GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2000 LAND

MANAGEMENT

AGENCIES

Ongoing Initiative to

Share Activities and

Facilities Needs

Management Attention

GAO-01-50

Page 1 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of

Cross-Delegation of Authority 34

Appendix II: Types of Agreements Used in Service First

Projects 40

Appendix III: Number and Type of Ongoing Service First Projects

by State, Fiscal Year 1996 Through the First

Half of Fiscal Year 2000 41

Appendix IV: Number of Forest Service and BLM Units

With Leases Expiring in the Next 20 Years 43

Appendix V: Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and

BLM to Colocate Units 44

Appendix VI: Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000 48

Appendix VII: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 54

Appendix VIII:Comments From the Forest Service 59

Appendix IX: Comments From the Bureau of Land Management 61

Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 63

Tables Table 1: Estimated Dollar Savings of Service First Projects by

State, Fiscal Years 1996 Through the First Half of

Fiscal Year 2000 14

Table 2: Type of Activity of Service First Projects 41

Table 3: Number of Service First Projects and Goals to Be

Achieved by State, Fiscal Year 1996 Through the First

Half of Fiscal Year 2000 42

Table 4: Incentive Fund Projects Funded by the Forest Service

and BLM by State 48

Table 5: Purpose of Incentive Fund Projects Funded 50

Table 6: Service First Proposals Funded by State 53

Table 7: Locations Visited 54

Figures Figure 1: Joint Front Desk Operation at La Jara, Colorado 10

Figure 2: Increase of Service First Projects From Fiscal

Year 1996 Through the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000 12
Contents

Page 2 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Figure 3: Forest Service and BLM Colocated Unit at

Lakeview, Oregon 16

Figure 4: Forest Service and BLM Colocated Unit at

Durango, Colorado 17

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

FS Forest Service

GAO General Accounting Office
Page 3 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

November 21, 2000

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte

Chairman, Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

The Honorable Helen Chenoweth-Hage

Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

The organizational and demographic profiles of the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), within the Department of the Interior, and the Forest

Service, within the Department of Agriculture, are very similar in many

respects. The similarities include the agencies’ missions and goals, the

amount of land managed, the purposes for which the land is managed, the

types of employees hired, and the location and types of offices maintained.1

These similarities present opportunities for increasing the cooperation and

coordination between the agencies.

In March 1996, the Forest Service and BLM announced what they refer to

as their Service First2 initiative, which is aimed at improving customer

service and promoting efficiencies and economies in their operations

through steps ranging from sharing personnel to colocating offices. The

agencies initiated pilot projects in Colorado and Oregon to provide the

public with “one-stop shopping” for the services provided by the agencies.

The Congress initially provided the Forest Service and BLM the authority to

exercise each other’s authorities, duties, and responsibilities (known as

cross-delegation of authority) in the pilot locations until fiscal year 2002 to

assist the agencies in achieving the goals of the initiative. On October 11,

2000, the cross-delegation of authority was extended agencywide through

fiscal year 2005.

1

See Land Management: The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Organizational Structures and

Responsibilities (GAO/RCED-99-227, July 29, 1999).

2

The Service First initiative was initially called the Trading Post program until fiscal year

1998 when the name was changed to Service First. For ease of presentation, we will call the

initiative Service First throughout the report.
Page 4 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Because of the similarities in the Forest Service’s and BLM’s missions,

goals, and activities and because of your interest in the issues surrounding

the coordination and streamlining of the Forest Service’s and BLM’s

activities, you asked us to assess the progress and problems of the Service

First initiative. This report provides information on (1) the results of the

Service First initiative to date, (2) the opportunities for further expanding

the Service First initiative between the agencies, (3) the barriers to further

expanding the Service First initiative between the agencies, and (4) Service

First issues requiring management attention.

Results in Brief The Service First initiative has grown substantially since its beginning in

fiscal year 1996. It has grown from 15 projects in fiscal year 1996 to 272

ongoing projects by mid-fiscal year 2000. Service First projects are

currently under way at 59 Forest Service and BLM locations in 11 states.

Most projects involve shared personnel, shared equipment, joint projects—

such as training, recreation, noxious weed control, and range activities—

and joint front desks at colocated facilities. The Forest Service and BLM

estimated that ongoing Service First projects have had cumulative savings

of about $5.4 million from fiscal year 1996 through the first half of fiscal

year 2000. However, agency-level data to support the claimed savings were

not readily available, nor did the agencies have a system in place to collect

basic information, such as the number and location of units participating in

the initiative, the types of projects being undertaken, and the savings and

benefits achieved from the initiative. Some of the individual units we

visited, however, provided the calculations and methodology for their

claimed savings, which appeared reasonable to us.

The colocation of Forest Service and BLM units provides the best

opportunity for the agencies to jointly serve the public, effect operational

efficiencies, and improve the management of the land. Although a limited

number of colocations have been accomplished, we identified

opportunities for colocating as many as 169 additional units in 63 cities or

towns. Although the Forest Service and BLM are considering colocating 22

of these units, we believe that in the near term, the best opportunities

would be the colocation of an additional 69 of the 169 units that are housed

in government-owned buildings or leased building with leases expiring

within the next 5 years. Agency officials said that while units may want to

colocate, many factors such as leases expiring at different times and the

unavailability of construction funds need to be considered in evaluating

colocation possibilities. Because of the operational efficiencies achieved as

a result of colocation to date, we are recommending that the Chief of the
Page 5 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Forest Service and the Director of BLM intensify their efforts to colocate

their units by developing a plan that sets forth a strategy to achieve the

highest number of colocated units.

BLM and the Forest Service face significant legal, regulatory, and other

barriers that may preclude fully integrating the agencies’ resource

programs—such as recreation, timber, water, or mining. These overarching

barriers, such as different land use planning legislation and regulations that

preclude consistency in the agencies’ planning processes, will be almost

impossible to change unless a clear consensus for such a change exists

among the agencies and the Congress. As a result, the Service First projects

undertaken have been limited to what some in the agencies characterized

as “picking the low-hanging fruit”; that is, those projects that are easily

accomplished. According to local officials, other barriers that make

working in a Service First environment difficult, such as incompatible

e-mail systems, could be resolved more easily than the legal and regulatory

barriers.

The full integration of the agencies’ operations ultimately depends on

resolving the overarching legal and regulatory barriers as the agencies

pursue expansion of the initiative. However, before the initiative is

expanded agencywide, we believe a number of program management

issues need attention. First, the agencies lack management information

systems to collect the basic information on the number of locations

participating in the Service First activities, the types of projects

undertaken, and the savings or benefits achieved from the initiatives. In

addition, the Service First initiative has no required program evaluation

component. Second, the agencies lack overall operating guidance on how

to implement the Service First initiative effectively. Finally, the

management practices employed on the newly created Incentive Fund—to

fund new and innovative Service First projects—have been weak, in that

the process for selecting projects to fund was not documented and no

assurance exists that the agencies selected the best projects. We believe

the agencies, collectively, need to better manage the Service First initiative

and address the issues we identified. Accordingly, we are recommending

that the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of BLM (1) jointly

develop a system that will provide reliable data to track the status and

progress of the initiative and provide a basis for measuring and evaluating

the results of the initiative; (2) issue overall guidance for the initiative; and

(3) jointly develop guidelines for the Incentive Fund’s project selection

process, including documentation requirements, before additional funds

are provided.
Page 6 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

We provided the Forest Service and BLM with a draft of this report for

comment. In their coordinated responses, the agencies generally concurred

with our findings and recommendations. However, the agencies suggested

that our report could have discussed the applicability of Service First as a

governmentwide model and the intrinsic benefits of customer service. We

agree that Service First is a promising approach, but numerous barriers and

management problems must be addressed before Service First could be

considered as a model. With regard to customer service, we do note in

several places in our report that Service First has increased customer

service.

Background The Forest Service’s and BLM’s lands are concentrated in the West and, to a

large extent, are contiguous. Each of the agencies has specific legislation

guiding how its lands are to be used, and each manages its lands for

multiple uses through a multilevel—headquarters and field office—

organizational structure. The agencies are responsible for managing the

same types of natural resources—such as timber, minerals, grazing,

recreation, and wildlife. Yet, while these similarities exist, the agencies

differ in terms of the magnitude of and emphasis on these resources. The

two agencies also often carry out their responsibilities under different

rules, use different administrative processes, charge different user fees for

similar services, and take different approaches to customer service—all of

which may result in confusion for the public and may waste resources. As

result, in March 1996, the Forest Service and BLM announced the Service

First initiative and designated pilot projects in Colorado and Oregon to

provide the public with “one-stop shopping.” The Service First initiative has

three primary objectives:

• increase customer service,

• increase operational efficiency, and

• increase the quality of resource stewardship.
Page 7 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

According to agency officials, the Service First initiative ideally would

combine or colocate the Forest Service and BLM resources and functions

under one roof.3 Two methods have been used: The Colorado pilot focused

on boundaryless management of the lands and a “one roof, one manager

concept,” using the cross-delegation of authority granted by the Congress,

while the pilot in Oregon emphasized interagency teams and cooperative

ventures. Service First activities may be as simple as sharing the cost of the

operations of a front desk or information center to a more complex

operation in which units are headed by a cross-delegated manager who has

full responsibility for the lands of both agencies.4 The joint projects run the

gamut of the agencies sharing of program operations, including recreation,

road maintenance, range specialists, timber sales, and watershed analyses.

Service First locations also share in the cost of personnel, ranging from an

administrative officer to oversee the operations of a colocated unit to

specialists such as an archeologist.

The Forest Service and BLM use several types of agreements for carrying

out Service First projects. These agreements establish the framework

under which the agencies implement the projects and generally set the

responsibilities and funding requirements of both agencies. The most

common agreements used are memorandums of understanding,

interagency agreements, and informal agreements. A detailed description

of each of these types of agreements is in appendix II.

The Service First initiative was initially seen as a grassroots effort that

would allow local units flexibility to determine which projects to undertake

and to decide how an initiative would be managed to generate a sense of

ownership in the results. The Colorado and Oregon pilot units were

provided with the following program parameters: “(1) Is it legal? (2) Is it

good for our customers? (3) Is it something we are willing to be

accountable for? and (4) Is it consistent with our agency missions?” In

other words, local units could operate with flexibility to adjust systems,

processes, and personnel to meet current and changing needs. Units were

not provided with specific guidance on how to operate their programs, nor

were they required to evaluate and measure any program successes.

3

Service First could include partners such as other federal or state agencies, but this report

focuses on the primary efforts of the two key organizations—the Forest Service and BLM.

4

See app. I for a discussion of the cross-delegation of authority and examples of where it is

used.
Page 8 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

The Service First concept is locally driven, with no formal management

structure and no budget line item funding—activities are carried out within

the agencies’ existing budgets. Oversight is provided by the Interagency

Steering Committee comprising Forest Service deputy regional foresters,

BLM associate state directors, and advisers who include a contact person

at each agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Those serving on the

steering committee have full-time positions and duties and serve on the

steering committee part-time. The steering committee was tasked with

developing and overseeing a framework for expanding collaboration

between the Forest Service and BLM everywhere. The steering committee

is authorized to remove internal barriers to achieving the mutual objectives

of the initiative, and it is within the committee’s purview to make

recommendations to top agency management about barriers that require

legislative, regulatory, or policy changes.

