBF

Sold 2/ Harvested 3/ Offered 1/ Sold 2/ Harvested 3/

2000
225

Table 15. Number of sales and timber volume sold and harvested by State—FY 2001 1/

MMBF = million board feet. MMCF = million cubic feet. 

1/ Data source is the cut and sold report. Excludes nonconvertible special forest products.

2/ Unlisted States had no timber sold or harvested in FY 2001.

3/ Includes reforestation, stand improvement, and timber salvage collections. Does not include brush disposal or value of roads.

State 

or 

Commonwealth 2/ Sales

Timber sold Timber harvested

Bid Value MMBF MMCF 3/

Volume Volume

MMBF MMCF Receipts 3/

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

242

145

8,937

1,476

32,548

1,880

222

353

17,699

43

15

172

200

0

2,014

140

130

420

11,290

4

1,411

92

17,012

9

595

14

4

96

20,286

127

259

556

217

88

4,776

73

468

5,393

123

1,236

3,154

133,919

12.1

49.9

42.7

131.6

230.0

38.2

15.2

0.4

135.2

0.0

0.0

3.2

3.4

-

88.7

77.7

29.5

16.1

108.2

0.0

1.9

0.2

38.5

0.0

5.5

0.0

0.0

3.4

191.4

13.7

8.8

11.7

2.4

12.6

25.3

0.1

15.7

77.5

13.2

112.1

17.8

1,533.9

2.2

9.6

7.3

23.9

36.0

7.9

2.8

0.1

25.9

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.6

-

14.4

12.6

5.4

2.7

23.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

6.8

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

38.6

2.2

1.6

2.3

0.7

2.3

4.7

0.0

2.9

15.2

2.2

18.4

3.6

279.0

20.3

48.2

41.0

110.0

346.1

48.5

25.3

1.0

131.6

0.0

0

4.1

17.2

1.5

157.1

110.6

40.5

26.2

105.1

0.0

1.9

14.7

29.5

0.1

10.2

0.0

0.0

4.1

213.0

22.1

22.5

78.2

5.7

6.8

31.6

3.5

18.0

94.0

8.7

119.9

19.4

1,938.2

3.7

10.3

7.1

20.0

57.8

10.3

4.6

0.2

24.7

0.0

0.0

0.7

3.1

0.2

25.3

17.8

7.4

4.3

23.4

0.0

0.3

2.4

4.9

0.0

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.7

42.8

3.6

4.1

15.9

1.3

1.2

6.0

0.6

3.3

18.4

1.5

19.4

3.7

352.9

$1,679,475 

$1,862,850 

$2,236,017 

$15,909,282 

$19,353,560 

$2,263,747 

$2,598,881 

$32,676 

$17,017,731 

$430 

$760 

$151,451 

$2,150,962 

$94,272 

$11,362,094 

$5,071,172 

$7,331,253 

$3,493,299 

$12,568,979 

$60 

$29,289 

$1,125,468 

$402,427 

$9,312 

$768,921 

$125 

$120 

$531,426 

$18,056,968 

$17,384,710 

$3,005,038 

$6,190,446 

$442,456 

$1,240,534 

$2,316,898 

$566,480 

$1,689,116 

$7,869,416 

$1,909,373 

$7,977,910 

$938,459 

$177,633,843 

$873,443 

$1,774,329 

$1,043,190 

$14,474,352 

$12,507,971 

$1,888,392 

$1,093,380 

$3,635 

$14,215,906 

$430 

$770 

$96,379 

$238,188 

$0 

$9,400,775 

$3,665,209 

$5,376,486 

$1,735,918 

$10,131,295 

$100 

$30,201 

$2,587 

$449,265 

$180 

$289,770 

$150 

$80 

$312,771 

$14,406,151 

$18,754,593 

$570,075 

$941,062 

$69,635 

$1,914,712 

$3,211,144 

$1,540 

$1,624,564 

$7,594,589 

$3,132,043 

$7,934,430 

$1,053,951 

$140,813,641 
226Table 16. Uncut timber volume under contract by region (all products)—FY 1997–2001 1/

1/ Data source is the Automated Timber Sale Accounting (ATSA) System. Volume values have been rounded and may not sum to the actual total shown.

2/ Volume (million board feet) in local scale.3/ Conversions from million board feet (MMBF) to million cubic feet (MMCF) based on actual regional conversion factors, which vary by region and fiscal year.4/ Long-term sale not included.

