Federal Timber Sales: Forest Service Could Improve Efficiency of Field-Level Timber Sales Management by Maintaining More Detailed Data
Published: 2007-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For years, GAO has raised concerns about the ability of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (Service) to track the amounts it obligates for and spends on timber sales and to use this information in managing the sales. Timber sales are generally carried out by ranger districts (the lowest level of the Service's decentralized organizational structure), which are overseen by national forest offices. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior also conducts timber sales. This report examines the extent to which (1) the Forest Service tracks timber sales-related obligations and expenditures, including the extent to which the Service uses this information in making management decisions; (2) BLM tracks timber sales-related obligations and expenditures; and (3) both agencies track their timber sales-related revenue.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Forest Service tracks the funds it spends to conduct timber sales--such as funds for personnel and equipment--in a way that does not provide the detailed data many field managers, such as district rangers and forest supervisors, told us they need in order to properly manage these sales. The Service's accounting system aggregates obligation and expenditure data by the programs that fund the sales--such as the Forest Products Program and the Salvage Sale Program--and by national forest, rather than by individual timber sale or by ranger district. Forest Service headquarters officials told us that field managers do not need sale-by-sale or district-level data. However, many field managers told us that such data are crucial to their management of timber sales. For example, without such data to monitor the progress and cost of individual sales, field managers have difficulty both knowing when to redirect resources among sales and assessing the cost-effectiveness of individual sales. Without detailed data in the Service's accounting system, many field managers have developed manual "cuff records," such as spreadsheets, to maintain obligation and expenditure data at the individual sale or ranger district level. However, maintaining these cuff records can be time consuming, according to field managers, and can thus take time away from conducting "on the ground" activities such as overseeing timber harvests. Although headquarters officials said that aggregating data has reduced the cost of managing the accounting system data, the resources field managers are expending to compensate for the lack of detailed system data may partially offset those savings. However, the Service does not know the cost of maintaining cuff records, and it has not systematically identified field managers' information needs. BLM, in contrast to the Forest Service, tracks many timber sales obligations and expenditures by individual sale. BLM has chosen to maintain detailed data in order to allow its field managers to use these data in managing timber sales--by, for example, monitoring the progress and cost of sales. As a result of BLM's approach, field managers have access to detailed data without relying on cuff records. Overall, the Forest Service and BLM have systems that track revenue data by timber sale. These systems track the volume, type, and value of timber harvested; generate bills to timber purchasers; and track payments against those bills. Both agencies have struggled with, but are resolving, the challenge of tracking revenue from sales conducted under their stewardship contracting authority. Stewardship contracts generally involve the exchange of goods, such as timber, for contract services, such as thinning of brush. The Forest Service recently added a module to its accounting system to track revenue from stewardship contracting projects, while BLM has developed a database for this purpose.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As the steward for more than 190 million acres of federal land, the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service (Service) undertakes a myriad  of land management projects to sustain the land’s health, diversity, and  productivity. Such projects may involve harvesting marketable timber,  such as fuel reduction projects designed to thin heavy undergrowth and  dense stands of trees, and salvaging (i.e., removing) dead and dying trees.  In fiscal year 2006, the sale of timber generated revenue of over $221  million for the Service.
The Service has a decentralized structure consisting of the Washington  Office and the field. The field consists of nine regions that oversee 155  national forests; the forests, in turn, oversee hundreds of ranger districts.  Timber harvests, like other land management projects, are generally  conducted by the Service’s ranger districts and national forests, and the  Service places considerable decision-making authority in managers at  these field offices. The Service funds its land management projects  through various programs. These programs include wildlife and fish  management, forest products, grazing management, and so forth. Timber  sales involving the harvest of live trees are generally conducted under the  Forest Products Program, while sales involving the salvage of dead or  dying trees are generally conducted under the Salvage Sale Program.
Forest Service timber sales activities have long been controversial, in part  because of concerns over the ecological and financial costs associated  with harvesting timber. For years, we, along with other organizations, have  questioned the Service’s ability to track the amount it spends on timber  sales, as well as the Service’s ability to use these data to make  management decisions about its operations. For example, for fiscal years  1992 through 1997, the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector  General reported that the Forest Service’s accounting data—including  data associated with timber sales—were not reliable. We reported a  similar finding in 2001. Further, in 2003 and again in 2006, we reported that  the Service does not maintain data on the actual cost of individual work  activities, including timber sales, and as a result cannot assess the extent  to which these activities yielded accomplishments commensurate with the  dollars spent on them.
In this context, you asked us to examine the Service’s current mechanisms  for tracking timber sales-related obligations and expenditures, as well as  timber sales-related revenue. In addition, given that the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior also conducts  timber sales, you asked us to include that agency in our review as well.  Specifically, we agreed to determine the extent to which (1) the Forest  Service tracks timber sales-related obligations and expenditures, including  the extent to which the Service uses this information in making  management decisions; (2) BLM tracks timber sales-related obligations  and expenditures, and how BLM’s methods for doing so compare with  those of the Forest Service; and (3) the Forest Service and BLM track their  timber sales-related revenue.
In conducting our work, we reviewed Forest Service timber sales  accounting policies and procedures; financial system manuals and  documentation; reports from systems in place to track obligations,  expenditures, and revenue; and databases and spreadsheets devised by  field offices to track this information. We visited numerous field locations  because the Forest Service is a decentralized agency. Our work included  visiting six of the nine Forest Service regional offices and at least one  national forest office in each of six regions. We also interviewed officials  of five ranger districts. We also visited the Service’s Washington Office and  the Albuquerque Service Center, which performs many Forest Service  accounting functions. Our BLM work included reviewing BLM timber sales  accounting policies and procedures, financial system manuals and  documentation, and reports from systems in place to track obligations,  expenditures, and revenue. In addition, we visited the National Business  Center in Denver, Colorado; two state offices; one district office; and one  field office. At each of these Forest Service and BLM locations, we  interviewed officials responsible for tracking timber sales and managing  related obligations, expenditures, and revenue, and we reviewed related  policies, procedures, and records. We conducted our review from April  2006 through April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards, which included an assessment of data  reliability and internal controls. Additional information on our scope and  methodology appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Both the Forest Service and BLM conduct timber sales as part of their  management of public land. However, the agencies differ in their  organizational structure and in the sources of funding they use for carrying  out timber sales. Timber sales activities involve staff time and, in some  cases, equipment and supplies, to identify the sale area, conduct the  required environmental analyses, solicit bids, prepare the timber sale  contract, mark the sale boundary and the trees to be cut or left, and  monitor the harvest operations and reforestation activities.
