JOEL ROSE, HOST:
The U.S. Forest Service is closing dozens of research stations across the country. But the cuts are not as deep as they could have been. This week, the head of the Forest Service backtracked from an earlier projection that it would shutter even more of these facilities where scientists were working to preserve public land. NPR investigative correspondent Chiara Eisner has been reporting on the reorganization and is with us now in the studio. Hey, Chiara.
CHIARA EISNER, BYLINE: Hey.
ROSE: Let's start with these research facilities. What are they, and why are they important?
EISNER: Well, everyone across the country is different. In New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest, for example, scientists have been studying the impact of acid rain on ecosystems for decades. In one part of that forest, they have a place to store water samples, and they have another building nearby with computers and meeting spaces.
Then in Baltimore, Maryland, you can imagine there's no forest in the middle of the city. They're working on urban projects instead, like tracking how oak trees grow in different neighborhoods and helping support a sawmill that turns dead city trees into wood products. Many scientists on the West Coast work on research related to controlling wildfires. All in all, more than a thousand staff work for the research arm of the agency.
ROSE: OK, so why did the Forest Service propose to close these locations?
EISNER: Back in April, Chief Tom Schultz said the agency had to maximize value for the American taxpayer and make sure the Forest Service lived within its means. But that didn't line up with the facts. We published an investigation that showed the Forest Service already owned most of the facilities on the chopping block. The agency does lease some of the facilities, but the government often paid just $1 in rent for those, we found. So saving money didn't actually appear to be the driving force.
ROSE: Now the Forest Service seems to have changed its plans. What happened?
EISNER: In an email to staff seen by NPR, Chief Schultz said the agency had finished a review and found that 41 facilities across states like Hawaii, Kentucky and New York shouldn't be closed due to, quote, "their critical importance." Scientists and advocates for public land told me there was also a lot of pushback to the original decision to close most of the facilities.
The scientists complained to their supervisors. Lawmakers lobbied for the facilities in their states. And reporting like ours and from NPR member stations showed how closing the facilities could risk important research. Anthea Lavallee is the executive director for the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for forest science in New Hampshire.
ANTHEA LAVALLEE: We had two Democratic senators in New Hampshire - they were reaching out to our Republican governor to make sure she understood what was at stake and she was on board and then together reaching out to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to say, look, here in New Hampshire, we can't afford to lose this science.
ROSE: So how are researchers feeling about this latest announcement?
EISNER: Well, the ones who get to stay in their labs and keep doing their work are relieved.
PAUL HESSBURG: Many of us were flabbergasted. Many of us cried tears of joy.
EISNER: That's Dr. Paul Hessberg. He works in a lab in Washington state that was slated for closure in March but is now going to be spared.
ROSE: OK. But the forest service is still planning to close some of these facilities, right?
EISNER: Yes. In the email to staff, Schultz wrote that 23 sites with, quote, "minimal staffing" are still going to be closed. Even in facilities that have been spared, though, students don't - scientists don't know if they'll have access to the same resources as before.
And the Forest Service is still moving other employees as part of the larger reorganization in the middle of wildfire season, something Schultz originally said wouldn't happen. One employee told me he was infuriated to get the email from Schultz because of all the distraction and disruption this fight to keep research facilities open has caused, a fight many believe should have never been started in the first place.
ROSE: I've been talking with NPR investigative correspondent Chiara Eisner. Chiara, thanks for your reporting, and thanks for joining us today.
EISNER: Thanks, Joel. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