2001

MMBF 2/ Region

Northern (R-1)Rocky Mountain (R-2)Southwestern (R-3)Intermountain (R-4)Pacific Southwest (R-5)Pacific Northwest (R-6)Southern (R-8)Eastern (R-9)Alaska (R-10) 4/Total

417336

81

200847906554736337

4,413

87751638

169176101

119

72

854

444400

79

208545958610877336

4,456

93891636

109190

111

142

72

858

501432

79

299663

1,170

727

1,095

234

5,199

105

961652

133232132177

50

993

576423

96

360710

1,338

928

1,244

230

5,906

120

941963

142266169202

57

1,132

650389

88

405807

1,353

907

1,363

264

6,226

163

741871

161268165220

66

1,206

MMCF 3/ MMBF 2/ MMCF 3/ MMBF 2/ MMCF 3/ MMBF 2/ MMCF 3/ MMBF 2/ MMCF 3/

2000 1999 1998 1997
227

Table 17. Forest land management funding—FY 1999–2001 1/

1/ Data source is each fiscal year's final program budget advice or budget authority. 

2/ Includes general administration (GA) expenses. Special accounts include GA expenses in all years; in FY 2001, GA expenses were included in 

all areas.

3/ In FY 2001 forest land vegetation (FV) management was combined with vegetation and watershed management. The FV amount is estimated.

4/ Due to the phase-out of purchaser credits, costs associated with road construction under the purchaser program are now part of the appraisal 

costs, and are no longer tracked as a separate item. Therefore, these costs are not available.

5/ Available from field request data.

Timber sales management

Forest land vegetation management 3/

Road construction (timber-related)

USDA Forest Service construction (PEPE)

Purchaser construction by the USDA Forest Service 4/

Subtotal, Road construction

Total, appropriated accounts

Special accounts 2/

Timber salvage sales 

K-V reforestation & timber stand improvement 5/

Timber sale pipeline restoration fund (sale preparation)

Brush disposal

Reforestation trust fund

Total, special accounts

Total

255,281

53,888 

633 

-

633 

309,802

119,636 

83,183 

0 

19,932 

30,000 

252,751 

562,553

223,060 

62,958 

1,946 

5,945 

7,891 

293,909 

99,284

97,962 

4,620 

20,820 

30,000 

252,686

546,595

226,900 

58,300 

2,448 

6,610 

9,058 

294,258 

142,977 

109,364 

4,500 

22,885 

30,000 

309,726 

603,984

2001 2/ 2000 1999

(1,000 dollars)
228

Table 18. Sold value of special forest products—FY 2000-2001 1/

1/ Data source is final fiscal year cut and sold report. Includes all products not convertible to board foot or cubic units. Product values have been 

rounded and may not sum to the actual total shown.

Christmas trees

Special wood products

Transplants

Limbs and boughs

Foliage

Needles

Bark

Cones, green

Cones, dry

Seed

Nuts and seed

Fruits and berries

Tree sap

Roots

Mushrooms

Fungi

Mosses

Herbs

Wildflowers

Grass

Mistletoe

Cacti

Other plants

Miscellaneous

Total

$1,495,692

$79

$156,432

$327,859

$73,963

$20

$2,020

$44,003

$14,453

$13,919

$1,165

$5,017

$3,184

$1,420

$369,778

$1,520

$10,483

$690

$7,529

$201,388

$1,492

$499

$562

$869,796

$3,602,962

$1,328,403

$965

$185,084

$282,013

$49,918

$0

$2,320

$3,560

$16,757

$7,792

$870

$2,990

$3,379

$465

$225,150

$1,054

$11,775

$2,469

$11,528

$161,332

$3,105

$50

$1,060

$603,112

$2,905,151

FY 2001

Sold value (in dollars)

Product category FY 2000
229

Table 19. Energy mineral workload and production—FY 1997–2001

1/ Estimate for production.

2/ Minerals Management Service production data.

1997 1/

1998 1/

1999 2/

2000 2/

2001 2/

5.4 

5.8 

5.8 

5.3 

5.3 

10,000,000 

9,500,000 

8,615,000 

8,256,000 

7,347,000 

250,000,000 

150,000,000 

77,757,000 

100,812,000 

93,322,000 

115,000,000 

75,000,000 

69,382,000 

79,313,000 

93,724,000 

Fiscal year Acres under lease

(Millions) (Barrels) (1,000 cu.Ft.) (Short tons)

Oil Production Gas Production Coal Production
230

Table 20. Miles of boundary line located, by region—FY 2001 1/

1/ Totals include accomplishment from Landownership Management funding, all contributing benefiting functions, and cooperative and

cost-sharing activities. Accomplishment does not include 36 miles of administrative boundary line for special management areas.