subsections: section_title: Forest Service Organization
paragraphs: The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of national forests and  grasslands. The Service has nine regions that oversee 155 national forests;  the forests, in turn, oversee more than 600 ranger districts. Each region  (see fig. 1) encompasses a broad geographic area, headed by a regional  forester who reports directly to the Chief of the Forest Service and  provides leadership for, and coordinates the activities of, the various  forests within the region. Each forest, headed by a supervisor, allocates  the budget and coordinates activities among the various ranger districts  within the forest. Each ranger district, headed by a district ranger,  conducts or oversees “on the ground” activities such as construction and  maintenance of trails; operation of campgrounds; management of wildlife  habitat; and the sale and harvest of forest products, including timber. The  districts vary in size from 50,000 acres to more than 1 million acres.
section_title: Forest Service Timber Sales-Related Funding
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s timber sales-related activities are funded by a variety  of appropriations. Within the Service’s appropriations, there are several  programs (or “budget line items”) directly or indirectly related to timber  sales. For the Forest Products Program, which is responsible for most  timber sales-related activity, the Forest Service received about $277.6  million of its $1.5 billion national forest system appropriation in fiscal year  2006. However, the Forest Products Program is not limited to timber sales;  some expenditures within the program are associated with other products,  such as mushrooms and decorative grasses and foliage. The Service issues  permits that allow individuals to gather such products from the forests,  whether for personal use or for sale. Conversely, not all timber sales- related expenditures are included in the Forest Products Program. Certain  timber sales’ planning expenses, for example, might be borne by other  programs—including vegetation and watershed management or wildlife  and fish management—if the primary purpose of the sale is to improve  vegetative conditions or wildlife habitat rather than to provide commercial  timber.
The Forest Service also uses various other funds to pay for timber sales- related activities, including (1) the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust Fund, (2)  the Salvage Sale Fund, (3) the Brush Disposal Fund, (4) the Timber Sales  Pipeline Restoration Fund, and (5) stewardship contracting revenue.
The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Trust Fund, established by the  Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. §§ 576-576b), was created  to collect a portion of timber sales revenue to pay for the reforestation  of areas from which timber is cut. The reforestation projects eligible  for such funding include growing trees for planting, planting trees,  sowing seeds, removing weeds and other competing vegetation, and  preventing animals from damaging new trees. The act was amended in  1976 to allow the Forest Service to use these funds for other timber  sales area improvement activities, such as creating wildlife habitat. It  was amended again in 2005 to authorize expenditures within the entire  Forest Service region in which the timber sales occurred. In fiscal year  2006, the Forest Service allocated $40 million of K-V funds for forest  product sales under the expanded authority, and another $77.6 million  of K-V funds for activities conducted under the original K-V authority.
The Salvage Sale Fund, derived from salvage sale revenue, is used to  pay for preparing and administering future salvage sales. The fund may  also be used to pay for the design, engineering, and supervision of  construction of roads associated with such sales. The Salvage Sale  Fund was created by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16  U.S.C. 472a(h)). Individual salvage sale timber contracts designate the  amount of receipts to be collected and transferred to the Salvage Sale  Fund. For fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service allocated $75.8 million  for salvage sales.
The Brush Disposal Fund, derived from payments made by timber  purchasers, is used to pay for the removal of brush and debris that  result from logging. For fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service allocated  $11.6 million from the Brush Disposal Fund for this purpose. The Brush  Disposal Fund is a permanent fund created to allow the deposit of  funds to pay for certain brush disposal work on all timber sales,  including salvage sales. Forest Service staff complete brush disposal  work using funds collected as an additional charge to the purchaser,  based on the amounts paid for the trees harvested. The funds are  deposited in the Brush Disposal Fund, and the Service generally seeks  to spend them within 3 years of the completion of the sale. Brush  disposal usually entails chipping or burning vegetative debris from the  sale, such as stumps, broken treetops, tree limbs and branches, or  damaged brush resulting from logging operations. Brush disposal is  also referred to as slash disposal.
The Timber Sales Pipeline Restoration Fund, authorized by the  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996  (Pub. L. No. 104-134), is used to pay for certain eligible timber sales.  For fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service had $2.5 million in the pipeline  fund. The act created this fund to receive a portion of the receipts from  certain timber sales released under the fiscal year 1995 Supplemental  Appropriations for Disaster Assistance and Rescissions Act. The  revenue deposited in the fund is to be used for the preparation of  timber sales not funded by annual appropriations and to fund certain  recreation projects. Specifically, 75 percent of the revenue is to be used  for the preparation of green timber sales on national forest and certain  BLM lands, and 25 percent is to be used for recreation projects.
Stewardship contracting revenue, derived from stewardship  projects involving the sale of timber, is used to pay for future  stewardship projects. For fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service had $1.7  million in such revenue available. Stewardship contracting involves the  use of any of several contracting authorities that were first authorized  for use by the Forest Service on a pilot basis in October 1998. The  Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations  Act for 1999 established stewardship contracting authority to achieve  national forest land management goals that meet local and rural  community needs. Prominent among the stewardship contracting  authorities is the ability to (1) trade goods—timber, for example—for  contract services, such as thinning of small trees and brush, and (2)  retain for use in future stewardship projects any revenue generated  through selling forest products such as timber, rather than returning  the revenue to the Department of the Treasury, as is required for  traditional timber sales. Although stewardship contracting was initially  established as a demonstration project that involved a limited number  of individual projects within the Forest Service and was to end in 2002,  the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003, among other  things, extended the use of stewardship contracting authority to 2013,  eliminated the limit on the number of projects, authorized commercial  tree removal for forest health purposes as a project purpose, and  extended the authority to BLM.
