Forest Service plans closures; researchers call it costly

The Forest Service says it is closing research facilities to achieve fiscal responsibility, but internal documents and researchers interviewed by MISRYOUM describe a different picture: many sites are low-cost or already owned, while moving staff could disrupt

For years, Camp Small in Baltimore has turned dead trees into something useful. The wood doesn’t simply go to a landfill. It’s sorted and recycled into furniture, flooring and other products—and the operation has even drawn attention as a model for other cities.

But the man who runs the site. Shaun Preston. says Camp Small’s survival has depended on something less visible: operational research support from U.S. Forest Service scientists working out of the agency’s office in Baltimore. “When this program started, the U.S. Forest Service was right there to offer expertise to help us with research, to help develop ideas,” Preston said. “And then the Forest Service was like. let’s look at how we can grow Camp Small and take it to the next level.”.

Now, the Forest Service says it is cutting costs by reorganizing—and closing research offices, including the Baltimore facility. On March 31, the agency announced a reorganization that would close facilities used for research. Three days later, President Donald Trump’s 2027 budget proposed allocating $0 for Forest Service research, down from $309 million in 2026. At least 100 facilities are being evaluated for potential closure, according to an analysis described by MISRYOUM.

At a budget hearing on April 16. Forest Service Chief Schulz said the agency was “trying to achieve fiscal responsibility” and that the changes were meant to bring the people who work for the agency closer to the land they are meant to manage. Schulz also proposed moving the agency’s headquarters from Washington. D.C. to Salt Lake City. Utah. and closing all 10 of the agency’s regional offices. where employees work on permitting and land management. “We are prioritizing the fundamentals of managing our national forest for their intended purposes and ensuring maximum value to the American taxpayer. ” Schulz told lawmakers. “We’ve got to make sure that we live within our means.”.

The trouble, researchers and documents reviewed by MISRYOUM say, is that the savings story doesn’t match the ledger that closures appear to target.

More than 1. 000 Forest Service employees work in hundreds of Research and Development facilities and structures across the country. according to the agency’s description: greenhouses. laboratories and cabins in urban areas like Baltimore and in more rural offices near the 193 million acres of national forest and grassland the agency manages. Those staff pursue projects ranging from restoring native trees in Hawaii after invasive species take over to learning how to prevent wildfires in Montana. The work often includes local partners, and agency scientists describe it as the largest forestry research network in the world.

The Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees, the federal labor union advocating for Forest Service workers, says 229 employees work in facilities slated for closure.

The agency disputes the idea that closures are meant to push employees out. The Forest Service has denied that pending closures are intended to force workers to quit, and it has suggested that employees in facilities being evaluated for shutdown would be consolidated into one location in Colorado.

But documents and interviews reviewed by MISRYOUM suggest a different economic picture—one where many of the research buildings being considered for closure are either government-owned or tied to leases that are extraordinarily cheap.

In a Pacific Northwest Research Station lab in Wenatchee, Wash., Dr. Paul Hessburg. a Senior Research Ecologist who works in one facility being evaluated for closure. described what it feels like from inside the system: “In my laboratory. we own the land outright and we own the buildings outright. so we’re a pretty good deal.”.

The government still has to pay to maintain what it owns. Agency documents show deferred maintenance costs for buildings the agency owns amount to almost $3 billion. For other assets that include roads. trails. bridges and dams. deferred maintenance costs total more than $8 billion. and roads alone cost the agency more than double what it pays to maintain its facilities.

A current Forest Service employee who helps maintain the agency’s infrastructure cautioned that cutting research buildings doesn’t automatically erase other costs. “Just because you’re taking away the deferred maintenance cost of the research [buildings]. it doesn’t mean that area is going to become a zero-sum. ” the employee said. “Because you still have the roads there. You could have a dam there. You could have a communication system there.”.

That employee requested anonymity because they say they are not permitted to speak publicly and fear retribution.

One concrete example of the rent question appears in Fort Collins, Colo., where the agency has proposed moving researchers from facilities that are closing. MISRYOUM review of documents shows that building costs the Forest Service $1 million a year in rent.

By contrast, the buildings the agency is proposing to shutter cost the Forest Service almost nothing in rental fees, based on lease details provided to MISRYOUM.

In Hilo, Hawaii, for instance, the agency has a 30,000-acre lot for the Institute of Pacific Island Forestry research station. The lease was signed in 2002 between the Department of Agriculture and the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources. and it runs through 2067. MISRYOUM review of the lease shows the federal government paid a one-time fee of $1 for renting the land. “They’re only paying a dollar in rent to the university because they have a great agreement with the university. ” said Rachel Riemann. a former Forest Service research scientist who worked with the Forestry Inventory Analysis arm of the agency. “And yet that one’s on the list for closure.”.

The Hawaii lease also states that while the government must maintain some buildings it leases there, there is no additional rental fee for the remainder of the term.

