Should the Forest Service be moved to the Department of Interior?

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Government Accountability Office has begun a study to look at the pros and cons of moving the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Interior.

Apparently the Department of Interior was the Forest Service’s first home, though it was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1905 and has been there ever since, while the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife Service are all housed at Interior.  Some argue that all of the major public land management agencies should be under one roof, and there are merits to the argument, but questions as well.

There have been numerous past suggestions to move the agency out of Agriculture, though none have been successful to date.  According to a March 11 letter from the GAO to the Department of Interior, this current GAO study would address the following questions: 1) What options exist for consolidating the Forest Service into Interior? 2) What are the political strengths and weaknesses of each option? 3) What challenges exist to implementing these options and what are potential means for overcoming these challenges?

These questions may or may not get at the real natural resources problems of moving the agency from one department to another, as opposed to the political problems.  In addition, they don’t seem to directly address the fiscal costs or savings of moving the agency.

When some people think of Interior they think of the Park Service, and assume that moving the Forest Service over might result in management more akin to National Park management – generally protective regulations with an emphasis on recreation.  But the Bureau of Land Management is also in the Department of Interior.  And management at the BLM is very resource extraction heavy, especially when it comes to minerals.  The BLM actually has control over much mineral leasing on Forest Service lands as it is.  So while conservationists and recreationists might think about the National Park Service model if the Forest Service were to move, oil and gas companies are probably thinking about the BLM model, and salivating at the opportunity to even further streamline permitting processes for minerals, oil and gas extraction.

All that said, there is some logic to housing all of the natural resource agencies in one place.  If that were to happen, and the agency were to be moved, it would also provide opportunities for clarifying the purpose and mission of the Forest Service.  That’s a big can of worms to open, and one where conservationists might not have a lot of control over the outcome.  At this point, it looks like we’ll just have to wait and see what the GAO report says.