The Forest Service’s tracking of its timber sales-related expenditures has  been the subject of several of our previous reports. For example, in 2001  we reported that serious accounting and financial reporting deficiencies  precluded an accurate determination of the total costs associated with the  timber sales program and, in fact, rendered the Service’s cost information  unreliable. In 2003, we noted that the Service could not accurately report  on the actual costs of individual work activities. And in 2006, we reported  that the Forest Service did not have a system that allowed it to determine  the cost of its activities below the program level, resulting in a continuing  focus on budget management without a corresponding focus on cost  management.
section_title: BLM Organization
paragraphs: BLM administers more land than any other federal agency—about 261  million acres. Of that amount—most of which is located in the western  states, including Alaska—roughly 69 million acres (about 26 percent) are  commercial forests and woodlands. BLM’s organizational structure  includes national, state, and field-level units. National units include BLM’s  headquarters office as well as national centers with specific service and  support responsibilities, such as the National Business Center in Denver,  Colorado. State-level units consist of 12 state offices that implement BLM’s  activities in one or more states. Field-level units include 144 district and  field offices that carry out the “on the ground” activities, including timber  sales, under the supervision of the BLM state offices. Figure 2 shows BLM- administered lands and the boundaries of BLM state jurisdictions.
section_title: BLM Timber Sales-Related Funding
paragraphs: BLM’s timber sales-related activities are funded through various  appropriations. BLM conducts timber sales under two separate forestry  programs. Most of BLM’s timber program is associated with the agency’s  lands in western Oregon, which are managed expressly for the purpose of  providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds,  regulating stream flow, contributing to the economic stability of local  communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities under the  provisions of the Oregon and California Sustained Yield Act of 1937.  These lands, heavily forested with Douglas fir and western hemlock  species, are responsible for the majority of BLM’s timber production. BLM  timber sales undertaken in western Oregon are funded by the Oregon and  California Grant Lands appropriation; in fiscal year 2006, BLM allocated  $27.1 million for the sale of this timber. The remainder of BLM’s timber  sales occur on other lands, which are managed for multiple uses, including  the sale of timber. These timber sales are funded by the Management of  Lands and Resources appropriation, which was $10.4 million in fiscal year  2006.
In addition to these appropriations, BLM’s timber sales-related activities  rely on the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund, the Timber Sales  Pipeline Restoration Fund, and funds from stewardship contracting  activities. The Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund, which funds  timber salvage sales, is derived from the federal share of revenue from  BLM salvage sales and forest health restoration treatments. This revenue  is made available to BLM for planning and preparing salvage timber for  disposal, the administration of salvage timber sales, and subsequent site  preparation and reforestation. Since fiscal year 1998, the fund has also  been available for forest health restoration treatments, including timber  sales designed to release trees from competing vegetation, control tree  densities, or treat hazardous fuels. BLM’s Timber Sales Pipeline  Restoration Fund operates under the same legislation pertaining to the  Forest Service’s pipeline fund. Finally, authority for stewardship  contracting was originally limited to the Forest Service but was extended  to BLM in fiscal year 2003. When BLM was first granted stewardship  contracting authority, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and  Minerals Management had to approve each stewardship contracting  project. That approval has since been delegated to the state directors.  Generally, stewardship contracts valued at $100,000 or more are handled  by BLM’s National Business Center or by the Oregon State Office, while  those valued at less than $100,000 are handled by the state office that  originated them.
section_title: The Forest Service’s Aggregation of Obligation and Expenditure Data Hinders Field-Level Project Management
paragraphs: The Forest Service tracks obligation and expenditure data at the program  and forest levels through its accounting system—the Department of  Agriculture’s Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). In fiscal  year 2000, when it transitioned to FFIS, the Service lost the ability to track  information—such as employees’ actual time charges and supply  purchases—at the project level (i.e., individual timber sale level). Instead,  FFIS aggregates data at the program level. Currently, neither FFIS nor any  other automated system tracks obligations and actual expenditures at the  project level. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, as a cost-saving measure, the  Service removed from FFIS the codes that had previously associated  program obligations and expenditures with individual ranger districts. To  compensate for the lack of detailed information, field managers have spent  considerable time and effort to develop and maintain a variety of “cuff  records,” such as spreadsheets, that contain the data they need to manage  their projects, including timber sales.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service Tracks Obligations at the Program and Forest Levels
paragraphs: Through FFIS, the Forest Service tracks, at the program and forest levels,  timber sales-related obligations from the National Forest Fund as well as  from the K-V, brush disposal, salvage sale, pipeline, and stewardship  funds. These obligations include costs for personnel, vehicles, and  supplies and equipment. Personnel costs related to timber sales include  time spent preparing for a sale (e.g., identifying the sale area and  completing related environmental analyses), administering the sale  contract, monitoring the harvest, and conducting or overseeing the  postharvest reforestation and restoration activities.
Since its transition to FFIS, the Service has aggregated data on obligations  at the program level rather than at the project level. Staff charge their time  to a job code that represents the program most applicable to the activities  they conducted—for example, to the job code associated with the Forest  Products Program or the Vegetation and Watershed Management Program.  Overall, according to Forest Service officials, staff time is by far the  Service’s biggest expenditure—about 75 percent or 80 percent of the total.  Other expenditures include vehicles and supplies, such as paint for  marking sale boundaries and marking trees to be cut or left.
In addition to grouping data by program, FFIS also aggregates the program  data at the forest level. For example, when staff at the ranger district level,  where projects are carried out, complete their timesheets, the program job  code to which they charge time indicates the national forest with which  their district is associated. The code does not, however, indicate the  district or the specific project with which the transaction is associated.
Obligations for supplies and equipment are also tracked at the forest level.  Previously, FFIS contained “subunit” job codes that tied this information  to ranger districts. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, as a cost-saving  measure, the Forest Service removed these subunit job codes for timber  sales-related activities.
