Federal Land Management
Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use Gao ID: GAO-09-277 February 25, 2009In 2000, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct certain activities, such as reducing hazardous vegetation, on U.S. Forest Service land when performing similar activities on adjacent state or private land. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received similar "Good Neighbor" authority in 2004, as did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah. Congress has also considered the authority's expansion to other states. GAO was asked to determine (1) the activities conducted under the authority; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to conduct Good Neighbor projects; and (3) successes, challenges, and lessons learned resulting from the authority's use. To do so, GAO reviewed Good Neighbor project documentation and interviewed federal and state officials.
Fifty-three projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority through fiscal year 2008, including 38 in Colorado and 15 in Utah, with most of the projects (44 of 53) conducted on U.S. Forest Service land. These projects included hazardous fuel reduction on about 2,700 acres of national forest and about 100 acres of BLM land, mostly in Colorado, and the repair of firedamaged trails and watershed protection and restoration in Utah. Together, the two agencies spent about $1.4 million on these projects, split almost evenly between the two states. Although most projects involved contracting for services such as fuel reduction, some projects involved timber sales in which contractors purchased timber resulting from their fuel reduction activities. These timber sales occurred only in Colorado and totaled about $26,000. State procedures are used in conducting Good Neighbor projects that involve service contracts, while projects that include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements. Both Colorado and Utah have contracting requirements that generally address three fundamental principles of government contracting--transparency, competition, and oversight. For example, both states solicit competition among bidders and generally require service contracts to be awarded to the lowest-priced bidder meeting the contract criteria. State requirements were generally comparable to federal procurement requirements. When Good Neighbor projects involve timber sales, state procedures incorporate certain requirements that help the U.S. Forest Service account for state removal of federal timber. The U.S. Forest Service and Colorado are currently supplementing their joint Good Neighbor procedures to ensure that additional accountability provisions are included in future timber sale contracts. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor timber sales, primarily because they have not sold timber under the authority. Such procedures could help ensure accountability for federal timber if future projects include such sales. Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state cooperation as its key benefits. For example, the agencies cited their ability to improve the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and private ownership. Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges such as a lack of understanding of the authority and complicated processes for approving Good Neighbor agreements. Agency officials and others also noted several factors to consider when conducting future Good Neighbor projects, whether in Colorado, Utah, or other states that may be granted the authority--including the type of projects to be conducted and the type of land to be treated. While the agencies are not required to document their experiences in using the authority, officials contemplating future use of the authority could benefit from such documentation--including information on successes, challenges, and lessons learned to date.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-277, Federal Land Management: Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-277
entitled 'Federal Land Management: Additional Documentation of Agency
Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use'
which was released on March 25, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2009:
Federal Land Management:
Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor
Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use:
Good Neighbor Authority:
GAO-09-277:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-277, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2000, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s
Forest Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct
certain activities, such as reducing hazardous vegetation, on U.S.
Forest Service land when performing similar activities on adjacent
state or private land. The Department of the Interior‘s Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) received similar ’Good Neighbor“ authority in 2004, as
did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah. Congress has also considered the
authority‘s expansion to other states. GAO was asked to determine (1)
the activities conducted under the authority;
(2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to
conduct Good Neighbor projects; and (3) successes, challenges, and
lessons learned resulting from the authority‘s use. To do so, GAO
reviewed Good Neighbor project documentation and interviewed federal
and state officials.
What GAO Found:
Fifty-three projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority
through fiscal year 2008, including 38 in Colorado and 15 in Utah, with
most of the projects (44 of 53) conducted on U.S. Forest Service land.
These projects included hazardous fuel reduction on about 2,700 acres
of national forest and about 100 acres of BLM land, mostly in Colorado,
and the repair of fire-damaged trails and watershed protection and
restoration in Utah. Together, the two agencies spent about $1.4
million on these projects, split almost evenly between the two states.
Although most projects involved contracting for services such as fuel
reduction, some projects involved timber sales in which contractors
purchased timber resulting from their fuel reduction activities. These
timber sales occurred only in Colorado and totaled about $26,000.
State procedures are used in conducting Good Neighbor projects that
involve service contracts, while projects that include timber sales
incorporate both state and federal requirements. Both Colorado and Utah
have contracting requirements that generally address three fundamental
principles of government contracting”transparency, competition, and
oversight. For example, both states solicit competition among bidders
and generally require service contracts to be awarded to the lowest-
priced bidder meeting the contract criteria. State requirements were
generally comparable to federal procurement requirements. When Good
Neighbor projects involve timber sales, state procedures incorporate
certain requirements that help the U.S. Forest Service account for
state removal of federal timber. The U.S. Forest Service and Colorado
are currently supplementing their joint Good Neighbor procedures to
ensure that additional accountability provisions are included in future
timber sale contracts. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest
Service in Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good
Neighbor timber sales, primarily because they have not sold timber
under the authority. Such procedures could help ensure accountability
for federal timber if future projects include such sales.
Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited
project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state cooperation as its key
benefits. For example, the agencies cited their ability to improve the
effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in areas that include
federal, state, and private ownership. Federal and state agencies have
also encountered challenges such as a lack of understanding of the
authority and complicated processes for approving Good Neighbor
agreements. Agency officials and others also noted several factors to
consider when conducting future Good Neighbor projects, whether in
Colorado, Utah, or other states that may be granted the
authority”including the type of projects to be conducted and the type
of land to be treated. While the agencies are not required to document
their experiences in using the authority, officials contemplating
future use of the authority could benefit from such
documentation”including information on successes, challenges, and
lessons learned to date.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior (1)
require that the U.S. Forest Service in Utah, BLM in Colorado, and any
agencies that receive the authority in other states, develop written
procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales before conducting any future
sales and (2) direct the agencies to better document their experiences
using the authority. The U.S. Forest Service, Interior, and the
Colorado and Utah forest agencies generally agreed with the report‘s
findings and recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-09-277].
For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Fifty-three Good Neighbor Projects Have Been Conducted in Colorado and
Utah for Fuel Reduction and Other Purposes:
Good Neighbor Projects Are Generally Governed by State Procedures, but
Projects Involving Timber Sales Also Incorporate Certain Federal
Requirements:
Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority to Date Could, If Better
Documented, Provide Insight for Potential Expansion of Its Use:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Colorado State Forest Service:
Appendix V: Comments from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Good Neighbor Projects in Colorado, by National Forest and
BLM Area:
Figure 2: Completed Fuel Reduction Project in Pike National Forest with
Slash Piled for Burning:
Figure 3: Good Neighbor Projects in Utah, by National Forest:
Figure 4: Barrier Rocks Placed along Dixie National Forest Roadway to
Prevent Off-road Vehicle Use:
Figure 5: Fuel Reduction Project Site in National Forest Area Bordering
Private Subdivision:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
CSFS: Colorado State Forest Service:
CSU: Colorado State University:
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
UDFFSL: Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 25, 2009:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Chairman:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The state of our nation's forests is of increasing concern, as many
forests, whether in federal, state, or other ownership, have become
densely stocked with trees and damaged by insects--two conditions that
can increase the risk of severe wildland fires. In some cases, forests
at high risk of fire span federal, state, and private land, making it
difficult for a single entity to gain access to and address all areas
needing protective or restorative treatment, such as reducing
vegetation that can fuel wildland fires. Treating certain areas while
leaving adjacent areas untreated may undermine the effectiveness of
overall efforts--a problem that is particularly significant in Colorado
and other western states undergoing increasing human development in or
near wildlands, because these areas of wildland-urban interface often
involve multiple landowners. In 1998, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service
(CSFS) began investigating ways to address this issue. As a result, in
2000 Congress authorized the U.S. Forest Service to undertake a pilot
program referred to as "Good Neighbor." This legislation authorizes the
U.S. Forest Service to permit CSFS to conduct certain watershed
restoration activities--such as reducing hazardous fuel to prevent
wildland fires, addressing insect outbreaks, and improving drainage to
prevent sediment from eroding into forest watersheds--on U.S. Forest
Service land when conducting similar activities on adjacent state or
private land.[Footnote 1] Under the act, the state may in some
circumstances act as an agent of the federal government to conduct
these projects. Although the projects are conducted by the state,
projects on federal land remain subject to the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),[Footnote 2] which requires
federal agencies to consider any significant environmental impacts that
may result from their actions.
Initially, Good Neighbor authority was slated to expire at the end of
fiscal year 2004, but Congress passed legislation that year extending
the authority until the end of fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 3] The 2004
legislation also expanded Good Neighbor authority to include lands in
Colorado managed by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM); this authority also expires in 2009. The same
legislation also established similar Good Neighbor authority concerning
U.S. Forest Service land in Utah, but did not require the state to
conduct similar work on adjacent state or private land; U.S. Forest
Service authority in Utah expired at the end of fiscal year 2008.
As Good Neighbor authority nears its expiration in Colorado and awaits
reauthorization in Utah, Congress has considered potential expansion of
the authority to other states. Legislation was introduced in the 110th
Congress that would expand this authority to include U.S. Forest
Service land in Wyoming,[Footnote 4] or to include all U.S. Forest
Service and BLM land in the western United States.[Footnote 5] In this
context, you asked us to determine (1) the activities conducted under
Good Neighbor authority, including the number, type, and scope of
projects undertaken; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures,
and controls being used to conduct Good Neighbor projects, including
contracting requirements and timber sale procedures; and (3) the
successes, challenges, or lessons learned, if any, that have resulted
from the use of Good Neighbor authority.
To determine the activities conducted under Good Neighbor authority in
Colorado and Utah, we reviewed and analyzed documentation from the U.S.
Forest Service; BLM; CSFS; and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and
State Lands (UDFFSL). We also visited several completed or ongoing Good
Neighbor project sites in both Colorado and Utah and interviewed
federal and state officials to obtain an understanding of the type and
scope of work being conducted under the authority. To determine the
federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to conduct
projects under Good Neighbor authority, we reviewed project operating
procedures, federal and state procurement requirements, and federal and
state timber sale requirements, comparing the requirements in several
areas to identify similarities and differences. Finally, to determine
the successes, challenges, and lessons learned resulting from the use
of Good Neighbor authority, we interviewed federal and state officials
involved with the authority's use in Colorado and Utah and discussed
the potential uses of Good Neighbor authority with state officials in
Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming. We also spoke with other interested
parties, including environmental groups and industry representatives
based in Colorado, Utah, other western states, and Washington, D.C.
