 Thank you everybody. And good morning. So it's Wednesday the 13th 10 o'clock to meeting the Senate after resources and energy committee. Good to see you all. I wanted to talk a little bit about what we're doing today and for the balance of the week. As you know, we're still under, you know, COVID only bills, but we're right on the verge of being allowed through a list that rules committee has been reviewing and is going to be moving things off the wait list to the sort of the action list. And so for instance, I think we will probably be taking up something like our energy efficiency bill from January 337 very soon on the floor. And we'll also start to get into other bills. Two of the main bills that we got over from the house. Act 250 bill and global warming solution act. So we're not cut loose to start working on those things but I think we've known that active 50 is coming our way more than one way is the active 50 bill itself. There's the Senate housing bill that includes many sections related to municipal planning. And the house also has a housing bill so will will be addressing active 50 issues. The question is, how much time is this committee getting be given, and that's going to give us some useful guidelines to know how deeply we can go on how. So that's, that's why we're still not crystal clear what our schedule is going to be but meanwhile, one of the things that's been out there coming up repeatedly for years is trails and trails regulation in Vermont. So today I just hope that what I'd like to do is we've got people with us to help us talk about how we regulate trails in the state of Vermont. And so we're not really we're not here to talk about each 926 or language and 926. I had also talked to Mr cows about the jurisdictional opinions that have been issued related to trails. They're posted on our website have been sent out to everyone. We're not here to actually walk through those but I thought committee members may well want to read through because it gives you a good role for the kinds of choices that get made the discretion involved the analysis involved. And I think they're useful. They are not part of today's meeting. Sort of become an adjudicatory body. I'm really, it's titled a primer on trails regulation in Vermont. So that's the goal just to help get the legal landscape clarified for this committee so we know what applies and we'll basically trying to set up a clean slate on the issue, and then we'll have an opportunity to come back to it. And we're doing act 250 some act 250 builder. Does that make sense to folks any questions. Yes, I would I would like to pipe in. Yeah, please. So, from my perspective, the trail issue as I wrote in my email to the committee the day I couldn't be with you. I see as urgent. We have one trail system up here. It's not going to. It may not be able to open at all and then other trail system in turmoil. Tourism is taking a huge hit in this. And this area cannot afford to have those trails, not operating and bringing at least some here but I'm going to be very quiet. So, I would just like to propose that we act on trails. Is that you. Diane. Okay, sorry. Good morning. Good morning. Okay, so back to Senator Rogers. All right. I see it. I see the trail thing as urgent. The groups have been meeting there's very simple language to deal with it with a sunset to allow them to function this year till we can get back to hopefully some know if this is some new normal because I don't see act 250 as a bill that we should move out of. I mean, I'd really like to be able to concentrate and I, and I thought I, the rest of us would like to be able to concentrate to put somebody new. You could reach out to the end and let her know. When else we might be able to do this. Chair smelling. They're asking to talk to me so I'll give her a call right now. Just like when she was in committee, she's very unruly. I just, I just think Senator bray that the, the whole act 250 thing. It's a huge issue that a lot of people want to take part in and weigh in on, and I don't see it happening through this format. Yeah, so your points well taken. Actually, we distributed your memo to the committee and prior to talking about it. We had already as we were all on the same page we said, you know, here's outdoor recreation may be an economic right spot and so let's try. If we can. You're on the phone with your broker. Thank you. And there's a prime example of why act 250 shouldn't be done on zoom right there. Well, I was trying now it says I'm on mute. Am I on mute now. You're not. Okay. You're not if you could just mute your phone that'd be great. Whatever's running the meeting should be able to. I keep muting her, but she. Gotcha. So, This looks good for a moment. Okay, so yes, they're, they're definitely technical challenges for doing stuff by zoom. And I know that when we do markup on bills, it's very handy, especially on big bills to have us all the same table. Okay. So, So, So, Senator Rogers by way of reassurance, we, I think the committee was oriented to try to figure out something on trails. What we're, we're not prejudging how much we're getting done right at the moment. In part because we don't really know how long we have. So that's why today is less about. The NEC trails situation and much more about, well, okay, so step away from that and look at what are all the rules and regs related to it. So we know what the legal landscape looks like before we start getting into particular centered campaign. Thanks. For me, I see three things if we're going to look at active 50 at all, and I'll just put up this on the table. I think we look at forest fragmentation trails in downtown. They seem to be things that we're all hearing from a number of people on to kind of loop those together and send them out. So that's where I am. You know, the forest frag piece, the trails piece, and then, and then the downtown. So, well, if anyone else want to offer a snapshot of where they think we might get going. Before we have the auction, could we see the goods. Yes. That's why I'm trying not to get into bill edit mode. The issues around trails. Yes. I look forward to that. Okay, me too. All right. Thank you. I believe the commissioner could offer us. Some language to look at that that group has been working on it, but I, I see the trails as urgent and none of the other stuff is urgent. I don't understand trails. Could we understand and decide for ourselves whether or not we believe it's urgent. Everyone else to the committee's jumped in center parent. Do you have anything you want to say about what we do around. Act to may or may not take on an active 50th the moment before we go back to our previously scheduled program, which is the full background on trails. I think just, if we're going to do anything at all, just narrow it in scope and try to, I would almost see if there's anything we can do to build for next year, not anything necessarily that passes and changes the law, but I think we should spend that time for next year so we can jump on it. My worry is with the house, they took so long to get us a bill that. I will have to go through this again next biennium. Okay. All right. So I think, Senator Campion, you were. Well, I just want to say, you know, I think we need pieces in forest frag, we need pieces in trails and we need pieces in downtown. We send those in a package we're likely to, you know, we just have to think about this politically to what we're giving the governor what he's interested in. You know, there's, there's, there's opportunity and getting all this at the same time. So I'll just leave it there. So in speaking against my own thing of that we're not here to negotiate what's in or out of a bill. I'll just as a reminder, twice this committee has passed out language on force frag and we were unable to get all the way to the finish line with that. So I know there's a long standing history and being able to work on that. Okay. So with all that preamble, then I'd like to go back and start on the agenda as shared today and ask miss Chikowsky to come back, come up to bat first. Can you fill us give the committee a bit of a primer on trail regulation in the state, knowing that there are others who can also contribute to filling in neck with your today as well for things that aren't necessarily, I know that we're not asking you to take care of all aspects of trail regulation and from up at a starter place. Sure. Alan Chikowsky office of legislative council. So I do think I will need assistance filling in some of the areas, particularly from Commissioner Snyder who is primarily in charge of the administration of the trails program. So there are lots of different aspects of laws that may in impact the development of a trail. Chapter 20 of title 10 establishes the Vermont trails system. It delegates the power to administer that program to the agency of natural resources. And so it defines trail as an area of land for hiking walking biking cross country skiing snowmobiling a TVing horseback riding and other similar activities so that's sort of the realm of where of what we're talking about. That's a wide variety of activities and so one of the challenges when we're talking about trails is the variety of activities and variety of trails that trails take on. They can be as simple as a small narrow dirt path to something much more extensive including lots of built up areas, and paved areas and construction so it's really a large universe but the chapter in language refers to the Vermont trails system and it gives the agency the power to recognize trails as part of that system and trails that have been recognized as part of that system are for a state or a public purpose. That is important later when we talk about act 250 but it also gives the agency the power to establish criteria in order to come up with the criteria to recognize for recognition as a trail. So, then there is act 250 also. So, act 250. Yes. A quick question. How long has there been such a thing as the Vermont trails system that you know under our management jurisdiction. I think it is from 1993 is when the staff, the statute was enacted chapter, yeah chapter 20 was enacted in 1993, however, I can't necessarily speak to if it's been around longer than that. I'm not sure if Commissioner Schneider has more information on that. Thank you. I just wanted to have a sense of how long, how old the, at least the basic underlying languages. Thanks. Sure. So, thanks. So, another aspect is act 