The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands

The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands

Updated December 30, 2022
The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands
The Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service
Authorized restoration services could include timber
(FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
harvesting, hazardous fuels treatment, tree planting or
authorize states, counties, and federally recognized Indian
seeding, and other activities. For the purposes of the
tribes to conduct certain projects on federal lands in pursuit
authority, federal land does not include designated
of specified land management goals (16 U.S.C. §2113a).
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or areas where
The authority allows FS and BLM to collaborate with these
removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or
entities to plan and execute cross-jurisdictional restoration
by presidential proclamation. Construction, reconstruction,
work. The authority generally has been perceived as
repair, and other works involving buildings, public works,
successful, particularly in enhancing state-federal
and non-NFS roads are not permitted.
relationships and addressing cross-boundary land
restoration needs. This In Focus provides background
The FS and BLM structure GNAs in various ways. The FS
information, statistics on use, and a brief overview of the
may use a cooperative agreement or contract called a
issues, including those related to timber sales and revenues. Master Agreement (MA), which describes the collaborative
framework between the federal agency and the partner. FS
Legislative History
MAs serve as an umbrella for Supplemental Project
Congress originally authorized the Good Neighbor
Agreements (SPAs), which outline the specific terms and
Authority in 2001 as a pilot program for FS lands in
conditions for implementation of individual projects. BLM
Colorado (P.L. 106-291, §331) and later expanded the pilot
and FS also use stand-alone agreements, which fulfill both
to include BLM lands in Colorado and FS lands in Utah
functions for the purpose of a single project. GNA duration
(P.L. 108-447, §§336-337). In 2014, Congress passed the
is not addressed in statute.
authority permanently into law (P.L. 113-79, §8206). The
permanent authority applied only to states. Before it
There is no limit to the number or kinds of GNAs a partner
enacted the permanent authority, Congress had temporarily
may enter into, including entering into multiple MAs.
extended and expanded a version of the law in 2014 (P.L.
Although GNAs may allow for any number of authorized
113-76, §417), which differed in its requirements and was
activities, many GNAs emphasize a specific project type or
superseded by the permanent authorization.
purpose. For example, a state’s Department of Forestry and
Department of Fish and Game may each enter into a
In 2018, Congress expanded the authority to include
separate MA with the FS. The state’s Department of
counties, groups of counties, and federally recognized
Forestry might then enter into SPAs pursuant to its MA to
Indian tribes (hereinafter referred to as counties and tribes,
perform hazardous fuels reduction or commercial timber
respectively). Congress also authorized states to retain
harvests on FS lands. The state’s Department of Fish and
funds from timber sales made under the authority, subject to
Game might then enter into SPAs under its MA to perform
certain conditions (P.L. 115-334, §8624). It also authorized
habitat improvement projects on FS lands. In addition, the
certain road restoration activities (P.L. 115-141, §212).
state’s Department of Water Resources might enter into a
stand-alone agreement with BLM to perform a watershed
Good Neighbor Agreements and
restoration project.
Contracts
The Good Neighbor Authority allows states, counties, and
Statistics
tribes (hereinafter, partners) to enter into a cooperative
FS reports the total number of active GNAs, which are
agreement or contract with FS or BLM to perform forest,
GNAs that are in effect in a given fiscal year, regardless of
rangeland, and watershed restoration work on the federal
when they were initiated. In FY2021, FS had a total of 341
land managed by those agencies (hereinafter, both contracts
GNAs: 328 with 38 states, 6 with counties, 5 with tribes,
and agreements are GNAs). Authorized restoration services
and 2 with “other” named state or county organizations
include
(such as soil and water conservation districts). Most partner

states and some counties and tribes had multiple GNAs
treating insect- and disease-infested trees;

with FS; some states had over 30 GNAs with FS, although
reducing hazardous fuels;

most had between 1 and 10. FS did not report whether these
any other activities to restore or improve forest,
agreements were MAs, SPAs, or stand-alone agreements. In
rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and
past years, partners have taken various approaches to GNAs
wildlife habitat; and

