Forest Service to Close 23 Research Sites, Retain Science Staff

TL;DR: Forest Service will close buildings at 23 lightly staffed research sites and keep staff and science programs in place

The U.S. Forest Service said on September 3, 2026, that it will close facilities at 23 research and development sites with little to no staffing, retain 41 other evaluated sites plus 20 sites identified earlier, move affected employees to other facilities in the local commuting area, and save more than $16 million through consolidation. Agency leaders said the action covers buildings and leases, not field studies, laboratory work, partner collaborations, experimental forests, or ongoing science activities.

Announcement ends months of review that began in March

The decision closed a review process that the agency first described in March 2026. At that time, according to the U.S. Forest Service announcement titled “Forest Service completes national facilities review, identifies more than $16M in savings,” the agency said it would retain 20 research and development facilities and evaluate 57 facilities for potential closure, with more locations to be considered as work progressed.

By September, the agency said it had ultimately reviewed 64 locations. After evaluation, it said 41 additional facilities would be retained and 23 sites with little to no staffing were identified for closure. The September 3 announcement presented the result as a facilities consolidation rather than a reduction in research programs.

Reporting by The Associated Press in “US Forest Service closing 23 research stations as part of reorganization” described the same outcome: 23 research stations in more than a dozen states identified for closure, while 41 other research facilities that had faced possible closure would remain open. That report said the March reorganization announcement had prompted concerns from local officials and members of Congress.

The Pacific Northwest coverage added local context. According to OPB’s “US Forest Service releases long-awaited restructuring plan”, the agency said in March that it was evaluating more than 50 research and development facilities for potential closure. OPB reported that months of uncertainty followed before the September announcement that nearly two dozen facilities would be shuttered.

What will close and what will stay open

The Forest Service said employees at affected locations will transition to other facilities within local commuting areas. The agency said that approach would consolidate its physical footprint while retaining people, research, and expertise.

The retained sites, the agency said, include locations that will host a state office or service center in the future organization, locations that provide primary space for the National Forest System, locations operating under zero-cost arrangements, locations with critical research and infrastructure, and locations that are part of the Experimental Forest network. The agency said its place-based research and development activities will continue as planned throughout the nation.

Associate Chief Chris French told The Associated Press that work being done at the research stations will continue at other sites. The AP report quoted French saying the primary goal was to bring facilities costs under control, while adding that the agency was not closing ongoing science activities or experimental forests important to researchers.

The agency’s internal message used similar language. In the Forest Service leadership update titled “Update on our facilities review,” Chief Tom Schultz said the moves do not cut scientists, end research programs, or shrink nationwide presence, and that research continues across the country as planned. He said the decisions address building and maintenance costs, not work in the field, in the laboratory, or in collaboration with partners.

In the Pacific Northwest, the outcome was narrower than some researchers had feared. OPB reported that at least three locations in the region were evaluated for closure and that one will be closed: the Pacific Northwest regional headquarters in Portland. OPB reported that laboratories in Seattle and Wenatchee, previously identified for possible closure, were spared in the latest plan.

Why Seattle and Wenatchee mattered to researchers

OPB identified the Seattle facility as a smoke laboratory that forecasts where wildfire smoke is expected to drift and how it could affect human health. It described research from Wenatchee as having informed more than a decade of forest management policy.

University of Washington fire ecologist Don McKenzie, who retired from the Forest Service after researching wildfires and climate change at the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory in Seattle, criticized agency leadership’s understanding of the consequences, according to OPB. OPB also reported McKenzie’s view that public advocacy and congressional pushback helped shape the reduced closure plan.

The concerns had built after the initial evaluation list was released. OPB reported that the agency received substantial pushback from the public and members of Congress when the facilities under evaluation were first identified. The final September decision retained more sites than the March evaluation alone might have suggested, including the Seattle and Wenatchee laboratories.

French said in an earlier interview with the Northwest News Network, as reported by OPB, that the restructuring would not affect ongoing research. That statement preceded the final list and was consistent with the agency’s September message that research activities would continue.

The $16 million savings calculation

The Forest Service said the consolidation will produce more than $16 million in savings. Chief Schultz specified more than $8.8 million in annual lease savings and more than $8 million in deferred maintenance savings, according to the agency’s September 3 release.

The AP report gave the same approximate total, saying the research-site closures, along with previously announced plans to shut regional offices in Atlanta, Milwaukee and Portland, will save about $16 million.

OPB also reported that the Portland regional-office lease was relatively expensive. French told the Northwest News Network that the agency had negotiated other spaces for employees in the local commuting area and expected to cut those costs by two thirds.

The agency said the reorganization facilities decisions can be implemented using existing authorities and currently available resources. In the leadership message, Schultz said the decisions enable the agency to continue its work within existing authorities and without new appropriated funds.

The Forest Service also said it is still evaluating other facilities associated with the National Forest System and other operations as part of a broader facilities review. The September announcement therefore covered regional offices and research facilities, not the full agency footprint.

