Bleed off the page

The Bartlett

Experimental

Forest

ITS FIRST 75 YEARS

 United States Forest NRS-INF-12-11 Department of Service Agriculture

 
Abstract

The Bartlett Experimental Forest in central New Hampshire, now administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service’s Northern Research Station, was formally established in 1932 as a 2,600-acre tract set 

aside for research within the White Mountain National Forest. This paper traces the activities, 

people, and personal insights that shaped the research program on this experimental forest over 

its first 75 years.

WILLIAM B. LEAK, research forester and MARIKO YAMASAKI, research wildlife biologist are with 

the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station in Durham, NH.

 Manuscript received for publication June 2011

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD. SUITE 200 Publication Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015

November 2011 Fax: (740) 368-0152

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us

Cover photo by: U.S. Forest Service
1

Figure 1.—Signature block of the 1932 establishment report. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station,

Durham, NH.

IntrOduCtiOn

As part of the 75th anniversary of the Bartlett 

Experimental Forest (BEF), it seemed fitting to assemble 

some photos, records, and personal recollections of work 

on the forest since its formal establishment in 1932 

(Fig. 1) as part of the White Mountain National Forest 

(WMNF). Progress was slow and sometimes interrupted 

by events such as the 1938 hurricane and World War II, 

but it is surprising how much was accomplished by the 

small staff with even smaller budgets in the early days.

An early annual report states that the forerunner of the 

Northern Research Station, the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station (NEFES), was established in 1923, 

with headquarters in New Haven, CT, in cooperation 

with Yale University. It had a total budget of $22,500. 

Even by 1935, there were only 13 permanent employees 

at NEFES, including seven professionals, and a 

total budget of about $69,000 (Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 1940).

NEFES covered all of New England plus New York and 

included activities on four experimental forests: Bartlett, 

Gale River (Bethlehem, NH), Chenango 

(near Norwich, NY), and Finch Pruyn (near Newcomb, 

NY). Negotiations also were underway to use or acquire 

the Hopkins Memorial Forest (owned by Williams 

College, Williamstown, MA) and the Massabesic Forest 

in southwestern Maine (owned by Bates College). 

NEFES research program areas (including those of 

collaborators) were spruce and northern hardwood 

silviculture, mensuration (form class tables), fire, 

pathology (Nectria canker, pruning injury), entomology 

(balsam wooly aphid), and biology (grouse populations). 

All this research was undertaken by a total of 13 

employees plus cooperators! No computers, GPS units, 

or electronic measuring devices! Not much bureaucracy! 

Just hard work! There’s a lesson in there somewhere!

The policy for experimental forests was established 

early on: “...NEFES aims to concentrate its work to a 

large extent on experimental forests, set aside especially 

for the purpose. ...a wise policy not only because it 

safeguards longtime experiments, but also because it permits 

accumulation of more detailed information...leads to 

greater efficiency .. and better correlation of different lines 

of investigation...” (Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station, Annual Report 1935).
2 

Early History

The early history of the Bartlett Forest is not well 

documented. The town began to be settled in about 

1769 and was incorporated in 1790. There is some 

evidence of clearing and short-term agriculture on 

the northern half of the BEF including one old 

foundation and well in Compartment 15 (current 

compartment numbers) and maybe another old 

camp site along the Shannon Road in Compartment 

15 or 16. Also, some word-of-mouth stories about 

stagecoach roads, way-stations, and somewhat 

mysterious dwellers including army deserters were 

passed along by V.S. (Vic) Jensen, founder of the BEF. 

But the major influence was the logging by means of 

the Bartlett and Albany Railroad (1887-1894) that 

connected with the Maine Central Railroad in the 

Saco Valley, extended up what is now the Bear Notch 

Road, and wound down along the Douglas and Rob 

Brooks into the Passaconway Valley – an area later 

(1906-1916) accessed by the Swift River Railroad 

(Belcher 1980). The old railroad grade leaves the Bear 

Notch Road about halfway down the hill toward 

Passaconway.

The need for wood fuel for the engines contributed to 

the almost complete clearing of the lower half of the 

BEF around the late 1800s. One estimate (Hale 1958) 

says that 4,100 New Hampshire acres were cleared 

each year in the later 1800s for the wood-burning 

engines. This area is now occupied by evenaged stands 

100 to 120 years old. The upper, more mountainous 

half of the Bartlett was picked over for softwoods 

during the railroad era, leaving stands of old-growth 

hardwoods. A few piles of disintegrating hemlock 

bark may still be found (current Compartment 36), 

probably dating back to the late 1800s when the bark 

was still being used for tanning leather.

Fire apparently was never a dominant historical 

feature in the area that became the Bartlett. Partly due 

to heavy concentrations of slash, there were years in 

New Hampshire when burn acreages reached 84,000 

acres (1903) and 59,000 acres (1911-12) with fires of 

up to about 2,000 acres (Natti 1975). But the largest 

documented fire on the Bartlett (in the expansion area 

described later) was the 100-acre Table Mountain fire in 

1984.

The Busy 1930s

Activities on the Bartlett began in 1929-31 before its 

formal establishment in 1932; one early type map dates 

back to 1929. Vic Jensen (Fig. 2), never one to wait 

around for formal paperwork, was responsible for the 

early development of northern hardwood research on 

the Bartlett Forest while his senior compatriot, Marinus 

Westveld, handled spruce-fir management on the Gale 

River Forest. Vic is the father of northern hardwood 

silviculture in New England and Marinus occupies a 

similar position with spruce-fir.

