The U.S. Forest Service Proposes Closing Research Hubs to Cut Costs, Sparking Concerns
The Forest Service wants to close – While some cities spend millions on landfill disposal for fallen trees, Baltimore has found a more sustainable solution. Instead of sending dead trees to landfills, the city transports them to a sorting and recycling facility where the wood is repurposed into furniture, flooring, and other products. This facility, a local example of resourcefulness, has not only reduced waste but also created economic value for the city, serving as a model for others seeking similar solutions.
A Shift in Support from the Forest Service
Shaun Preston, the director of the facility, highlighted the critical role the U.S. Forest Service played in its development. “When this program started, the Forest Service was right there to offer expertise,” he said. “They helped us refine ideas and push the project forward.” However, recent changes in the agency’s approach have raised alarms. Preston noted that the Forest Service has shifted focus, aiming to “grow Camp Small and take it to the next level” through operational support.
“Before, the agency was actively involved in research and development. Now, they’re looking at how to streamline operations and save money,” Preston remarked.
Reorganization and Budget Cuts
On March 31, the Forest Service announced a major reorganization plan, including the closure of several research facilities nationwide. Among the affected sites was the one in Baltimore, which has been a cornerstone for local ecological studies. This decision comes alongside President Donald Trump’s 2027 budget proposal, which slashes Forest Service research funding to zero from $309 million in 2026. The agency now faces the challenge of evaluating over 100 facilities for potential closure.
Forest Service Chief Dale Schulz emphasized the need for fiscal responsibility during a budget hearing on April 16. “We’re focusing on the essentials of managing our national forests for their intended purposes,” he stated. “Our goal is to ensure maximum value for the American taxpayer.” Schulz also proposed relocating the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah, while eliminating all nine regional offices that oversee permits and land management.
“We’ve got to make sure we live within our means,” Schulz told lawmakers.
Global Research Network at Risk
The Forest Service’s research network spans hundreds of facilities, employing over 1,000 staff across diverse environments. From greenhouses in urban centers to cabins in remote wilderness areas, these locations support projects ranging from restoring native tree species in Hawaii to preventing wildfires in Montana. Local partnerships, such as the one with Camp Small, have been integral to these efforts, with the agency’s researchers often collaborating with communities to address environmental challenges.
Yet, the proposed closures threaten this extensive network. According to the Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees, more than 200 workers are at risk of displacement. The agency has argued that consolidation into a single facility in Colorado would reduce overhead, but critics warn that such moves could diminish the agency’s capacity to conduct localized research. Internal documents reviewed by NPR reveal that many of the facilities under evaluation are already low-cost to operate, with some leases costing less than a dollar per year in rent.
Deferred Maintenance Costs and Asset Management
While the maintenance costs of the facilities themselves are relatively modest, the broader financial picture is more complex. Agency documents show that deferred maintenance costs for buildings total nearly $3 billion. However, these figures pale in comparison to the $8 billion in deferred maintenance needed for roads, trails, bridges, and dams. Roads alone account for more than double the cost of maintaining the facilities, highlighting the agency’s prioritization of infrastructure over research.
Dr. Paul Hessburg, a Senior Research Ecologist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Wenatchee, Washington, shared his perspective on the issue. “In my lab, we own the land and buildings outright, so we’re a solid investment,” he said. “But closing these hubs could disrupt the collaborative spirit that has driven so much of our success.” Hessburg’s facility, one of the many under review, has been a hub for innovative studies, including climate resilience projects and forest ecology experiments.
“Just because you’re taking away the deferred maintenance cost of the buildings doesn’t mean you’re solving the bigger problem,” Hessburg added.
Local Partnerships and the Cost of Closure
Researchers stress that closing these facilities could undermine their partnerships with local organizations like Camp Small. These collaborations are essential for addressing region-specific issues, such as urban tree recycling or wildfire prevention strategies. By centralizing operations, the Forest Service risks losing the flexibility and expertise that local teams provide, potentially leading to a brain drain among its scientists.
Despite the agency’s claims that the closures are necessary for efficiency, some experts argue that the savings may be minimal. “The government already owns most of the facilities it’s considering shuttering,” said an NPR reviewer of the documents. “The real question is whether the closures will lead to long-term losses in research capacity and public trust.” With over 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands under its care, the Forest Service has a responsibility to balance cost-cutting with innovation and environmental stewardship.
Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
The reorganization has sparked debate about the future of forestry research. While some see it as a necessary step to streamline operations, others warn that it could stifle progress. “These facilities aren’t just buildings—they’re ecosystems of knowledge,” said a former researcher. “Closing them might mean we’re not just losing money, but also the ability to tackle complex environmental problems.”
As the Forest Service moves forward with its plans, the impact on its research capabilities remains uncertain. The agency’s decision to cut funding and close hubs may have far-reaching consequences, affecting everything from local tree recycling programs to global climate studies. With a $309 million budget in 2026 and a proposed $0 allocation in 2027, the question is whether the Forest Service can maintain its role as a leader in environmental research without these facilities.
For now, the debate continues. While the agency insists its actions are aimed at fiscal responsibility, critics argue that the closures could have a more significant cost in the long run—both in terms of lost scientific potential and reduced community engagement. The fate of these research hubs will likely shape the future of the Forest Service’s mission and its ability to protect and manage America’s natural resources effectively.