Appendix I contains more detailed information on the objectives, scope,
and methodology of our review. We conducted this performance audit from
June 2008 through February 2009 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Fifty-three projects have been conducted under Good Neighbor authority
as of the end of fiscal year 2008, including 38 in Colorado and 15 in
Utah, with most of the projects (44 of 53) conducted on U.S. Forest
Service land. These projects included fuel reduction on about 2,700
acres of national forest and about 100 acres of BLM land, mostly in the
Colorado wildland-urban interface, and the repair of fire-damaged
trails and watershed protection and restoration in Utah. Together, the
two agencies spent about $1.4 million on these projects, split almost
evenly between the two states. Although most projects involved paying
contractors for services such as fuel reduction (i.e., service
contracts), some projects involved timber sales in which, for example,
contractors purchased timber resulting from their fuel reduction
activities. Such timber sales amounted to about $26,000. The specific
purpose for using Good Neighbor authority to conduct projects varied.
For example, under Good Neighbor authority, Colorado contracted with a
single vendor to carry out fuel reduction activities across multiple
tracts of land with fragmented federal, state, and private land
ownership, to avoid leaving pockets of untreated forest in the project
area.
Both federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls are used in
conducting Good Neighbor projects; state procedures are used in
conducting projects that involve service contracts, while projects that
include timber sales incorporate both federal and state requirements.
For all Good Neighbor projects, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM are
responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA. For those projects
involving service contracts, a master agreement with each state allows
Colorado and Utah to use state procedures to enter into contracts with
vendors that provide services such as fuel reduction. We examined both
states' contracting requirements concerning three fundamental
principles of government contracting----transparency, competition, and
oversight--and found that state requirements generally address each of
these areas. For example, we found that both states solicit competition
among bidders, give potential contractors reasonable amounts of time to
prepare bids, and generally require service contracts to be awarded to
the lowest-priced bidder meeting the contract criteria. We also found
state requirements to be generally comparable to federal procurement
requirements in specific areas that we examined. When Good Neighbor
projects involve timber sales, state procedures incorporate certain
requirements that help the U.S. Forest Service account for state
removal of federal timber. For example, Good Neighbor project
procedures developed jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS direct
state foresters to work with U.S. Forest Service officials to appraise
the value of timber on the project site and determine the minimum bid
price. However, we found that the provisions in standard U.S. Forest
Service timber sale contracts are typically more extensive than those
in timber sales administered by CSFS under Good Neighbor authority. For
example, initial Good Neighbor timber sale contracts administered by
CSFS did not include certain elements--such as provisions requiring the
contractor to address aspects of road maintenance, or information about
whether there were threatened and endangered species in the project
area--that are part of U.S. Forest Service contracts. The U.S. Forest
Service and CSFS developed more detailed Good Neighbor procedures to
ensure that these types of provisions are included in future Good
Neighbor timber sale contracts administered by Colorado, and are
supplementing these procedures to strengthen timber accountability. We
did not compare Colorado's timber sale requirements with those of BLM,
or Utah's requirements with those of the U.S. Forest Service, because
neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has
conducted timber sales under Good Neighbor authority to date. Neither
BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed
written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor projects involving
timber sales; such procedures could help ensure accountability for
federal timber if future Good Neighbor projects on the part of these
agencies involve the sale of such timber.
Experiences with Good Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah may
provide insights for the authority's potential expansion in those
states and others, although the agencies can enhance the usefulness of
these insights by systematically documenting their experiences in using
the authority. Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor
authority cited project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state
cooperation as its key benefits. For example, the agencies cited their
ability to begin projects more quickly; work on federal lands that are
otherwise difficult to access because they are surrounded by private
property; and improve the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in
areas that include federal, state, and private ownership. On the other
hand, federal and state agencies have encountered some challenges in
using the authority, such as a lack of understanding of the authority,
which has complicated partnerships between federal and state officials.
In addition, some U.S. Forest Service officials in Colorado considered
state timber sale procedures to be insufficient to protect federal
interests and have imposed additional requirements on the state before
agreeing to Good Neighbor projects. Conversely, some state officials
have found the overlay of federal requirements burdensome, making them
less likely to participate in Good Neighbor projects. Federal, state,
and other stakeholders identified several factors to consider when
conducting future Good Neighbor projects. For example, to ensure the
support of the public and environmental groups, some suggested that
projects be undertaken only in the wildland-urban interface, where the
potential public benefit is the greatest. Moreover, several
stakeholders noted that, while it is important to understand the
experiences using Good Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah when
considering its expansion to other states, it is likewise important to
account for differences among states as well. Stakeholders told us that
differences in the structure, staffing levels, and workload of other
state forest services, and the characteristics of federal lands in
various states--particularly the value of timber on these lands--would
all affect the authority's chances for success in other states and,
thus, are important factors to consider when evaluating its potential
expansion. Consequently, agency officials contemplating future use of
the authority--whether in Colorado, Utah, or other states--would
benefit from documentation of agency experiences in using the authority
to date. Such documentation could include, for example, an analysis of
cost savings or other efficiencies that have been achieved through its
use, and a discussion of the types of projects in which Good Neighbor
authority has been most successful. Without such information, agency
officials will need to independently assess which projects would best
be conducted using the authority, including the extent to which
individual projects might reduce costs or lead to other efficiencies--
an inefficient approach that could reduce the potential value of Good
Neighbor authority.
To enhance the U.S. Forest Service and BLM's use of Good Neighbor
authority, we are recommending that they (1) develop written procedures
for Good Neighbor timber sales before conducting these sales in areas
where such procedures do not already exist and (2) document how prior
experiences with Good Neighbor projects offer lessons for the future,
and make this information available to current and prospective users of
the authority. In commenting on a draft of this report, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Department of the Interior, CSFS, and UDFFSL generally
agreed with its findings and recommendations. However, we are concerned
that the actions the U.S. Forest Service intends to take in addressing
our recommendation to better document agency experiences with Good
Neighbor authority will not meet the intent of that recommendation, and
we have noted this concern in our response to the agency's letter.
Comments from the U.S. Forest Service (along with our response to those
comments), the Department of the Interior, CSFS, and UDFFSL are
reprinted in appendixes II, III, IV, and V, respectively.
Background:
Although its effect on communities can be devastating, wildland fire is
a natural and necessary process that provides many benefits to
ecosystems, such as maintaining habitat diversity, recycling soil
nutrients, limiting the spread of insects and disease, and promoting
new growth by causing the seeds of fire-dependent species to germinate.
Wildland fire also periodically removes brush, small trees, and other
vegetation that can otherwise accumulate and increase the size,
intensity, and duration of subsequent fires. Wildland fire occurs in
various combinations of frequency and severity, from low-severity
events that return every few decades to high-severity fires that occur
once every 200 years or more. Over the past century, however, various
management practices--including fire suppression, grazing, and timber
harvest--have reduced the normal frequency of fires in many forest and
rangeland ecosystems and contributed to abnormally dense, continuous
accumulations of vegetation, which can fuel uncharacteristically large
or severe wildland fires. The impacts of these fires have intensified
as more and more communities develop in areas that are adjacent to
fire-prone lands--the wildland-urban interface. Federal researchers
have estimated that unnaturally dense fuel accumulations on 90 million
to 200 million acres of federal lands in the contiguous United States
place these lands at an elevated risk of severe wildland fire.
The rapid urbanization of forested land in Colorado and Utah has raised
concerns about the unhealthy condition of forests in those states and
the potential for resulting wildland fires. These forests also have
undergone insect and disease attacks of epidemic proportions, further
weakening them and contributing to the abundance of fuels for wildland
fires. For example, the mountain pine beetle epidemic now affecting the
southern Rocky Mountains and other western areas has produced vast
areas of dead and dying lodgepole pine forests in Colorado and Wyoming.
In recent years, wildland fires in Colorado and Utah have increasingly
threatened communities in the interface as well as watersheds (i.e.,
areas that are drained by rivers or other waterways) that provide water
to populated areas in or near forests.
The U.S. Forest Service and BLM are the primary federal agencies
responsible for wildland fire management--together, they oversee about
450 million acres of forest and rangeland.[Footnote 6] These agencies
take various steps to reduce hazardous fuels (fuel reduction) on
wildlands, including mechanical treatments that use equipment to cut
vegetation back to desired levels (thinning), planned low-level fires
that burn small trees and underbrush (prescribed fire), herbicides that
kill unwanted vegetation, animal grazing, or combined treatments that
comprise one or more of these methods. Through these efforts, the
agencies attempt to restore forest and rangeland ecosystems to their
historical conditions and reduce the risk of severe wildland fires.
Like their federal counterparts, some state forest services also have
an important role in community fire prevention. Such agencies maintain
crews that suppress wildland fires, conduct forest thinning and
prescribed burns, advise local landowners on ways to build fire-
resistant structures, and direct homeowners to local contractors who
provide fuel reduction services. They also assist in the development of
community wildland fire protection plans that set priorities for fuel
reduction treatments and recommend specific strategies to reduce fire
risk on public and private land.[Footnote 7]
In addition to efforts to reduce the risk that wildland fires will
occur, federal and state agencies take other steps to mitigate the
impact of wildland fires. These steps include projects to stabilize
damaged areas and rehabilitate them more quickly than would occur under
natural conditions. Such projects involve activities such as planting
native grasses, shrubs, and trees; protecting waterways from erosion
that could introduce sediment into municipal water supplies; and
restoring habitat for local fish and wildlife populations.
Attempts at widespread fuel reduction and postfire rehabilitation in
the wildland-urban interface can be frustrated by the diverse mixture
of property ownership typically found in this region. A single forest
area may contain tracts of land that are publicly owned, such as
national forests and state parklands, as well as tracts that are
controlled by a multitude of private owners. This mixed-ownership
setting creates the potential for individual pockets of untreated land
to exist within a project area if some property owners do not want to
join the effort. For example, U.S. Forest Service efforts to treat
national forest land may be impeded if access to these areas is
dependent upon consent from private property owners. Access to national
forest land may also be limited if the project site falls within an
area where road construction is restricted. In such instances, areas
left untreated can diminish the effectiveness of the overall project.
Even if the U.S. Forest Service wanted to join the project, a separate
contract with the vendor--containing separate requirements for contract
performance--would typically be necessary.
Beginning in 1998, the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS began exploring
ways to manage land across ownership boundaries, particularly in
wildland-urban interface areas. The two forest services agreed that
management activities such as fuel reduction should be undertaken only
where community interest and support exists, and, thus, these
activities would be driven largely by state, local, and private
projects. To facilitate this work, they determined that it would be
useful for Colorado state foresters to serve as agents of the U.S.
Forest Service for the purpose of conducting projects on federal lands
immediately adjacent to state, local, or private lands where similar
work was under way. Colorado's foresters would be authorized to mark
boundaries, designate trees for removal, and administer other project
activities--including sales of designated trees in the project area--to
reduce fuel risk on federal lands as a complement to similar activities
on adjacent lands. Because of the collaborative nature of these
projects, the proposed program became known as "Good Neighbor."
