Recently announced changes to the U.S. Forest Service are prompting concern and also some cautious optimism from Idahoans interested in protecting the Gem State’s vast forests.
Idaho is home to more than 21 million acres of forest land. Under the new proposal, Idaho lands would be managed by a single office in the state, rather than split between two out-of-state regional offices, which some advocates see as an advantage. But other changes at the agency also include limits on public comment periods for proposed projects, which alarms environmentalists.
Forest Service shake-up will boost states’ role — but even supporters have concerns
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, announced at the end of March it would move the Forest Service’s headquarters to Salt Lake City, consolidate research offices, and close regional offices while adding new state facilities — including one in Boise.
The Forest Service is led by Idahoan Tom Schultz.
“This is about building a Forest Service that is nimble, efficient, effective and closer to the forests and communities it serves,” Schultz said in a press release. “Effective stewardship and active management are achieved on the ground, where forests and communities are found—not just behind a desk in the capital.
Idaho’s congressional delegation has responded with support for the move. Some conservationist groups and former Forest Service employees, however, are concerned about how the restructuring will affect the agency’s mission on public lands.
The USDA last week also announced the finalization of new rules around the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. The new rules are meant to minimize regulations and streamline review, but they also allow for more limited or no public comment on projects.
“The Forest Service reorganization is designed to bring decision-makers closer to the ground and closer to the forest, closer to the communities, and put more boots on the ground. And maybe it will do that,” said John Robison, public lands and wildlife director at the Idaho Conservation League. “… but at the same time the administration is eliminating the actual forums for the public to communicate to the Forest Service.”
Idaho leaders responds positively to announcement
Most of Idaho’s Republican congressional delegation said they approved of the restructuring announcement, and said it may benefit Idaho.
U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo said in an emailed statement the reorganization, “represents an opportunity to bring together the state’s national forests under a more cohesive, Idaho-focused management structure.”
“As I review further details, I look forward to working collaboratively with the agency to better understand the full scope of the proposal and ensure these changes deliver meaningful benefits for our forests and the people who depend upon them,” Crapo said.
U.S. Sen. Jim Risch also highlighted a benefit to Idaho.
“Idaho’s public lands are best managed by those who understand the Gem State,” Risch said in a written statement. “This move places a stronger focus on the West and local input. I look forward to working with the Forest Service to ensure Idaho’s voices are heard when it comes to decisions about our cherished national forests.”
U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson also expressed support for the move because most Forest Service lands are located in the West.
“I have spoken directly with the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Schultz, and I agree that bringing leadership closer to the field and hiring state-based directors will enhance the effectiveness of the Forest Service in fulfilling its mission,” Simpson wrote in an emailed statement.
Fellow Idaho U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher echoed other members of the state congressional delegation.
“Having government agencies—especially one as vital as the Forest Service—closest to the people and regions it serves is common sense,” Fulcher said in the emailed statement. “This reorganization should improve the management and health of our nation’s vast lands and resources.”
Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s office also responded positively in an emailed statement.
“Governor Little supports efforts to bring federal decision-makers closer to the communities and landscapes they serve,” Little’s press secretary Joan Vargas said. “He welcomes the addition of a new state director for Idaho to help advance the administration’s goals of strengthening rural communities, reducing wildfire risk, and improving the health and accessibility of our lands. The Governor’s Office remains engaged with the USDA on these positive organizational changes.”
Reorganization may bring agency closer to forests, but could be ‘disruptive’
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a press release announcing the reorganization that the move was intended to concentrate decision-makers in the West, where the vast majority of national forests are located.
“President Trump has made it a priority to return common sense to the way our government works. Moving the Forest Service closer to the forests we manage is an essential action that will improve our core mission of managing our forests while saving taxpayer dollars and boosting employee recruitment,” Rollins said in the release.
However, some groups are concerned that moving around employees will take leaders away from key policy and budget decision-making and coordination efforts with other federal agencies in Washington, D.C.
Bill Avey, board chairman of the National Association of Forest Services Retirees, said his concerns are compounded by mass layoffs at the agency last year instigated by the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
“U.S. Forest Service leadership needs to acknowledge the losses that have occurred, that this organization is going to reduce productivity and set realistic expectations for the work that’s going to get done,” Avey said in a phone interview. “You’re not going to get more work done with less people. It just doesn’t work that way.”
Around 500 employees are expected to relocate under the new plan, according to the federal agency.
Robison and Avey both said they had been told the major reorganization wouldn’t occur until the current fire season ended.
When the Sun asked the Forest Service press office to confirm the timing, a USDA spokesperson didn’t directly address the question.
The spokesperson responded in an email, “The transition will occur in phases. Employees will receive clear information about relocation timelines, available options, and resources to support their decisions.”
“The number of relocations beyond those already identified in the National Capital Region is unknown at this time.”
Multiple critics of the restructuring announcement pointed to a similar effort during President Donald Trump’s first term. In 2019, the first Trump administration announced the relocation of the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado, citing similar reasons regarding placing land managers closer to the public lands they manage.
A 2020 Government Accountability Office report found that, of the 311 positions scheduled to move west, 90 accepted the reassignment. Many positions were vacant ahead of the reorganization, according to the report, and 81 people out of the 179 active staff members at the time declined reassignment or separated from their position. In 2021, the headquarters move was reversed.
“That was intended to result in a bunch of cost savings, but it really ended up leading to a drastic loss of institutional knowledge with staff leaving,” Robison said of the BLM move. “I think it’s fair to say we have a lot of the same concerns here.”
Idaho will get its own office under new plan, but details aren’t clear
Idaho’s national forests are overseen by leaders in two regional offices, both located out-of-state. The southern part of the state is covered by a Forest Service office in Ogden, Utah, and the northern panhandle is covered by an office in Missoula, Montana.
The plan calls for more state-based leadership with 15 new state directors to oversee operations.
Robison, of the Idaho Conservation League, noted that the BLM operates under a similar state-office model.
“I think that this is one where it could make some sense, and we already have a long standing example of the BLM,” Robison said, “where this could be a logistical step that could benefit Idaho.”
An unanswered question remains as to how the reallocation of staff and services will be carried out, he said. Existing offices support ranger districts, coordinate activities between national forests and grasslands, and allocate budgets for forests in their area.
The state offices are expected to have fewer staff, and it hasn’t been announced how many of the services will be retained.
Avey said he believes Forest Services leaders are trying to limit the effects of the changes, but he remains skeptical of the changes.
“I think they took a mandate that was given to them by the political appointees of the Trump administration, and have done what they were directed to do, but also tried to, as much as they could, minimize disruption to employees and minimize disruption to field level units,” Avey said. “With that being said, we still have a lot of questions and concerns about this reorganization.”
He said he believes the move is driven more by “political ideology” than solving a problem, because the people who work in the forests are already located near those forests.
It’s also unclear how state directors will be chosen. On the Forest Service website, the agency said it’s a “myth” that the positions will become political.
“State directors will be filled exclusively by career federal employees,” the website said. “These positions are being created to bring leadership closer to the work and ensure the right span of control over forests and programs. They include the same line authority needed to operate effectively, and those authorities are not being diminished.”
New limited public comment rules already in effect on Forest Service projects
Rollins, the USDA secretary, also recently announced the finalization of new regulatory rules, meant to streamline environmental reviews of projects on public forest lands. The new rules have been in place on an interim basis since July.
“Since last July, agencies at USDA have shown they can reduce environmental review timelines by up to 80%. These faster, more efficient reviews are saving the Department millions in taxpayer dollars,” Rollins said in a press release.
The new rules have already affected Idaho. In December, a project that includes commercial timber harvesting covering around 2,500 acres of the Sawtooth National Forest was proposed. Under previous rules, the project would’ve had a 30-day scoping period and another 30-day comment period of a draft environmental review.
“These public comments provide community members with opportunities to shape the project to optimize treatment activities and minimize negative effects,” Robison said in an email. “(Idaho Conservation League) has seen substantive project improvements in numerous projects as a result.”
Under the new rule, the Forest Service has fewer requirements for notifying people of proposed projects, which could include timber harvesting, road or trail repairs, environmental restoration work, or mining and other permits.
There are also new rules for emergency authorizations, which can eliminate requirements for public comments completely.
The harvest proposal in the Sawtooth National Forest is proceeding under this emergency authorization, with no official public comment period. An informational open house for stakeholders is planned for May 11.
“We are concerned that projects like these are going to be developed and implemented without critical public feedback and support,” Robison said. “The fact that there has been so much USFS staff turnover recently highlights the need for community involvement.”
Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com.