250. So, active 50 comes into play whenever there is the land use development law and we haven't talked about it much in this committee in a while so briefly. Act 251 of title 10 requires that any the creation of subdivisions or construction of a development requires a permit under act 250. So, determining if you have, if an act, if an activity is development is one of the crucial decisions and that determines whether or not you need an act 250 permit. So, in some cases trails are development. It really is highly fact dependent, because these trails as I mentioned, come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and have a lot of different activities that can take place on them. So, it's highly fact specific, but it follows the traditional active act 250 jurisdictional analysis to determine if you need an act 250 permit. There are potentially some other types of laws that could govern trails that I don't know a lot about, but wetlands are potentially an issue that could come up if there is construction in an area where there is a wetlands. So, wildlife endangered species habitat is also a potential issue and potentially wastewater. So, there are a variety of laws that could govern the construction of a trail. So, would you like me to talk more about act 250 or would you like to hear more about the trail system regulation broadly. Let's do a both please. Do you want to hear from. So, do you want me to go through the sort of analysis of what act 250 analysis needs to be done to see if it applies to a trail or Sure, so I guess here's one beginner question if act 250 jurisdiction doesn't apply to a trail, then what body of regulatory law applies to that trail. It's not entirely unregulated. It's like act 250 or nothing. So, it depends. I think we, I just mentioned it could have wetlands issue or wildlife issues. It really will depend on where it is. And potentially municipal regulation, although I'm not certain. I know a lot about municipal regulation of trails, but it would, if it was a development you would sort of look at the general what you're doing when you're constructing any kind of development, if you're going to run into issues with either wastewater or other municipal regulations. Okay. And so the threshold that brings you into act 250 or not. Can you walk us through what it is that would bring you in or would exclude you please. Sure. So, development requires an act 250 permit. And that is the large definition in section 6001. The sort of main questions referred to. Is it for a commercial or industrial purpose, or is it for a state county or municipal purpose. So, that relates to the jurisdictional triggers of the traditional 10 acre threshold, or the one acre threshold. So, if you're constructing improvements for a commercial activity in a town that has permanent subdivision zoning and subdivision bylaws, there's a 10 acre threshold. So, is your is the land involved 10 or more acres. If there isn't permanent subdivision bylaws, it's, is it on one or more acre. It's relevant if it's a commercial purpose or a state or municipal purpose because the calculation of involved lands is slightly different. So, if it's for a municipal or state purpose. So, involved lands are defined as what is physically disturbed, as opposed to the entire tract of land which is what the calculation is for commercial purpose. Okay, so purpose not ownership that you're talking about here. Yes. And, and then the, so the two categories it's commercial or it's state municipal purposes. Right. And what if someone has trails that are they just, they just have to hear they have a great set of bike trails on a large property and they like to let friends and neighbors use it for free. And where's that land in this spectrum, they're not charging so it didn't seem very particularly commercial. But it's not open, it's not necessarily open to the public and it's not. So how do you, how do you classify that. So that's a nice tricky example so it's probably a private for private purpose. If it is closed land that isn't open to the general public and they're not charging a fee. The analysis is probably a little more detailed than that. But if it's someone's own private property of which they're using and maybe just their friends. That's probably not a commercial purpose. So that's probably just a private purpose, at which point, potentially wouldn't need an active 50 permit. So depending on purpose and whether or not you have permanent bylaws in the town there's a, there's the acre threshold. And then you are starting to make a distinction can you go back to that between disturbed land versus size of the parcel involved overall. Okay, so, so generally the, the sort of state municipal county projects. The calculation is slightly different. It's land that is physically disturbed. This is sort of the calculation that we use for for benefit to the public and so it's different than the actual size of the tract of land involved. So, for commercial purpose, the the 10 acre or one acre threshold applies to the entire land where the or the project is taking place. But when it's for a municipal county or state project, it's for a, you, you look at the amount of land physically disturbed, which is usually a smaller amount of land. So it takes up, it takes a larger amount to reach the actual threshold. So a commercial project that might actually have a modest amount of disturbed land let's say even under one acre, but if the parcel itself is larger than an acre and there are no permanent bylaws, then active 50 would be invoked. And there is another layer for trails. Rule 71 of the active 50 rules applies to applies to recreational trails and that limits the jurisdiction to the corridor and the area directly and indirectly involved so there's a further calculation when we're specifically talking about trails. So, one of the issues is that this is a complicated calculation that has to be done, as you sort of wind through what are the various components of the trail you're talking about. So, Mr. Chair. Yes, please. Perhaps some, I think that test, thank for the testimony we just had, could someone share with us what it is that folks are seeking to do to implement trails that is being prevented by active 50. Rather than just just go through the law now, what is it? Great question. We seek to have happen and where are the impediments that might be resolved. Miss Chicago, so you're not really a party trying to move something but you've been around this, can you characterize what you're seeing as the in response to center McDonald's question. No. Okay. Is there more to your introduction that you would like one other thing where we go on to others who can speak to those. Sure, I'll add one final thing. So I mentioned chapter 20 of title 10, which is the Vermont trail system. It declares that trails under that system are for a public purpose, which translate under active 50 for the state municipal county service. So trails that are part of that system, use the physical area disturbed calculation. Okay. Great. Any other legal aid the land questions for Mr. Kowsky at this point. Seeing any. So thank you for getting us started. I'm going to go to commissioner Snyder to fill us in some more. Again, so we're trying to do mostly big picture, but you know, center McDonald's also asked a question that ultimately will be coming back around to like, what are people trying to get done that they're not currently able to do is in a set in a manner that's going to get all the parties. So, thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the record. Michael Snyder commissioner for sparks and recreational. Appreciate the chance to visit with you all in this morning. And I guess I jump in. I'm prepared to explain all kinds of background history how we got here. But I jump in here to be concise to start with basically picking up on two things I've heard one from chair Bray mentioning early that the folks have been working on this talking about the trails issues and active 50 for several years. I don't know, because I think, you know, there's been a couple of high points along the way or touchstones of activity, and I'll clarify those the other piece would be Senator McDonald's question here. And I'll insert there that while there's an awful lot to unpack and understand about active 50 how it works relative to trails and the different kinds of trails, my trail system, etc. So we can all kind of focus here by remembering that it was what S Senate bill 276 I think that became act 47 of 2018 actually directed you the General Assembly directed that chair of the nrb and myself as commissioner to undertake to engage with and to consider internally an alternative to act to 50 for the regulation of recreational trails. That's actually the question that we were, we were with there was a legislative charge to consider an alternative to act to 50 reflecting the difficulties lack of clarity and various challenges that have been that have come to to to broad understanding I think it that exists so there was prior to 2018 there was you heard testimony I was there there were others I provided input from the from my trails and greenways council at that time, indicating that there were a handful of topics that they that they suggested was broad agreement could be at least more clear in the current administration of act to 50. Even even going to things like the definition of a trail in act to 50 definitions of involved land and others so there was this sense that there were there was confusion, and there was lack of clarity and in some cases lack of consistency. That was brought to you all, and the response was, let's consider ways to imagine Vermont's first take stock of the importance of Vermont's recreational trails for a lot of dimensions of life, and then consider, how are they considered under act to 50 and might there be an alternative approach to planning and overseeing them with the idea that I don't think anybody disagreed that trails are good. trails are particularly good and important in Vermont, and that they need to be built, used and maintained appropriately with respect to it, importantly, especially environmental quality. And so that was established, they're good they're important we need them an active 50s kind of gummed up. So, Madam chair, Mr Commissioner, please go work on this and report back. We're at the time of the act to 50 at 50 Commission. We reported to that commission we held stakeholder groups. This is where it