The R&D reorganization story is, at least for me, less easy to imagine- I wasn’t even following R&D Transformation efforts back in 2007. While I’ve worked in FS R&D in DC, on a project briefly, and in various positions as Research-adjacent, I’ve never worked at a Station. I know among the folks reading, there are many with a great deal more time in all these chairs than I have, so I’m hoping you will share your experience and thoughts.
**********
Background: FS R&D Shares Facilities Budget with NFS
First of all, I think it’s important to compare FS R&D with other in-house (or intramural) research entities. USGS covers much of the same disciplines and topics, and ARS is in the same department as the FS. Both ARS and USGS have their own budgets. Why is this important? You’ll note that Forest Service Operations and Capital Improvement and Maintenance are shared among NFS, SPTF and R&D. If you want to know more about what goes where, there is this internal link. I know people out there know more about this, and work with it every day. My point is that R&D must share this funding with NFS. Which would tend to make the FS want to decrease facilities costs by combining people from Districts, Forests, other NFS entities, and R&D into the same buildings where possible.
Facilities are not people and not research programs. Some people (and many media reports) seem to think that that closing a facility automatically means that the scientists at a location will be RIFed (or moved to Fort Collins) and the research, therefore, not done. The number I mentioned yesterday, which I think to be accurate, is less than 500 people will need to be relocated out of the commuting area and they received their letters. Even when the Reorganization at USDA came up, I think many conflated buildings (facilities) with people and programs.
When I saw the list, I saw some of the units that have been proposed in the past..maybe 20 or 30 years or so?
Note:Be very careful of AI- I remember, and you all remember, many R&D facilities that were closed in the past. The Macon Fire Lab, the Bend Silviculture Lab, Carbondale (moved to the university), Olustee and so on. I couldn’t get a complete list from AI and had to prompt it with each name I remembered (I used Google AI) it would be interesting to see what others come up with. I asked “What Forest Service research facilities were closed between 1980 and 2024?” and at first it told me about today’s proposed closures and basically told me my question was irrelevant. It seemed to get huffy after I asked about Macon, Bend, etc.
In some cases, scientists move from FS owned facilities because universities offer better laboratories or a more intellectually or family- desirable location. But it can also work the other way, the FS shuts down a facility and the scientists move to a nearby campus. So programs (lines of research), people, and facilities are three different things. Scientists and other scientific staff are the producers of work, not facilities.
One example, when I spent time at the Bend Silviculture Lab, the Area Ecologist (for four Forests) and his staff were all located there as well as research scientists. The interaction was terrific, and one-stop shopping for many of us. So the closure was definitely sad for those of us working in Central Oregon. Many of us fought it in one way or another. Nevertheless, work at Pringle Falls Experimental Forest appears to be ongoing. Which reminds me of…
Experimental Forests and Ranges
The existence of experimental forests and ranges IMHO is one of the strengths of the Forest Service. The H.J. Andrews for example, is funded by NSF because it is also an LTER (which has mega-science-bucks). It’s also funded by Oregon State University, charitable support and other sources.
Some of these have buildings for researchers to stay; not sure that these facilities are on the block.
Role of Congressional Delegations
In the past, Congressional delegations have pushed back against any facility closures (NFS or R&D). Sometimes that leaves the FS between the proverbial rock and hard place, Congress won’t fund enough to keep them open, but won’t let the FS shut them either. Wending their way through these challenges is a difficult task. I don’t know if this list is pre-Congress or post-discussions with Congress, or an opening gambit in what could be years of discussions.
Structure of Other In-House R&D
ARS has regions…
And so does USGS (unified across DOI apparently, what a concept!)
If I showed you a study, you probably couldn’t guess whether it was the FS or USGS who produced it.. unless it was more minerals, energy and geology (USGS) or timber and wood, tree physiology, genetics, insects and disease. (FS). Birds, animals, watersheds, fish, fire, plants, ecology could be either and likely both.
If I were in charge of creating a better whole USG research portfolio, I’d work to ensure that there are no gaps or overlaps (including NSF, DOE, NIFA (and probably NIH when it comes to wildfire smoke) in addressing questions important to Interior and USDA agencies, States, Tribes, and other landowners. But that’s just me.
