The Forest Service is defending its plan to relocate its headquarters to Utah and shutter most of its analysis amenities, as a part of a significant company reorganization — however intends to proceed with these plans with or with out approval from Congress.
Final month, the Agriculture Division introduced that the Forest Service would transfer its headquarters to Salt Lake Metropolis, Utah. As well as, the company ought to shut down 57 of its 77 analysis amenities, in addition to all 9 of its regional places of work.
Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz informed members of the Home Appropriations Committee that about 500 staff must relocate beneath the company reorganization plan — about 1.5% of the company’s 30,000 workforce.
“The intent is not to push anyone out the door,” Schultz informed members of the subcommittee on inside, surroundings and associated companies on Thursday. “The intent, really, is to be thoughtful about how we do this, looking at where we don’t have enough staff to support a facility.”
The Nationwide Federation of Federal Workers, the union that represents Forest Service staff, estimates that about 6,500 company staff could be affected by the headquarters relocation, and that 2,700 could be impacted by analysis heart closures.
Steve Gutierrez, a former Forest Service firefighter, now a enterprise consultant at NFFE, informed Federal Information Community that staff impacted by this transfer would probably stop as a substitute of relocate.
“They’re being told to pick up their entire lives and move across the country, or move two to three hours away from their residence where they live now,” Gutierrez stated. “Not everybody can pick up their entire life, move their kids out of school, buy a new home in another state, sell their home. That’s a big lift for a lot of people, and not everybody’s willing to do that, no matter how much they are dedicated to the service.”
Schultz stated the Forest Service isn’t seeking to shrink its workforce. Hundreds of company staff left final 12 months by taking voluntary separation incentives.
“As we remove middle layers of management, the intent is not to RIF anybody or have a reduction in force. It’s to find other roles and responsibilities, different reporting structures, but it is to ultimately move more resources to forests and districts where the work is being done on a daily basis,” he stated.
As well as, the company’s FY 2027 price range request would get rid of about 800 of the Forest Service’s 1,110 analysis scientist positions.
Schultz stated these researchers would probably discover comparable jobs within the personal sector or on the state degree, and that the “states would step up” to supply funding for these positions.
“R&D is zeroed out in the budget,” he informed lawmakers.
Gutierrez stated many Forest Service researchers are already co-located at universities that sponsor them.
“We don’t pay anything for them. They’re free,” he stated. “I don’t think it’s in the best interest for public lands.”
Schultz stated the reorganization plan would shutter some amenities which have fallen into disrepair, and that it will “facilitate research and researchers over maintaining facilities and facility managers.”
Subcommittee Rating Member Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) stated lawmakers have been left at the hours of darkness about particulars of the reorganization.
“We’re getting some of our information off the website. We’re the appropriating committee that has oversight on the budget. I feel like we shouldn’t have to go watch the website every day to see if you’ve made another announcement or something,” Pingree stated.
“We haven’t seen this organizational chart, so I have no way to know that we’re not going to lose a lot more employees, just as we did last year with the misguided DOGE effort,” she added.
Schultz stated the Forest Service would preserve a restricted variety of staff in Washington, D.C., however {that a} majority — about 260 of the 350 staff within the nationwide capital space — must relocate beneath this plan.
“Could that number be a little bit less, a little bit more? Yes. Is it impactful to those families? Absolutely. Are we going to work with them to transition them and provide assistance? Yes, we would. We look at their individual circumstances. You bet. Are the unions there at the table representing those folks? Yes, they are,” he stated.
Below the primary Trump administration, the USDA tried transferring a whole bunch of staff at its two analysis bureaus to Kansas Metropolis. However greater than half of the workers on the Financial Analysis Service and Nationwide Institute of Meals and Agriculture who acquired relocation notices left the company moderately than transfer to Kansas Metropolis.
“I saw what happened when we moved NIFA and ERS, and you just lose a lot of staff. Not everybody’s going to move,” Subcommittee Rating Member Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) stated. “Not everybody is going to be able to move their family from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City.”
USDA is presently planning to relocate greater than half of its DC-based workforce to 5 hubs throughout the nation — Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas Metropolis, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake Metropolis.
Schultz informed the subcommittee that the Forest Service intends to maneuver forward with the reorganization, with or with out approval from Congress.
“We have consulted with [the Office of General Counsel], and we have been afforded what they perceived to be a direction to do this, move forward, that the secretary has this authority,” Schultz stated.
Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), former Inside Secretary beneath the primary Trump administration, stated he supported the reorganization. Below his tenure, the Inside Division moved the Bureau of Land Administration headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado.
“When you take your personnel and you bring them out West, the schools are better, the cost of living is better, the opportunity to have a house is better, and you’re closer to where the actual forests are,” Zinke stated. “Moving things out West, I think, is important, because most of the issues are in the West.”
The FY 2027 price range proposal additionally doubles down on plans to merge the wildland firefighting capabilities of the Forest Service and the Inside Division right into a single company. Congress rejected that plan in a complete spending deal for fiscal 2026.
“Congress didn’t go together with that, primarily as a result of I don’t know if it’s a good suggestion or unhealthy thought, however we had a number of questions that had been unanswered, “Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) stated.
The Inside Division lately proceeded with plans to consolidate all of its wildland firefighting personnel and applications.
The ultimate FY 2026 Inside appropriations invoice directed USDA and the Inside Division to rent an out of doors group to conduct a research on the feasibility of consolidation.
Schultz stated the companies are within the early phases of contracting out this work, and that when a vendor has been chosen, the research will take as much as six months to finish.
“The intent of this study is to inform Congress, inform the administration on this process. But we think there’s a lot of progress we can make, even short of the study being done. That’s the intent we’re taking,” he stated.
Simpson stated he’s involved lawmakers could not have time to evaluation the research’s findings earlier than drafting a FY 2027 spending plan.
“It’d be kind of stupid to combine the wildfire fighting in our bill without having the study completed. Otherwise, why do the damn study?” Simpson stated. “This might be the best idea since sliced bread. I don’t know, but I need a whole bunch of questions answered.”
Federal Information Community’s Drew Freidman contributed reporting
If you need to contact this reporter about current modifications within the federal authorities, please electronic mail jheckman@federalnewsnetwork.com, or attain out on Sign at jheckman.29
Copyright
© 2026 Federal Information Community. All rights reserved. This web site isn’t meant for customers positioned throughout the European Financial Space.