The initial work included establishment of exterior and 

compartment boundaries, laid out with transit, staff 

compass, and chain – no small feat in rocky, steep, 

forested country. Although he was the in-charge guy, 

Vic was right there when it came to this type of field 

work. Sometimes Vic wore moccasins instead of field 

boots. His field efforts slackened in later years, but he 

always kept close track of what transpired on the BEF. 

I (WBL) can recall scraping red paint off a few trees 

that, in his and Andy Gilbert’s opinion, were not the 

proper ones to mark for harvesting. Although early 

annual reports describe the Bartlett as about 3,500 

acres in size, the final size was about 2,600 acres. There 

was some indication in early reports that portions of 

the acreage below Table Mountain (now part of the 

Bartlett Expansion described later) were considered 

Figure 2.—Vic Jensen, founder of the Bartlett Experimental 

Forest, seldom appeared in photos, but here he is on 

the left with a group of students (D. Gates, J. Miller, W. 

Schwacke, and D. Lewis) at the upper BEF overlook in 

1951. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.
3

for inclusion, but that didn’t happen initially. So the 

original boundary followed Bartlett Brook on the east, 

the Bear Notch Road on the south, and the ridge line 

of the Upper, Middle, and Lower Haystacks on the 

west (Fig. 3). Elevations ranged from about 700 feet at 

the administration site to about 2,980 feet at the tip 

of the Upper Haystack.

Early on, names were attached to certain BEF features 

(Fig. 4). Jensen Brook and Jensen Brook Spur were 

of obvious origin. Nearby there is Neuts Brook 

and Neuts Brook Spur, apparently named for Neut 

Howard, who owned the gas station in the middle of 

the Bartlett and was a longtime friend of Vic’s. Early 

maps also show an Upper and Lower Neuts Trail. 

Stanley Road, named after Stan Filip, was constructed 

somewhere around the early 1950s. Other names are 

of unknown origin: Shannon Road, Spot Mountain 

Trail, McKeils Pond (the Ice Pond on early maps), 

and Louisville Brook. Bear Mountain and Bear Notch 

reflect the rather high level of bear activity in the area, 

probably due to the high proportion of beech. In the 

early 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

cut a ski slope from the top of Bear Mountain, along 

the upper bank of the Albany Brook in Compartment 

27, and then down to a point near the present-day 

town reservoir. The trail was used by expert skiers, 

Figure 3.—A BEF fire researcher in the 1930s (Paul Stickel) 

constructing a 3-D model of the experimental forest (A) with 

sheets of cardboard carefully cut out and assembled to 

represent the contours (B). U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, Durham, NH.

Figure 4.—Map of the Bartlett Forest with notations on historical features. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

sometimes for ski races, 

and then abandoned in 

the 1940s. Quite evident 

on early aerial photos, the 

trail is barely noticeable 

today.

A

B
4 

When the exterior boundaries were settled, the next 

major effort was layout of the cruise-plot grid, a series 

of about 500 mostly 1/4-acre cruise plots along a grid 

measuring 5 by 10 chains. The major grid lines went 

north/south on the eastern portion of the forest and 

east/west on the western portion (Fig. 5). There was no 

obvious reason for the change in direction on each half 

of the forest except perhaps to orient the grids at right 

angles to the contours—i.e., up and down slope to better 

sample the elevational gradient.

The blazed gridlines, including some of the original 

yellow paint, are still maintained today, and a few of 

the original cedar stakes marking the four corners of 

the plots also may be found. The original measurements 

were taken in 1931-32, with a followup in 1939-40 

(after the 1938 hurricane). Since then, there were 

partial remeasurements in the 1950s and 1960s of 

the compartments scheduled for harvesting treatment 

followed by complete remeasurements in 1991-92 and 

2001-03. It is hard to imagine the amount of work 

required to grid and stake out about 500 plots in that 

rough country using basic surveying equipment, and to 

complete the job—along with all the other work—in 

about 2 years!

Figure 5.—Layout of permanent plots on the Bartlett Forest as established in 1931-32. U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, Durham, NH.
5

The pencil-dot tally sheets from the early measurements 

are still legible, although the information has now been 

transferred to databases (Fig. 6). These are interesting 

historical documents containing the names/initials 

of well-known folks. Between 1931-32 and the early 

1950s, we see initials such as VSJ (Victor S. Jensen), 

GRT (George “Dick” Trimble, who along with Vic 

Jensen, co-founded the Hubbard Brook Experimental 

Forest and served as a longtime, well-known project 

leader on the Fernow Experimental Forest, (Fig. 7)), 

AG (Al Gottlieg, an early State Forester in Vermont), 

TN (Ted Natti, longtime State Forester in New 

Hampshire), RJH (Russ Hutnik, an NEFES employee 

who then became professor at Penn State, now 

retired), GED and RW (George Doverspike and Bob 

Wilson, field project leaders at Bartlett), and, oh yes, 

WBL (in his student days). Many other names/initials 

occur of others whose careers are unknown: K. Maki, 

G.M. Day, J.W. Hendrix, E. Williams, etc.

Figure 6.—Examples of 1931 and 1939 cruise-plot tallies 

showing initials by Vic Jensen (VSJ). George “Dick” 

Trimble (GRT), Robert Wilson (REW), and others. U.S. 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

Figure 7.—George “Dick” Trimble assisted with early 

cruise-plot measurements, helped initiate Hubbard 

Brook Experimental Forest, and later ran the Fernow 

Experimental Forest. U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, Durham, NH.

