UVM forestry faculty warns cuts to U.S. Forest Service research could close sites, jeopardize long-term data

A University of Vermont forestry faculty member told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee on May 12, 2026, that proposed reductions to U.S. Forest Service research capacity could shutter experimental forests and research stations, jeopardizing decades of long-term datasets and local cooperative projects.

The professor, who identified himself as a member of UVM’s forestry faculty and a liaison to Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, said the administration’s proposal to zero out funding for the Forest Service’s research and development branch and the March 31 announcement to review and possibly close 57 of the agency’s 77 research sites would represent a major loss of scientific capacity. “The research and development branch of the U.S. Forest Service is the world’s largest forestry research organization,” he told the committee.

The witness described concrete local impacts: the Burlington lab of the Northern Research Station (NRS) currently employs five full-time U.S. Forest Service staff, supports four UVM students and three joint positions with UVM, and has produced cooperative research that supports state forestry practices and invasive-species work. He said those small teams leverage federal and Northeast cooperative funding and produce widely used applied research on fire behavior, silviculture and invasive-species control.

The professor described research installations and experimental forests as essential to long-running data series used for fire modeling, streamflow and habitat monitoring, and he warned that “if we lose that, we lose far more than just these five employees” because closure would sever cooperative arrangements and long-term monitoring that are difficult or impossible to restore. He pointed to recent advocacy that helped preserve Hubbard Brook and Bartlett Experimental Forests after local foundations and congressional delegations intervened and suggested the committee consider drafting a letter to Vermont’s congressional delegation to press for the protection of local sites.

Committee members responding to the testimony proposed drafting such a letter. Representative Lipsky urged the committee to prepare a brief letter for the congressional delegation; the representative said he would welcome the committee setting aside time to draft it. Representative Nelson asked whether the cuts could be reversed in future budgets; the witness said funding could be restored but cautioned that physical infrastructure and continuous datasets, once interrupted or dismantled, could be irreparable and stressed that the administration’s stated justification — addressing a multibillion-dollar deferred-maintenance backlog — does not fit many of the research installations in the region.

The committee thanked the witness and moved to invite the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation for a follow-up presentation; a five-minute break was called before that presentation.