The Forest Service Responds on Keystone Agreements: Guest Post by Dave Mertz

I earlier posted a piece on the Forest Service’s Keystone Agreements with a variety of  NGOs.  These agreements are meant to accomplish a wide variety of tasks that would normally be done either by the Forest Service itself or through normal contracting procedures.  I said that we had submitted several questions to the Forest Service and we were awaiting their response.  Last week, we received that response from the Forest Service’s Office of Communications.

The following shows our numbered questions along with their responses in bold:

(1) We have obtained copies of the Master Agreements with the various NGO’s through FOIA’s.  We are interested in the details contained in the associated SPA’s, particularly the financial information.  Shouldn’t this information be available to the public?  We believe it is important to know how the Forest Service is spending federal dollars through these agreements.  Do we need to file FOIA’s to obtain this information or could it just be available online?  If not, why not?  We realize there would be some proprietary information that would need to be redacted.

Each Forest and Region that has executed agreements that are tied to the Master Keystone Agreements has specific plans to implement those projects. Some are at various stages of implementation and readiness and a financial plan does not depict the context necessary to appreciate the implementation of the agreement goals fully. Due to the constantly changing nature in the status of work, we don’t post this information online, as it is not static.  We suggest working with individual units to understand their Forest’s or landscape’s holistic partnership and collaborative goals so that entire project areas and landscape goals from A-Z can be seen rather than a snapshot of one financial plan. Those program managers will also be able to speak to financial planning and other relevant plans and appendices or modifications the agreements have associated with them so that these iterative agreements can be fully understood.

(2) How are accomplishments being tracked through these agreements?  Who is providing oversight, Grants and Agreements?  Partnerships Office?

Accomplishments are being tracked at a local, regional, and national level through our agency’s authoritative data sources. We are monitoring financial burn rates and programmatic outputs, among other things. Forest staff, program managers, and grants and agreements staff collectively provide oversight to ensure the successful implementation of the agreement with our partners.

(3) What is the process of awarding the NGO’s funding?  Do they receive the dollars and then projects are developed?  What are the overhead rates of the various NGO’s?

The need to treat hazardous fuels across the United States has been identified in great detail and is addressed in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy outlined by the FS Wildfire Crisis Strategy published in 2022.  Regions and Forests with identified needs have received funds to implement project work through contracts and agreements.  Some of these agreements are with partners that have a Keystone Agreement, who may have established relationships with the region or forest to address these needs. While the “umbrella” or Master “Keystone” Agreements with partners are held at the Washington Office, the actual project work and funds that are added to the agreements are often done at the regional level, Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscape level, or at the Forest level. The projects are developed at the local level and then appropriate funds for the work, once identified, are awarded to the Supplemental Project Agreements in conjunction with inputs from the partner.  Each NGO has its own Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Each NICRA is negotiated with the cognizant agency for the partner. The federal agency that provides the most in direct funding is normally the organization’s cognizant, unless specifically assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

(4) Are the Keystone Agreements being used to avoid Federal Acquisition Regulations and federal hiring difficulties?

No, the Keystone Agreements are not being used to avoid Federal Acquisition Regulations nor federal hiring difficulties. Keystone agreements were developed to implement projects at a pace and scale aligned with the objectives of the Forest Service. The Forest Service is taking this opportunity to achieve our mission in new ways, building on long-standing partnerships and creating large, national-level agreements—or Keystone Agreements—for BIL and IRA implementation. These agreements will allow us to execute priority projects quickly and efficiently while we grow Forest Service institutional capacity. Importantly, these Keystone Agreements facilitate new local agreements or complement existing agreements at the region and unit levels, creating a suite of partnership arrangements that collectively give our national forests and grasslands a range of tools for program implementation. These agreements can increase capacity, to help accomplish crucial work on the ground in an expedited manner. 

(5) We are hearing that Forests are having budget difficulties this fiscal year and that it will impact their ability to hire employees.  In hindsight, was it wise to put so much funding into the Keystone Agreements rather than into NFS?  Could a lot of this funding have been put into IDIQ contracts instead?

The agency has invested a tremendous amount of BIL and IRA funding in the WCS landscapes, high risk-firesheds, and to a much smaller extent, funding for state agencies, tribes and Keystone Agreements.  Some of the BIL and IRA funding did go into IDIQ contracts.  Due to the significant workload and goals of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, an array of tools were utilized to help accomplish the work.  In addition, a large number of new employees were hired within the agency to address the workload.

(6) Are Keystone Agreement accomplishments being claimed when the funding is awarded rather than when the work is actually accomplished?

Accomplishments are recorded when the work is completed. The exception is when timber is sold through a contract or stewardship agreement.  The “timber volume sold” accomplishment is recorded when an agreement or contract is fully executed.  Funding obligations and are also tracked for budget expenditure purposes.

Understanding that you may want additional documents that are not publicly available, we recommend you request the data through the Freedom of Information Act. This link provides contact information for the WO processing center: FOIA Contact Service Centers | US Forest Service (usda.gov). The more detailed the request the better.

 **********************************

I certainly appreciate the Office of Communication responding to our questions and I feel that I have somewhat of a better understanding of these Keystone Agreements.  However, I think those of us who are interested in Forest Service operations should still have some concerns regarding their implementation.

It’s just my opinion but these huge funding bills have had a really mixed outcome regarding the Forest Service.  I remember the National Fire Plan in 2000, which promised a significant increase in funding into the future, but much of that increase dried up after a couple of years.  The 2009 Recovery Act provided a lot of money and we were scrambling on how to get it spent.  I know some good things were funded, but personally, I saw some projects that had the appearance of just spending money to get it spent.

Is the Forest Service doing the right thing with these Keystone Agreements?  I don’t know but if they are resulting in a significant bump in accomplishments, the Forest Service is not doing a great job in telling that story.  You would think with all of the money being spent, the Forest Service would have an excellent public relations plan regarding these agreements.  It should not be difficult to find out what is happening with them.  Do you think the Forest Service has done well at explaining their value?  Are they a good use of taxpayer dollars?