Along with development of the cruise-plot grid was 

the establishment of compartments, a crucial step in 

the evolution of the BEF because the entire research 

program, initially and in the future, would hang 

on these compartment delineations. In addition to 

providing the basis for the planning and conduct of the 

large-scale harvesting experiments, the compartments 

would provide an organizational (and locational) 

framework for smaller scale studies. I’m (WBL) 

sure that Vic gave it the most careful thought. And, 

although never written down, we can imagine the 

criteria he developed. First, the units needed to be 
6 

large enough for commercial timber operations, so that 

the research results would have practical application. 

Additionally, they needed to be logical harvesting units. 

They had to have distinct boundaries (roads, trails, 

brooks, ridge tops) that would be recognizable forever 

even if boundary maintenance wavered. Stand condition 

and topography also were important—old growth vs. 

evenaged second growth, hardwoods vs. softwoods, 

inoperable steep slopes, wetlands, etc. By 1934, the first 

map appeared containing 27 compartments, averaging a 

little less than 100 acres apiece, numbered with Roman 

numerals. Boundaries were surveyed, blazed, and painted 

(two blue dots), and some of the upper compartments 

(now numbers 39, 40, and 48) as well as one lower 

compartment (now numbers 25 and 26) were designated 

as reserved from harvest treatments. These compartment 

delineations lasted until the early 1950s, when the 

compartment management era descended on the BEF. 

One notable study area from this early period was the 

clearcutting in Compartment 22 during 1933-35 (Fig. 

8), which later was the site used for Dave Marquis’s (Fig. 

9) precommercial thinning study and later (2003) for a 

commercial thinning study (Fig. 10).

Figure 8.—About 22 acres of Compartment 22 were 

clearcut harvested in 1933-35. Clearcutting was 

considered a poor practice at the time, but as the stand 

developed, that point of view changed radically. U.S. 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

Figure 9.—Dave Marquis joined the project in about 1958 

and later became project leader for Allegheny hardwoods in 

Warren, PA. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

Figure 10.—Merle Grant, forest technician beginning 

in the mid-1950s, sizing up the stand in Compartment 

22 in preparation for precommercial thinning that 

took place in 1959 (stand age about 25). U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.
7

The building program also was in full sway in the 

early 1930s. By 1934, the CCC crew at Bartlett had 

built the lodge and cottage, as well as several garages; 

the office may have been there before Forest Service 

acquisition. A small office (origin unknown) apparently 

Figure 11.—Early views of the buildings on the BEF 

headquarters site: the lodge and cottage in 1934 (A) and 

1936 (B) and office in 1962 (C). U.S. Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

A

B

Figure 12.—The Bear Notch Road (A) was gravel until 

the 1950s; previously, it was the site of the Bartlett/Albany 

railroad track. The BEF interior roads (B) and bridges (C) 

were well developed by about 1934. U.S. Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

B

C

designed for a district ranger was being used as a tool 

shed (and still is today); there is some indication from 

early annual reports that this ranger’s office was built 

there—perhaps the first building on the administrative 

site (Figs. 11, 12).

A

C
8 

Figure 14.—Beech-scale Nectria (an exotic from Europe) 

was the most widespread disease encountered on BEF. 

Discovered in the late 1930s at BEF (by Dick Trimble 

we believe), the disease infected most beech trees (A). 

However, there was genetic resistance to the scale or 

the Nectria or both. Fifty years of single-tree selection on 

one compartment (42), where the diseased trees were 

periodically removed, resulted in a stand with about 70 

percent of the sawtimber basal area showing resistance 

to either the scale or the Nectria disease or both (B) (Leak 

2006). U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

A

B

The 1940s

There is not much to report about Bartlett activities 

during the 1940s. Assessments of the 1938 hurricane 

(Fig. 13) were drawing to a close with the result that 

research on the heavily wind-thrown Gale River 

Experimental Forest began to close down although 

activity did not cease until the early 1950s. Another 

major disturbance first discovered on the BEF in the 

late 1930s was the beech-scale Nectria complex, an 

exotic disease from Europe that infected most of the 

beech on the Bartlett and is still spreading throughout 

the range of beech in the United States (Fig. 14).

Figure 13.—Damage from the 1938 hurricane was severe 

in places, especially in the higher elevation softwood types 

(top photo), but the overall losses were only 14 percent of 

the stems (Jensen 1941). Hardwood types suffered less 

damage except in spots such as this stand (bottom photo). 

Hurricane Carol (1956) was a relatively minor disturbance. 

U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, 

NH.
9

Between 1941 and about 1945-46, the field offices 

were essentially closed to concentrate personnel and 

funds toward the war effort. But there were some 

organizational changes. In 1945, the Allegheny 

and Northeastern Forest Experiment Stations were 

combined under the name of the latter and the 

headquarters moved to Philadelphia. By 1946, the field 

units were referred to as “branches” or research centers. 

The Upper Connecticut Branch or Winnipesaukee 

Branch was now located in Laconia under Vic’s 

direction as center leader. Stan Filip and George 

Doverspike, who later both worked at Bartlett, joined 

the NEFES but at other field units.

Compartment Management —the 1950s and 

1960s

By 1952, the white pine and hardwood research was 

combined into the White Pine-Hardwood Research 

Figure 16.—Maggie Stothart, Vic 

Jensen’s capable administrative 

support person. U.S. Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station, Durham, 

NH. 

Figure 15.—White Pine - Hardwood Research Center personnel and 

others in the mid-1950s in front of the lodge at Bartlett. In the front row 

(left to right): John Bjorkbom, Frank Longwood, Tom McConkey, Arthur 

Hart, and Grant Davis. In the back row (left to right): Stan Filip, Bill 

Leak, Frank Cunningham, Bob Curtis, Bob Pierce, Andy Gilbert, and 

Dick Sartz. 

