So let’s look at the New York Times overage that starts with the title:
Forest Service Will Close Research Stations That Study Wildfire Risk
The U.S. Forest Service is closing 57 of its 77 research facilities in 31 states under a reorganization plan announced this week, threatening science that looked at how wildfires, drought, pests and global warming are putting pressure on forests.
The agency plans to consolidate its research division into a centralized office in Fort Collins, Colo., and move field researchers to locations in nearby states. But employees said they feared the move would lead many scientists to leave instead. The reorganization will also move the agency’s headquarters to Salt Lake City from Washington, affecting 260 employees.
When I read it in the Times, I have to wonder a bit if my sources are wrong, or are the reporters. Actually, from the beginning of Reorg talk, I got the point that the Admin had chosen to get rid of a layer of administration, not research projects themselves.
In fact, for those who harken back to the hubbub over indirect cost caps at other research agencies, it is simple subtraction to think “if Congress gives you a budget, and you spend less on overhead, then you will have more bucks to fund research directly.” That’s the idea, anyway. Stations, like Regions, did many useful things supporting researchers. It is likely the gaps will be noticed and filled over time, but the end result is likely to be less overhead.
So why does the story keep going around that all the scientists , as opposed to administrators, will be moved to Fort Collins? In fact, if my numbers were correct (and I can only say that they come from a usually reliable source, so there is uncertainty associated with this for sure) a max of 500 employees received or will receive relocation letters. According to my sources, more information will be forthcoming about what employees are moving where, but it would have to be to another USDA site within commuting distance if they don’t receive a letter.
What does it even mean to “move researchers to locations in nearby states”? Nearby to Fort Collins or nearby to where they are currently located? But most commuting distances do not cross state lines.
What does OPM say?
According to AI for federal employees in a Reduction in Force (RIF), the local commuting area is generally defined by OPM as the geographic area surrounding a work site where people live and can reasonably be expected to travel daily, often defined in practice as within 50 miles of the duty station, though this can vary based on local conditions.
But this is not necessarily a RIF, so I don’t know if the same definition applies. I do know that there are likely TSW readers who know for sure and hopefully you will add that information in a comment or contact me directly (sharon at forestpolicypub dot com).
According to the Times:
Many of the research facilities are at universities where Forest Service scientists have access to laboratories and computers or at experimental forests where scientists can monitor the effects of environmental changes over long periods of time. They also investigate logging techniques, endangered plant and animal species, and how forests grow back after devastating fires.
There are many experimental forests and ranges, and looking around, they are very different. Most do not have scientists in residence. It’s true, part of my old job in DC was to try to keep Experimental Forests and Range research going. For awhile, EF and R’s was considered passe among science cool science funding fads. More on that in a later post. Fortunately, you can find all the EF&Rs by going to the Station website you are interested in:
Even Google AI agrees with me on the “scientists with duty stations onsite” question..
Are FS lab facilities fully occupied? Have they tried to find people to rent the extra space? Do USG rules facilitate that or make it difficult? If the FS has only a few researchers, is it cheaper to pay rent to a university? These are all questions I would have.. but as I said, those who know won’t say, and those who say often don’t know. I’d add some who do know talk to reporters who work for outlets with unscalable paywalls, so most of us don’t get the benefit.
But back to the Times story.
Let’s see whom the reporter interviewed.
“This move will lead to an increasing divergence between sound science and land management,” said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit forest protection group.
*******
Sidenote: The lovely and talented TSW contributor Andy Stahl has retired from FSEEE; I was hoping we’d hear from him still, but maybe not. The new Executive Director of FSEEE is Kevin Hood. He has an extensive experience in the FS, but not in R&D.
**************
The consolidation of research stations does not mean a retreat from the agency’s research mission,” Mr. Schultz said in the email. “Forest Service R&D has produced world-class science for over a century, and that will continue. The consolidation is about organizing the research enterprise more efficiently, not diminishing it.”
A Forest Service spokesperson declined to answer questions, pointing to a news release issued by the Agriculture Department, its parent agency.
Among the closures is the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Portland, Ore., a facility founded in 1925 that has 246 employees, most of them scientists, according to its website, and oversees projects from Oregon to Alaska.
