Federal Land Management: Additional Documentation of Agency Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use
Published: 2009-02-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2000, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct certain activities, such as reducing hazardous vegetation, on U.S. Forest Service land when performing similar activities on adjacent state or private land. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received similar "Good Neighbor" authority in 2004, as did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah. Congress has also considered the authority's expansion to other states. GAO was asked to determine (1) the activities conducted under the authority; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to conduct Good Neighbor projects; and (3) successes, challenges, and lessons learned resulting from the authority's use. To do so, GAO reviewed Good Neighbor project documentation and interviewed federal and state officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Fifty-three projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority through fiscal year 2008, including 38 in Colorado and 15 in Utah, with most of the projects (44 of 53) conducted on U.S. Forest Service land. These projects included hazardous fuel reduction on about 2,700 acres of national forest and about 100 acres of BLM land, mostly in Colorado, and the repair of firedamaged trails and watershed protection and restoration in Utah. Together, the two agencies spent about $1.4 million on these projects, split almost evenly between the two states. Although most projects involved contracting for services such as fuel reduction, some projects involved timber sales in which contractors purchased timber resulting from their fuel reduction activities. These timber sales occurred only in Colorado and totaled about $26,000. State procedures are used in conducting Good Neighbor projects that involve service contracts, while projects that include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements. Both Colorado and Utah have contracting requirements that generally address three fundamental principles of government contracting--transparency, competition, and oversight. For example, both states solicit competition among bidders and generally require service contracts to be awarded to the lowest-priced bidder meeting the contract criteria. State requirements were generally comparable to federal procurement requirements. When Good Neighbor projects involve timber sales, state procedures incorporate certain requirements that help the U.S. Forest Service account for state removal of federal timber. The U.S. Forest Service and Colorado are currently supplementing their joint Good Neighbor procedures to ensure that additional accountability provisions are included in future timber sale contracts. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor timber sales, primarily because they have not sold timber under the authority. Such procedures could help ensure accountability for federal timber if future projects include such sales. Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state cooperation as its key benefits. For example, the agencies cited their ability to improve the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and private ownership. Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges such as a lack of understanding of the authority and complicated processes for approving Good Neighbor agreements. Agency officials and others also noted several factors to consider when conducting future Good Neighbor projects, whether in Colorado, Utah, or other states that may be granted the authority--including the type of projects to be conducted and the type of land to be treated. While the agencies are not required to document their experiences in using the authority, officials contemplating future use of the authority could benefit from such documentation--including information on successes, challenges, and lessons learned to date.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Pub. L. No. 106-291, § 331 (2000). (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider any significant  environmental impacts that may result from their actions.
Initially, Good Neighbor authority was slated to expire at the end of fiscal  year 2004, but Congress passed legislation that year extending the  authority until the end of fiscal year 2009. The 2004 legislation also  expanded Good Neighbor authority to include lands in Colorado managed  by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM);  this authority also expires in 2009. The same legislation also established  similar Good Neighbor authority concerning U.S. Forest Service land in  Utah, but did not require the state to conduct similar work on adjacent  state or private land; U.S. Forest Service authority in Utah expired at the  end of fiscal year 2008.
As Good Neighbor authority nears its expiration in Colorado and awaits  reauthorization in Utah, Congress has considered potential expansion of  the authority to other states. Legislation was introduced in the 110th  Congress that would expand this authority to include U.S. Forest Service  land in Wyoming, or to include all U.S. Forest Service and BLM land in the  western United States. In this context, you asked us to determine (1) the  activities conducted under Good Neighbor authority, including the  number, type, and scope of projects undertaken; (2) the federal and state  guidance, procedures, and controls being used to conduct Good Neighbor  projects, including contracting requirements and timber sale procedures;  and (3) the successes, challenges, or lessons learned, if any, that have  resulted from the use of Good Neighbor authority.
To determine the activities conducted under Good Neighbor authority in  Colorado and Utah, we reviewed and analyzed documentation from the  U.S. Forest Service; BLM; CSFS; and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire  and State Lands (UDFFSL). We also visited several completed or ongoing  Good Neighbor project sites in both Colorado and Utah and interviewed  federal and state officials to obtain an understanding of the type and scope  of work being conducted under the authority. To determine the federal  and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to conduct projects  under Good Neighbor authority, we reviewed project operating  procedures, federal and state procurement requirements, and federal and  state timber sale requirements, comparing the requirements in several  areas to identify similarities and differences. Finally, to determine the  successes, challenges, and lessons learned resulting from the use of Good  Neighbor authority, we interviewed federal and state officials involved  with the authority’s use in Colorado and Utah and discussed the potential  uses of Good Neighbor authority with state officials in Idaho, Oregon, and  Wyoming. We also spoke with other interested parties, including  environmental groups and industry representatives based in Colorado,  Utah, other western states, and Washington, D.C. Appendix I contains  more detailed information on the objectives, scope, and methodology of  our review. We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 through  February 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although its effect on communities can be devastating, wildland fire is a  natural and necessary process that provides many benefits to ecosystems,  such as maintaining habitat diversity, recycling soil nutrients, limiting the  spread of insects and disease, and promoting new growth by causing the  seeds of fire-dependent species to germinate. Wildland fire also  periodically removes brush, small trees, and other vegetation that can  otherwise accumulate and increase the size, intensity, and duration of  subsequent fires. Wildland fire occurs in various combinations of  frequency and severity, from low-severity events that return every few  decades to high-severity fires that occur once every 200 years or more.  Over the past century, however, various management practices—including  fire suppression, grazing, and timber harvest—have reduced the normal  frequency of fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems and  contributed to abnormally dense, continuous accumulations of vegetation,  which can fuel uncharacteristically large or severe wildland fires. The  impacts of these fires have intensified as more and more communities  develop in areas that are adjacent to fire-prone lands—the wildland-urban  interface. Federal researchers have estimated that unnaturally dense fuel  accumulations on 90 million to 200 million acres of federal lands in the  contiguous United States place these lands at an elevated risk of severe  wildland fire.
The rapid urbanization of forested land in Colorado and Utah has raised  concerns about the unhealthy condition of forests in those states and the  potential for resulting wildland fires. These forests also have undergone  insect and disease attacks of epidemic proportions, further weakening  them and contributing to the abundance of fuels for wildland fires. For  example, the mountain pine beetle epidemic now affecting the southern  Rocky Mountains and other western areas has produced vast areas of dead  and dying lodgepole pine forests in Colorado and Wyoming. In recent  years, wildland fires in Colorado and Utah have increasingly threatened  communities in the interface as well as watersheds (i.e., areas that are  drained by rivers or other waterways) that provide water to populated  areas in or near forests.
The U.S. Forest Service and BLM are the primary federal agencies  responsible for wildland fire management—together, they oversee about  450 million acres of forest and rangeland. These agencies take various  steps to reduce hazardous fuels (fuel reduction) on wildlands, including  mechanical treatments that use equipment to cut vegetation back to  desired levels (thinning), planned low-level fires that burn small trees and  underbrush (prescribed fire), herbicides that kill unwanted vegetation,  animal grazing, or combined treatments that comprise one or more of  these methods. Through these efforts, the agencies attempt to restore  forest and rangeland ecosystems to their historical conditions and reduce  the risk of severe wildland fires. Like their federal counterparts, some  state forest services also have an important role in community fire  prevention. Such agencies maintain crews that suppress wildland fires,  conduct forest thinning and prescribed burns, advise local landowners on  ways to build fire-resistant structures, and direct homeowners to local  contractors who provide fuel reduction services. They also assist in the  development of community wildland fire protection plans that set  priorities for fuel reduction treatments and recommend specific strategies  to reduce fire risk on public and private land.