Center under Vic, still housed in Laconia in the 

Federal Building along with the White Mountain

National Forest under Forest Supervisor Gerry 

Wheeler. Relations were cooperative and productive, 

as they still are today. WBL can recall (in about 

1956) discussions with both Gerry and Elmer Kelso 

(WMNF head of timber management) about forest 

management tactics. The WMNF Supervisor’s Office 

was still located in Laconia until the move in 2009 to 

new quarters in Campton, NH. The Hopkins Forest 

in Williamstown, MA, under Frank Cunningham, and 

the Massabesic Forest under Tom McConkey were also Photo by Vic Jensen U.S. Forest Service

part of this center (Fig. 15).

Vic’s right-hand “man” was M. “Maggie” Stothart, 

who was in charge of all the office proceedings and 

clerks (Fig. 16). Maggie also took care of celebrations 

and miscellaneous personnel matters. Another stalwart 

was Robert W. Wilson who worked on hardwood 

regeneration and thinning studies in the early 1950s 

and later moved on to Forest Survey; he also 

served as station statistician for a while.

Beginning in about 1950, the main activity 

at BEF and other experimental forests was 

installation of the large-scale compartment 

management studies. Small-scale (5-acre) 

examples of these compartment studies 

were known as the Management Intensity 

Plots and were located in Compartment 17. 
10 

Figure 17.—Ralph Marquis, who became NEFES 

Director in 1951, at an advisory group meeting on the 

BEF. Ralph was an economist, who championed the 

economic aspects of the compartment studies and 

assembled a sizable group of economic researchers at 

the headquarters in Upper Darby, PA: Perry Hagenstein, 

Robert Marty, Robert Manthy, Neil Kingsley, and Barney 

Dowdle. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

Figure 18.—Russ Hutnik was silviculturist at BEF in the 

1950s. He was involved in the group/patch selection 

studies (shown by a slash pile in one of the patches), 

beech-scale work, and the farm-forties studies—two 

compartments (1 and 21) set aside to mimic typical farm 

woodlot practices. Russ later worked on the Fernow 

and then became professor of silviculture at Penn 

State. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

Figure 19.—John Bjorkbom came from Forest Survey 

to join the project in the mid-1950s as silviculturist. 

He worked on skidroad erosion and control (shown 

here) as well as on all of the compartment studies. 

U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

The compartment studies were designed to provide 

practical information on costs, yields, and stand 

development. Impetus for these studies came from 

Ralph Marquis, station director and economist who 

arrived in 1951 (Fig. 17). Later support came from 

Carl Stoltenberg (1956), division chief for economics 

and survey. Apparently to accommodate the many 

proposed treatments, the original 27 compartments 

were renumbered, and some were subdivided, to 

provide for 48 compartments averaging roughly 50 

acres in size. The original study plan (1951) written 

by Vic Jensen included 27 compartments and about 

19 proposed treatments. The treatments included 

three cutting cycles (5, 10, and 20 years), four levels 

of residual basal area (40, 60, 80, and 100 square feet/

acre) in the selection compartments, four levels of 

cultural intensity (high order, good, fair, and poor), 

and a group/patch option (Fig. 18). Trying to schedule 

and administer the harvesting under this complicated 

regime was difficult. And the personnel requirements 

were high. Generally, the entire professional staff, 

plus a crew of summer students, moved up to Bartlett 

each summer and spent the entire season measuring 

compartments with 100-percent inventories partly 

under the direction of John Bjorkbom and others

(Fig. 19). The differences among some treatments 

(the selection treatments especially) turned out to be 
11

Figure 20.—Adrian (Andy) Gilbert (center) took 

charge of the field studies at BEF in the early 1950s. 

George Yelenosky (right) was a physiologist at BEF 

for a few years; on the left is an unidentified summer 

student. Andy brought some traditional European 

views to the silvicultural program at Bartlett, wrote the 

first silvicultural guide with Vic Jensen (1958), later 

became project leader at Burlington, and then became 

economics division chief in Upper Darby. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH. 

Figure 22.—Group/patch selection (closeup (A) and 

aerial view (B) was part of the case-history compartment 

study. Vic Jensen always spoke highly of the group/patch 

approach, although the management/control of this system 

did not become evident until much later when it found a 

home as a legitimate unevenaged system. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

A

B

minimal. It probably was Andy Gilbert (Fig. 20), who 

became field project leader in the early 1950s, who said 

that if you had seen one individual-tree selection cut 

on the Bartlett you had seen them all.

Apparently, in the late 1950s, the headquarters office 

near Philadelphia also recognized the extreme effort 

Figure 21.—Stan Filip (center) with Dale Solomon (left) 

and Merle Grant (right) doing a 100-percent tally on 

one of the single-tree selection (STS) compartments. 

STS was the core of the compartment studies at 

the outset, later becoming less popular due to its 

propensity to regenerate tolerant species (i.e., beech). 

Stan became project leader for a short time before 

he retired. Dale went to Orono and then returned 

to Durham as project leader for growth and yield 

research. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, Durham, NH.

and minimal output from these compartment studies. 

