Forest Service overhaul sows confusion and concern

On March 31, the U.S. Forest Service revealed a plan to relocate its headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, Utah. The agency will also overhaul its structure by closing or repurposing all nine regional offices, establishing 15 state offices, and shutting down research and development facilities in over 30 states. According to a news release, this move aims to make the agency more “nimble, efficient, [and] effective.” Forest Service leaders assured staff that the changes would not affect fire and aviation management programs or the operations of field-based firefighters.

The Trump administration initially announced its intention to reorganize the agency last July, promoting the plan as a means to streamline operations, enhance timber production, and improve communication with local communities. However, during a congressional hearing and subsequent public comment period, more than 80 percent of the 14,000 comments received were negative. Critics, including many tribal representatives, conservation groups, and former Forest Service staffers, opposed the move. A U.S. Department of Agriculture summary of the public comments highlighted concerns that staff relocation and budget cuts could undermine ecological management, public access, and employee morale. The current plan retains many elements from the original proposal, such as the relocation to Salt Lake City and the closure of regional offices.

“Nobody is asking for this,” stated Robert Bonnie, who previously oversaw the Forest Service as a Department of Agriculture undersecretary during the Obama administration. “None of the farm groups want this. No one in conservation wants this. Nobody.” Bonnie and other past Forest Service staff believe the plan, which will displace thousands of employees, will exacerbate the agency’s existing issues, especially following a year of significant cuts and turmoil.

“This is not going to strengthen the Forest Service, it is going to weaken it,” Bonnie remarked. “It’s not about solving problems, it’s about blowing things up.”

Mary Erickson, a retired supervisor of Custer Gallatin National Forest, expressed uncertainty following the announcement. “I’m not going to say if it’s good or bad at this point,” she said. “It’s just such a sweeping change with no real analysis about if there would be cost savings.”

Under the new plan, some states will have their own offices while others will be grouped together, resembling the setup of the Bureau of Land Management. This represents a shift for the country’s 154 national forests, traditionally managed by nine regional offices, which will now be closed or repurposed. Forests in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Alaska, and Idaho will each have their own state offices, while Nevada and Utah will share management, as will Colorado and Kansas.

Some research facilities, like the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Fort Collins, Colorado, will remain operational. However, others, such as the station in Portland, Oregon, known for critical research on species like spotted owls, will close. “Losing local leadership is not going to improve the programs,” stated former Forest Service wildlife biologist Eric Forsman. He retired in 2016 after studying spotted owls and red tree voles at the agency’s Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, which will continue to operate. “It may help budgets,” he added, “but it won’t improve the quality of the research or the amount of research that gets done.”

Erickson and others are also worried about relocating high-level bureaucrats from D.C., where national lawmakers reside. “I would push back on this idea that moving out of D.C. is moving closer to the people you serve. That’s not the role of the national office,” Erickson said. The national office is meant to coordinate and provide guidance based on national policy. “Forests and districts have always been the heart of local communities and local delivery.”

Read Next

How the Trump administration is fast-tracking logging in Illinois’ only national forest

After conversations with current and former Forest Service employees following the announcement, Erickson is concerned that the upheaval from the reorganization might hinder the agency’s ability to tackle modern forest challenges. These challenges include tree disease outbreaks, the expanding wildland-urban interface, and droughts induced by climate change. The Forest Service has already faced setbacks with the loss of thousands of employees due to terminations and deferred resignations from the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The reorganization could lead to states having an increased role in forest management, said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, who retired in 2025 after working for decades in the Forest Service across the West. While local coordination could be beneficial in theory, he cautioned that the new structure might pave the way for states to take over the management of national forests and other public lands.

Tribal representatives, who declined to comment for this story, had expressed during the July public comment process that the reorganization could lead to a loss of expertise and damaged relationships. One representative noted that mass staff relocations would “destroy irreplaceable knowledge about Treaty rights, forest conditions, and working relationships built over decades, and new staff unfamiliar with the land will make mistakes.”

For many in conservation, the Forest Service reorganization feels like déjà vu, or even a recurring nightmare.

In 2019, during Trump’s first term, his administration proposed relocating nearly all Bureau of Land Management staff from D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado—a city of 66,000 people far from major airports. Similar to the recent Forest Service announcement, the administration claimed the move would bring high-level staff closer to the Western lands they manage. Instead, many staff opted to leave the agency entirely, according to Tracy Stone-Manning, who led the BLM under President Joe Biden and now heads The Wilderness Society.

Read Next

The ambitious plan to protect Northern California’s Plumas National Forest from wildfires

When the Grand Junction office opened in 2020, only 41 out of the anticipated 328 BLM employees relocated to the West, according to a High Country News investigation. For many, the move meant uprooting their families and requiring a spouse to seek new employment in a smaller job market.

This reorganization cost taxpayers $28 million. The Biden administration eventually moved many high-level positions back to D.C., although it retained some agency leaders in the Grand Junction office, which it designated as the “Western Headquarters.” John Gale, who led the office for two years under Biden, acknowledged the value in seeking improvements in public-lands management. However, he emphasized that restructuring and relocation must be executed thoughtfully and carefully to be effective.

The loss of institutional knowledge, when experienced personnel are compelled to leave, is a significant concern, said Stone-Manning. Although this may not have been the Trump administration’s initial goal, it was the outcome of the BLM reorganization. She and others anticipate the Forest Service will face similar consequences, potentially with more severe effects for the public.

“Our public lands are not being cared for the way they need to be,” she stated. “And what that means is ultimately people will throw up their hands and say the federal government can’t manage them, let’s sell them off.”

This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, which is supported by the BAND Foundation and the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation.