U.S. Forest Service reorganization prompts concerns of further employee loss, impacts ahead of fire season

This story first appeared at vaildaily.com.

The Forest Service, the federal agency that manages 193 million acres across more than 150 national forests and 600 ranger districts, has plenty of inefficiencies that could be streamlined, Fitzwilliams said. Still, the longtime forest supervisor, who retired last year, is among those concerned by the Forest Service’s recent announcement that it will begin a “sweeping reorganization.”

“There was probably nobody that worked under the agency that was a bigger proponent of streamlining at the headquarters level. We got too big,” Fitzwilliams said. “But, if the purpose (of the reorganization) is to get more resources to the ground, let’s see it. Because, right now, nobody is seeing that.”

Under the plans President Donald Trump’s administration announced last week, the Forest Service will move its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and transition to a “state-based organizational model.”

All 10 of the Forest Service’s regional offices will close and move their operations to a “network of operational service centers” in Fort Collins; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Athens, Georgia; Madison, Wisconsin; Missoula, Montana; and Placerville, California, according to the plan. The reorganization also calls for closing more than 50 research centers across the country and “consolidating” research operations into a single organization headquartered in Fort Collins.

Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz has said the reorganization aims to make the agency more “nimble, efficient, effective and closer to the forests and communities it services.” But retired Forest Service employees as well as Colorado conservation groups and politicians have raised concerns about the move, including that it comes as the West faces record-low snowpack conditions that could make for a particularly dangerous wildfire season.

“We are about to see a potentially catastrophic wildfire season, and this reorganization cannot distract from the work ahead,” U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, said in a statement. “(The Forest Service) should be focused on forest health, managing our public lands and responding to local community needs.”

Fitzwilliams noted that the Trump administration has talked of improving government efficiency before. Last year, the administration’s newly-established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, slashed tens of thousands of workers across the federal government, including an estimated 3,400 at the Forest Service with a stated goal of reducing bureaucratic “bloat.”

As with the reorganization, the Trump administration said that its layoffs and early retirement options at the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies wouldn’t impact wildfire operations. But the administration later admitted to letting go of hundreds of “red card” holders — or employees who are certified to assist on wildfires — and the Forest Service had to call for those employees to “come back” ahead of the fire season.

Fitzwilliams, who retired from his long-term post as White River National Forest supervisor after the Department of Government Efficiency had him fire 16 of the national forest’s employees, has said those cuts neither saved the taxpayers money nor improved government efficiency.

In Colorado in the past year, the lack of Forest Service staff has led to volunteers stocking and cleaning vault toilets on Independence Pass, drinking water being shut off at the Maroon Bells Scenic Area and several ranger stations in the White River National Forest closing. Local governments and nonprofits have had to step up to fill gaps left by the staffing cuts and ski resorts on Forest Service land have complained that the loss of personnel has slowed the agency’s responsiveness.

One analysis by the nonprofit Grassroots Wildland Firefighters found that the Forest Service completed 38% less wildfire mitigation work under the Trump administration last year compared with previous seasons. Meanwhile, the Washington Post has reported that an internal Forest Service report has found that the agency completed 22% fewer miles of trail maintenance last year, the lowest amount in 15 years.

“Given what I’ve seen in the last year and a half, when it comes to the policies, the organization, the budget cuts, the way employees have been treated, fired illegally in some cases — I certainly don’t have a trust level that this is done with some noble intent,” Fitzwilliams said. “I can’t help but have some skepticism about what the overall objective is.”

Concerns that reorganization could ‘decimate’ U.S. Forest Service

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees — a nonprofit that includes hundreds of former agency employees, including seven previous chiefs — is among those that have raised concern about how the reorganization will impact the agency.

Bill Avey, the nonprofit’s chair, said he’s heard that thousands of the agency’s employees have received letters notifying them of possible relocation, though it’s unclear how many will actually be required to move.

“First and foremost, we’re concerned about ensuring that current employees have the support, both the technical support and leadership support, they need to do the important work the public expects on the public’s national forests,” Avey said.