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total

27,725 

44,086 

18,053 

20,960 

26,700 

25,627 

41,234 

42,071 

2,602 

249,058 

195 

331 

71 

120 

67 

86 

116 

195 

47 

1,228

10,074 

7,024 

5,953 

5,276 

12,826 

16,679 

33,575 

13,237 

1,978 

106,622

10,269 

7,355 

6,024 

5,396 

12,893 

16,765 

33,691 

13,432 

2,025 

107,850

110 

38 

41 

41 

123 

114 

1,312 

136 

7 

1,922

Region

Total miles 

of boundary line

Miles marked

2001

Total miles

marked thru 2000

Miles marked

thru 2001

Miles maintained

2001
231

Table 21. Road maintenance accomplishments—FY 2001

1/ Does not include expenditures by the Washington Office, detached units, or research stations.

2/ Includes miles of road maintained at a level consistent with current use.

3/ Road mile changes include roads acquired through land and right-of-way purchases.

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total1/

9,653

6,029

8,801

9,846

12,154

16,376

10,945

5,312

8,897

88,013

16,929

12,139

17,402

8,819

14,263

27,545

13,100

20,166

1,988

132,351

55,942

31,670

53,328

39,172

44,184

87,581

36,983

29,931

3,603

382,394

Region

Cost 1/

(1,000 dollars)

Miles fully maintained 2/

(Miles)

Total miles 3/

(Miles)
232

Table 22a. Road and bridge construction and reconstruction—FY 2001 from appropriated roads funds*

* Funds reported under this heading do not include PEPE or TRTR Funds.

1/ Includes field expenditures for engineering and program support for appropriated and timber purchaser roads. Does not include expenditures by 

the Washington Office, detached units, or research stations.

2/ Includes construction and reconstruction of bridges funded under all appropriations, PEPE, and by timber purchasers.

3/ Due to the phase-out of purchaser credits, costs associated with timber purchaser road construction are now part of the appraisal costs. This 

data is no longer available as a separate item.

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total1/

7,350

7,040

6,388

7,233

10,022

14,610

8,228

6,614

5,147

72,632

3.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

3.8

5.7

0.0

1.0

0.7

16.6

6

0

1

0

3

3

1

0

4

18

51.8

86.4

39.9

69.28

36.7

122.5

49.5

94.1

68.2

618.38

11

12

0

14

7

16

26

15

0

101

Region

Cost 1/

(1,000 dollars)

Construction

Roads Bridges 2/

(Miles) (No.)

Reconstruction

Roads Bridges 2/

(Miles) (No.)

Table 22b. Road and bridge construction and reconstruction—FY 2001 by timber purchasers

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total1/

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9.5

5.3

0.6

4.0

5.1

0.0

11.3

4.7

0.4

40.9

231.9

74.8

1.4

28.4

24.6

34.8

52.7

34.7

0.6

483.9

Region

Cost 3/

(1,000 dollars)

Construction

Roads

(Miles)

Reconstruction

Roads

(Miles)
233

1/ Funds reported include bridges built or reconstructed using PEPE funds.

Table 23. Purchaser election roads constructed by the USDA Forest Service–fiscal year 2001

Northern (R-1)

Rocky Mountain (R-2)

Southwestern (R-3)

Intermountain (R-4)

Pacific Southwest (R-5)

Pacific Northwest (R-6)

Southern (R-8)

Eastern (R-9)

Alaska (R-10)

Total

2

0

0

0

5

325

93

0

175

600

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

1.2

0.0

0.0

2.4

39.2

0

0

0

0

7.7

4.7

0

0

51.6

Region

Cost 1/

(1,000 dollars)

Construction

Roads

(Miles)

Reconstruction

Roads

(Miles)
234

1/ Funds were not directly appropriated for Youth Conservation Corps (YCC); the Congress earmarked not less than $2 million to be expended from funds available to the USDA Forest Service. 

The USDA Forest Service operated a $2.2 million YCC program.

2/ Statistics for 2000 program year (July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001).3/ Statistics include Touch America Project (TAP) enrollees and 80 international volunteers.Table 24. Summary of USDA Forest Service senior, youth, and volunteer programs—FY 2001/program year 2000

Youth Conservation Corps 1/Job Corps 2/Senior Community Service Employment Program 2/Volunteers in the national forests 3/Hosted programs

Total

Unfunded

114.6

28.4

UnfundedUnfunded

143.0

2.6

18.339.438.616.3

115.2

891

9,5285,537

84,508

8,333

108,797

4223443623

NA

214821

9

29

NA

132

3,8792,2102,204

715

9,140

NA

9124

NANA

NA

1.18

NA

1.39

NANA

NA

Program

funding

(Million dollars)

Value of work

accomplished

(Million dollars)

Persons

served

(Number)

Women

(Percent)

Minority

(Percent)

Work

accomplished

(Person years)

Placement

(Percent)

Return per dollar

invested

(Dollars)
235

1/ Excepted-conditional includes cooperative education students and excepted appointments of people with disabilities.

