two commodity resources showed average 

 annual percentage increases in Forest Service 

 budget requests of 15.84 percent and 9.21 

 percent, respectively. Compared to these we 

 find increases in the other resources for the 

 same period (1955-1961) as follows: 



Soil and water 



management (S) 



Wildlife habitat 

 management (F) 



Recreation-public use (O) 



Reforestation and stand 

 improvement (T 2 ) 



Forest research 



59.84 percent 



51.92 percent 

 49.34 percent 



32.06 percent 

 22.45 percent 



Thus, even though the aggregated data ob- 

 scure certain aspects of this, it is obvious that 

 during the period prior to the enactment of 

 the MU-SY Act all of these noncommodity re- 

 sources had implied priorities that were gain- 

 ing relative to timber. This relative shift in the 

 priority ranking existed even though the ag- 

 gregated data shows that each was consider- 

 ably smaller than the timber request. 



Passage of the MU-SY Act could not have 

 been reflected in the agency's budget requests 

 until the 1962 budget was put forward, be- 

 cause of the timing of the budget preparation 

 process. In that year there was a large increase 

 in requested amounts for every one of the 

 FOREST resources, with the exception of 

 timber. The increased requests in that year 

 would tend to distort the picture formed by 

 the data for the years following passage of the 

 MU-SY Act; they are therefore eliminated 

 from consideration. 76 Average annual per- 

 centage increases in Forest Service requests 

 for the period 1963-1972 show the following 

 trends: F, 4.43 percent; O, 9.38 percent; R, 

 3.97 percent; S, 9.36 percent; T, , 10.74 per- 

 cent; T 2 , 8.74 percent; and Forest research, 

 6.30 percent. 



The data for the later period (1963-1972) 

 tends to suggest that after "catching up" in 

 certain management and resource areas, the 

 agency began to show relatively constant im- 

 plied priorities. Had the data been rounded to 

 the nearest whole number, four of the line 

 items (O, S, Ti, and T 2 ) would have had aver- 

 age annual increase within two percentage 

 points of each other. Even with the exceptions 



of Range resource management, Wildlife habi- 

 tat management, and Forest research, the 

 differences are relatively small. They certainly 

 do not show the wide variation of earlier 

 periods. This would indicate that the requested 

 allocation of the budget pie, as it now stands, 

 is seen by the agency as representing a much 

 more balanced program than it did before the 

 passage of the MU-SY Act. If this were not 

 so, then attempts to alter the size of the pie 

 should have continued to show differentials of 

 the magnitude evident before 1962. 



Missing, of course, is any observable link 

 between the requests made by the agency and 

 the actual amounts that would be needed to 

 carry out an "optimum" program. Failure to 

 tie its budget requests directly to an explicitly 

 goal -oriented management plan leaves the 

 agency's request open to drastic alterations. 

 Nowhere is this more evident than in the data 

 that will be presented here as to the budget 

 process at higher administrative levels. Uncon- 

 vinced that the agency has optimally sliced 

 the pie, those charged with administering the 

 budget process at higher levels cut and pare at 

 will, thus altering the priorities established 

 earlier. 



Priorities at the Higher Budget Levels 



In the 1960 Senate floor debate on the 

 MU-SY Act, Senator McGee of Wyoming 

 entered in the Congressional Record the budg- 

 etary history of Forest Service appropriations 



76 The budget presented for 1962 may be viewed 

 as a transition budget which attempted to correct 

 past imbalances. Once the "corrections" were made, a 

 new path could be followed. If the surge in budget 

 requests is included in the average annual percentage 

 increase, thus making the period 1962-1972, we find 

 that timber and range are given a reduced emphasis. 

 Those two resources had average annual increases of 

 11.49 percent and 8.58 percent, respectively. Forest 

 research came in for a rather drastic cut in priority, 

 showing average annual budget request increases of 

 only 10.62 percent, placing it near the bottom of the 

 implied priority scale. The other resources showed 

 average annual increases as follows: T 2 , 26.71 percent; 

 S, 21.96 percent; F, 14.56 percent; and 0, 12.61 per- 

 cent. It should be noted that the figure for Soil and 

 watershed management does not reflect allocations 

 under the Water Resources Development Act, passed 

 in 1966. This note should serve to remind the reader 

 that the data being presented is highly aggregated and 

 does not reflect special year-to-year circumstances. 



60 



