FOREST SERVICE 



DEPARTMENT OF AG R ICULTU RE 



Ej-j-j OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 

 ^ CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION 



100 w- 



F O 



S T, T 



FOREST 

 RESEARCH 



TOTAL 



FOREST 

 LAND 

 MANAGEMENT 

 AND FOREST 

 RESEARCH 



Figure 14. — Budget estimates and appropriations as percents of original Forest Service 

 request. Percentages are averages for the period 1955 to 1972. 



number two priority. The attempt by the 

 Forest Service to maintain a relative consis- 

 tency in the slicing of the pie is thus thwarted 

 all along the line. With respect to the other 

 noncommodity resources no consistent pattern 

 emerges. In general, Soil and water manage- 

 ment, Reforestation and stand improvement, 

 and Forest research are given the lowest im- 

 plied priorities. No attempt has been made in 

 this study to investigate the intermittent in- 

 fluence of passage of legislation such as the 

 National Environmental Policy Act. 



Both Senator McGee and Representative 

 Hansen suggest that the Congress has been 

 forced to patch up holes made by the Bureau 

 of the Budget. The fact that in every area ex- 

 cept Recreation-public use (O) the congres- 

 sional appropriation has been above the 

 amount submitted by the Bureau of the 



Budget would lend credence to that argument. 

 It is important to notice, however, that except 

 for Wildlife habitat management, the level of 

 congressional support for the original re- 

 quests by the agency has fallen since the pas- 

 sage of the MU-SY Act. This is especially ap- 

 parent in the areas of Forest research and Re- 

 forestation and stand improvement, where the 

 support levels fell from 87 percent in the pe- 

 riod 1955-1961, to 73 percent and 71 per- 

 cent, respectively, from 1962 to 1972. 



The data presented for the 7-year period 

 1955-1961 are of particular interest. Senator 

 McGee charged that the Bureau of the Budget 

 had undermined the Forest Service attempt to 

 get effective "multiple use management." It 

 appears, however, that the actual program 

 cutting came one step earlier in the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture review of the agency 



63 