Table 25. Number and percent of all permanent and excepted-conditional1/ employees as of September 22, 2001, by race/national

origin and gender. 

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

African American

Hispanic

Caucasian

Total

Targeted disabilities

Percent by gender

507

232

689

631

9,635

11,694

—

38.7%

885

248

605

1,198

15,602

18,538

—

61.3%

1,392

480

1,294

1,829

25,237

30,232

355

4.6%

1.6%

4.3%

6.0%

83.5%

1.2%

Race/National Origin Women Men Total Percent
236

1/ Equal Employment Opportunity.2/ Grand total is 30,232 (includes permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees only, including WG, WL, WS).3/ Non-GS/GM/SES/WG/WL/WS as GS-16 equivalents.Table 26. Workforce EEO 1/ profile by pay levels as of September 22, 2001 2/

GS-1GS-2GS-3GS-4GS-5GS-6GS-7GS-8GS-9GS-10GS-11GS-12GS-13GS-14GS-15GS-18 & SESWG, WL, & WSOther 3/

Total

028

347573911693

0

682615

11040

507

00

1252

100

88

152

46

160

8

100

534015

71

51

0

885

003

10202238

5

34

0

472816

90000

232

000

1228

1111

4

38

1

42373416

4190

248

039

516865

107

2393

2

84787022

8420

689

03

193061418512

103

2

7453591010

6

37

0

605

207

599561

127

18

104

1

724628

62120

631

04

2784

150

95

166

49

194

6

150

96812517

0

54

0

1,198

16

75

513

1,144

821

1,526

312

1,877

16

1,603

878570167

70

9

47

0

9,635

06

93

480

1,136

925

1,849

411

3,034

153

2,9401,8301,325

456259

29

670

6

15,602

3

11

102667

1,4021,0421,889

374

2,201

19

1,8741,056

699205

811455

0

11,694

0

13

151658

1,4751,1602,263

522

3,529

170

3,3062,0691,539

522297

37

821

6

18,538

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Women GS Pay Level Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Asian/Pacific Islander African American

Race/National Origin

Hispanic Caucasian Total
237

Table 27. Number of paid employees by occupational category—FY 1995-2001 1/

1/ Includes permanent, summer, seasonal, cooperative education students, stay-in-school, and many other types of employees. 

These data do not include employees excluded from agency ceilings, such as volunteers (who are not paid salary), and Senior Community 

Service Employment Program enrollees (who are paid by the Department of Labor).

2/ Includes special employment categories.

3/ Does not include employees in special employment categories.

4/ One full-time equivalent (FTE) equals 2,080 paid hours of employment. Includes emergency FTEs.

Professional

Administrative

Technical

Clerical

Other

Wage system

Total

Full-time equivalents (FTEs) 4/

9,919

5,022

21,929

2,823

701

1,922

42,316

35,390

9,752

4,741

19,997

2,699

410

1,838

39,437

34,079

11,061

4,708

19,051

2,821

332

2,038

40,011

34,366 

11,330 

4,610 

19,145 

2,881 

515 

2,180 

40,661

34,798 

11,038 

4,512 

19,134 

2,821 

195 

2,073 

39,773

36,311 

11,327 

4,519 

20,172 

3,050 

312 

2,042 

41,422

37,205 

11,441 

4,627 

21,970 

3,234 

353 

2,060 

43,685

38,330 

Occupation 2001 2/ 2000 2/ 1999 2/ 1998 2/ 1997 3/ 1996 3/ 1995 3/

Table 28. Number of paid employees by type of appointment—FY 1995-2001

1/ Includes special employment categories.

2/ Permanent are those employees who have career or career-conditional appointments.

3/ Nonpermanent employees who count in agency ceilings, such as summer, temporary, excepted, term, seasonal, and similar types of employees.

These data do not include volunteers (who are not paid salary) and Senior Community Service Employment Program enrollees (who are paid by 

the Department of Labor). Employees in special employment categories are not included in FY 1995-1997.

Permanent 2/

Nonpermanent 3/

Total

29,878

12,438

42,316

28,088

11,349

39,437

28,046

11,965

40,011

28,170 

12,491 

40,661

29,558 

10,215 

39,773

30,347 

11,075 

41,422

30,676 

13,009 

43,685 

Type of appointment 2001 1/ 2000 1/ 1999 1/ 1998 1/ 1997 1996 1995

Appendix E—Required Supplementary

Stewardship Information

239
240

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), Statement of Recommended

Accounting Standards (SRAS) No. 8 defines assets as follows:

• Property owned by the Federal Government.