In the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001, Congress established the program, authorizing the U.S.
Forest Service to allow its state counterpart in Colorado to perform
forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services, such as fuel
reduction or treatment of insect-infected trees, on national forest
lands. The services provided by the state, either directly or through
contracts with private vendors utilizing state contracting procedures,
were permitted when similar and complementary activities were being
performed on adjacent state or private lands. According to the
subsequent agreement signed by representatives of the two forest
services, the following benefits were anticipated from Good Neighbor
authority:
* national forest, state, and private lands would be at less risk from
catastrophic wildland fire;
* fuel treatments would provide defensible space for firefighters to
occupy while combating fires moving from forests to developed areas, or
vice versa;
* an impediment to cross-boundary watershed restoration activities
would be removed, resulting in greater protective and restorative
accomplishments; and:
* CSFS and the U.S. Forest Service would demonstrate cooperation as
encouraged in the National Fire Plan, the federal government's wildland
fire management strategy.[Footnote 8]
Congressional reauthorization of Good Neighbor authority in 2004 added
BLM areas in Colorado to the authority's scope. In addition, the 2004
legislation authorized the U.S. Forest Service to work with Utah's
forest service to perform similar watershed restoration and protection
projects in Utah. Unlike the authorizing legislation for Colorado,
however, there was no provision in the authorizing legislation for Utah
requiring Good Neighbor projects to correspond to similar and
complementary activities under way on adjacent state or private lands.
The U.S. Forest Service manages 11 national forests in Colorado, within
the agency's Rocky Mountain Region, and manages 7 national forests in
Utah, within the Intermountain Region.[Footnote 9] Each national forest
is divided into ranger districts that conduct or oversee "on-the-
ground" activities. BLM lands in Colorado are managed by the Colorado
State Office, which in turn oversees BLM field offices across the
state. CSFS administers 17 districts throughout the state, each led by
a district forester. UDFFSL, a unit of the state's Department of
Natural Resources, is divided into six areas, each administered by an
area manager.[Footnote 10]
Fifty-three Good Neighbor Projects Have Been Conducted in Colorado and
Utah for Fuel Reduction and Other Purposes:
Under Good Neighbor authority, 53 projects have been conducted in
Colorado and Utah as of the end of fiscal year 2008 at a cost to the
federal government of about $1.4 million. Colorado Good Neighbor
projects focused on fuel reduction activities, such as tree thinning,
mostly in the Colorado wildland-urban interface. In Utah, Good Neighbor
projects focused on the repair of fire-damaged trails and watershed
protection and restoration.
Colorado Good Neighbor Projects Focused on Fuel Reduction:
In Colorado, 38 projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority
from fiscal year 2002, after the authority was granted, through fiscal
year 2008. These projects primarily focused on fuel reduction. CSFS
planned these projects in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service or
BLM, as well as private owners, and then contracted with private
vendors or state crews to perform the work on U.S. Forest Service or
BLM land. Of these 38 projects, 29 were on U.S. Forest Service land.
These 29 projects included fuel reduction treatment on about 2,400
acres in 5 of the 11 national forests in the state--the Arapaho, Pike,
Roosevelt, San Isabel, and San Juan National Forests--with 25 of the
projects conducted in the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. The
remaining 9 Good Neighbor projects occurred on forested BLM land
covering about 100 acres in Boulder County.[Footnote 11] The number of
acres being treated under individual Good Neighbor projects on U.S.
Forest Service land in Colorado ranged from 1 acre to about 300 acres
and on BLM land ranged from 2 acres to 21 acres. Figure 1 depicts the
number of Good Neighbor projects in each of the Colorado national
forests and BLM areas.
Figure 1: Good Neighbor Projects in Colorado, by National Forest and
BLM Area:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map showing the Good Neighbor projects in Colorado, by
National Forest and BLM area.
Colorado:
National forests without Good Neighbor projects:
Rio Grande;
Grand Mesa;
Uncompahgre;
Gunnison;
White River;
Ruott.
National forests with Good Neighbor projects:
San Isabel (16);
Pike (9);
San Juan (2);
Roosevelt (1).
BLM areas with Good Neighbor projects:
Boulder, Boulder County (9).
Source: Map resources (map); U.S. Forest Service.
[End of figure]
Costs to the U.S. Forest Service for the 29 projects conducted on its
land in Colorado have totaled about $679,000 through fiscal year 2008,
while costs to BLM for its 9 projects in Boulder County have totaled
$74,000 through the same time period. Individual project costs in
Colorado varied, ranging from a low of $7,000 to a high of $233,000,
depending on the number of acres treated and the type of work and
equipment required. For example, one U.S. Forest Service district
ranger stated that in a typical tree-thinning project, the contractor
would pile and burn the cut branches and other thinned material (known
as slash) resulting from the work, which is relatively inexpensive, but
when the work is done in close proximity to homes, it usually requires
more expensive treatments and means of disposal, such as mechanical
grinding or chipping.
In Colorado, Good Neighbor projects have been initiated as part of
larger fuel reduction efforts being planned or conducted by the state
on state, local, and private land in the state's wildland-urban
interface. The Good Neighbor project portion is usually smaller--in
acres and cost--than the overall fuel reduction effort in a given area.
For example, in the upper South Platte region, which includes portions
of the Pike National Forest, CSFS has reduced fuels on thousands of
acres in highly fire-prone areas on Denver Water[Footnote 12] land and
other privately owned land after a severe fire in 1996 caused extensive
sediment runoff into a primary Denver water source. However, a portion
of these lands was adjacent or intermingled with Pike National Forest
land, making it difficult to effectively treat the entire area without
conducting work on federal land. According to CSFS officials, the
state, as a result of the Good Neighbor authority, was able to contract
with individual vendors to perform the work required on several hundred
acres of the Pike National Forest as well as on private lands, thereby
ensuring a seamless fuel reduction effort across Denver Water, private,
and U.S. Forest Service lands. Figure 2 shows a slash pile on a fuel
reduction project site in the Pike National Forest.
Figure 2: Completed Fuel Reduction Project in Pike National Forest with
Slash Piled for Burning:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a photograph of completed fuel reduction project in Pike
National Forest with slash piled for burning.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
In most Good Neighbor projects, the state either performs the services
or contracts with vendors under a service contract; however, several
projects in Colorado on U.S. Forest Service land were conducted under
timber sale contracts in which fuel reduction projects aimed at
thinning forests are structured as timber sales. Acting through Good
Neighbor authority, state foresters sold the timber to professional
loggers or, in some cases, to residents of adjacent subdivisions who
used it for firewood. Instead of having to pay fuel reduction
contractors to remove the timber, the U.S. Forest Service received a
small amount of sale revenue from the state and paid only for the state
forester's administration of the sale.[Footnote 13] Of the 29 Good
Neighbor projects the CSFS has conducted in Colorado on U.S. Forest
Service land, 15 were conducted in the San Isabel National Forest and 1
was conducted in the Pike National Forest using timber sale
contracts.[Footnote 14] Through these timber contracts, about 345,000
cubic feet of timber has been harvested and sold as of September 30,
2008, for a total of about $19,000.[Footnote 15] According to CSFS
officials, the amount received for the timber is relatively small
because the ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer timber
primarily found in the Pike and San Isabel National Forests is small
and of low value, as is timber in much of the rest of Colorado, in
part, because of limited markets for timber.
In addition, in 3 of the 13 Good Neighbor projects that involved
service contracts on U.S. Forest Service land, timber sales were
included as part of the service contract, rather than in a separate
timber sale contract. As an incentive to attract bidders for these
projects, timber harvested during fuel reduction was permitted to be
removed from the forest and sold to local mills, rather than cut and
piled on-site. Because prospective bidders contemplated the value of
this timber in their bids, the cost of the resulting service contract
was likely lower than it would have been without the incentive. For 2
of these projects, 1 located in the San Juan National Forest and the
other located in the Arapaho National Forest, the total volume and
value of included timber was 278 CCF for $1,378 and 1,312 CCF for
$5,472, respectively.[Footnote 16]
Utah Good Neighbor Projects Focused on Rehabilitation of Burned Areas
and Watershed Health:
In Utah, 15 projects have been conducted under Good Neighbor authority
from fiscal year 2005, when the authority was enacted, through fiscal
year 2008. All of the projects in Utah have been conducted in one
national forest--the Dixie National Forest--which is in the southern
part of the state. According to a U.S. Forest Service Intermountain
Region official, U.S. Forest Service ranger district officials in the
Dixie National Forest and UDFFSL Southwestern Area officials have
historically had a good relationship with each other and thought Good
Neighbor projects could be beneficial to both. As a result, U.S. Forest
Service officials in this district decided to use Good Neighbor
authority to conduct several projects that they had originally planned
to undertake themselves. Figure 3 depicts the national forests located
in Utah and the number of projects undertaken in the one forest that
has used the authority.
Figure 3: Good Neighbor Projects in Utah, by National Forest:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map showing the Good Neighbor projects in Utah, by
National Forest.
National forests without Good Neighbor projects:
Fishlake;
Wasatch;
Manti-LaSal;
Cache;
Wasatch;
Uinta;
Ashley.
National forests with Good Neighbor projects:
Dixie (15).
Source: Map Resources (map); U.S. Forest Service.
[End of figure]
The types of Good Neighbor projects in Utah are more diverse than those
in Colorado. Unlike Colorado, where the projects are generally driven
by overall state fuel reduction initiatives, in Utah, the U.S. Forest
Service initiates projects and then obtains the assistance of UDFFSL to
perform work on national forest land. According to Utah state
officials, of the 15 Good Neighbor projects conducted in Utah, only 2
projects were fuel reduction-related, where state crews burned piles of
brush and slash on over 300 acres near adjacent private lands to assist
the U.S. Forest Service in a larger fuel reduction project in the
forest. Of the remaining 13 projects, 8 involved using state crews or
contractors to rehabilitate burned areas following wildland fires,
including activities such as repairing and constructing fences,
cleaning impoundments used by cattle and wildlife, and reconstructing
forest trails. In the 5 remaining Good Neighbor projects, the state
used crews or contractors to protect the watershed from erosion and
sediment runoff by, for example, rehabilitating trails used by all-
terrain vehicles and transportation and placement of large barrier
rocks on either side of a roadway near public campsites to prevent
vehicles from traveling off-road and damaging forest resources (see
fig. 4).