In addition to efforts to reduce the risk that wildland fires will occur,  federal and state agencies take other steps to mitigate the impact of  wildland fires. These steps include projects to stabilize damaged areas and  rehabilitate them more quickly than would occur under natural conditions.  Such projects involve activities such as planting native grasses, shrubs,  and trees; protecting waterways from erosion that could introduce  sediment into municipal water supplies; and restoring habitat for local fish  and wildlife populations.
Attempts at widespread fuel reduction and postfire rehabilitation in the  wildland-urban interface can be frustrated by the diverse mixture of  property ownership typically found in this region. A single forest area may  contain tracts of land that are publicly owned, such as national forests and  state parklands, as well as tracts that are controlled by a multitude of  private owners. This mixed-ownership setting creates the potential for  individual pockets of untreated land to exist within a project area if some  property owners do not want to join the effort. For example, U.S. Forest  Service efforts to treat national forest land may be impeded if access to  these areas is dependent upon consent from private property owners.  Access to national forest land may also be limited if the project site falls  within an area where road construction is restricted. In such instances,  areas left untreated can diminish the effectiveness of the overall project.  Even if the U.S. Forest Service wanted to join the project, a separate  contract with the vendor—containing separate requirements for contract  performance—would typically be necessary.
Beginning in 1998, the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS began exploring ways  to manage land across ownership boundaries, particularly in wildland- urban interface areas. The two forest services agreed that management  activities such as fuel reduction should be undertaken only where  community interest and support exists, and, thus, these activities would be  driven largely by state, local, and private projects. To facilitate this work,  they determined that it would be useful for Colorado state foresters to  serve as agents of the U.S. Forest Service for the purpose of conducting  projects on federal lands immediately adjacent to state, local, or private  lands where similar work was under way. Colorado’s foresters would be  authorized to mark boundaries, designate trees for removal, and  administer other project activities—including sales of designated trees in  the project area—to reduce fuel risk on federal lands as a complement to  similar activities on adjacent lands. Because of the collaborative nature of  these projects, the proposed program became known as “Good Neighbor.”
In the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations  Act, 2001, Congress established the program, authorizing the U.S. Forest  Service to allow its state counterpart in Colorado to perform forest,  rangeland, and watershed restoration services, such as fuel reduction or  treatment of insect-infected trees, on national forest lands. The services  provided by the state, either directly or through contracts with private  vendors utilizing state contracting procedures, were permitted when  similar and complementary activities were being performed on adjacent  state or private lands. According to the subsequent agreement signed by  representatives of the two forest services, the following benefits were  anticipated from Good Neighbor authority:    national forest, state, and private lands would be at less risk from  fuel treatments would provide defensible space for firefighters to occupy  while combating fires moving from forests to developed areas, or vice  versa;   an impediment to cross-boundary watershed restoration activities would  be removed, resulting in greater protective and restorative  accomplishments; and   CSFS and the U.S. Forest Service would demonstrate cooperation as  encouraged in the National Fire Plan, the federal government’s wildland  fire management strategy.
Congressional reauthorization of Good Neighbor authority in 2004 added  BLM areas in Colorado to the authority’s scope. In addition, the 2004  legislation authorized the U.S. Forest Service to work with Utah’s forest  service to perform similar watershed restoration and protection projects  in Utah. Unlike the authorizing legislation for Colorado, however, there  was no provision in the authorizing legislation for Utah requiring Good  Neighbor projects to correspond to similar and complementary activities  under way on adjacent state or private lands.
The U.S. Forest Service manages 11 national forests in Colorado, within  the agency’s Rocky Mountain Region, and manages 7 national forests in  Utah, within the Intermountain Region. Each national forest is divided  into ranger districts that conduct or oversee “on-the-ground” activities.  BLM lands in Colorado are managed by the Colorado State Office, which  in turn oversees BLM field offices across the state. CSFS administers 17  districts throughout the state, each led by a district forester. UDFFSL, a  unit of the state’s Department of Natural Resources, is divided into six  areas, each administered by an area manager.
section_title: Fifty-three Good Neighbor Projects Have Been Conducted in Colorado and Utah for Fuel Reduction and Other Purposes
paragraphs: Under Good Neighbor authority, 53 projects have been conducted in  Colorado and Utah as of the end of fiscal year 2008 at a cost to the federal  government of about $1.4 million. Colorado Good Neighbor projects  focused on fuel reduction activities, such as tree thinning, mostly in the  Colorado wildland-urban interface. In Utah, Good Neighbor projects  focused on the repair of fire-damaged trails and watershed protection and  restoration.
subsections: section_title: Colorado Good Neighbor Projects Focused on Fuel Reduction
paragraphs: In Colorado, 38 projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority  from fiscal year 2002, after the authority was granted, through fiscal year  2008. These projects primarily focused on fuel reduction. CSFS planned  these projects in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service or BLM, as well  as private owners, and then contracted with private vendors or state crews  to perform the work on U.S. Forest Service or BLM land. Of these 38  projects, 29 were on U.S. Forest Service land. These 29 projects included  fuel reduction treatment on about 2,400 acres in 5 of the 11 national  forests in the state—the Arapaho, Pike, Roosevelt, San Isabel, and San  Juan National Forests––with 25 of the projects conducted in the Pike and  San Isabel National Forests. The remaining 9 Good Neighbor projects  occurred on forested BLM land covering about 100 acres in Boulder  County. The number of acres being treated under individual Good  Neighbor projects on U.S. Forest Service land in Colorado ranged from 1  acre to about 300 acres and on BLM land ranged from 2 acres to 21 acres.  Figure 1 depicts the number of Good Neighbor projects in each of the  Colorado national forests and BLM areas.
Costs to the U.S. Forest Service for the 29 projects conducted on its land  in Colorado have totaled about $679,000 through fiscal year 2008, while  costs to BLM for its 9 projects in Boulder County have totaled $74,000  through the same time period. Individual project costs in Colorado varied,  ranging from a low of $7,000 to a high of $233,000, depending on the  number of acres treated and the type of work and equipment required. For  example, one U.S. Forest Service district ranger stated that in a typical  tree-thinning project, the contractor would pile and burn the cut branches  and other thinned material (known as slash) resulting from the work,  which is relatively inexpensive, but when the work is done in close  proximity to homes, it usually requires more expensive treatments and  means of disposal, such as mechanical grinding or chipping.
In Colorado, Good Neighbor projects have been initiated as part of larger  fuel reduction efforts being planned or conducted by the state on state,  local, and private land in the state’s wildland-urban interface. The Good  Neighbor project portion is usually smaller—in acres and cost—than the  overall fuel reduction effort in a given area. For example, in the upper  South Platte region, which includes portions of the Pike National Forest,  CSFS has reduced fuels on thousands of acres in highly fire-prone areas on  Denver Water land and other privately owned land after a severe fire in  1996 caused extensive sediment runoff into a primary Denver water  source. However, a portion of these lands was adjacent or intermingled  with Pike National Forest land, making it difficult to effectively treat the  entire area without conducting work on federal land. According to CSFS  officials, the state, as a result of the Good Neighbor authority, was able to  contract with individual vendors to perform the work required on several  hundred acres of the Pike National Forest as well as on private lands,  thereby ensuring a seamless fuel reduction effort across Denver Water,  private, and U.S. Forest Service lands. Figure 2 shows a slash pile on a fuel  reduction project site in the Pike National Forest.
In most Good Neighbor projects, the state either performs the services or  contracts with vendors under a service contract; however, several projects  in Colorado on U.S. Forest Service land were conducted under timber sale  contracts in which fuel reduction projects aimed at thinning forests are  structured as timber sales. Acting through Good Neighbor authority, state  foresters sold the timber to professional loggers or, in some cases, to  residents of adjacent subdivisions who used it for firewood. Instead of  having to pay fuel reduction contractors to remove the timber, the U.S.  Forest Service received a small amount of sale revenue from the state and  paid only for the state forester’s administration of the sale. Of the 29  Good Neighbor projects the CSFS has conducted in Colorado on U.S.  Forest Service land, 15 were conducted in the San Isabel National Forest  and 1 was conducted in the Pike National Forest using timber sale  contracts. Through these timber contracts, about 345,000 cubic feet of  timber has been harvested and sold as of September 30, 2008, for a total of  about $19,000. According to CSFS officials, the amount received for the  timber is relatively small because the ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and  mixed conifer timber primarily found in the Pike and San Isabel National  Forests is small and of low value, as is timber in much of the rest of  Colorado, in part, because of limited markets for timber.
