Federal Land Management: Potential Effects and Factors to Consider in a Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior
Published: 2009-02-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service, which manages almost a quarter of the nation's lands, is the only major land management agency outside the Department of the Interior (Interior). Four federal land management agencies--the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in Interior--manage most of the 680 million acres of federal land across the country. Growing ecological challenges, ranging from wildland fires to climate change, have revived interest in moving the Forest Service into Interior. GAO was asked to report on the potential effects of moving the Forest Service into Interior and creating a new bureau equal to Interior's other bureaus, such as BLM. GAO was also asked to identify factors that should be considered if such a move were legislated, as well as management practices that could facilitate a move.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Moving the Forest Service into Interior could potentially improve federal land management by consolidating into one department key agencies with land management missions and increasing the effectiveness of their programs. At the same time, a move would provide few efficiencies in the short term and could diminish the role the Forest Service plays in state and private land management. According to many agency officials and experts, where the Forest Service mission is aligned with Interior's--in particular, the multiple-use mission comparable to BLM's--a move could increase the overall effectiveness of some of the agencies' programs and policies. Conversely, most agency officials and experts GAO interviewed believed that few short-term efficiencies would be realized from a move, although a number said opportunities would be created for potential long-term efficiencies. Many officials and experts suggested that if the objective of a move is to improve land management and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies' diverse programs, other options might achieve better results. If the Forest Service were moved into Interior, USDA and Interior would need to consider a number of cultural, organizational, and legal factors and related transition costs, some of which could be managed by certain practices successfully used in the past to merge and transform organizations. For example, integrating the Forest Service's reporting, budgeting, and human capital processes and systems into Interior's could be time-consuming, costly, and disruptive. Nevertheless, Interior and USDA could implement some key merger and transformation practices to help manage any resulting disruptions and other transition costs. In considering a move of the Forest Service into Interior, policymakers will need to carefully weigh mission and management gains against potential short-term disruption and operational costs.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss a possible move of the Forest  Service from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) into the Department  of the Interior (Interior). The Forest Service, which manages almost a  quarter of the nation’s lands, is the only major land management agency  outside Interior. Four federal land management agencies—USDA’s Forest  Service and Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and  Wildlife Service, and National Park Service—manage most of the 680  million acres of federal land across the country. Recognizing that federal  land management agencies have faced many similar challenges but lacked  unifying statutory authorities for the management and use of federal lands  and resources, policymakers over the last 4 decades have made several  unsuccessful attempts to reorganize the nation’s land and resource  agencies. The emergence of new challenges for both the Forest Service  and Interior during a time of severe economic crisis, as well as the growing  need for agencies to collaborate on urgent large-scale natural resource  problems, has revived interest in the potential for improving federal land  management.
My testimony today summarizes the findings of our recent report  discussing a potential move of the Forest Service into Interior. This move  would entail transferring the authorities of the Forest Service Chief, as  well as those given to the Chief through the Secretary of Agriculture, to  the Secretary of the Interior and creating a new bureau equivalent to  Interior’s other bureaus. Specifically, I will discuss how federal land  management would potentially be affected by moving the Forest Service  into Interior and what factors should be considered if Congress and the  administration were to decide to move the Forest Service and what  management practices could facilitate such a move. This report is based  on our analysis of historical proposals on reorganizing federal land  management agencies, interviews with agency officials and experts, visits  to Forest Service and BLM offices that are colocated and comanaged, and  interviews with representatives from groups that have an interest in the  agencies.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As a result of their historical development, four distinct land management  agencies, each operating under unique authorities, today oversee more than  630 million acres of federal land. Established in 1849, Interior was given  authority for managing public lands, including those acquired by the federal  government during the nation’s westward expansion. While the government  disposed of many of its lands to new states, the railroads, homesteaders, and  miners, in the late nineteenth century it also began setting aside some lands  under Interior’s jurisdiction for parks and forest reserves. Then in 1905  Congress transferred control of the forest reserves from Interior to USDA,  consolidating USDA’s forestry research program and the forest reserves into  one agency, which became known as the Forest Service. In creating the  Forest Service in USDA, where it remains today, Congress was responding in  part to scientists and policymakers who believed the nation’s forests and  timber supply would be better managed under USDA’s agriculture and  conservation mission. Between 1916 and 1956, Congress created the three  other land management agencies within Interior, in part to manage its parks,  wildlife refuges, and rangelands.
