Land Management Agencies: Ongoing Initiative to Share Activities and
Facilities Needs Management Attention (Letter Report, 11/21/2000,
GAO/GAO-01-50).

The colocation of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) units provides the best opportunity for the agencies to jointly
serve the public, effect operational efficiencies, and improve the
management of the land. The Service First Initiative is designed to
improve the operations of these two agencies by combining resources and
providing "one-stop shopping" services for the public. Since the
initiative has been in operation, the number of shared projects between
BLM and the Forest Service has increased from 15 in fiscal year 1996 to
272 in mid-fiscal year 2000. Many of the projects involve shared
personnel, shared equipment, and joint training projects. Although there
have been some successes in achieving efficient government operations,
there are many legal and regulatory barriers that prevent the full
integration of the agencies' resources. The full integration of the
agencies' operations depends on resolution of these barriers.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-50
     TITLE:  Land Management Agencies: Ongoing Initiative to Share
	     Activities and Facilities Needs Management Attention
      DATE:  11/21/2000
   SUBJECT:  Land management
	     Forest management
	     Interagency relations
	     Cost control
	     Productivity in government
	     Environmental law
	     Agency missions
	     Redundancy
IDENTIFIER:  Forest Service/BLM Service First Initiative

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

GAO-01-50

A Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2000 LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Ongoing Initiative to Share Activities and Facilities Needs Management
Attention

GAO-01-50

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

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

Letter

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 First 2 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Initiative Has Grown equipment, joint administrative projects, and joint
management of the

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

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

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

Encompasses a Variety of been on the administrative side of the agencies'
operations. That is,

Projects and Activities 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

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.

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' Caï¿½on 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 Caï¿½on City, Colorado, units have a
joint effort whereby the agencies join forces to perform prescribed burns on
both agencies'

lands to reduce the risk of wildfire by clearing away underbrush. According
to Caï¿½on 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 To determine the results of the Service First
initiative to date, we asked the

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

Grown in Number and Have achieved from inception to the first half of fiscal
year 2000 on all ongoing

Achieved Some Savings 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.

Figure 2: Increase of Service First Projects From Fiscal Year 1996 Through
the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000

Cummulative number of projects 300

250 200 150 100

50 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fiscal year

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

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-ï¿½ years by
combining the responsibilities of the forest supervisor position with the
BLM field manager position.

Table 1 shows the estimated savings by state.

Table 1: Estimated Dollar Savings of Service First Projects by State, Fiscal
Years 1996 Through the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000

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

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

Opportunities Exist for 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.
Colocating Additional

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

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

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

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

Expanding the Service First facilities such as parking, credit unions,
cafeterias, and day care centers, or

Initiative 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

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 BLMofficials, 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.

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

Many Additional Units Can Most Forest Service and BLM units are located in
the western states and

Be Colocated 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.

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

Affected by Various Factors 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

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

Must Be Overcome more; however, achieving fully integrated operations would
require the

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

barriers. Resolution of these overarching legal and regulatory barriers will
Can Be Fully

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

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.

The Most Difficult Barriers The Service First steering committee identified
legal and regulatory

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

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

Regulatory Requirements 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 The process for transferring funds between
the agencies for services

Transfer of Funds Is a LaborIntensive performed under the Economy Act, 7 has
proven to be very labor- intensive

and Cumbersome and cumbersome, involving extensive paperwork. This process
requires

Process 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.

Different Land Management The agencies have different authorizing
legislation that precludes

Legislation Precludes consistency in their planning processes. The Forest
Service uses the

Consistency in the Agencies' National Forest Management Act and BLM uses the
Federal Land Policy

Planning Processes 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 The agencies have different policies and
processes for financial

Regulations Make Integration of management and reporting that currently make
it impossible to link or

Agencies' Budget and blend the budget, allocation, or reporting of Service
First activities. Federal

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

Processes Impossible 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 Each of the agencies has different regulations and
procedures for

Regulations and Procedures for administrating very similar activities, such
as handling grazing permits,

Administering Similar Activities 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

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 The sharing of facilities and operations also
involves records management.

Maintained Independently to Under the current colocation arrangements, the
agencies' records must be

Meet Federal Record maintained independently, which requires employees from
each agency, at

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

Easily Resolved 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 agenciesare 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,

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 practicesdiffer 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 policiesdealing 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 processesfor 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 enforcementauthority 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

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 communicationssystems, 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 The full integration of agency operations ultimately
depends on resolving

Service First Issues the overarching legal and regulatory barriers as the
agencies pursue

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

agencywide, we believe a number of program management issues need Attention

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

Information on Service First information on the number of locations
participating in Service First

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

projects achieve. When we requested such data, the agencies had to

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 The Service First initiative has no required
program evaluation component.

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

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

Component 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:

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 No agencywide operating guidance or
requirements were established for

Uniform Operating Service First because the initial intent was to provide
participating units

Guidance 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

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

Fund Is Not Meeting Its Service First Incentive Fund- with equal funding
from each agency- to

Intended Purpose 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.

