State forester warns Forest Service reorganization, research cuts could weaken Vermont’s data and grants

Oliver Pearson, director of the division of forests at the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee that a proposed reorganization and the Trump administration’s FY26 and FY27 budget requests could significantly reduce the Forest Service’s applied research and state-support programs that Vermont relies on.

"The big picture is FPR. We've been joined in the long standing and productive partnership with the U.S. Forest Service," Pearson said, describing a relationship that supplies roughly one-third of his agency’s estimated $14,000,000 annual budget. He said the administration’s proposals would roll the agency’s state, private and tribal forestry work into a broader "field operations" unit and move the headquarters and operational emphasis toward Western states.

Pearson said the agency had proposed consolidation of dozens of research and experimental forest sites, initially naming about 57 sites slated for closure and roughly 27 to be maintained, though he acknowledged recent pushback had led the agency to keep Hubbard Brook open and to reconsider other closures. "We look at studies coming out of Hubbard Brook and Bartlett all the time to guide us in our decisions about land management," he said, arguing those applied, place‑based research programs feed the science that state foresters use for management.

He also raised monitoring concerns: "FIA [Forest Inventory and Analysis] has already gone from being on a five‑year cycle to once every seven years in Vermont," Pearson said, and warned that further cuts would reduce the accuracy of datasets the state uses to estimate forest cover and regeneration trends.

Committee members pressed Pearson on budget specifics and on local consequences of national timber targets. Representative O'Brien asked, "Oliver, what's been their budget, and what are they sort of targeting to cut?" Pearson said the president’s FY26 request initially "zeroed out" research and state, private and tribal forestry accounts but that Congress had restored funding for FY26; he said FY27 looks similar to the administration’s proposed cuts.

Several members also asked whether the administration’s 25% timber‑production executive order and statutory targets in the "big beautiful bill" would translate into greater harvest pressure in Vermont. Pearson said national targets would be applied unevenly and that the Green Mountain National Forest would likely see a far smaller percentage increase than large Western forests because of local market limits and mill capacity.

Pearson urged advocacy to reverse or soften the proposals: "There have been strong pushback from elected leadership nationwide," he said, noting he would join other state foresters in Washington, D.C., to press for FY27 funding. He highlighted recent congressional intervention to keep key experimental forests under review and described public comments as overwhelmingly negative.

Pearson closed by urging the committee to monitor the situation and to contact the congressional delegation. "We're hoping that this is a temporary blip," he said, but added that the state should prepare for a future with less federal research and support if funding is not restored.

The committee did not take action at this meeting; Pearson said Vermont will accept a time‑limited Good Neighbor Authority pilot with the Green Mountain National Forest and evaluate outcomes before deciding on longer‑term arrangements.