In addition, in 3 of the 13 Good Neighbor projects that involved service  contracts on U.S. Forest Service land, timber sales were included as part  of the service contract, rather than in a separate timber sale contract. As  an incentive to attract bidders for these projects, timber harvested during  fuel reduction was permitted to be removed from the forest and sold to  local mills, rather than cut and piled on-site. Because prospective bidders  contemplated the value of this timber in their bids, the cost of the resulting  service contract was likely lower than it would have been without the  incentive. For 2 of these projects, 1 located in the San Juan National  Forest and the other located in the Arapaho National Forest, the total  volume and value of included timber was 278 CCF for $1,378 and 1,312  CCF for $5,472, respectively.
section_title: Utah Good Neighbor Projects Focused on Rehabilitation of Burned Areas and Watershed Health
paragraphs: In Utah, 15 projects have been conducted under Good Neighbor authority  from fiscal year 2005, when the authority was enacted, through fiscal year  2008. All of the projects in Utah have been conducted in one national  forest––the Dixie National Forest—which is in the southern part of the  state. According to a U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region official,  U.S. Forest Service ranger district officials in the Dixie National Forest  and UDFFSL Southwestern Area officials have historically had a good  relationship with each other and thought Good Neighbor projects could be  beneficial to both. As a result, U.S. Forest Service officials in this district  decided to use Good Neighbor authority to conduct several projects that  they had originally planned to undertake themselves. Figure 3 depicts the  national forests located in Utah and the number of projects undertaken in  the one forest that has used the authority.
The types of Good Neighbor projects in Utah are more diverse than those  in Colorado. Unlike Colorado, where the projects are generally driven by  overall state fuel reduction initiatives, in Utah, the U.S. Forest Service  initiates projects and then obtains the assistance of UDFFSL to perform  work on national forest land. According to Utah state officials, of the 15  Good Neighbor projects conducted in Utah, only 2 projects were fuel  reduction-related, where state crews burned piles of brush and slash on  over 300 acres near adjacent private lands to assist the U.S. Forest Service  in a larger fuel reduction project in the forest. Of the remaining 13  projects, 8 involved using state crews or contractors to rehabilitate burned  areas following wildland fires, including activities such as repairing and  constructing fences, cleaning impoundments used by cattle and wildlife,  and reconstructing forest trails. In the 5 remaining Good Neighbor  projects, the state used crews or contractors to protect the watershed  from erosion and sediment runoff by, for example, rehabilitating trails  used by all-terrain vehicles and transportation and placement of large  barrier rocks on either side of a roadway near public campsites to prevent  vehicles from traveling off-road and damaging forest resources (see fig. 4).
Costs to the U.S. Forest Service for these 15 projects have totaled about  $674,000 through fiscal year 2008. As in Colorado, costs varied depending  on the type of work and equipment provided. For example, project costs  ranged from $1,500 for a pile burning on a few acres to $174,000 for  replacement of existing culverts—large pipes that allow natural waterways  to flow under road crossings—with new structures that will improve the  forest watershed by facilitating the passage of trout and other fish species.
section_title: Good Neighbor Projects Are Generally Governed by State Procedures, but Projects Involving Timber Sales Also Incorporate Certain Federal Requirements
paragraphs: State procedures are used for projects that involve service contracts,  which include most Good Neighbor projects to date, while projects that  include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements. We  examined both states’ contracting requirements concerning three  fundamental principles of government contracting—transparency,  competition, and oversight—and found that state requirements generally  address each of these areas. The U.S. Forest Service and CSFS are  currently updating their Good Neighbor timber sale procedures, however,  to make certain that timber sales conducted under the authority include all  protections that federal officials believe are necessary when dealing with  federal timber. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in  Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor  timber sales, primarily because neither agency has sold timber under the  authority. However, such procedures could help ensure accountability for  federal timber if these agencies conduct such sales in the future.
subsections: section_title: State Procedures Are Generally Used for Projects That Involve Service Contracts
paragraphs: State procedures generally govern Good Neighbor projects that involve  service contracts, which include 37 of the 53 Good Neighbor projects to  date. Good Neighbor projects are initiated under the authority of Good  Neighbor agreements between each state and federal agency, which  describe at a high level the authority and responsibilities of each agency in  conducting projects, including the project’s planning, design, preparation,  contracting, and administration. For those projects involving service  contracts, Good Neighbor agreements allow the states to use their own  procedures to enter into contracts with vendors that provide services,  such as fuel reduction, in conducting forest restoration projects, or the  states may use their own crews to carry out the work. Under the  agreements, however, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM retain certain  authorities when Good Neighbor projects are conducted. For example, for  projects carried out on their respective lands, the U.S. Forest Service and  BLM remain responsible for ensuring that the requirements of NEPA are  satisfied. Once NEPA requirements are satisfied and project planning is  completed, the state and federal agencies develop a task order for each  project, detailing its objectives and cost. The state can then proceed with  procuring the needed services using its own procurement and contracting  process. In Colorado, the Colorado State University (CSU) administers  procurement and contracting for all CSFS service contracts, including  those for Good Neighbor projects. In Utah, procurement and contracting  for service contracts are administered and approved by either UDFFSL or  the Utah Division of Purchasing, depending on the size of the  procurement.
We examined CSU’s and the Utah agencies’ contracting requirements  concerning three fundamental principles of government contracting— transparency, competition, and oversight. Specifically, we examined each  state agency’s procurement rules concerning the following practices:    soliciting contracts through public notice, with reasonable time allowed  for potential vendors to develop and offer their bids;   ensuring competition, except in cases where there are legitimate  extenuating circumstances, such as projects for which there is only one  responsive bidder;   using simplified acquisition procedures for contracts whose dollar value is  below a specified amount;   awarding contracts to the lowest-priced vendor when evaluating  competing offers, and requiring justification when any additional criteria,  such as past performance, are used;   giving preference to small businesses when awarding contracts;    avoiding the awarding of contracts to private vendors for the performance  of inherently governmental functions, such as budgeting and hiring; including worker protection provisions in state contracts;    conducting orientation conferences with vendors at project sites; and    providing for ongoing quality control, and requiring the government to  conduct quality assurance inspections to determine whether the vendor is  fulfilling the contract.
In our analysis, we found that the state agencies’ contracting and  procurement requirements generally address each of these areas. We  discuss five of these areas in the following text:    We found that agencies in both states provide a reasonable amount of time  to advertise and receive bid proposals as well as provide competition  among vendors. In CSU procurements, for example, contracts for services  that will cost between $25,000 and $150,000 are generally advertised on  Colorado’s Internet bidding system for not less than 3 days—to allow  vendors time to develop and offer their bids. CSU provides additional  requirements for procurements relating to CSFS forest-related work,  allowing a minimum of 14 days for vendors to submit a bid regardless of  the type of procurement because vendors that may be interested are often  in the field conducting forest-related work and may not see the  advertisement for several days. Services that will cost less than $25,000 are  left to the discretion of the purchasing agent, who may advertise the bid or  solicit vendors via telephone to determine whether they are interested.  According to CSU procurement officials in Colorado, competition is  generally promoted, except in two circumstances: (1) when only one  vendor is available, and the contract has to be awarded to that vendor, or  (2) the service being obtained will cost less than $25,000, which allows the  purchasing agent to obtain services through other state agencies, such as  the Colorado Corrections Industry, without written justification, if a fair  market price is obtained. Competition is similarly promoted in Utah,  according to state contracting officials, but contracting officers in the state  may use informal procedures to acquire services, if the services will cost  less than $50,000. For example, to award a $30,000 service contract, the  state’s centralized Division of Purchasing may solicit telephone bids from  three known vendors, then select one of the three vendors. This would not  be an acceptable amount of competition for acquisitions exceeding  $50,000, which would require the invitation to bid to be disseminated via  the state’s Internet bidding system for a minimum of 10 days’ bidding time.