What Do Stations Do, and How Would State Offices Be Involved?
Most of us can probably imagine (especially if we followed the Transformation effort) what it would look like to have no regions, but service teams for much of the technical support work instead. For me at least, it’s much harder to think of what work currently at Stations would go to national service teams. Some are easier to think of than others, say communications and statistical services.
Part of what the Stations do is foster relationships with other research entities, management folks, the public, Congressionals and so on. Some forms of accountability are also done at the Station level.
Accountability in R&D has taken different forms even in my time.. at one time we had WO reviews of Stations with recommendations, but then (I think it was the Deputy Chief) decided that “suggestions” was strong enough. Then there was the period when folks were supposed to write up the real-world results of applying their research- that seemed to be a useful exercise, although some Stations tried harder than others. I don’t know what current accountability efforts include.
Sometimes it was hard to work collaboratively as R&D (I remember a Communications Team..) because different Station Directors were trying to maximize their own budgets and helpful relationships. At one time, the WO staff (in my case, Timber Management Research) held budget strings and did reviews, but that changed so that some units saw (some of the WO folks) as irrelevant without the budget responsibility. The point of all this history is that if you look at this effort at reorganization with a wider time lens, parts seem familiar (facility issues) and other parts are truly novel (no Stations).
What Do Scientists Actually Need?
If you take a look at your favorite scientist and look at their publications, many of them involve measuring studies in the field and various kinds of computer modeling and statistics. Some need laboratories for their work. Depending on the nature and costs of the equipment, does it make sense for the FS to buy it themselves (and deal with hazardous waste, etc.) or work with university or other partners? The answer is… it depends. I won’t be second-guessing anyone’s choices,
How Did the Team or Teams Look at the Organization and Why Did They Choose This Approach?
We don’t know if the teams working on this did benchmarking with the other research agencies, or what exactly they looked at and what they came up with. I’m hoping to find out via FOIA.
More Invisible People
We tend to use a shorthand of “scientists” as producers of research and there are many folks out there who do not have the “scientist” title but without whose work scientists wouldn’t be able to conduct their research. So let’s give a shout-out to the often unsung and underappreciated whatever their title and grade!
Other topics, stories, ideas, concerns?
No gaps, sure, but no overlaps? Why not? I see a reasonable amount of overlap as incredibly productive, where scientists that share a discipline but differ in the orientation of their work’s application could really benefit from collaboration. And when I say “scientists benefit,” I mean “we all benefit from better science.”
On another topic: lab facilities are one thing, but I am especially sad about field facilities (such as experimental forests), which have been neglected for decades already. As a PNW’er, I’m thinking about Wind River, Cascade Head, and even HJA to some extent. If you want the most research bang for your facilities buck, invest in the field sites. Get your scientists out in the woods where they can notice new things!
Perhaps I didn’t mean “no overlaps” but sometimes there appears to be the same work with the same approach. If we could be sure it was conscious and intentional overlap and the scientists were working together.
I agree that Exp Forests and Ranges have been neglected for some time…perhaps Reorganization can lead to a revival of interest as they are one of FS R&D’s unique contributions to the federal research portfolio.
I think it would be great for USFS (and other GOV researchers) to share lab and office space with the research universities reliant on federal dollars.
In my very limited experience as a graduate student at Utah State, the Ogden RS employee who taught me how to use the dendro lab spent most of his time on the USU campus in Logan because the facilities and networking were better.
Sharon, I do appreciate your comments that eliminating buildings doesn’t eliminate positions or research. But I recently heard some troubling news vis a vis the USFS reorg. One place that may be shut down is the Chico Seed Orchard. This is not simply a building but is a 100+ acre genetic resource and an important resource for the agency and forestry generally. If we lose it, we will never get it back. I am concerned how many other places there are in the Forest Service that would be shut down that are more than mere buildings. I hope the ‘powers that be’ making decisions on this reorg use a finer resolution when evaluating all the various USFS facilities across the US.
Where did you hear the rumor? I notice that American Forests is hiring a seed orchard manager for Chico. ???? Certainly a question for the FS is “is the current list the list of all the facilities planned for closure?”