For stewardship contracting activities, on the other hand, no separate job  code exists in FFIS by which to identify staff time and other obligations  related to these activities. FFIS has no code for stewardship contracting  activities because the Forest Service does not have a budget line item for  these activities. Rather, stewardship contracting is considered a tool for  accomplishing various forest management objectives. Accordingly, staff  time and other obligations for stewardship contracting activities are  charged to the one or more programs that benefit from the stewardship  project and are thus included in these programs’ obligations. For example,  if the wildlife program were expected to derive a benefit from a  stewardship thinning project (e.g., because the project would result in  more open space for elk), then the wildlife program would fund part of the  cost of that project. Field offices maintain spreadsheets to track the  monthly progress of individual stewardship contracting projects and the  payment mechanisms involved in each one (e.g., nonmonetary credits  earned for service work, payments from appropriated funds or trust funds,  and payments from revenue retained from stewardship projects).
section_title: Cost Issues Prompted the Forest Service to Further Aggregate Data
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s decision to further aggregate data at the forest level  beginning in fiscal year 2006—that is, to reduce reporting to a single job  code per program per forest—was intended as a cost-saving measure. By  reducing the number of job codes in use, the Service would in turn reduce  the associated number of records that are maintained in FFIS, thereby  reducing its data management costs. The Forest Service determined that a  significant portion of the records was associated with job codes used to  track information associated with ranger districts. According to officials of  the Forest Service’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, removing these  job codes was part of a continuing effort, begun in fiscal year 2004, to  reduce the “proliferation” of job codes that was leading to increased data  management costs, and doing so resulted in savings of about $8.9 million  in 2006 dollars from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2006.
Forest Service headquarters officials, and some regional officials, told us  that detailed tracking of data is not needed at the ranger district or project  level and, consequently, that it was not an efficient use of Service funds to  pay the costs associated with this unnecessary level of detail. According to  one regional official, for example, district or project information is not  needed to manage at the forest level; the forest supervisor just needs to  know how close the forest is to achieving its objectives and how much of  its allocation is still available for obligation. Tracking at the program level  frees up time to do actual work, he said, rather than tracking multiple job  codes. Other officials also said they were not convinced that forest and  district managers needed to track all of the information they had  historically maintained. Agency records, said one official, were not  designed to be a “personal diary” for managers.
Several headquarters officials, including Albuquerque Service Center  officials, told us that field managers could use the Service’s planning and  budgeting system, known as WorkPlan, to monitor their projects.  WorkPlan is an automated system in which project managers estimate  how much they will spend on one or more work activities, such as  preparing or administering timber sales. Managers prepare their  WorkPlans at the beginning of the fiscal year—entering into each plan the  personnel, vehicles, and other equipment they anticipate they will need to  carry out the planned activities. Managers are free to choose the level of  specificity associated with their WorkPlans. For example, one manager  might create a single WorkPlan to encompass a district’s entire timber  sales program, while another might create an individual WorkPlan for each  planned timber sale or for each phase of a timber sale.
However, field managers we talked to said that, while they find the  WorkPlan system a valuable planning tool, it does not meet their need for  detailed information on what they have obligated or actually expended.  That is, the WorkPlan system obtains data on obligations and actual  expenditures from FFIS—which, as noted earlier, aggregates these data by  program and national forest, not by ranger district, project, or individual  WorkPlan. Similarly, while other Service systems, such as the Forest  Service Activity Tracking System, contain project-level information, that  information does not include obligation or actual expenditure data. The  headquarters official responsible for overseeing program activities in the  national forest system agreed that the WorkPlan system cannot provide  field managers with such data at the district or project level. This official,  and other headquarters officials, said that field managers who felt that this  detailed information was necessary must develop their own tracking  mechanisms.
section_title: Lacking the System Data They Need, Many Field Managers Rely on Cuff Records
paragraphs: Although several Forest Service officials contend that information on  district- and project-level obligations and expenditures is not needed,  managers we talked to at various levels of the Service’s field organization  said they rely on cuff records, such as spreadsheets, to track this  information and help manage their projects. For example, these managers  told us that by using cuff records to track project obligations and  expenditures, they can more easily determine whether obligations and  expenditures are charged to the appropriate programs, manage forest or  regional allocations, and respond to outside requests for information  about agency timber sales. The amount of time and effort required to  develop and maintain such cuff records is necessitated by the lack of a  system that maintains data on obligations and actual expenditures at the  district or project level.
Field managers we interviewed said they rely on cuff records to  accumulate the detail they find necessary to track projects’ progress and  ensure that obligations and expenditures are being charged to the  appropriate programs, as well as to ensure that their projects’ on-the- ground progress keeps pace with the obligations and expenditures  associated with the projects. One forest official said, for example, that the  subunit codes (the ones that were eliminated through the move to  aggregated data) are necessary to keep track of districts’ obligations and  expenditures. Accordingly, he continues to use these codes in his cuff  records. Additionally, he requires each district to account for its  obligations and expenditures on a project-by-project basis (in addition to  using WorkPlan) and to provide those data to him so that he can track this  information against the overall allocation for the forest. By comparing  obligations and expenditures with the on-the-ground progress of individual  projects, this manager can determine whether project spending is on  schedule and whether funds need to be reallocated toward (or away from)  individual projects to ensure that forest priorities are accomplished.
Such tracking of project spending is important because a project might  encounter unexpected costs—for example, unanticipated steps might  need to be taken in order to remedy damage caused by a mudslide. If the  project is of high priority, according to Forest Service officials we  interviewed, the project manager will need to shift funds from other, lower  priority projects in order to provide the additional funds needed to  complete the high-priority project. However, without district- or project- level data on obligations, it is difficult—if not impossible—to know which  other projects have funds available to shift to the priority project, as well  as to understand the potential effects on the projects from which funds  were moved.
At another forest, an official noted that it is now “almost impossible,”  without the subunit job codes, to track obligations and expenditures at the  district level. Regarding the forest’s K-V fund, for example, this official  used to be able to maintain K-V fund balances by district; to do that now,  he counts on district managers to keep cuff records. Further, the forest  developed a K-V tracking spreadsheet, which is now the only tool available  to officials at that forest for tracking the K-V funds and needs among  projects.