The Service First

Initiative Has Grown

and Has Achieved

Some Benefits

Most of the Service First projects have involved shared personnel, shared

equipment, joint administrative projects, and joint management of the

lands. The number of projects initiated under Service First from 1996

through the first half of fiscal year 2000 has grown and, according to agency

officials, the projects have improved operational efficiencies, customer

service, and the stewardship of the land. According to the Forest Service

and BLM officials, the Service First initiative has increased from 15

projects in fiscal year 1996 to 272 ongoing projects at 59 locations in 11

states by the first half of fiscal year 2000. The Forest Service and BLM

estimated that ongoing Service First projects have had cumulative savings

of about $5.4 million since 1996. However, agency-level data to support the

claimed savings were not readily available. Nor did the agencies have a

system in place to collect basic information, such as the number and

location of units participating in the initiative, the types of projects being

undertaken, and the savings and benefits achieved from the initiative. Some

of the individual units we visited, however, provided the calculations and

methodology for their claimed savings, which appeared reasonable to us.

Service First Initiative

Encompasses a Variety of

Projects and Activities

The benefits achieved from Service First activities have, for the most part,

been on the administrative side of the agencies’ operations. That is,

according to the agencies, units undertake projects that are easily

accomplished—“picking the low-hanging fruit”—rather than tackling the

integration of resource activities such as timber, recreation, water, or

wildlife. Service First projects involve a variety of activities and generally
Page 9 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

fall into five categories. The types of projects, and examples of each,

follow:

• Shared personnel—One type of project includes shared staffs between

local units of BLM and the Forest Service. For example, in Colorado, the

BLM Grand Junction Field Office and the Forest Service’s Grand

Junction Ranger District jointly pay the salary for an archeologist, and

funds are transferred under an interagency agreement from the

borrowing unit to the employing unit. Thus both units have access to

this specialist, an arrangement that is more efficient than each unit’s

having an archeologist on detail from another location and that better

ensures that needed work is accomplished. Also, for example, in

Oregon, several units, including the colocated Forest Service and BLM

unit in Prineville, share a public relations officer, which allows the

public to receive more consistent information and avoids having one

public information officer for each agency. Other personnel who may be

paid for jointly by the agencies include shared receptionists or

information staff at a front desk or graphics specialists.

• Shared equipment and shared facilities—These projects allow the two

agencies to share office equipment, telephone systems, heavy road

equipment, vehicles, horses, trailers, and facilities such as warehouses

and garages, mail rooms, and supply rooms. For example, the colocated

units in Saguache, Colorado, share the cost of a supply and copying

center and use one another’s equipment, such as front-end loaders and

road scrapers for road maintenance. The agencies’ officials at this

location believe that this sharing makes their operations more efficient.

• Customer service and information—This category includes the “onestop shopping” projects meant to provide seamless government

operations and information to the public. These projects provide joint

permits for removing firewood, rocks, forest products, and Christmas

trees from federal lands, and for recreational activities. The projects

may also provide joint map sales, information brochures, computers for

land records or other local land information, and other customer

services. Customer services were available through joint front desks at

most of the units we visited. Figure 1 shows the joint front desk at the

colocated unit in La Jara, Colorado.
Page 10 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Figure 1: Joint Front Desk Operation at La Jara, Colorado

• Joint administrative projects—Some tasks or projects are more

administrative or crosscutting in nature and cannot be directly tied to

implementing a specific resource program. These projects include

training, developing and maintaining local Web sites, travel

arrangements, payroll, developing generalized databases or computer

systems, geographic information system activities, and procurement.

For example, the agencies’ Cañon City, Colorado, units developed a joint

volunteer manual, and the BLM Oregon State Office and the Forest

Service’s Pacific Northwest Regional Office developed a joint

supervisory training manual that was used at the Lakeview, Oregon,

units.

• Joint management of intermingled lands—Projects in this category

focus mainly on specific land management activities or programs that

are on both BLM or Forest Service lands and are carried out by the staffs

of either or both agencies on each other’s lands. Examples of land

management activities include prescribed burning, noxious weed

control, range management, land management planning, watershed

analysis, wildlife surveys, joint environmental impact statements or

activity management plans, resource studies, timber sales, recreation

activities, or developing and maintaining roads and campsites. For

example, the Cañon City, Colorado, units have a joint effort whereby the

agencies join forces to perform prescribed burns on both agencies’
Page 11 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

lands to reduce the risk of wildfire by clearing away underbrush.

According to Cañon City officials, this joint effort allows them to treat

more acres than they could individually.

Appendix III, table 2 provides additional details on the number of Service

First projects.

Ongoing Projects and

Participating Units Have

Grown in Number and Have

Achieved Some Savings

To determine the results of the Service First initiative to date, we asked the

Forest Service and BLM for data on the number of projects and the savings

achieved from inception to the first half of fiscal year 2000 on all ongoing

Service First projects. The agencies did not have data readily available and

had to request information from every field unit participating in the Service

First initiative. These data showed that the number of ongoing Service First

projects increased significantly from fiscal year 1996, when the agencies

initiated 15 projects, to a total of 272 ongoing projects as of the first half of

fiscal year 2000, as shown in figure 2.5

5

While the agencies initially provided information for 588 projects, we excluded from our

analysis all (1) projects implemented prior to 1996, (2) projects for 1996 and 1997 that were

not part of the original pilot projects, (3) projects that did not involve both BLM and the

Forest Service, and (4) wildfire-related projects because they were not part of the Service

First initiative. Agency officials agreed that these projects should be excluded from an

analysis of Service First.
Page 12 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Figure 2: Increase of Service First Projects From Fiscal Year 1996 Through the First

Half of Fiscal Year 2000

Source: GAO based on data provided by the Forest Service and BLM.

The 272 projects were located in 59 cities or towns in 11 states, with

Oregon accounting for 120 projects, or about 44 percent of the total.

Oregon also had units participating in Service First in 11 cities or towns,

and the units with the most projects were Roseburg and Prineville, with 31

and 17 projects, respectively. Together, Oregon and Colorado, the two

original pilot states, accounted for about 68 percent of all Service First

projects.

Individual projects may achieve one or more of Service First’s goals. Of the

272 projects, 193 aim at increasing operational efficiency, 128 aim at

increasing customer service, and 123 aim at increasing the quality of

resource stewardship. One project, for example, a joint firewood permit

effort, allows customers to obtain a permit from a single location to gather

firewood on Forest Service and/or BLM lands rather than having to travel

to two separate locations to obtain two permits. This project also promotes

administrative efficiencies in the agencies’ operations because one joint

permit eliminates the dual administrative functions needed to issue

Cummulative number of projects

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fiscal year
Page 13 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

separate permits. See table 3 in appendix III for the number of projects in

each state and the goals the projects were intended achieve.

According to Forest Service and BLM estimates, Service First projects have

achieved financial savings of $5.4 million from the inception of the

initiative in fiscal year 1996 through the first half of fiscal year 2000. Since

the agencies did not have data readily available to support the savings

claimed, we asked several units we visited to recreate the basis for the

savings they claimed. These offices—Prineville and Lakeview, Oregon, and

Durango and Grand Junction, Colorado—accounted for about 57 percent

of the total savings and had calculations and methodology that appeared

reasonable to us. However, because we were not provided with detailed

documentation for the remaining projects, we were unable to review how

the agencies calculated the dollar savings or whether their methodologies

were appropriate. The $5.4 million estimate is based on 83 projects that the

agencies identified as having savings. Among the projects with the largest

reported savings are the following:

• The units in Prineville, Oregon, claimed savings of about $1 million over 4

years as a result of sharing heavy equipment for road maintenance activities.

• A statewide Service First initiative in Colorado eliminated 12 communication

facilities, radio repeaters, and other support facilities and saved about $600,000

over 3 years.

• In Durango, Colorado, units claimed savings of $248,000 over 4-1⁄2 years by

combining the responsibilities of the forest supervisor position with the BLM

field manager position.

Table 1 shows the estimated savings by state.
Page 14 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Table 1: Estimated Dollar Savings of Service First Projects by State, Fiscal Years

1996 Through the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000

Source: GAO based on data provided by the Forest Service and BLM.

The agencies claimed nonfinancial benefits for the remaining 189 projects,

133 of which were in Oregon and Colorado. One example of a project with

nonfinancial benefits is the Noxious Weed Education Program in Silver

City, New Mexico. The agencies also claimed nonmeasurable financial

benefits from projects such as the Reforestation Seedlings Production

project in Tillamook, Oregon, and the joint law enforcement activities

between the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region and BLM’s Oregon

State Office.

Numerous

Opportunities Exist for

Colocating Additional

Units

Given the results of the Service First initiative to date, it appears that the

colocation of Forest Service and BLM units is one of the most beneficial

actions taken in terms of operating efficiencies and service to the public.

Although the agencies have colocated some of their units, opportunities for

colocating as many as 169 more units exists. We found that in 63 cities or

towns, each agency had one or more units that may be candidates for

colocation—in some cases, the units were within blocks of each other.

Although the Forest Service and BLM are considering colocating 22 of

these units, we believe that in the near term, the best opportunities could

be the colocation of an additional 69 of the 169 units that are housed in

State Estimated savings Percentage of total

Alaska $0 0

Arizona 0 0

California 70,000 1

Colorado 1,150,860 21

Idaho 408,250 8

Nevada 0 0

New Mexico 133,600 2

Oregon 3,136,466 58

Utah 168,000 3

Washington 85,500 2

Wyoming 247,100 5

Total $5,399,776 100
Page 15 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

government-owned buildings or leased buildings with leases expiring

within the next 5 years. Local agency officials told us that while the units

may want to colocate, a number of issues will need to be addressed to

make colocation a reality, such as the need to reconcile leases expiring at

different times and the need to obtain funds necessary to add on to an

existing building or construct a new one. Notwithstanding these factors, it

is our view that the agencies should develop a colocation plan that sets

forth a strategy to achieve the highest number of colocated units.

Colocation of Units Offers

the Best Potential for

Expanding the Service First

Initiative

Colocation involves the sharing of a building by two or more public

agencies. The agencies may occupy the same buildings, but share only

facilities such as parking, credit unions, cafeterias, and day care centers, or

the agencies may share reception areas, libraries, and copy centers. The

agencies may also cross-delegate managers, have joint administrative

officers, and share personnel, heavy equipment, vehicles, supplies, and

work on an integrated basis to manage resources on both the Forest

Service’s and BLM’s lands. Thus, it appears to us that colocation of units

offers the best potential for expanding the Service First initiative.

According to the Interagency Steering Committee, colocation is intended to

promote efficiencies and to provide seamless government services to the

public, such as “one-stop shopping” for permits and services, and to reduce

red tape by using the same procedures in both agencies. The steering

committee has taken the position that units should look for opportunities

to colocate unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. According to

agency officials, colocating units results in many efficiencies, such as

substantially reduced space costs, shared equipment and maintenance

costs, reduced utility costs, combined support services, shared

telecommunications networks and increased services to the public.

Moreover, these officials believe that colocation helps remove cultural

barriers by building trust and relationships among the staffs of the

agencies.

• In Oregon, agency officials from BLM’s Lakeview District Office and the

Forest Service’s Fremont National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Lakeview

noted that being colocated has saved them money and has helped with

coordination and communication. Although the Lakeview offices actually

colocated in fiscal year 1999, they had shared personnel and conducted joint

projects since 1996. According to the Forest Service and BLM officials, the

estimated savings as the result of colocation total about $1.1 million, which

includes savings from the sharing of personnel and conducting joint projects
Page 16 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

such as the noxious weed program. Figure 3 shows the Lakeview Interagency

Office sign designed to provide one face to the public for land management

activities.

Figure 3: Forest Service and BLM Colocated Unit at Lakeview, Oregon

• In Colorado, the Forest Service’s San Juan National Forest Office and BLM’s

San Juan Field Office colocated in Durango have fully integrated their staff.

The agencies share the building costs and have identified opportunities to work

together to increase customer service and operational efficiencies. For

example, the agencies told us that the range management and minerals

management staffs of both agencies work in the same area of the building,

which improves coordination and communications. According to the Forest

Service and BLM officials, estimated savings as the result of colocation totaled

about $370,000 since fiscal year 1996, including savings from sharing

personnel and conducting joint projects such as their joint telephone and

computer support project. Another benefit of colocation is providing the public

with “one-stop shopping” as shown at the San Juan Public Lands Center in

figure 4.
Page 17 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Figure 4: Forest Service and BLM Colocated Unit at Durango, Colorado

Many Additional Units Can

Be Colocated

Most Forest Service and BLM units are located in the western states and

Alaska. The agencies’ units are often in the same communities or within

commuting distance. For the Forest Service, these units consist primarily

of regional, national forest, and ranger district offices. Similarly, for BLM,

these units consist primarily of state, district, field, and resource area

offices. These units are housed in government-owned or leased buildings.

We identified 63 cities or towns where both the Forest Service and BLM

had one or more units. The total number of units identified was 169, and

they were located in 16 states.6 We selected these units for analysis since

they represented the greatest opportunity to be considered for colocation

because, in most cases, the cities were relatively small, the units were close

together, and the types of offices were similar or compatible in nature.

6

Not included in the 169 units are 9 fire-related units, 22 specialized units such as research

centers and laboratories, and 4 additional offices. We excluded these offices because they

serve a specialized function that is not directly tied to customer service or resource

stewardship.
Page 18 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Of the 169 units, 22 plan to colocate by 2001 and to do so will either add

space to an existing building or construct or move to a new facility. Most of

these units (13) are in Idaho. Of the remaining 147 units—located in 56

cities or towns—100 were housed in leased buildings and the remaining 47

units were located in government-owned buildings. For the 100 units in

leased buildings, the years remaining on the leases ranged from less than 1

year to 20 years, with 57 units having 5 years or less remaining on their

leases. Appendix IV shows the 100 Forest Service and BLM units in leased

buildings and the years remaining on their leases.

Our analysis of the 147 units showed that 69 units located in 30 cities or

towns were housed in government-owned buildings or leased buildings

with leases that expire in 5 years or less. We believe that these locations

may be the best opportunities for the agencies to colocate additional units

in the near term. Appendix V shows the 69 units that are in the same city or

town that we believe have the greatest potential for colocation and the 22

units that the agencies plan to colocate.

While our analysis focused on the 147 Forest Service and BLM units located

in the same city or town, additional opportunities for colocation beyond

these units may exist. For example, Forest Service and BLM units may be

located in different cities and towns but be in the same general geographic

area. In addition, other agencies could colocate with the Forest Service and

BLM to improve the management of the land. For example, in Roseburg,

Oregon, the Forest Service unit is already colocated with the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These agencies

work together to implement the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Colocation Decisions Are

Affected by Various Factors

According to local Forest Service and BLM officials, while units may want

to colocate, they may be prevented from doing so because of factors such

as insufficient space in their current facilities, leases that expire at different

times, and the inability to obtain the funds to construct the shared space.

One reason given for not colocating was that the building housing one

agency had insufficient space to accommodate the other agency. For

example, in Missoula, Montana, neither the Lolo National Forest nor BLM’s

Garnet Resource Area, which have offices in separate government-owned

buildings, has enough room to house the other agency.

A second reason the agencies reported for not colocating was that one or

more of the units were under existing leases or have leases expiring at

different times. According to the Service First Interagency Steering
Page 19 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Committee, for colocation to work, the leases for the affected units would

have to expire at or about the same time. For example, the terms of the

leases differ for the Forest Service’s and BLM’s units in Cedar City, Utah.

BLM’s district office in Cedar City has 6 years remaining on its lease, while

the Forest Service’s two units have 1 year remaining on their lease. At these

units, local agency officials have discussed the possibility of colocating, but

because the leases expire at different times, the units have not been able to

move toward sharing a building.

Another reason units do not colocate is that they are unable to get the

funding needed to colocate by the time their leases expire. For example,

the Umpqua National Forest Office in Roseburg, Oregon, has 3 years

remaining on its lease and would like to colocate with BLM’s Roseburg

District Office by constructing an addition to the BLM-owned building.

According to Umpqua National Forest officials, the office has requested

funds to build the addition, but other agency priorities preclude the forest

office from receiving the money for 3 to 5 years. Forest officials noted that

they may have to move to a new leased building or stay in the existing

building under a new more expensive lease agreement. The officials said

that colocation with BLM would be a tremendous opportunity for cost

savings. They added that colocation also makes sense in that both agencies’

lands are contiguous and both agencies have to implement the Pacific

Northwest Forest Plan. These units currently participate in several shared

initiatives, and colocation could facilitate their activities.

Numerous Barriers

Must Be Overcome

Before Service First

Can Be Fully

Successful

Service First has achieved some level of benefits and probably can achieve

more; however, achieving fully integrated operations would require the

agencies to overcome a number of fundamental legal, regulatory, and other

barriers. Resolution of these overarching legal and regulatory barriers will

require the agencies and the Congress to reach consensus on the need for

change. Pending resolution of these fundamental barriers, successes from

the Service First initiative, while beneficial, will be on the margin.

Currently, the Service First participants are working around these barriers

to achieve some benefits, but managers and staff must know and apply the

applicable laws and regulations of each agency before any project is

undertaken, which requires additional effort on the part of managers and

staff. According to local officials, other barriers that make working in a

Service First environment difficult, such as incompatible e-mail systems

could be resolved more easily than the legal and regulatory barriers.
Page 20 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

The Most Difficult Barriers

to Overcome Involve

Different Legal and

Regulatory Requirements

The Service First steering committee identified legal and regulatory

barriers that must be overcome if the Service First goals of fully integrated

operations are to be attained. These barriers, for the most part, stem from

the fact that the agencies are in different departments and have different

authorizing legislation for their activities. As a result, congressional action

may be required to remove these barriers. We discuss five of these

identified barriers in detail below.

Federal Process for Interagency

Transfer of Funds Is a LaborIntensive and Cumbersome

Process

The process for transferring funds between the agencies for services

performed under the Economy Act,7 has proven to be very labor-intensive

and cumbersome, involving extensive paperwork. This process requires

many reimbursable transfers in both directions, some for individual tasks.

For example, the joint administrative officer for the colocated unit in

Lakeview, Oregon, told us that in a given year she needed to execute about

40 reimbursable work agreements to complete the transfers of money

between the Forest Service and BLM for projects such as the shared use of

photocopy machines, mail rooms, the joint use of a writer-editor, the

salaries of shared employees, and a weed control contract. In other

instances, local officials told us that to avoid the cumbersome paperwork

process, they reach informal agreements to share staff or other resources

such as equipment of equal value because, in the end, “it all balances out.”

In an effort to overcome this barrier, the agencies requested that a

provision be inserted in the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act to establish a Transfer Appropriation Account to

expedite the transfer of money between the agencies to compensate them

for services performed. However, when the agencies attempted to

implement the Transfer Appropriation Account, they determined that the

process was a much more complex budget mechanism than originally

envisioned. They believe the mechanism is not feasible, given the nature of

the Service First operations and that they may need additional account

managers at the headquarters of the agencies to administer the transfer of

funds.

7

The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536) allows agencies to request goods and services

from a major organizational unit within the same agency or another agency on a

reimbursable basis.
Page 21 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Different Land Management

Legislation Precludes

Consistency in the Agencies’

Planning Processes

The agencies have different authorizing legislation that precludes

consistency in their planning processes. The Forest Service uses the

National Forest Management Act and BLM uses the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act to guide the agencies’ planning. The National Forest

Management Act requires the Forest Service to update its existing forest

plans every 5 years and to issue new plans every 10 years, whereas BLM

only modifies plans as needed for changed conditions. The agencies’

approaches differ in terms of planning schedules, collecting inventory data,

and evaluating scientific input. According to the agencies, these differences

result in duplication of staffing and effort between their planning staffs,

and the two agencies also engage the public differently in their planning

process, especially when a plan is appealed.

Financial Management Laws and

Regulations Make Integration of

Agencies’ Budget and

Accounting Policies and

Processes Impossible

The agencies have different policies and processes for financial

management and reporting that currently make it impossible to link or

blend the budget, allocation, or reporting of Service First activities. Federal

laws and regulations require budget requests to be made at the program

activity level. Likewise, cost structures of the two agencies that record

budget execution and related accounting must also occur at that level. As a

result, the two agencies’ systems for fiscal planning, allocating, spending,

and tracking budgets are quite different. The processes used to manage the

budget, the degree of flexibility, the nature of the spending constraints, and

frequently, the year-to-year areas of the budget emphasis as well as the

federal financial management laws and regulations make integration

impossible. In addition, the agencies’ payroll systems and methods of

reporting are different and, of necessity, go to different centers for

processing. BLM’s accounting function is more centralized, whereas the

Forest Service’s is decentralized at the forest level. For example, certain

items of overhead costs flow from the agencies’ budgets quite differently,

and it becomes very difficult to allocate because BLM’s overhead is

controlled and charged at the state level for all units under its control,

whereas the Forest Service’s overhead is allocated to each unit within a

regional office’s control down to the ranger district.

Agencies Have Different

Regulations and Procedures for

Administering Similar Activities

Each of the agencies has different regulations and procedures for

administrating very similar activities, such as handling grazing permits,

outfitter permits, National Environmental Policy Act requirements, and

timber sales on contiguous lands. In many cases, the customers are the

same, the types of services are the same, and the resources used are very

similar. But differing regulations and policies can prevent the agencies

from integrating their activities in these areas. For example, the agencies

attempted to develop a unified grazing permit that would have allowed
Page 22 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

them to cooperate in the management of the lands, improve customer

service, and ultimately reduce the cost of providing these services. On its

face, this appears to be an efficient and reasonable approach to take;

however, the Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel and

the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office both said that there were

regulatory and legal impediments to such a unified permit. This barrier was

recognized by the Congress and addressed in the Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2001, dated

October 11, 2000. Section 330 of the act states that “In fiscal years 2001

through 2005, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may pilot test

agency-wide joint permitting and leasing programs, subject to annual

review of Congress, and promulgate special rules as needed to test the

feasibility of issuing unified permits, applications, and leases.”

