HikeArizona.COM

This topic could be posted under fire, politics, hiking, travel, and about 12 other categories. It's really quite all-encompassing as far as how the US Forest Service is organized and managed and the effect on the public that uses it. But somehow there hasn't been a lot of reporting on it so far. I hope that changes, because the press-releases provide a one-sided view, and I haven't read any reliable or quality analyses elsewhere as yet.

What we know as far as Arizona is concerned:

#1. The headquarters of the Forest Service is moving from DC to Salt Lake City — to be closer to the lands it manages.
#2. The regional headquarters are changing to state-based headquarters and Arizona's will be in Phoenix.
#3. Flagstaff will be home to a Research and Development Station.
#4. Fire management will remain unchanged, based in Boise.

USDA Prioritizing Common Sense Forest Management, Moves Forest Service Headquarters to Salt Lake City
(Washington, D.C.,March 31, 2026 )

...

Alongside the relocation of its headquarters, the Forest Service will begin transitioning to a state-based organizational model designed to shift authority closer to the field by organizing leadership around state-level accountability, supported by shared operational service centers and a unified national research enterprise.

Under the new model, 15 state directors will be distributed throughout the country to oversee Forest Service operations within one or more states. State directors will serve as national leaders with primary oversight of forest supervisors, operational priorities, and relationships with states, tribes, and other partners. Each state office will include a small leadership support team responsible for functions such as legislative affairs, communications, and intergovernmental coordination.

This approach is intended to simplify the chain of command, strengthen local partnerships, and give field leaders greater ability to respond to conditions on the ground.

...

The Forest Service will also consolidate leadership of its research enterprise. The agency currently operates multiple geographically dispersed research stations, each with its own leadership structure. Under the reorganization, the Forest Service will bring those stations together under a single Forest Service research organization, located in Fort Collins, CO.

...

Under this reorganization, the agency’s Fire and Aviation Management program will retain its existing Geographic Area Coordination Center structure, which remains the backbone of national incident coordination. There will be no interruption or change to our field-based operational firefighters or their positions

News Release:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/ne ... ves-forest
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/reorganization

So the Forest Service Arizona headquarters in is going to be in a city with no forest, you say?

@Grimey
I believe the SW regional office is currently in Albuquerque, so Phoenix really isn't too different. It is closer to the Tonto, which actually has very few trees to zero over much of it's area unless you count cactus as a tree, and the Prescott, Coconino, and Coronado NFs, at least. Apache NF might be closer to ABQ. The people in a place like Phoenix would be administrative, anyway, not ground level people who do the real work.

Also, they can theoretically work with the state agencies and the BLM, since they have offices in the Federal Tower downtown. Not a lot of active mines in the Copper Building, but there they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office locations aside,

This includes supporting our timber growers across the country, including those in the Southeast by prioritizing a regional office and promoting policies that boost timber production, lowering costs for consumers.

My issue with the release is statements like this, which implies a shortage of timber exists in the US due to some constraints placed on Federal lands, and that the private lands, which most land in the SE is held privately, are not the source of most to nearly all production-based forestry. In the SE USA, this is typically short rotation plantations that are dense and poor habitat after about age 10.

That focus purely on production beginning 100 years ago after the timber was mined resulted in forest conversion and ecosystem changes. Many who value public lands would not want to see the FS in the business of competing with the Plumb Creeks and IPs of the world, nor the small landowners that already struggle to make a profit when timber prices are depressed and their plantations are maturing to the point of volume loss from insects and diseases. At various time in the last few decades, CRP plantations maturing in cohorts resulted in depressed timber prices due to a glut of timber that entered the market. Supply exceeded demand, basically. Had these lands not been planted and managed mimicking industrial lands, they could have waited out the lower prices, especially if managing if for wildlife and hunting leases. I don't see how Federal lands increasing supply would help those who are growing trees as a crop, IE producers.

I read my quoted text, I start to wonder what the goal is, exactly. Growers of timber are not the same as the mills, the loggers, or the consumers. Not in practice. At the least, I read that FS statement to say, "we're going to log more", which may or may not mean anything real for the lands effected.

https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/raster ... nusFTG.pdf


I include that forest type map as loblolly has replaced huge areas of longleaf in the SE, especially in the Carolina coastal plain, east Texas, Louisianna north of the Red River, and most of Alabama. That is an example of conversion from the natural ecosystem to a production-based land use. The conversion has meant short rotation forestry practices replaced a forest that can be left unharvested for much longer periods without the death of the trees due to use of offsite species or species that suffer losses as they become "over mature". The area is expansive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longleaf_ ... ge_map.png if you want to compare historic range to current FIA plot-based range mapping. Much of the acreage in the longleaf-slash in SE Georgia and north FLorida is actually slash pine plantations, too.

They should change the name to the US mini forest and Brush Service. Salt Lake-- great they'll probably have all kinds of " studies " to screw up the Uintas and the Winds.

I personally wonder how the change will affect recreation management or policies. Will it make the process of procuring funding for trail construction and maintenance different — easier or more difficult? Will there be changes to the district office structure? Increases or decreases in field personnel (rangers) and law enforcement? Things that are noticeable in the visitor experience.

Jeeze, try to make a joke and get a lecture.

Lesson learned.

Need more Lobbyist office space i Washington DC.

@Grimey
Use the emoji and people will be able to tell if you are making a joke. Your post just looked like the typical whining that permeates the forum, these days. You know, like the next post under mine.

Also, the "----------------------" is to indicate that only the top part of my post was for you. The rest is just in general, not directed at you. It wouldn't have made sense to direct that at you, or anyone specific.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of making a separate statement not directed anyone specific, did this thread get moved to politics after I posted? I don't remember it being down here when I saw it this morning. I would have just ignored the thread if I had realized it was down here. See the, "my stupid opinion" thread for why.

@Jim
I am the Whiner in Chief for sure!