where you then had the, the origins of the Vermont trails alliance, which is a nonprofit that was formed to work in this space, working with the force of whereas the Vermont trails alliance subset of member organizations from the Vermont trails and Greenways Council that exists in statute to advise the agency on all kinds of matters related to a recreation, including trails. The VTA was formed to help with this to represent those interests on kind of the trail community side volunteer member based organizations that remember were unique in this state that most of our 5000 miles of trails are private lands with the generosity of private landowners, most of them built to maintain by volunteer member groups. At the same time we were also concerned about the environmental considerations and so the force partnership, which, you know, Lauren and Jamie are here and they can speak to both of these groups that they represent, but the force partnership being an association of environmental groups with interest in trails that they formed and we all work together and have spent two years contemplating really that first charge. Is there an alternative could recreational trails be designed promoted planned and overseen in a different way than a act to 50 based regulatory framework. That there's been an awful lot of work on that and significant progress and agreement with a couple of final pieces, not really come. They haven't reached final agreement on everything, but we're able to bring forward to the House Committee on natural resources proposal for which is dangerously getting me dangerously close to talking about the bill right now, I do understand the instructions but to provide the context. That's what that's what this is about is there is a broad agreement on the need to make some clarifications there's broad agreement on a potential alternative mechanism for oversight of recreational trails presumably to be housed at the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation on a kind of analogous as I think of it and as I've come to understand it to the way we handle water quality protections for logging with a technical assistance best practices approach, but doing so for trails to that is to have a BMP based system where all the different types of trails and trail users have a different set of approaches to building trails. But they would be expanded to consider beyond the impact of a trail on water quality or wildlife habitat but also the attendant uses of the best practices and kiosks and traffic and human waste that we'd have to expand this notion of best practices and technical assistance for oversight of trails. They've worked wonders to come together on this broad agreement that's been put forward, but they basically have said we need a little more time to figure out actually how to make that work. In the interim we're proposing some fixes to act 250 to these points that need clarity that would give that clarity and maybe have a bit of a pause in some respects for an interim period, while these groups continue to work with the staff and myself and our staff to come up with this alternative approach to oversight of trails, but but kind of pausing on stuff in the meantime. So that's that's the question that we've been asked to address. I've tried to quickly give you what is a very long history, but the high points are we were asked to address an alternative. There is a proposal before the General Assembly. It is right now what's the house past version has kind of a some interim steps that give clear clarity and and predictability, but also by time because those those interim steps would sunset according to that to give a limited a period of time for groups to continue to get to this, but the real Grail which is an alternative approach to considering trails. All circling back to this idea of a division of a world class recreational trail system in Vermont that is not only world class in terms of the thrills and enjoyment of the users but that it's well planned. It's consistent with local community objectives. And it's it and it works. That's the goal and that's why we're talking. Okay, so let me just jump in. So thank you for that filling us in on how we got to where we are. Proposal in what form does the alternative regular regulatory proposal exist. I know there was some language added through an amendment on the floor to the bill that shall not be talked about, but the, what is there a proposal that's bigger and more sort of solid than the amendment that we can look at the amendment right the amendment is pretty and that gets it says that they'll make these clarifications and that some of those would sunset and it in it gives some language to direct a nudge to these groups to continue to work on this alternative approach that approach is not spelled out in the amendment the floor amendment and the House bill. But I believe Jamie Fidel and Warren Coleman. I've watched them present the broad strokes of that thinking to the House committee, I expect they would be ready to provide that to you as well, which is that more detail of what what they're contemplating in this alternative approach to oversight unnecessarily regulation of recreational trails. Okay. Well that's very helpful. Yeah, and you know I'm glad that you dipped back to reminding us of all, you know, value of the trails, how extensive they are. I think you know we sometimes we can get bogged down in the sort of regulatory you know sort of the areas of confrontation and friction stuff like that. But I think that committees 101% behind the idea of having, you know, a world class trails network in the state and having to be part of our economic future as well as helping that trail system. You know, to continue to provide environmental and habitat benefits and clean water benefits all the things you know that you've so great. Anything more that you want to add or is any committee questions for Commissioner Snyder. I'm happy to take the questions and I think it's important to hear from the others. I'm here. I'm eager to stay part of this. I just want to be responsive to your questions so I can leave it at that. I think that's the main points is that there is a lot of background. I guess maybe I would just add this I think another piece that I've been pleased in watching for years now is that the broad agreement also includes a sense that there are trails and then there are trails and there's different kind of they're not all the same and some trails would seem to be a no brainer that they don't need this level of oversight and regulation, whereas other trails might and that's what we're trying to have is a is that there are many different kinds there are many different trails and different management, and that gets challenging, but it's not beyond us is what I'd like to suggest, and that the thinking includes a robust approach that respects private rights and public benefits, and really ties to this notion of public rights through the Vermont trail system. And I would just say, we are really pleased to be part of this really want to get through and move on feel like we're close. And I think the department and our staff and our partners are eager, feeling like we got this. We just need to be allowed to move forward to make it work. And as I said, Jamie and one probably want roll their eyes at this point but I have to say that I just have to be on the record saying that is eager as we are to help with this. We can't just have a new program launched at the department without new capacity and resources to make it work professionally. And I don't like being this party, but I have. It's a UV that's going to get the party sometimes so that's okay. We're going to count on that. The know you're you're bringing up exactly what I was next going to ask you, we all know that we've had a big hit to state revenues. And my understanding is every department is being asked to look at something like a 10% budget cut for next year so we know they're going to be financial pressures and my question to you is, do you need an appropriation to stand in the alternative program for trail management in the state of Vermont. Thanks we, yes, in a word but I want to be clear that was true before the coronavirus arrived. That was true and part of this conversation all along, which was well we'll get to that. And everyone seems to recognize that but that was it's only made more challenging now that said, this is something our staff have heard me say. I believe that fpr uniquely positioned to be disproportionately helpful in both a response and a recovery to this crisis, both in terms of human health, community wellness and economic recovery and I believe a robust modern approach to trail making trail design trail use and maintenance is part of that. And it's actually, we need this to make full on the promise of being a positive part of the recovery and response to this crisis. And I actually think that this policy point before you right now is actually relevant germane and timely in that sense. Okay. Senator mcdonald you had asked a question about 20 minutes ago. We're getting any closer to an answer to your question. I was hoping someone would address what's being proposed. And so far we've heard. We've, what we've heard is was longer than the Gettysburg address, but I don't know what is being proposed. Well, that's a perfect segue if we don't have any more questions for Commissioner Snyder at the moment. I don't see any than to move on. I could give a, you know, I could get I need to respond. I mean, I could give a shorter answer, but I was asked a question. It's words. It's several years, and it's serious and people have worked hard and spent money on this. And so, but the answer is if you want the short one is you have trails language in 926. We agree with it. We're good with it. Yeah, that's the answer to, to provide us a temporary interim solution to issues that have been plaguing folks for years and give time for these groups to continue and finish this good work. So we're done. That's the answer. Okay. Thank you very much. And that was probably closer to 86 words so there we go. And so Mr. Fidel, would you like to take it away and talk more about your work on this topic. Sure. Thanks. Good morning to y'all good to see you all. I'm Jamie Fidel and the general council and forest and wildlife program director at Vermont Natural Resources Council and as Commissioner Snyder mentioned, been working to represent the coalition of