The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management:
History and Analysis of Merger Proposals

Ross W. Gorte and Betsy A. Cody
Specialists in Natural Resources Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

November 7, 1995

95-117 ENR

CONTENTS

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
HISTORY OF MERGER PROPOSALS
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF A MERGER
-- Federal Fiscal Impacts
-- Institutional Effects
-- Legal and Political Considerations
-- Service to the Public
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY

Two Federal agencies currently manage Federal lands for multiple uses. The Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior both sell timber, permit livestock grazing, administer recreational uses, allow mining and mineral leasing on most lands, protect watersheds, provide for fish and wildlife habitats, and manage wilderness areas. The similar management authorities and frequently adjacent locations of the agencies' lands have led to numerous proposals to consolidate these agencies. Proposals date back to 1911 (before the BLM existed, as such), and have been made under Presidents Taft, Harding, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter. In an attempt to improve the administration of Federal lands, President Reagan proposed an exchange of some lands and personnel between the agencies, thus again raising the concept of a natural resources reorganization.

Proponents and critics have cited various benefits and problems associated with merging the BLM and the Forest Service. Cost savings from reduced duplication are a commonly cited benefit, with estimates of savings ranging as high as $100 million annually. In addition, it is argued that a merger would improve Federal land management and service to the public by providing a more comprehensive structure and "one-stop shopping" with uniform policies for users. However, a merger could also disrupt current programs and harm agency morale, and would require some personnel and administrative costs to implement. Furthermore, the cost savings and improved service would only occur if the laws and regulations governing the agencies' policies and practices were consolidated and harmonized, but such a change would likely be politically difficult. Finally, some question whether changes in the current structure are needed, since many observers argue that the current system is working adequately and that merging the agencies could produce a very large, unresponsive agency.

INTRODUCTION

Four Federal agencies administer 95 percent of the 650 million acres of Federal land in the United States: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior. These agencies manage the Federal lands for a variety of purposes, related to the preservation, conservation, and development of the natural resources. Each agency has specific statutory mandates and responsibilities for the lands it administers.

The Forest Service and the BLM are both directed to manage their lands for multiple uses and for sustained yields of resource outputs without impairing resource productivity. Both agencies sell timber, permit or lease lands for livestock grazing, allow mineral exploration and development in many areas, protect watersheds, manage wildlife habitats, administer recreation uses, and preserve wilderness areas, although they have different rules and regulations governing these activities. The similarity of their missions, the proximity of many of their lands and offices, and the existence of only one major Federal resource land manager (the Forest Service) outside the Department of the Interior have led to frequent proposals to transfer the Forest Service lands to Interior and to merge the BLM and the Forest Service. This report briefly describes these two agencies, identifies the historical merger proposals, and discusses the potential benefits and limitations of merging the Forest Service and the BLM.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Permanent Federal forestry activities began in 1881, when Congress began funding the Division of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture. The division initially focused on providing information to Congress and the public about the condition of U.S. forests. The mission evolved over the succeeding decades to providing forestry assistance to States and to private forest land owners. The division grew slowly, being upgraded to the Bureau of Forestry in 1901.

In 1891, Congress granted the President the authority to establish forest reserves from the existing public domain lands under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department.(1) In 1897, in what has become known as the Organic Administration Act,(2) Congress stated that the purposes for which forest reserves could be established were:

. . . to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.

Initially, the forest reserves were administered by the Division of Forestry in the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior, because the General Land Office (one predecessor of the BLM) was responsible for the public domain from which the reserves were created. This office administered the forest reserves for 14 years, during which time the reserves were increased to 56 million acres and the first Federal commercial timber sales were made. However, the division relied on the Agriculture Department's Bureau of Forestry for technical advice on the management of the forest reserves.

In 1905, Congress transferred Interior's Forestry Division to the Department of Agriculture and combined it with the larger Bureau of Forestry; the new entity was named the U.S. Forest Service, and combined administration of the forest reserves with the advisory responsibilities of the former Bureau of Forestry. President Theodore Roosevelt more than doubled the forest reserve acreage in the 2 years following the merger, to a total of 151 million acres by 1907. Congress responded by limiting the President's authority to proclaim additional forest reserves, and renamed the reserves the "national forests." However, in 1911, Congress authorized additions to the National Forest System through the purchase of private lands in need of rehabilitation. Under this authority (the Weeks Act) and other specific Acts, the National Forest System has grown slowly to its current holdings of 192 million acres in 44 States. These lands are concentrated in the West, but the 25 million acres of national forests in the eastern half of the country account for more than half of all Federal lands in the East.

Forest Service efforts to gain control over the national forests focused initially on fire control and livestock grazing. The agency's authority to regulate livestock grazing and charge a grazing fee were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1911.(3) Although sheep and goat grazing has declined precipitously since the end of World War I, cattle grazing has increased slowly over the past 50 years of Forest Service administration. In contrast, and despite Forest Service efforts, timber sales remained relatively low until after World War II, then climbed quickly during the 1950s; the sale program was relatively stable from 1960 through 1988, but has declined substantially over the past 7 years, due to spotted owl protection, weak economic performance, and a host of other factors. Recreation uses also rose after World War II, but except for a brief decline in the mid-1980s, have continued to expand steadily.(4)

Management goals for the national forests were identified in an 1897 Act, and were further articulated in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.(5) This latter Act states:

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.... The establishment and maintenance of areas as wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act directs national forest management for the combination of uses that "will best meet the needs of the American people." Resource management is to be coordinated for "multiple use" -- considering the relative values of the various resources, but not necessarily maximizing dollar returns, nor requiring that areas be managed for all or even most uses. The Act also calls for "sustained yield" -- a high level of resource outputs in perpetuity but without impairing the productivity of the land.

Management of the National Forest System is also guided by the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976.(6) Together, these laws encourage foresight in using the Nation's renewable resources, and establish long-range strategic planning processes for Forest Service management. The 1974 Act focuses on national, long-range direction for forest conservation by requiring an Assessment to inventory and monitor the Nation's resource situation, a Program and Presidential Statement of Policy to guide Forest Service policies and budgets, and an Annual Report to evaluate Program implementation and other Forest Service activities. The National Forest Management Act substantially expanded the direction for the Forest Service to prepare comprehensive land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System that are integrated with the national strategic planning process.

Forest Service responsibilities are not limited to managing the national forests. Another principal Forest Service program is a continuation of the original role of the Bureau of Forestry: to provide forestry assistance to States and to nonindustrial private forest owners. Forestry research is the third principal Forest Service program. Congress first authorized forestry research in 1928 "to insure adequate supplies of timber and other forest products." The authorities for these two programs were revised and updated in separate Acts in 1978.(7) The fourth Forest Service program, International Forestry, provides forestry assistance globally.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was formed in 1946 by a merger of two Interior Department agencies: the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. The General Land Office had been established in 1812 to oversee the conveyance of public domain lands out of Federal ownership. While it was responsible for most unreserved Federal lands, the emphasis for many years was on conveying (disposing of) the public domain lands, not on managing them.

The U.S. Grazing Service was established to implement the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.(8) The Taylor Grazing Act was enacted to remedy the deteriorating range condition of the public lands, due to overuse and the drought and depression of the 1920s and 1930s. It was the first legislation directing management of the remaining public domain lands. The Act included a provision -- "pending their final disposal" -- that implied eventual transfer of the remaining public domain lands out of Federal ownership, but management to improve conditions also suggested a continuing Federal presence.

The Taylor Grazing Act established livestock grazing management as one of the purposes of BLM administration of the public lands. However, timber management was also a purpose from the outset. In 1869, the Oregon Central (later renamed Oregon and California, or O&C) Railroad was granted lands as compensation for building the railroad from Portland to the Oregon-California State line. However, a 1913 Federal court decision forfeited these heavily timbered lands, and the lands were returned (technically, revested under a 1916 Act) to the General Land Office.(9) Despite Forest Service efforts, Congress enacted the 1937 O&C Act directing management of these lands by the General Land Office (and its successor, the BLM). Although the revested O&C grant lands are a relatively small area (2.6 million acres), their high inventory and productivity has allowed the BLM to account for 10 percent of the annual Federal timber sale program.

The enactment of numerous Federal laws governing the public lands and resources led to increasingly scattered management authorities. In 1964, Congress directed a review of the public lands and management authorities by the Public Land Law Review Commission. The Commission's 1970 report recommended that the existing public lands be retained in Federal ownership and managed for multiple use and sustained yield.(10) In 1976, after 6 years of deliberations, Congress enacted a comprehensive public land law: the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).(11) FLPMA formally established the Federal policy of retaining the remaining public lands in Federal ownership. Section 102(a) states that:

(1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedures provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest ....

Many BLM lands in Alaska were transferred to other Federal agencies or out of Federal ownership after FLPMA was enacted. Nonetheless, the BLM still manages more land than any other Federal agency -- 268 million acres, of which 89 million acres (33 percent) are in Alaska. Only 1.5 million acres of the other 179 million acres are located outside the 11 coterminous Western States.

The BLM was given its initial multiple use direction in the Multiple Use, Sustained Yield Classification Act of 1964. This direction duplicated the definitions of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, but was made temporary, "pending the implementation of recommendations to be made by the Public Land Law Review Commission."(12) Multiple use and sustained yield were made permanent management goals for the public lands, "unless otherwise specified by law," in §102(a)(7) of FLPMA. The definitions of multiple use and sustained yield in FLPMA are virtually identical to those in Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, although FLPMA gives voice to future needs and values not explicitly identified in the earlier Act. FLPMA also established, in §102(a)(9), a general policy of obtaining the fair market value for public lands and resources, "unless otherwise provided for by statute."

FLPMA is also called the BLM Organic Act because Title III consolidated and articulated many of the management responsibilities of the BLM. FLPMA also amended, repealed, and/or replaced many of the previous public land laws, including authorities: for Federal land acquisitions, disposals, exchanges, and rights-of-way; for range management; and for special area protection (including withdrawals) and advisory groups in decision making FLPMA requires resource management planning for the public lands, but the planning guidance for the public lands in FLPMA is substantially less detailed than is the planning guid-ance for national forests in the National Forest Management Act.

HISTORY OF MERGER PROPOSALS(l3)

Federal forestry began in the Department of Agriculture almost by accident; money for a forestry study was added to the Agriculture appropriations bill in August 1876, after a bill directing a forestry study by the Department of the Interior had stalled in the House Committee on Public lands. The forest reserves were established in the Interior Department, because the General Land Office was already responsible for those lands.

Discussions about bringing U.S.D.A.'s foresters (who provided technical assistance) and Interior's forests together began early in the 20th Century. In December 1901, 3 months after becoming President, Theodore Roosevelt sent a message to Congress stating that the forest reserves belonged in the Department of Agriculture, and the 1901 Report of the Secretary of the Interior supported transferring the reserves to the Agriculture Department. Although there was substantial congressional opposition to the transfer, at least partly because of concerns over the anticipated control by Gifford Pinchot (Chief of U.S.D.A.'s Bureau of Forestry), a law effecting the transfer was enacted in 1905.(14)

Proposals to combine the Forest Service with an agency of the Department of the Interior, or to establish a new land and resources conservation department, began early. The first effort to transfer the national forests back to Interior was begun by Interior Secretary Walter Fisher in the Taft Administration in 1911, and bills to effect the transfer were introduced in the 64th, 65th, and 66th Congresses (1916-1920).(15) At about the same time, the Forest Service disputed the need for an Interior agency to administer the national parks and national monuments (many of which were established within the national forests), claiming that the Forest Service could administer these recreation lands; nonetheless, Congress established the National Park Service in 1916.

The second attempt was by Interior Secretary Albert Fall in the Harding Administration in 1921. The new President delayed action, and the Secretary turned to Congress, asking that the national forests in Alaska be transferred to the Interior Department. The dispute simmered until Harding visited Alaska in the summer of 1923, and then publicly questioned such a transfers It is unclear whether this resulted from firsthand observations or from revelations of the impending Teapot Dome scandal (wherein Secretary Fall was convicted of accepting bribes for fraudulent oil leases on Federal lands in Wyoming), but Harding's death a week later effectively ended the effort.

President Hoover appeared interested in Federal reorganization, but the problems associated with the Great Depression overwhelmed his Administration. President Hoover did issue an Executive Order on December 9, 1932, transferring the General Land Office to the Department of Agriculture. This proposal was only offered after an attempt to transfer the public domain land to the States was widely rejected and President Hoover had been defeated in his reelection bid. However, this attempt to reorganize Federal land management (and other reorganization recommendations) was disapproved by House Resolution 350 on January 19, 1933.

Transfer of the Forest Service to the Interior Department was debated for several years under President Franklin Roosevelt. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes was at the center of the controversy that began in 1933 with the transfer of 16 national monuments from the Forest Service to the National Park Service; Forest Service suspicions were furthered in 1934, when the Natural Resources Board (chaired by Ickes) recommended creating additional National Park System units from existing national forest lands.(l7) In 1936, the Brownlow Committee on Executive Reorganization recommended transferring the Forest Service to Interior. However, the open dispute between Ickes and the Forest Service and its supporters delayed action, and events leading to World War II distracted the President from internal affairs. In addition, bills to establish a Department of Conservation and Works, using the Interior Department and the Forest Service as a foundation, were introduced in the Senate in 1935 (S. 2665) and in the House in 1936 (H.R. 11642). The former passed the Senate on May 13, 1936, but not until it had been amended to only change the name of the Interior Department to the Department of Conservation. The House bill was reported by the Public Lands Committee on March 9, 1936, but objections were raised and it did not come to a floor vote.

In 1947, during the Truman Administration, Congress established the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government, chaired by ex-President Herbert Hoover. In 1949, this Hoover Commission (there was a second Hoover Commission to examine Federal government organization from 1953-1955) recommended that Federal land management be concentrated in the Department of Agriculture, with all forest and range management in one agency; this view was presented by the Task Force on Agriculture in Appendix M of the report. (18) Separately, the Task Force on Natural Resources, in Appendix L of the report, proposed a Department of Natural Resources, including a Forest and Range Service created by combining the Forest Service and the BLM.(l9) These reports were presented to Congress and to President Truman, but no direct actions were taken on them.

