Forest Service chief explains new approach to land management

Last week, the U.S. Forest Service announced a massive restructuring of the agency responsible for 193 million acres of federal public land. It includes moving its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City.

“This is about common sense. It’s about smarter government. It’s government where the people are at,” Forest Service chief Tom Schultz told the Deseret News in an interview the day after the announcement last week.

“It’s about saving money, being more efficient, getting more work done, partnering (with states, tribes and local governments) and also being prepared ... for this upcoming fire season.”

What that “common sense” approach means practically — in addition to being “in direct alignment with direction from the president” — is that the Forest Service is moving away from a region-based organizational model to one anchored in individual states.

The agency is dismantling nine regional hubs and opening 15 state-based ones, which are mostly in the West. Restructuring includes cutting through some of the regulations, policies and directives of what Schultz calls the “administrative state.”

Research and development will be consolidated under a single director, and, as a result, at least 57 of 77 research stations in 31 states are closing. Schultz said the idea is to reduce redundancy and align with Trump administration priorities.

While the move was celebrated by some Western elected officials — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox among them — a number of conservation groups and Western Democrats opposed the move. Their primary issue focused on shifting the Forest Service’s national perspective to a state one, but critics also worry about what restructuring means for scientific progress.

“This reorganization is also part of the Trump administration’s attack on science and the scientists America depends on for healthy public lands. The ecological and institutional knowledge that will be lost by shutting down research stations across the country could take a generation to restore,” Aaron Weiss, the deputy director of the Center of Western Priorities, wrote in a message to the Deseret News.

“We’re facing the prospect of a dry and extreme wildfire season across the country. Adding chaos at the upper levels of the Forest Service should worry everyone who lives in and near America’s forests.”

Fear of those fires, Schultz said, is at the heart of the decision to reorganize the agency. He reiterated several times that there’ll be no changes to wildfire management during wildfire season.

“That’s something that we’re very well attuned to,” Schultz said, “to make sure that we do not impact in any way, shape or form our readiness and our ability to suppress fires and protect communities this coming season.”

Schultz spoke to the Deseret News about the reorganization, his disagreement with certain criticism and what research and development will focus on going forward. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Deseret News: Can you talk about the idea and the guiding principles of the reorganization?

Tom Schultz: It probably starts, first and foremost, with the president. He has given clear directions to really try to use some common sense approaches on how we operate in government. The secretary (of Agriculture) followed up back in July of ’25 with four pillars to move things along: to make sure we’re living within our means, pushing for where the people are and the customers are — that’s a big part of the thing — and reducing redundancy. Ultimately, it’s about smarter government: what this looks like to be a leaner, more efficient and closer to the public that we serve.

When we look at what has happened over the last 20 years, we’ve seen an increase in acres that are being impacted by wildfire. We see an increase in forest health issues. We’ve identified almost two-thirds of the National Forest System that are at risk of wildfire or some insect and disease issue.

DN: Why did you choose Salt Lake City?

TS: (Utah) has more than 8 million acres of National Forest System lands. The entrance to the Wasatch forest is right there and ... that forest is probably one of the most heavily recreated forests we have. There’s the amenities in and around Salt Lake, the prevalence of National Forest System lands, the pro-business and pro-family culture there, and the relationship we have with the governor’s delegation. And it’s in the center of the West. We just see that as a great fit for the Forest Service, for USDA, and for the state of Utah, as well as other surrounding states. And we’ve seen positive feedback from other states as well in the West, just acknowledging having the Forest Service in the West being a very positive effect on the broader region.

DN: How is this being rolled out?

TS: So, we’ve got an internal team we put together to help inform and build this thing out. We’ve got the top line organization identified — we’ve got to get people put into those roles — but we think by the summer of ’27 this thing will be pretty much completely rolled out.

One of the things I just want to bring up is (that) we’ve put a lot of thought into the timing so as not to impact the fire program at all for this fire season. There is no change at all to the fire program pursuant to this restructuring. And even the operational changes that are envisioned to occur with regions basically being phased out, that will not happen until after the Western fire season has completed.