groups that the Vermont Land Trust, the Vermont chapter of the nature conservancy, a trust for public land, Audubon Vermont, Vermont Natural Resources Council under the force partnership to work on this issue. And just like to say that we're looking at this, not only from the perspective of how to build that world class system we've been talking about for trail recreation with some environmental sensitivities in mind but also our groups actually, many of them actually are involved on their properties and are part of the trail development community and part of the Vermont trails and greenways council, in addition to being land trusts and conservation organizations so we've come at it with a fairly broad perspective. We've been participating in this conversation to try and be as productive as possible and address some of the challenges that that are out there as Commissioner Snyder mentioned this is sort of a long standing issue both from a policy perspective in the state but also it's been part of the active 50 commissions work with various charges to Commissioner Snyder and others to report back and then there's been this effort that Mike has alluded to among the various partnerships and the Vermont trails alliance in particular where we kind of rolled up our sleeves and been trying to tackle, not only developing the interim policies that we think could be helpful. Now as part of active 50 bill consideration, but also to realize that there there could be a different way to do this. There could be a win win that would really allow for the promotion and development of trails, but also do it in a way that maybe strips away some of the complexity that Ellen was going through before with the different types of options, and try and figure out a simple but effective way to look at how to promote trial development with environmental considerations in mind. You know, part of this conversation started a couple of years ago and when there were efforts on the trail groups were interested in seeking some clarification on issues and part of that has to do with some of the issues that are in the trails which Senator Bray you referenced are on the web page. And some of those issues relate to trails have been built on the ground and then new segments are being built, and sometimes they sometimes they connect as part of a larger network. And there's been an outstanding question at what point to those comprehensively trigger act to 50. And that's been a tricky issue. And one of the issues where there were some efforts years ago to clarify that which would have, in our opinion, really limited the scope or application of act 250. And so we started a conversation with the trail groups to say, if that's the interest, let's talk about alternative then, because it's not really a durable policy to just sort of move the bulk of trail development outside of environmental review. Without having some kind of effective alternative and through our conversations with the VTA we're able to come up with a number of shared principles where we agree we can develop this alternative program and try to address both the environmental considerations and no address the challenges that the trail groups have had recognizing that a lot of it is volunteer capacity. So Warren and I, as we've been presenting our work have been tag teaming so if it's all right with you we thought we could bounce back and forth and share different parts of this outline with you. So it's a little bit of the history of our groups coming together and allow Warren to share kind of the bulk of what is this alternative program look like. And then I could come back and talk about some of the remaining issues that we're working on, including that funding issue which is really important. And then I, we both be available to answer any questions you have about the work that we've been doing. Of course the answer is yes we're happy to have witnesses use the time. However, they think it's going to be productive so if you want to tag team that that would be helpful I'm sure I have a question before Warren picks it back up and that is, is there a clear sense one way or the other that active 50 is just not well suited to trails management and therefore we need an alternative or is it, is it the difficulty in remodeling active 50 to accommodate trails or is it was it in some way, you might even say inappropriate that we ever tried to use active 50 to regulate trails. That's the question I think you'd get different answers from from different people. I think that we've acknowledged that there's some complexity in applying active 50 to kind of the linear model of trail development where instead of looking at, you know, if you need to add up overall disturbance you're looking at a confined trail, and then, you know going out a certain distance in order to trigger review. I've listened to, I've listened to NRB presentations where it does seem like the bulk of trails do receive permits. So I don't think it's been that active 50 has been a hindrance to trail development, but there are challenges, and there's costs and there's I'll let the trail group speak for themselves about what they have seen as some of the challenges so that I think that you know in order to look at it objectively that it has it has functioned to a certain degree but we've also spent a lot of time talking about what some of the challenges are and I think in the end we just decided that perhaps. There is a different model that a lot of the trail development in Vermont is not going through active 50. So is that the right approach, or is that is that a shortcoming. Different people would have different perspectives on that but in our opinion, if we could step back and actually look at a different model that allows for really proactive trail development that has the environmental considerations in mind, but is is is efficient for the trail groups. And is based on a process that sites trails in the right locations in a sensitive to not having trails and locations that could have a lot of impacts, and that we can develop a system that works for everybody that we're willing to do that. I hope that provides a little bit of insight there. Senator McDonald. Mr Chair, I'm very grateful that we have spent the time a couple years to step back and take a look at the new model that's supposed to tackle this problem with someone share with this committee that model and how it works. I, perhaps, Warren Coleman has been suggested will share that with us but we passed the ball from four different people and we some. I'm waiting to be lobbied on the proposal. We all are. Well, as Sarah McDonald you're the master of the segue with that let's go to Warren Coleman. Thank you senator McDonald. Good morning everybody good to see you all. I've been working with a group called the Vermont Trail Alliance for about a year and a half and just so you have an idea. So it's a pretty broad cross section of the trail organizations in the state, including motorized and non motorized activities so things like vast and mountain bike association, Green Mountain Club, the catamount trail, the HUD system across Vermont Trail so hiking biking and motorized sports and obviously very different types of trail usage but but a common interest that I think we share in trying to come up with a a different system that is easy for everyone to understand easy for everyone to use whether you're a larger or sophisticated organization like vast or whether you're a small trail organization that's working in a local community. Don't forget a couple things about this that I need to emphasize one is that the vast majority of all these trail networks are built and cited because of the generosity of private landowners. So we also need to understand that what we're trying to do is to make sure that we're respectful of their generosity and that the trail organizations have the, the obligation or responsibility to do things the right way and they and they and they to date that largely have done that and that's why we have such a great trail network. So you need to need to make sure you keep that keep that in mind. We want to have something that's understandable and predictable for everybody so to get to your question. And I shared this document earlier with Senator Bray I know Jamie had sent it probably earlier. I know you probably haven't seen it or had time to look at it so you can do that in your in your in your downtime. But we developed a we developed a working concept proposal that was shared with the House Natural Resources Committee. And so I'm going to just walk you through the highlights of it. The goal is just give you a sense of what we've agreed on, and what the what the alternative program sort of outline looks like, acknowledging that as Mike said earlier, we've got some more work to do to sort of bring it home. The legislation, just so you know has a report back of December to you to your committee the House Natural Resources Committee to say, Senators representatives this is the, this is the program that we're recommending to you here are the statutory changes we, we would need to stand up this program here's the funding we would need to stand up this program. And I should also mention, while our groups the VTA and force partnership and we've been working very closely together, also with with an hour. There's a number of other stakeholders who need to be brought into this discussion as we, as we advance this and hopefully bring you something in December that that puts us all together we've got a lot of land trust organizations who got recreational user groups. We have folks that either post trails, or use trails. And, and we need to make sure that they're there on board so with that with that is background. I'm going to sort of touch on a number of sort of shared overarching principles and then I'm going to get into the specifics of the, some of the elements of what this alternative looks like. So, we've sort of recognized that obviously trails are an important part of the Vermont economy. It's important to provide access to outdoor use. It's important for purposes of transportation. We need as I said earlier, we need an efficient consistent process for oversight of trails and recognizes the generosity of private landowners to use that something that's easy for everyone to understand something that is more in the context of providing education from and our technical assistance and support resources for trail organizations. The