• Stewardship Land

• Heritage Assets

• Expenses and investments incurred for education and training of the public that are

intended to increase national economic productive capacity (investment in human capital),

and research and development intended to produce future benefits.

• Information on the financial impact of continuing to provide current programs and services.

The USDA Forest Service serves as steward for more than 192 million acres of America’s

public land and the natural and cultural resources associated with those lands. These

stewardship assets are valued for the following:

• Environmental resources;

• Recreational and scenic values;

• Cultural and paleontological resources;

• Vast open spaces; and

• Resource commodities and revenue they provide to the Federal Government, States, and

counties.

Description FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001

Ending Net Ending

Balance Change Balance Condition

(Acres) (2) (Acres) (Acres) (1)

National Forests 187,827,050 -297 187,826,753 Varies 

National forest 

purposes 144,524,161 -675,364 143,848,797 Varies 

National forest 

wilderness areas 34,751,359 61,298 34,812,657 Varies 

National forest 

primitive areas 173,762 0 173,762 Varies 

National wild and 

scenic river areas 944,909 246 945,155 Varies 

National recreation 

areas 2,636,394 273,970 2,910,364 Varies 

Stewardship Land

Overview
Description FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2001

Ending Net Ending

Balance Change Balance Condition

(Acres) (2) (Acres) (Acres) (1)

National scenic areas 129,178 0 129,178 Varies 

National scenic–

research areas 6,637 0 6,637 Varies 

National game refuges 

and wildlife preserve 

areas 1,218,990 -52,616 1,166,374 Varies 

National monument 

areas 3,267,693 392,169 3,659,862 Varies 

National monument 

volcanic areas 167,427 0 167,427 Varies 

National historic areas 6,540 0 6,540 Varies 

National grasslands 3,838,124 561 3,838,685 Varies 

Purchase units 357,527 -2,291 355,236 Varies 

Land utilization projects 1,876 0 1,876 Varies 

Research and 

experiment areas 64,871 860 65,731 Varies 

Other areas 125,490 170,324 295,814 Varies 

Total NFS Acreage 192,214,938 169,157 192,384,095

Road Miles (3) 380,851 148 380,999 

Trail Miles (4) 133,087 0 133,087 

(1) Condition of NFS Land: The USDA Forest Service has completed many efforts

leading to a comprehensive analysis of the condition of National Forest Service (NFS) lands.

Fire risk analysis indicates that 73 million acres of the NFS is at moderate to high fire risk in

areas of frequent fire regime. Analysis of risk of mortality due to insects and diseases

indicates that 70 million acres are at risk of 25 percent or more tree mortality is expected over

241
242

the next 15 years. The National Aerial Survey completed in FY 2000 indicates 2.3 million

acres of tree mortality and 7.9 million acres of defoliated forest lands due to insects and

diseases. NFS lands are important areas for producing valuable benefits, including clean air,

clean water, habitat for wildlife, and products for human use. In FY 2001, Congress

appropriated $1.1 billion to the USDA Forest Service to manage the impacts of wildfires on

communities and the environment. The USDA Forest Service, with partners, developed a 

“10-Year Comprehensive Strategy” signed by the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior

and Department of Agriculture. The goal of the plan is to implement many treatments that

would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, while simultaneously contributing to

ecosystem health and sustainability. The USDA Forest Service has also developed a cohesive

plan to prioritize and implement these treatments on 1.8 million acres annually in the future,

starting in FY 2002. Concerns also exist about invasive species of insects, diseases, and plants

that impact our native systems by causing mortality or displacing native vegetation. We have

implemented an Early Detection and Delimitation System for non-native invasive forest

insects and pathogens in cooperation with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), Research and Development, and State agencies. This system is designed to prevent

new pest introductions to the Nation’s forests. A national strategy is based on regional

approaches for suppression and prevention of insects and diseases and for restoration of

degraded ecosystems due to these pests. In FY 2001, prevention and suppression projects

were implemented on approximately 2 million acres of forest land.

(2) Net Change: Land that is needed to protect critical wildlife habitat, cultural and historic

values, congressionally designated areas, and areas for recreation and conservation purposes

is acquired through purchase or exchange.

(3) Road Miles: Net change to the total road miles occurs through new construction and

correction of errors in the system’s inventory, including unclassified roads that previously had

been excluded.

(4) Trail Miles: The number of miles reported continues to be based on a 1996 inventory.

The number of trail miles has not been updated since. Reconstruction of existing trails has

been the predominant activity during the previous 5 years. 

Land utilization projects—A unit reserved and dedicated by the Secretary of Agriculture for

forest and range research and experimentation.

National forest—A unit formally established and permanently set aside and reserved for

national forest purposes. The following categories of NFS lands have been set aside for

specific purposes in designated areas:

• Game refuges and wildlife preserve areas. Areas designated by presidential proclamation or

by Congress for the protection of wildlife.