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.

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.

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

Executive Action 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

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,

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

Appendi xes The Forest Service's and BLM's Use of CrossDelegation

Appendi xI

of Authority The Agencies First During the pilot phase of the Service First
initiative, at least one unit placed Considered CrossDelegation 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
During the

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

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.”

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

and the Secretary of redelegated his authority to enter into reciprocal
agreements with the

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

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

No. 98- 39. 1 In turn, the memorandum states that these individuals can
Authority

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

of Authority cross- delegation of authority where Forest Service employees
are

supervising BLM employees and vice versa, excluding firefighting Varies

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.

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.

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 Caï¿½on 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.

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

Exist 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 The major union representing Forest Service employees
questioned the

Labor Union Has legality of Forest Service employees supervising BLM
employees and vice

versa and raised the issue to Forest Service management. On October 18,
Challenged CrossDelegation 1999, the Forest Service requested advice from
the Department of

Authority 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

to Service First projects, new projects outside those in Regions 2 and 6
should not be implemented until an agreement is reached.

Types of Agreements Used in Service First

Appendi xII

Projects 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 understandingare 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 understandingare 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 agreementsare 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 agreementsare 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.

Number and Type of Ongoing Service First Projects by State, Fiscal Year 1996
Through

Appendi xI II

the First Half of Fiscal Year 2000 Table 2: Type of Activity of Service
First Projects Number of projects with Type of activity each type of
activity a 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 Other b 33 10

Total 324 100

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.

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

Goal project is intended to achieve a Increase Number

Percentage Increase

Increase quality of

of of

customer operating

resource State

projects total

service efficiency

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

a Individual projects may address one or more goals.

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

Number of Forest Service and BLM Units With

Appendi xI V

Leases Expiring in the Next 20 Years 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

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

Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and

Appendi xV

BLM to Colocate Units Years Planned Governmentowned Leased

remaining on colocation State/ unit City Agency unit unit

lease date a 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 Durango b FS X Trimble Work Center Durango b
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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Years Planned

Governmentowned Leased

remaining on colocation

State/ unit City Agency unit unit lease

date a

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 City b FS X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Years Planned

Governmentowned Leased

remaining on colocation

State/ unit City Agency unit unit lease

date a

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 Prineville b 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)

Years Planned

Governmentowned Leased

remaining on colocation

State/ unit City Agency unit unit lease

date a

Kemmerer Ranger District Kemmerer FS X 5 2001 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.

Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year

Appendi xVI

2000 Table 4: Incentive Fund Projects Funded by the Forest Service and BLM
by State Funded by Amount Project 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 45, 000 25, 000 amendment Communication site improvements/ tower
replacement 50, 000 12,000

Erect sign for BLM office colocated with Lewis & Clark National Forest
office that already 8,000 8, 000 has a sign Nevada - 2 initiatives

Provide shared customer services and lay data and phone lines (2 proposals
funded 20, 800 21,000 together) New Mexico - 2 initiatives

Shared telecommunication sites 69,500 26, 000 Colocate BLM procurement staff
into Forest Service building 70,000 20,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funded by Amount Project proposed BLM FS

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

35, 000 35,000 personnel authorities to allow both agencies to use the same
employment authorities Evaluate colocation done in January 1999 to validate
accomplishments and benchmark

5, 000 5, 000 successes 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

50, 000 30,000 a nonprofit 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

Note: BLM is the Bureau of Land Management and FS is the Forest Service.
Source: GAO based on Forest Service and BLM data.

Table 5: Purpose of Incentive Fund Projects Funded Funding provided for a
Signs/

Equipment/ Buildings/ Project People b displays c Publications d materials e
Vehicles f facilities g

Alaska - 1 initiative

Develop Web page for the Alaska Land $6, 000 Managers Forum California - 2
initiatives

Develop a high- quality South Yuba River 13, 000 joint recreation map Shared
radio/ telecommunications

$25,000 equipment Colorado - 11 initiatives

Complete office integration in San Luis $5,000 15,000 $5, 000 Valley
Identify and enter range improvements into

10, 000 geographic information system Identify and enter weed inventory into

10, 000 geographic information system Purchase two all- terrain vehicles to
patrol

$5, 000 roads and trails Purchase two snowmobiles and a trailer to

5,000 patrol winter sports area Update planning document for Trickle

11, 000 Mountain area of critical environmental concern

Consistent signs for motorized vehicle 20,000 routes Joint firewood cutting
rules, regulations, and

8,000 signs Mountain Pine Beetle management Cochetopa

8,000 Hills Joint support for Forest Keepers junior

5,000 ranger program San Juan Basin heritage site stewardship 40,000

Idaho - 4 initiatives

Temporary- use work station for peak service 12, 000 times at interagency
visitor center Shared minerals materials appraiser position 6, 000