with FS, including using only stand-alone agreements,
reconstruction, restoration, and repair of
entering into multiple master agreements and SPAs, using
decommissioned National Forest System (NFS) roads
all agreement types, and other combinations. FS did not
(defined at 36 C.F.R. §212.1) if necessary to implement
report the purpose of these agreements, although in past
authorized forest restoration services.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2
The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands
years, the most common purposes were for forest health,
In addition, in 2018, Congress specified that any payment
watershed management, and wildlife management.
made by a county to FS or BLM under a GNA project
would not be subject to applicable revenue-sharing laws.
BLM reports the number of new GNAs each fiscal year.
Because counties are not authorized to retain GNA timber
The total number of active GNAs in a fiscal year may be
sale revenues, such revenues must be remitted to FS or
larger, as GNAs entered into in previous fiscal years may
BLM. In this case, the payment is not considered to be
continue to be in effect. As of FY2021, BLM reported 132
revenue for the purpose of applicable revenue-sharing laws
new GNAs. Of these, 60 were with states, 38 were with
pertaining to FS and BLM lands. No such provision exists
counties, 1 was with a tribe, and 33 were with “other”
for states or tribes. It is unclear to CRS whether any such
groups—particularly, regional organizations such as soil
payment made by a tribal partner would count toward
and water conservation districts, but also universities, cities,
revenue-sharing purposes.
nonprofit organizations, and other groups that are not
clearly states, tribes, or counties. All agreements or
Issues for Congress
contracts with BLM were stand-alone. The most common
Although the extension of the GNA to counties and tribes
purpose for BLM GNAs is invasive weed treatments (33
significantly expanded the potential partners that may use
GNAs), followed by wildlife habitat restoration (29) and
the authority, compared to states, relatively fewer counties
watershed restoration (22). Other common purposes are
and tribes have made use of the expanded authority. The
hazardous fuels reduction (17) and forest resilience (15).
lack of authorization to retain timber sale revenues may
decrease the attractiveness of GNAs for counties and tribes,
Timber Sales and Revenues
compared with states, particularly for projects on FS lands
Partners may conduct commercial forest product sales (such
(which contain more timberland than BLM lands, and
as timber sales) under GNAs. FS and BLM retain the
therefore have more opportunities for projects involving
responsibility to comply with all applicable federal laws for
timber management). Other factors influencing whether
federal timber sales, such as laws requiring reforestation,
counties and tribes enter into GNAs might include funding,
brush removal, or other treatments of timber sale areas. FS
staffing, or other resource capability concerns, as well as
and BLM must approve and mark any silvicultural
the relatively shorter amount of time that counties and
prescriptions (e.g., what trees may be cut). The amount of
tribes have been authorized partners.
FS timber sold under GNAs has increased from about
14 million board feet in FY2016 to about 273 million board
One aspect of the Good Neighbor Authority that has been a
feet in FY2021 (see Figure 1). BLM does not report timber
subject of debate is the treatment of timber sale revenues.
sale data under GNAs.
Some stakeholders may prefer that the authority to retain
timber sale revenues be given to counties and tribes—for
Figure 1. Forest Service Timber Volume Sold Under a
example, to ensure incentives for participation are equal
GNA, Million Board Feet (MMBF)
across partners. Some also may prefer to have the revenue
from GNA projects subject to FS and BLM revenue-sharing
laws to avoid potential reductions in revenue-sharing
payments. In contrast, others may contend that allowing
timber sale revenues to be retained by partners, while also
being counted toward revenue-sharing payments, could
constitute a double payment if a partner were to receive a
revenue-sharing payment. In addition, some may prefer that
the federal government retain at least some portion of the
revenue derived from the sale of a federal resource. Further,
because FS and BLM both use timber receipts to fund a
variety of resource management activities, the loss of
Sources: Email from Forest Service (FS) to CRS, May 14, 2020, and
revenue associated with GNA timber sales may reduce
Forest Service FY2021-FY2023 budget justifications.
funding available for those purposes.
Note: FS reported that there was no timber volume sold under a
Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA) prior to FY2016. FY = fiscal year.
Congress may consider the funding sources for GNA
implementation. Neither FS nor BLM receives a direct line
item appropriation for implementing GNAs. Rather, the
Prior to 2018, treatment of timber sale revenues was not
directly addressed by the Good Neighbor Authority’s
agencies may use any available funds appropriated for the
specified project purpose. Partners also may provide
authorizing legislation. In 2018, Congress specified that,
funding, although no partner contributions are required.
through FY2023, funds received by a state through the sale
of timber under a GNA may be retained and used by the
Some partners may support providing direct funding
specifically for the Good Neighbor Authority to ensure
state on additional GNA projects. No such provision exists
dedicated funding for GNA implementation or improve
for counties or tribes, so FS and BLM collect and retain
revenue from timber sales from GNAs with these partners.
traceability of GNA funding. Others may contend that the
current funding mechanisms are sufficient—for example,
Because timber sale revenues from states are not returned to
because they afford the agencies flexibility in funding GNA
FS or BLM, those revenues are not applied to calculations
projects.
of FS or BLM revenue-sharing payments.
Anne A. Riddle, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands

IF11658

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11658 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED