Four federal agencies administer about 95% of the approximately 653 million acres of federal land in the United States: the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior (DOI). Because the ramifications of a merger would be more significant than a transfer or some joint operations, the rest of this section discusses the possible impacts of a merger on users, on the agencies, on the federal budget, and on political structures. And if a new agency were created, everybody would have to learn the new laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and practices. However, an agency merger would be more significant than a transfer, and keeping committee jurisdictions distinct could be difficult. In theory, few object to fair and consistent compensation to state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. More importantly, rising wildfire suppression costs are affecting other FS programs. Wildfire management activities that seek to reduce damages, such as protecting individual structures and reducing biomass fuels, are less likely to be emphasized by a wildfire suppression agency. Summary and Observations

The Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) are both directed to manage their lands for multiple uses and for sustained yields of resource outputs without impairing resource productivity. The similarity of missions, the proximity of lands and offices, and their existence in separate Cabinet departments have led to frequent proposals to transfer one agency to the other department and/or to merge the BLM and the FS. Proponents and critics have cited various benefits and problems associated with transferring the agencies or merging the BLM and the FS. Improved service to the public has been touted as a reason for merging the agencies. A merger would probably provide limited benefits if the legal authorities governing FS and BLM management and planning were not also merged. Recent questions about a possible merger have been raised because of concerns that wildfire suppression costs are impeding federal multiple-use management. However, it would also separate wildfire management from other land and resource management, even though wildfire is integral to most temperate ecosystems.
The Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior are both directed to manage lands for multiple uses and sustained yields, but their unique histories have led to different laws, regulations, practices, and procedures in managing resources. The similar missions and neighboring and intermingled lands in separate Cabinet departments have led to frequent proposals, dating back to 1911, to transfer one agency to the other department or to consolidate them into one agency.
Proponents and critics cite various benefits and problems to a transfer or merger of the agencies. General questions over the nature of the change—which agency, if either, would remain and in which department—would affect the ramifications of a transfer or merger. Commonly cited benefits of a merger are possibly improved service to users and the public and greater efficiency in federal land management. However, such benefits are likely only if the legal authorities governing BLM and FS management and planning were consolidated, and this could be a daunting challenge. Furthermore, institutional differences, congressional committee jurisdictions, and compensation to state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands would complicate a merger. In some locations, the agencies are implementing a Service First program of joint facilities and cooperative management efforts as a step toward more efficient federal land management.
The possibility of merging the BLM and FS has arisen most recently because of concerns that high and growing expenditures on wildfire suppression are affecting other land and resource management activities. A distinct, combined federal fire suppression agency, separate from both the FS and the BLM, would reduce the impact of wildfire costs on BLM and FS budgets, but wildfire is integral to most wildland ecosystems, and a separate fire agency would likely emphasize suppression, rather than management to reduce wildfire damages.
This report is an update of out-of-print CRS Report 95-1117, The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management: History and Analysis of Merger Proposals, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed] (1995).