I don’t know what the reporter means by “scientist” here.. perhaps it’s confusing that some folks who do administrative work are scientists by background?
And here’s the “other states” part again.
Several current Forest Service research employees said they were confused by this week’s reorganization announcement and that they expected many of their colleagues would leave the agency rather than move to other states.
Again, facilities are not programs are not people. Administration is not research, even if administration is done by people who were formerly research scientists.
Back to the misleading headline and tagline.. (reporters don’t usually write these, probably click promoters do..)
Forest Service Will Close Research Stations That Study Wildfire Risk
Scientists say their work on fires and climate change could be lost as the agency moves its headquarters to Utah from Washington and shuts 57 research stations.
It would have been helpful if these scientists had been asked for more detail on how they expected their research funding to change and their work could be “lost.” I suspect that more wildfire research funding could be lost to other more predatory science agencies, rather than closing facilities. After all, the Macon Lab was closed and yet.. we have wildfire research continuing, rather splendidly, in the Forest Service.
*******************
From Google AI- hopefully someone can check this for truth.
I’m not down on the reporter for this piece. If you look at his stories in the Times they tend to be about different facets of climate, all from a certain perspective. So perhaps it’s natural to elide facilities with programs with climate. Previously, he was at the WSJ and that range of stories is even more interesting. It’s pretty amazing that anyone could write stories about so many different and interesting things, from life on Mars to “rogue planet’s explosive growth” to “panic-inducing rumors went viral ahead of the French Revolution.”
These things are complicated and how could anyone know the complexities who hadn’t been through previous iterations? And who is a good source of info?
That’s one of the reasons I started TSW.. planning and roadless rules were and are complicated, and I thought that they needed a deeper dive than the traditional media business model would allow.
My advice to reporters is.. you can always call me for background on these topics, but if you’re going for organizational heft, try NAFSR. I don’t always agree with them, but at least they have a range of experience and perspectives. Plus you can get away from most partisan subtexts.
I haven’t yet seen a mention of “Research Natural Areas” (RNA). Certainly, there are ongoing studies going on, in even a single RNA.
For example, the Station Creek RNA, on the Eldorado NF, is one that the Caldor Fire burned through. It would be interesting to see which studies are being abandoned, in this one single RNA.
Rodney, I know there are a great many RNA’s. They are designated to be used for research projects. I don’t know if there is one consolidated place where you can see what research projects (by FS, partners, students or whomever) are being done on which RNA’s. I don’t even know if each Forest keeps track separately. Might be a good question for AI. Seems like the info should be available somewhere…
Many of these RNAs are more of a network of varied locations, created under Dale Robertson. The AI had more general information about studying climate change, forest change, ‘preservationism’ and documentation. I’m sure there are more specific studies going on, but those are the kinds of projects that the current Administration wants to do away with. They think they have learned enough to divert the funds elsewhere.
In fact, what is keeping them from abolishing RNAs, right now, in favor of resource extraction? (Apparently, all it takes is a Sharpie.)
I would think that Forest Plans keep them from doing that… but that is more of a Jon question.
Yes, RNAs are embedded in forest plans and should require an amendment to remove them. Plans also recommend designation of additional RNAs. However, they are actually established by regional foresters with concurrence of station directors using a NEPA process, and I assume any disestablishment would have to conform to the APA regarding formal policy changes. 36 CFR 251.23 provides authority for establishment, of RNAs, but says nothing about disestablishing them.
Oops. Forgot the aerial view. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7816087,-120.1906705,1512m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Well, this all sounds very confusing, and I even wonder if changes will be implemented. In past reorgs it took several years for them to be accomplished, and often researchers ended up bouncing right back to where they had come from. In any case, the biggest issue to be aware of is that, for the second year in a row, the recently-released President’s budget request (for 2027) zeroes out FS R&D. The Approps committees maintained Forest and Rangeland Research budget at close to the same level through 2026, but will they do it again for 2027? We can hope so. And I hope Congress will hear from their constituents on it. The 2027 proposal moves Forest Inventory and Joint Fire Sci program to DOI, and pretty much zeroes out the rest of the FS R&D budget.
Yes, I agree Susan, there are several stages of back and forths before the net result will become clear.