Agencies in both states are generally required to award a contract to the  lowest-priced bidder who meets the requirements set forth in the  solicitation for bids for contracts, except in certain circumstances, such as  when contracts are sizable enough to require a request for proposal—in  which the state requires bidders to address additional criteria in their bids,  such as technical requirements—or when strong justifications for not  choosing the lowest bidder can be documented by the contracting officer.
Additional requirements are imposed by the state agency to ensure that  contracts are awarded to reputable contractors. For example, contract  terms and conditions in both states require contractors to certify that they  have not been debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment by any  governmental department or agency. In addition, for all proposed  contracts that are federally funded, including Good Neighbor contracts,  CSU purchasing agents search for prospective vendors’ names on the  General Services Administration’s Excluded Parties List System, which is a  database for obtaining information on parties that are excluded from  receiving federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain federal  financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. If a prospective vendor  is on the list, the CSU purchasing agent will not consider this vendor’s bid,  even if it is the lowest priced.
According to state agency officials, the procurement policies of agencies  in both states encourage contracting for services with small or  disadvantaged businesses, although there are no specific set asides for  small or disadvantaged businesses in either state. A CSU official stated  that CSU promotes such businesses through a small business program,  and that about 90 percent of CSFS contracts, including contracts for Good  Neighbor projects, go to small businesses. However, attaining this  percentage is not a requirement, according to this official, but simply  results from the fact that types of work required in forest restoration  projects, such as fuel reduction, are typically performed by small  businesses. A Utah Division of Purchasing official stated that, although set  asides are not required in Utah, the state will incorporate them into any  procurement if the federal government requires set asides as the condition  of a particular grant or contract under which the procurement is  conducted. The official added that the federal government, rather than the  state, is ultimately responsible for determining whether contracts are  awarded pursuant to federal requirements for small businesses.
According to state agency officials in both states, contractors are generally  required to have liability insurance. In addition, the state agencies  incorporate federal worker protection provisions into state contracts as  requested by federal agencies. For example, the Migrant and Seasonal  Agricultural Workers Protection Act is a federal law that applies to  migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, including at least some forestry  workers. While none of the agencies we reviewed specifically requires  that the act’s provisions be explicitly included in state contracts,  procurement officials in both states said that they include such federal  provisions if they are conditions of grants or are otherwise stipulated in  federal-state agreements.
The responsibility for monitoring contract performance—through  activities such as project site visits to ensure satisfactory work and a  quality assurance inspection at the job’s completion—is largely left to the  state forest services’ project managers in the field. However, both states  use contract mechanisms to ensure that a vendor’s performance meets  government standards, including performance bonding and requirements  that contractors operate within an agency-approved scope of work.
In reviewing state requirements concerning transparency, competition,  and oversight, we compared selected state procurement and contracting  requirements with those in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),  which governs federal procurement activities, as well as specific U.S.  Forest Service and BLM procurement guidance, and found them to be  generally comparable. For example, we reviewed FAR provisions on   (1) publicizing contract actions, which can include the establishment of a  minimum bidding period that gives potential vendors a reasonable  opportunity to respond; (2) competition requirements, which includes a  requirement to provide for full and open competition through the use of  competitive procedures, but allows for an exception to these procedures  in limited circumstances, for example, if there is only one suitable vendor;  and (3) quality assurance, which details several mechanisms—including  inspection requirements and contract clauses—for maintaining project  oversight and ensuring that the government receives quality work.  Although we did not analyze all portions of the FAR, our broad  comparison suggests that state and federal procurement requirements are  generally similar in the areas we examined.
section_title: Projects That Include Timber Sales Incorporate Both State and Federal Requirements
paragraphs: While most Good Neighbor projects are carried out through service  contracts, certain CSFS districts in Colorado, such as the Salida District,  also use timber sale contracts to conduct fuel reduction projects when the  project is expected to involve the harvest of merchantable timber. In such  cases, CSFS Good Neighbor timber operating procedures incorporate  certain federal requirements beyond those used for ordinary state timber  sales, to ensure proper oversight of, and accountability for, state removal  of federal timber. For example, the following additional project  requirements are included in Good Neighbor timber sale operating  procedures:    state foresters should determine the timber sale volume, using standard  federal tree sampling methods;   state foresters should work with the local U.S. Forest Service ranger  district to develop a sale appraisal and determine a minimum bid price;  and   project sites with total timber sale volume greater than 25 CCF or values  greater than $5,000 should be marked with U.S. Forest Service tracer paint  to identify trees to be cut and boundaries around the area in which cutting  is to take place.
CSFS officials, in conjunction with U.S. Forest Service regional officials,  developed these CSFS timber operating procedures in 2007, in response to  confusion over the requirements governing timber sales. When Good  Neighbor authority was first being used, general operating procedures  were contained in the master agreements, but no specific operating  procedures existed, and some CSFS district officials were unsure about, or  unaware of, certain requirements that needed to be followed as part of  conducting a timber sale on federal land. We reviewed the provisions in  the initial timber sale contracts that CSFS administered under Good  Neighbor authority and found that they were not as extensive as standard  U.S. Forest Service timber sale contracts. For example, the state Good  Neighbor timber sale contracts did not specifically require the contractor  to consider additional activities associated with the project, such as road  maintenance, and did not include information about whether threatened  and endangered species were in the project area. In addition, these  contracts did not include detailed descriptions of the type and amount of  timber sold. This type of information was included in standard U.S. Forest  Service timber sale contracts. CSFS’s recent operating procedures address  these issues, and a U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region official  told us that CSFS has begun to include some of this information in more  recent timber sale contracts—for example, CSFS included a clause  addressing threatened and endangered species in a recent timber sale  contract.
Some U.S. Forest Service officials told us, however, that they remain  concerned about certain aspects of timber sales conducted under Good  Neighbor authority. Accordingly, the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS are  drafting additional timber procedures that were not addressed in the initial  procedures in 2007. These revised operating procedures add or revise  procedures that identify federal and state roles in Good Neighbor timber  sales from the initial NEPA documentation through the sale and  subsequent harvesting of national forest timber. For example, the agencies  are considering adding procedures for better accountability of timber sales  by outlining the necessary information that needs to be included in the  U.S. Forest Service’s Timber Information Management System, a system  which tracks all information connected with each federal timber sale from  its inception to completion. These provisions are currently in draft form,  but when finalized will be considered joint operating procedures for both  agencies.
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has already begun initiating some  changes to the timber sale contract requirements in its latest Good  Neighbor projects. According to a U.S. Forest Service official, one  important change to the procedure is that national forest timber will be  considered as “sold” first to the state, which in turn will sell it to the  private contractor. According to a CSFS official, project task orders for  timber sale contracts will clearly specify any special U.S. Forest Service  contract requirements that are the responsibility of the state, which in turn  will hold the contractor accountable for meeting those requirements. With  this change, the state will more clearly know what special additions they  must make to their Good Neighbor timber sale contract for a particular  project. State officials believe this change will improve the project  administration by the state and the accountability for enforcing certain  U.S. Forest Service requirements. For example, an October 2008 Good  Neighbor timber sale contract between the state and the buyer includes a  U.S. Forest Service stipulation resulting from the project’s federal NEPA  analysis, specifically prohibiting logging work from December 1 through  April 15, to avoid interfering with the winter range of big game animals,  such as deer and elk. Under the new contracting provisions, the state is  now responsible for enforcing this provision.