• Monument areas. Areas including historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures,

and other objects for historic or scientific interest, declared by presidential proclamation or

by Congress.

Definitions
• Primitive areas. Areas designated by the Chief of the USDA Forest Service as primitive

areas. They are administered in the same manner as wilderness areas, pending studies to

determine sustainability as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

• Recreation areas. Areas established by Congress for the purpose of ensuring and

implementing the protection and management of public outdoor recreation opportunities.

• Scenic-research areas. Areas established by Congress to provide use and enjoyment of

certain ocean headlands and to ensure protection and encourage the study of the areas for

research and scientific purposes.

• Wild and scenic river areas. Areas designated by Congress as part of the National Wild and

Scenic River System.

• Wilderness areas. Areas designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness

Preservation System.

National grasslands—A unit designated by the Secretary of Agriculture and permanently held

by the USDA under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.

Other areas—Areas administered by the USDA Forest Service that are not included in one of

the above groups.

Purchase units—A unit of land designated by the Secretary of Agriculture or previously

approved by the National Forest Reservation Commission for purposes of Weeks Law

acquisition.

Research and experimental area—A unit reserved and dedicated by the Secretary of

Agriculture for forest and range research experimentation.

243
244

The USDA Forest Service manages 155 national forests and 20 grasslands on more than 192

million acres of public land, which encompass a number of cultural and heritage assets. Some

of these assets are listed on the Nation’s Register of Historic Places and some have been

designated as National Historic Landmarks. The USDA Forest Service cultural resource

specialists and the 155 national forests maintain separate lists of heritage assets. Before 

FY 1999, no requirement existed for consolidating them at either the regional or national

level. The USDA Forest Service estimates that about 277,000 heritage assets are on land that

it manages. Most of these assets have no annual maintenance performed on them. A longterm methodology to better assess the extent and condition of these assets is being

formulated. The figures in the table below are estimated values that have been reported since

1999. A module in the INFRA database is being developed for heritage assets. The module

will be available for initial population in FY 2002 and the results of future inventories will

provide a more current assessment of heritage resources.

1999

Category Estimated (Sites) Condition

Total Heritage Assets 277,000 Poor-Fair 

Eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places 109,000 Poor-Fair 

Listed on the National Register of

Historic Places 887 Fair 

Sites listed with structures listed on the

National Register of Historic Places 335 Poor-Fair 

National Historic Landmarks 7 Fair 

National Historic Areas 1 Fair 

World Heritage Sites 0 N/A 

Historic structures—Constructed works consciously created to serve some human purpose.

They include buildings, monuments, logging and mining camps, and ruins.

National Historic Landmarks—Includes sites, buildings, or structures that possess exceptional

value in commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States, and exceptional value

or quality in illustrating and interpreting the heritage of the United States. The Secretary of

the Interior is the official designator of National Historic Landmarks.

National Register of Historic Places—Includes properties, buildings, and structures that are

significant in U.S. history, architecture, and archaeology, and in the cultural foundation of the

Nation.

Heritage Assets

Overview

Definitions
World Heritage Site—An asset that meets specific criteria that constitutes outstanding global

value. The preservation of a common world heritage is the object of the International

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and National Heritage.

Land purchases and exchanges may result in acquisition and withdrawal of heritage assets.

The primary methods of additions to heritage resources are the result of survey, evaluation,

and protection of heritage resources in coordination with other resource activities that could

affect heritage resources.

In partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the USDA Forest Service operates

18 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. Job Corps is the only Federal residential

employment and education training program for economically challenged young people, ages

16 to 24. The purpose of the program is to provide young adults with the skills necessary to

become employable, independent, and productive citizens. Job Corps is funded from DOL

with the program year beginning on July 1, 2000, and ending on June 30, 2001. During FY

2001, there were 9,528 participants with 4,423 placements. 

Established in 1964, Job Corps has trained and educated about 210,000 young people. The

program is administered in a structured, coeducational, residential environment that provides

education, vocation and life skills training, counseling, medical care, work experience,

placement assistance, recreational opportunities, and biweekly monetary stipends. Job Corps

students can choose from a wide variety of careers such as urban forestry, heavy equipment

operation and maintenance, business clerical, carpentry, culinary arts, painting, cement and

brick masonry, welding, auto mechanics, health services, building and apartment

maintenance, warehousing, and plastering. All 18 centers have women students training in

nontraditional vocations; in 2001 approximately 659 women were involved in forest fire

suppression in 16 States. 