With the removal of the subunit codes from FFIS, several field managers  told us they must depend on their cuff records to detect and correct  erroneous transactions to ensure that their limited funds are spent as  intended. In one region, for example, an official said she routinely scours  the FFIS transaction register—which shows, for an individual program or  forest, a record of each obligation—looking for erroneous charges.  Because the list of transactions for a single program or forest can be  hundreds of pages long, she checks only transactions over $1,000. When  she finds a charge that seems potentially erroneous (e.g., a name she does  not recognize or a credit card purchase that is questionable for a given  program), she queries the managers of the staff areas. These managers  then must investigate the potentially incorrect charges and correct them, if  appropriate. This official said she spent 15 percent to 20 percent of her  time in fiscal year 2006 using her cuff records to track down potentially  erroneous charges and correct them. She found, for example, that  numerous time charges had been miscoded, resulting in a total of about  $60,000 being erroneously charged to the timber program; she followed up  and had those charges removed. This inefficient verification and  correction process is used because the Forest Service does not have a  system that links each charge with an individual district, by project, to  enable officials to more easily detect erroneous charges.
Other managers we spoke with expressed similar concerns about their  diminished ability—since the shift to aggregated data—to identify costs  for particular activities and to monitor obligations against their forests’  allocation. When multiple districts charge the same code, managers cannot  tell—without keeping detailed cuff records—who might be charging more  time or obligating more money than planned to a code or charging the  wrong code. If more time or money is spent on a project than was planned,  a manager must be prepared to either delay further work on the project or  redirect funds from other projects to compensate. However, in order to  take either of these steps in time to avert overspending, the manager must  have timely information on each project’s expenditures. The effects of  exceeding allocations can go beyond the project in which it occurs, or  even beyond the forest. For example, officials in one region told us that a  forest within the region had exceeded its allocation for planning so  substantially that planning activities throughout the region had to be  curtailed in order to compensate for the forest’s error. As a result, these  managers have created cuff records to monitor projects as they proceed.
Finally, many Forest Service staff we spoke with said they keep cuff  records so that they can respond to the many requests they receive for  information. For example, according to officials in different regions,  timber industry groups, congressional staff, and others frequently ask for  information on individual timber sales, including information on the  volume of timber offered and associated costs, particularly unit rates to  produce timber (in dollars per thousand board feet). Responding to these  requests is difficult, according to Service officials we interviewed, because  the Service does not maintain information at the timber sales level; rather,  managers must resort to cuff records in order to furnish the information.
Given the labor-intensive and time-consuming nature of maintaining the  various cuff records in existence throughout the Forest Service, the actual  cost savings resulting from the Service’s decision to aggregate data are not  clear because substantial field resources are being expended to  compensate for the unintended effects of this decision. That is, while the  reduction in job codes maintained in FFIS has helped the Service decrease  its recognized data management costs, it has at the same time resulted in  additional, uncalculated costs in staff time devoted to tracking obligation  and expenditure data at the district level. In fact, the information we  gathered from managers in the field seems to contradict the assertion of a  Forest Service official, noted earlier, that tracking obligations and  expenditures at the forest level frees up time to do actual work rather than  tracking multiple job codes. Instead, field managers told us that the time  they need to spend tracking has actually increased because the system no  longer provides this information at the district level. In addition, neither  FFIS nor WorkPlan tracks obligations and actual expenditures at the  project level. Consequently, field managers who wish to track district- or  project-level data must do so manually. Forest Service headquarters  officials told us that the agency has not attempted to determine the  amount of time currently spent by field managers tracking this information  or the associated costs of doing so.
section_title: The Bureau of Land Management’s Detailed Data Help Managers Monitor Projects
paragraphs: In contrast to the Forest Service, BLM uses its Management Information  System (MIS) to track timber sales-related obligations and expenditures at  a level of detail useful to managers throughout the organization. Drawing  from the Department of the Interior’s Federal Financial System (FFS), MIS  tracks timber sales obligations—such as employee time charges, supplies,  and equipment—at various levels. For example, MIS tracks obligations by  funding source and activity type, then by office and, in many cases,  individual timber sale. The two funding sources most closely associated  with timber sales are the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriation  and the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund. As for activity types,  those related to timber sales include (1) managing commercial timber  sales and (2) restoring forests and woodlands through timber sales (e.g.,  managing salvage sales). MIS also tracks obligations by office, at both the  state office level and the field organization level (e.g., district offices and  field offices). Lastly, MIS tracks obligations by specific project, such as a  specific timber sale or stewardship project, when a project code is  assigned. Project codes are required for all sales conducted through the  Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund, including salvage sales, but  are optional for sales conducted with other funds, including commercial  sales. For commercial sales, for example, managers are free to assign  codes to individual projects but are not required to do so if they do not  believe it is necessary. In some locations, according to a BLM official, an  office may conduct only one or two timber sales a year and, thus, may not  find project codes necessary to identify individual sales. In one location,  BLM officials said they assign project codes after the general planning  work has been completed; in another location, officials said they assign  project codes once funding approval has been received. Staff working on a  specific timber sale would charge their time to the relevant funding code,  activity code, office code, and project code.
Using MIS has allowed BLM to maintain and monitor obligations and  expenditures at various levels of detail without relying on complicated  cuff records, as the Forest Service does. For example, an official from  BLM’s National Business Center said that the job codes assigned to timber  sales conducted under the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund  allow managers to track all data on an individual sale—from the planning  phase (e.g., on environmental assessments) to the final administrative  activities involved in closing the sale. In other cases, a state office official  said, individual project codes are not assigned (e.g., for sales conducted  through the Timber Sales Restoration Pipeline Fund), but those sales can  be identified by activity code and location, allowing managers to track  information at those levels. This official said he also uses MIS to generally  monitor district offices’ obligations and expenditures. For example, MIS  data allow him to compare the vehicle and labor obligations and  expenditures one office charged to the timber program with the same type  of obligations and expenditures charged by other offices.