Figure 4: Barrier Rocks Placed along Dixie National Forest Roadway to
Prevent Off-road Vehicle Use:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a photograph of barrier rocks placed along Dixie
National Forest roadway to prevent off-road vehicle use.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Costs to the U.S. Forest Service for these 15 projects have totaled
about $674,000 through fiscal year 2008. As in Colorado, costs varied
depending on the type of work and equipment provided. For example,
project costs ranged from $1,500 for a pile burning on a few acres to
$174,000 for replacement of existing culverts--large pipes that allow
natural waterways to flow under road crossings--with new structures
that will improve the forest watershed by facilitating the passage of
trout and other fish species.
Good Neighbor Projects Are Generally Governed by State Procedures, but
Projects Involving Timber Sales Also Incorporate Certain Federal
Requirements:
State procedures are used for projects that involve service contracts,
which include most Good Neighbor projects to date, while projects that
include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements.
We examined both states' contracting requirements concerning three
fundamental principles of government contracting--transparency,
competition, and oversight--and found that state requirements generally
address each of these areas. The U.S. Forest Service and CSFS are
currently updating their Good Neighbor timber sale procedures, however,
to make certain that timber sales conducted under the authority include
all protections that federal officials believe are necessary when
dealing with federal timber. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S.
Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for conducting
Good Neighbor timber sales, primarily because neither agency has sold
timber under the authority. However, such procedures could help ensure
accountability for federal timber if these agencies conduct such sales
in the future.
State Procedures Are Generally Used for Projects That Involve Service
Contracts:
State procedures generally govern Good Neighbor projects that involve
service contracts, which include 37 of the 53 Good Neighbor projects to
date. Good Neighbor projects are initiated under the authority of Good
Neighbor agreements between each state and federal agency, which
describe at a high level the authority and responsibilities of each
agency in conducting projects, including the project's planning,
design, preparation, contracting, and administration.[Footnote 17] For
those projects involving service contracts, Good Neighbor agreements
allow the states to use their own procedures to enter into contracts
with vendors that provide services, such as fuel reduction, in
conducting forest restoration projects, or the states may use their own
crews to carry out the work. Under the agreements, however, the U.S.
Forest Service and BLM retain certain authorities when Good Neighbor
projects are conducted. For example, for projects carried out on their
respective lands, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM remain responsible
for ensuring that the requirements of NEPA are satisfied. Once NEPA
requirements are satisfied and project planning is completed, the state
and federal agencies develop a task order for each project, detailing
its objectives and cost.[Footnote 18] The state can then proceed with
procuring the needed services using its own procurement and contracting
process. In Colorado, the Colorado State University (CSU) administers
procurement and contracting for all CSFS service contracts, including
those for Good Neighbor projects. In Utah, procurement and contracting
for service contracts are administered and approved by either UDFFSL or
the Utah Division of Purchasing, depending on the size of the
procurement.
We examined CSU's and the Utah agencies' contracting requirements
concerning three fundamental principles of government contracting----
transparency, competition, and oversight. Specifically, we examined
each state agency's procurement rules concerning the following
practices:
* soliciting contracts through public notice, with reasonable time
allowed for potential vendors to develop and offer their bids;
* ensuring competition, except in cases where there are legitimate
extenuating circumstances, such as projects for which there is only one
responsive bidder;
* using simplified acquisition procedures for contracts whose dollar
value is below a specified amount;
* awarding contracts to the lowest-priced vendor when evaluating
competing offers, and requiring justification when any additional
criteria, such as past performance, are used;
* giving preference to small businesses when awarding contracts;
* using fixed-price contracts;[Footnote 19]
* avoiding the awarding of contracts to private vendors for the
performance of inherently governmental functions, such as budgeting and
hiring;
* including worker protection provisions in state contracts;
* conducting orientation conferences with vendors at project sites;
and:
* providing for ongoing quality control, and requiring the government
to conduct quality assurance inspections to determine whether the
vendor is fulfilling the contract.
In our analysis, we found that the state agencies' contracting and
procurement requirements generally address each of these areas. We
discuss five of these areas in the following text:
* We found that agencies in both states provide a reasonable amount of
time to advertise and receive bid proposals as well as provide
competition among vendors. In CSU procurements, for example, contracts
for services that will cost between $25,000 and $150,000 are generally
advertised on Colorado's Internet bidding system for not less than 3
days--to allow vendors time to develop and offer their bids. CSU
provides additional requirements for procurements relating to CSFS
forest-related work, allowing a minimum of 14 days for vendors to
submit a bid regardless of the type of procurement because vendors that
may be interested are often in the field conducting forest-related work
and may not see the advertisement for several days. Services that will
cost less than $25,000 are left to the discretion of the purchasing
agent, who may advertise the bid or solicit vendors via telephone to
determine whether they are interested. According to CSU procurement
officials in Colorado, competition is generally promoted, except in two
circumstances: (1) when only one vendor is available, and the contract
has to be awarded to that vendor, or (2) the service being obtained
will cost less than $25,000, which allows the purchasing agent to
obtain services through other state agencies, such as the Colorado
Corrections Industry, without written justification, if a fair market
price is obtained. Competition is similarly promoted in Utah, according
to state contracting officials, but contracting officers in the state
may use informal procedures to acquire services, if the services will
cost less than $50,000. For example, to award a $30,000 service
contract, the state's centralized Division of Purchasing may solicit
telephone bids from three known vendors, then select one of the three
vendors. This would not be an acceptable amount of competition for
acquisitions exceeding $50,000, which would require the invitation to
bid to be disseminated via the state's Internet bidding system for a
minimum of 10 days' bidding time.
* Agencies in both states are generally required to award a contract to
the lowest-priced bidder who meets the requirements set forth in the
solicitation for bids for contracts, except in certain circumstances,
such as when contracts are sizable enough to require a request for
proposal--in which the state requires bidders to address additional
criteria in their bids, such as technical requirements--or when strong
justifications for not choosing the lowest bidder can be documented by
the contracting officer. Additional requirements are imposed by the
state agency to ensure that contracts are awarded to reputable
contractors. For example, contract terms and conditions in both states
require contractors to certify that they have not been debarred,
suspended, or proposed for debarment by any governmental department or
agency. In addition, for all proposed contracts that are federally
funded, including Good Neighbor contracts, CSU purchasing agents search
for prospective vendors' names on the General Services Administration's
Excluded Parties List System, which is a database for obtaining
information on parties that are excluded from receiving federal
contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain federal financial and
nonfinancial assistance and benefits. If a prospective vendor is on the
list, the CSU purchasing agent will not consider this vendor's bid,
even if it is the lowest priced.
* According to state agency officials, the procurement policies of
agencies in both states encourage contracting for services with small
or disadvantaged businesses, although there are no specific set asides
for small or disadvantaged businesses in either state. A CSU official
stated that CSU promotes such businesses through a small business
program, and that about 90 percent of CSFS contracts, including
contracts for Good Neighbor projects, go to small businesses. However,
attaining this percentage is not a requirement, according to this
official, but simply results from the fact that types of work required
in forest restoration projects, such as fuel reduction, are typically
performed by small businesses. A Utah Division of Purchasing official
stated that, although set asides are not required in Utah, the state
will incorporate them into any procurement if the federal government
requires set asides as the condition of a particular grant or contract
under which the procurement is conducted. The official added that the
federal government, rather than the state, is ultimately responsible
for determining whether contracts are awarded pursuant to federal
requirements for small businesses.
* According to state agency officials in both states, contractors are
generally required to have liability insurance. In addition, the state
agencies incorporate federal worker protection provisions into state
contracts as requested by federal agencies. For example, the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act[Footnote 20] is a
federal law that applies to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers,
including at least some forestry workers.[Footnote 21] While none of
the agencies we reviewed specifically requires that the act's
provisions be explicitly included in state contracts, procurement
officials in both states said that they include such federal provisions
if they are conditions of grants or are otherwise stipulated in
federal-state agreements.
* The responsibility for monitoring contract performance--through
activities such as project site visits to ensure satisfactory work and
a quality assurance inspection at the job's completion--is largely left
to the state forest services' project managers in the field. However,
both states use contract mechanisms to ensure that a vendor's
performance meets government standards, including performance bonding
and requirements that contractors operate within an agency-approved
scope of work.
In reviewing state requirements concerning transparency, competition,
and oversight, we compared selected state procurement and contracting
requirements with those in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),
which governs federal procurement activities, as well as specific U.S.
Forest Service and BLM procurement guidance, and found them to be
generally comparable. For example, we reviewed FAR provisions on (1)
publicizing contract actions, which can include the establishment of a
minimum bidding period that gives potential vendors a reasonable
opportunity to respond; (2) competition requirements, which includes a
requirement to provide for full and open competition through the use of
competitive procedures, but allows for an exception to these procedures
in limited circumstances, for example, if there is only one suitable
vendor; and (3) quality assurance, which details several mechanisms--
including inspection requirements and contract clauses--for
maintaining project oversight and ensuring that the government receives
quality work. Although we did not analyze all portions of the FAR, our
broad comparison suggests that state and federal procurement
requirements are generally similar in the areas we examined.
Projects That Include Timber Sales Incorporate Both State and Federal
Requirements:
While most Good Neighbor projects are carried out through service
contracts, certain CSFS districts in Colorado, such as the Salida
District, also use timber sale contracts to conduct fuel reduction
projects when the project is expected to involve the harvest of
merchantable timber. In such cases, CSFS Good Neighbor timber operating
procedures incorporate certain federal requirements beyond those used
for ordinary state timber sales, to ensure proper oversight of, and
accountability for, state removal of federal timber. For example, the
following additional project requirements are included in Good Neighbor
timber sale operating procedures:
* state foresters should determine the timber sale volume, using
standard federal tree sampling methods;
* state foresters should work with the local U.S. Forest Service ranger
district to develop a sale appraisal and determine a minimum bid price;
and:
* project sites with total timber sale volume greater than 25 CCF or
values greater than $5,000 should be marked with U.S. Forest Service
tracer paint to identify trees to be cut and boundaries around the area
in which cutting is to take place.
CSFS officials, in conjunction with U.S. Forest Service regional
officials, developed these CSFS timber operating procedures in 2007, in
response to confusion over the requirements governing timber sales.
When Good Neighbor authority was first being used, general operating
procedures were contained in the master agreements, but no specific
operating procedures existed, and some CSFS district officials were
unsure about, or unaware of, certain requirements that needed to be
followed as part of conducting a timber sale on federal land. We
reviewed the provisions in the initial timber sale contracts that CSFS
administered under Good Neighbor authority and found that they were not
as extensive as standard U.S. Forest Service timber sale contracts. For
example, the state Good Neighbor timber sale contracts did not
specifically require the contractor to consider additional activities
associated with the project, such as road maintenance, and did not
include information about whether threatened and endangered species
were in the project area. In addition, these contracts did not include
detailed descriptions of the type and amount of timber sold. This type
of information was included in standard U.S. Forest Service timber sale
contracts. CSFS's recent operating procedures address these issues, and
a U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region official told us that CSFS
has begun to include some of this information in more recent timber
sale contracts--for example, CSFS included a clause addressing
threatened and endangered species in a recent timber sale contract.
