The U.S. Forest Service’s network of experimental forests has been accurately described as “living laboratories.” The agency runs 84 of these centers on national forests, where it has been conducting long-term ecological research — in some cases for more than 90 years — on matters related to sustainable forestry practices, climate change, wildlife habitat, and water quality.
The White Mountain National Forest hosts two of these places — Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in Woodstock and Bartlett Experimental Forest in Bartlett. While they may not be widely known to the public, the work that has occurred there has benefited one of the most important natural resources in New Hampshire — our forests — for decades, and the landowners and foresters who steward them.
At Bartlett, researchers have studied silvicultural practices, carbon sequestration, and wildlife responses to environmental changes. Hubbard Brook is perhaps best known for its work to document the harmful impacts of acid rain, which in turn led to improvements in the Clean Air Act. It is also known for maintaining one of the world’s longest records of precipitation and streamflow, which shows a troubling trend of shrinking snowpacks.
This deeply beneficial work is why the USFS’s announcement it would close Bartlett Experimental Forest is so discouraging. While the agency website now says the center is being evaluated for closure, concerns for its future remain.
Any large organization like the Forest Service should periodically assess how effective it has been and how it can improve. The Trump administration has also cited budgetary limitations for the entire reorganization plan and for the proposed changes in the experimental forest structure. Yet the current federal budget included $308.497 million in forest and rangeland research funding — an increase over the $300 million in 2025. This was a significant win and a strong bipartisan rejection of the USDA’s proposal to end funding for forest research.
Forest Service leadership and USDA say they are not terminating any ongoing research. Instead, they say they are considering alternatives to continue the work at the research centers that may be closed.
If the closure of experimental forests goes forward, essential scientific work at them will be profoundly diminished. It also introduces troubling questions like: Will knowledge acquired for managing forests for forest-based products, habitat, fire resistance, and ecosystem resilience continue to grow or stagnate? Will the department fill vacant positions at the experimental forests and other research centers? Will the Forest Service even continue the research at Bartlett?
For the Forest Society, these are not abstract questions. We regularly rely on research and expertise developed at Bartlett to guide sustainable silvicultural and wildlife management for our properties.
Research from Bartlett on the forest type typical in New Hampshire (northern hardwood forests) has found that larger openings in the tree canopy attracted more neotropical breeding birds (those that breed in Canada or the U.S. but winter in Mexico, Central America, or South America) while still providing food and cover for forest birds that prefer dense forests. We use those guidelines to inform our bird habitat management in many places, like the Heald Tract in Wilton and Temple, and at the Ashuelot River Headwaters Forest in Lempster. Not only do these patch cuts and large openings in stands promote bird and bear habitat, they also promote a healthy and diverse northern hardwood forest.
That is exactly the type of forest that we all want in our state. The work at Bartlett directly helps achieve this.
Other forestland owners, both public and private, use this information. It is embedded in publications like Good Forestry in the Granite State and New England Wildlife. Likewise, the national position statement the Society of American Foresters adopted on forests and wildlife relied heavily on the research conducted by scientists working out of Bartlett.
All these guides and policy statements are reminders that forests are not static. These dynamic places are constantly impacted by outside forces, like climate change and invasive pests. They also significantly influence the health and diversity of the ecosystems of which they are an integral part.
Given the foundational role forests play in the economic and ecological strength of New Hampshire, the knowledge and scientific insight the experimental forests provide are not luxuries. Upholding the obligation we have to steward our forests for the long term must include continually increasing our knowledge of forests.
Let’s also not forget that people rely on healthy ecosystems for our own well-being, both economically and biologically. The information the experimental forests provide allows land managers to maintain healthy ecosystems to benefit all. As it has done for nearly 100 years, the Bartlett Experimental Forest has been key to this goal.
We are asking the USDA not simply to maintain the experimental forest system but to strengthen it. Now is not the time to undermine or eliminate its role here.