other thing I think Mike Snyder mentioned this, this is really going to be a best management practices driven program so all the different trail networks currently have best management practices that they use to build site and maintain their trail we need to sort of formalize those, those best management practices and I think as Commissioner Snyder said, also add to those best management practices certain elements that are currently part of act 250 or maybe some of them quite frankly are but deal with things like make sure we're dealing with traffic make sure make sure we're addressing and minimizing any impacts to wildlife or natural resources. I should also mention and Ellen touched on this that that currently when somebody's building a trail, if they trigger the need for an and our permit like a stream crossing permit. They have to go get it and that that that currently exists. That's not something that would change that if you need if you trigger the threshold for an and our permit, you got to get it now, you'd still have to get it in the future. So the program would basically be a best management program. It would be built upon we have if you look at title, if you look at title 10 chapter 20 that going back to not got a program that that established the importance of creating a Vermont trail system network and gave FPR sort of the oversight of that, you know, of that program but what we're trying to do at the broadest level is enhance what it means to be part of the Vermont trail system network by encouraging proper development operation and maintenance of those trail and make sure that we've got the technical assistance, the ability for consultation and environmental review. Before we go out and build new trails, make sure we build and maintain those trails according to best management practices and minimize impacts. And then third and this couldn't be more important today than, than ever is we need to, we need to recognize the economic value of the Vermont trail system really all trail where they're located. So, here's sort of the alternative program just outline and let me just say at the outset what we've, what we've conceived so far is basically a tiered program that basically has to do with sort of scale size and scale of impact so you're talking about sort of a tier one, a tier two and a tier three but what I'm going to touch on right now are principles that are overarching and cover all of all of those regardless of where, of where you're at so first one we've been talking about this Warren sorry interrupt just a second for the committee so I just sent on Warren's email with the outline to Jude she's distributing it to every one of the committee so that everyone will have that document. There's a lot of words I'm not going to read the document but I'm just going to try to touch on the touch on the highlights. If you have a question shoot it sounds like we'll, we'll be coming back to this at some point. Yep. So, the alternative program would provide you relief you'd be you'd be exempt from Act 250 provided that you're covered by this by this new program. Basically new trails would be developed and maintained to be built and maintained according to these agreed upon best management practices. The program would not would not impose any regulatory burdens on landowners who are making their lands available for the for the trails that responsibility is solely is solely for the trail trail groups that normally go with trails also wouldn't be part of Act 250 but things that trigger Act 250 on their own and somebody's building a large parking lot or something something else would would wouldn't be exempt. That we'd create and build upon the Vermont trail system process and this goes back to what Commissioner Snyder was was was talking about something that something that takes the concept from 1993, and elevates the status of what it means to be part of the Vermont trail system. So I think that would give you access to funding in the future maybe it helps you promote the trail networks helps promotes the trail network on on the state level. I mentioned this already that we would be adding to the best management practices. Basically a list of different resources we would want to make sure that we're taking into account and we're citing we're citing our trails. You'd have to get and obtain any and our local permits that you currently need. Excuse me, the a excuse me, the an art have the authority to conduct audits to verify that people are doing what they report to be doing in terms of building according to best management practices. So that non compliance with BMPs would would be dealt with also so that the an R be able to audit and make sure that that if there are deficiencies that people are making improvements. If a section of trail needs to be closed for one reason or another because an improvement can't be made to it or it's no longer an appropriate segment that that could be something an annual meeting process for all the Vermont trails to some trails with a and R to to review activities to look at proposed activity trails. We've heard from a and R that making sure that there is a planning component to this I've heard this also from from the smelling that understanding what the roadmap is for where we're going with trails trying to maximize where we're building trail networks that are complimentary to each other that they're multi use when they can but as much much foresight as possible is important that's something we're committed to doing that we update the maps for the Vermont trails to some trails and do that on an annual basis. We also update and review the best management practices that we ultimately that we ultimately use so those are sort of the overarching principles that apply to any of the different types of trails trail networks or regardless of what kind of category you fall into so those are those are larger ones. I'll quickly just touch on sort of the different the different categories and then I'm going to turn it back over to Jamie. I have what we call tier one which would be sort of a de minimis category for activities that are things like routine maintenance and repair of an existing trail of something gets washed out or if there's trees that are blown down or something that you need to go out and do the work. You go out and you do the work. If it's something that uses existing state or town roads. If it's upgrades to a trade practice practices, if it's relocations of a trail because you've got a beaver pond that now makes it creates an impediment or you've got other things that happen that you've got a farmer who's been allowing to you to use the edge of the cornfield and they want to shift where they're growing things so you need to make an adjustment and where your trail is. Those are the types of things that that we think would fall into this category where where people understand the BMPs are and you go out and you do the work. The next category which is this tier two category really involves a notification process to agency natural resources and a consultation process with them as we haven't settled on the exact sort of magnitude of what would fall into this fall into this category. It's one of the things that we're still trying to try to work out but basically we would have a project, basically a project sheet that has all the details about the little, all those details that we would submit to a and the fact that you're, you're going to be able to build to the best management practices that you've done the review to make sure you're not going to have any undue impact on on environmental or natural resources. And, and have as necessary a consultation process with the agency and natural resources who will take a look at those, take a look at those notifications. And, again, this is one of the areas that we're working on with a and R is how much or her little review are they going to need to do and I think it will, I think it will vary depending on the complexity of the project, depending on the location and, and so forth. And really then the last. The last categories is that would would involve sort of where we're currently at with Act 250 which is projects that involve 10 acres or more of disturbance. And one of the things that were it's this would still be a BMP driven project but I think we all recognize that this may be a project it's of a size and scope that requires more in depth review, more public input and notice. And one of the things we're trying to discuss and figure out is this something that would be part of the FP process or is this something you would leave with leave with act to act to 50. So those are at the very broadest strokes, sort of the three categories this de minimis which is maintenance very small projects, the bulk of projects which would be in this notice category to, to an hour with a consultation process as it's, as it's needed, and then this, and then this major all best management practice based and quite frankly that's where a lot of us are trying to now turn our attention to is is taking the existing BMPs we have and building upon them to make sure that we cover the issues that we know, we need to cover in order to convince you and the public and recreational users that this alternative program is going to provide the level of sort of oversight and direction to make sure that we've got a great great trail system, it in nutshell. Okay, great. Thanks for the intro. That's helpful. So, Jamie, do you want to pick it back up and there's something where you want to be adding. Yeah, I just touch on some of the issues that we're working through right now and just to kind of, you know, underscore. Sorry, can you hold for a second I think Senator Campion had a question. Sorry, Warren, are you are you with Jamie on this. Yeah, we've been working with Jamie, Jamie and the force partnership group for almost two years on this. And that's, that's who you're representing. Thanks. Yeah, so the, so the document when you see it Brian is, is a document with a joint, it's a joint proposal from the trail groups as well as the force partnership groups which is the environmental groups and a lot of the land trust organizations which also host trail so this is a joint document we've put together. Perfect. So back to you Jamie. Okay, thanks. So, you know, just before I get into these issues that we're still trying to work out. You know what I think, hopefully you heard from more and where we have agreement is that