by Greg Walcher, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow
The Daily Sentinel
Earlier this year U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Chief Tom Schultz announced a major reorganization of the agency, prompting the usual opposition from employees predictably opposing any change in the status quo. A few environmental industry groups expressed skepticism, but the story was mostly ignored elsewhere. That might be because many people assume it will face the same future as the first Trump Administration’s attempt to move the Bureau of Land Management from Washington to Grand Junction. The Biden Administration simply cancelled that plan and moved the office back to D.C., but this new USFS plan is much more far-reaching in scope and impact.
This plan also involves moving a national headquarters out of Washington, in this case to Salt Lake City. But it’s much more than that. This reorganization has been in the works a decade, under both Trump and Biden, and based on planning discussions since at least 2008. It will consolidate 70 research stations into a single organization in Fort Collins, and abolish all nine regional offices, replacing them with 15 state-level offices, all designed to move decision-making closer to the affected communities. Hiring is already underway for those state director positions, as well as positions in the new Salt Lake headquarters, where Schultz himself will live and work.
USFS, part of the Agriculture Department, has a $9 billion budget, 30,000 employees, 600 ranger districts, and 193 million acres, including 154 national forests, 209 national grasslands, 80 experimental forests, and six national monuments. It is a very decentralized agency, but at least a few headquarters employees may have to move. They are not happy.
One recent retiree called the plan “chaotic,” saying it “is turning over 100 years of organization.” Another group wrote to Congress saying over 1,900 people could be affected, though the actual number is unclear. The Western Governors Association supports the plan, saying decisions made closer to the state level will be more sensitive to the impacts on communities and economies.
