The U.S. Forest Service’s plan to conduct controlled burning over the next 15 years in areas near popular recreation spots Lake Dunmore and Silver Lake has faced public opposition during a comment period that ends this week.
The project, called Northern Escarpment Ecological Restoration and Fire Resilience, is designed to promote the area’s resistance to wildland fires, pest infestations and drought, the Forest Service says. The project covers four areas spanning 2,770 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest in the towns of Leicester, Middlebury and Salisbury in Addison County and would begin in the spring of 2027.
Among the Forest Service’s expectations are that the project would reduce flammable materials and expand rare and uncommon native plant communities that depend on regular, low-intensity fire in the forests, according to an email to VTDigger from U.S. Forest Service’s Public Affairs Officer Ethan Ready. This includes early azalea, natural red pine and oak, according to project documents.
“Decades of fire suppression have allowed other plant species to move in, increasing competition and fuel buildup such as leaf litter, needles, and woody debris,” Ready wrote in the email.
In comments filed in recent weeks, many people have voiced concerns about lack of information about the impacts of prescribed fires damaging flora and fauna, as well as concerns about herbicide use harming wildlife and water quality.
Galina Chernaya, a Goshen resident, said the four sections of the project north and east of Lake Dunmore fall near popular recreation trails like Chandler Ridge Trail and Blueberry Hill. She’s worried about public access and ecological impacts of prescribed burns, and questioned whether the impacts are justifiable for wildfire mitigation.
Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, who chairs the House Environment Committee, outlined her concerns in a public comment, worrying that prescribed burns and other management methods may cause property damage, erosion, and water contamination. Azalea has not decreased but spread in the area in the past 25 years, Sheldon added.
Brandon resident Karen Rhodes, who attended the public meeting on the project in Brandon, on Jan. 21, questioned the active management strategy by the U.S. Forest Service.
“They want to burn back what they call problem trees and invasive trees which are also part of that habitat: hemlock, pine, different shrubs and herbs. They just want to burn it back so that the oak trees will thrive,” Rhodes said. “Why are they picking certain trees when nature seems to be taking care of itself.”
Vicki Disorda, said that she found the process “lacks transparency and opportunity for public input” after attending the meeting. Disorda questioned why the public meeting was held on a snowy eve in Rutland County, instead of Middlebury where the project is taking place, and why there was not an online option to join the public meeting.
“Although the meeting was held in Rutland County, the Town of Brandon borders the project area and provided an accessible location and facility,” Ready wrote in response.
Bob Zaino, a natural communities ecologist with Vermont Fish & Wildlife, said the dry, rocky landscape in the Escarpment area is rare in Vermont and its susceptibility to lightning strikes and naturally occurring fires makes it a good candidate for the project. Fire suppression techniques have allowed less fire resistant, common species to grow up, changing the overall natural environment over time. “The reintroduction of fire can be a way to bring that process back to those places,” Zaino said.
Prescribed burns can require multiple cycles to bring back fire-adapted species, like red pine, pitch pine, blueberries and huckleberries, which sprout in abundance after fire, Zaino said.
Zack Porter, executive director of the forest conservation advocacy organization Standing Trees, said that there are some reasonable ecological benefits to the project’s fire resilience measures, but “what they’re proposing to do is just significantly broader and more aggressive than what would seem to be ecologically justified.”
If the prescribed burns do not create the desired effect in certain areas, the project allows the use of herbicides, including glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup. This has sparked criticism from public commenters who worry about the potential harm to animals, humans and water quality.
Glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogen to humans by the World Health Organization’s International Agency of Research on Cancer, though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes a different stance, asserting the herbicide is unlikely to cause harm to humans.
The U.S. Forest Service would follow the product label and state and federal law if herbicide use is deemed necessary, wrote Ready.
Porter said he considers it reckless to propose herbicide use, when there is not a full understanding of the risks of glyphosate contaminating waterways like Lake Dunmore, Silver Lake and tributaries.
“These are all public waters, and the Forest Service is proposing to put those waters in greater danger by using herbicides,” Porter said.
Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled the weed killer Roundup.