we, you know, this is BMP driven. There's a technical assistance component to this. It's, it's not a it's not a voluntary program. It's a built in oversight that would happen from from the agency to ensure compliance with the BMPs as Warren hit on there would be a mechanism to address problems if the BMPs are not being followed whether that's trying to rectify on the ground damage or if need be going to enforcement mode. So there's an oversight component but the bulk of this is driven based on BMP driven process with the different tiers and an opportunity for the agency to really do technical assistance. So some of the groups volunteer capacity may not be able to actually know whether they're in some of the sensitive resources that may be part of the BMPs to avoid or minimize impacts to the agency would be available and this gets into the the funding and what's needed is, we would in our division of this would be that there would be people like a county forester if you will to Commissioner Snyder's analogy to current use that would be available to actually potentially, if need be go on the ground and help the groups understand are you impacting this resource or not, and to really be a resource so that the BMPs and whatever in the environmental considerations are in those BMPs can actually be be implemented on the ground and there's a real real value there and that element of this this program, which kind of leads us to some technical questions as we as we're looking at then how to finalize what would be our recommendations to the agency and to you all as legislators as far as whether to implement this program and that's clearly we need to figure out how do you define the triggers for each of these tiers. How would you handle new trial development on land that is already under Act 250 review, or how would you handle amendments. So we don't want to wipe out the history of what Act 250 has done, as far as permit considerations go on lands but we do need to figure out what do we do about the new trial development on on those lands and amendments. So the trials that are not part of the Vermont trail system so the Vermont trail system is, is a known entity, and so I'm just going to flip on my light here as my other one just crashed. So, there's a bulk of trails that are under the Vermont trail system. Then our trails that are not, and we need to figure out, are we talking about all trails, let's say that are open for public use, are we just talking about those trails as part of the Vermont trail system. That may be confusing if there are certain trails that are then part of this program and knows that aren't so we need to address that. Again, as Warren mentioned how do we determine the exact role of the agency. What's the capacity, what are they doing in these individual tiers how are we involving the public input that may be required in that higher tier, which is for the larger developments. We need to determine jurisdiction for commercial aspects of trail trail projects for example retail buildings that are associated, you know with it, you know our intent is not necessarily to have what would be legitimate activities that would normally be covered under Act 250 somehow have a loophole because they're associated with this trail development that would be under another program but we have to really fine tune that because that issue will probably come up. The big issue clearly is, is how do we fund this we acknowledge this program, we can't ask the agency to do this without resources, what would be the resources that are needed to do this effectively, and clearly, we're not operating in a vacuum here we understand that the challenge on how to fund this program has only gotten significantly harder in recent time. I think that's coloring right now. You know both our need to figure out both the viability of continuing to do this work. Our hope certainly would be that we don't want to lose the momentum of what we've been working on for two years we feel we've got a really good faith effort going here. We'd like to try and continue it and present it to you. We know it would have to be funded. And so that's a big, big concern, and I would say that some of the interim policies that you've agreed on and I'll just speak from the forest partnerships perspective. We're meant to try and relieve the pressure right now so that all of us can continue focusing on bill is the right solution overall. Some of those interim policies that are in 926 weren't necessarily intended to be durable long term policies. And so, if the alternative review program can't be funded, then it's going to it's going to create a challenge because again, some of those some of those provisions will sunset. And it's it was our intention not to have them then become permanent. And so we'd really like your assistance as as the legislators to understand how we can be successful in presenting this package to you and also having it funded. I have a quick question on BMPs. Are they pretty well agreed upon. I know that from past conversations inside and out of committee that different organizations have put together their own BMPs as they've managed their systems. So I'm just wondering if it if it's going to become one coherent program. Do you have to come up with a standardized set of BMPs. And if so, how close to having agreed upon standards is this working group. I can take a first crack at that. So right now, all the trail networks, all the Vermont trail system trails do have BMP. Some of them are based on US Forest Service BMPs. Some of them are based on sort of a national mountain biking set of BMPs. So, so everyone has a set. And what's appropriate for a mountain biking, you know, each trail each trail user group. You know, to some degree their BMPs are different because of that because of the nature of the of the use and the type of trail you design you design a different trail for for mountain biking then you do for for hiking. And being said, what we're trying to do is and Commissioner Snyder is very familiar with with these BMPs, you know, the BMPs for the different types of trail networks. So we still envision that each type of trail will have a set of BMPs that is germane to their, their level of usage what I think we're talking about is now developing something that's an addition to that. And so, you know, there's an extra lay that looks at some of those other resource issues to make sure that to make sure that parking and waste and wildlife issues and all of those other things that are not, you know, when we talk about the BMPs that are in place today, most of them are more about, you know, how do you how do you prevent erosion, basically, if there's more sort of construction guidelines and rules. Those are, those are important, they'll always be important. So we're trying to find sort of a a an across the board set of BMPs that we would add as an overlay to make sure these other issues are covered. So, whether it's a hiking trail or a biking trail, or an ATB trail, we know we need to deal with parking, we know we need to deal with waste. Those sorts of issues. So, but we also realize this is something that, that we need stakeholder input on so that everyone, since this whole program is going to be based on those best management practices at some level these BMPs will have to be reviewed, approved and and formalize because people are going to rely on those and be held accountable to use those. And so the nine, even though we're not really talking about 926 it is in the background right so the proposal, the amendment that Representative Dolan offered before third reading I guess on 926 that had some trails was that language that you and Mr Fidel had agreed to and brought to the committee is that sort of an interim proposal from this working group. The languages reflects the agreement not only of the Vermont Trail Alliance and Forest Partnership but also the the administration we worked, we worked together on that in fact, and ultimately it was Matt Chapman who's general counsel for A&R who you know well helped as well as Greg Boble helped us with fine tuning that language. So it's a joint proposal. It does not, if you've read it, it really is dealing with clarifying a number of current Act 250 provisions to help us with this sort of interim period. Then a directive to our groups to say go finish your work. You're, we know you're almost there, but go finish it. And here's the timeframe all this clarity that we're providing you right now goes away January 1 2022. So go do your work. Here's some certainty. Come back to us with a proposal and hopefully we can stand up that new program and and sunset these other provisions that's that's the crux of what's in in that bill. The stuff that I went through about the tier one, two and three. None of that is in there and we didn't ask them to get into the weeds nor are we asking you, we just wanted to give you a sense of the work we've done. And, and what we've got what we've got left to do so that's really sort of the directive to FPR and the rest of us to go finish, go finish our work. Okay. Any committee questions for Mr Coleman or Mr Fidel. All right, I'm just keeping an eye on the time. I think then I'd like to move on and hear from natural resources board center McDonald before we go on. Thank you to the last witness for giving us some meat to look at and I'm in the best sense of the word and I want to thank you for emailing me again the tears language that I was able to go through. I've talked often the word has been used about his world class trail systems, and as someone who's walked dirt trails of Campbell's hump and other places, and understands the urge, and that perhaps wisdom and using old railroad beds. I don't know what a world trash class trail system is and I'm wearing. So I'm waiting to listen to more. For the presentations. Thank you, Mr Chair. So maybe I'll take a stab at it and then I asked Commissioner Snyder to offer a definition to world class because I think he was the one who brought that phrase to us today. I've thought of it as meaning that we have such a great collection of trails that people from all over the country or the world would come here to use the facilities you know that kind of a thing like they'd be a great attraction. Commissioner Snyder, do you want to say something about what world class means to you when you talk about it. Sure. It means that that in my mind, it's a vision for a statewide system of trails that includes a