It’s not just employees, it’s buildings that remaining employees work at. I happened across a listing of dodgy, sorry DOGE, lease cancellations and I pulled out the ones that mention Forest Service or BLM. It would be interesting to hear how these got picked and whether/how this will affect the agencies.
“A GSA planning document dated March 10 lists the dates when many of the cancellations are expected to go into effect. That does not mean all the locations will close by those dates, but agencies would have to either negotiate new leases or move elsewhere if they remain open. Agencies are still figuring out what to do.”
No big deal? Is there more to “move elsewhere” than meets the eye?
- Ackerman, Miss. (4,809 square feet)
- Albuquerque, N.M. (22,216 square feet)
- Phoenix, Ariz. (32,162 square feet)
- Anchorage, Alaska (27,770 square feet)
- Fort Collins, Colo. (43,599 square feet)
- Montgomery, Ala. (15,792 square feet)
- Mount Shasta, Calif. (536 square feet)
- Pomeroy, Wash. (10,516 square feet)
- Silver City, N.M. (29,554 square feet)
- Bureau of Land Management, Baker City, Ore. (7,030 square feet)
But it also looks like this isn’t a complete list, or its being added to – here’s another: https://patch.com/california/sananselmofairfax/blm-field-office-marin-napa-sonoma-more-counties-close
- Bureau of Land Management Field Office, Ukiah, Calif.
Or are “offices to be closed” a completely different list?
If that’s Albuquerque Service Center, he just made many people very happy! I cal “dibs” the giant elk sculptures…..🤣
The list I saw also included the FS R6 RO in Portland (it also houses 6 other agencies).
I’m thinking the agencies are going to weigh in.. because they’d have to rent other space and GSA would have more work. Or perhaps GSA intends on their moving to a different building with unused space? Who knows? I wouldn’t worry about it until they told me to pack my boxes.
So much flip-flopping and contradictory info and claims from Dodgy (I like that Jon!) that it’s hard to know what will happen.
As someone who worked on Ranger Districts and in a Forest Supervisor’s office it makes me wonder if closing FS offices will make things more efficient.
Example: A few years ago, the FS closed the Clackamas River RD station in Estacada and moved the District staff to the Mt. Hood HQ in Sandy. Likely added a 45 minute (one way) drive to get back to Estacada. The station in Estacada was already housing staff from the old Ripplebrook RS station that had been further up the Clackamas River. I don’t know the Clackamas area as well as I do other parts of MHNF but my guess is the drive time from office in Sandy to the upper reaches of that RD may be 1 1/2+ hours one way now. Three hours driving really cuts into time to be on the ground for salmon spawning surveys, sale layout, etc.
Yes, some office space cost was saved but is this more efficient and/or cost effective?
>> This is an example of why the affected agency needs to be fully engaged in the GSA’s real estate decisions. Without the involvement of people who really understand all aspects of the situation there may be some very inefficient cost “savings” put into effect! A bit like misunderstanding COBOL language dates and claiming there are lots of people, over 100 years old, still collecting Social Security! 🙂
And all done without any consideration for the agency mission.