President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Government Organization concurred with the Hoover Commission recommendation for combining forest and range management in the Department of Agriculture.(20) The committee asserted that this transfer could be done without separate legislation under then-existing reorganization authority, but that the proposal would be highly controversial. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and House Committee on Government Operations held joint hearings in November 1955 and February 1956; the former issued a report recommending consolidation of all Federal forestry functions within the Forest Service.(21) Following responses to the committee recommendations on Federal timber sale policies, the Senate Interior Committee issued a report in 1958 reconfirming their recommendation for consolidating Federal forestry within the Forest Service:

We recommend the consolidation in the Forest Service of the forestry functions and the surface resource management responsibilities for commercial forest land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.(22)

The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget (predecessor to the Office of Management and Budget) opposed the recommendation in a letter to the committee chairman.(23) Despite this opposition, President Eisenhower proposed Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959 to transfer certain functions of the Department of the Interior (specifically, "responsibilities with respect to certain land or timber exchanges and land sales .... [and] the use and disposal of mineral materials ...") to the Secretary of Agriculture. Upon further study, however, the President decided not to transmit the reorganization plan to Congress because of differing Agriculture and Interior timber sale practices, and the possibility for disrupting the timber sales programs. Senate Interior Committee Chairman James Murray concurred with the President's decision, but suggested that the problem was not following the Committee's recommendations:

Mr. President, the Administration has just discovered what the Congress told them 3 years ago. The Federal timber selling agencies are not coordinated in their activities and to launch on a consolidation without first harmonizing statutes, regulations, and procedures would create chaos for the dependent timber industry.(24)

The Kennedy Administration gave little attention to resource management issues. However, to further this "era of good feeling," the Agriculture and Interior Secretaries sent a letter to the President, known as the "Treaty of the Potomac," proposing greater cooperation and an end to proposals to transfer lands among agencies.(25) Nonetheless, in 1964, Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission to review management of the remaining public domain lands administered by the BLM. The Commission submitted its report to President Nixon and to Congress in June 1970.(26) One recommendation was to transfer the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, to be renamed the Department of Natural Resources. The similar land uses and management objectives for the BLM and Forest Service were cited as supporting rationale, but a merger of these two agencies was not explicitly proposed. No legislative proposals were presented to effect this recommendation.

While the Public Land Law Review Commission was completing its report, President Nixon's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, under Roy Ash, considered two options: establishing a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or a Department of Natural Resources (DNR).(27) These proposals would have created a Cabinet-level department combining: the Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and certain other functions of the Department of Agriculture; all agencies of the Department of the Interior; certain functions of the Army Corps of Engineers; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce; and other agencies. (The proposed DENR would also have included the 44 Federal agencies involved in monitoring, research, standard-setting, and enforcement of pollution abatement programs; the DNR proposal, with a separate Environmental Protection Agency for the pollution functions, was considered a fall-back position from the full DENR proposal.)(28) President Nixon presented his proposal to Congress and the public in March 1971.(29)

Several bills were introduced in the 92d Congress to establish a Department of Natural Resources or Natural Resources and Environment.(30) The House Committee on Government Operations and Senate Committee on Government Affairs held hearings on the proposals. Problems of disrupting agency operations, and pros and cons of disrupting current interest group-agency relationships were discussed by the witnesses. It was variously argued that a DNR could facilitate the implementation of national policies, but might stifle national discussions of policies by keeping the debates within one department. Finally, the DNR proposal was seen as likely to fragment congressional oversight of resource activities because more committees would have jurisdiction over portions of the Department's functions.

Despite the interest in reorganizing Federal land and resource responsibilities, no bills were reported by committee during the 92nd Congress. In June 1973, during the 93d Congress, President Nixon presented a revised reorganization proposal, with a Department of Energy and Natural Resources instead of a DNR; however, the natural resources portion of the revised proposal was substantially the same as the previous proposal. Legislation was introduced, but no bills which would establish a new department with a natural resource focus were reported by committee in the 93d Congress.

In 1976, Congress moved away from merging the BLM and Forest Service with the enactment of FLPMA and the National Forest Management Act, separate major management laws for the two agencies, signed into law on consecutive days. Congress explicitly retained and amended the separate management functions of the BLM in FLPMA. While much of the guidance for multiple-use, sustained-yield management in FLPMA was based on Forest Service experience with the laws governing the national forests, substantial differences were enacted for BLM management of the public lands.

President Carter established a comprehensive government reorganization project soon after he came to office, and one study centered on restructuring Federal management of natural resources. On March 1, 1979, President Carter announced a reorganization plan to create a Department of Natural Resources from the existing Department of the Interior plus the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the Department of Commerce. The Forest Service, the BLM, and the Conservation Division from the U.S. Geological Survey would be combined into a National Forest and Land Administration.

This reorganization was proposed under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 1946 (which delegated certain restructuring authority to the President), and was thus deemed not to require legislation. However, Members of Congress objected, arguing that the proposal exceeded Presidential authority. The substance of the reorganization also raised congressional concerns. Both the House and the Senate Agriculture Committees held hearings on President Carter's reorganization plan. Many points, supporting and opposing the reorganization, were raised, but a recurrent theme was the potential dilution and/or degradation of Forest Service expertise and professionalism if the agency were to be merged with the BLM, whose smaller staff managed more acreage. The substantial congressional opposition and other legislative priorities led Carter to withdraw the DNR proposal before any substantive congressional action had occurred.(31)