Stan Filip (Fig. 21), who arrived at Bartlett in the 

mid-1950s, took charge of field studies. He had the 

job of revising the management plan to include 12 

compartments in a designed and replicated study of the 

selection system coupled with 6 compartments for case 

history studies of liquidation, diameter-limit, single-tree 

selection in evenaged stands, and group/patch cutting 

(Fig. 22). Stan wrote the designed plan (Filip 1961) and
12 

Bart Blum (Fig. 23) wrote the case history plan (Blum 

1963); Bart later became project leader in sprucefir at Orono. A compartment harvesting schedule 

up to 1990 was developed. However, only some of 

the early harvests were completed under this plan 

before the interest in these compartment studies 

waned (Fig. 24). The disinterest apparently was due 

to minimal differences in selection-system results, 

large areal requirements in view of the still inadequate 

Figure 23—Bart Blum came to BEF in the early 1960s, 

wrote the plan for the case-history compartment studies, 

and later went to Orono to become project leader for 

spruce-fir research. U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, Durham, NH.

replication, lack of technical help for the field tally 

work, and—possibly the major influence —interest in 

expanding the research program to include more special 

studies. The 1963 annual report (Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 1963) specifically mentioned the 

need for more evenaged management research. In about 

1959, the thinning study in Compartment 22 was 

begun under Dave Marquis, and a few years later the 

stand density study under Dale Solomon was begun in 

Compartments 2, 3, and 14. Dale hired Sharon Perkins 

in the late 1960s, the first female summer student to 

work on the density study (Fig. 25). Alex Shigo also 

joined the center in about 1959, taking the place of 

Ken Bromfield who had returned, after a brief sojourn 

with the center, to biological control work at Fort 

Dietrick, MD. Alex later (1967) left the project (but 

not the location) to lead a pioneering project in wood 

decay and discoloration research.

A

B

Figure 24.—Horse logging (A) was not uncommon on 

the BEF up through the 1950s. It was gradually replaced 

by (B) crawler tractors and finally by (C) rubber-tired 

skidders. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Durham, NH.

C
13

Figure 25.—Sharon Perkins, the first female summer 

forestry student at BEF, hired by Dale Solomon. U.S. 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

More organizational changes took place in the early 

to mid-1960s. The genetics work at NEFES moved to 

the UNH campus in Durham under Ernie Schreiner. 

Frank Cunningham came to Durham as work on the 

Hopkins Forest began to close down, and Ray Graber 

and Don Thompson, the remaining people assigned 

to white pine work on the Massabesic, joined the 

genetics project. Vic Jensen retired and WBL became 

project leader, and the transition from center leaders 

to projects and project leaders was about complete. 

J. P. van Buitenen and Peter Garrett joined the 

genetics work; each took a turn as project leader, the 

former for only a year or two. Mike Hoyle joined the 

northern hardwood project as soil scientist and Larry 

Safford moved from Orono to Durham in 1970. 

Larry worked on soil fertility in young hardwood 

stands in Compartments 18 and 28 and later revised 

the paper birch guidelines (Safford 1983). These 

moves heralded the beginnings of a much closer look 

at soils than ever before, a trend that continued into 

the 1970s when longstanding cooperative work began 

with the WMNF on ecologic land typing.

The Durham Lab in the 1970s and 1980s

The new Durham Lab was dedicated in 1973 

although the project had moved to rented quarters in 

Durham in the mid-1960s. Shortly after, Stan Filip 

took over from WBL for a year or two as project 

leader. Then Carl Tubbs was moved in from the Lake 

States as leader of the combined northern hardwood 

and genetics projects, including what little white pine 

work still continued. Carl brought some different 

ideas with him. The first shelterwood-system harvest 

on the Bartlett in Compartment 21 was Carl’s idea. 

As an avid hunter, he also was very much interested 

in working on timber/wildlife relationships with Dick 

DeGraaf from the Amherst project. Then, he further 

developed the timber/wildlife potential of the project 

by hiring M. Yamasaki from the National Forest 

System. This not only heralded a continuing program 

of timber/wildlife endeavors, but also marked a return 

to compartment-level studies — areas large enough to 

have some impact on wildlife habitat conditions. In 

the mid-1980s, throughout the 1990s, and continuing 

to the present, compartment-size experimental 

harvests have included single-tree selection, group/

patch harvests, clearcuts, a pine shelterwood, a 

deferred shelterwood in northern hardwoods, and 

three harvest systems in hemlock-spruce stands 

designed to regenerate softwoods: single-tree selection, 

a strip cut (Fig. 26), and a group shelterwood harvest. 

Areas of wildlife research associated with these harvests 

include small mammals, terrestrial salamanders, and 

of course, songbirds under the guidance of wildlife 

biologist and Bartlett site manager Chris Costello—of 

Figure 26.—Frank Williams, forest technician during 

the 1970s and 1980s, in a strip cut about 3 years 

after harvest. It looks like pure pin cherry, but the mix 

improves greatly after a few years. U.S. Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.
14 

particular and continuing interest because of their close 

relationship to forest structure and timber harvesting 

regimes. The latest endeavors include nesting habits and 

movements of northern goshawks. 

Dick DeGraaf, project leader of the Amherst, MA, 

wildlife unit, moved his field operations from the 

Kilkenny Guard Station in northern New Hampshire 

to Bartlett in the late 1980s. Many University of 

Massachusetts wildlife graduate students found seasonal 

housing at the cottage and used various study sites 

on the Bartlett including Dave King and Carly and 

Richard Chandler.

Peter Garrett became project leader in 1989 after 

Carl Tubbs retired. Much of his effort had been 

directed toward genetic plantings on the Massabesic 

Experimental Forest. However, two of his major marks 

on the Bartlett were directing the building of the new 

office/bunkhouse, begun in 1994, and securing dry 

laboratory space in one of the WMNF construction 

and maintenance shop buildings south of the Bartlett 

administrative site. This lab and adjacent conference 

room were later rebuilt and further improved in 

2005-06 (Fig. 27). Additionally, Peter encouraged some 

of the first forest bat habitat research work in New 

England done at BEF by University of New Hampshire 

wildlife students Rachel Stevens and Blake Sasse in the 

early 1990s.