Agencies’ Records Must Be

Maintained Independently to

Meet Federal Record

Management Requirements

The sharing of facilities and operations also involves records management.

Under the current colocation arrangements, the agencies’ records must be

maintained independently, which requires employees from each agency, at

a minimum, to learn about the record keeping practices of the other

agency. However, agency officials note that commingling records has

proven not to be as easy as it initially appeared. Both agencies have

different laws and regulations under which their resource programs

operate, and they also have different processes, procedures, and

information systems. Each agency’s records have different retention times

and disposition authorities approved by the National Archives and Records

Administration. Finally, approval by the Office of Management and Budget

is required before the two agencies may use joint forms under the

information collection process requirements.

Other Barriers Can Be More

Easily Resolved

According to the local Forest Service and BLM officials we interviewed in

Colorado and Oregon, additional barriers exist that make operating under a

Service First environment difficult. However, these officials believed that

many of these barriers could be resolved more easily than the legal and

regulatory barriers:

• Organizational styles and cultures of the agencies are deeply rooted. Both

agencies have long histories, and the employees have loyalty to their respective

agencies. At the locations we visited, agency officials told us that the cultural

differences between the agencies were a significant barrier to the Service First

initiative. The agencies are in different cabinet departments, and the Forest

Service is much larger than BLM, which leads to a feeling among BLM

employees that they will be absorbed by the Forest Service. In addition,
Page 23 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

according to local agency officials, the Forest Service is viewed as a much

more regimented agency, whereas BLM is viewed as much more flexible in

implementing federal programs. These issues seem to have become more

prevalent because of downsizing and budget constraints.

• Personnel practices differ between the agencies. When the agencies try to

work together, these differences hinder and sometimes stop innovation at the

field level. These differences also raise the question of equitable treatment of

agencies’ employees working together on similar projects or activities. Our

discussions with local agency officials indicated that these barriers are the

result of significantly different policies and procedures, including position

descriptions and grade structure; ratings, promotions, and awards; adverse

actions, grievances, and discipline or penalties; and recruitment and vacancy

announcements.

• Public access policies dealing with the public’s access to the lands are quite

different. For example, in Del Norte, Colorado, we were told that the Forest

Service’s regulations state that the public cannot go off-road in vehicles unless

there is a sign permitting such use. BLM’s lands, however, are open to the

public unless specifically prohibited. This creates uncertainties on the part of

the public and presents problems of enforcement by the agencies.

• Appeal processes for agency decisions are quite different. The Forest

Service’s system is much more complex than BLM’s in that a decision may go

through several layers of appeal before the decision is litigated. Conversely,

BLM’s appeals process provides for only one level of appeal at the state office,

and if the appellant is not satisfied with the state office decision, the appellant’s

only recourse is litigation. This presents particular problems when the

agencies’ decisions on joint projects are appealed and a determination must be

made about which agency’s appeals procedures should be used.

• Law enforcement authority is not fully transferable between the agencies in

that the law enforcement officers of one agency cannot make arrests on the

other agency’s lands. The agencies have made some progress in this regard by

having some interagency agreements that cross-delegate some of the law

enforcement authority in certain instances on the other agency’s lands, such as

allowing the officers of either agency to participate in investigations; to

stabilize a situation; to identify suspects, witnesses, and victims; and to protect

a crime scene until the proper law enforcement officer arrives to take charge.

Local agency officials acknowledged that while this method of operation is

much better than when law enforcement officers had no cross-delegated

authority, waiting for the respective law enforcement officer to arrive may
Page 24 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

consume several hours given the remoteness of some of the agencies’ lands.

They indicated that providing BLM’s and the Forest Service’s law enforcement

officers with more authority to make arrests on the lands of either agency

would be more efficient and would provide better coverage.

• Incompatible communications systems, including computer, e-mail, and

telephone systems, make communications and sharing data very difficult.

Virtually every unit we visited stated that these incompatible systems

significantly affect the ease with which the two agencies can work together. In

La Jara, Colorado, for instance, the cross-delegated field manager/district

ranger needed two complete computer systems in his office—one to

communicate with the Forest Service and one to communicate with BLM.

According to agency officials, they have made progress on eliminating this

barrier by using software—particularly for e-mail—that is more compatible

between the agencies.

A Number of Other

Service First Issues

Require Management

Attention

The full integration of agency operations ultimately depends on resolving

the overarching legal and regulatory barriers as the agencies pursue

expansion of the initiative. However, before the initiative is expanded

agencywide, we believe a number of program management issues need

attention. First, the agencies lack a system to collect the basic information

on the scope and results of the Service First initiative. Also, the agencies do

not have a management review or evaluation component to assess the

results of the initiative. Without this information, the Congress and the

agencies’ decisionmakers cannot readily determine whether the Service

First initiative has been successful or has failed or whether the crossdelegation of authority should be extended beyond fiscal year 2005.

Second, the agencies have not issued overall guidance on how to

implement the Service First initiative. Finally, the management practices

employed on the newly created Incentive Fund—established to fund new

and innovative Service First projects—have been weak, in that the process

for selecting projects to fund was not documented and no assurance exists

that the agencies selected the best projects. Collectively, we believe the

agencies need to better manage the Service First initiative and address the

issues we identified.

Agencies Lack Basic

Information on Service First

Initiatives

Neither the Forest Service nor BLM has a system in place to collect basic

information on the number of locations participating in Service First

activities, the types of projects undertaken, or the savings or benefits the

projects achieve. When we requested such data, the agencies had to
Page 25 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

recreate the information for us to use. However, the data the agencies

provided were incomplete, inaccurate, and did not necessarily include only

Service First projects. We could not be assured that all of the 272 projects

finally identified were initiated directly in response to the Service First

initiative or whether the activities were merely a continuation of existing

cooperative efforts between the Forest Service and BLM. In addition, the

agencies were unable to provide existing documentation to support the

savings they reported. However, when we requested support for their

claimed savings, the local units recreated their explanations of the bases

for the savings they claimed.

Maintaining basic program data and results achieved also becomes critical

under the annual reporting requirements of the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993. Both agencies cite Service First activities among

the initiatives to improve customer service in the strategic plans they

prepared in compliance with the act. For example, BLM, in its fiscal year

2000 plan, uses as a performance measure the number of interagency

centers providing services to the public, and the Forest Service cites in its

fiscal year 2000 plan as a performance indicator, “improve service to public

land users by providing one-stop shopping for information, permits, and

other frequently requested over-the-counter products and services at BLM

and Forest Service facilities.” Yet, if the agencies do not have a system in

place to maintain such basic information as the number and location of

units participating in Service First activities, the quality of the information

they will be able to report on these performance measures is questionable.

Service First Initiative Lacks

a Measurement and

Program Evaluation

Component

The Service First initiative has no required program evaluation component.

The need for such a component has been repeatedly discussed by the

agencies since the initial “kick-off” meetings with the pilot locations in 1996

and has continued to be discussed during subsequent meetings of the

Interagency Steering Committee. At a June 1996 meeting with the Forest

Service and BLM top management, a BLM official stressed the need to be

able to measure performance in order to be able to justify the need for

things like the “dual designations” and other waivers. The official was also

interested in seeing what real cost savings could be made and how

employees would be affected. Yet 4 years later, no measurement system or

program evaluation component exists.

Efforts to perform program evaluations have been minimal as these

examples show:
Page 26 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

• While both the Colorado and Oregon pilot locations issued accomplishment

reports for their first years of operation, according to agency officials, no

accomplishment reports or program evaluations were prepared for fiscal years

1998 and 1999 after the Service First initiative went agencywide.

• The agencies’ initial efforts in fiscal year 1999 to evaluate the initiative

through national validation studies on customer service began in three states—

Oregon, California, and Wyoming—with the remaining states scheduled for

review in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The validation studies, however, assess

an individual state’s progress toward implementing its proposed Service First

plan rather than assessing the overall success or failure of the Service First

initiative.

• Finally, in summer 2000, the Forest Service and BLM began undertaking a

systematic study of customer satisfaction with Service First rather than merely

relying on customers voluntarily submitting customer comment cards.

While these efforts contribute to an overall evaluation of the Service First

initiative, they are not designed in a cohesive manner that will ensure that

the agencies will be able to provide an overall assessment of whether the

initiative has achieved or failed to meet its goals. This type of program

evaluation is critical for providing the Congress and the agencies’ managers

with the information necessary for making programmatic decisions and for

assessing the success or failure of the initiative. Since the Service First

cross-delegation authority expires in fiscal year 2005, the agencies need to

develop information on the initiative to ensure that decisionmakers have

the tools to make informed decisions about whether to continue the

initiative.

Service First Initiative Lacks

Uniform Operating

Guidance

No agencywide operating guidance or requirements were established for

Service First because the initial intent was to provide participating units

with the flexibility to experiment with how to carry out their missions.

Each participating unit used the existing procedures of the two agencies.

Over time, as more units began participating in Service First-type activities,

the need for consistent approaches became more apparent. As a result, the

financial and administrative offices of BLM and the Forest Service began

developing a “Concept of Operations” for administering collaborative

projects under Service First. The Concept of Operations was intended to

outline standard business procedures and to give practical advice and

guidance on how to implement Service First effectively while complying

with the laws and regulations governing the various financial and business
Page 27 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

operations. Initial topics covered issues such as budgeting and finance;

acquisition of goods and services; and other agreements such as

cooperative and interagency agreements, human resource management,

information resource management, and the volunteer program.

After being refined, the Concept of Operations was to be issued

agencywide by early October 1999 after the agencies consulted with the

Partnership Council (composed of Forest Service and union

representatives). However, before the Concept of Operations could be

finalized, a federal employee union raised concerns about the legality of

delegating supervisory authority between the agencies and the Forest

Service’s Employee and Labor Relations Branch requested an opinion from

the Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel.8 As a result of

the union’s concerns about supervision and other issues contained in the

Concept of Operations, the Forest Service’s Chief Operating Officer issued

a memorandum in February 2000 stating, “Any new projects outside those

areas [of the original pilot locations] where bargaining unit employees

would be affected should not be implemented until agreement is reached

by the national Parties.” According to an agency official, because the

Concept of Operations has not been issued, local units must proceed on

their own or wait to further implement Service First efforts. Additional

work on the Concept of Operations, such as for expanding the discussion

on acquisition management, has also been deferred pending the completion

of the union negotiations. According to a Forest Service labor management

official, the negotiations with the union are continuing. He estimated that

the Concept of Operations would not be issued agencywide until the end of

November 2000 at the earliest.