And during Transformation, the FS teetered up to the edge.. in NFS, some staffs took it seriously and did something, others waited it out. And previous efforts to close some of the same facilities must have run into obstacles.
If my opinion mattered to any Congressfolk (some of you are probably in that situation, but I am not), I would definitely push back on the funding for R&D. Probably States, Tribes and cities that get SPTF funds will push for them, but for R&D perhaps not so much. That’s where I would focus my efforts.
Yup, one more thing for me to keep harassing Maine’s senators and reps about. One of the benefits of retirement is that the Hatch Act no longer applies!
Sharon,
Thank you very much for sharing your insight into these issues with the public. You are certainly correct that these subjects are complex and deserve a depth of analysis seldom found in popular journalism. I work for a small environmental non profit (I believe the FS calls us “greenies”) and have been asked to write a summary of the reorg and its potential implications for our area. Perhaps you can help me in conveying some nuance to my tens of readers!
Being in Southern Appalachia, we will retain the Southern Research Station in Asheville (although I believe it was originally slated for closure in the USDA reorg memo?) and the Athens, GA location. Only the Clemson, SC (one of three fire labs I believe?) will be closed down. I have to admit I was surprised to learn that a fire lab of all things is what’s going on the chopping block, given that fire seems to be the agency’s M.O. lately. I suppose that would mean that any research programs conducted there would either be carried on by staff moved to Athens or else picked up by Clemson University researchers. Am I right in assuming this?
I have not been able to ascertain how this might impact the Coweeta Experimental Forest/Hydrologic Lab. I understand that there are in fact quite a few buildings and dedicated staff members associated with the lab. As of yet I don’t believe there’s been any published mention of how these facilities may be impacted–does Coweeta fall under R&D as per the agency’s organizational structure?
Sorry Stu, I mostly write to retirees, so I thought many people remembered the Macon Lab- it was closed in 1990.
Here’s a summary of their work https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_se077.pdf
There are two things going on.. reducing a layer of administration (which would be located in a building in Asheville) and closing facilities. It’s hard for us to see at this point exactly how that would play out, but at this point there are no changes to research programs themselves. In fact, if the FS is successful at reducing an administrative layer, conceivably (if Congress continues to fund R&D at current levels) there would be more funding for actual research.
I don’t know exactly what researchers doing what are located where…here you can search on topics, I did “fire” for the Southern Research Station. However you can’t tell where they are located. So if you look up each one on Linked-in maybe you can find out, or via AI?
When I asked Google AI about Clemson, this is what they came up with..
But it’s AI so I don’t know whether it’s true.
Sharon,
I was quite surprised to find out that “who does what research where” is one of the harder questions to answer! Thank you for letting me know about SRS-4201, I’ll certainly look further into that. My info on Clemson’s fire research comes from the USFS page linked here: (https://research.fs.usda.gov/srs/centers/forestdisturbance)–that would be the Center for Forest Disturbance Science. Neither Asheville nor Athens are within 50 miles of Clemson, perhaps researchers there are among the 500 expected to receive letters?
Coweeta is also quite far from Asheville, although I’m not sure how many of their staff live around the EF. Perhaps they are already commuting to the field from Asheville. If not and they are told to move, I would think Asheville would be the first idea. I would imagine the USFS would do everything in their power to maintain the research happening at the Hydrologic Lab, no? It seems quite popular as far as research programs go–even the locals with bones to pick with the FS are generally supportive of the hydro lab.
Thank you for your prompt response,
-Stu
Hands down – the 3 most important and impactful EFs in the system are Coweeta-Fernow-Hubbard Brooks with their matched watershed studies. They also seem to be much hated by externals (though in my experience not with state DOFs and practicing foresters in industry). Word on the street is they will just become compartments in their host national forests and whatever personnel attached will be told to relocate to whatever is the surviving lab or facility. The Coweeta people divorced from their place of work might be at Savannah River Site, the Fernow to Morgantown and Hubbard Brook, well no idea.
Also for lab folks affected. DO NOT agree to move. Make them move you “involuntarily”, else as a voluntary move, you are out TOS benefits and from what I hear have to sign various things that might make you even more vulnerable in anticipated cuts that are going beyond what we saw last week. The end goal is to be largely done with R&D by 2028.