The level of detail available in BLM’s system is a function of the agency’s  experience in the 1990s, according to a BLM official, when the agency  began losing money on timber sales and officials struggled with how to  handle the reporting of these losses. One of the alternatives discussed was  not calculating timber sales expenditures at all, so that they would not  potentially embarrass the agency politically—an option that this official  referred to as “contrived obfuscation.” Instead, with an eye toward  providing full transparency and performance accountability, BLM took the  opposite tack, according to this official; it decided to track data at an even  more detailed level.
Detailed expenditure data—captured in a cost accounting system—help  managers understand how expenditures can be controlled without  sacrificing service to the public. For example, managers of BLM’s Wild  Horse and Burro Program in Utah were able to use MIS to track  expenditures on each work activity associated with the program.  Program managers identified expenditures for each activity and  determined that the largest expenditures were for labor, particularly in  conducting the adoption process and doing postadoption inspections, and  for feed expenditures during the preadoption holding period. Armed with  this information, BLM was able to reduce its labor expenditures by making  greater use of volunteers and reduce its feed expenditures by capturing  animals just prior to scheduled adoptions. In 1998, BLM collected slightly  more than 5,700 animals. After changing the process in 1999, based on  expenditure data, the program collected more than 7,700 animals and  reduced the expense of holding and feeding them by $600,000 (about  $710,000 in 2006 dollars).
MIS has also proven useful in allowing BLM managers to make  expenditure-based decisions with regard to timber sales. For example,  expenditure data were used to determine the efficiency and effectiveness  of individual BLM state timber programs. Trend data were generated for  several years to compare how effectively the individual BLM state offices  were accomplishing their projects relative to their expenditures. This  information was used to move funding and resources among state offices  to more effectively meet program goals and bureau priorities.
section_title: Both Agencies Have Systems That Track Revenue by Timber Sale
paragraphs: The Timber Sale Accounting system maintains the Forest Service’s timber  sales revenue data, while two systems—the Timber Sale Information  System and the Collections and Billing System—maintain BLM’s timber  sales revenue data. Both agencies’ systems track sale and harvest  information by individual timber sale; they also automatically bill  purchasers and track payments. Both agencies also have systems for  tracking revenue generated under their stewardship contracting authority,  after initially struggling with how to implement the systems.
subsections: section_title: Forest Service’s Timber Sale Accounting System Maintains Revenue Data
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s Timber Sale Accounting (TSA) system maintains data  on all timber-related revenue. The system tracks the volume, type, and  value of timber harvested by individual timber sale; automatically  generates bills to timber purchasers; and tracks payments against these  bills. TSA tracks revenue from sales conducted with appropriated monies  as well as those conducted with monies from the salvage sale and pipeline  funds. TSA also tracks payments made by purchasers to fund reforestation  and brush disposal activities. Recently, the Forest Service added a module  to TSA to track revenue stemming from activities conducted under its  stewardship contracting authority. These activities often involve the  exchange of timber for services and thus can be difficult to account for  with traditional systems.
TSA maintains timber sales revenue data by individual timber sale contract  or permit. Each contract or permit is given a unique identifying number in  TSA, which provides a standardized process for managing the financial  aspects of timber sales contracts and permits. (Permits involve the sale of  forest products other than timber, such as firewood, mushrooms,  Christmas trees, and decorative grasses and foliage.) TSA produces a  monthly statement of account for each contract and permit; this statement  contains a detailed breakdown of activities under that contract or permit  and ensures accurate computation of revenue due the government.
The revenue comes to the government in the form of cash or credits. Cash  comes from timber purchasers’ payments of bills for timber volume  removed, or stumpage. A Forest Service sale inspector inspects the sales  units at least once a month and reports the volume of timber harvested.  TSA then automatically calculates the amount due, based on the amount  harvested and the product rate, and generates a bill to the purchaser. Once  payment is received, TSA distributes the cash to the appropriate revenue  accounts, such as the National Forest System Fund, the K-V fund, and the  Salvage Sale Fund. TSA also supplies this information to FFIS, where it is  recognized as earned income.
TSA also tracks “purchaser credits” and “cost share credits.” Purchaser  credits represent the value of road construction or reconstruction the  timber purchaser performed. The purchaser receives credit for the work,  which is deducted from the appraised value of stumpage. TSA tracks the  purchaser credits used to pay for (or offset) stumpage from year to year,  as well as the balance of outstanding (unused) credits. TSA also tracks  cost share credits, which represent the value of construction or  reconstruction costs shared between the Forest Service and the purchaser.  For example, if the Forest Service contributed materials, such as rock for  a road surface, and the purchaser did the work, the value of the  purchaser’s share would appear in TSA. Purchaser and cost share credits  can be used to pay for timber removed by the purchaser.
Stewardship contracting has posed challenges for the Forest Service  because the barterlike aspect of stewardship contracting can make it  difficult to account for using traditional accounting systems. As a result,  the Forest Service has struggled to incorporate into TSA a way to track the  collection and distribution of revenue stemming from stewardship  contracts. The accounting theory governing what are essentially barter  transactions (although the value of both the timber and the services is  appraised) is demanding, according to a regional official, and TSA  programmers have devoted much time to this area.
Until recently, the Forest Service had not automated the accounting for all  activities conducted through stewardship contracts. Staff had to use  manual spreadsheets to track, outside of TSA, the value of timber removed  and the value of service work completed, thereby allowing them to  compute the amount the purchaser owed for timber volume removed, if  any. Accordingly, data on stewardship contracting activities have been  entered into TSA for only the past few years, and the data were  incomplete, according to the system administrator. In October 2006,  during our review, the Forest Service implemented a TSA module that  tracks most of the stewardship contracting data.
