WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2025 – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins today announced Tom Schultz will serve as the 21st chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.
“Tom is the right person to lead the Forest Service right now, and I know he will fight every day to restore America’s national forests,” said Secretary Rollins. “Together, Tom and the incredible employees at the Forest Service will work to execute the agenda of President Donald J. Trump to make America’s forests healthy and productive again.”
Upon being sworn in, Schultz will replace Chief Randy Moore, who recently announced his retirement in a message to all Forest Service employees after serving the agency for over four decades.
“I’m incredibly grateful for the opportunity to be the next chief of the Forest Service. I will work tirelessly to further support and protect our rural communities. Working with our partners, we will actively manage national forests and grasslands, increase opportunities for outdoor recreation, and suppress wildfires with all available resources emphasizing safety and the importance of protecting resource values,” said incoming Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz. “Chief Moore has been a diligent public servant and has demonstrated his steadfast commitment to stewarding our national forests and grasslands. We thank him for his dedication and leadership.”
Kristin Sleeper, deputy under secretary for the Natural Resources and Environment mission area at USDA, added, “Schultz is a respected leader, who has more than 25 years of land management experience in the West and the South. I am excited to work closely with Secretary Rollins and him as we optimize our workforce and return to our fundamental mission of caring for the land and serving people.”
“Working to further healthier forests and a better Forest Service on behalf of the American people has been the honor of my life,” retiring Forest Service Chief Randy Moore said. “I am confident that Tom will continue to take steps to ensure the longevity, productivity, and splendor of our national forests and grasslands.”
The Forest Service Chief is responsible for the leadership and success in accomplishing the mission of the Forest Service. Established in 1905, the Forest Service manages 154 national forests and 20 grasslands across 43 states and is the foremost leader in federal forest management, research and development and wildland firefighting.
Background:
Schultz previously served as vice president of resources and government affairs at Idaho Forest Group, where he led timber procurement operations and managed relationships with government officials at all levels. A former U.S. Air Force officer, Schultz also served as director of the Idaho Department of Lands, overseeing the management of several million surface acres of endowment lands and minerals. He held leadership roles in Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, managing the Trust Lands and Water Resources Divisions.
Schultz holds a bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Virginia, a master’s degree in political science from the University of Wyoming, and a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Montana.
# # #
Please address backlog of mineral surface permits !!!
Invest some time in getting to know the Northwest Forest Plan and the amendment proposed. All signs in the DEIS indicate an expensive, onerous, lengthy process, fearful of any meaningful change after30 years of gridlock, billed as a “compromise”. The new “compromise” is 90% resource preservation and 10% natural resource conservation. Will not work in disturbance dependent forests of the PNW. Refusing to acknowledge the failed 94′ plan, and the ecological, economic, and social trainwreck that was gifted to future generations. Refusal to employ the best new science and research from its own researchers, biologists, and foresters, hence, an amendment and not a revision. A strong desire to keep and re employ what has proven to be a failure. Island biogeography theory will not work in a dynamic changing forest environment, a landscape ecology approach will work if enough ecologically driven forest silviculture and fuel reduction is used, leading to a sustainable ingrowth of forest habitats and forest products through time. Seems like it’s time to do what works. A no brainer, a tapestry of landscapes with mosaic patterns that emulate natural disturbance patterns.
“a tapestry of landscapes with mosaic patterns that emulate natural disturbance patterns”
That’s basically what ecological integrity means in the 2012 Planning Rule, which would be the required desired condition for this amendment, so what’s the problem? Did they get the science wrong?
Why isn’t anyone paying attention to the SCOTUS Chevron Deference revision. Changes have to come from congress. Soooo, minimal disturbance is 5 acres or more. Less is a NOI, not a POO. REASONABLE access is MANDITORY, not used as a method of making it so onerous that the permittee gives up in disgust.
Hi John: I am in complete agreement with what you have written. I argued strongly against the Clinton Plan when it was being considered and clearly predicted widespread unemployment and catastrophic wildfires if it was implemented. The 2002 Biscuit Fire and 2003 B&B Complex — combined with the related losses of USFS forest management talent and economically damaged local communities — should have been proof enough that the NWFP was ill-advised and should be seriously reconsidered or abandoned.