DN: Can you explain the efficiencies that this restructuring creates?

TS: The greatest one right now is, under the current structure, we have multiple layers of mid-level and upper-level management that really do bog things down. We have numerous, not just statutes and regulations, but policies and directives that we’ve promulgated. We have more than 3,000 directives that have been created at various levels — between regions and the Washington office. What they do is they slow down the ability to get work done. They limit discretion. So, we’re also simultaneously taking an effort to deregulate some of these regulations that we have put in place ourselves. These directives have created quite an administrative state that has created a fair amount of mistrust.

DN: Part of the restructure is to close nine hubs and open up 15. On paper, that doesn’t seem efficient. Can you explain this efficiency?

TS: When we talk about nine regions versus 15 state directors, it’s really two different models. We’re talking about a state director (who) is going to have six to eight employees, whereas a regional office has had upwards of a couple 100 employees.

The role of the state director is to function as a liaison with partners — whether that be the state, tribes, other partners that we work with — and having a small staff that does legal affairs, communications, intergovernmental affairs type things. So, a much more streamlined, smaller approach, but a much greater touch point with those key decision makers in the field. It’s not expanding it — it’s being more attentive to the needs of those states and those locales we’re going to be operating in.

DN: Why are you consolidating research and development?

TS: R&D is an important function. But what we’ve seen is that we have had five different stations across the country and, there’s been reasons for that, but it created a sense where there’s been almost a degree of autonomy that’s not been as coordinated as it could be. So, in terms of the research that’s being done, we think this model will better align with the priorities of the administration. We will ensure that we focus on active management, fire management programs and that research is going to be very applied to support, not just the National Forest system, but also private landowners in states as we go forward.

If you look at where we’re focused right now on research — and we’re going to continue to move in this direction — it’s aligned with the key priorities of the administration: active forest management, it’s going to be minerals, it’s going to be recreation, it’s going to be fire management.

DN: One voiced concern is that moving a federal agency with a responsibility to all Americans to specific states will shift the operational perspective from prioritizing national interests to local ones. What’s your response?

TS: I fundamentally disagree with the premise. The intent is to move the agency to where the people and the lands are predominantly located. That’s not to say we don’t have a footprint in the East — we have a footprint in the Southeast, the Northeast and the Midwest — but the preponderance of lands and programs that we administer are, in large part, in the West. It’s not about a de-evolution of the agency. It’s not about trying to reduce influence anywhere.

It’s to locate our employees where the work is, where the customer base is, where the people that recreate use these lands: (Those) that mine, that ski, that manage the timber resource that we have, that produce wildlife habitat. That’s where we want to have our headquarters. We think it drives work in a way that is less influenced by maybe factors in the D.C. area when it should be more focused on delivering service to the American public.

DN: Why do you think it’s better for federal employees to be less influenced by factors in the D.C. area?

TS: I would argue that having a closer relationship with states, tribes and counties will improve management. You think the people that live and work and recreate in those areas, they’ve got a pretty good idea of what could or should be done on the National Forest System lands? We want to leverage the skill set — the resources — that states can bring to bear, as well as tribes. We actually see this as a way to leverage more capacity to get work done, and that capacity doesn’t necessarily exist in D.C.

DN: Will there be any layoffs?

TS: There are no layoffs. There will be some directed reassignments. People will be offered new opportunities. Their job could look a little different; it could be in a different location. But we’ve made it very clear to our employees that if they want to work in the Forest Service, we will help them to find a place that works for them and for us.

DN: How many people will be asked to move?

TS: The number we’ve said is 260 people would be relocated out of D.C. — out of an agency that’s more than 30,000 people. We’ve also made it clear to employees that, if there are national forests that are within a commutable area, that is an option for them. So, there’s going to be opportunities outside of those regional offices.

One of the things is, we’re working with a degree of humility. We know we will make missteps and mistakes along the way, but it’s important that we learn in the process and we get better. The intent is to better serve the public and care for the land. The land needs a lot of caring for. And we think the closer we are to doing that, it’s going to improve the land management and the fire management function that we provide.