In Michigan. two properties leased from Michigan Technological University—one in Houghton and another in L’Anse—are also being evaluated for closure. The lease for the five-acre property in Houghton was signed in 1963 for a 49-year period and extended for another 49 years in 2014. Lease documents reviewed by MISRYOUM show the federal government paid Michigan Technological University a one-time rental fee of $1 in 1963. “but no rental fee thereafter.” The lease also states that Forest Service researchers have access to Michigan Technological University’s “instruments and laboratories at no cost” other than maintenance.

For the L’Anse facility, Forest Service pays $600 a month to rent two rooms.

The maintenance employee again put the question in blunt terms. “All this tells me is that no one bothered to look at what we owned versus what we don’t. ” the employee said. “They picked locations that they wanted to move people to rather than looking where we already had assets and caused huge panic amongst staff by doing so.”.

For scientists, though, the dispute isn’t only about rent. It’s about time, place, and relationships built over years.

Dr. Morgan Grove. a former Forest Service researcher who supported Camp Small. says moving would break the kind of long-term. local work the agency is known for. Grove helped jumpstart the cleanup of a 10-acre forest behind an inner city church in Baltimore. He also worked with other scientists to study the regeneration of white oak trees in plots at a public arboretum in Baltimore.

The oak trees were planted three years ago, Grove said, and need about 30 years to grow. He said saplings cannot be transplanted to new sites without disrupting the research because the point is to study how the trees survive for decades under Baltimore’s specific environmental conditions. “So how easy would it be to do that from Denver?. Not happening,” Grove said. “Remotely, it’s really hard to provide sufficient support for how to manage a forest.”.

Grove also described the social glue of the work—how Forest Service researchers become conveners for partners like Baltimore pastors and sawmill workers at Camp Small. “It’s important to recognize that in the Forest Service. we end up being kind of the convener of different interests. ” Grove said. “And if you’re trying to convene from Denver or Salt Lake City. they no longer see you as being part of their community.”.

Moving would also interrupt projects across coasts, according to four current Forest Service scientists interviewed by MISRYOUM. They agreed that research being done is hyperlocal—tied to the landscapes being studied and to data sets housed in specific buildings.

“One current Forest Service scientist said, “The research being done is hyperlocal. It’s unique to the landscapes that it’s supporting and then also the data sets that are in each of these buildings.” The scientist added: “Closing these offices is going to result in the loss of irreplaceable data sets. which contain just vital information that has been gathered.”.

There’s also the question of whether some research is required by law. The Forestry Inventory Analysis program, scientists said, is mandated by Congress to collect data that assess the condition of forests across the United States.

MISRYOUM review of interviews described that about one third of Forestry Inventory Analysis staff work at facilities being evaluated for closure. Riemann. the former Forestry Inventory Analysis scientist. said those employees would have to travel to continue monitoring forests and that the agency could end up spending more than $2. 000 per person per month if standard per diem rates for federal employees are followed. “Almost any lease would cost less than being in permanent travel status,” Riemann said.

All four researchers interviewed by MISRYOUM said they would quit if told to move, and they said many colleagues feel the same. “I’m not moving to Fort Collins,” said one researcher who works in a facility slated for closure. “The whole point was to do long-term, place-based ecological research.”

The Forest Service says it is still evaluating information about which facilities will close. When MISRYOUM requested an interview about that process, the Forest Service declined and provided a statement. The statement said, “The transition will occur in phases. Employees will receive clear information about relocation timelines. available options. and resources to support their decisions. ” and added that “the number of relocations beyond those already identified in the National Capital Region is unknown at this time.”.

Behind the scenes, the labor fight over the restructuring is also sharp.

The union representing Forest Service employees argues the agency’s proposed reorganization violates a law requiring that government funds not be reprogrammed without advance notification and approval by House and Senate appropriations committees. Steven Gutierrez. one of the union’s representatives. said the committees were not notified in advance and did not authorize the Forest Service’s plan to close facilities. “We had this language specifically put in there on purpose so that they wouldn’t do any kind of reorganization and they’re absolutely going against that. ” Gutierrez said. He said the union is currently negotiating with Forest Service leadership.

Current employees argue that if the research restructuring proceeds as proposed, it would end what they call the agency’s strong science legacy.

One scientist called the proposed reorganization a “death blow” to research. Another scientist predicted that the proposed changes and the loss of employees they believe would follow—on top of the thousands of Forest Service employees lost last year—would cause the system to “entirely collapse.”

Hessburg, the Pacific Northwest researcher, said the cuts to research would cause long-term damage to public lands. “It takes an awful lot to manage nearly 200 million acres of national forest system land,” Hessburg said. “If you eliminate the largest [forestry] research organization in the world, it has impacts.”.

By the time dead trees reach Baltimore. they have already been carefully studied and supported by researchers trying to understand how forests regenerate and how communities can be protected. The Forest Service says closures are necessary to live within its means. Researchers interviewed and documents reviewed by MISRYOUM say the cost they’re watching may fall somewhere else—into the kind of lost time. disrupted data. and long-distance travel that the agency’s budget math doesn’t seem to capture yet.

United States Forest Service research facility closures federal budget 2027 Donald Trump Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Schulz deferred maintenance Forestry Inventory Analysis Camp Small Baltimore Camp Small wood recycling Morgan Grove Paul Hessburg Rachel Riemann