Some U.S. Forest Service officials told us, however, that they remain
concerned about certain aspects of timber sales conducted under Good
Neighbor authority. Accordingly, the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS are
drafting additional timber procedures that were not addressed in the
initial procedures in 2007. These revised operating procedures add or
revise procedures that identify federal and state roles in Good
Neighbor timber sales from the initial NEPA documentation through the
sale and subsequent harvesting of national forest timber. For example,
the agencies are considering adding procedures for better
accountability of timber sales by outlining the necessary information
that needs to be included in the U.S. Forest Service's Timber
Information Management System, a system which tracks all information
connected with each federal timber sale from its inception to
completion. These provisions are currently in draft form, but when
finalized will be considered joint operating procedures for both
agencies.
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has already begun initiating some
changes to the timber sale contract requirements in its latest Good
Neighbor projects. According to a U.S. Forest Service official, one
important change to the procedure is that national forest timber will
be considered as "sold" first to the state, which in turn will sell it
to the private contractor. According to a CSFS official, project task
orders for timber sale contracts will clearly specify any special U.S.
Forest Service contract requirements that are the responsibility of the
state, which in turn will hold the contractor accountable for meeting
those requirements. With this change, the state will more clearly know
what special additions they must make to their Good Neighbor timber
sale contract for a particular project. State officials believe this
change will improve the project administration by the state and the
accountability for enforcing certain U.S. Forest Service requirements.
For example, an October 2008 Good Neighbor timber sale contract between
the state and the buyer includes a U.S. Forest Service stipulation
resulting from the project's federal NEPA analysis, specifically
prohibiting logging work from December 1 through April 15, to avoid
interfering with the winter range of big game animals, such as deer and
elk. Under the new contracting provisions, the state is now responsible
for enforcing this provision.
We did not compare Colorado's timber sale requirements with those of
BLM, or Utah's with those of the U.S. Forest Service, because neither
BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has conducted
timber sales under Good Neighbor authority to date, and neither BLM in
Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written
procedures for doing so. According to a CSFS official, detailed
operating procedures for BLM Good Neighbor projects have not been
developed because CSFS's experience with the agency--consisting of nine
projects in Boulder County at a total cost of $74,000--has been too
limited to justify spending time and resources in developing such
procedures. In addition, a BLM official stated that if the agency
decided to have CSFS conduct timber sales as part of its Good Neighbor
projects, it would likely require CSFS to utilize a BLM timber sales
contract on the basis of agency timber sale requirements, or work with
CSFS to ensure that the necessary federal requirements were accounted
for in a state timber sales contract. As for Utah, a senior UDFFSL
official told us that there is no official UDFFSL timber sale contract
or process, because neither UDFFSL nor its parent Department of Natural
Resources is involved in the sale of state timber. Instead, this is the
role of a separate state agency that administers real estate trusts
granted to Utah at statehood and is not involved in Good Neighbor
projects. UDFFSL has developed a sale contract template for private
landowners to use when selling timber from their land to commercial
loggers. If timber were sold as part of a Good Neighbor project in
Utah, a senior UDFFSL official speculated that agency managers in the
field might use this contract template in the absence of other
guidance.
Although the value of timber removed through Good Neighbor projects has
been minimal, the agencies' experiences in using the authority to sell
timber have demonstrated the importance of having detailed Good
Neighbor timber sale operating procedures. Such procedures can help
ensure that officials in both the federal and state agencies understand
each agency's roles and responsibilities and can help provide the
guidance necessary to ensure proper accountability for federal timber.
Should BLM in Colorado or the U.S. Forest Service in Utah decide to
undertake timber sales through Good Neighbor authority in the future,
or should the authority be expanded to include other states where such
timber sales might occur, both federal and state agencies would benefit
from written procedures detailing each party's responsibilities in
conducting Good Neighbor project timber sales.
Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority to Date Could, If Better
Documented, Provide Insight for Potential Expansion of Its Use:
Federal and state officials who have participated in Good Neighbor
projects cited project efficiencies as the authority's primary benefit,
including the ability to begin work more quickly and to reduce
hazardous fuels across multiple ownerships with a single contract. The
authority also provides a forum for federal-state cooperation that can
aid other collaborative efforts, such as emergency wildland fire
suppression. Challenges encountered by the agencies include federal and
state officials' incomplete understanding of how projects should be
administered under the authority and concern about the adequacy of
state contract procedures. Future use of Good Neighbor authority may
benefit from documentation of agency experiences in using the authority
to date, particularly since stakeholders told us that the authority's
chances for success in other states hinge on several factors, including
the structure, staffing levels, and workloads of other state forest
services, as well as the characteristics of those states' federal
lands.
Benefits of Good Neighbor Authority Include Project Efficiencies and
Increased Federal-State Cooperation:
Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited
project efficiencies as its primary benefit. The efficiencies cited
include an ability to begin work more quickly, in part because the
Colorado and Utah state forest services have established relationships
with local communities and in part because state contracting procedures
are considered to be simpler than federal procedures. In Colorado, for
example, CSFS's mission includes a mandate to assist local property
owners with forest management on their lands. The state agencies'
resulting familiarity with local communities extends to knowledge of
local vendors that offer services such as fuel reduction, which--
combined with the states' simplified contracting procedures--can
shorten the time required to identify a suitable contractor, secure a
contract, and begin work. According to one U.S. Forest Service district
ranger in Colorado, this type of local-level coordination with private
landowners and local contractors is not a specialty of most ranger
districts' staff. The state foresters' familiarity with local
landowners also speeds implementation when access is required across
private land to reach a project site on federal land--for example, when
a project site is far from existing forest roadways but is near a
network of private roads within a subdivision. In one such instance,
the U.S. Forest Service needed to gain access through a private
subdivision to treat a densely forested area in an adjoining national
forest. As part of a Good Neighbor agreement, CSFS negotiated with the
subdivision's owners to gain access to the site so that a private
contractor could begin work. Figure 5 shows a map of the project area.
Figure 5: Fuel Reduction Project Site in National Forest Area Bordering
Private Subdivision:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an image of a fuel reduction project site in National
Forest Area bordering private subdivision.
Source: GAO adaptation of Colorado State Forest Service map.
Note: The project area was divided into four units and numbered in
order of priority.
[End of figure]
According to state officials, securing this access is often less time-
consuming for state foresters because, as a result of their state
agencies' emphasis on local outreach, they are often better known in
the community than their federal counterparts. Moreover, several state
officials noted that the U.S. Forest Service sometimes attempts to
secure a permanent easement across private land in this scenario, which
is less likely to result in a landowner's cooperation, instead of
temporary access for the duration of a specific project.
The ability to begin work more quickly can be important when Good
Neighbor projects use funding that is only available for the remainder
of the current fiscal year. (Good Neighbor projects do not receive
dedicated funding; instead, projects are funded from a variety of
accounts, including grant funds.) In certain cases, the U.S. Forest
Service decides to fund a project for one field unit near the end of
the fiscal year--for example, by shifting funds from another field unit
that has no further fuel reduction activities to fund that year.
Partnering with the state forest service through a Good Neighbor
agreement that expedites contracting can allow the project to be
started prior to the end of the current fiscal year.
In some cases, according to federal and state officials, using state
foresters to administer Good Neighbor projects increased the efficiency
of federal activities because the state was willing to assume
responsibility for project administration. For example, state foresters
in Utah performed project management duties, such as locating
responsible vendors, negotiating contracts, and processing payments to
vendors as work progressed. According to Utah officials, the state
forest service was willing to undertake these Good Neighbor project
duties because the projects benefited shared watersheds, accomplished
important work for communities, and had a positive impact on local
economies. Similarly, Colorado's state forest service administered Good
Neighbor fuel reduction projects in the state's South Platte district
under an arrangement funded by Denver Water, which benefited from the
resulting watershed protection. In other cases, because the state
structured fuel reduction projects as timber sales, fees related to the
state forester's administration of these sales were the only costs to
the federal government--there were no service costs.
The use of Good Neighbor authority also increased the effectiveness of
fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and
private ownership and helped to maximize the degree of wildland fire
risk reduction per dollar spent on the project, according to agency
officials. Arranging for a single vendor to perform the work across
ownership boundaries increased the likelihood that forest treatment was
conducted in a uniform way and avoided leaving untreated land parcels
in the project area. According to one U.S. Forest Service official, the
ability to treat land parcels under multiple ownerships is critical
because fire "doesn't know the boundary" between federal, state, and
private forest land.
Given the advantages of partnering with the state--including the
ability to negotiate access agreements, find suitable vendors, utilize
more nimble contracting procedures, and share some project management
duties--the use of Good Neighbor authority allowed the agencies to
accomplish more than they would have accomplished in the absence of the
authority, according to officials with whom we spoke. As U.S. Forest
Service officials in Utah noted, the ability to leverage state
employees to work on national forest lands increases the number of
initiatives that a manager can undertake. For example, the Cedar City
ranger district in the Dixie National Forest enlisted the state to
reconstruct an all-terrain vehicle trail running through the forest,
adding a layer of gravel to prevent trail erosion from continuing to
spread sediment into nearby wetlands. According to the project's
federal manager, U.S. Forest Service crews' already heavy workload was
one reason for giving the project to the state. A second reason was
UDFFSL's ability to employ a county road crew on the project that would
do similar work on private portions of the trail that access nearby
communities.[Footnote 22] In other cases, projects benefiting local
communities may "fly under the [U.S.] Forest Service's radar," as one
state official said. That is, due to their inaccessible location or
relatively small size, the national forest portions of some fuel
reduction projects may not have been part of the U.S. Forest Service's
annual work plan until the state proposed including the parcels in
landscapewide projects being planned for state and private property.
Using state crews and private companies to do this work has additional
advantages. For example, state and federal officials in Utah said that
employing seasonal state fire response personnel on Good Neighbor
projects brings revenue to the state that allows it to maintain these
personnel for a longer period, keeping them available for emergency
fire response outside of the state's peak summer fire season. On the
other hand, having the state contract with private companies allows the
skills needed for necessary work such as fuel reduction to develop
within a community, increasing the number of potential vendors that are
qualified to work with federal agencies in the future.