We did not compare Colorado’s timber sale requirements with those of  BLM, or Utah’s with those of the U.S. Forest Service, because neither BLM  in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has conducted timber  sales under Good Neighbor authority to date, and neither BLM in Colorado  nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for  doing so. According to a CSFS official, detailed operating procedures for  BLM Good Neighbor projects have not been developed because CSFS’s  experience with the agency—consisting of nine projects in Boulder  County at a total cost of $74,000—has been too limited to justify spending  time and resources in developing such procedures. In addition, a BLM  official stated that if the agency decided to have CSFS conduct timber  sales as part of its Good Neighbor projects, it would likely require CSFS to  utilize a BLM timber sales contract on the basis of agency timber sale  requirements, or work with CSFS to ensure that the necessary federal  requirements were accounted for in a state timber sales contract. As for  Utah, a senior UDFFSL official told us that there is no official UDFFSL  timber sale contract or process, because neither UDFFSL nor its parent  Department of Natural Resources is involved in the sale of state timber.  Instead, this is the role of a separate state agency that administers real  estate trusts granted to Utah at statehood and is not involved in Good  Neighbor projects. UDFFSL has developed a sale contract template for  private landowners to use when selling timber from their land to  commercial loggers. If timber were sold as part of a Good Neighbor  project in Utah, a senior UDFFSL official speculated that agency managers  in the field might use this contract template in the absence of other  guidance.
Although the value of timber removed through Good Neighbor projects  has been minimal, the agencies’ experiences in using the authority to sell  timber have demonstrated the importance of having detailed Good  Neighbor timber sale operating procedures. Such procedures can help  ensure that officials in both the federal and state agencies understand each  agency’s roles and responsibilities and can help provide the guidance  necessary to ensure proper accountability for federal timber. Should BLM  in Colorado or the U.S. Forest Service in Utah decide to undertake timber  sales through Good Neighbor authority in the future, or should the  authority be expanded to include other states where such timber sales  might occur, both federal and state agencies would benefit from written  procedures detailing each party’s responsibilities in conducting Good  Neighbor project timber sales.
section_title: Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority to Date Could, If Better Documented, Provide Insight for Potential Expansion of Its Use
paragraphs: Federal and state officials who have participated in Good Neighbor  projects cited project efficiencies as the authority’s primary benefit,  including the ability to begin work more quickly and to reduce hazardous  fuels across multiple ownerships with a single contract. The authority also  provides a forum for federal-state cooperation that can aid other  collaborative efforts, such as emergency wildland fire suppression.  Challenges encountered by the agencies include federal and state officials’  incomplete understanding of how projects should be administered under  the authority and concern about the adequacy of state contract  procedures. Future use of Good Neighbor authority may benefit from  documentation of agency experiences in using the authority to date,  particularly since stakeholders told us that the authority’s chances for  success in other states hinge on several factors, including the structure,  staffing levels, and workloads of other state forest services, as well as the  characteristics of those states’ federal lands.
subsections: section_title: Benefits of Good Neighbor Authority Include Project Efficiencies and Increased Federal-State Cooperation
paragraphs: Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited  project efficiencies as its primary benefit. The efficiencies cited include an  ability to begin work more quickly, in part because the Colorado and Utah  state forest services have established relationships with local communities  and in part because state contracting procedures are considered to be  simpler than federal procedures. In Colorado, for example, CSFS’s mission  includes a mandate to assist local property owners with forest  management on their lands. The state agencies’ resulting familiarity with  local communities extends to knowledge of local vendors that offer  services such as fuel reduction, which—combined with the states’  simplified contracting procedures—can shorten the time required to  identify a suitable contractor, secure a contract, and begin work.  According to one U.S. Forest Service district ranger in Colorado, this type  of local-level coordination with private landowners and local contractors  is not a specialty of most ranger districts’ staff. The state foresters’  familiarity with local landowners also speeds implementation when access  is required across private land to reach a project site on federal land—for  example, when a project site is far from existing forest roadways but is  near a network of private roads within a subdivision. In one such instance,  the U.S. Forest Service needed to gain access through a private  subdivision to treat a densely forested area in an adjoining national forest.  As part of a Good Neighbor agreement, CSFS negotiated with the  subdivision’s owners to gain access to the site so that a private contractor  could begin work. Figure 5 shows a map of the project area.
According to state officials, securing this access is often less time- consuming for state foresters because, as a result of their state agencies’  emphasis on local outreach, they are often better known in the community  than their federal counterparts. Moreover, several state officials noted that  the U.S. Forest Service sometimes attempts to secure a permanent  easement across private land in this scenario, which is less likely to result  in a landowner’s cooperation, instead of temporary access for the duration  of a specific project.
The ability to begin work more quickly can be important when Good  Neighbor projects use funding that is only available for the remainder of  the current fiscal year. (Good Neighbor projects do not receive dedicated  funding; instead, projects are funded from a variety of accounts, including  grant funds.) In certain cases, the U.S. Forest Service decides to fund a  project for one field unit near the end of the fiscal year—for example, by  shifting funds from another field unit that has no further fuel reduction  activities to fund that year. Partnering with the state forest service through  a Good Neighbor agreement that expedites contracting can allow the  project to be started prior to the end of the current fiscal year.
In some cases, according to federal and state officials, using state foresters  to administer Good Neighbor projects increased the efficiency of federal  activities because the state was willing to assume responsibility for project  administration. For example, state foresters in Utah performed project  management duties, such as locating responsible vendors, negotiating  contracts, and processing payments to vendors as work progressed.  According to Utah officials, the state forest service was willing to  undertake these Good Neighbor project duties because the projects  benefited shared watersheds, accomplished important work for  communities, and had a positive impact on local economies. Similarly,  Colorado’s state forest service administered Good Neighbor fuel reduction  projects in the state’s South Platte district under an arrangement funded  by Denver Water, which benefited from the resulting watershed  protection. In other cases, because the state structured fuel reduction  projects as timber sales, fees related to the state forester’s administration  of these sales were the only costs to the federal government—there were  no service costs.
The use of Good Neighbor authority also increased the effectiveness of  fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and private  ownership and helped to maximize the degree of wildland fire risk  reduction per dollar spent on the project, according to agency officials.  Arranging for a single vendor to perform the work across ownership  boundaries increased the likelihood that forest treatment was conducted  in a uniform way and avoided leaving untreated land parcels in the project  area. According to one U.S. Forest Service official, the ability to treat land  parcels under multiple ownerships is critical because fire “doesn’t know  the boundary” between federal, state, and private forest land.
Given the advantages of partnering with the state—including the ability to  negotiate access agreements, find suitable vendors, utilize more nimble  contracting procedures, and share some project management duties—the  use of Good Neighbor authority allowed the agencies to accomplish more  than they would have accomplished in the absence of the authority,  according to officials with whom we spoke. As U.S. Forest Service officials  in Utah noted, the ability to leverage state employees to work on national  forest lands increases the number of initiatives that a manager can  undertake. For example, the Cedar City ranger district in the Dixie  National Forest enlisted the state to reconstruct an all-terrain vehicle trail  running through the forest, adding a layer of gravel to prevent trail erosion  from continuing to spread sediment into nearby wetlands. According to  the project’s federal manager, U.S. Forest Service crews’ already heavy  workload was one reason for giving the project to the state. A second  reason was UDFFSL’s ability to employ a county road crew on the project  that would do similar work on private portions of the trail that access  nearby communities. In other cases, projects benefiting local  communities may “fly under the  Forest Service’s radar,” as one state  official said. That is, due to their inaccessible location or relatively small  size, the national forest portions of some fuel reduction projects may not  have been part of the U.S. Forest Service’s annual work plan until the state  proposed including the parcels in landscapewide projects being planned  for state and private property. Using state crews and private companies to  do this work has additional advantages. For example, state and federal  officials in Utah said that employing seasonal state fire response personnel  on Good Neighbor projects brings revenue to the state that allows it to  maintain these personnel for a longer period, keeping them available for  emergency fire response outside of the state’s peak summer fire season.  On the other hand, having the state contract with private companies  allows the skills needed for necessary work such as fuel reduction to  develop within a community, increasing the number of potential vendors  that are qualified to work with federal agencies in the future.