Within TSA, the monetary activity associated with stewardship contracts is  now tracked using two unique revenue codes. The first code represents a  suspense account that contains monies collected from timber purchasers  as advance payments—that is, money to pay for timber that is removed  before the service work has been completed. In these cases, the advance  monies are used to pay for the timber volume removed. Then, as the  service work is performed, those monies are automatically refunded to the  purchaser, and the stewardship credits are applied as payment for the  volume removed to date. When all the service work has been completed  and there is expected to be additional timber volume to be paid for with  cash (i.e., when the value of the timber exceeds the value of the service  work), then the remaining suspense fund money is transferred to the  retained receipts account. This account, represented by the second  revenue code, is a region- and forest-specific revenue account that  contains cash collected for timber when the value of the timber exceeded  the value of the service work. In other words, a contractor has to pay the  Forest Service only if the total timber value exceeds the total cost of  services. The retained receipts account may be used to fund additional  stewardship sales that have been approved by the regional forester.
With the October 2006 addition of the stewardship accounting module,  TSA now tracks the amount of stewardship work to be performed, the  amount performed to date, the volume and value of timber removed, and  any cash paid the contractor for service work performed (when the value  of the service work exceeded the value of the timber). TSA automatically  applies the available stewardship credits to pay for timber volume  removed to date.
Although TSA now has a module designed to capture monetary  transactions related to stewardship contracts, regions and forests said  they will continue maintaining spreadsheets to track the monthly progress  of individual stewardship contracting projects and the payment  mechanisms involved in each one. For example, the spreadsheets track  nonmonetary “accrual” transactions, which represent the accrued value of  credits earned by contractors for service work completed. These earned  stewardship credits (nonmonetary) are used to “pay” for timber harvested  and are important because the Forest Service has to know how much  credit to extend when the purchaser wants to cut timber. Without this  credit, the Service would demand a cash payment before the timber could  be cut. Accordingly, stewardship work paid for with credits must be  tracked separately from work paid for with cash. Every month, the field  offices send their completed spreadsheets to the Albuquerque Service  Center, which enters into FFIS the nonmonetary accrual information. At  the end of April 2007, the service center was working on automating this  process as well.
section_title: BLM Uses Two Systems to Track Timber Sales Revenue
paragraphs: In tracking timber sales revenue, BLM uses the Timber Sale Information  System (TSIS) and the Collections and Billing System (CBS). TSIS  maintains specific contract data for individual timber sales, including the  volume, type, and value of timber harvested. Amounts owed by purchasers  are calculated in TSIS and then entered into CBS, which is BLM’s official  revenue accounting system. CBS generates bills sent to purchasers and  records collections received for contracts. TSIS and CBS track revenue  from sales conducted with appropriated monies in addition to those  conducted with monies from the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery  Fund and the Timber Sales Restoration Pipeline Fund.
TSIS and CBS maintain timber sales revenue data by individual timber sale  contract through a unique sale number. This alphanumeric sale number  identifies the state where the sale takes place, the field office  administering it, the year, and the sequential sale number for that office in  that year.
Throughout the month, information from TSIS on timber harvest activity is  entered into CBS, which generates bills sent to purchasers. These bills are  based on the quantity and value of the timber harvested but may also  include things such as road maintenance fees. At the end of each month,  data in CBS and TSIS are reconciled.
Collections are received either in the form of a check sent from the  purchaser directly to the sale office or as an electronic funds transfer sent  directly to the bank. All collections are posted to CBS, and a unique  transaction number is included in the posting. This transaction number is  generated either by CBS (for collections sent to the sale office) or by the  bank (for collections electronically transferred there). When collection  posting is complete, CBS automatically produces a statement that is then  used to update TSIS. Data in the two systems are again reconciled. The  reporting system in CBS allows staff to track revenue in various ways,  such as by sale, purchaser, type of timber, or fund.
BLM developed a separate system for recording revenue from timber sales  conducted under stewardship contracting authority, the Stewardship  Contracting Information Database (SCID). For revenue from stewardship  contracts, BLM uses CBS to track monetary collections and SCID to track  credits. Upon approval of a new stewardship contracting project, initial  project information is entered into SCID, and each project is assigned a  special project code that is used in both SCID and CBS. Financial and  project progress information is reported monthly in both systems. Because  of the special circumstances created by the unique nature of stewardship  contracting, BLM has devised collections solutions for the different types  of contracts. One requirement common to both regular timber sales and  stewardship contracting is that, prior to cutting or removing any forest  products from BLM-administered lands, a contractor must either pay in  advance for the product or provide some form of security as a payment  bond. For stewardship contracts, the contractor has the additional option  of using earned conservation credits (similar to the Forest Service’s  stewardship credits) in lieu of an advance payment or a payment bond.  Contractors’ advance payments are recorded in CBS and directed to a  deposit suspense account. When the value of the product removed  exceeds the amount deposited, the contractor makes additional payments,  which are entered into CBS and directed to the regular stewardship  contract product sales fund.
Conservation credits are also tracked in SCID. When the value of the  product removed is equal to or lesser than the value of the contractor’s  conservation credits, transactions are recorded in SCID. Once a  contractor’s conservation credits have been exhausted, payments for  further product removed are recorded in CBS.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Forest Service, like other federal agencies, is faced with limited  resources with which to carry out multiple activities, such as maintaining  campgrounds and trails, protecting wildlife habitat, and providing a supply  of forest products to society. Given this multitude of pressing needs, the  Service’s efforts to reduce its data management costs—and thus allow  more dollars to be directed to on-the-ground activities through which the  Service carries out its mission—would appear laudable. As an unintended  consequence, however, the agency has made it more difficult and resource  intensive for field managers to manage the very activities that the Service  seeks to emphasize. And because many field officials are maintaining cuff  records to compensate for the lack of detailed data available from the  Service’s system, the Service cannot ensure that the hoped-for level of cost  savings will materialize. That is, reductions in the Service’s recognized  data management costs may be offset by increases in the use of field  resources to fill in the data gaps. More broadly, maintaining detailed data  on the cost of the Service’s various activities would not only assist field  managers as they carry out the Service’s mission but also allow the Service  to better assess and improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these  activities and thereby improve its fiscal accountability.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that field managers responsible for carrying out Forest Service  operations have the data they need to manage effectively, and to provide  the Congress and the public with useful cost data to assess the fiscal  accountability of Service operations, we recommend that the Secretary of  Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to systematically  determine the information needs of the field managers on whom the  Service relies to carry out its operations, and, based on the results of this  analysis, take appropriate action to provide data that meet those  information needs. The Service might consider, for example, creating a  subsidiary system to track obligations and expenditures at a detailed level  without further burdening the Department of Agriculture’s primary  system, FFIS.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior with a draft  of this report for review and comment. The Forest Service generally  agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report. Similarly, the  Department of the Interior generally agreed with the report’s contents. The  Forest Service’s and Interior’s written comments are reproduced in  appendixes II and III, respectively.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Chief of  the Forest Service, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and  other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our overall objective was to examine the current mechanisms used by the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service (Service) for tracking timber  sales-related obligations, expenditures, and revenue. In addition, given  that the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM)  also conducts timber sales, we included that agency in our review.  Specifically, our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) the  Forest Service tracks timber sales-related obligations and expenditures,  including the extent to which the Service uses this information in making  management decisions; (2) BLM tracks timber sales-related obligations  and expenditures, and how BLM’s methods for doing so compare to those  of the Forest Service; and (3) the Forest Service and BLM account for their  timber sales-related revenue.