The Service First Incentive

Fund Is Not Meeting Its

Intended Purpose

For fiscal year 2000, the Forest Service and BLM established a $600,000

Service First Incentive Fund—with equal funding from each agency—to

fund innovative, cutting-edge projects to help accomplish the three primary

objectives of the Service First initiative. Over 125 proposals totaling almost

$4.5 million vied for the available funding. Proposals were to be assessed

using six criteria: (1) apply the concept of leading-edge practices that help

accomplish the three primary objectives of Service First; (2) bias toward

funding projects with defined outcomes; (3) bias against funding positions

or equipment purchases; (4) bias toward expansion into additional

8

In March 2000, the General Counsel replied that the current law does extend supervisory

authority to delegated managers of both agencies.
Page 28 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

locations or providing seed money; (5) bias toward support of early and

continuing innovations; and (6) bias toward new innovations verses

duplication of proven practices.

In total, 40 proposals received funding for projects in fiscal year 2000. Over

half of the funding was for projects that would fill specific positions—such

as a front desk receptionist, seasonal workers, or staff for people-intensive

functions such as data entry functions—or would pay for attending

meetings or workshops. Another 20 percent of the funding was for

equipment or material, including computers and software, telephones, and

program materials. The remaining funding was for buildings and facilities,

signs and displays, publications such as maps or information brochures,

and vehicle use or purchase.9

While providing funding for these proposals may increase local units’

interest in participating in Service First, we noted problems with the

process used to select and fund the projects as well as with the actual

projects selected. Four individuals from BLM and the Forest Service

associated with the Interagency Steering Committee evaluated the

proposals and funding levels and prepared a list of proposals suggested for

the full committee’s consideration. No documentation exists about the

discussions on the proposed initiatives at either the preliminary screening

or the final selection stage, about the relative merits of the proposed

projects, about how funding decisions were reached, about the issues the

steering committee raised about proposals, or about any formal scoring or

ranking used to measure the proposals against the established criteria.

We also question whether some of the approved proposals are innovative

and cutting-edge or whether the approved funding merely supplements

existing budget allocations. We identified a number of funded projects that

appear to be for routine operations such as having a person inventory BLM

and Forest Service lands and enter the data into the agencies’ geographic

information system. We also identified projects that appeared to be an

attempt to make up for insufficient funding. For example, one funded

proposal was for the purchase of two all-terrain vehicles to patrol roads

and trails—normal tasks that the agencies would need to perform even if

Service First never existed. In addition, the screening officials told us that

project funding was distributed to ensure that most participating states

received at least some of the Incentive Fund money rather than having all

9

See app. VI for details about the 40 projects that were approved.
Page 29 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

of the funds go to the initial pilot locations. As a result, the screening

officials indicated that the selected projects could contribute to the Service

First goals but acknowledged that the best projects may not have been

selected.

Conclusions Service First began as a pilot initiative in Colorado and Oregon in 1996 and

has grown across the agencies with ongoing projects in 11 states. As a

concept, Service First shows promise in that the initiative has

demonstrated certain improvements in customer service, operational

efficiencies, and the quality of stewardship on public lands. The initiative is

far-reaching, from simple improvements in communications between the

agencies to colocation of the agencies’ units to achieve operational

efficiencies. According to the agencies, the initiative has achieved savings;

however, the agencies could not readily provide sufficient documentation

to support these estimates, nor did they have a system in place to collect

this basic information. We believe that the agencies need to jointly develop

a system that will provide reliable data that the Congress and the agencies’

decisionmakers can use to determine the extent to which the initiative has

been successful and whether the cross-delegation of authority should be

extended.

The colocation of Forest Service and BLM units provides the best

opportunity for the agencies to jointly serve the public, effect operational

efficiencies, and improve the management of the land. Although a limited

number of colocations have been accomplished, numerous opportunities

exist for expanding the Service First initiative Although certain factors

affect colocation, it is our view that the agencies should develop a

colocation plan that sets forth a strategy and prioritizes their resources to

achieve the highest number of colocated units.

The Forest Service and BLM have not issued overall management or

operating guidance on how the agencies should work together. The Service

First initiative, as presently structured, allows local units great flexibility in

determining which projects to undertake and how the projects are

managed and evaluated. This may have been an acceptable mode of

operation initially, but now that Service First units are in 59 cities or towns,

consistent business practices and practical advice and guidance on how to

implement Service First effectively are needed. The agencies have had a

draft of such guidance—the Concept of Operation—for over 2 years but

have not issued it. Accordingly, we believe the agencies should expedite the

issuance of management and program guidance.
Page 30 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

The administration of the joint Service First Incentive Fund established in

fiscal year 2000 to fund innovative, crosscutting projects to further the

objectives of Service First was poorly managed. The project selection

process was poorly documented and no assurance exists that the agencies

selected the best projects. Some projects were not innovative and provided

funds for ongoing operations, and others were arbitrarily selected. Creating

an Incentive Fund has merit; however, before additional funds are made

available for future Incentive Fund projects, we believe that the Forest

Service and BLM should jointly establish guidelines for the selection

process and documentation requirements.

Preliminary Service First results demonstrate that some benefits have been

achieved. However, it is doubtful whether fully integrated operations are

possible, given the many legal and regulatory barriers that the initiative

currently faces. Resolution of these overarching legal and regulatory

barriers will require the agencies and the Congress to reach consensus on

the need for change. Pending resolution of these fundamental barriers,

successes from the Service First initiative, while beneficial, will be on the

margin.

Recommendations for

Executive Action

To ensure that the Forest Service and BLM can readily provide the

Congress and the agencies’ decisionmakers with reliable data on the

Service First initiative and the results achieved that can be used to

determine the extent to which the initiative has been successful and

whether the cross-delegation of authority should be extended, we

recommend that the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of BLM

jointly develop a system that will provide reliable program data that could

serve as a basis for tracking the status and progress of the initiative—

including the locations participating in Service First, the types of projects

undertaken, and the savings or benefits achieved from the projects—and

provide a basis for measuring and evaluating the results of the initiative.

To ensure that the agencies are reaping the full benefits of colocation, we

recommend that the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of BLM

work together to develop a colocation plan that will (1) include a review

and determination of the feasibility of colocating Forest Service and BLM

units, (2) develop time frames for colocating the units, and (3) identify and

prioritize the resources needed to achieve colocation.

To better ensure consistent business practices and guidance on how to

implement Service First projects, we recommend that the Chief of the
Page 31 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Forest Service and the Director of BLM expedite the completion and

issuance of its Concept of Operations.

To ensure that the best projects are funded by the Incentive Fund, we

recommend that the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of BLM

jointly establish guidelines for the selection process and the documentation

of the decision-making process to be used before additional funds are made

available for future Incentive Fund awards.

Agency Comments We provided the Forest Service and BLM with a draft of this report for

comment prior to its issuance. In their coordinated responses, the Forest

Service and BLM generally concurred with our recommendations. They

also said that our report thoroughly documented the quantified benefits

achieved and identified the necessary improvements to leverage the

inherent efficiencies of the agencies’ collaboration and colocation efforts.

The agencies, however, suggested that our report could have discussed the

applicability of Service First as a governmentwide model and the intrinsic

benefits of customer service. We agree that Service First may be a

promising approach; however, as pointed out in our report, numerous

barriers exist that must be addressed, and other managerial problems must

be corrected before Service First can be considered as a model. With

regard to customer service, we note in our report that Service First has

increased customer service; however, a detailed analysis was not possible

given the lack of overall agency customer survey data. The full text of the

Forest Service’s and BLM’s responses can be found in appendixes VIII and

IX, respectively.

We conducted our work from October 1999 through October 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix VII provides our objectives, scope, and methodology.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Eva

Clayton, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Department

Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, House Committee on

Agriculture; and the Honorable Adam Smith, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, House Committee on

Resources. We will also send copies of this report to the Honorable Dan

Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt,
Page 32 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest

Service; the Honorable Tom Fry, Director, Bureau of Land Management;

and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others on

request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix X.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 33 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative
Page 34 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of Cross- Apendxies

Delegation of Authority ApendxiI

The Agencies First

Considered CrossDelegation During the

Pilot Phase

During the pilot phase of the Service First initiative, at least one unit placed

an employee of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in charge of

managing the offices and the staff of both a national forest managed by the

Forest Service and a BLM district office. The agencies determined that this

transfer of administrative functions between the agencies was not legally

permitted. At a February 1997 meeting, agency officials recognized that the

lack of the cross-delegation of authority was a barrier to improving

customer service and that, without the cross-delegation of authority, the

advantages of the agencies working together would be lost. Finally, the

officials noted that the absence of shared positions could cause waste,

duplication, and inferior public service. As a result, the agencies sought

legislation to allow them to experiment with the cross-delegation of

authority at the initial pilot locations.

The reciprocal delegation of authority between the Forest Service and BLM

was enacted as part of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1998, dated November 14, 1997. Section

331 of the act authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to

“make reciprocal delegations of their respective authorities, duties, and

responsibilities in support of joint pilot projects to promote customer

service and efficiency in the management of public lands and national

forests.” Section 331 also provided that “nothing herein shall alter, expand

or limit the existing applicability of any public law or regulation to lands

administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.”

This authority was granted on a trial basis through fiscal year 2002. The

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for

fiscal year 2001, dated October 11, 2000, extended the reciprocal delegation

of authority through fiscal year 2005. Section 330 of the act authorized the

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to “make reciprocal delegations

of their respective authorities, duties and responsibilities in support of the

‘Service First’ initiative agency-wide to promote customer service and

efficiency. Nothing herein shall alter, expand or limit the applicability of

any public law or regulation to lands administered by the Bureau of Land

Management or the Forest Service.”
Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Page 35 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

The Director of BLM

and the Secretary of

Agriculture Have

Delegated Their

Authority

Pursuant to section 331, on December 16, 1997, the Director of BLM

redelegated his authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with the

Forest Service to all assistant directors, state directors, center directors,

and the director, Office of Fire and Aviation in Instruction Memorandum

No. 98-39.1 In turn, the memorandum states that these individuals can

redelegate this authority as described in the BLM manual, section 1203—

Delegation of Authority. Instruction Memorandum 98-39 was subsequently

incorporated into the BLM manual and is effective until fiscal year 2002.

The manual states that delegations of authority are made by giving written

notice, signed by the official delegating the authority, and sent to the

positions receiving the authority. Related instructions explain that

employees must comply with all laws, regulations, policies, and labormanagement agreements applicable to the other agency’s lands.

Similarly, the Secretary of Agriculture delegated his authority to enter into

reciprocal agreements with BLM to the Chief of the Forest Service. This

delegation was contained in Secretary’s Memorandum 1030-41, dated

November 10, 1998, and was recently reissued as Secretary’s Memorandum

1030-47, dated September 11, 2000. The memorandum authorizes the Chief

to redelegate this authority to lower-level Forest Service officials as long as

the delegations to BLM employees are in writing to a named individual; the

instrument delegating the authority is clear that BLM employees must

comply with Forest Service laws, regulations, and labor agreements; and

Forest Service employees are notified of such delegations of authority to

BLM employees.

The Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Varies

According to the agencies, eight major Service First locations are using the

cross-delegation of authority where Forest Service employees are

supervising BLM employees and vice versa, excluding firefighting

programs and activities.2 Five of the locations are in Oregon and three are

in Colorado. The use of the cross-delegation of authority varies from a dual

1

No separate delegation of authority was made from the Secretary of the Interior to the

Director of BLM because, according to BLM’s manual on cross-delegation of authority, BLM

authorities are derived from the Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary,

Lands and Minerals Management.

