Federal Land Management
Potential Effects and Factors to Consider in a Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior Gao ID: GAO-09-412T February 24, 2009The 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.
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.
GAO-09-412T, Federal Land Management: Potential Effects and Factors to Consider in a Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-412T
entitled 'Federal Land Management: Potential Effects and Factors to
Consider in a Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the
Interior' which was released on February 24, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, February 24, 2009:
Federal Land Management:
Potential Effects and Factors to Consider in a Move of the Forest
Service into the Department of the Interior:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-09-412T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-412T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives.
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. This testimony is
based on GAO‘s report, Federal Land Management: Observations on a
Possible Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior
(GAO-09-223), released today.
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.
Figure: Federal Lands in the Contiguous United States:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the continental United States with shading
indicating federal lands in two categories:
Forest Service;
Department of the Interior.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey's National Atlas Web
site data.
[End of figure]
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-412T]. For more
information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
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.
[Footnote 1] 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.
Background:
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.[Footnote 2]
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.
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. 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.
Figure 1: Federal Lands in the Contiguous United States Managed by
USDA's Forest Service and by the Department of the Interior:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the continental United States with shading
indicating federal lands in five categories:
Forest Service;
Bureau of Land Management;
Bureau of Reclamation;
Fish and Wildlife Service;
National Park Service.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey's National Atlas Web
site data.
[End of figure]
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 figure 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.
Figure 2: Forested Lands in the Contiguous United States, 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the continental United States with shading
indicating forested lands.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey's National Atlas Web site.
[End of figure]
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:
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.[Footnote 3] 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.
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.
Given Cultural, Organizational, and Legal Factors, a Move Could Lead to
Disruptions and Other Transition Costs:
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.[Footnote 4] 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[Footnote
5] 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.
[Footnote 6]
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.[Footnote 7] 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.
Key Merger and Transformation Practices Can Help Manage Move and
Disruptions:
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,[Footnote 8] 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.
Concluding Observations:
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.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Federal Land Management: Observations on a Possible Move of
the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11,
2009).
[2] The remaining federal lands are managed by other federal agencies,
including the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Bureau
of Reclamation.
[3] The Service First authority was recently extended to March 2009 in
Pub. L. No. 110-329, Div. A. § 106, 122 Stat. 3575; § 147, 122 Stat.
3581 (2008).
[4] Currently, the Forest Service has about 29,000 permanent employees
compared with a total of about 54,000 permanent employees in Interior,
whose largest agency is the National Park Service, with about 16,000
permanent employees.
[5] The agency was originally named the National Biological Survey but
was renamed the National Biological Service in 1995.
[6] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[7] According to officials, costs to plan and acquire shared USDA
systems totaled almost $180 million through fiscal year 2008.
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