To determine how the Forest Service tracks timber sales-related  obligations and expenditures and the extent to which Service managers  use this information to make decisions about their programs, we reviewed  agency documents and interviewed officials in headquarters and in six of  the nine Forest Service regional offices about their timber sales  accounting policies and procedures. Because the Forest Service has no  agencywide system to track obligations and expenditures at the project  level, we visited Forest Service regional offices in Alaska, Georgia,  Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin to interview officials responsible  for tracking timber sales projects and their related obligations and  expenditures. At each of these regional offices, we interviewed officials  responsible for tracking timber sales-related obligations, expenditures,  and revenue, and officials responsible for planning and conducting timber  sales-related activities. We also met with officials of one or more forest  offices in each of six regions, as well as officials of five ranger districts, to  discuss what information they need, the methods they use to capture it,  and how they use it in managing their day–to-day operations. During our  site visits, we collected and reviewed records used to identify and track  timber-related data. These included “cuff records,” such as individually  maintained computer spreadsheets and databases, along with manual  modifications made to reports generated by the WorkPlan system. During  one visit, we also accompanied an “activity review team” from the regional  office on its site visits to evaluate field activities. We also reviewed  documents and reports related to the Department of Agriculture’s existing  financial system, the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). We  also reviewed previous work by GAO and the Department of Agriculture’s  Office of Inspector General.
Because BLM was not the primary focus of our review, our study of the  extent to which it tracks timber sales-related obligations and expenditures  was more limited than our work at the Forest Service. Additionally, unlike  the Forest Service, BLM employs standardized agencywide guidance and  systems to track this information at the project level; therefore, significant  variation across different geographic locations was unlikely. Nevertheless,  in order to interview officials responsible for tracking timber sales  projects and their related obligations and expenditures, we visited several  BLM locations, including the BLM state office in western Oregon that  manages the majority of the agency’s timber program, as well as a district  office in Oregon; the BLM state office in Idaho, where we spoke with  officials from the state office, one district office, and two field offices; and  one field office in Montana. In addition, we visited BLM headquarters in  Washington, D.C., and the National Business Center in Denver, Colorado,  and we conducted telephone interviews with BLM officials knowledgeable  about the agency’s cost accounting practices and systems. We obtained  and reviewed documents on BLM’s policies, procedures, and practices for  tracking timber sales obligations and expenditures, including system  manuals and other documentation for BLM’s Timber Sale Information  System (TSIS), Management Information System (MIS), and the  Department of the Interior’s Federal Financial System (FFS). Finally, we  relied, in part, on GAO’s previous work on accounting practices within the  Department of the Interior.
During our visits to Forest Service and BLM offices, including their  respective budget and finance centers, we learned how both agencies  account for timber sales-related revenue. We reviewed relevant portions of  agency manuals and handbooks and documents detailing procedures to  identify and report revenue, including revenue that the agencies manage  through participation in an interagency agreement governing timber sales  financed by the Timber Sales Pipeline Restoration Fund. We reviewed  detailed descriptions of the Forest Service’s revenue process, systems, and  its internal controls prepared by the independent auditor, KPMG, during  KPMG’s annual audit of the Forest Service’s financial statements, and we  read the fiscal year 2006 audit report. We reviewed KPMG’s overall  approach and sampling methodology and determined that KPMG’s  relevant findings were sufficiently reliable for understanding sales-related  revenue in the Forest Service. We also obtained information about the  Forest Service’s Timber Information Management (TIM) system, which  contains detailed information on timber sales contracts. We also obtained  information about the Timber Sale Accounting (TSA) system, which  maintains timber sales revenue data, and interviewed the system  administrator. To gain an understanding of how TIM and TSA maintain  data, we held discussions with cognizant officials on internal controls over  timber sales contracts, data entry practices, and revenue collection  procedures. For BLM, we followed the same general procedures with  respect to the following revenue tracking systems: the Collections and  Billing System (CBS), FFS, and TSIS. Finally, in addition to reviewing both  agencies’ standard systems for timber revenue collection, we interviewed  Forest Service and BLM officials about the progress they are making in  designing or modifying systems to track revenue associated with  stewardship contracting projects. Based on the collective information and  findings from our discussions and interviews, we believe these data are  sufficiently reliable for (separately and comparatively) reporting on  systems for tracking timber sales-related revenue in the Forest Service and  BLM.
We conducted our review from April 2006 through April 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which  included an assessment of data reliability and internal controls.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Stephen Gaty, Assistant  Director; Lisa Brownson; Sandra Davis; Barry Grinnell; Angela Pleasants;  and Pam Tumler made key contributions to this report. Nancy Crothers,  Denise Fantone, Tim Guinane, Kevin Jackson, Rich Johnson, Phil  McIntyre, and Jack Warner also made important contributions to this  report.