variety of types, scales uses purposes locations, but that they're all built to as best in class and they're all industry standard for best practices. Design layout construction use and maintenance. And that they are, they're just thoughtful and they're appropriate for where they are and what they're used for, and that they are as you said, Mr Chair, that they are enjoyed by a variety and diversity of people from all over that there's something to be proud of. There are exceptionally high quality and that that is appropriate for purpose and location use. Okay. So thank you for that. Let's pivot to chair snelling and Mr bill bowl to talk to us about the NRB perspective on trails regulation development all the rest. Good to see you this morning. So thank you, Mr chair, Diane snelling chair of the natural resources board. First and foremost, I want to apologize for multitasking at the beginning of this meeting, and including whatever it is I was trying to resolve by doing two meetings at once so I do apologize for that. No apology now. This is an unusual time let me say that. I also wanted to just thank the commissioner and Warren and Jamie for all the work they put into this and obviously to Greg bubble and Evan mean at the natural resources board. You know it's been a long and somewhat difficult process and so I am definitely in league with the commissioner and the stakeholders and saying that it would be a good idea to keep going on this to get to a better final place than we are at the at the moment so going forward with this particular presentation if that's possible and let the groups keep working on things, but trails have always been important to Vermont. I agree on the definition of world class and I think thoughtful to me as one of the things that stuck out and what you said commissioner, because what's most important to me is that whatever trail system recreational opportunities we have are sustainable and built on good stewardship standards and I think everybody said that so I'm not saying anything new. I do think that's the goal. And I do think there needs to be some boundaries. Pun included I guess around how trails get developed to the extent that there is some amount of regulation required for trail building, not necessarily act to 50. I do want to say for the record that I that I think a lot of the perceived problems with active 50 are just that perceived as opposed to real, which is not to say we couldn't make improvements where we to have to in how active 50 reviews trails. One of the specific things I think that I had been asked to speak about was jurisdictional opinions, and I see that mostly in relationship to Vermont to the kingdom trails and to the hills. What is it. What's the other one the big trail victory victory hills, victory hills trails. Right. And I say this because I want to remember that jurisdictional opinions. Anyone can ask for one, and except within NRB, obviously anybody, any individual citizen can ask for jurisdictional opinion. And that goes to the coordinator in each district, and it is their sole discretion to to issue that jurisdictional opinion. There's no influence that the commission can bring on it there's no influence that I can bring on it. And Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere along here. But I do think that some of the misperception if you will about active 50 is trying to understand what it actually is, and then make modifications that do improve it. And I, and I know that that's been part of the ongoing conversation and I, and I know it will continue to be so I appreciate that. Can I just a quick beginner question on jail. So, so anyone, do they have to be a Vermont resident to ask for jail. I, I would think so but Greg I don't know. Yeah. Just for the record Greg bubble, natural resources board general counsel thanks very much for having us today. The statute that controls jurisdictional opinions and our rule does not require on its face that that the requester must be a resident in fact the the language is rather broad and it indicates that anyone can request a jurisdictional opinion. The case law developed since the advent of active 50 that reminds us and I think the chair already mentioned this that that excludes anyone, any person excludes any person from the natural resources board itself so other than that limitation there's there's not a great deal of limitation with respect to whom may request a jurisdictional opinion. And then the district commission, did they, if so requested, do they have to issue one or they can they decline to do so. That's my whole point is it goes the jurisdiction opinion is from the coordinator and totally at the coordinators determination, the commission doesn't engage in that issue. Okay, so what they do when they receive a request for jurisdiction opinion is research. All the aspects that would be required, you know, is there a permit or there have there been amendments to any of parts of the trail that might be development. You know, all aspects of what could constitute commercial, etc, and then the opinion is issued. And there is no time requirement between the request and the issuance of a jurisdictional opinion. And then the conditional opinions can be appealed. And I believe we are currently in that situation on, I think, at least kingdom trails and also probably on Victory Hills, where there's an ongoing court action to say that the determination of jurisdiction is is incorrect. So that environmental division of Superior Court is that where they land. Yes. Okay. Mr chair, I have a couple of questions to as long as we're on jails. Sure, I don't know if chairs smelling if you want to say a little more about them generally before we go to Senator Rogers question or kind of covers it. Okay, there we go, Senator Rogers. Well, first off, I am a little disturbed that anybody from anywhere can file a jio, because we believe the ones in the kingdom were done to harass one of the guys that filed a jio is a known violator of state laws and his cut ski trails on state land. And so that is part of what's not what needs to be dealt with for the two systems in the kingdom that is not in the act to 50 bill presently. And so, Senator, if I may, I just need to understand you're saying that you think there should be a limit on who can ask. Well, I'm just, I'm saying that you can really tie an organization up when a jio is used for harassment and having it be open to anybody seems like it could be problematic. My point to you though would be respectfully that there's no harassment and asking for a jurisdictional opinion because that only thing that triggers is the research into and an issuance of that opinion. So, unless, unless, you know, I mean, I hear what you're saying that that people ask for one knowing that it might take some time and therefore they're kind of intervening. The way it works is, somebody can ask for jurisdictional opinion, and it happens all the time on many issues. And the coordinators are very diligent in trying, you know, to have a very clear logic in in their as to whether it is jurisdictional or not and so, you know, I guess, eventually, yes, you might want to have some changes to that or to other aspects of how that's determined, but that is the current process. To that point, I think, you know, sometimes when people in state house conversations about it when people were surprised that anyone could ask for a jio. They thought, I mean, I think they've had the impression a little bit that it by asking you've pulled someone into a formal act to 50 jurisdiction, as opposed to asking whether or not it should always should have been subject to act to 50 jurisdiction. Is that the distinction year. Yeah, I do. I really think there's a lot of miss communication misunderstanding of what the process is. It just, it just triggers a review. Right, but it doesn't, doesn't it also, I mean, wouldn't it require somebody to spend a huge amount of money and time on lawyers and whatnot to to disprove the jio. I mean, it's not like it's not without consequences to the folks, even if in the long run, the decision is they shouldn't have been under act to 50 they still on their own property and with their own money. Get tied up in a big to do. Okay, so the big to do to me and the distinction on these two trails is that they were both determined to be commercial. And I think that's that's the element here that's different from a lot of other trails is one something's commercial. And then you can argue, is it really or not, and I don't, I don't have that answer but but that was contained in and will be contained in the the jurisdiction opinions. But it doesn't involve engage anybody more than their understanding they need to get a permit. Now I think in the situations up in your area that it seemed to me that nobody ever asked, you know, certainly with victory hills they didn't say well what would we have to do to that they just said we're not even going to try. And that was very distressing because it came across to a lot of people that somehow act to 50 had put something on them, we didn't put anything on them. But they could have easily said well what would it take to get a permit. And it might have been, it might be still a lot easier than they think it might be. So would you get the whole all the area the whole community being very supportive of both of those trails. So would you get, you know, opposition to the trails, you know, to me that seems unlikely. The other issues would be, do they need to take better protection of wetlands that might be in those areas that weren't revealed because there was no review. So they maybe have to do some upgrades with parking. I mean, I don't think any of the things that would make them be ready to get an active 50 permit are, you know, extraordinary burdens. Most people don't want active 50 jurisdiction on their land and that is the fear that if these joes start happening on trail systems around the state that everybody is going to pull their land out of the trail system, which will devastate it and we talk about commercial and I don't know where you draw the line at commercial, but it does cost money to build and maintain trails. So of course people would be expected to contribute. Do we call vast commercial people have to pay for their trail passes and all that but I don't think we call vast commercial people. So I don't know where the line is, but I do know that everybody is going to pull their land out of whatever