USDA Forest Service Research and Development provides reliable science-based information

that is incorporated into natural resource decisionmaking. This information sharing process is

done by developing new technology, and then adapting and transferring the technology to

USDA Forest Service entities and others for more effective resource management. The major

research areas include the following:

• Vegetation management and protection;

• Wildlife, fish, watershed, and air;

• Resource valuation and use research; and

• Forest resources inventory and monitoring.

The USDA Forest Service Research and Development staff is involved broadly in supporting

USDA Forest Service goals by providing more efficient and effective methods of

accomplishing natural resource objectives, where applicable. A representative summary of 

FY 2001 accomplishments includes the following:

• 259 new interagency agreements and contracts;

• 127 ongoing interagency agreements and contracts;

• 1,205 articles published in journals;

• 1,454 articles published in all other publications or outlets;

• 6 patents granted; and

• 1 right to inventories established.

245

Human Capital—

Job Corps Civilian

Conservation Centers 

Net Cost of Operations: 

$101.0 million

Research and

Development—

Forest and Rangeland

Research FY 2001 Net

Cost of Operations: 

$299.6 million
246

Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed as scheduled, but delayed until

a later period. Deferred maintenance represents a cost that the Government has elected not to

fund and, therefore, the costs are not reflected in the financial statements. Maintenance is

defined to include preventative maintenance, normal repairs, replacement of parts and

structural components, and other activities needed to preserve the asset so that it continues to

provide acceptable service and achieve its expected life. It excludes activities aimed at

expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to service needs different from,

or significantly greater than, those originally intended. Deferred maintenance is reported for

general PP&E, stewardship assets, and heritage assets. It is also reported separately for

critical and noncritical amounts of maintenance needed to return each class of asset to its

acceptable operating condition.

FY 2001 Deferred Maintenance Totals by Asset Class ($ in thousands)

Cost to 

Overall Return to Critical Noncritical

Condition Acceptable Maintenance Maintenance

Asset Class (1) Condition (2) (3)

Buildings and admin. 

facilities Varies 510,589 203,611 306,978 

Dams Varies 27,220 13,457 13,763 

Heritage Varies 37,718 11,208 26,509 

Range improvements Varies 547,695 523,357 24,338 

Recreation facilities Varies 298,292 105,737 192,555 

Roads and bridges Varies 5,314,372 1,574,732 3,739,640 

Trails Varies 117,870 42,327 75,542 

Wildlife, fish, TES Varies 5,038 3,277 1,762 

Subtotal 6,858,794 2,477,706 4,381,087

Add 19% overhead * 1,303,171 470,764 832,407 

Total 8,161,965 2,948,470 5,213,494

* Agency average as supplied by the CFO Budget Staff. 

(1) Overall Condition: Condition of major classes of property range from poor to good

depending on location, age, and type of property. There is currently no comprehensive

national assessment of property. The current deferred maintenance estimates were based

on statistical and random sampling. The USDA Forest Service is working on a long-range

plan to make condition assessments on all major classes of property.

(2) Critical maintenance: A requirement that addresses a serious threat to public health or

safety, a natural resource, or the ability to carry out the mission of the organization.

Deferred Maintenance

Overview
(3) Noncritical Maintenance: A requirement that addresses potential risk to the public or

employee safety or health (e.g., compliance with codes, standards, or regulations).

Addresses potential adverse consequences to natural resources or mission

accomplishment.

The USDA Forest Service uses condition surveys to estimate deferred maintenance on all

major classes of PP&E. There is no deferred maintenance on equipment because the USDA

Forest Service has its fleet vehicles and computers in a working capital fund. It maintains

each fleet vehicle according to schedule and treats the remaining equipment as expensed.

Therefore, there is no deferred maintenance on general equipment.

• 22 percent of buildings are obsolete, over 50 years old.

• 27 percent of buildings are in poor condition, needing major alterations and renovations.

• 24 percent of buildings are in fair condition, needing minor alterations and renovations.

• 27 percent of buildings are in good condition, needing routine maintenance and repairs.

The overall condition of dams is below acceptable. A dam’s condition is acceptable when the

dam meets current design standards and does not have any deficiencies that threaten the

safety of the structure or public, or are needed to restore functional use, correct unsightly

conditions, or prevent more costly repairs.

The standards for acceptable operating condition for different classes of general PP&E are as

follows:

• Buildings. Comply with the National Life Safety Code, the USDA Forest Service Health

and Safety Handbook, and the Occupational Safety Health Administration as determined by

condition surveys.

• Roads and bridges. Conditions of the National Forest Development Road System are

measured by various standards that include applicable regulations for the Highway Safety

Act developed by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, best

management practices for road construction and maintenance developed by the

Environmental Protection Agency to implement the Clean Water Act, and USDA Forest

Service manuals and handbooks.