The whole fraudulent basis for the plan was that dead and dying trees, scattered logs, and biodiverse ladder fuels were signs of a “healthy forest,” and that humans were adversarial pathogens who needed to keep brief visits to a minimum. So the forest could “heal” and return to its favored enjoyment of “beneficial fires.” Something like that. What Jon calls “ecological integrity.”
My parents and grandparents didn’t leave me this ugly, dangerous mess, and it is embarrassing to be leaving it this way for my own grandkids. The whole NFMP needs to be thrown out as a serious centralized-government misdirection, as they did with Lysenko, and many of the so-called “scientific” regulations that made it possible should be seriously reconsidered as well. In my opinion, based on experience, documented observation, and analysis.
“Ugly and dangerous” is a matter of opinion while “ecological integrity” is a matter of fact (meaning you can still argue about the science). The law puts sustained yield (ecological integrity) ahead of public opinion at the forest-wide scale.
To me “sustained yield” is in a separate definition flow than “integrity”. Sustained yield of wood is related to sustainability of goods and services. “Integrity” can’t help but tie back to the way things used to be. If our view is that pre-1600 is good and we need to go back, it’s different than “this is 2025, what are we to do to sustain watersheds, wildlife and living trees?”
Certainly some scientists said at the time “if we had the same conditions as the past, everything will be swell” but I have always thought that that was a shortcut to involving more disciplines and the public in discussions of “what is to be done?”
Hi Jon: How is “ecological integrity” even measured, much less defined? I think we have clearly different definitions of what a “fact” is, scientific or otherwise.
Ecological integrity is defined in the Planning Rule:
“Ecological integrity. The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.”
NRV is explained in the Planning Handbook §12.14: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd534945.pdf
To Sharon’s usual complaint that this must mean maintaining historic conditions, the Handbook says this: “When assessing whether an ecosystem has integrity, the Interdisciplinary Team should use the natural range of variation as the ecological reference model, unless the past information regarding the selected key ecosystem characteristic is lacking, or the system is no longer capable of sustaining key ecosystem characteristics identified as common in the past based upon likely future environmental conditions.”
So there is no requirement to maintain historic conditions. I believe this Handbook language is confusing because it does suggest that NRV=past(HRV), when everything I heard drafting the rule was that this was not the intent. Basing ecological integrity on expected future conditions was intended to also produce a “natural” range of variation. (But maybe the Handbook authors didn’t get that message.)
Jon: A “Handbook definition” is not the same thing as a “scientific fact.” Not even close. It’s an arbitrary phrase that probably works great for lawyers, but can’t be challenged or even measured. Does your so-called “range of natural variation” even include people? Usually the people making these arbitrary rules up don’t include people, making the definition pretty useless for most practical applications. Except for taxpayer-funded busy work claiming to be “science” so the BAS industry can persist. In my opinion, based on observation and experience.
You are welcome to your opinions, but … An agency definition is a scientific fact for the agency’s use until somebody proves it’s arbitrary because it is not based on the best available science. NRV has been measured and applied to revise forest plans, and could be challenged. To the extent NRV is based on historic conditions, it includes human influences, and the same would be true for “likely future environmental conditions.” NRV does focus on reference conditions absent active management by the Forest Service.
Jon, what you’re saying is that legal folks define what is scientific (until someone proves (in court) that it’s arbitrary). This seems problematic and somewhat unjust to me (do scientists get to define what is legal?).
Hi Jon: I honestly believe that you think “An agency definition is a scientific fact.” wow. Didn’t you take any science classes in High School? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1tklZUABec
Scientists define what is the best available science. The government is legally required to use that science in its definitions (explicitly required by a statute, or by the APA to avoid being arbitrary). If you are trying to make a point that courts shouldn’t get to do what they do, well, maybe somebody skipped out of government classes in high school. Maybe to watch videos about the “National Environmental PROTECTION Act” (whatever that is).