Over the past several decades, both the Forest Service and Interior’s  bureaus—particularly BLM—have experienced increased economic,  ecological, and legal transformations, such as shrinking supplies of natural  resources, passage of key environmental legislation in the 1960s and 1970s,  and shifting public expectations for land management. Changes like these  have made managing federal lands more complex, with managers needing  to reconcile differences among growing demands for often conflicting land  uses. Most recently, all the land management agencies, but particularly the  Forest Service, have faced unprecedented challenges in the form of large- scale problems that cross agency and ownership boundaries such as  wildland fire, invasive species, and development of private lands along  their borders.
section_title: Moving the Forest Service into Interior Would Align Federal Land Management Missions and Could Improve Effectiveness of Federal Programs yet May Yield Few Efficiencies in the Short Term
paragraphs: A move of the Forest Service into Interior could improve federal land  management by aligning the federal land management mission under one  department and increasing program effectiveness. It may also yield long- term, but few short-term, efficiencies.
subsections: section_title: Although a Move Would Align Federal Land Management Missions, It Could Diminish the Forest Service’s State- and Private-Lands Mission
paragraphs: One result of moving the Forest Service into Interior would be an  alignment of the federal land management mission in one department by  bringing the Forest Service together with the other three federal agencies  having major land management missions. The Forest Service and BLM  both manage their lands for multiple uses, including timber, grazing, oil  and gas, recreation, wilderness, and fish and wildlife, although they  emphasize different uses depending on their specific authorities and  public demands. As shown in figure 1, Forest Service and Interior lands  often abut each other and are sometimes intermingled. As a result,  particularly in the western states, land managers often cross each other’s  lands to work on their own lands and work with members of the same  communities. Several experts and officials pointed to the amount and  proximity of Forest Service’s and Interior’s lands as a reason for moving  the Forest Service into Interior.
According to many of the experts and officials we interviewed, however, a  move of the Forest Service into Interior could diminish the role that the  agency plays in managing state and private forestlands—a mission focus  the Forest Service shares with USDA but does not have in common with  Interior. The Forest Service’s state and private forestry arm provides  technical and financial assistance to state and private landowners to  sustain and conserve forests and protect them from wildland fires. Such  outreach, or extension service, is not a function of Interior agencies.  According to many officials and others we interviewed, moving the Forest  Service into Interior could diminish this role by directing the agency’s  attention to its federal lands and away from the nation’s nearly 750 million  acres of forested lands (shown in fig. 2), including almost 430 million acres  of private forested lands across the nation. According to some officials and  state foresters, USDA has developed a closer relationship with state and  private entities and has a better perspective on what private landowners  need to conserve their resources. Other officials said, however, that  Interior could work more with state and local entities if the authorities to  do so were transferred with the Forest Service to Interior and extended to  Interior’s other agencies.
section_title: A Move Could Improve Effectiveness of Federal Land Management Programs but May Yield Few Efficiencies in the Short Term, as Demonstrated by Existing Efforts to Integrate Programs
paragraphs: Improvements in the effectiveness of federal land management programs  could result from a move of the Forest Service into Interior, according to  several officials, if the four agencies took the opportunity to coordinate  programs they have in common. For example, a possible outcome of  having the land management agencies together in one department could  be the improvement of land management across jurisdictional boundaries.  Program areas that offer opportunities for improved coordination include  law enforcement, recreation, and wilderness management. The optimal  approach for improving the effectiveness of federal land management  programs, according to many officials and experts, could be to align the  Forest Service’s and BLM’s statutes, regulations, policies, and programs in  such areas as timber, grazing, oil and gas, appeals, and mapping. Many of  these officials and experts, however, said an alignment would not  automatically occur if the Forest Service were moved into Interior, and  further action—legislative or executive—would need to be taken to  improve effectiveness. While many of the officials and experts we  interviewed believed a move would improve effectiveness, many did not  believe that many efficiencies would be achieved in the short term if the  Forest Service were moved into Interior as a separate bureau, with its own  authorities and programs. Still, a number of them believed that efficiencies  might be gained in the long term if the department took certain actions to  convert the Forest Service to Interior’s information technology and other  business systems.
According to several officials and experts, existing efforts to integrate  programs demonstrate improved program effectiveness and public service  but few efficiencies in the short term. For example, parts of the Forest  Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and  Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs have been colocated at the National  Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, since 1965 and, through the  center, coordinate their mobilization of supplies, equipment, and  personnel to suppress wildland fires quickly and more effectively. Despite  this coordination, the agencies still have key differences that hinder  management effectiveness and efficiency; such differences include  incompatible information technology and other business operations and  systems. Service First offices have also integrated a number of programs  that have helped improve the effectiveness, and perhaps efficiency, of land  management and public service. Under the Service First program begun in  1996, the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National  Park Service can use one another’s authorities, duties, and responsibilities  to conduct joint or integrated programs or business operations to improve  the agencies’ customer service, operational efficiency, and land  management. For example, a Service First office in Durango, Colorado,  has both Forest Service and BLM staff working jointly to manage  recreation activities, grazing allotments, oil and gas exploration and  production, and other resources to increase the effectiveness of land  management. The Service First efforts also demonstrate some of the  difficulties that the Forest Service and BLM have working together  because of different systems and the resulting inefficiencies. For example,  although the Colorado Service First offices have integrated aspects of their  programs, the offices have to maintain two separate computer systems,  one for the Forest Service and the second for BLM.
