U.S. Forest Service Restructuring Sparks Debate Over Research Facility Closures
The U.S. Forest Service is amidst a significant restructuring process under the Trump administration, aiming to close numerous research stations nationwide. However, some facilities initially projected to shut their doors will remain operational, as NPR’s Chiara Eisner reports.
JOEL ROSE, HOST: The Forest Service’s plan involves closing many research sites, but the situation isn’t as severe as initially anticipated. Recently, the agency’s head reversed a previous decision to close even more facilities where vital research on public land preservation occurs. Chiara Eisner, NPR’s investigative correspondent, provides insight into this ongoing reorganization.
ROSE: What makes these research facilities significant?
EISNER: Each research station has a unique focus. For instance, in New Hampshire’s White Mountain National Forest, scientists study the effects of acid rain on ecosystems, utilizing a facility for water sample storage and another for computers and meetings. In urban Baltimore, projects include monitoring oak tree growth across neighborhoods and supporting a sawmill that repurposes dead city trees. On the West Coast, research often centers on wildfire control. Overall, the research division employs over a thousand staff members.
ROSE: Why did the Forest Service suggest closing these sites?
EISNER: In April, Chief Tom Schultz argued for maximizing taxpayer value and fiscal responsibility. However, our investigation revealed that the Forest Service already owned most of the targeted facilities, with some leased for as little as $1 annually, suggesting cost savings weren’t the main factor.
ROSE: The Forest Service has now revised its plans. What’s the reason?
EISNER: An internal email from Chief Schultz, obtained by NPR, indicated that 41 facilities in states such as Hawaii, Kentucky, and New York will remain open due to their “critical importance.” This decision followed significant opposition from scientists and public land advocates, including complaints to supervisors and lobbying by lawmakers to protect these sites. Reporting from NPR and its member stations highlighted the potential risks to essential research if closures proceeded.
Anthea Lavallee, executive director of the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, emphasized the bipartisan effort in New Hampshire, where Democratic senators engaged the Republican governor to urge Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to preserve the state’s scientific resources.
ROSE: What’s the reaction from researchers regarding this update?
EISNER: Researchers who will continue their work in their labs are relieved. Dr. Paul Hessburg, a Washington state-based scientist, was elated that his lab, initially marked for closure, will remain open.
PAUL HESSBURG: “Many of us were flabbergasted. Many of us cried tears of joy.”
ROSE: Despite some facilities staying open, will there still be closures?
EISNER: Yes, Schultz’s email confirmed that 23 sites with “minimal staffing” will close. Additionally, even spared facilities face uncertainty regarding resource availability. The Forest Service’s reorganization includes relocating other employees amid wildfire season, counter to Schultz’s earlier assurances. This ongoing struggle to keep facilities open has caused considerable disruption and frustration among staff, with some believing the battle was unnecessary.
ROSE: I’ve been speaking with NPR investigative correspondent Chiara Eisner. Thank you for your insights, Chiara.
EISNER: Thank you, Joel.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
This article was originally written by www.npr.org
Comments are closed.