A Forest Service spokesperson did not respond to emailed questions about whether employees will be laid off as part of the reorganization or about how many employees are expected to have to relocate. Instead, the unnamed spokesperson pointed a reporter to the Forest Service’s news releases about the reorganization, and said the “transition will occur in phases” with clear notification to employees about available options.

With hundreds of employees likely to be asked to move as part of the reorganization, Avey said he’s concerned that the changes will lead to an “additional talent drain” that will leave the agency with even fewer employees.

“There’s going to be a loss of production,” he said, “because there’s going to be a certain number of people that instead of working on what they need to be working on, they’re going to be working on reorganization.”

Some public lands advocates have described the Forest Service reorganization as a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to reduce the agency’s staffing, rather than a plan to improve efficiency.

The Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop, a nonprofit focused on protecting the wilderness, water and wildlife of western Colorado’s public lands, in a statement compared the Forest Service reorganization to Trump’s effort to reorganize the Bureau of Land Management during his first term.

When the Trump administration moved the bureau’s headquarters from Washington to Grand Junction in 2019, only three of more than 300 positions accepted relocation from the Capitol, according to Colorado Newsline. The headquarters was moved back to Washington under President Joe Biden’s administration.

“The Trump administration’s plan to shutter the Forest Service’s national headquarters, regional offices, and research and development facilities is a thinly veiled ploy to decimate our public lands by dismantling the agency that manages our national forests,” Wilderness Workshop communications manager Rich Mylott said in a statement.

Mylott said that moving the Forest Service’s national headquarters will “uproot, demoralize and ultimately eliminate staff and expertise,” just like moving the Bureau of Land Management headquarters.

“This sweeping and baseless reorganization will do real damage to our national forests, at a time when our public lands are already reeling from drastic funding and staffing cuts,” he said. “Coloradans love our public lands, and we expect their responsible stewardship.”

While Washington may be far away from the West, where the vast majority of national forest lands are located, retirees of the Forest Service said it makes the most sense to house the agency in the nation’s capital.

“I like the idea of streamlined organization at the Washington Office level because we have bloating at those levels,” Fitzwilliams said, “but I think we lose some credibility and some status when we’re not in the location where laws are made, where budgets are passed.”

Avey noted that the chief of the Forest Service can be called before Congress to testify and that industry groups and nongovernment organizations are based in the nation’s capital. He noted that the Forest Service chief and other top officials “aren’t the ones clearing trails or keeping campgrounds open.”

U.S. Forest Service reorganization comes ahead of dangerous fire season

While Gov. Jared Polis has supported the Forest Service reorganization plans, stating that the plan will bring more jobs to the state, Colorado’s Senators in Congress have expressed concern over the move’s timing.

In statements, Sens. Bennet and John Hickenlooper stated that their offices are looking into the reorganization announcement and what it will mean for Colorado, while noting that the state is facing record-low snowpack and drought conditions.

Hickenlooper’s Office stated that the Senator “is deeply concerned about our preparedness for the upcoming wildfire season, and opposes any effort to reduce staff and resources available to help our Colorado communities fight wildfire.”

Avey also raised concern that the Forest Service’s news release about the reorganization stated that the Trump administration still intends to move wildfire fighting forces from the agency to a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. 

Both Hickenlooper and Bennet have called on the Trump administration to “halt” its consolidation of wildfire forces. The U.S. Department of Interior, though, has already begun consolidating forces from the National Parks Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies within the department.

Avey noted that roughly half of Forest Service employees are “red card” holders, so it is unclear what a new fire service would mean for those employees’ involvement during wildfire operations. He also voiced concern that creating a single federal wildfire force focused on “total suppression” could separate wildland fire from land management.

“Fire is part of the land and if the Forest Service loses its fire program, … we feel that would gut the agency and prevent it from doing a lot of its recreation work, fuels mitigation work,” Avey said.

Fitzwilliams agreed that the reorganization efforts happening across federal land management agencies could distract staff that should be focused on the rising wildfire risk.

“This is now more disruption and chaos. I don’t think it’s a good time,” he said. “The West is facing what could be a significant wildfire season, given droughts and snowpack conditions. To be in the middle of a reorganization, that really disrupts people.”