Many agency officials and experts we interviewed suggested that if the  objective of a move is to improve federal land management or increase the  efficiency and effectiveness of the agencies’ diverse programs, other  organizational options may achieve better results than moving the Forest  Service into Interior. These officials and experts raised a range of other  options, such as increasing collaboration and coordination, moving BLM  to USDA, and creating a new department of natural resources. In addition  to these options, a number of officials and experts believed the Forest  Service should remain separate from Interior and its agencies because it  provides an alternative model of land management. A few officials said  that the Forest Service and BLM serve to check and balance each other, in  that no one Secretary manages all public lands, thereby diminishing the  influence one person can have on these lands. Other officials and experts  pointed out that the two agencies manage different lands and therefore  have different management purposes: the Forest Service manages higher,  wetter, mountainous lands, while BLM manages lower-elevation  rangelands.
section_title: Move Would Entail Consideration of Numerous Factors and Could Lead to Transition Costs, but Key Merger and Transformation Practices Could Help Facilitate Move and Manage Disruptions
paragraphs: Moving the Forest Service into Interior would raise a number of cultural,  organizational, and legal factors and related transition costs for Interior  and USDA to consider. Nevertheless, Interior and USDA could implement  some key merger and transformation practices to help manage any  resulting disruptions and other transition costs.
subsections: section_title: Given Cultural, Organizational, and Legal Factors, a Move Could Lead to Disruptions and Other Transition Costs
paragraphs: Differences between the Forest Service’s culture and those of Interior’s  land management agencies may produce clashes resulting in decreased  morale and productivity if the Forest Service is moved into Interior. The  agencies’ cultures stem in large part from their histories and have also  developed as a result of each agency’s level of autonomy within USDA or  Interior. A number of officials said that the Forest Service has a fair degree  of independence within USDA. For example, some agency officials said  that the Forest Service budget does not receive as much attention or  scrutiny as other USDA agency budgets. Because of cultural differences,  many officials and experts believed that moving the Forest Service into  Interior could lead to decreased morale and productivity. Some experts  and officials indicated that Forest Service employees may feel a loss of  identity and independence in leaving USDA and would fear and resist a  move, while a move may leave Interior employees feeling threatened,  worrying that because of its size, the Forest Service would dominate  Interior; they too may resist a move. According to many officials and  experts, the agencies may also see an increase in the number of  retirements and resignations after a move, which may facilitate cultural  change but also decrease productivity because of the loss of experienced  staff.
The consolidation of Interior’s National Biological Service into the United  States Geological Survey (USGS) offers one illustration of possible  cultural implications of moving the Forest Service into Interior. The  National Biological Service was created in 1993 to gather, analyze, and  disseminate biological information necessary for the sound stewardship of  the nation’s natural resources. In 1996, the agency was merged into USGS.  According to an Interior official, the cultural and emotional aspects of the  move caused a lot of hardship and mistrust among employees within both  the former National Biological Service and USGS. According to this  official, the transition into USGS took 4 to 5 years, and more than a decade  afterward, some employees still question the move. We previously  reported that it can take at least 5 to 7 years to fully implement initiatives  to merge or transform organizations and sustainably transform their  organizational cultures.
Organizational factors could also complicate a transition, including the  organizational structures of the agencies; effects on Interior functions,  such as its Office of Inspector General; the need to integrate the Forest  Service into Interior’s information technology and other business systems;  effects on USDA functions, such as its relationship with other USDA  agencies; and human capital practices. USDA and Interior are both  cabinet-level departments organized under politically appointed  Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries, but the organizational structures of  the departments differ at the next levels. At the agency level, the directors  of Interior’s land management agencies are politically appointed, unlike  the Chief of the Forest Service. According to some agency officials and  experts, if the Forest Service were moved, Interior would need to consider  how the Forest Service would be placed in the department, unless this  organization were legislated. In particular, agency officials questioned  which of Interior’s Assistant Secretaries the Forest Service would fall  under or if a new Assistant Secretary position would be created. Further,  some questioned whether the Forest Service would retain its career Chief  or if the Chief would be replaced with a politically appointed director,  consistent with Interior’s other bureaus.