2

We have excluded firefighting activities because efforts to consolidate the firefighting

operations of BLM and the Forest Service began before the pilot phase of the Service First

initiative.
Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Page 36 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

designated manager responsible for a colocated BLM and Forest Service

office to an administrative officer responsible for the administrative

functions of both agencies. Where the cross-delegation of authority is being

used, it has been implemented through delegation letters, position

descriptions, and memorandums of understanding. The following examples

highlight how some of the locations are using the cross-delegation of

authority.

• Durango, Colorado, was the first location to use a cross-delegated manager

responsible for both Forest Service and BLM operations. At Durango, the

Forest Supervisor is also the field office manager and is responsible for three

Forest Service ranger districts, the Anasazi Heritage Center, and the newly

created Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Currently, according to

the center manager, the abandoned-mine, fire, range, wildlife, and recreation

programs have cross-delegated managers or staff with position descriptions

reflecting their duties as cross-delegated managers. Under a proposed

reorganization, the ranger districts and field office would be integrated into

three watershed-based landscapes and the three district rangers would be crossdelegated. The forest supervisor would become the center manager, and a new

position of associate center manager/deputy forest supervisor would be

created, with both positions cross-delegated to jointly provide leadership for

both agencies’ operations.

• At Lakeview, Oregon, the BLM Lakeview District Office and the Forest

Service’s Fremont National Forest Supervisor’s Office have colocated

their operations. This supervisor’s office also has responsibility for the

Winema National Forest. The agencies signed a delegation of authority

agreement that provides that the forest supervisor of the Fremont

National Forest may serve as the acting district manager, Lakeview

District, BLM and that the Lakeview District BLM manager may serve as

the acting supervisor of the Fremont National Forest. The Lakeview

office includes 182 employees, of whom 23 have shared responsibilities

between both BLM and the Forest Service. Both agencies generally pay

equally for the salaries of employees with shared responsibilities. For

example, the public affairs officer is a Forest Service shared employee,

while the administrative officer is a BLM shared employee. The

administrative officer, in addition to being a shared BLM employee, is a

cross-delegated manager and the Forest Service pays half of her salary.
Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Page 37 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

As a cross-delegated employee, she supervises 39 employees—25 Forest

Service employees and 12 BLM employees.3 Within the administrative

office, two Forest Service managers supervise BLM employees and one

BLM manager supervises Forest Service employees. In the cases of

these cross-delegated managers, their position descriptions contain

their authority to supervise employees of the other agency.

• In Cañon City, Colorado, BLM and the Forest Service colocated their

operations, which are now headed by a BLM employee who is a crossdelegated manager. Within this office, four positions held by Forest Service

employees have shared responsibilities and two positions held by BLM

employees have shared responsibilities. Examples of employees with shared

responsibilities include recreation technicians and information specialists. An

interagency agreement between BLM and the Forest Service authorized the

colocation of the offices and the dual agency authority to supervise both BLM

and Forest Service teams. The agencies modified the position descriptions for

these employees to reflect the cross-delegated authorities.

• Two other Colorado field locations—Saguache and La Jara—colocated their

operations and have cross-delegated managers. In each of these locations, a

Forest Service employee serves as the BLM field area manager and each of

them is funded by both agencies. In Saguache, five additional Forest Service

employees and one BLM employee have shared responsibilities. In La Jara,

two additional Forest Service employees and one BLM employee have shared

responsibilities. Examples of employees with shared responsibilities include

wildlife biologists and cultural resource specialists. The managers for

Saguache and La Jara also derived their cross-delegated responsibilities from a

memorandum of understanding, and the position descriptions were modified to

reflect the cross-delegation of authority.

• The Central Oregon Initiative is another example of the use of cross-delegation

of authority, although this initiative will not become operational until

December 2000. Under this initiative, the Ochoco National Forest and the

Deschutes National Forest will be merged under one forest supervisor and will

be colocated with the Prineville BLM District in Prineville, Oregon. This

arrangement will eliminate the forest supervisor position of the Ochoco

National Forest but will include two associate forest supervisors, one of whom

will be the district manager of the Prineville BLM District Office, while the

3

Two other positions do not have an agency affiliation; one is an independent contractor,

and the other is a student trainee.
Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Page 38 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

other is assigned to the Deschutes National Forest. According to Forest Service

and BLM officials, improved public service and stronger natural resource

programs will result from this new organization.

Agency officials we spoke to agreed that the cross-delegation of authority

has been beneficial in improving customer service. These officials also

noted that if the cross-delegation of authority was not reauthorized,

relations with the public would decline, and it would be difficult and

expensive to bring in new people to replace those holding cross-delegated

positions.

Other Uses of CrossDelegation Exist

We found two examples of the Forest Service and BLM’s cross-delegating

land management decisions under the authorities of section 331:

• The regional forester, Rocky Mountain Region delegated the authority to the

BLM Colorado state director to make decisions and issue a right-of-way

easement over National Forest System lands to allow the installation of fiber

optic cable along an interstate highway.

• The BLM Wyoming state director delegated to the regional foresters, Rocky

Mountain Region and Intermountain Region, the authority to conduct

subsurface mineral investigations on Forest Service lands in Wyoming that are

the subject of land exchanges. Prior to this delegation of authority, BLM would

conduct subsurface mineral investigations on Forest Service lands because

BLM, not the Forest Service, has responsibility for the subsurface of federal

lands.

The Forest Service

Labor Union Has

Challenged CrossDelegation Authority

The major union representing Forest Service employees questioned the

legality of Forest Service employees supervising BLM employees and vice

versa and raised the issue to Forest Service management. On October 18,

1999, the Forest Service requested advice from the Department of

Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel. On March 29, 2000, the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel issued a legal memorandum that concluded that

BLM employees could exercise supervisory control over Forest Service

employees by delegation under section 331 of the 1998 appropriations act

and vice versa. However, because of the union’s concerns, the Forest

Service’s Chief Operating Officer, in a February 11, 2000, memorandum,

stated that because the union and the Forest Service have not yet agreed on

a “Concept of Operations” describing labor-management relations in regard
Appendix I

The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Use of CrossDelegation of Authority

Page 39 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

to Service First projects, new projects outside those in Regions 2 and 6

should not be implemented until an agreement is reached.
Page 40 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix II

Types of Agreements Used in Service First

Projects ApendxiI

The Forest Service and BLM use several types of agreements under which

their Service First projects are carried out. These agreements establish the

framework under which the agencies implement the projects and generally

set the responsibilities and funding requirements of both agencies.

• Umbrella memorandums of understanding are generally those between a

BLM state office and a Forest Service regional office that provide broad

authorizations. An example of an umbrella memorandum of understanding is

one between BLM’s Colorado State Office and the Forest Service’s Rocky

Mountain Region that provides cross-designation of law enforcement authority

to BLM and Forest Service law enforcement personnel in carrying out their

duties to protect the public and employees, regardless of which agency

administers the lands.

• Specific memorandums of understanding are those that are between

specific local BLM and Forest Service units and are prepared to authorize and

document a specific project or task to be undertaken at the local level. An

example of a specific memorandum of understanding is one between BLM’s

Tillamook Resource Area and the Forest Service’s Hebo Ranger District to

issue and administer joint firewood sales permits to the public in the vicinity of

Tillamook County, Oregon.

• Interagency agreements are generally prepared to provide materials,

supplies, equipment, or services to the other agency and usually provide for an

exchange of funds. An example of an interagency agreement is one in

Prineville, Oregon, between the Forest Service’s Ochoco National Forest and

BLM’s Prineville District Office. The purpose of the agreement is to facilitate

the sharing of expertise between the agencies through personnel details, shared

positions and staffs, and other mutually agreeable arrangements.

• Informal agreements are generally reciprocal in nature and do not

necessarily require formal documentation. An example of an informal

agreement is one among the Forest Service’s Alaska Regional Office, BLM’s

Alaska State Office, and the other land management agencies in the Anchorage

area that permits each agency’s employees to attend training offered by any of

the other agencies, thus stretching their training budgets.
Page 41 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix III

Number and Type of Ongoing Service First

Projects by State, Fiscal Year 1996 Through

the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000 ApendxiI

Table 2: Type of Activity of Service First Projects

a

The number of projects exceeds our Service First universe of 272 projects because a project may

address one or more type of activity.

b

“Other” includes all other projects and activities that cannot easily be categorized among the other five

categories.

Source: GAO based on data provided by the Forest Service and BLM.

Type of activity

Number of projects with

each type of activitya Percentage of total

Shared personnel 71 22

Customer service and information 25 8

Shared equipment and facilities 21 6

Joint projects 107 33

Joint management of lands 67 21

Otherb 33 10

Total 324 100
Appendix III

Number and Type of Ongoing Service First

Projects by State, Fiscal Year 1996 Through

the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000

Page 42 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Table 3: Number of Service First Projects and Goals to Be Achieved by State, Fiscal

Year 1996 Through the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000

a

Individual projects may address one or more goals.

Source: GAO based on data provided by the Forest Service and BLM.

Goal project is intended to achievea

State

Number

of

projects

Percentage

of

total

Increase

customer

service

Increase

operating

efficiency

Increase

quality of

resource

stewardship

Alaska 2 1 0 2 1

Arizona 3 1 2 2 3

California 8 3 7 7 1

Colorado 65 24 26 52 31

Idaho 12 4 6 10 4

Nevada 17 6 6 14 8

New Mexico 8 3 3 6 3

Oregon 120 44 61 73 50

Utah 7 3 3 7 3

Washington 10 4 0 6 10

Wyoming 20 7 14 14 9

Total 272 100 128 193 123
Page 43 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix IV

Number of Forest Service and BLM Units With

Leases Expiring in the Next 20 Years ApendxiIV

Source: GAO based on data provided by the Forest Service and BLM.