On January 30, 1985, the Reagan Administration announced a proposal to exchange certain Federal lands between the Forest Service and the BLM. This proposal did not involve a merger of the two agencies, as did the previous reorganizations. Instead, it was considered a land consolidation, with more than 25 million acres of land transferred to management by the other agency (10 million to the BLM and 15 million to the Forest Service).(32) This proposed "interchange" would have required legislation to change the land jurisdictions, but sharing of personnel was to proceed administratively.(33) Joint BLM/Forest Service public hearings were held in the summer of 1985 in the areas affected by the interchange on the State-by-State implementation plans. The Administration proposed legislation to adjust the land jurisdictions in 1986, but could not get the proposal introduced.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF A MERGER

There are potentially many benefits and drawbacks to merging the Forest Service and the BLM. The implications can best be examined by addressing the Federal fiscal impacts, the institutional effects, the political and legal aspects, and the public perceptions of Federal land and resource management.

One very general question is the nature of the merger: would the Forest Service and the BLM be transferred into a new agency, or would one agency absorb the other? Further, would the merged agency be in the Interior Department, or in the Agriculture Department, or in a new Department of Natural Resources? The answers to these questions influence the ways in which a merger would affect the agencies and the perceptions of interested parties.

Federal Fiscal Impacts

Reducing costs by eliminating duplicative personnel and offices is one of the primary benefits cited in most merger proposals. The Carter Administration had estimated the benefits of its DNR proposal at $100 million annually, but did not provide details about how these savings would be achieved.(34) In 1984, the General Accounting Office reported that 64 locations had both BLM and Forest Service offices, and estimated that combining these offices could save $33.5 million annually.(35) Inflation over the past decade would likely lead to a higher estimate today, even if the agencies have achieved some savings by sharing sites and people in the interim.

Another benefit commonly cited by proponents is the creation of a more efficient and effective structure for managing Federal lands and resources, by merging duplicative efforts. The two agencies have nearly identical missions: each inventories its lands and resources, plans and then acts to provide for use and protection of the lands and resources, and monitors the consequences of actions and uses. In areas with intermingled, adjoining, or neighboring lands, these functions arguably could be more efficiently conducted by a larger single entity than by separate agencies.

A merger could lead to some higher costs, as well, at least in the short-term. There would be implementation costs, associated with changing signs, logos, letterhead, etc. (Creating a new agency would have greater short-term implementation costs than moving one agency into the other.) There may be some personnel and planning costs from eliminating redundant positions and from the transfers necessary to have the right people in the right locations. Buildings and other facilities and equipment might be redundant, and need to be sold (which would generate revenues, but might require expenditures to be prepared for sale).

Others argue that reducing duplication will not necessarily lead to greater efficiency. Duplication may appear costly, but both economic theory and business practice suggest that the competition drives efficiency.(36) This explains why firms develop several products for the same market -- to compete internally as well as against other firms. If a BLM-Forest Service merger reduced duplication, it might also eliminate the potential internal competition that could improve efficiency (presuming, of course, that the agencies could be made to compete against each other).

Institutional Effects

The nature of the potential merger has particularly important ramifications for the institutions. The Forest Service may well dominate the combined agency, since it has about three times as many employees as the BLM and, despite common perceptions, administers as much or more land in six Western States (California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington). Furthermore, the Forest Service is thought to be a more active land manager, because timber management is more active (the Forest Service initiates timber sales) than is minerals management (the BLM typically responds to claim or lease activities). Some are concerned that a merger would dilute management intensity on the national forests, although it might also intensify management of the BLM lands.

The Forest Service has also historically had a vibrant esprit d'corps, and been perceived as displaying greater technical and professional expertise. However, the BLM has been improving in these areas, while the Forest Service image has been tarnished by internal conflicts (best illustrated by the creation of the independent Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) in 1989). Nonetheless, the possible dilution or degradation of Forest Service technical expertise and professionalism continues to be noted as a serious loss for the Federal Government.

A merger, necessary transfers and adjustments, might disrupt programs and hurt agency morale. Possibly enhanced services (discussed below) might be more than offset by the reduced service due to disruptions, adjustments, and morale problems. In addition, the personnel of the agency which is absorbed, or of both if a new agency is created, may feel a loss of identity, since many workers' sense of importance is linked to their organizations. Any job losses that result from a merger would exacerbate the possible morale problems.

Alternatively, creation of a new agency may offer new opportunities for agency employees to help shape the future of natural resource management. Both agencies are experiencing internal tension and dissent over the direction management should take; again, the creation of AFSEEE is an indication of the internal conflict. Often this tension is between newer, younger employees (with different education and experience) and the long-term employees representing the traditional agency cultures. A new agency, with revised legal authorities and guidance (as discussed below), might provide the opportunity to blend these differences into a coherent, cohesive organization, with a common vision of the future.