Effects on Interior functions and the need to integrate systems would also  complicate a move. Adding about 29,000 Forest Service employees to  Interior would likely increase the workload at the departmental level and  strain shared departmental resources. Furthermore, integrating the Forest  Service’s reporting, budgeting, acquisition, and other processes and  systems into Interior’s would be difficult, time-consuming, and costly,  according to many experts and officials. One official estimated that costs  to integrate systems could be on the order of tens of millions of dollars,  while others estimated costs on the order of hundreds of millions of  dollars. Some officials believed, however, that the timing is opportune to  move the Forest Service because Interior and USDA are both moving to  new financial management systems and the agency could be merged into  Interior’s new financial system without further investment in USDA’s  system. In contrast, other officials said that now is not a good time to  move the Forest Service, because the agency has recently gone through  many difficult changes and may not be able to handle additional change  without detracting from its service to the public.
The Forest Service is the largest agency in USDA in terms of employees,  and many agency officials and experts noted that moving would affect not  only Interior but USDA and its other agencies. For example, the Forest  Service pays a large share of USDA’s overhead charges; therefore, a move  would affect these expenses and economies of scale within the  department. Further, moving the Forest Service out of USDA could affect  its relationship with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)  and other agencies in the department. The Forest Service and NRCS  coordinate providing technical assistance to private foresters and other  land conservation activities. The Forest Service also works with other  agencies in USDA, including the Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service.
Legal issues would also need to be resolved if a move were to take place.  The Forest Service and Interior operate under differing statutory  authorities and legal precedents. While moving the Forest Service into  Interior as a separate bureau would not necessarily entail changing the  laws governing the agencies, many officials and experts said these laws  should be examined and may need to be reconciled if a move took place.  Even in areas in which the Forest Service and Interior agencies operate  under the same laws, they have sometimes received different legal  opinions from USDA’s Office of General Counsel and Interior’s Office of  the Solicitor. In addition, legislation authorizing a move would need  careful crafting. For example, such legislation could transfer the proper  authorities from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the  Interior, as well as give the Secretary of the Interior broad reorganization  authority to bring the agencies’ programs into alignment and to manage  and modify processes, some officials said. The authorizing legislation  would need to allow Interior flexibility and time to change and deal with  these details, one expert said.
Additional legal factors needing consideration include tribal issues,  congressional committee jurisdiction, and interest groups. In some cases,  treaties with Native American tribes have assured tribal governments  certain “reserved rights”—such as rights for grazing, hunting, fishing,  trapping, and water—on former tribal land now part of present-day  national forests and grasslands. According to one official, tribes would be  concerned about how moving the Forest Service might affect these rights  and tribal access to national forests and grasslands and would need to be  consulted about a move. According to some experts, aligning  congressional committee structure to match a departmental  reorganization would be critical to the success of a move of the Forest  Service into Interior. While our interviews revealed no consensus among  outside groups with an interest in the agencies about a move of the Forest  Service into Interior, some groups, such as recreation or state forestry  organizations, worried about jeopardizing established relationships with  the Forest Service, while others were unsure of the effects of a move on  their organization.
section_title: Key Merger and Transformation Practices Can Help Manage Move and Disruptions
paragraphs: To help plan for and manage a move and possible disruptions, our  previous work on transforming organizations has identified some key  practices at the center of successful mergers and organizational  transformations, and the experts and officials we interviewed mentioned  several of them. For example, one key practice is to ensure that top  leadership drives the transformation. Remarking that strong leadership  can ease cultural transitions and minimize disruption, several officials told  us that agency leaders would need to clearly explain the reason for a move  so that employees understood the rationale and logic behind it and had  incentives to support it. We also reported in the past that a move must be  closely managed with implementation goals and a timeline and that  creating an effective strategy for continual communication is essential.  Some officials said that agency leaders would need to communicate  extensively with stakeholders and agency employees if the Forest Service  is to be moved, which could put some employees at ease and mitigate  disruptions from decreased morale and productivity.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: A move of the Forest Service into Interior would be no small undertaking.  Organizational transformations are inevitably complex, involving many  factors and often creating unintended consequences. Further, these  transformations can take many years to achieve. In considering a move of  the Forest Service into Interior, policymakers will need to carefully weigh  long-term mission and management gains against potential short-term  disruption and operational costs. Significant large-scale challenges to  federal land management, such as climate change, energy production,  dwindling water supplies, wildland fire, and constrained budgets, suggest  the need to approach these problems innovatively. If a move were  undertaken, adequate time and attention would need to be devoted to  planning for and implementing key merger and transformation practices to  manage potential disruption and other transition costs. In particular, any  legislation authorizing a move would need to provide the departments  ample time to plan the move—in light of cultural, organizational, and legal  factors—and incorporate these key practices.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Public  Affairs and Congressional Relations may be found on the last page of this  report. Ulana Bihun, David P. Bixler, Ellen W. Chu, Susan Iott, Richard P.  Johnson, Mehrzad Nadji, Susan Offutt, Angela Pleasants, Anne Rhodes- Kline; Lesley Rinner, Dawn Shorey, and Sarah Veale made key  contributions to this statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.