Forest Service Reorganization Proposes Facility Closures Amid Budget Cuts

The city of Baltimore has found a sustainable way to manage dead trees. Instead of disposing of them in landfills, the trees are taken to Camp Small, a recycling facility where they are transformed into furniture, flooring, and other products. This facility not only generates revenue for Baltimore but also serves as a model for other cities. Shaun Preston, who manages Camp Small, credits the success to operational research support from U.S. Forest Service scientists based in Baltimore. However, the future of such projects is uncertain with the recent reorganization plans announced by the Forest Service.

On March 31, the Forest Service revealed plans to close research facilities, including their office in Baltimore. Subsequently, President Donald Trump’s 2027 budget proposed eliminating all research funding for the Forest Service, which was $309 million in 2026. Over 100 facilities are now under review for potential closure. The agency asserts the changes aim to improve fiscal responsibility and bring personnel closer to the lands they manage.

Part of the proposed changes includes relocating the agency’s headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and shutting down regional offices. Forest Service Chief Schulz stated that the aim is to prioritize efficient management of national forests and ensure taxpayer value. This decision could affect over 229 employees working in the facilities earmarked for closure. Consolidation of research facilities might drive employees to leave the agency. Many fear this measure would disrupt ongoing projects and lead to higher operational costs.

The Forest Service claims that closures are not intended to force resignations and suggests workers will be centralized in Colorado. However, documents reveal that most of the premises proposed for closure are owned by the government or cost very little in rental fees, like the leased properties in Hawaii and Michigan. These leases are highly economical yet marked for potential closure without examining the financial implications and available resources.

At a Congressional hearing, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz justified the closures, citing maintenance costs of facilities. Yet, these costs pale compared to deferred maintenance for other agency assets like roads and trails. Critics argue that the agency’s decisions ignored existing cost-effective infrastructure, leading to unnecessary panic and disruption among staff.

Dr. Morgan Grove, a scientist involved with Camp Small and other projects in Baltimore, emphasized the need for local knowledge and presence for successful forestry management. Remote supervision from facilities like Denver would hinder relationship-building with partners and disrupt the continuity of research projects reliant on specific environmental conditions.

Four current Forest Service scientists agree, stating they would leave the agency rather than relocate. These researchers argue that local, place-based ecological studies are crucial, and closing these offices threatens long-term data collection and analysis. Further, the political oversight mandated by Congress could be compromised, as travel costs for displaced researchers might exceed existing lease expenses.

The union representing Forest Service employees contends that the proposed reorganization breaches legal mandates requiring Congressional approval for reprogramming funds. The union is negotiating against the facility closures, arguing the reorganization would undermine the Forest Service’s scientific legacy. According to current employees, the research cuts could have lasting negative effects on national forest management and public access to pivotal environmental information.