IFAI Analysis – Forest Service Announces Reorganization Details

Key takeaways for Indian Country

• Last week, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) announced plans to relocate its headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah. They will close regional forestry offices, replacing them with state-based offices and a network of operational service centers, and close or consolidate numerous research facilities.
• The USFS’s reorganization plan will likely lead to additional staff departures. USFS lost 32% of its staff in 2025. Further departures due to relocation may jeopardize the USFS’s ability to meet its trust, treaty, and statutory obligations to Tribes.
• Regional Forestry offices provide key services for Tribes, and Regional Foresters had statutory and regulatory responsibilities. The shift to a state-based system may disrupt long-standing relationships and institutional and local knowledge. It is unclear how the Regional Forester’s responsibilities will be delegated, and under what legal authorities.
• State-based offices will be responsible for maintaining relationships with area Tribes. Because state-based offices will have narrower scope and oversee fewer forests, there may be enhanced opportunity for Tribal engagement. However, State Directors will have significantly smaller staff and will not have policymaking authority, which may delay or disrupt work with Tribes. There may also be a loss of local knowledge and input in the development of policies and Forest Plan revisions.

Headquarters relocated to Salt Lake City

USFS plans to move its headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, one of the five regional hubs proposed in the overall USDA reorganization plan. Two-thirds of Washington D.C.-based staff will move to the new headquarters or to other USFS locations. According to USFS, the move will bring USFS staff closer to the forests they manage while reducing costs from leasing expensive Washington offices.

The relocation may lead to significant staff departures and increased difficulty for Tribal leaders engaging with USFS leadership. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a previous USDA effort in 2019 to relocate the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) from Washington D.C. led to a staff departure rate of over 50%. While total staffing levels recovered two years later, the majority of staff had worked at their agencies for less than two years, a significant loss of institutional knowledge and subject matter expertise.

The USFS has already lost 32% of its staff in the last year. Additional departures due to relocation could significantly hamstring key USFS operations ahead of wildfire season. In addition, Tribal leaders and advocates have noted in consultations and a Tribal forum on April 7 that moving agency headquarters from Washington D.C. make it more difficult for Tribes to meet with agency leadership. Tribes often have limited resources for travel, and needing to make additional trips to Salt Lake City and other locations, in addition to Washington D.C., may be financially burdensome and time-consuming.

 Regional forestry offices closing, being replaced with state-based offices

USFS plans to close the nine regional forestry offices, replacing them with 15 state-based offices and a network of six Operation Service Centers. Many of the state-based offices will oversee multiple states and national forests.

The role of state-based offices versus Operation Service Centers remains unclear. In the April 7 Tribal forum, USFS said that State Directors will have a narrower scope of responsibilities compared to Regional Foresters and will be supported by significantly smaller staffs of 5-10 employees. Their primary responsibilities will be to establish relationships, including with Tribes; provide direct oversight; and deliver services such as HR, contracting, and grants and agreements. Notably, State Directors will not have authority to make policy. Operation Service Centers will support State Directors with “non-routine” and highly technical activities, such as forest plan revisions, engineering projects, and land transfers and sales, according to a USFS fact sheet.

The lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of State Directors, the Operation Service Centers, and Forest Supervisors may lead to delays and disruptions for Tribes. Regional Foresters have many statutory and regulatory responsibilities, including identifying species of conservation concern, developing broader-scale monitoring strategies, and approving certain timber sale issues. It remains unclear if these responsibilities will be delegated to State Directors or Operation Service Centers, and if so, under what authorities. It is also unclear how Operation Service Centers will integrate local expertise and knowledge in developing Forest Plan revisions; previously, Regional Foresters played a key role.

USFS during the Tribal forum said that they expect increased Tribal relations opportunities through the state-based office system. Each State Director, or a member of their staff, will be responsible for developing and maintaining relationships with area Tribes. State Director offices, however, will be significantly smaller in size, which may limit outreach capacity. Many Tribes also noted in the consultation and in the Tribal forum that they have existing close relationships with USFS staff, including Regional Foresters, and that the reorganization could lead to the loss of these long-standing relationships and expertise.

USFS has not provided information on how State Directors will be selected, though they indicated at the Tribal forum that most regional forester staff will not need to relocate except for staff in Atlanta, Georgia, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. regional offices.

Closing and consolidating research facilities

USFS plans to consolidate research facilities, closing 56 research facilities across 31 states. Twenty research facilities across 16 states are being retained. USFS has said the changes will reduce building and facility costs, reduce administrative duplication, and improve implementation of science-based approaches. These changes may lead to disruption in long-running research projects, including experimental forests and ranges, and loss of local and regional scientific expertise.

Key questions for USFS

• What is the timeline for closing regional forestry offices and establishing the state-based offices?
• Will USFS delegate statutory responsibilities of Regional Foresters to State Directors or other staff? Under what authorities can these responsibilities be assigned to other USFS employees?
• Will State Directors be career staff or will they be political appointees?
• Previous attempts to relocate USDA agencies outside of Washington D.C. have led to significant staff departure rates of more than 50%. Does USFS anticipate similar departure rates for their headquarter relocations? How does USFS intend to minimize additional departures and the impact of any additional departures on USFS operations?
• What is the role and responsibility of Forest Supervisors under the new system?
• With Forest Plan development shifting to the six Operation Service Centers, how will USFS ensure local and community expertise and knowledge will be incorporated into plans?