In addition to creating project and agency efficiencies, the use of
Good Neighbor authority provided a forum for collaboration between
federal and state agencies that officials told us can increase the
effectiveness of other cooperative efforts. For example, emergency
suppression of wildland fires demands that agency officials be able to
coordinate under tight time and resource constraints with
representatives of many different governmental entities. According to
federal and state officials, this coordination is made easier by past
working relationships on collaborative projects, such as those
conducted under Good Neighbor authority that develop familiarity and
instill mutual trust. This collaboration is useful outside of emergency
scenarios as well. Officials identified stewardship contracting--where
agencies use other special contracting authorities, such as the
exchange of timber for fuel reduction services, to meet community land
management needs--as another initiative that can benefit from a shared
history of cooperation on Good Neighbor projects.[Footnote 23]
Challenges in Conducting Projects Include Lack of Understanding of the
Authority and Concern about Adequacy of State Contract Procedures:
Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges in using
Good Neighbor authority, including a lack of understanding of the
authority that has complicated partnerships between federal and state
officials. In Colorado, several state foresters said that their initial
attempts to interest their U.S. Forest Service counterparts in
potential projects were hampered by the federal officials' lack of
familiarity with the authority. In some of these areas, projects were
eventually undertaken, but confusion about roles and responsibilities
made project implementation more difficult--especially for projects
involving timber sales. In Utah, projects have been conducted by only
one national forest, in partnership with one of the state's six
districts. State officials in two of Utah's remaining districts
reported that they have encountered a lack of awareness of the
authority from their prospective federal counterparts, similar to the
early years of Colorado's Good Neighbor experience.
Likewise, concern over the adequacy of state contracting procedures
hampered the use of the authority. Some U.S. Forest Service officials
in Colorado considered state timber sale procedures to be insufficient
to protect federal interests and imposed additional contracting
requirements on the state before agreeing to Good Neighbor projects.
For example, in one Colorado district, a state forester's agreement
with the local U.S. Forest Service ranger district staff about how to
proceed on an early Good Neighbor project was overruled by the ranger
district's regional management, which placed additional requirements on
the project. The regional office did not approve of some of the state's
processes--such as the state's appraisal of timber value, and the way
the state's timber contract was written--and asked that additional
requirements be included to ensure that the state could account for any
federal timber removed. This request resulted in two separate contracts
with the project's single vendor--one for work being done on U.S.
Forest Service land, and a second for work being done on private land.
In another state district, a state forester who coordinated Good
Neighbor projects for two ranger districts on the same national forest
found that project requirements in one ranger district were more
rigorous than for those in the other. In the latter district, the
ranger allowed the state forester to administer projects involving
timber sales using state contracting processes; however, the ranger in
charge of the first district required that the U.S. Forest Service have
more involvement in administering that district's sale, believing that
the U.S. Forest Service's timber sale procedures did a better job of
holding contractors accountable for their project performance than did
state contracting procedures.
Some state and federal officials found the overlay of federal
requirements burdensome, making them less likely to participate in Good
Neighbor projects. In one state district where U.S. Forest Service
regional management imposed additional federal requirements on early
projects because of doubts about the sufficiency of state procedures,
state officials expressed a reluctance to pursue future projects until
differences between the federal and state approaches are resolved. A
former U.S. Forest Service official involved in this district's
projects said that the region's additional requirements were counter to
Good Neighbor's core philosophy of landscape-level management requiring
one appraisal, one vendor, and one contract. A second federal official
added that the timber involved in these projects was of such little
value that the attempt to add additional time-consuming accountability
procedures was not cost-effective. State officials in the district and
their federal counterparts have not pursued additional Good Neighbor
projects to date, but state officials noted that timber sale procedures
have been streamlined in the years since they experienced their early
difficulties.
In addition, the CSFS official in charge of coordinating Good Neighbor
projects for the state said that the cumbersome administrative process
imposed by both CSU and the U.S. Forest Service has effectively
eliminated the use of Good Neighbor authority for small-scale projects
in Colorado, frustrating an important original intent of the program.
This process often makes such activities--for example, allowing an
individual landowner to expand fuel reduction treatments onto U.S.
Forest Service land to remove insect-infested trees or to establish an
adequate defensible space for improved wildland fire protection--too
burdensome and time-consuming to pursue. According to the CSFS
official, both CSFS and U.S. Forest Service timber staff have
recognized the need to streamline the task order approval process to
address this problem if Good Neighbor authority is extended.
According to several federal and state officials, a lack of detailed
guidance in the early years of using Good Neighbor authority created
confusion over the respective duties of federal and state project
participants. In Colorado, federal and state officials issued general
project guidelines as part of their Good Neighbor master agreement that
addressed general operating procedures, but did not provide specific
project-level direction--particularly concerning the use of timber
sales in fuel reduction projects. As we have previously mentioned, more
detailed guidance specifically addressing timber sales was issued in
2007, as a result of lessons learned from projects involving such sales
and in recognition of the fact that sale procedures being used in some
ranger districts differed from those used in others. These procedures
are now being revised by the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS to address
unresolved issues, such as how Good Neighbor timber sales should be
reported in the U.S. Forest Service's performance and financial
tracking systems. The revised guidance--now in draft form--also
includes additional timber accountability procedures. In Utah, U.S.
Forest Service and state officials agreed on general project
guidelines, but they have not issued more detailed guidance for project
implementation, including instructions regarding timber sales.
Although such instructions have not been needed to date because no
timber sales have occurred under Good Neighbor authority in Utah, the
area manager for the one state district where Good Neighbor projects
have been conducted said that future projects may include timber sales.
In addition, an area manager in another Utah district said that he had
approached his U.S. Forest Service counterpart with a fuel reduction
project proposal involving a timber sale. There is no official guidance
that encompasses BLM's Good Neighbor project responsibilities on BLM
land in Colorado, in part because there have been few projects on BLM
land.
The nature of Good Neighbor authorization and funding posed a challenge
in some districts. Federal and state officials in Utah said that
because Good Neighbor projects do not receive dedicated funding, money
to conduct the projects instead comes from supplemental accounts, such
as funding associated with the National Fire Plan. In the past, such
funding has arrived several months or more after the beginning of the
federal fiscal year. This shortens the project window for fuel
reduction work, which can be especially problematic for projects
involving pile burnings or prescribed fire because such projects must
be completed outside of fire season, which can stretch from mid-May to
mid-October in the Dixie National Forest. Other state officials agreed
that the annual federal appropriations cycle--which included, for
example, reauthorization of Good Neighbor authority in Utah for a
period of just over 9 months in fiscal year 2008--makes long-term
project planning more difficult, resulting in less Good Neighbor
activity.
Officials in federal and state districts where Good Neighbor projects
have not been undertaken had various reasons for not using the
authority. Some foresters said they had not seen opportunities for
projects that fit Good Neighbor's criteria, while others lacked staff
or other resources. One national forest supervisor in Utah saw several
advantages to using the authority, but he wanted to ensure that his own
staff was fully utilized before giving work to the state. Conversely, a
senior official in Utah said that some state foresters see little
benefit in adding projects that benefit the U.S. Forest Service to
their workload, unless they are compensated by the U.S. Forest Service
for their associated project administration duties.
Future Use of Good Neighbor Authority May Be Enhanced by Documentation
of Experiences with the Authority to Date:
Experiences with Good Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah may
provide insights for its potential expansion in those and other states.
Specifically, federal, state, and other stakeholders identified several
factors that affect Good Neighbor authority's chances for success,
including the structure, staffing levels, and workloads of state forest
services and state purchasing staff, as well as the characteristics of
those states' federal lands. These stakeholders noted that while it is
important to understand the successes and challenges of Good Neighbor
authority's use in Colorado and Utah when considering its expansion to
other states, it is equally important to account for differences among
states as well. One key difference is the structure and mission of
state forest services: whereas these agencies in Colorado and Utah
emphasize community forestry assistance, other states may have
different priorities reflecting differences in their history,
geography, or institutional framework. For example, the Idaho
Department of Public Lands manages its state's forest resources to
maximize the revenue from these resources and other state lands through
activities such as timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and commercial
building, according to a senior department official; the revenue
generated from most of these trust lands supports the state's public
schools. Though this official could see advantages to having Good
Neighbor authority in Idaho, such as the ability to conduct uniform
land management practices across broader areas, she said she would be
wary of any activities that would divert her agency from its primary
mission of managing the state's trust lands. A representative of an
environmental group in Idaho told us that state forest management
practices--such as the focus on timber harvesting--could lead to
competing priorities if the state manages Good Neighbor projects on
behalf of the federal government. To avoid this, he suggested that
roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined at the outset for
both federal and state participants if Good Neighbor authority is
extended to Idaho. Moreover, a U.S. Forest Service official in Colorado
who had previously worked for the relatively small forest service in a
nearby state said that Good Neighbor's effectiveness in other states
would depend on their capacity to implement the agreements and monitor
the projects within their staffing resources and workload, and that he
did not think state forest services with limited resources would be
able to handle a Good Neighbor project workload comparable to
Colorado's. There may also be differences in the federal and state
forest services' relationship, the strength of which is a major
determinant of Good Neighbor project success, according to numerous
federal and state officials with whom we spoke in Colorado and Utah.
Another major difference among states is the value of timber on their
lands. While fuel reduction projects undertaken thus far under Good
Neighbor authority have generally harvested low-value trees in a
depressed timber market, project sites in other areas of Colorado and
Utah, or in other states, may contain more valuable timber. Fuel
reduction projects carried out under Good Neighbor authority in those
areas, especially those involving timber sales, would likely attract
more federal timber sale oversight, and might likewise attract
additional scrutiny from environmental stakeholders concerned that
projects were being undertaken for their timber value, rather than for
ecological necessity. For example, representatives of one environmental
group in Colorado told us they did not have concerns about Good
Neighbor projects conducted to date, but stated that this is in part
due to the low timber value in the state--saying "there's little worry
here because there's so little [timber value] at stake." These
representatives noted that their level of scrutiny would likely be much
higher if Good Neighbor projects were conducted in timber-rich areas.
Differences in the authorizing legislation for Colorado and Utah have
led to differences in the types of projects conducted under Good
Neighbor authority, which could lead to divergent outcomes if the
authority is extended to other states. According to their Good Neighbor
authorizing legislation, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM in Colorado
may permit CSFS to perform watershed restoration activities on federal
lands when the agency is carrying out similar and complementary
activities on adjacent state or private lands. This has generally
resulted in fuel reduction projects that take place near state or
private boundaries, where nonfederal fuel reduction efforts had already
occurred or were under way. In Utah, however, the authorization
requires neither that the projects be part of a broader effort nor that
they be adjacent to nonfederal lands. In practice, this less
restrictive standard has led to a wider array of projects in Utah, such
as the culvert replacement, barrier rock installation, and trail
reconstruction undertaken in the Dixie National Forest.