A portfolio of 16,000 buildings with $3 billion in deferred work

The agency framed the closures as a response to a long-term facilities problem. According to the Forest Service release, the agency owns more than 16,000 facilities and holds more than 500 leases and space-occupancy agreements. Half of the owned facilities are rated in poor condition, and deferred maintenance exceeds $3 billion.

The agency also said one-third of its office space falls below the 60% utilization standard set by the USE IT Act. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden said the agency had carried underutilized space and partially vacant buildings that drained resources without advancing its work, according to the release.

Vaden said the review provided a path to direct more funding toward employees, mission work, and the public. Schultz said local consolidation would put more funding toward mission delivery and research rather than buildings the agency no longer needs.

The internal update repeated those portfolio figures. Schultz said reducing facilities and prioritizing cost-effective locations would improve the fiscal solvency of the facility portfolio. The agency described retained facilities as practical locations that directly support mission-critical work.

French also linked the decision to operating costs. OPB reported that he said the agency is spending more on leases and building costs than it receives from Congress. He said the agency tried to close facilities with fewer employees or where employees could commute to a less expensive office.

Employees move locally, with no forced reductions announced

The agency said the closures and consolidations will not result in forced staff reductions. Schultz emphasized that work will continue without interruption, according to the Forest Service release.

The AP report, citing Forest Service Communications Director Chad Douglas, said 95 employees at the research stations slated for closure will be relocated to other sites. The Forest Service’s own release did not give a separate employee total, but said employees at affected locations will move to other facilities within local commuting areas.

The meaning of local commuting distance became concrete in Oregon. OPB reported that the Forest Service defines commuting distance as 49 miles. If a commute exceeds that distance, the agency could need to pay relocation costs.

OPB reported that some employees working in Portland will commute to a new state office in Salem, about 47 miles away. French acknowledged that the trip from downtown Portland would be substantial for some workers, but said it would keep them from having to move their families.

More broadly, the agency said the national evaluation sought to consolidate the footprint without disrupting mission delivery or unnecessarily moving employees during a transition to a state-based model. The September 3 leadership message said the review sought a more efficient footprint while minimizing disruption and avoiding additional directed relocations beyond those already identified for National Capital Region employees.

Regional offices in Atlanta, Milwaukee and Portland also shift

In addition to the research sites, the Forest Service said it will proceed with previously announced regional-office shifts in Atlanta, Milwaukee and Portland. As with the research facilities, the agency said employees will continue their work at local facilities.

OPB focused on Portland because the regional headquarters there carries a relatively expensive lease. French said the agency negotiated other spaces nearby to lower costs while keeping employees in the commuting area.

The Portland-to-Salem change is part of a larger organizational shift. OPB reported that the national plan dissolves regional offices in favor of state offices and moves headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City.

The AP report also said the reorganization includes moving headquarters from Washington to Salt Lake City. It cited Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins saying the move, expected to be completed by next summer, would bring leaders closer to the landscapes they manage and the people who depend on them.

Workforce context and reaction to the overhaul

The facilities decision arrived after a period of workforce change. Federal data cited by The Associated Press showed the Forest Service had lost about 6,000 employees, or about 15% of its workforce, during President Donald Trump’s second term as part of broader cuts to natural-resource agencies.

OPB gave a similar figure, reporting that the Forest Service lost about 16% of its workforce in 2025 as the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency pursued layoffs, early-retirement incentives, and buyouts. The OPB report cited former employee Kevin Hood for that description of the 2025 workforce reduction.

Hood is executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a conservation advocacy organization founded in 1989 by former Forest Service employees concerned about land-management practices, according to OPB. Hood worked for the Forest Service for decades before leaving in 2025.

Hood told OPB that discussion about restructuring to save funds began under previous administrations, but described the current administration’s approach as chaotic. He said employees he spoke with had more questions than answers and doubted whether new direction would endure after repeated change and turmoil.

Hood also raised a governance concern about replacing regional headquarters with state offices. OPB reported his concern that new state directors were described as responsive to state governors and state foresters, while national forests belong to the American people and are governed by federal law passed by Congress.

Conservation groups also criticized the broader changes. The Associated Press reported warnings that the changes could reduce access to forests and threaten wildlife habitat and clean air and water.

The Forest Service, by contrast, said the retained footprint preserves geographic distribution. Schultz said the plan retains employees, creates a sustainable path, and ensures the right distribution of laboratories and duty stations. The agency said scientific work in forests, laboratories, and partnerships will continue as planned.

What remains under evaluation

The September announcement did not end facilities scrutiny. The Forest Service said it is completing an evaluation of other facilities tied to the National Forest System and other operations. That broader review is separate from the regional-office and research-facility decisions announced September 3.

The agency directed readers to its reorganization website for the facilities decision and a list of affected locations. That site, referenced in the September 3 release, contains the location-by-location details behind the totals of 64 reviewed sites, 41 retained sites, and 23 closures.

For researchers, the immediate result is therefore a smaller building inventory, a local move for some staff, and continued programs at other locations. For agency managers, the test will be whether lease savings, deferred-maintenance savings, and local transitions materialize as described while field and laboratory work proceeds.