As logging began on Grass Mountain in Vermont’s Green Mountain National Forest, groups split over what the cuts are meant to accomplish and how the public was involved. The Forest Service said the work follows a long-running strategy to create early successional habitat—young forest areas—across more than 14,000 acres as part of a 15-year plan approved in 2019.
Tracey Forest, whose Spirit Hollow retreat sits near the forest’s border, described how she learned of the operation only after hearing “loud grinding and beeping” and seeing logging trucks with “giant claws and saws.” She said the retreat’s programming was then moved after guests were upset by the sound of falling trees, and she criticized what she said was a lack of consultation and transparency. Forest said the relocation relied on community fundraising and that she “shouldn’t have been forced” to rely on outside help to stay in business.
The Forest Service logging on Grass Mountain is part of its Early Successional Habitat Creation Project, officials said, aimed at producing habitat for wildlife including songbirds. The plan includes multiple forestry methods, such as patch clearcutting, and it is intended to create landscapes with a younger forest structure rather than a mature tree canopy, according to descriptions on the federal government’s website referenced in reporting on the project.
On the side supporting the logging, the Ruffed Grouse Society and related partners argue the cutting helps sustain habitat for game birds and other species that benefit from young forest conditions. Amelia Napper, described as the Vermont public lands forester for the Ruffed Grouse Society and the American Woodcock Society working with the Forest Service, said the concerns at Spirit Hollow amount to a “short-term pain” and that once the timber sale finishes, nearby residents will hear “the sounds of birds” and see “the beauty that comes on to the landscape.”
The Ruffed Grouse Society has also worked with the Forest Service on early successional habitat in the years leading up to the Vermont project. Reporting said that in 2019, the group entered an agreement with eastern Forest Service regions around the time the decision notice for the Vermont early successional habitat project was issued, under which the agencies agreed to restore ruffed grouse and woodcock habitat productivity on landscapes in the national forest system. Napper also said the Grass Mountain timber sale will involve roughly 110 acres in the Manchester Ranger District and that the logs will be sold to a Vermont logger, with proceeds directed toward planting and stream restoration after harvest.
At the same time, the logging has sparked criticism from opponents who say the process has not adequately accounted for local impacts and public participation. Zack Porter, executive director of the Standing Trees advocacy organization, said the Early Successional Habitat Creation Project is “bearing down on some incredibly important landscapes and destroying the livelihoods of Vermonters as at Spirit Hollow.” Porter also criticized what he characterized as deep ties between the Forest Service and hunting and conservation groups, saying such organizations are “heavily embedded” with the agency and state partners to increase logging on public lands.
Those concerns extend beyond Grass Mountain to the Forest Service’s broader environmental review and project-adjustment approach. The reporting said the agency rolled out a “Condition-Based Management” method in Vermont, which activists and some lawyers argue can allow the Forest Service to change elements of a project after a decision without receiving public feedback on the changes. Vermont lawyer Andrew Cliburn said the approach enables the possibility of circumventing “burdensome and lengthy environmental review” and argued it reflects a philosophy that “Democracy slows things down on purpose.”
The Forest Service, however, said on its website that condition-based management is a way to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act rather than to avoid or shortcut them. Ethan Ready, the Forest Service public affairs officer, also wrote that the agency has conservation partnerships, including with the Ruffed Grouse Society, and said they follow “applicable laws and policies” and do not supplant the agency’s work.
Opponents also said they objected to limits they saw in public engagement over the project’s review and scope, including road-building. The reporting said the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Audubon formally objected, citing the condition-based management approach and what they said was insufficient public involvement. Vice President of Vermont Audubon Jamey Fidel said the groups generally supported the value of young-forest creation for bird species but that they needed concerns identified and addressed as projects rolled out, and Fidel said the condition-based process allows changes without public input if unexpected challenges arise.
Other experts cited in the reporting questioned whether early successional habitat is being created by protecting a wider set of species and habitats. John Terborgh, a Duke University professor of environmental science and conservation biologist, said game birds like ruffed grouse may benefit but argued many other species would benefit if public lands avoided logging and road building. Michael Kellett, executive director of Restore: The North Woods, said the approach “pick[s] winners and losers,” arguing that species that depend on big trees and interior forests lose out while only a few species that do not need help gain.
The dispute also intersects with a federal push for streamlining environmental review for forestry projects that supporters say is aimed at wildfire prevention. The reporting described the Fix our Forest Act currently before Congress, which would streamline NEPA review for U.S. Forest Service logging projects as part of efforts to increase timber production. Against that backdrop, advocates and supporters of Grass Mountain’s logging continue to contest not only the ecological tradeoffs of young-forest habitat, but also whether the public has a meaningful role as projects move from planning to on-the-ground operations.