Moreover, to ensure the support of the public and environmental groups
in Colorado, Utah, or other states, several stakeholders suggested that
projects be undertaken only in the wildland-urban interface, where the
potential public benefit is the greatest, rather than in more remote
reaches of U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands. Also, according to
federal and state officials as well as representatives of environmental
groups, environmental stakeholders should be kept informed during Good
Neighbor project design, and should be encouraged to participate during
the NEPA process. Officials in Colorado and Utah told us they have done
so on Good Neighbor projects to date, and they believe that this
practice has been responsible for the general lack of opposition to
Good Neighbor projects from members of the environmental community.
Differences among states in the structure of their forest services, the
value of their timber, and the potential content of their authorities,
as well as the successes and challenges encountered in using Good
Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah, would be worth considering for
agency officials contemplating future use of the authority--whether in
Colorado, Utah, or other states. Although CSFS has prepared periodic
summaries of Good Neighbor operations in Colorado, future users of the
authority would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive
documentation of agencies' experiences in conducting projects under
Good Neighbor authority. While the agencies are not required to develop
such documentation as part of their use of Good Neighbor authority,
doing so could benefit future users--by, for example, providing them
with an analysis of cost savings or other efficiencies and benefits
that have been achieved through Good Neighbor's use, and discussing the
types of projects in which the authority has been most successful. In
addition, as they have done for stewardship contracting,[Footnote 24]
the agencies could disseminate this information through agency Web
sites and handbooks and incorporate it into existing training to ensure
that future users have access to the information. Without such
information, agency officials will need to independently assess which
projects would best be conducted using the authority, and the extent to
which individual projects might reduce costs or lead to other
efficiencies and benefits. With the aid of this information, federal
and state officials in Colorado and Utah, and potentially in other
states, could consider adopting those procedures that have worked well
and avoid the early pitfalls experienced in applications of Good
Neighbor authority.
Conclusions:
Given the state of our nation's forests, and in light of our nation's
long-term fiscal constraints, land management agencies are seeking to
enhance their effectiveness in improving forest conditions and helping
prevent severe wildland fires. Good Neighbor authority can help this
effort by allowing federal and state agencies to work more closely
together to treat lands across ownership boundaries. The agencies have
differed on how best to apply the authority, however, as evidenced by
the variation in its use to date. In Colorado, Good Neighbor authority
has been used by federal and state partners to work across multiple
ownerships to increase the effectiveness of fuel reduction efforts,
while projects in Utah have focused on watershed health and
rehabilitation of burned areas on U.S. Forest Service land. These
variations arise in part because of differences in the laws authorizing
these states' activities, and in part because of differences in how
state and federal agencies collaborate on Good Neighbor projects--
highlighting an important issue as projects proceed in Colorado and
Utah, and as Congress and the agencies consider expanding the use of
Good Neighbor authority. That is, the type of projects conducted under
the authority, and the extent to which those projects enhance the
effectiveness of agency land management efforts, depend on many state-
specific factors, including the scope of the Good Neighbor authority
under which the state operates, the laws governing the state's
contracting activities, and the characteristics of federal land
targeted for treatment, particularly the value of any timber. Without
procedures that ensure timber accountability in all states, however,
and without understanding and benefiting from the lessons learned from
past use of the authority, including the state-specific factors that
influence the success of Good Neighbor projects, the agencies may fail
to capitalize fully on the potential of Good Neighbor authority.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making two recommendations to enhance the agencies' use of Good
Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah as well as in states in which
Good Neighbor projects may be authorized in the future.
First, if U.S. Forest Service officials in Utah or BLM officials in
Colorado decide to conduct timber sales under Good Neighbor authority,
or if timber sales are pursued under expanded Good Neighbor authority
in additional states, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior direct the agencies to first develop written
procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales in collaboration with each
state to better ensure accountability for federal timber. In doing so,
the agencies may want to consult the U.S. Forest Service's Good
Neighbor timber sale procedures for Colorado.
Second, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior direct the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, in collaboration with
their state Good Neighbor partners, to document how prior experiences
with Good Neighbor projects offer ways to enhance the use of the
authority in the future and make such information available to current
and prospective users of the authority. Specifically, the U.S. Forest
Service should collaborate with Colorado and Utah, and BLM should
collaborate with Colorado, to document information such as (1) the
types of projects that have proven to be successful uses of the
authority; (2) how differences in the authority's scope within each
state have affected project selection; (3) how project planning and
implementation responsibilities have been divided among federal and
state project partners; and (4) the costs and benefits associated with
using Good Neighbor authority to conduct projects, including any
project efficiencies and cost savings that have resulted from the
authority's use. In addition, to ensure that this information is
available to current and future users of the authority, the agencies
should develop a strategic approach for disseminating it--for example,
through agency Web sites, handbooks, training, or other means.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the
Department of the Interior, CSFS, and UDFFSL with a draft of this
report for review and comment. All four agencies generally agreed with
the findings and recommendations in the report. The U.S. Forest Service
noted, however, that it will address our recommendation about
documenting experiences with Good Neighbor projects by providing our
report to current and prospective users of the authority. While we are
pleased that the U.S. Forest Service believes our report accurately
documents lessons learned to date, we believe the agency will need to
provide additional details if future users are to fully benefit from
this information. For example, while our report includes a general
description of the primary reasons for choosing Good Neighbor authority
to conduct certain projects, it does not include a detailed discussion
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this decision,
which may prove beneficial to managers as they assess the applicability
of the authority to future projects. The U.S. Forest Service's written
comments, along with our response, are presented in appendix II,
Interior's written comments are presented in appendix III, CSFS's
written comments are presented in appendix IV, and UDFFSL's written
comments are presented in appendix V.
As agreed with your office, 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 Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary
of the Interior, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, and other interested parties. The report
also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
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 Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Sincerely yours,
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) the activities conducted under
Good Neighbor authority, including the number, type, and scope of
projects undertaken; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures,
and controls being used to conduct Good Neighbor projects, including
contracting requirements and timber sale procedures; and (3) the
successes, challenges, or lessons learned, if any, that have resulted
from the use of Good Neighbor authority. Our review of Good Neighbor
authority included obtaining documentation and holding meetings and
discussions with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the two agencies that have
implemented Good Neighbor authority; the Colorado State Forest Service
(CSFS) and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands
(UDFFSL), the two state agencies that have conducted Good Neighbor
projects; and Colorado State University (CSU) and the Utah Division of
Purchasing, the agencies in each of these states generally responsible
for administering service contracts for each state's forest service.
To determine the activities conducted under Good Neighbor authority in
Colorado and Utah, we interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and
UDFFSL officials on their overall management of Good Neighbor projects,
including how projects are chosen, the coordination involved between
federal and state agencies, and the type and scope of projects that are
undertaken. We also reviewed and analyzed specific data on Good
Neighbor projects conducted through fiscal year 2008 that were provided
by these officials, including the specific project objectives,
location, start and completion dates, acreage involved, the federal
cost share of the project, and the type of contract used in conducting
the project--service or timber sale--as well as the amount and value of
any timber removed from federal land. We also visited several completed
or ongoing Good Neighbor project sites located on both U.S. Forest
Service land and BLM land, including six sites in Colorado and four in
Utah, to obtain an understanding of the type of work performed and type
of equipment required to conduct projects. During our site visits, we
also reviewed selected Good Neighbor projects' contracting and
financial files to obtain information on the planning, contracting, and
monitoring processes each agency uses on Good Neighbor projects. We
also obtained, through telephone interviews and e-mail, additional
project information from U.S. Forest Service and state districts that
we did not visit. We assessed the reliability of the project data we
obtained by comparing a random sample of data provided to us by agency
and state officials with similar information we had obtained directly
from project files. We further assessed the reliability of timber sales
data we obtained from the U.S. Forest Service's timber sale accounting
system by conducting telephone interviews with a U.S. Forest Service
official responsible for entering data into the system, maintaining
these data, and preparing reports using system data. In addition, GAO
has previously assessed the reliability of data maintained in this
system.[Footnote 25] To ensure that GAO's previous assessment was still
accurate, we confirmed with the U.S. Forest Service that the
information previously obtained on the reliability of the system
remained relevant. As a result, we believe that the data we obtained
from this system were sufficiently reliable for our purposes in
conducting this review.
To determine the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls
used to conduct projects under Good Neighbor authority, including state
contracting requirements and timber sale procedures, we obtained
documentation on Colorado's and Utah's procurement and contracting
processes for acquiring services from vendors, including the
requirements of each state concerning three fundamental principles of
government contracting--transparency, competition, and oversight.
Specifically, we chose several of the states' procurement rules related
to these three areas to examine, and we interviewed procurement and
contracting officials with CSU and the Utah Division of Purchasing to
obtain additional information on how the states put these rules into
practice when conducting Good Neighbor projects. We also compared these
selected state procurement and contracting requirements with those in
the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and with U.S. Forest Service and
BLM procurement guidance, to identify similarities and differences. To
identify the timber sale procedures being used in Good Neighbor
projects, we interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and UDFFSL
officials to determine whether Good Neighbor timber sale operating
procedures had been established and their composition. We reviewed
joint guidance prepared by the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS on
conducting Good Neighbor projects to determine the type and extent of
requirements incorporated. We also compared federal and state timber
sale contracts and interviewed timber sale officials with the U.S.
Forest Service in Colorado to obtain their opinions on differences
between the two types of contracts, as well as any resulting effects on
federal timber sale accountability.
Finally, to identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned that
the federal and state agencies experienced using Good Neighbor
authority, we interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and UDFFSL
officials who had participated in Good Neighbor projects to obtain
their views on the successes and challenges associated with the
authority, including the factors they believe contributed to these
successes and challenges and the measures they believe could be taken
in the future to overcome these challenges. For example, we interviewed
officials from five U.S. Forest Service ranger districts as well as
officials from five CSFS district offices who had participated in Good
Neighbor projects. We also obtained opinions about Good Neighbor
authority from several state officials who had not participated in Good
Neighbor projects, as well as their reasons for not participating. To
obtain information on the potential uses of Good Neighbor authority in
other states, we asked federal and state officials familiar with Good
Neighbor authority, as well as representatives from the National
Association of State Foresters, to identify states they believed would
be the best candidates for us to interview regarding potential use of
the authority. From the states that they recommended, we selected
Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming. We then interviewed officials in those
states to discuss their opinions on whether Good Neighbor authority
would be successful in their states, the factors for success, and any
concerns that they believed would need to be addressed. We also spoke
with other interested parties, including representatives of six
environmental groups--based in Colorado, Utah, and other western
states--and two industry groups--one based in Washington, D.C., and the
other based in South Dakota--to get their opinions on how well Good
Neighbor authority was being implemented in Colorado and Utah, and the
factors that would be important for success if Congress were to expand
the authority to other states.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 through February
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service:
USDA:
United States:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
Agriculture
File Code: 2520/6320/2400
Date:
February 13, 2009:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G.Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office report GAO-09-277, "Federal Land
Management: Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good
Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use". The Forest Service
generally agrees with the GAO findings.