In addition to creating project and agency efficiencies, the use of Good  Neighbor authority provided a forum for collaboration between federal  and state agencies that officials told us can increase the effectiveness of  other cooperative efforts. For example, emergency suppression of  wildland fires demands that agency officials be able to coordinate under  tight time and resource constraints with representatives of many different  governmental entities. According to federal and state officials, this  coordination is made easier by past working relationships on collaborative  projects, such as those conducted under Good Neighbor authority that  develop familiarity and instill mutual trust. This collaboration is useful  outside of emergency scenarios as well. Officials identified stewardship  contracting—where agencies use other special contracting authorities,  such as the exchange of timber for fuel reduction services, to meet  community land management needs—as another initiative that can benefit  from a shared history of cooperation on Good Neighbor projects.
section_title: Challenges in Conducting Projects Include Lack of Understanding of the Authority and Concern about Adequacy of State Contract Procedures
paragraphs: Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges in using  Good Neighbor authority, including a lack of understanding of the  authority that has complicated partnerships between federal and state  officials. In Colorado, several state foresters said that their initial attempts  to interest their U.S. Forest Service counterparts in potential projects were  hampered by the federal officials’ lack of familiarity with the authority. In  some of these areas, projects were eventually undertaken, but confusion  about roles and responsibilities made project implementation more  difficult—especially for projects involving timber sales. In Utah, projects  have been conducted by only one national forest, in partnership with one  of the state’s six districts. State officials in two of Utah’s remaining  districts reported that they have encountered a lack of awareness of the  authority from their prospective federal counterparts, similar to the early  years of Colorado’s Good Neighbor experience.
Likewise, concern over the adequacy of state contracting procedures  hampered the use of the authority. Some U.S. Forest Service officials in  Colorado considered state timber sale procedures to be insufficient to  protect federal interests and imposed additional contracting requirements  on the state before agreeing to Good Neighbor projects. For example, in  one Colorado district, a state forester’s agreement with the local U.S.  Forest Service ranger district staff about how to proceed on an early Good  Neighbor project was overruled by the ranger district’s regional  management, which placed additional requirements on the project. The  regional office did not approve of some of the state’s processes—such as  the state’s appraisal of timber value, and the way the state’s timber  contract was written—and asked that additional requirements be included  to ensure that the state could account for any federal timber removed.  This request resulted in two separate contracts with the project’s single  vendor—one for work being done on U.S. Forest Service land, and a  second for work being done on private land. In another state district, a  state forester who coordinated Good Neighbor projects for two ranger  districts on the same national forest found that project requirements in  one ranger district were more rigorous than for those in the other. In the  latter district, the ranger allowed the state forester to administer projects  involving timber sales using state contracting processes; however, the  ranger in charge of the first district required that the U.S. Forest Service  have more involvement in administering that district’s sale, believing that  the U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale procedures did a better job of holding  contractors accountable for their project performance than did state  contracting procedures.
Some state and federal officials found the overlay of federal requirements  burdensome, making them less likely to participate in Good Neighbor  projects. In one state district where U.S. Forest Service regional  management imposed additional federal requirements on early projects  because of doubts about the sufficiency of state procedures, state officials  expressed a reluctance to pursue future projects until differences between  the federal and state approaches are resolved. A former U.S. Forest  Service official involved in this district’s projects said that the region’s  additional requirements were counter to Good Neighbor’s core philosophy  of landscape-level management requiring one appraisal, one vendor, and  one contract. A second federal official added that the timber involved in  these projects was of such little value that the attempt to add additional  time-consuming accountability procedures was not cost-effective. State  officials in the district and their federal counterparts have not pursued  additional Good Neighbor projects to date, but state officials noted that  timber sale procedures have been streamlined in the years since they  experienced their early difficulties.
In addition, the CSFS official in charge of coordinating Good Neighbor  projects for the state said that the cumbersome administrative process  imposed by both CSU and the U.S. Forest Service has effectively  eliminated the use of Good Neighbor authority for small-scale projects in  Colorado, frustrating an important original intent of the program. This  process often makes such activities—for example, allowing an individual  landowner to expand fuel reduction treatments onto U.S. Forest Service  land to remove insect-infested trees or to establish an adequate defensible  space for improved wildland fire protection—too burdensome and time- consuming to pursue. According to the CSFS official, both CSFS and U.S.  Forest Service timber staff have recognized the need to streamline the task  order approval process to address this problem if Good Neighbor  authority is extended.
According to several federal and state officials, a lack of detailed guidance  in the early years of using Good Neighbor authority created confusion over  the respective duties of federal and state project participants. In Colorado,  federal and state officials issued general project guidelines as part of their  Good Neighbor master agreement that addressed general operating  procedures, but did not provide specific project-level direction— particularly concerning the use of timber sales in fuel reduction projects.  As we have previously mentioned, more detailed guidance specifically  addressing timber sales was issued in 2007, as a result of lessons learned  from projects involving such sales and in recognition of the fact that sale  procedures being used in some ranger districts differed from those used in  others. These procedures are now being revised by the U.S. Forest Service  and CSFS to address unresolved issues, such as how Good Neighbor  timber sales should be reported in the U.S. Forest Service’s performance  and financial tracking systems. The revised guidance—now in draft form— also includes additional timber accountability procedures. In Utah, U.S.  Forest Service and state officials agreed on general project guidelines, but  they have not issued more detailed guidance for project implementation,  including instructions regarding timber sales. Although such instructions  have not been needed to date because no timber sales have occurred  under Good Neighbor authority in Utah, the area manager for the one state  district where Good Neighbor projects have been conducted said that  future projects may include timber sales. In addition, an area manager in  another Utah district said that he had approached his U.S. Forest Service  counterpart with a fuel reduction project proposal involving a timber sale.  There is no official guidance that encompasses BLM’s Good Neighbor  project responsibilities on BLM land in Colorado, in part because there  have been few projects on BLM land.
The nature of Good Neighbor authorization and funding posed a challenge  in some districts. Federal and state officials in Utah said that because  Good Neighbor projects do not receive dedicated funding, money to  conduct the projects instead comes from supplemental accounts, such as  funding associated with the National Fire Plan. In the past, such funding  has arrived several months or more after the beginning of the federal fiscal  year. This shortens the project window for fuel reduction work, which can  be especially problematic for projects involving pile burnings or  prescribed fire because such projects must be completed outside of fire  season, which can stretch from mid-May to mid-October in the Dixie  National Forest. Other state officials agreed that the annual federal  appropriations cycle—which included, for example, reauthorization of  Good Neighbor authority in Utah for a period of just over 9 months in  fiscal year 2008—makes long-term project planning more difficult,  resulting in less Good Neighbor activity.