• Developed recreation sites. This wide category includes campgrounds, trailheads, trails,

wastewater facilities, interpretive facilities, and visitor centers. All developed sites are

managed in accordance with Federal laws and regulations (CFR 36). Detailed management

guidelines are contained in the USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2330 and regional and

forest-level user guides. Standards of quality for developed recreation sites were developed

under the meaningful measures system and established for the following categories: health

and cleanliness, settings, safety and security, responsiveness, and the condition of the facility.

• Range structures. The condition assessment was based on (1) a determination by

knowledgeable range specialists or other district personnel whether the improvement would

perform the originally intended function, and (2) a determination through the use of a

protocol system to assess conditions based on age. The USDA Forest Service uses a longrange methodology to gather this data.

• Watershed structures. Field hydrologists and USDA Forest Service personnel used their

professional judgment to determine deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance was

considered as upkeep that had not occurred on a regular basis. The amount was considered

critical if resource damage would likely occur if maintenance was deferred much longer.

247

Condition of

Administrative Facilities

Condition of Dams

Condition of NFS Lands
248

• Dams. Managed according to FSM 7500, Water Storage and Transmission, and USDA

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7509.11, Dams Management, as determined by condition

surveys.

• Wildlife, fish, and threatened and endangered species structure. Field biologists at the forest

used their professional judgment to determine deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance

was considered as upkeep that had not occurred on a regular basis. The amount was

considered critical if resource damage or species endangerment would likely occur if

maintenance was deferred much longer.

• Trails. Trails are managed according to Federal law and regulations (CFR 36). More

specific direction is contained in FSM 2350 and the FSH 2309.18, Trails Management.

• Heritage Assets. These assets include archaeological sites that require determinations of

National Register of Historic Places status, National Historic Landmarks, and significant

historic properties. Some heritage assets may have historical significance, but their primary

function within the agency is as visitation or recreation sites and, therefore, might not fall

under the management responsibility of the heritage program.
Deferred Maintenance Success Story

Lowell Ranger Station. The Old Lowell Ranger Station on the Santa Catalina Ranger

District of the Coronado National Forest was constructed by the Civilian Conservation

Corps (CCC) between 1934 and 1937 and is listed on the National Register of Historic

Places. The restoration cost was approximately $95,000, including $55,000 from Deferred

Maintenance funds and a $40,000 donation from the Friends of Sabino Canyon. These

funds were used to complete roof, floor, interior, and exterior repairs that had been

postponed for more than 20 years. In addition, a partnership with adobe experts from the

National Park Service enabled the USDA Forest Service to complete much of the adobe

and stucco work with original technologies. The Old Lowell Ranger Station has moved

from being a dangerous eyesore to becoming coveted office space.

249
250

Appendix F—Glossary of Acronyms

Acronym Full Name of Term 

AAPC Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee

AICPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

AUM Animal Unit Month 

BAER Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation 

BFES Budget Formulation and Execution System 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act 

CFO Chief Financial Officer (Forest Service deputy area) 

CIP Continuous Improvement Process 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DOI United States Department of the Interior 

DOL Department of Labor 

EAPs Economic Action Programs 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAM Fire and Aviation Management 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

FASB Financial Accounting and Standards Board 

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFIS Foundation Financial Information System 

FFMIA Federal Financial Managers Improvement Act 

FHM Forest Health Monitoring 

FHP Forest Health Protection 

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis 

FLP Forest Legacy Program 

FMFIA Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

INFRA Infrastructure database 

K-V Knutson-Vandenburg (trust fund) 

LEI Law Enforcement and Investigations (staff)
Acronym Full Name of Term 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MAR Management Attainment Reporting (system) 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MEL Most Efficient Level (of firefighting capability) 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MMCF Million Cubic Feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFP National Fire Plan 

NFS National Forest System (Forest Service deputy area) 

NIPF Non-industrial Private Forest 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

OIG Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

P&L Programs and Legislation (Forest Service deputy area 

PAOT Persons At One Time 

PIT Passport In Time (program) 

PMAS Performance Measurement Accountability System 

PP&E Property, Plant and Equipment 

PRC Purchaser Road Credit 

R&D Research & Development (Forest Service deputy area)

S&PF State and Private Forestry (Forest Service deputy area) 

SCSEP Senior Community Service Employment Program 

SIP Stewardship Incentives Program 

STARS Sales Tracking and Reporting System 

SUDS Special Uses Data System 

SYVP Senior, Youth and Volunteer Program 

TBD To Be Determined 

TES Threatened and Endangered Species 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 

TSP Thrift Savings Plan 

TRACS Timber Activity Control System 

U&CF Urban and Community Forestry (program) 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

WCF Working Capital Fund 

251