The 1990s and Beyond

History unfolds slowly, and we are sure there will be 

more to say about the 1990s and 21st century at some 

later date. But a few significant items deserve mention. 

In the 1990s, the research at BEF (in and beyond its 

borders) moved in new directions with remote sensing 

activities dealing with productivity and foliar chemistry 

under M.L. Smith, Jen Pontius, and Rich Hallett as 

well as carbon studies motivated by Dave Hollinger 

– who was responsible for erecting the Ameriflux 

tower to monitor CO2 exchange in Compartment 

18. The cruise-plot grid first established by Vic Jensen 

in 1931-32 proved invaluable in providing longterm productivity estimates as ground-truth for the 

remote sensing work. Peter Garrett was responsible 

for acquiring funds and personnel to remeasure the 

B

Figure 27.—New bunkhouse/office building on the Bartlett 

administrative site (A) and renovated laboratory and 

conference room (B).

cruise plots in 1991-92 and encouraging a program of 

repeated measures on these valuable-long-term assets. 

Mike Medeiros led the 1991-92 inventory crew and 

provided considerable breeding bird inventory support 

in subsequent years.

Walter Shortle and Kevin Smith installed a longterm softwood rot study in the southern end of 

Compartment 15 in 1995 using oxen to move large, 

freshly cut red spruce logs to their final resting place 

(Fig. 28). After the ice storm of 1998, they installed a 

set of long-term decay plots on the upper part of the 

forest in Compartments 30 and 34.

John Brissette took over as project leader in 1997, 

combining the Penobscot and Bartlett programs under 

one work unit. One major development during John’s 

reign has been the Bartlett Expansion Area, a move 

facilitated by Steve Fay, soil scientist on the WMNF. 

The expansion area is a 3,189-acre addition to the 

existing BEF through the efforts of the WMNF and 

formalized through completion of the WMNF Plan in 

2005. It lies to the south and east of the BEF (Fig. 29). 

Photo by Ken Dudzik 

U.S. Forest Service Photo by Christine Costello U.S. Forest Service

A
15

The upper boundary follows the ridgeline along Bear, 

Table, and Big Attitash Mountains. Together with 

the existing ridgeline boundary over the Haystack 

Mountains, the Bartlett now encompasses the entire 

watershed of the Bartlett, Louisville, and Albany 

Brooks and their associated streams and tributaries.

Figure 28.—Nip and Tuck, the local oxen team that helped 

install the long-term red spruce decay plot in Compartment 

15 in October 1995. 

Figure 29.—Outline of the BEF Expansion Area, also showing the lower elevation compartments in the area. 

About half of the expansion area carries the 

Management Area designation of 6.1 lands, lands 

that are too high and steep to be suitable for timber 

harvesting. The highest peak is Bear Mountain at 

3,217 feet. This nonharvest restriction remains in 

effect for any future harvesting proposals. During 

the summer of 2006, the lower portions of the 

expansion were divided into proposed compartments 

based primarily on physical features such as roads, 

trails, and brooks and secondarily on broad stand 

type/condition classes. The upper reaches of these 

compartments were determined by conditions of 

stoniness, shallow bedrock, and slope where harvest 

activity would be restricted; in all cases, the upper 

limits were below the 6.1 line. Ten compartments 

were established and the boundaries were designated 

by blue paint or recognizable physical features. The 

total area in these compartments is 908 acres—

leaving nearly 2,300 acres in upper elevation forest. 

A number of large clearcuts (up to 40 acres and 30 to 

40 years old) were in the expansion area, providing a 

diversity of stand conditions. Adding to the variability 

are the upper elevation stands, which include patches 

Photo by Ken Dudzik 

U.S. Forest Service

Map by Jon JanelleU.S. Forest Service
16 

• Site: Site conditions (soils, glacial deposit, and 

bedrock type) have important effects on the range of 

species that can feasibly be regenerated and grown. 

This seems to be a competitive thing, because most 

species grow best on good rich soils. However, it is 

difficult to regenerate nutrient-demanding species 

(white ash, sugar maple, basswood) on poor soils 

and, conversely, to regenerate non-demanding 

species (softwoods, oak, pine) on rich soils. Some 

species, beech for example, are aggressive on a wide 

range of sites; and pioneer species (pin cherry, 

quaking aspen, gray/paper birch, etc.) will regenerate 

on almost any open, disturbed site.

• Intermediate Cuts: The earliest commercial 

thinning study on BEF began in 1936. It showed, 

of course, that thinning improved diameter growth 

at breast height (d.b.h.) and increased total volume 

yields. More interesting, perhaps, is that the research 

writeup described the reverse J-shaped stand 

structure of evenaged northern hardwood stands due 

to species layers – intolerant/intermediate species in 

the overstory and midstory with tolerant species in 

the understory, which resulted in the reverse J-shaped 

condition. Another interesting development is that 

this study provided early d.b.h. response figures 

that could be compared with a very comparable 

thinning study in 2003. Essentially, released trees in 

2003 grew at least as fast as those released in 1936 

(except for paper birch), raising doubts about the 

presumed effects of nutrient depletion, acid rain, 

global warming, etc. This latter study was carried out 

in Compartment 22, where an early precommercial 

thinning study was installed in 1959. The 

precommercial work showed a d.b.h. growth increase 

of about 50 percent, but over time the effects of 

the thinnings were only moderate—possibly not 

enough to warrant the expense. Some years earlier, 

pruning studies showed that hardwood pruning was 

biologically feasible; due to potential increases in 

hardwood grade and value, it would appear that the 

practice would catch on, but it hasn’t as yet.

of old-growth spruce. Work currently is underway to 

define upper elevation compartments.

