Merkley, Wyden, Colleagues Press Trump Administration on Proposed Forest Research and Development Facility Closures, Demand Transparency

Merkley, Wyden, Colleagues Press Trump Administration on Proposed Forest Research and Development Facility Closures, Demand Transparency August 14, 2026 Portland, OR – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden joined their Senate colleagues in urging U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz to provide Congress with a full breakdown of the Service’s decision to potentially close up to 57 U.S. Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) Facilities, including the Portland-based Pacific Northwest Research Station. This lab provides critical data for air quality and forest management, including forest products, tree inventory, and combating pests and diseases across the region. Despite multiple inquiries from both the Senate and House of Representatives, the U.S. Forest Service has still failed to provide Congress with a comprehensive accounting of the framework used to evaluate facilities slated for closure. In a letter to Chief Schultz, the Senators demanded the Administration provide them with the information Congress has been requesting for the past several months. “Since announcing the list of facilities being evaluated for possible closure in March, very little detail or analysis has been provided to Congress or the public on the factors being considered for each facility,” wrote the Senators. “Instead, official responses rely on broad assurances- stating only that the agency is assessing ‘operating costs, amount of space, utilization rate, number of employees’ and proximate facilities – without revealing the actual methodology or criteria driving these determinations.” Since 1905, Forest Service R&D has used forests as “living laboratories” to help researchers, governments, and communities better understand their surrounding natural environments. The 57 Forest Service Research and Development sites that are expected to close span 31 states and each perform critical, specialized research that cannot be easily replicated or relocated. In their letter, the Senators also highlighted the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory in Seattle and the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Wenatchee—both in Washington State—and how they conduct crucial wildfire research and forecasting for the Pacific Northwest region, which is currently experiencing a record wildfire season. “We are very concerned that missing from the list of considerations are factors such as current benefits of research services provided to surrounding communities, what research services would be lost with facility closures, estimate of travel expenses resulting from facility closures, estimate on the number of staff unwilling or unable to relocate or travel an additional distance as a result of closing a facility, the replacement costs of each facility, etc.,” the Senators continued . The Senators concluded their letter by emphasizing the importance of consulting with local communities and governments when analyzing sites for closure, raising alarm that such community collaboration has not, to their knowledge, occurred. The letter was led by U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and also signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM). To read the full letter, click here or below: Dear Chief Schultz: We write to request a detailed breakdown of all criteria and factors driving the decision to potentially close the 57 U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Facilities announced on March 31, 2026. Spanning 31 states, these facilities perform critical, specialized research that cannot be easily replicated or relocated – nor can it be terminated without jeopardizing long-term environmental and economic priorities. Despite repeated inquiries from both the House and Senate, the U.S. Forest Service has failed to provide a transparent, detailed accounting of the analytical framework used to evaluate these facilities. Instead, official responses rely on broad assurances- stating only that the agency is assessing ‘operating costs, amount of space, utilization rate, number of employees’ and proximate facilities – without revealing the actual methodology or criteria driving these determinations. The establishment of many of these facilities took decades of thoughtful work by numerous experts and stakeholders. They were designed to serve a specific purpose and fill a critical gap in forestry needs within their geographic region. For example, the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry facility in Hawaii took roughly 60 years to be realized and serves the islanded forestry needs of the entire Pacific Region. The next closest U.S. Forest Service-owned office space is in California. Similarly, the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory in Seattle and the Forestry Scie