Eastern Idaho visitor information center 17, 000 Additional funding for full
National

10, 000 Environmental Policy Act compliance study

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funding provided for a Signs/

Equipment/ Buildings/ Project People b displays c Publications d materials e
Vehicles f facilities g

Montana - 3 initiatives

Fund BLM portion of joint off- highway 25, 000 vehicles environmental impact
study/ planning amendment

Communication site improvements/ tower 12, 000 replacement Erect a sign for
BLM office co- located with

8,000 Lewis & Clark National Forest office that already has a sign

Nevada - 2 initiatives

Provide shared customer services and lay 2,500 7, 500 1,500 8, 700 data and
phone lines (2 proposals funded together)

New Mexico - 2 initiatives

Shared telecommunication sites 26,000 Colocate BLM procurement staff into
Forest

20, 000 Service building North Dakota - 1 initiative

Shared library/ resource center to promote 12, 000 resource conservation
Oregon - 8 initiatives

Illinois Valley visitor information center 8,000 staffing and supplies
Interagency trail brochure - electronic and

$15, 000 hard copy versions Interagency district manager position 43,000

Fund half of a position to develop proposals 35, 000

for regulatory and legislative changes in personnel authorities to allow
both agencies to use the same employment authorities

Evaluate colocation done in January 1999 to 5,000

validate accomplishments and benchmark successes

Service First transition coordinator position 25,000 Service First meeting -
travel and per diem

9,000 costs Conservation owner's manual 16, 000

Utah - 3 initiatives

Leave No Trace 9,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Funding provided for a Signs/

Equipment/ Buildings/ Project People b displays c Publications d materials e
Vehicles f facilities g

Outdoor recreation information center in Salt 30, 000 Lake City - seed money
to shift operation to a nonprofit

Interagency information center in St. 22, 000 4, 000 1, 000 George, Utah
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%

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.

Table 6: Service First Proposals Funded by State Number of State 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 Source: GAO based on Forest Service and BLM data.

Appendi xVII

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 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 City and state Forest Service unit BLM unit

Denver, Colorado Region 2- Rocky Mountain Colorado State Office Region Caï¿½on
City, Colorado San Carlos Ranger District,

Caï¿½on City District Office, Pike- San Isabel National

Front Range Center, Forests

Royal Gorge Resource Area Saguache, Colorado Saguache Ranger District,

Saguache Field Office Rio Grande National Forest La Jara, Colorado Conejos
Peak Ranger

La Jara Field Office District, Rio Grande National Forest

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

Del Norte, Colorado Divide Ranger District, Rio None Grande National Forest
Durango, Colorado San Juan National Forest San Juan Field Office

Montrose, Colorado Ouray Ranger District, Uncompahgre Basin Field

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Office

and Gunnison National Forests

Grand Junction, Colorado Collbran/ Grand Junction Grand Junction Field
Office

Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests

Portland, Oregon Region 6- Pacific Northwest Oregon State Office Region
Prineville, Oregon Ochoco National Forest

Prineville District Office Deschutes National Forest Lakeview, Oregon
Fremont National Forest

Lakeview District Office Winema National Forest 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

Coos Bay District Office Recreation Area Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou
National Forest

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.

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

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.

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.

Appendi xVI II Comments From the Forest Service

Comments From the Bureau of Land

Appendi xIX Management

Appendi xX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 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

Gï¿½mez, Bert Japikse, John Kalmar, and John Murphy made key contributions to
this report.

(141390) Lett er

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Contents

Contents Page 2 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

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

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 4 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 5 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 6 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 7 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 8 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 9 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 10 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 11 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 12 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 13 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 14 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 15 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 16 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 17 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 18 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 19 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 20 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 21 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 22 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 23 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 24 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 25 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 26 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 27 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 28 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 29 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 30 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 31 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 32 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 33 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 34 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix I

Appendix I The Forest Service's and BLM's Use of CrossDelegation of
Authority

Page 35 GAO- 01- 50 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

Appendix I The Forest Service's and BLM's Use of CrossDelegation of
Authority

Page 37 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix I The Forest Service's and BLM's Use of CrossDelegation of
Authority

Page 38 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix I The Forest Service's and BLM's Use of CrossDelegation of
Authority

Page 39 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 40 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix II

Page 41 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix III

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

Page 43 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix IV

Page 44 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix V

Appendix V Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and BLM to Colocate
Units

Page 45 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix V Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and BLM to Colocate
Units

Page 46 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix V Potential Opportunities for Forest Service and BLM to Colocate
Units

Page 47 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 48 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2000

Page 49 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2000

Page 50 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2000

Page 51 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2000

Page 52 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VI Incentive Fund Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2000

Page 53 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 54 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VII

Appendix VII Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 55 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VII Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 56 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VII Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 57 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VII Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Page 59 GAO- 01- 50 Service First Initiative

Appendix VIII

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

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

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
*** End of document. ***