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

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. Although a Move Would Align Federal Land Management Missions, It Could Diminish the Forest Service’s State- and Private-Lands Mission

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. 2), including almost 430 million acres  of private forested lands across the nation. 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. 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

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. In 1996, the agency was merged into USGS. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.