Timber harvest studies already are operational in the 

expansion area. Current emphasis is on softwood 

regeneration, a new phase in BEF research. Although 

timber values in softwood (especially hemlock) are not 

high, the wildlife habitat values are unique – snowshoe 

hare, red squirrels, and related predators such as 

weasels, mink, fisher, goshawks, and even marten.

Major Bartlett Findings

Since its inception, the research findings from the 

Bartlett Experimental Forest have been conveyed 

to thousands of practicing foresters, forestry and 

wildlife students, land managers, and national and 

international visitors through combinations of 

show-me trips, educational tours, workshops, and 

conferences. Guest books recount visits by Forest 

Service chiefs (Ed Cliff, John McGuire), well-known 

foresters and silviculturists from the past (Dave Smith, 

Ernest Gould, Carl Arbogast), and international 

visitors interested in northern hardwood silviculture 

and wildlife habitat from numerous countries (Canada, 

China, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Ireland, France, 

Norway, Iran, Turkey, England, and Mexico among 

others).

In this publication, it would be difficult to list and 

cite all the work that has been done at Bartlett; a 

companion publication is currently underway to fulfill 

this need. So, this summary provides a very general 

overview of some of the findings that seem to have 

usefulness and lasting value with particular emphasis 

on northern hardwoods.

• Regeneration: Any form of harvest (or no harvest 

at all) results in regeneration and understory 

development. The real concern is species 

composition. In areas of granitic soils (the Bartlett 

condition), something more than tree-by-tree 

removal (e.g., patches, groups, strips, clearcuts) is 

generally needed to maintain a diverse component 

of valuable species.
17

• Growth: A major growth study was established in 

1964 by Dale Solomon comparing four levels of 

stand density and three stand structures measured 

in terms of percent sawtimber. Results showed 

that northern hardwoods grow about 1/2 cord per 

acre per year, and that best growth occurs with 60 

to 80 square feet residual basal area with 25 to 30 

square feet sawtimber, a much lower proportion of 

sawtimber than was previously thought acceptable. 

An added feature from this study was the finding 

that northern hardwoods develop a roughly reverse 

J-shaped/sigmoid-shaped diameter distribution 

following a wide variety of residual structures – 

indicating that following a rigid reverse J-shaped 

structure when marking is not required. More 

important are good marking practices, good growth 

response, and acceptable regeneration.

• Harvest Systems: Although individual-tree 

selection has long been touted as the superior 

harvesting system, there are concerns that it 

minimizes species diversity through encouragement 

of primarily tolerant species. Group selection 

counteracts this tendency and provides a means for 

efficiently harvesting patchy stands. Clearcutting 

also works well in northern hardwoods and 

provides needed early successional wildlife habitat.

• Long-term Productivity: As mentioned above, 

tree growth apparently has not declined over the 

75-year history of the Bartlett. In addition, trends 

in species composition have followed the pattern 

of natural succession, which has proven to be the 

dominant agent of change. Elevational distribution 

of species has not changed materially. There is no 

indication as yet that the many environmental 

concerns – climate change, nutrient depletion, 

declines of species – have had any material effects. 

There are some indications that early successional 

species, initiated through patches or clearcuts, 

will maintain rich upper soil layers by means of 

nutrient-rich leaf-fall.

• Songbird Breeding Habitat: Breeding bird surveys 

conducted in managed forest openings of various 

sizes on BEF and adjacent WMNF have shown that 

regenerating clearcuts (15 to 20 acres), patch cuts 

(3 to 5 acres), group selection cuts (0.3 to 2.0 acres), 

and low density shelterwoods create ephemeral 

early successional or brushy habitat not typically 

found within older stands that are unmanaged or 

managed by single-tree selection. However, these 

surveys also suggest that the larger openings created 

by clearcutting or patch cutting accommodate a 

more diverse group of early successional birds than 

group selection or low density shelterwoods. This 

is of current interest for a couple of reasons. First, a 

large number of early successional bird species are 

showing declines due to habitat loss both here and 

on their wintering grounds. Secondly, despite the 

benefits of clearcutting as a management tool, its use 

continues to decrease due to public sensitivity to the 

appearance of larger forest openings and perceived 

detrimental effects on wildlife habitat and forest 

health. Partial cutting under both the group selection 

system and low density shelterwood cuts retain some 

of the mature forest bird community while providing 

for a limited number of early successional species. 

The proportion of the two communities depends on 

the amount of residual basal area.

• Songbird Post-Fledging Habitat: Results of mistnet captures in clearcut and patch cut openings 

during the migration period showed that these areas 

provide significant post-fledging habitat for mature 

forest birds in addition to early successional birds 

due to increased protective cover and high insect and 

fruit abundance. This study further highlights the 

importance of forested openings on the landscape.

Post-fledging habitat selection and survival of 

ovenbirds was studied using radio telemetry during 

two breeding seasons. In the literature, ovenbird 

habitat is typically described as forests consisting of 

large deciduous trees and an open understory. These 

conclusions are based largely on results of point 

count surveys during the nesting season. However, 

this study noted a significant shift in habitat selection 

between the nesting period and the post-fledging 

period. Fledgling ovenbirds appear to use habitat 

characterized by few large trees and greater vertical 

structure than ovenbird nest sites. Furthermore, 

fledgling survival increased significantly with 
18 

increased vegetative structure. These results suggest 

that current habitat relationships based on point 

count surveys alone may provide only a partial 

understanding of the habitat requirements of bird 

species that may alter their habitat use after nesting 

• Raptors: Broadcast surveys using recordings of great 

horned, screech, barred, and northern saw-whet 

owls were conducted to determine the presence or 

absence of these species on the Bartlett. Surveys 

were conducted during the time period believed 

to coincide with pair formation and territorial 

establishment of individual species and confirmed 

the presence of barred and saw-whet owls. Barred 

owls were the most common species detected during 

the 16-year survey period. Yearly response rates 

are extremely variable and may be related to prey 

availability and winter severity.