Officials in federal and state districts where Good Neighbor projects have  not been undertaken had various reasons for not using the authority. Some  foresters said they had not seen opportunities for projects that fit Good  Neighbor’s criteria, while others lacked staff or other resources. One  national forest supervisor in Utah saw several advantages to using the  authority, but he wanted to ensure that his own staff was fully utilized  before giving work to the state. Conversely, a senior official in Utah said  that some state foresters see little benefit in adding projects that benefit  the U.S. Forest Service to their workload, unless they are compensated by  the U.S. Forest Service for their associated project administration duties.
section_title: Future Use of Good Neighbor Authority May Be Enhanced by Documentation of Experiences with the Authority to Date
paragraphs: Experiences with Good Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah may  provide insights for its potential expansion in those and other states.  Specifically, federal, state, and other stakeholders identified several  factors that affect Good Neighbor authority’s chances for success,  including the structure, staffing levels, and workloads of state forest  services and state purchasing staff, as well as the characteristics of those  states’ federal lands. These stakeholders noted that while it is important to  understand the successes and challenges of Good Neighbor authority’s use  in Colorado and Utah when considering its expansion to other states, it is  equally important to account for differences among states as well. One key  difference is the structure and mission of state forest services: whereas  these agencies in Colorado and Utah emphasize community forestry  assistance, other states may have different priorities reflecting differences  in their history, geography, or institutional framework. For example, the  Idaho Department of Public Lands manages its state’s forest resources to  maximize the revenue from these resources and other state lands through  activities such as timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and commercial  building, according to a senior department official; the revenue generated  from most of these trust lands supports the state’s public schools. Though  this official could see advantages to having Good Neighbor authority in  Idaho, such as the ability to conduct uniform land management practices  across broader areas, she said she would be wary of any activities that  would divert her agency from its primary mission of managing the state’s  trust lands. A representative of an environmental group in Idaho told us  that state forest management practices—such as the focus on timber  harvesting—could lead to competing priorities if the state manages Good  Neighbor projects on behalf of the federal government. To avoid this, he  suggested that roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined at the  outset for both federal and state participants if Good Neighbor authority is  extended to Idaho. Moreover, a U.S. Forest Service official in Colorado  who had previously worked for the relatively small forest service in a  nearby state said that Good Neighbor’s effectiveness in other states would  depend on their capacity to implement the agreements and monitor the  projects within their staffing resources and workload, and that he did not  think state forest services with limited resources would be able to handle a  Good Neighbor project workload comparable to Colorado’s. There may  also be differences in the federal and state forest services’ relationship, the  strength of which is a major determinant of Good Neighbor project  success, according to numerous federal and state officials with whom we  spoke in Colorado and Utah.
Another major difference among states is the value of timber on their  lands. While fuel reduction projects undertaken thus far under Good  Neighbor authority have generally harvested low-value trees in a  depressed timber market, project sites in other areas of Colorado and  Utah, or in other states, may contain more valuable timber. Fuel reduction  projects carried out under Good Neighbor authority in those areas,  especially those involving timber sales, would likely attract more federal  timber sale oversight, and might likewise attract additional scrutiny from  environmental stakeholders concerned that projects were being  undertaken for their timber value, rather than for ecological necessity. For  example, representatives of one environmental group in Colorado told us  they did not have concerns about Good Neighbor projects conducted to  date, but stated that this is in part due to the low timber value in the  state—saying “there’s little worry here because there’s so little [timber  value] at stake.” These representatives noted that their level of scrutiny  would likely be much higher if Good Neighbor projects were conducted in  timber-rich areas.
Differences in the authorizing legislation for Colorado and Utah have led  to differences in the types of projects conducted under Good Neighbor  authority, which could lead to divergent outcomes if the authority is  extended to other states. According to their Good Neighbor authorizing  legislation, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM in Colorado may permit CSFS  to perform watershed restoration activities on federal lands when the  agency is carrying out similar and complementary activities on adjacent  state or private lands. This has generally resulted in fuel reduction projects  that take place near state or private boundaries, where nonfederal fuel  reduction efforts had already occurred or were under way. In Utah,  however, the authorization requires neither that the projects be part of a  broader effort nor that they be adjacent to nonfederal lands. In practice,  this less restrictive standard has led to a wider array of projects in Utah,  such as the culvert replacement, barrier rock installation, and trail  reconstruction undertaken in the Dixie National Forest.
Moreover, to ensure the support of the public and environmental groups in  Colorado, Utah, or other states, several stakeholders suggested that  projects be undertaken only in the wildland-urban interface, where the  potential public benefit is the greatest, rather than in more remote reaches  of U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands. Also, according to federal and state  officials as well as representatives of environmental groups,  environmental stakeholders should be kept informed during Good  Neighbor project design, and should be encouraged to participate during  the NEPA process. Officials in Colorado and Utah told us they have done  so on Good Neighbor projects to date, and they believe that this practice  has been responsible for the general lack of opposition to Good Neighbor  projects from members of the environmental community.
Differences among states in the structure of their forest services, the value  of their timber, and the potential content of their authorities, as well as the  successes and challenges encountered in using Good Neighbor authority  in Colorado and Utah, would be worth considering for agency officials  contemplating future use of the authority—whether in Colorado, Utah, or  other states. Although CSFS has prepared periodic summaries of Good  Neighbor operations in Colorado, future users of the authority would  benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive documentation of  agencies’ experiences in conducting projects under Good Neighbor  authority. While the agencies are not required to develop such  documentation as part of their use of Good Neighbor authority, doing so  could benefit future users—by, for example, providing them with an  analysis of cost savings or other efficiencies and benefits that have been  achieved through Good Neighbor’s use, and discussing the types of  projects in which the authority has been most successful. In addition, as  they have done for stewardship contracting, the agencies could  disseminate this information through agency Web sites and handbooks  and incorporate it into existing training to ensure that future users have  access to the information. Without such information, agency officials will  need to independently assess which projects would best be conducted  using the authority, and the extent to which individual projects might  reduce costs or lead to other efficiencies and benefits. With the aid of this  information, federal and state officials in Colorado and Utah, and  potentially in other states, could consider adopting those procedures that  have worked well and avoid the early pitfalls experienced in applications  of Good Neighbor authority.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the state of our nation’s forests, and in light of our nation’s long- term fiscal constraints, land management agencies are seeking to enhance  their effectiveness in improving forest conditions and helping prevent  severe wildland fires. Good Neighbor authority can help this effort by  allowing federal and state agencies to work more closely together to treat  lands across ownership boundaries. The agencies have differed on how  best to apply the authority, however, as evidenced by the variation in its  use to date. In Colorado, Good Neighbor authority has been used by  federal and state partners to work across multiple ownerships to increase  the effectiveness of fuel reduction efforts, while projects in Utah have  focused on watershed health and rehabilitation of burned areas on U.S.  Forest Service land. These variations arise in part because of differences  in the laws authorizing these states’ activities, and in part because of  differences in how state and federal agencies collaborate on Good  Neighbor projects—highlighting an important issue as projects proceed in  Colorado and Utah, and as Congress and the agencies consider expanding  the use of Good Neighbor authority. That is, the type of projects  conducted under the authority, and the extent to which those projects  enhance the effectiveness of agency land management efforts, depend on  many state-specific factors, including the scope of the Good Neighbor  authority under which the state operates, the laws governing the state’s  contracting activities, and the characteristics of federal land targeted for  treatment, particularly the value of any timber. Without procedures that  ensure timber accountability in all states, however, and without  understanding and benefiting from the lessons learned from past use of  the authority, including the state-specific factors that influence the success  of Good Neighbor projects, the agencies may fail to capitalize fully on the  potential of Good Neighbor authority.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making two recommendations to enhance the agencies’ use of  Good Neighbor authority in Colorado and Utah as well as in states in  which Good Neighbor projects may be authorized in the future.
First, if U.S. Forest Service officials in Utah or BLM officials in Colorado  decide to conduct timber sales under Good Neighbor authority, or if  timber sales are pursued under expanded Good Neighbor authority in  additional states, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and  the Interior direct the agencies to first develop written procedures for  Good Neighbor timber sales in collaboration with each state to better  ensure accountability for federal timber. In doing so, the agencies may  want to consult the U.S. Forest Service’s Good Neighbor timber sale  procedures for Colorado.
