The United States Department of Agriculture’s recent announcement to make sweeping structural changes to the nation’s Forest Service has brought confusion and uncertainty countrywide, ahead of what’s expected to be a very active wildfire year.
Numerous former Forest Service staff and communities have since shared their views on the announcement across multiple platforms, with some claiming the move is an effort to put more power into the hands of states, and others saying it’s an attempt to “dismantle” the entire agency. The reaction triggered the USFS to create a section of its webpage addressing “myths and facts” about the reorganization.
Kelly Martin, a decades-long fire veteran in the Forest Service and National Park Service, was initially sympathetic to the USDA’s alleged goal of moving more federal resources and support to the state level. Officials plan to transition the Forest Service to a state-based model in the western half of the nation, while maintaining the Service’s historical regional approach in the East. Leadership’s stated reason behind the move was to strengthen local partnerships and simplify the chain of command.
Martin, who is also a former president of the International Association of Wildland Fire, said states have long played a critical role in allocating scarce forestry resources for fire preparedness and response, and, on its face, this reorganization would ease that burden.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Forest Service to undergo ‘sweeping restructuring,’ close all regional offices
“In an ideal world, the states and federal agencies would all be working with and talking to each other, but no one is compelling us to have to work together,” Martin said. “This idea of pushing decision-making down to a collaborative process between the state and federal government, to me, makes sense.”
For that state-federal collaboration to actually work in practice, however, Martin said Forest Service directors would need to be required to work with state-based land management agencies to align the highest-priority projects. Officials have so far made no mention of such a requirement as part of the reorganization. Martin also said that while resources for preparedness and response have surged over the past few years, projects focused on land management and hazardous fuel reduction, which are critical to preventing future catastrophic wildfires, haven’t had nearly the same momentum, and nothing mentioned in the reorganization so far has addressed that disparity.
Research into wildland fire is also at risk of being severely impacted by the reorganization. Officials will close 57 of the Service’s 77 research stations across the country and consolidate them into a centralized office in Colorado. Numerous stations are located in university laboratories or at experimental forests where researchers analyze environmental changes over long periods of time, including wildfire risks and impact.
That move appears at odds with the current administration’s stated goal to focus on state needs, since a hyperlocal understanding of an environment’s relationship to fire is critical for understanding wildfire risk and prevention, according to former Forest Service researcher and current Tall Timbers Director of Fire Research Morgan Varner.
“Anytime we retreat from places where there’s a lot of wildfire or a lot of prescribed fire, which this plan does, you’re compromising our ability to conduct really relevant research,” Varner said. “That boots-on-the-ground has always been a unique aspect of Forest Service R&D … Local researchers are members of those communities, they know the managers in that area, they understand the challenges of people there, and how wildfires affect the economy, the loss of that relationship is the real cost of this.”
Fire and Aviation Management Deputy Chief Sarah Fisher claimed multiple times that the Forest Service reorganization would have no impact on current wildland firefighting resources, specifying that the current Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) structure and reporting coordination with the National Interagency Fire Center would continue.
The loss of research that supports fire prevention and response appears to contradict Fisher’s claim.
“When USDA moved key offices to Kansas City during the first Trump administration, that 80% of their staff either retired, resigned or changed jobs,” Varner said. “That’s the hidden cost of the lab closures … When you try to move people around, many of them are just not going to go.”
Martin acknowledged the risk of public lands being sold off but also said seeing such speculative risks is easy in any major reorganization. What’s harder is to steer the reorganization in a way that benefits forests and addresses long-held issues in the agency. The current unknowns make forming any conclusions near impossible, she said.
“It’d be a real tragedy and a real shame if a ‘dismantling’ came to be,” Martin said. “There’s a lot of trust that still needs to be rebuilt … and I think there are innovative and novel ways to address the problems that face our forests today.”