Under the first recommendation, written policy for federal timber
accountability will be developed in collaboration with each state.
Regarding the second recommendation, the draft GAO audit report does a
good job of documenting the information gathered in the audit of the
two states currently having Good Neighbor Authority. We will provide
the report to these current users and also to prospective user states
prior to their receiving and implementing the authority.
See comment 1.
If you have any questions, please contact Sandy T. Coleman, Assistant
Director for GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Staff, at 703-605-4699.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Abigail R. Kimbell:
Chief:
cc: Tom Peterson, Ronald Hooper, Anne Zimmermann, Sandy T Coleman
GAO Comment:
1. The U.S. Forest Service noted in its comments that it will address
our recommendation about documenting experiences with Good Neighbor
projects by providing our report to current and prospective users of
the authority. While we are pleased that the U.S. Forest Service
believes our report accurately documents lessons learned to date, we
believe the agency will need to provide additional details if future
users are to fully benefit from this information. For example, while
our report includes a general description of the primary reasons for
choosing Good Neighbor authority to conduct certain projects, it does
not include a detailed discussion of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this decision, which may prove beneficial to managers
as they assess the applicability of the authority to future projects.
As a result, we continue to believe it will be important for the U.S.
Forest Service to systematically collect and document information on
its experiences using Good Neighbor authority, and that this
information should go beyond that contained in our report.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
February 17, 2009:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled "Federal Land Management:
Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor
Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use," (GAO-09-277).
The Department of the Interior concurs with the recommendations for
executive action and generally agrees with the interpretation of the
Bureau of Land Management's use of the Good Neighbor authority and its
efforts to mitigate the impact of wildland fires and restore forest
ecosystem health. Although the BLM does not have specific Good Neighbor
guidance in place, written procedures exist with interagency and
assistance agreements; service contracts; and permitting and sale of
forests products, which all provide guidance on partnerships with
private and state entities and Good Neighbor projects. We are also
aware that Good Neighbor projects currently are focused in the Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI) areas, however, we believe that projects outside
of the WUI should continue to be implemented. Imposing area-specific
limitations conflicts with the intent of the Good Neighbor Authority
and will further impede the efficiency of operations in conducting
landscape-level projects between federal, state, and private
landowners.
We hope these general comments will provide clarity and further support
the statements received from various BLM officials, and will be
considered when preparing the final report. If you have any questions,
please contact Scott Lieurance, Chief, Division of Forests and
Woodlands, at (202) 452-0316 or LaVanna Stevenson-Harris, BLM Audit
Liaison Officer, at (202) 785-6580.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Richard T. Cardinale:
Chief of Staff:
Land and Minerals Management:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Colorado State Forest Service:
Colorado State Forest Service:
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-5060:
(970) 491-6303:
FAX: (970) 491-7736:
February 4, 2009:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazarro,
On behalf of the Colorado State Forest Service and Colorado State
University, I want to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to
participate in and review the findings of the audit of the use of Good
Neighbor Authorities in Colorado. We concur with both the findings of
the audit and the recommendations. We will take immediate steps to
incorporate these recommendations into our operating procedures for
application in future Good Neighbor projects.
Good Neighbor Authorities are a valuable tool for achieving cross-
boundary implementation of wildfire hazard mitigation, forest health
and other necessary treatments and projects. As you are aware, these
authorities expire September 30, 2009. We encourage the US Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Congress to make
these authorities permanent. As they do this, we sincerely hope that as
much freedom and flexibility as possible can be retained in the use of
these authorities.
While we in Colorado will continue to use these authorities primarily
where similar treatments are occurring or planned on adjacent non-
federal lands, it would be valuable to have the opportunity to utilize
the authorities on areas distant from non-federal lands, as is now
possible in Utah.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jeff Jahnke:
State Forester/Director:
Colorado State Forest Service:
cc: Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado:
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico:
Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado:
Rep. Mike Coffman, Colorado:
Rep. Diana DeGette, Colorado:
Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado:
Rep. Betsy Markey, Colorado:
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Colorado:
Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado:
Rep. John Salazar, Colorado:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands:
State of Utah:
Department Of Natural Resources:
Michael R. Styler:
Executive Director:
Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands
Richard J. Buehler:
State Forester/Division Director:
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.:
Governor:
Gary R. Herbert
Lieutenant Governor:
February 10, 2009:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G St., N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Federal Land Management
Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor
Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use (GAO-09-277).
Overall, we feel that both the document and (especially) the
professionalism shown by your staff were outstanding. We agree with the
GAO's findings. The document is also very informative, organizing
various background, historical, and other information into one concise
and well written reference.
The Good Neighbor Authority is very important to us, and we hope that
it not only continues, but expands in scope and allows us to
participate in more challenging and interesting projects. We would
also support expanding the participation to other federal agencies such
as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Some of the problems the
document reveals (such as timber sale contracts in Colorado) serve as
important cautions as we work to expand the scope of projects here in
Utah.
Our only significant concern is the recommendation for additional
documentation of procedures, successes, and other administrative tasks.
Whether these tasks fall to federal or state agencies (or both),
this represents additional administrative burden at a time when other
cooperative programs are also increasing these requirements. We
understand the need to ensure that public funds are being spent
legally and efficiently, but please recognize that additional
administrative tasks reduce the amount of actual project work that gets
done on the ground.
Thank you once again for allowing us to participate in a very important
and informative process.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Geoffrey McNaughton, Ph.D.:
Forest Programs Administrator:
1594 West North Temple, Suite 3520, PO Box 145703, Salt Lake City, UT
84114,5703:
telephone (801) 538-5555:
facsimile (801) 533-4111:
TTY (801) 538-7458:
[hyperlink, http://www.ffsl.utah.gov]:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty, Assistant
Director; David Brown; and Greg Carroll made key contributions to this
report. Cindy Gilbert, Rich Johnson, Alison O'Neill, Jena Sinkfield,
and Bill Woods also made important contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 106-291, § 331 (2000).
[2] For major actions that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, the act requires all federal agencies, including the
U.S. Forest Service and BLM, to analyze the potential environmental
effects of the proposed action. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
[3] Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 336 (2004).
[4] S. 2468 (2007).
[5] S. 3302 (2008). The bill would have covered any state "that
contains National Forest System land or Bureau of Land Management land
located west of the 100th meridian."
[6] Other federal agencies with wildland fire management
responsibilities include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all of which are within
the Department of the Interior.
[7] Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, a community
wildfire protection plan is a plan--developed primarily by state and
local agencies in consultation with interested parties and federal land
management agencies--that identifies and prioritizes areas in and near
a community for fuel reduction treatments and recommends the types of
treatments to be used.
[8] The National Fire Plan comprises multiple documents, including (1)
a September 2000 report from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to the President in response to the wildland fires of 2000,
(2) congressional direction accompanying substantial new
appropriations in fiscal year 2001, and (3) several strategies to
implement all or parts of the plan. For a description of these
documents and their contents, goals, and relationships to one another,
see GAO, Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to
Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources, GAO-02-259 (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).
[9] Several of these forests have been combined into larger
administrative units composed of two or more forests. In this report,
we discuss national forests individually, except where noted.
[10] For the purposes of this report, we refer to UDFFSL's six
administrative areas as "districts."
[11] Our count of "projects" includes those Good Neighbor projects that
have been initiated under an agreement or task order between the
federal agency and the state; projects can be subsequently modified to
change the cost, scope, or schedule of work. In addition, "conducted"
projects include all that have received approval by CSFS and the U.S.
Forest Service or BLM as of fiscal year 2008, whether planned,
initiated, or completed.
[12] Established in 1918, Denver Water is Colorado's oldest and largest
water utility. Its board is responsible for ensuring a continuous
supply of water to the city and county of Denver and to the nearly 50
percent of Denver Water customers who live in the surrounding suburbs.
[13] This administrative role includes duties such as advertising the
sale, determining the volume of timber on site, and monitoring the
buyer's work after the contract is awarded.
[14] As of September 30, 2008, 11 of these timber sales had been
completed or closed, 1 was under way, and 4 were in the planning stage.
[15] The U.S. Forest Service's standard unit of measure for wood
products is 100 cubic feet, or 1 CCF. Thus, 345,000 cubic feet of
timber would be measured as 3,450 CCF. The total amount of timber and
associated value from these sales is based on data obtained from the
U.S. Forest Service's Timber Sale Accounting System. For more
information on this system's process for tracking and accounting for
timber, see GAO, Federal Timber Sales: Forest Service Could Improve
Efficiency of Field Level Timber Sales Management by Maintaining More
Detailed Data, GAO-07-764 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2007).
[16] Information on the value of the timber removed on a third project
located in the San Juan National Forest was not included in the timber
contract.
[17] The U.S. Forest Service has Good Neighbor "master" agreements in
place with Colorado and Utah, and also initiates separate agreements,
referred to as "task orders," for each Good Neighbor project. BLM has
initiated one agreement for its Boulder County fuel reduction projects
and amends this agreement as projects are modified or added, but has no
master agreement in place.
[18] BLM calls these task orders "agreement modifications."
[19] A fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to
adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in
performing the contract.
[20] The act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872, was enacted to eliminate
activities that are detrimental to migrant and seasonal agricultural
workers, to require registration of farm labor contracts, and to ensure
necessary protections for workers.
[21] See Morante-Navarro v. T&Y Pine Straw, 350 F.3d 1163, 1170-72 &
n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (and cases cited).
[22] According to a contracting officer in Utah's Division of
Purchasing, state agencies are permitted to enter into agreements with
other agencies and with political subdivisions of the state, such as
counties, outside of the standard state contracting process. The state
presumes that two of its government entities collaborating on a project
will be less costly and more efficient than hiring a private
contractor, because there is no profit motive.
[23] For more information about stewardship contracting, see GAO,
Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement
Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-652] (Washington, D.C.: June 14,
2004); and Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is
Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting
Strategies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2008).
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23].
[25] GAO, Federal Timber Sales: Forest Service Could Improve Efficiency
of Field-Level Timber Sales Management by Maintaining More Detailed
Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-764] (Washington,
D.C.: June 27, 2007).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