Second, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior  direct the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, in collaboration with their state  Good Neighbor partners, to document how prior experiences with Good  Neighbor projects offer ways to enhance the use of the authority in the  future and make such information available to current and prospective  users of the authority. Specifically, the U.S. Forest Service should  collaborate with Colorado and Utah, and BLM should collaborate with  Colorado, to document information such as (1) the types of projects that  have proven to be successful uses of the authority; (2) how differences in  the authority’s scope within each state have affected project selection;   (3) how project planning and implementation responsibilities have been  divided among federal and state project partners; and (4) the costs and  benefits associated with using Good Neighbor authority to conduct  projects, including any project efficiencies and cost savings that have  resulted from the authority’s use. In addition, to ensure that this  information is available to current and future users of the authority, the  agencies should develop a strategic approach for disseminating it—for  example, through agency Web sites, handbooks, training, or other means.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, the  Department of the Interior, CSFS, and UDFFSL with a draft of this report  for review and comment. All four agencies generally agreed with the  findings and recommendations in the report. The U.S. Forest Service  noted, however, that it will address our recommendation about  documenting experiences with Good Neighbor projects by providing our  report to current and prospective users of the authority. While we are  pleased that the U.S. Forest Service believes our report accurately  documents lessons learned to date, we believe the agency will need to  provide additional details if future users are to fully benefit from this  information. For example, while our report includes a general description  of the primary reasons for choosing Good Neighbor authority to conduct  certain projects, it does not include a detailed discussion of the potential  costs and benefits associated with this decision, which may prove  beneficial to managers as they assess the applicability of the authority to  future projects. The U.S. Forest Service’s written comments, along with  our response, are presented in appendix II, Interior’s written comments  are presented in appendix III, CSFS’s written comments are presented in  appendix IV, and UDFFSL’s written comments are presented in appendix  V.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the  Chief of the Forest Service, the Director of the Bureau of Land  Management, and other interested parties. The report also will be available  at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) the activities conducted under Good  Neighbor authority, including the number, type, and scope of projects  undertaken; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls  being used to conduct Good Neighbor projects, including contracting  requirements and timber sale procedures; and (3) the successes,  challenges, or lessons learned, if any, that have resulted from the use of  Good Neighbor authority. Our review of Good Neighbor authority included  obtaining documentation and holding meetings and discussions with the  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM), the two agencies that have implemented Good  Neighbor authority; the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the  Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (UDFFSL), the two state  agencies that have conducted Good Neighbor projects; and Colorado State  University (CSU) and the Utah Division of Purchasing, the agencies in  each of these states generally responsible for administering service  contracts for each state’s forest service.
To determine the activities conducted under Good Neighbor authority in  Colorado and Utah, we interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and  UDFFSL officials on their overall management of Good Neighbor projects,  including how projects are chosen, the coordination involved between  federal and state agencies, and the type and scope of projects that are  undertaken. We also reviewed and analyzed specific data on Good  Neighbor projects conducted through fiscal year 2008 that were provided  by these officials, including the specific project objectives, location, start  and completion dates, acreage involved, the federal cost share of the  project, and the type of contract used in conducting the project—service  or timber sale—as well as the amount and value of any timber removed  from federal land. We also visited several completed or ongoing Good  Neighbor project sites located on both U.S. Forest Service land and BLM  land, including six sites in Colorado and four in Utah, to obtain an  understanding of the type of work performed and type of equipment  required to conduct projects. During our site visits, we also reviewed  selected Good Neighbor projects’ contracting and financial files to obtain  information on the planning, contracting, and monitoring processes each  agency uses on Good Neighbor projects. We also obtained, through  telephone interviews and e-mail, additional project information from U.S.  Forest Service and state districts that we did not visit. We assessed the  reliability of the project data we obtained by comparing a random sample  of data provided to us by agency and state officials with similar  information we had obtained directly from project files. We further  assessed the reliability of timber sales data we obtained from the U.S.  Forest Service’s timber sale accounting system by conducting telephone  interviews with a U.S. Forest Service official responsible for entering data  into the system, maintaining these data, and preparing reports using  system data. In addition, GAO has previously assessed the reliability of  data maintained in this system. To ensure that GAO’s previous assessment  was still accurate, we confirmed with the U.S. Forest Service that the  information previously obtained on the reliability of the system remained  relevant. As a result, we believe that the data we obtained from this system  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes in conducting this review.
To determine the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls  used to conduct projects under Good Neighbor authority, including state  contracting requirements and timber sale procedures, we obtained  documentation on Colorado’s and Utah’s procurement and contracting  processes for acquiring services from vendors, including the requirements  of each state concerning three fundamental principles of government  contracting—transparency, competition, and oversight. Specifically, we  chose several of the states’ procurement rules related to these three areas  to examine, and we interviewed procurement and contracting officials  with CSU and the Utah Division of Purchasing to obtain additional  information on how the states put these rules into practice when  conducting Good Neighbor projects. We also compared these selected  state procurement and contracting requirements with those in the Federal  Acquisition Regulation, and with U.S. Forest Service and BLM  procurement guidance, to identify similarities and differences. To identify  the timber sale procedures being used in Good Neighbor projects, we  interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and UDFFSL officials to  determine whether Good Neighbor timber sale operating procedures had  been established and their composition. We reviewed joint guidance  prepared by the U.S. Forest Service and CSFS on conducting Good  Neighbor projects to determine the type and extent of requirements  incorporated. We also compared federal and state timber sale contracts  and interviewed timber sale officials with the U.S. Forest Service in  Colorado to obtain their opinions on differences between the two types of  contracts, as well as any resulting effects on federal timber sale  accountability.
Finally, to identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned that the  federal and state agencies experienced using Good Neighbor authority, we  interviewed U.S. Forest Service, BLM, CSFS, and UDFFSL officials who  had participated in Good Neighbor projects to obtain their views on the  successes and challenges associated with the authority, including the  factors they believe contributed to these successes and challenges and the  measures they believe could be taken in the future to overcome these  challenges. For example, we interviewed officials from five U.S. Forest  Service ranger districts as well as officials from five CSFS district offices  who had participated in Good Neighbor projects. We also obtained  opinions about Good Neighbor authority from several state officials who  had not participated in Good Neighbor projects, as well as their reasons  for not participating. To obtain information on the potential uses of Good  Neighbor authority in other states, we asked federal and state officials  familiar with Good Neighbor authority, as well as representatives from the  National Association of State Foresters, to identify states they believed  would be the best candidates for us to interview regarding potential use of  the authority. From the states that they recommended, we selected Idaho,  Oregon, and Wyoming. We then interviewed officials in those states to  discuss their opinions on whether Good Neighbor authority would be  successful in their states, the factors for success, and any concerns that  they believed would need to be addressed. We also spoke with other  interested parties, including representatives of six environmental groups— based in Colorado, Utah, and other western states—and two industry  groups—one based in Washington, D.C., and the other based in South  Dakota—to get their opinions on how well Good Neighbor authority was  being implemented in Colorado and Utah, and the factors that would be  important for success if Congress were to expand the authority to other  states.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 through February  2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service
paragraphs: Following is GAO’s comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service letter dated February 13, 2009.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 1.  The U.S. Forest Service noted in its comments that it will address our  recommendation about documenting experiences with Good Neighbor  projects by providing our report to current and prospective users of  the authority. While we are pleased that the U.S. Forest Service  believes our report accurately documents lessons learned to date, we  believe the agency will need to provide additional details if future  users are to fully benefit from this information. For example, while our  report includes a general description of the primary reasons for  choosing Good Neighbor authority to conduct certain projects, it does  not include a detailed discussion of the potential costs and benefits  associated with this decision, which may prove beneficial to managers  as they assess the applicability of the authority to future projects. As a  result, we continue to believe it will be important for the U.S. Forest  Service to systematically collect and document information on its  experiences using Good Neighbor authority, and that this information  should go beyond that contained in our report.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Colorado State Forest Service
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty, Assistant Director;  David Brown; and Greg Carroll made key contributions to this report.  Cindy Gilbert, Rich Johnson, Alison O’Neill, Jena Sinkfield, and Bill Woods  also made important contributions to this report.