High Country News has an article of interest:
Moving land-management HQ out of Washington illustrates the ‘deconstruction of the administrative state.’
We’ve discussed this issue here and elsewhere. Aside from the machinations of the Trump administration, can a case be made that it is better for a land-management agency to be physically closer to the land it manages? For example, the USFS’s Region 5 office in Vallejo, Calif., seems out of place near SF Bay and far from any national forest. Sacramento would have been ideal, as it is closer to the forests and to the state government. Yes, it is crucial for BLM and USFS to have a presence in D.C., but not all national staff needs to be there. A colleague once suggested that much of the USFS staff could work well if distributed around the regional offices. Likewise, many regional office staffers could work from national forest HQs.