Years remaining on lease Number of units

1 year (or less) 18

2 years 14

3 years 10

4 years 9

5 years 6

6-10 years 22

11-20 years 21

Total 100
Page 44 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix V

Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and

BLM to Colocate Units ApendxiV

State/unit City Agency

Governmentowned unitLeased

unit

Years

remaining on

lease

Planned

colocation

datea

ALASKA

Alaska State Office Anchorage BLM X 1

Campbell Tract Facility Anchorage BLM X

Anchorage Field Office Anchorage BLM X

State and Private Forestry Anchorage FS X 4

Chugach National Forest Anchorage FS X 4

ARIZONA

Safford Field Office Safford BLM X 3

Safford Ranger District Safford FS X

Tucson Field Office Tucson BLM X

Coronado National Forest Tucson FS X

Santa Catalina Ranger District Tucson FS X

CALIFORNIA

Bishop Field Office Bishop BLM X 2

Inyo National Forest Bishop FS X 1

White Mountain Ranger District Bishop FS X

Surprise Field Office Cedarville BLM X

Warner Mountain Ranger District Cedarville FS X 1

California Desert District Office Riverside BLM X 1

South Zone Operations Riverside FS X 2

COLORADO

Columbine West Ranger District Durangob FS X

Trimble Work Center Durangob FS X

Kremmling Field Office Kremmling BLM X 1 2001

Parks Ranger District Kremmling FS X 2001

White River Resource Area Meeker BLM X 3

Blanco Ranger District Meeker FS X 4

IDAHO

Burley Field Office Burley BLM X 2

Burley Ranger District Burley FS X 3

Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District Coeur D’Alene FS X

Idaho Panhandle National Forest Coeur D’Alene FS X 4

Caribou National Forest Pocatello c FS X 0 2000
Appendix V

Potential Opportunities for Forest Service

and BLM to Colocate Units

Page 45 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Idaho Falls Field Office Idaho Falls BLM X 20 2000

Upper Snake River District Office Idaho Falls BLM X 20 2000

Palisades Ranger District Idaho Falls FS X 1

Mallad Ranger District Mallad FS X 2001

Mallad Field Station Mallad BLM X 1 2001

Pocatello Field Office Pocatello BLM X 4 2001

Westside Ranger District Pocatello FS X 1 2001

Salmon Field Office Salmon BLM X 20 2000

Salmon and Challis National Forests Salmon FS X 2 2000

Salmon/Cobalt Ranger District Salmon FS X 2 2000

Jarbidge Field Office Twin Falls BLM X 1 2001

Sawtooth National Forest Twin Falls FS X 1 2001

Twin Falls Ranger District Twin Falls FS X 1 2001

MISSISSIPPI

Jackson Field Office Jackson BLM X 5

National Forests in Mississippi Jackson FS X

MONTANA

Garnet Resource Area Missoula BLM X

Northern Region Missoula FS X

Lolo National Forest Missoula FS X

Missoula Ranger District Missoula FS X

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota Field Office Dickinson BLM X 1

Little Missouri National Grassland Dickinson FS X 2

NEW MEXICO

Cuba Field Station Cuba BLM X 1

Cuba Ranger District Cuba FS X 3

Grants Field Station Grants BLM X 1

Mt. Taylor Ranger District Grants FS X 2

NEVADA

Spring Mt.National Recreation Area Las Vegas FS X 1 2000

Las Vegas Field Office Las Vegas BLM X 2000

Tonopah Field Station Tonopah BLM X

Tonopah Ranger District Tonopah FS X

OREGON

Wallow-Whitman National Forest Baker Cityb FS X

(Continued From Previous Page)

State/unit City Agency

Governmentowned unitLeased

unit

Years

remaining on

lease

Planned

colocation

datea
Appendix V

Potential Opportunities for Forest Service

and BLM to Colocate Units

Page 46 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Medford District Office Medford BLM X

Butte Falls Field Office Medford BLM X

Ashland Field Office Medford BLM X

Grants Pass Field Office Medford BLM X

Glendale Field Office Medford BLM X

Rogue River National Forest Medford FS X

Oregon State Office Portland BLM X 4 2001

Pacific Northwest Region Portland FS X 11 2001

Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland FS X 11 2001

Big Summit Ranger District Prinevilleb FS X

Roseburg District Office Roseburg BLM X

Swiftwater Field Office Roseburg BLM X

South River Field Office Roseburg BLM X

Umpqua National Forest Roseburg FS X 3

UTAH

Fillmore Field Office Fillmore BLM X

Fillmore Ranger District Fillmore FS X

Moab District Office Moab BLM X 1

Moab/Monticello Ranger District Moab FS X

Monticello Field Office Monticello BLM X 4

Moab/Monticello Ranger District Monticello FS X 5

Saint George Field Office Saint George BLM X 5

Pine Valley Ranger District Saint George FS X

Salt Lake Field Office Salt Lake City BLM X 5

Salt Lake Ranger District Salt Lake City FS X 1

Wasatch-Cache National Forests Salt Lake City FS X

WASHINGTON

Wenatchee Field Office Wenatchee BLM X 4

Wenatchee National Forest Wenatchee FS X 5

WISCONSIN

Milwaukee Field Office Milwaukee BLM X 3

Eastern Region Milwaukee FS X 3

WYOMING

Cody Field Office Cody BLM X 2

Shoshone National Forest Cody FS X 3

Kemmerer Field Office Kemmerer BLM X 1 2001

(Continued From Previous Page)

State/unit City Agency

Governmentowned unitLeased

unit

Years

remaining on

lease

Planned

colocation

datea
Appendix V

Potential Opportunities for Forest Service

and BLM to Colocate Units

Page 47 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Note: BLM is Bureau of Land Management and FS is Forest Service.

a

A total of 22 offices have firm plans to colocate and the year in which they plan to colocate

is indicated in the table. The remaining 69 units are in government-owned buildings or have

leases that expire in 5 years or less but, at the time of our review, did not have firm plans to

colocate.

b

Units in Prineville and Baker City, Oregon, and Durango, Colorado, may explore the

possibility of colocating with the other existing Forest Service and BLM units that are

colocated in the respective town or city.

c

The Caribou National Forest office in Pocatello, Idaho, plans to colocate with BLM in Idaho

Falls.

Source: GAO’s analysis of Forest Service and BLM data.

Kemmerer Ranger District Kemmerer FS X 5 2001

(Continued From Previous Page)

State/unit City Agency

Governmentowned unitLeased

unit

Years

remaining on

lease

Planned

colocation

datea
Page 48 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year

2000 ApendxiVI

Table 4: Incentive Fund Projects Funded by the Forest Service and BLM by State

Funded by

Project

Amount

proposed BLM FS

Alaska - 1 initiative

Develop Web page for the Alaska Land Managers Forum $6,000 $6,000

California - 2 initiatives

Develop a high-quality South Yuba River joint recreation map 13,000 13,000

Shared radio/telecommunications equipment 50,000 $25,000

Colorado - 11 initiatives

Complete office integration in San Luis Valley 25,000 25,000

Identify and enter range improvements into geographic information system 20,700 10,000

Identify and enter weed inventory into geographic information system 20,700 10,000

Purchase two all-terrain vehicles to patrol roads and trails 11,000 5,000

Purchase two snowmobiles and a trailer to patrol winter sports area 14,300 5,000

Update planning document for Trickle Mountain area of critical environmental concern 10,500 11,000

Establish consistent signs for motorized vehicle routes 20,000 20,000

Evaluate joint firewood cutting rules, regulations, and signs 8,000 8,000

Mountain Pine Beetle management - Cochetopa Hills 8,000 8,000

Joint support for Forest Keepers junior ranger program 5,000 5,000

San Juan Basin heritage site stewardship 84,000 40,000

Idaho - 4 initiatives

Temporary-use work station for peak service times at interagency visitor center 12,000 12,000

Shared minerals materials appraiser position 6,000 6,000

Eastern Idaho visitor information center 17,000 17,000

Additional funding for full National Environmental Policy Act compliance study 10,000 10,000

Montana - 3 initiatives

Fund BLM portion of joint off-highway vehicle environmental impact study/planning

amendment

45,000 25,000

Communication site improvements/tower replacement 50,000 12,000

Erect sign for BLM office colocated with Lewis & Clark National Forest office that already

has a sign

8,000 8,000

Nevada - 2 initiatives

Provide shared customer services and lay data and phone lines (2 proposals funded

together)

20,800 21,000

New Mexico - 2 initiatives

Shared telecommunication sites 69,500 26,000

Colocate BLM procurement staff into Forest Service building 70,000 20,000
Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000

Page 49 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Note: BLM is the Bureau of Land Management and FS is the Forest Service.

Source: GAO based on Forest Service and BLM data.

North Dakota - 1 initiative

Shared library/resource center to promote resource conservation 12,000 12,000

Oregon - 8 initiatives

Illinois Valley visitor information center staffing and supplies 8,000 8,000

Interagency trail brochure - electronic and hard copy versions 15,000 15,000

Interagency district manager position 43,000 43,000

Fund half of a position to develop proposals for regulatory and legislative changes in

personnel authorities to allow both agencies to use the same employment authorities

35,000 35,000

Evaluate colocation done in January 1999 to validate accomplishments and benchmark

successes

5,000 5,000

Service First transition coordinator position 50,000 25,000

Service First meeting - travel and per diem costs 9,000 9,000

Conservation owner’s manual 32,950 16,000

Utah - 3 initiatives

Leave No Trace 9,000 9,000

Outdoor recreation information center in Salt Lake City - seed money to shift operation to

a nonprofit

50,000 30,000

Interagency information center in St. George, Utah 57,000 27,000

Wisconsin - 1 initiative

American Outdoors brochure 3,000 3,000

Wyoming - 2 initiatives

Public information kiosk 10,000 10,000

Patent issuance delegation 5,000 5,000

Total $948,450 $300,000 $300,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funded by

Project

Amount

proposed BLM FS
Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000

Page 50 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Table 5: Purpose of Incentive Fund Projects Funded

Funding provided fora

Project Peopleb

Signs/

displaysc Publicationsd

Equipment/

materialse Vehiclesf

Buildings/

facilitiesg

Alaska - 1 initiative

Develop Web page for the Alaska Land

Managers Forum

$6,000

California - 2 initiatives

Develop a high-quality South Yuba River

joint recreation map

13,000

Shared radio/telecommunications

equipment

$25,000

Colorado - 11 initiatives

Complete office integration in San Luis

Valley

$5,000 15,000 $5,000

Identify and enter range improvements into

geographic information system

10,000

Identify and enter weed inventory into

geographic information system

10,000

Purchase two all-terrain vehicles to patrol

roads and trails

$5,000

Purchase two snowmobiles and a trailer to

patrol winter sports area

5,000

Update planning document for Trickle

Mountain area of critical environmental

concern

11,000

Consistent signs for motorized vehicle

routes

20,000

Joint firewood cutting rules, regulations, and

signs

8,000

Mountain Pine Beetle management -

Cochetopa Hills

8,000

Joint support for Forest Keepers junior

ranger program

5,000

San Juan Basin heritage site stewardship 40,000

Idaho - 4 initiatives

Temporary-use work station for peak service

times at interagency visitor center

12,000

Shared minerals materials appraiser position 6,000

Eastern Idaho visitor information center 17,000

Additional funding for full National

Environmental Policy Act compliance study

10,000
Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000

Page 51 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Montana - 3 initiatives

Fund BLM portion of joint off-highway

vehicles environmental impact

study/planning amendment

25,000

Communication site improvements/tower

replacement

12,000

Erect a sign for BLM office co-located with

Lewis & Clark National Forest office that

already has a sign

8,000

Nevada - 2 initiatives

Provide shared customer services and lay

data and phone lines (2 proposals funded

together)

2,500 7,500 1,500 8,700

New Mexico - 2 initiatives

Shared telecommunication sites 26,000

Colocate BLM procurement staff into Forest

Service building

20,000

North Dakota - 1 initiative

Shared library/resource center to promote

resource conservation

12,000

Oregon - 8 initiatives

Illinois Valley visitor information center

staffing and supplies

8,000

Interagency trail brochure - electronic and

hard copy versions

$ 15,000

Interagency district manager position 43,000

Fund half of a position to develop proposals

for regulatory and legislative changes in

personnel authorities to allow both agencies

to use the same employment authorities

35,000

Evaluate colocation done in January 1999 to

validate accomplishments and benchmark

successes

5,000

Service First transition coordinator position 25,000

Service First meeting - travel and per diem

costs

9,000

Conservation owner’s manual 16,000

Utah - 3 initiatives

Leave No Trace 9,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funding provided fora

Project Peopleb

Signs/

displaysc Publicationsd

Equipment/

materialse Vehiclesf

Buildings/

facilitiesg
Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000

Page 52 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

a

The “Funding provided for” categories exclude $800 in funding that does not fit into any of

the categories. The excluded amount does not affect the percentages shown.

b

People - Funding for specific positions such as a front desk receptionist, generic staff such

as seasonal workers, or people-intensive functions such as combining geographic

information system data, and meeting/workshop attendance (including per diem and

transportation costs).

c

Signs/displays - Funding for road or informational signs or interpretive displays. Includes

costs to design and fabricate the signs and displays.

d

Publications - Funding for publications such as maps, brochures, or manuals.

e

Equipment/materials - Funding for equipment, including computers and software,

telephones, and program materials.

f

Vehicles - Funding for vehicle use or purchase. Vehicles include off-road vehicles such as

all-terrain vehicles.

g

Buildings/facilities- Funding for new buildings or facilities as well as any additions,

improvements, or modifications to existing ones. Includes costs for upgrading/installing

telecommunication cable.

