The U.S. Forest Service has announced plans to close more than 100 research facilities across the country as part of a reorganization aimed at reducing costs, but internal agency documents and lease agreements obtained by NPR suggest many of these closures may not save money—and could end up costing more.
On March 31, the agency announced it would evaluate facilities for closure, including its Baltimore office where scientists supported local urban forestry projects. Three days later, President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget proposed allocating $0 for Forest Service research, down from $309 million in 2026. Agency Chief Tom Schulz testified at an April 16 Senate hearing that the changes were meant to achieve "fiscal responsibility."
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and environmental advocates say the closures would dismantle a critical scientific infrastructure without meaningful savings. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has raised concerns about the impact on wildfire prevention research in her state.
Current Forest Service researchers argue the work is irreplaceable because it is hyperlocal and tied to specific ecosystems. "The research being done is hyperlocal. It's unique to the landscapes that it's supporting," one scientist told NPR. Four researchers interviewed by NPR said they would quit rather than relocate to Fort Collins, Colorado, where the agency proposes consolidating staff.
Environmental groups point out that the agency's own Forestry Inventory Analysis program is mandated by Congress to monitor forest conditions nationwide. About one-third of those employees work at facilities slated for closure, meaning the agency could face higher costs through mandatory per diem travel—estimated at more than $2,000 per person per month—to continue monitoring.
What the Right Is Saying
Forest Service Chief Tom Schulz has defended the reorganization as necessary fiscal management. "We've got to make sure that we live within our means," he told senators at the April hearing. He said the changes would bring agency employees closer to the land they manage and prioritize "the fundamentals of managing our national forest for their intended purposes."
Administration officials argue that consolidating operations into a single location in Colorado would streamline management. A USDA spokesperson said employees would receive "clear information about relocation timelines, available options, and resources to support their decisions" as transitions occur in phases.
Conservative budget hawks have supported reducing the federal footprint in research they view as duplicative of state or university programs. The proposed move of agency headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah, has been framed by supporters as bringing federal operations closer to Western forestlands.
What the Numbers Show
The scale of potential closures is significant: More than 100 facilities are being evaluated for closure, affecting 229 employees who work in those locations, according to the Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees.
Many of these facilities cost almost nothing. The lease for a research site at the University of Hawaii in Hilo runs through 2067. The federal government paid $1 as a one-time fee for the 65-year agreement, with no additional rent required. Similar arrangements exist for Forest Service properties leased from Michigan Technological University dating back to 1963.
Meanwhile, the building in Fort Collins where displaced researchers would be consolidated costs $1 million annually in rent—more than facilities the agency owns outright or leases nearly free. Deferred maintenance on research buildings totals approximately $3 billion, but roads alone cost more than double what the agency spends maintaining its facilities, according to internal documents.
The Forest Service's total deferred maintenance backlog for all assets—including roads, trails, bridges and dams—is over $8 billion. Critics note that closing a research building does not eliminate these broader infrastructure obligations in the areas where those buildings sit.
The Bottom Line
The reorganization faces legal challenges from the union representing Forest Service employees, which argues the agency is violating a law requiring advance congressional approval before reprogramming government funds. Union representative Steven Gutierrez said committees were not notified and did not authorize the closure proposal.
If implemented as proposed, scientists say long-term ecological research projects could be disrupted or abandoned—including multi-decade studies like oak tree regeneration plots in Baltimore that cannot be transplanted without invalidating the research. The agency says it is still evaluating facilities for closure but declined to comment on specific details of the process.