Finally, the differing policies and practices of the agencies could make a merger difficult. This is particularly true for the resources sold or leased by the agencies -- forage for grazing, timber, minerals, etc. Livestock grazing goals and guidelines are similar, but many agency practices and procedures differ. For example, the BLM relies more on cooperative agreements with livestock permittees and less oversight by BLM personnel than does the Forest Service. Timber sale procedures differ substantially, with the Forest Service sharing more of the risks due to changing markets and estimating errors. The mineral activities are currently administered by the BLM on all Federal lands, including the national forests. Forest Service responsibility for minerals is currently limited to administering access and surface land use. A merger could lead to internal conflicts, because of differing views of Federal policies and obligations for mineral development.

Legal and Political Considerations

Merging the Forest Service and the BLM would probably provide few benefits if the combined agency continued to administer two different sets of land and resource management and planning laws, applying to different, often adjacent landholdings. Thus, an agency merger necessarily implies merging the legal authorities for the agencies, but this could be an exceedingly difficult task. In particular, the laws that guide land use planning and direct receipt-sharing for the public lands differ substantially from those for the national forests. For example, the National Forest Management Act provides explicit, detailed guidance for the national forests on the planning process and cycle, on public participation, and on timber management and environmental constraints; FLPMA provides far fewer details on when and how to plan for the protection and use of the public lands. The laws governing receipt-sharing also differ. The Forest Service returns 25 percent of gross receipts from timber sales and other revenue sources to the States for use on roads and schools in the counties where the national forests are located.(37) For most public lands outside Alaska, the BLM generally returns 50 percent of receipts to the States or counties (Alaska receives 90 percent), but the rate ranges from 0 to 100 percent, depending on the location of the lands, on source of the receipts, and on the specific legal authority involved.(38)

Policies regarding water rights also differ between the national forests and the public lands. Traditionally, Federal reserved water rights are associated with the national forests, dating from the creation of the original forest reserve (or national forest), for timber management and forest protection, but grazing and other uses may not give rise to a reserved water right, because they were not originally primary purposes of the reserves. In contrast, grazing on BLM grazing districts has not generally been regarded as giving rise to Federal reserved water rights, even though grazing is a primary purpose under the Taylor Grazing Act. Issues regarding Federal reserved water rights -- on which lands they exist and with what priority dates -- is likely to complicate any Forest Service-BLM merger proposal.

The difficulties over merging the Forest Service and BLM legal authorities may be further complicated by jurisdictional issues within Congress. The House and Senate Interior (now Resource) Committees have traditionally had jurisdiction over the BLM and the public lands and over the forest reserves (because many of the reserves were originally created from the public domain). However, the Agriculture Committees have had jurisdiction over acquired forest lands and over forest management. In the House, many bills affecting national forests created from both acquired and public domain lands have had joint referrals to both committees. For example, the bills that became the Forest Service planning laws were jointly referred in the House, and were referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee; most of the hearings and the mark-up debates occurred in the Agriculture Committees and on the floor, and the Interior Committees were essentially silent on the legislation. The traditional committee jurisdictions within Congress could complicate the congressional debate over merging the agencies and their legal authorities, especially given the House rule changes regarding joint referrals.

Finally, the Executive Branch might also see some internal resistance, in addition to the potential personnel problems discussed above. As described at length in this report, numerous Interior Secretaries have attempted to gain control of the Forest Service over the past 90 years, and those attempts have typically been opposed by both the agency and the Agriculture Secretaries. The Forest Service opposition can be explained by many of the concerns described under institutional effects -- especially that the employees and top management seek to protect their traditional culture. Opposition by the Agriculture Secretaries (and efforts by the Interior Secretaries) can be explained by the size and stature of the Forest Service. In 1993, the Forest Service had nearly 35,000 permanent employees, and another 15,000 temporary/excepted employees.(39) The nearly 43,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) represent almost half of the Department's total staff, and would be an enormous loss of stature. Furthermore, the Forest Service administers land in 161 congressional districts (37 percent of the total), in 44 States, and thus represents an opportunity to relate to numerous Members of Congress. Finally, the Forest Service budget -- more than $3 billion, including trust funds and special accounts -- would add significantly to the Interior Department's $9 billion budget.

Service to the Public

A merger of the Forest Service and the BLM might also improve the quality of the agencies' performance. Improvements in public service and resource management have long been argued to be the principal benefits of such a merger. Numerous witnesses at the Senate and House Agriculture Committee hearings on President Carter's reorganization testified that the Forest Service's widely respected technical expertise and professionalism could be extended to all Federal multiple-use land management.

The existence of two agencies, each managing Federal lands for multiple-use, is regarded by many to be inefficient -- two agencies, with two sets of laws, regulations and policies, can lead to public confusion and poor service. Permits often have differing requirements for studies, etc.; what is sufficient for one agency may be rejected by the other, even for very similar lands and situations. Unnecessary differences and the resulting confusion are especially graphic when the agencies promulgate different regulations under one law that applies to both, such as the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 or the Federal Timber Payment Modification Act of 1984. Merging the agencies could enhance service and lead to a better perception of the effectiveness of Government. However, as noted above, eliminating differences in statutory mandates would require considerable amendment and/or consolidation of existing law.