Source: GAO based on Forest Service and BLM data.

Outdoor recreation information center in Salt

Lake City - seed money to shift operation to

a nonprofit

30,000

Interagency information center in St.

George, Utah

22,000 4,000 1,000

Wisconsin - 1 initiative

American Outdoors brochure 3,000

Wyoming - 2 initiatives

Public information kiosk 10,000

Patent issuance delegation 5,000

Total $323,500 $52,500 $34,000 $17,500 $19,000 $52,700

Percentage of total funding provided 54% 9% 6% 20% 3% 9%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funding provided fora

Project Peopleb

Signs/

displaysc Publicationsd

Equipment/

materialse Vehiclesf

Buildings/

facilitiesg
Appendix VI

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal

Year 2000

Page 53 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Table 6: Service First Proposals Funded by State

Source: GAO based on Forest Service and BLM data.

State

Number of

proposals funded Amount funded

Alaska 1 $6,000

California 2 38,000

Colorado 11 147,000

Idaho 4 45,000

Montana 3 45,000

Nevada 2 21,000

New Mexico 2 46,000

North Dakota 1 12,000

Oregon 8 156,000

Utah 3 66,000

Wisconsin 1 3,000

Wyoming 2 15,000

Total 40 $600,000
Page 54 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiVI

As a follow-up to our report on the organizational structures and

responsibilities of the Forest Service and BLM,1 the chairmen of the

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and

Forestry, House Committee on Agriculture, and the Subcommittee on

Forests and Forest Health, House Committee on Resources, requested that

we assess the agencies’ Service First initiative. Specifically, we were asked

to address the following questions: (1) What have been the results to date

of the Service First initiative? (2) What opportunities exist to expand

Service First between the Forest Service and BLM? (3) What barriers exist

for expanding Service First between the Forest Service and BLM? In

addition, during the course of our work, we identified and examined other

issues—the Service First Incentive Fund and the Transfer Appropriation

Account.

To determine the current status of the Service First initiative, we reviewed

agency documents and evaluative reports; reviewed pertinent laws and

regulations; met with headquarters, regional/state, and local agency

officials; and requested that the agencies provide us information on the

ongoing Service First projects. The locations visited included both those

units that had participated in the initial pilot program as well as units

currently not participating in the program but generally located in the same

community as one another. The locations visited are shown in table 7.

Table 7: Locations Visited

1

Land Management: The Forest Service’s and BLM’s Organizational Structures and

Responsibilities, (GAO/RCED-99-227, July 29, 1999).

City and state Forest Service unit BLM unit

Denver, Colorado Region 2—Rocky Mountain

Region

Colorado State Office

Cañon City, Colorado San Carlos Ranger District,

Pike-San Isabel National

Forests

Cañon City District Office,

Front Range Center,

Royal Gorge Resource Area

Saguache, Colorado Saguache Ranger District,

Rio Grande National Forest

Saguache Field Office

La Jara, Colorado Conejos Peak Ranger

District, Rio Grande National

Forest

La Jara Field Office
Appendix VII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 55 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

In addition, to determine how the cross-delegation of authority was being

used, we obtained and reviewed the agency documents that delegated the

authorities, duties, and responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior to agency officials and discussed the

authorities with agency officials. We obtained agency documents—

memorandums of understanding, position descriptions, letters authorizing

cross-delegations, and organization charts—and discussed these with

agency officials. We also obtained a legal memorandum prepared by the

Department of Agriculture’s Office of the General Counsel concerning the

legality of one agency’s personnel supervising the other agency’s personnel

under the cross-delegation of authority—an issue raised by the union

representing Forest Service employees and discussed this memorandum

with officials of the Office of General Counsel as well as an official on the

Forest Service’s Human Resources Management staff who handles union

relations.

Del Norte, Colorado Divide Ranger District, Rio

Grande National Forest

None

Durango, Colorado San Juan National Forest San Juan Field Office

Montrose, Colorado Ouray Ranger District,

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre,

and Gunnison National

Forests

Uncompahgre Basin Field

Office

Grand Junction, Colorado Collbran/Grand Junction

Ranger District, Grand

Mesa, Uncompahgre, and

Gunnison National Forests

Grand Junction Field Office

Portland, Oregon Region 6—Pacific Northwest

Region

Oregon State Office

Prineville, Oregon Ochoco National Forest

Deschutes National Forest

Prineville District Office

Lakeview, Oregon Fremont National Forest

Winema National Forest

Lakeview District Office

Klamath Falls, Oregon Winema National Forest Klamath Falls Resource

Area Office

Roseburg, Oregon Umpqua National Forest Roseburg District Office

Coos Bay, Oregon Oregon Dunes National

Recreation Area

Powers Ranger District,

Siskiyou National Forest

Coos Bay District Office

City and state Forest Service unit BLM unit
Appendix VII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 56 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

To determine the results to date of the Service First projects, we asked the

agencies to provide electronic information on (1) the locations of all

participating units with ongoing projects, (2) the types of agreements under

which the projects were carried out, (3) the year the project was initiated,

(4) the type of activity the project involved, (5) the program goals the

project were intended to achieve, and (6) the savings and benefits achieved

by the project. The agencies did not readily have this information but

collected it from the field locations, consolidated the data, and forwarded

the electronic spreadsheets to us. While the agencies provided information

on a total of 588 projects, we needed to exclude 67 wildfire-related

projects, since fire activities have been well coordinated for many years

and we did not consider them efforts initiated as a result of Service First. In

addition, we excluded from our analysis (1) 152 pre-1996 projects, as these

predated the Service First initiative; (2) 83 projects from fiscal years 1996

and 1997 that were not part of the original pilot projects; and (3) 14 other

projects that were not between the Forest Service and BLM. The agencies

agreed that these non-Service First projects should be excluded. We

focused our analysis on 272 ongoing projects that were initiated beginning

in fiscal year 1996 when the pilot initiative began up until the first half of

fiscal year 2000.

We provided copies of the revised data to the agencies for their review and

concurrence. On a limited basis, we also reviewed the projects and

identified missing data elements and inconsistent information. Because of

time limitations, we could not verify the accuracy and reliability of all of

the information provided by the agencies; however, we used the agencies’

data as they were the only data available.

To estimate the total dollar savings for all Service First projects, we

developed in discussions with Forest Service and BLM officials four

financial savings categories: cost avoidance, one-time dollar savings,

annual savings, and cumulative dollar savings. We also requested that the

units provide us with documentation for the dollar savings claimed. The

financial data initially provided by the agencies were incomplete and

contained a number of inconsistencies. We discussed with the agencies our

concerns about the data and obtained additional information and made

corrections where needed. While we used the financial information

provided by these agencies, we did not independently verify its reliability

or trace it to the systems from which it came. We did not verify the

completeness or accuracy of all the data because such an effort would have

required a significant investment of time and resources. However, to the

extent practical, we reconciled inconsistencies in the data provided by the
Appendix VII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 57 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

agencies and reviewed in more detail the financial data from four of the

units that we visited. These units represent about 57 percent of the overall

dollar savings claimed.

To determine what opportunities exist for colocating Forest Service and

BLM facilities or administrative units, we identified 169 units where each

agency had one or more units in the same town or city. We identified these

units from data developed from our prior work. We contacted these units

and verified their latest addresses and updated field locations that had

undergone reorganizations. We contacted each of the units to determine

whether a BLM unit was currently colocated with a Forest Service unit and

vice versa. We determined whether these units were housed in a

government-owned or leased facility and, if leased, when the lease was to

expire. We also asked whether any discussions were under way concerning

colocation between the Forest Service and BLM or other government

agencies. We analyzed the data collected for these 169 units and identified

the potential candidates for colocating and also identified the primary

obstacles that the agencies may face in colocating.

To determine what barriers impede further collaboration and cooperation

between the agencies, we reviewed agency program and evaluative

documents; reviewed current and proposed legislation and regulations; and

discussed current and proposed projects with headquarters, regional/state,

and local agency personnel. We also met with customers receiving the

agencies’ services, union representatives, and representatives of the

Department of Agriculture’s Office of the General Counsel and the

Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor to obtain their views on

the programs and potential barriers.

To obtain an understanding of the fiscal year 2000 Service First Incentive

Fund, we interviewed members and advisers of the Interagency Steering

Committee concerning the formulation of the Incentive Fund. We also

obtained the original proposals, the selection criteria, and the identity of

projects funded. We discussed the selection process with officials from

BLM and the Forest Service who had key responsibilities in the Incentive

Fund process. We also categorized the projects by their proposed uses—

such as people, equipment/materials, and building/facilities. We also

assessed the purpose of the projects to determine whether the initiatives

were innovative or cutting-edge by comparing them with activities

routinely budgeted for by BLM and the Forest Service as part of their

normal appropriation process.
Appendix VII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

To determine how the Forest Service and BLM used the Transfer

Appropriation Account approved in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act,

we reviewed pertinent legislation, reviewed agency documents, and

discussed the proposed process with headquarters and local officials. We

also met with congressional staff who had been involved with the

introduction of the language in the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000.

We performed our work from October 1999 to October 2000 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 59 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VIII

Comments From the Forest Service ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 60 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative
Page 61 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix IX

Comments From the Bureau of Land

Management ApendxiIX
Appendix IX

Comments From the Bureau of Land

Management

Page 62 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative
Page 63 GAO-01-50 Service First Initiative

Appendix X

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiX

GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill, (202) 512-3841

Linda L. Harmon, (202) 512-3841

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Doreen Feldman, June Foster, Alfredo

Gómez, Bert Japikse, John Kalmar, and John Murphy made key

contributions to this report.

(141390) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00