US Forest Service Restructuring – A look under the hood
- Susan Norman
- 13 hours ago
- 5 min read
While my title suggests I can provide an informed look, my ability to do so is admittedly limited. This is partly because this administration is deliberately keeping much important information locked up. Also, because I am not a current US Forest Service employee, I rely on conversations with former colleagues for insider information and perspective.
But I will attempt to identify what I think I know based on my experience and communications.
First, the recently announced physical restructuring/reorganization plan for the US Forest Service does not look nearly as bad as what was originally proposed last fall. And in fact, there is a lot that strikes me as an improvement. These changes will undoubtedly cause individual hardships for employees who were not planning or ready to move in their careers. But, for those looking to move into the agency or upward, it’s an improvement.
During my career as a USFS hydrologist, I sought upward mobility at the regional and even national levels, but the primary reason I did not pursue them was location. Moving from my forest and home in Lake Tahoe to the WO in Washington DC, or to our Regional Office in Vallejo was just not worth the raise in pay. So, I did a few short-term temporary assignments for our Regional Office, but stayed in Tahoe and retired as a GS-12 Physical Sciences Group Leader on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
The current reorganization plan to replace the 9 Regional offices with 15 State offices at many new locations does not alarm me and, in fact, makes a lot of intuitive sense.
I can speak with some authority on this for California. The current Region 9 boundary remains the same (California and Hawaii), and the Regional Office in Vallejo is being replaced by a State office in Placerville. There are so many reasons this makes more sense, both in terms of employees' quality of life and closer connections with forest staff across multiple Forest Service Offices. The same can be said of moving the National Office from Washington DC to Salt Lake City. Based on my values, these moves are both no-brainers.
There is information that is not widely getting out there to put this topic in perspective.
First, the current reorganization plan for the physical relocation/reorganization of Regional (now State) offices and the National office is largely being developed by career USFS employees, and the framework for what we see now has been in place long before this administration. And the reason this conversation has been going on for a while is that the infrastructure costs for the US Forest Service, including building leases and maintenance, have become unmanageable. This plan seems to be a sincere attempt to address that reality with changes that will be more economically sustainable for the USFS facilities themselves, as well as for the employees who will work in them.
The current uproar over this planned restructuring threatens to overwhelm the focus on the legitimate threats to public lands in general and the US Forest Service in particular.
So, what concerns do we all need to keep paying attention to?
First, is whether the capacity of the organization in the new National office and the 15 State offices in terms of number of positions and their skill sets will be sufficient to ensure consistency, equity, and essential support to all 154 Forests across the nation. That staffing organizational chart has not yet been finalized and is not available. All anyone knows at this time is that there will be significant cuts in the number of positions at both the State and National level. Whether this reduction in staff will compromise the integrity of how the US Forest Service operates to sustainably manage ecosystems on public lands in the era of climate change is speculative at this point. But there is certainly reason to be concerned, given this White House's priorities regarding public land management.
Second, the reality is the Forest Service is still reeling from the overly aggressive RIF threats last year that resulted in many resignations and buyouts, the disruptions and reductions in seasonal workforce hiring, and ongoing direction to accomplish work through third parties (through agreements, grants, contracts) in place of permanent and seasonal employees. This has caused a definite lack of capacity at the Forest level and residual chaos, leading to a bottleneck in getting work done on the ground. These impacts are not easily identifiable or observable to the public or even to agency partners, but are likely to become more apparent over the coming year.
The fact is, the transition will be a bumpy road over the next two years, as the agency adjusts to staffing changes and facility moves. But I am optimistic that this reorganization, combined with changes in the White House and Congress through future elections, could result in an even more resilient USFS in a few years.
But let me be clear. I do not believe this will happen without a change in White House leadership. Current efforts to change and weaken regulations, plans, and policies to focus on extractive outputs from public lands without essential guardrails to maintain sustainable ecosystems continue to cripple all public land management agencies (the US Forest Service, the National Parks, and the Bureau of Land Management). And that is just stupid, because we know how to do it right.
And this overly aggressive push to outright eliminate many of these guardrails make it difficult to identify specifically how some should be modified where they have become overly restrictive (such as the Roadless Rule, another topic for another day). And that is also just stupid, because we know those barriers exist and how to make those modifications. But because this White House and its cabinet are unqualified and lack integrity, they are making it much more difficult to adapt where the science leads us.
Which brings me to my last concern. The scale and nature of the proposed restructuring, as it relates to the Research branch of the U.S. Forest Service, deserve more daylight and scrutiny. Although I am sure there are legitimate reasons for some of the proposed changes, there is not enough information currently available to ensure the integrity and function of US Forest Service research will be maintained where it should.
During my career, I worked closely with Forest Service researchers to implement cost-effective monitoring programs related to logging impacts on soils and river recreation use, providing extremely useful information that directly informed on-the-ground decisions. Sound public lands management, particularly in the era of climate change, will not be possible without a robust research program, closely tied to academic institutions, that maintains an appropriate level of independence from policymakers. During my career with the US Forest Service, I considered myself an applied scientist, and throughout, major shifts in my understanding of my field(s) were fueled by findings from current science as they related to both my home in Lake Tahoe and to wildland management in general.
I would like to see much more information about the leadership structure and organizational staffing for National, State, and Research (including maintenance of long-term data collection sites), and I will be communicating with my congressional representatives regarding those concerns, as well as illegitimate attacks on environmental guardrails.
However, I maintain an overall state of optimism, fueled by my trust in the career USFS employees who have hung in there, as well as new hires of bright young people with integrity and passion about stewardship of public lands. That is where our resiliency and hope lie.
So, keep on joining environmental non-profits, studying and pursuing careers in wildland management, and sending your letters to congressional representatives to fuel the resistance. And get out on your public lands any time you can to fuel yourself. In the words of Edward Abby, I sincerely believe, we will outlive the bastards.
Thanks Sue!