Northern goshawks have been breeding on the lower 

slope of the Bartlett since at least 1995. This nesting 

territory has been monitored during the last 15-year 

period and is a component of a larger study that 

describes goshawk nesting habitat characteristics 

and compares nesting habitat with available habitat 

across the WMNF and New Hampshire forest 

landscapes. A minimum of four adult females have 

occupied this nesting territory over the survey 

period.

• Terrestrial Salamanders: Sensitivity of northern 

redback salamander habitat to evenaged 

management was observed on cover board transects 

that bisected stand edges of mature northern 

hardwoods and three stages of evenaged stands 

(regeneration from 0 to 9 years, saplings, and 

poletimber). Redback salamander recovery rates 

even along edges post-harvest may take about 30 

years. Salamander counts vary seasonally: early 

spring and late summer counts were higher than 

early- to mid-summer and fall counts, and yearly 

patterns of abundance were related to overall 

precipitation. Redback salamander distributions 

were not related to the percent cover of downed 

woody debris, different from findings in other parts 

of the range of redback salamanders.

• Bats: Broadband ultrasonic detection surveys 

revealed significantly higher rates of flight activity 

in regenerating hardwood and softwood stands 

and older hardwood stands than in other forest size 

classes. Bat foraging activity was highest in small 

regenerating softwood group cuts. Flight activity was 

highest along habitat features such as trails and still 

water; feeding activity was highest over still water. 

Little brown males and northern long-eared bats 

were the most commonly trapped bats.

Female northern long-eared bats also were captured, 

radiotagged, and followed back to day roosts to 

learn about the type and condition of commonly 

used roost sites. Of the roost trees used by northern 

long-eared bat females, two-thirds were dead snags. 

Beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, and red maple 

were the most commonly used species. Roost snags 

were larger, had more remaining bark attached, 

and were less decayed than random snag samples in 

the surrounding area. Roost sites had larger livetree diameters and more snag basal area than the 

surrounding forest.

• Small Mammals: Six species make up more than 90 

percent of the small mammals trapped over a wide 

range of habitat conditions on the BEF: short-tailed 

shrew, red-backed vole, woodland jumping mouse, 

deer and white-footed mouse, and masked shrew. 

The less commonly seen small mammals (star-nosed 

and hairy-tailed moles; long-tailed, smoky, pygmy, 

and water shrews; meadow, rock, and woodland 

voles; southern bog lemming; and meadow jumping 

mouse), except for the northern bog lemming, 

have all been trapped at one time or another on the 

Bartlett. Both northern and southern flying squirrels, 

red and grey squirrels, and eastern chipmunk have 

also been observed on the Bartlett. Patterns of 

occurrence and abundance vary annually, quite likely 

in relation to the occurrence of large mast crops. 

Silvicultural treatment has minimal influence over 

small mammal populations. 
19

Literature Cited

Belcher, C.F. 1980. Logging railroads of the White 

Mountains. Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston

 242 p.

Blum, B.M. 1963. Working plan for a compartment 

management study in old-growth stands on 

the Bartlett Experimental Forest (a revision 

of the 1951 plan). Case history studies of 

several methods of cutting. 30 p. On file at the 

U.S. Forest Service Laboratory, 271 Mast Road, 

Durham, NH, 03824.

Filip, S.M. 1961. Working plan for a compartment 

management study in old-growth stands on the 

Bartlett Experimental Forest (a revision of the 

1951 plan). Designed study in selection-system 

cutting. 54 p. On file at Durham, NH.

Hale, W.F. 1958. Fighting forest fires in New 

Hampshire. Appalachia. 126: 1-9.

Jensen, V.S. 1941. Hurricane damage on the Bartlett 

Experimental Forest. Memo to the files. 13 p.

Jensen, V.S. 1951. Working plan: compartment 

management study, Bartlett Experimental Forest.

22 p. On file at Durham, NH.

Natti, T. 1975. Wildfire in New Hampshire. Forest 

Notes. 121: 2-5.

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Annual 

Reports 1935-1963. On file at Durham, NH.

Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural guide for paper 

birch in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-535. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 29 p. 
20 

 Scientific Names of Trees and Animals Mentioned in the Text

 

Common name Scientific name

Balsam fir Abies balsamea

Red maple Acer rubrum

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

Yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Gray birch Betula populifolia

Beech Fagus grandifolia

White ash Fraxinus americana

Red spruce Picea rubens

Eastern white pine Pinus strobus

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica

Northern red oak Quercus rubra

Basswood Tilia americana

Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis

 Animals

Common name Scientific name

Amphibians

Northern redback salamander Plethodon cinereus

Birds

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Barred owl Strix varia

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Trees
21

Mammals

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus

Water shrew S. palustris

Smoky shrew S. fumeus

Long-tailed shrew S. dispar

Pygmy shrew S. hoyi

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Hairy-tailed mole Parascalops breweri

Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus

Northern long-eared bat M. septentrionalis

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

Southern flying squirrel G. volans

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

White-footed mouse P. leucopus

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Rock vole M. chrotorrhinus

Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Woodland jumping mouse Napaeozapus insignis

American marten Martes americana

Fisher M. pennanti

Ermine Mustela ermine

Long-tailed weasel M. frenata

Mink Neovison vison
www.nrs.fs.fed.us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or

Call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal

Opportunity provider and employer.