Furthermore, the BLM currently administers the mineral activities on all Federal lands, including the national forests. Forest Service responsibility in minerals management is limited to administering access and surface land use. A merger would eliminate the current situation in which two different agencies manage aspects of the same resource on the national forests.

Finally, the consolidation of most Federal land management in one agency could lead to a greater focus and higher priority for land and resource management. Such an agency would have more comprehensive authority and responsibility, and its proponents have argued this would lead to more effective control and more consistent direction. Thus, concentrating Federal multiple-use land management in one agency could lead to formulation and implementation of a more comprehensive, effective national natural resources policy.

However, a merger could reduce responsiveness to public concerns. Some observers have suggested that merging the Forest Service and BLM would create a large, monolithic agency that would stifle creativity and policy debates by establishing uniform policies. Critics argue that the agencies are already unresponsive to public interests, and that a merger would create a larger, and even less responsive bureaucracy. It may also reduce the opportunity to experiment, and to learn from other multiple-use land managers who operate differently.

Another concern is drawn from the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Many observers feel that Federal land and resource management is reasonably effective under the current structure, that affected or interested groups understand and can use the existing arrangements, and that improvements can be achieved without merging the agencies. It is argued that the agencies should focus their efforts on improving management and public service within their current structures, rather than waste time trying to design "the perfect bureaucracy."

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Forest Service (in the U.S. Department of Agriculture) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, in the Department of the Interior) are both directed to manage their lands for multiple uses and for sustained yields of resource outputs without impairing resource productivity. Both agencies sell timber, permit or lease lands for livestock grazing, allow mineral exploration and development in many areas, protect watersheds, manage wildlife habitats, administer recreation uses, and preserve wilderness areas, although they have different rules and regulations governing these activities. The similarity of missions, the proximity of lands and offices, and the existence of one major Federal resource land manager (the Forest Service) outside the Department of the Interior have led to frequent proposals to transfer the Forest Service lands to Interior and/or to merge the BLM and the Forest Service.

The Forest Service was created in 1905, when Congress transferred the forest reserves (renamed national forests in 1907) from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture and merged Interior's Forestry Division with Agriculture's larger Bureau of Forestry. Efforts to transfer the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, to transfer the BLM to the Department of Agriculture, and/or to consolidate the Forest Service and BLM date back to 1911, and have been made under Presidents Taft, Harding, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter. In an attempt to improve the administration of Federal lands, President Reagan proposed an exchange (consolidation) of some lands and personnel between the agencies, thus again raising the concept of reorganizing Federal natural resources agencies.

Proponents and critics have cited various benefits and problems associated with merging the BLM and the Forest Service. General questions involve the nature of the merger -- would one agency absorb the other, or would a new agency be created; would the agency be in Agriculture, the Interior, or a new Department, or possibly by an independent agency? Answers to these questions affect the likely consequences of a merger.

Federal fiscal benefits are commonly cited as reasons for a merger. Costs could allegedly be reduced by eliminating duplicative personnel and offices, also leading to greater management efficiency. However, there would be short-term implementation costs, for altering signs and letterheads, for transferring people to where they are needed, etc. Furthermore, both economic theory and business practice suggest that competition drives efficiency; eliminating duplication might also eliminate the efficiency-producing competition between the agencies.

A merger would necessarily have substantial institutional effects. The Forest Service may well dominate, since it has three times as many employees and administers as much or more land in 6 of the 12 Western States. The Forest Service is widely perceived to be a more active manager, with greater espirit d'corps and professionalism, because the agency initiates timber management activities, whereas the BLM often responds to minerals activities initiated by others. However, the BLM has been improving in these areas, while the Forest Service's image has become tarnished by internal conflicts. The necessary transfers and adjustments might disrupt programs and hurt employee morale, while differing practices and procedures could prove difficult to merge. On the other hand, a new agency could offer an opportunity for employees to help shape the future of Federal natural resources management and policy.

A merger would probably provide few benefits if the legal authorities governing Forest Service and BLM management and planning were not merged, particularly with respect to revenue-sharing and Federal reserved water rights. Such a merger of legal authorities could be difficult, however, because of jurisdictional issues within Congress -- the Interior/Resource Committees have had jurisdiction over the BLM and public lands, but the Agriculture Committees have been the principal actors in Forest Service and national forest issues. The Executive Branch might also see internal struggles, since the Forest Service accounts for nearly half of all U.S.D.A. employees, but would increase the Interior budget by about a third.

Finally, a merger has been touted as a way to improve the agencies' service to the public, by providing uniform procedures, reducing confusion, and establishing a comprehensive Federal natural resources policy. Critics counter that a merger would create a monolithic agency that would stifle creativity and public policy debates, while creating a larger, less responsive bureaucracy.

Endnotes

l. Section 24 of An Act to Repeal Timber-Culture Laws, and For Other Purposes. Act of March 3, 1891; ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1095. 16 U.S.C. 471 (repealed).

2. Section 1 of the Sundry Civil Expenses Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1898. Act of June 4, 1897; ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11. 16 U.S.C. 473-475, et al.

