Forest Service will close 57 of 77 research facilities. Critics warn closures threaten wildfire research.

Many of the research facilities slated for closure conducted
wildfire research. (Photo via Rocky Mountain Research Station)

As part of its ongoing restructuring plan, the U.S. Forest Service announced it's "closing 57 of its 77 research facilities in 31 states," reports Eric Niiler of The New York Times. Critics say the shake-up threatens wildfire and climate research on forests, just as wildfires are becoming more common and more severe in several parts of the United States.

USFS leadership said the consolidation will streamline research facilities into a main hub in Fort Collins, Colorado, and relocate staff to nearby states. Niiler writes, "But employees said they feared the move would lead many scientists to leave instead." The USDA already announced plans in late March to relocate USFS headquarters and 260 agency employees from Washington to Salt Lake City.

The closures include "six research and development facilities in California, five in Mississippi, four in Michigan and three in Utah," Niiler reports. The agency will also shutter all nine of its regional offices, which "currently manage 154 national forests," Niiler explains. "Some states will have their own offices, and others will be consolidated."

USFS oversees a massive amount of land -- some 193 million acres -- that includes several laboratories and "experimental forests where scientists can monitor the effects of environmental changes over long periods of time," Niiler writes. They also investigate wildfire risks, prevention and how forests recover after a severe wildfire.

Thomas M. Schultz, Jr., the Forest Service chief, told the Times, "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."

Wildland firefighters work in toxin-filled environment with nothing 'to prevent them from inhaling its poisons'

Wildland firefighters aren't allowed to wear masks.
(Photo by Chris Boyer, Unsplash)

Hiking with heavy equipment, digging trenches and wrestling water hoses are part of the job that wildfire firefighters signed up to do. But what they didn't sign up for is breathing in toxic fumes that could someday lead to multiple illnesses, diseases and possibly an early death.

While urban and metro firefighters won't consider entering a fire site without wearing a mask, thousands of federal firefighters "spend weeks working in toxic smoke and ash wearing only a cloth bandanna, or nothing at all," reports Hannah Dreier of The New York Times. Firefighters often work extreme hours during fire season, with some even working in fire toxins year-round. The result is many extremely ill men and women.

"Some have become permanently disabled after breathing in concentrated plumes of ash, fungus or poison oak," Dreier writes. "They are getting cancer in their 20s, developing heart disease in their 30s, waiting for lung transplants in their 40s."

Forest Service researchers have "warned for years about the effects of smoke," Dreier explains. "But year after year, the Forest Service sends crews into smoke with nothing to prevent them from inhaling its poisons."

The USFS hasn't just resisted providing its fire crews with face masks; it forbids their use. USFS has said facial respirators are "impractical" and could cause firefighters to develop heatstroke. Dreier writes, "But internal records, studies and interviews with current and former agency officials reveal another motivation: Embracing masks would mean admitting how dangerous wildfire smoke really is."

If the agency admitted how many physical threats are present during a blaze, it would "lead to a cascade of expensive changes," Dreier adds. "Recruitment for the grueling, low-paying jobs could become harder. Spending could increase on an extensive range of health issues. . . . "

The U.S. Labor Department has been working to establish rules that require federal firefighters to have masks, but has faced pushback from the Forest Service and the Trump administration.