Body
The U.S. Forest Service is drawing criticism from residents and lawmakers over a plan to use controlled burns for decades in parts of the Green Mountain National Forest near Lake Dunmore and Silver Lake, a proposal that officials said is intended to reduce wildfire risk and support ecosystem resilience. The Forest Service’s project, Northern Escarpment Ecological Restoration and Fire Resilience, covers four areas totaling 2,770 acres in Addison County and would begin in spring 2027, with a comment period that ends this week, according to the agency and the account published through a partnership with The Associated Press.
In written materials connected to the project, the agency said centuries of fire suppression have changed forest conditions by allowing other species to move in and by increasing fuel buildup such as leaf litter, needles and woody debris. Ethan Ready, the Forest Service public affairs officer, said in an email that decades of fire suppression have allowed other plant species to increase competition and fuel buildup and that low-intensity fire plays a role in the plants that are expected to benefit from the management approach.
The project is also described as an effort to promote the area’s resistance to wildland fires, pest infestations and drought. Forest Service materials cited by the AP report say the burns are expected to reduce flammable materials and expand rare and uncommon native plant communities that depend on regular, low-intensity fire, including early azalea and natural red pine and oak.
In comments submitted during the public process, some residents said they were not provided enough information about how prescribed fires could affect plants and animals. Others pointed to concerns that herbicide use could harm wildlife and water quality, with particular attention to what the plan says could happen if the prescribed burns do not produce the desired effects in certain areas.
Galina Chernaya, a Goshen resident, said the portions of the project north and east of Lake Dunmore are near recreation trails including the Chandler Ridge Trail and Blueberry Hill. She said she worries about both public access and ecological impacts from prescribed burns and questioned whether the projected benefits are justifiable for wildfire mitigation.
Rep. Amy Sheldon, a Democrat from Middlebury who chairs the House Environment Committee, raised additional concerns through her public comment submission. Sheldon said she worried the use of prescribed burns and other management strategies could result in property damage, erosion and water contamination and also said azalea did not decrease but spread in the area over the past 25 years.
Brandon resident Karen Rhodes said she questioned the active management strategy described by the Forest Service. Rhodes said she understood the proposal to involve burning back trees and invasive trees that are also part of the habitat, and she questioned why the agency would target certain trees when she said “nature seems to be taking care of itself.”
Other commenters criticized what they described as limited access to the process. Vicki Disorda, for example, said she found the process “lacks transparency and opportunity for public input” and questioned why the public meeting took place in Rutland County rather than Middlebury, where she said the project is taking place, and why there was no online option to join the meeting.
In response to that concern, Ready said the Forest Service held the meeting in Rutland County but noted that the Town of Brandon borders the project area and provided an accessible location and facility. Ready’s email also said the agency would follow the product label and state and federal law if herbicide use is deemed necessary.
Biologists cited by the story said the ecological context in the Escarpment area helps explain why the Forest Service views fire reintroduction as important. Bob Zaino, a natural communities ecologist with Vermont Fish & Wildlife, said the area’s dry, rocky landscape is rare in Vermont and that lightning strikes and naturally occurring fires make it a good candidate for the project. Zaino said fire suppression techniques have allowed less fire-resistant, common species to grow and change the natural environment over time, and he said reintroducing fire can bring those processes back to the places that have historically supported them.
Zaino also said prescribed burns may require multiple cycles to restore fire-adapted species such as red pine, pitch pine, blueberries and huckleberries, which he said can sprout in abundance after fire. He described the burns as part of a longer restoration process rather than a single treatment.
While Porter of Standing Trees said he sees some reasonable ecological benefits in the Forest Service’s fire resilience measures, he also argued that the scope and management approach extend beyond what he said would be ecologically justified. Porter said the agency’s plan proposes to do things “significantly broader and more aggressive than what would seem to be ecologically justified.”
The herbicide question emerged as another focal point of the comments. The Forest Service’s plan allows herbicides, including glyphosate—the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup—if prescribed burns do not create the desired effect in certain areas. Porter said he considered it reckless to propose herbicide use without a full understanding of the risks of glyphosate contaminating waterways such as Lake Dunmore, Silver Lake and their tributaries, describing them as public waters.
The AP report also notes that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogen to humans by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes a different stance and says the herbicide is unlikely to cause harm to humans.