3. See: Samuel T Dana and Sally K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2d ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980. p. 89.

4. For a discussion of the growth patterns of these uses, see: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA-F-505. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Feb. 1992. pp. 35-39.

5. Act of June 12, 1960; Pub.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215. 16 U.S.C. 528-531.

6. Respectively: Act of Aug. 17, 1974; Pub.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476; and Act of Oct. 22, 1976; Pub.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949. 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

7. Respectively: the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, Act of July l, 1978; Pub.L. 95-313, 92 Stat. 365 (16 U.S.C. 2101-2111); and the Forest and Rangeland Re-newable Resources Research Act of 1978, Act of June 30, 1978; Pub.L. 96-307, 92 Stat. 353 (16 U.S.C. 1641-1647).

8. Act of June 28, 1934; oh. 865, 48 Stat. 1269. 43 U.S.C. 315.

9. See: Elmo Richardson. BLM's Billion-Dollar Checkerboard: Managing the O&C Lands. Santa Cruz, CA: Forest History Society, 1980.

10. One Third of the Nation's Land: A Report to the President and to the Congress by the Public Land Law Review Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1970. 342 pp.

11. Act of Oct. 21, 1976; Pub.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743. 43 U.S.C. 1701, et al.

12. Act of Sept. l9, 1964; Pub.L. 88-607, 78 Stat. 986

13. Most of this history, at least through the end of World War II, is drawn from: Harold K. Steen. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington Press, 1976. 356 pp.

14. Act of Feb. 1, 1905; ch. 288, 33 Stat. 628. 16 U.S.C. 472.

15. See: Henry Clepper. Professional Forestry in the United States. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. pp. 59-60.

16. President Harding's Seattle speech on the subject was prepared without consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, nor with Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, who would become involved in later efforts to transfer the Forest Service to Interior.

17. Samuel T. Dana and Sally K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2d ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980. pp. 151-153.

18. U.S. Congress, House. Department of Agriculture: Letter from the Chairman, Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Transmitting Its Report on "Reorganization the Department of Agriculture. " House Document No. 80. 81st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt Print. Off., 1949. 37 p.

l9. U.S. Congress, House. Department of the Interior: Letter from the Chairman, Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Transmitting Its Report on the Department of the Interior and, Separately, as Appendixes L, M, and Q. the Related Task Force Reports on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Public Works. House Document No. 122. 81st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949. 94 p., plus appendices.

20. President's Advisory Committee on Government Organization. Memorandum for President Eisenhower; Subject: Department of Agriculture. Memorandum No. 7. Washington, DC: Feb. 14, 1953. 5 p.

21. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Federal Timber Sales Policies. Committee Print. 84th Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1956.

22. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Responses By Federal Agencies to the Report on Federal Timber Sales Policies. Committee Print. 85th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958. p. 7.

23. James E. Murray. "Remarks in the Senate: Consolidation of Federal Forestry Activities." Congressional Record, v. 105, Aug. 27, 1959. p. 15706-15707.

24. Ibid.

25. Dana and Fairfax, Forest and Range Policy, p. 209.

26. 0ne-Third of the Nation's Land: A Report to the President and to the Congress by thePublic Land Law Review Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off..1970. 342 pp.

27. President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization. Memorandum for the President; Subject: The Establishment of a Department of Natural Resources . Washington, DC: May 12, 1970. 37 p.

28. Dana and Fairfax, Forest and Range Policy, p. 242-243. EPA was established in 1970 under Reorganization Plan No. 3, without the creation of a DNR.

29. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Papers Relating to the President's Departmental Reorganization Program: A Reference Compila-tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1971. pp. 153-223.

30. H.R. 653; H.R. 6959; H.R. 6963; H.R. 7274; S. 1025; S. 1431.

31. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. President's Reorganization Project: Report on Reorganization Study of Natural Resource Functions. Washington, DC: June 1979. 2 parts, plus appendices.

32. It appears that such a land consolidation/reorganization had not been suggested before the Reagan Administration proposal.

33. To date, no reports have identified the extent to which such personnel sharing has occurred.

34. U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Proposed Department of Natural Resources: A Summary and Analysis. [by Susan R. Abbasi.] CRS Report for Congress No. 79-79. Washington, DC: March 19, 1979. 21 p.

35. U.S. General Accounting Office. Program to Transfer Land Between the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service Has Stalled; Report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior by the Comptroller General of the United States. GAO/ RCED-85-21. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Dec. 27, 1984. 51 p.

36. See, for example: Lester C. Thurow. The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities for Economic Change. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1980. 230 p. and Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1982. 360 p.

37. Act of May 23, 1908; ch. 192, 35 Stat. 251. 16 U.S.C. 500.

38. See: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. "Legal Allocation of Bureau of Land Management Receipts, Fiscal Year 1993," Public Land Statistics, 1993. Washington, DC: Sept. 1994. pp. 123-127.

39. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ecosystem Management: 1993 Annual Report of the Forest Service. Washington, DC: May 1994. p. 173.