Forest Service Research Cuts Threaten Decades of Scientific Work

The U.S. Forest Service is proposing to close more than 56 of its 77 research facilities across 31 states and consolidate its seven research stations into a single office in Fort Collins, Colorado — a move that critics say prioritizes short-term savings over the world’s largest forestry research network. President Donald Trump’s proposed 2027 budget would eliminate the agency’s entire $309 million research budget, allocating $0 for Forest Service science, according to an NPR investigation.

The Paradox of Closing Cheap Facilities

At the heart of the controversy is a striking paradox: the Forest Service is closing low-cost or nearly-free research facilities while consolidating operations into more expensive ones. The Fort Collins consolidation facility, where researchers would be relocated, costs $1 million per year in rent, documents reviewed by NPR show.

Meanwhile, many of the facilities slated for closure cost the government almost nothing. The lease for a 30,000-acre research lot in Hilo, Hawaii, signed in 2002, permits the Forest Service to use the land through 2067 for a one-time fee of $1, according to lease documents obtained by NPR. A five-acre property in Houghton, Michigan, has been leased since 1963 for a one-time payment of $1, with access to university laboratories at no additional cost, lease records show.

“All this tells me is that no one bothered to look at what we owned versus what we don’t,” a current Forest Service maintenance employee told NPR, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution. “They picked locations that they wanted to move people to rather than looking where we already had assets.”

Researcher Exodus Looms

The reorganization plan, announced on March 31, 2026, as part of a broader USDA restructuring that includes moving the Forest Service headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah, has sparked alarm among scientists. All four current Forest Service researchers interviewed by NPR said they would quit the agency if forced to relocate to Fort Collins, and reported that many colleagues feel the same way.

“I’m not moving to Fort Collins,” one researcher said. “The whole point was to do long-term, place-based ecological research.”

More than 200 employees work in facilities slated for closure, according to the Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the federal labor union representing agency workers. The NFFE argues the reorganization violates a law requiring advance notification and approval from House and Senate appropriations committees before government funds can be reprogrammed, as reported by NPR.

Hyperlocal Research at Risk

Forest Service research is deeply embedded in local communities and ecosystems. In Baltimore, agency scientists helped launch Camp Small, a wood recycling facility that turns fallen trees into furniture and flooring. Dr. Morgan Grove, a former Forest Service scientist who retired in 2025, said the agency’s role as a convener of local interests cannot be replicated from a distant office.

“It’s important to recognize that in the Forest Service, we end up being kind of the convener of different interests,” Grove told NPR. “And if you’re trying to convene from Denver or Salt Lake City, they no longer see you as being part of their community.”

The research conducted at these facilities is often irreplaceable. “Closing these offices is going to result in the loss of irreplaceable data sets, which contain just vital information that has been gathered,” a current Forest Service scientist said.

Congressional Mandate at Odds with Cuts

Some of the science the agency performs is not optional. The Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) program is mandated by Congress to collect data on the condition of U.S. forests. About one-third of FIA staff work at facilities being evaluated for closure, according to Forest Service research scientists. Former FIA scientist Rachel Riemann noted that relocating these employees would force them into “permanent travel status,” potentially costing more than maintaining local offices.

“Almost any lease would cost less than being in permanent travel status,” Riemann said.

Agency Defends the Plan

Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz defended the reorganization at a House Budget subcommittee hearing on April 16, stating the agency is “prioritizing the fundamentals of managing our national forest for their intended purposes and ensuring maximum value to the American taxpayer.” Schultz emphasized the need to “live within our means.”

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden addressed concerns on social media, writing that “closing some research facilities does NOT mean we’re ending research” and that the moves are “just relocating small teams out of individual buildings into shared, more efficient facilities, where scientific collaboration can flourish.”

Long-Term Consequences

Critics warn the cuts could have lasting damage. Dr. Paul Hessburg, a senior research ecologist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Wenatchee, Washington, has worked in forestry for 40 years. His lab, which owns its land and buildings outright, is one of the facilities being evaluated for closure.

“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.”

Amy Shields, executive director of the Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, noted that Pennsylvania’s $21 billion timber industry — which employs over 60,000 people — relies heavily on Forest Service research. She pointed to a “systematic reduction of commitment to research over these last 15 years, from both sides of the political aisle.”

What’s Next

Congress ultimately decides whether to approve Trump’s budget, which cuts total Forest Service funding by more than 70%. The union’s legal challenge against the reorganization is ongoing. Meanwhile, researchers warn that if the plan proceeds as proposed, the Forest Service’s legacy as the world’s leading forestry research organization could effectively come to an end.

As Susan Stout, a retired research forester who spent 40 years at the Irvine, Pennsylvania lab, put it simply: “I’m heartbroken.”