trail they're part of, if active 50 starts taking effect over their land. I would respond to that if I may Senator because I have heard that argument and I and I have a lot of sympathy with it, which is that, especially with Kingdom trails I guess that there's some concern. If people think there's going to be active 50 jurisdiction, they will pull their land and some people pulled their land already for different reasons, right overuse and conflicts and whatever but one of the issues that should make a big difference is first of all, that's not the way it works the jurisdiction is only over the width of the trail. But no matter how many times I've tried to explain this to people they really. unsubstantiated fear, I think about their land being taken over and so one of the things I've been asking people, would it make a difference if there was the opportunity to have jurisdiction be lifted under some process, you know, in just once active 50 jurisdiction is on the trail on their property, could that be lifted at some time in the future, and I think a lot of people would feel a lot more comfortable if they had that option. I think you're right. So I just feel like let's get to it these are both great trails. Everybody wants to participate. We hope that they the that the two trail systems, you know, one that's one property owner and the other that multiple property owners would understand there's no, it's not. It shouldn't be overwhelming to get a permit in the sense of cost or anything else. There are occasions where you need to get in our permits, you know that you might need to get some in our permits. Yeah, but I think we would all agree that we want people to. Yeah, well I'm just afraid that the jail issues here in the kingdom are a canary in a coal mine, because there are trail systems all over the state these you know kingdom trails is probably the most well known. Anybody who has an issue with a neighbor or somebody who has a trail system on their land, could start making jos all over the place and I just, I think it's another portion of this that we really need to scrutinize. I would recommend you focus on that issue of if people could both reprocess to have that jurisdiction lifted should they decide they don't want to be part of the trail system anymore. You know in the trail will now divert around their property or whatever that that in and of itself and I don't know Jamie. Commissioner, do you think that that has that would have a big impact if people knew that there was a way to release jurisdiction if it no longer applied. I mean I'll just chime in. I mean, having trails across landowner properties probably the most critical issue that for for the trail organizations. When you start having individuals pull their, pull their property out of that network, trying to reconnect that network is, you know, it's, I'm not saying that's, that's, that's the issue I don't want people to pull their property I'm just saying would it give to the homeowners who are concerned that somehow this means Act 250 has some finger in their pie. You know would it give them reassurance so that they would stay in the, the, the organizations to have the trails. I don't know I'm just saying that's what people have told me that would make a difference. I think what this points to is that whether the, whether the fear is real or perceived finding a different way to do this the way that we're describing is really what we've tried to been been focusing on right we haven't been focusing on all the confusion that creates for those of us that eat, sleep and breathe Act 250. You know that it's one thing for those of us that don't end up, you know, these are mostly maintained by volunteers, most of these are nonprofit organizations. They don't want to be hiring attorneys to help them through the jail process I mean that's a lot of them don't have the capacity to do that they're not as large as a kingdom trail or victory hill a lot of these are much smaller than the real networks completely volunteer. And so that's, that's at least what this provision was trying to do that that Senator Rogers was was it was explaining was to put a time out on that so there's there's not that there's not that that fear out there that that's going to happen, and let us focus on standing up the new program and getting everybody. I wasn't trying to say, I guess I was just trying to clarify something and I apologize if it somehow overlapped between the recommendation to keep working on things which obviously I agree with. And whatever might in the interim provide people some more reassurance, and I do think right or wrong people associate Act 250 with things that they feel conflict. And that is one of the best advantages of a new system, just that it doesn't. It's not called Act 250. Act 251. Okay. So the, I have a quick question I'm looking back my page one notes here on terms of how much of a property comes under Act 250 jurisdiction and the note I wrote was on projects that are counted as to the Vermont trail system ones for the state or municipal public benefit, but it's the disturbed land only, but and if it's a commercial project, it's the entirety of the property I wrote down all land, and then I have a little note underneath that, but see also rule 71 which limits jurisdictional limits. So, can someone sort that one out for me. I think I can, Senator Bray if that's all right with you. Please. Sure. So yeah it is a little bit you've picked up on the nuance which I think is great. Generally speaking, let's just talk about non non municipal purpose or state purpose or Vermont trail system purpose trail so just commercial trails, you're correct that the trigger for jurisdiction would be based on the size of the tract or tracks involved in towns that have both permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, the threshold is 10 acres or more in towns that do not have those types of bylaws, the threshold is one acre or more and again that's the size of the tract or tracks involved. That's the trigger for determining whether or not such a project would need to go through active 50, but rule 71 tells us that actual jurisdiction only goes to the width of the trail corridor. When jurisdiction is established jurisdiction only only attaches to with the width of the trail corridor so if you have a 100 acre parcel or parcels combined 250 jurisdiction would only extend to the 10 or eight or 12 foot trail corridor that passes through that 100 acre parcel. So in respect to Vermont trail system trails that do enjoy the sort of higher threshold for jurisdiction for for active 50 triggers. The question is, how much acreage does the trail system impact. And if the if the answer to that question is 10 acres or more of disturbance, then active 50 jurisdiction would trigger. In pursuant to rule 71, the only area of the parcels in question that would be jurisdictional is the trail corridor itself. So, with respect to both commercial trails and municipal or state purpose trails slash BTS trails, the only jurisdictional area is the corridor of the trail itself. It's nuanced and a little complex so I apologize and I hope I did a good job. No, that's, it's helpful. I just want to make sure we got it straight. My, I think what chair smelling was just saying is that limitation to just the track, the width of the track being actually under active 50 review, for instance, is like either it's not understood or it's cold comfort to someone who then has 80 other acres, then they're volunteering their land for the trail because somehow I think it either feels like a burden, or that somehow one day they're going to. It will be burdensome if they want to do, I don't know, build a new barn on the the rest of their property, how they won't be, and it won't be just their barn they're building at their property will be an active 50 review for it. Yeah, this is something that we've historically, for one reason or another had a very difficult time, articulating to the public. And I can tell you, I also happen to be a great enjoyer of trails mountain biking hiking skiing and so forth. I have a number of friends in this industry and and I continually have a difficult time explaining or maybe even convincing people in the industry that this is how active 50 jurisdiction works currently. So, great. I'm looking at the clock I'm mindful that the there's an all Senate meeting at noon. So I just want to start to wrap up and next five minutes. Is there anyone who had something they wanted to share with the committee today that feel like we've passed by a point that you wanted to make with us. If I could make a very quick clarification. There was some discussion of the two trail systems that are currently going through the jurisdictional opinion process and I just wanted to make sure without going into too much detail that we all understand procedurally where each one is the the the first trails did receive a jurisdictional opinion from the district coordinator. That case is on appeal to the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division. The kingdom trails has a request for a jurisdictional opinion that has not been issued by a district coordinator yet. So one of these decisions the one pen the both of these cases the one currently pending before the environmental court that's that's Victory Hills, and the one that's currently pending before the district coordinator, have both been stayed pending in the discernment of the legislature to see if anything that develops by way of a bill or an act might have some influence on the way that those cases pan out ultimately. So I just wanted to give you that background and clarification. So the jail asserts active 50 jurisdiction. In one case it's appealed and the other case, they're considering appeal. Excuse me the other the other case kingdom nothing has yet been determined. Okay, so there's coordinator is working on it. That's right. The coordinator is working on the kingdom trails, or it's not currently working on it because there is a stay until July 1. Okay, but nothing decided with respect to kingdom. Okay, so I'm, I'm also looking at a May 30 2017. So that's Jio for King trails. Seven dash 280. So there's another one in that has issues. I believe that that Jio you have in your hand is for an entity called Kingdom South, which was determined not to be part of Kingdom trails and that Jio was final, it has not been appealed. Okay. Sure. And when you say they've been stayed. Who, who actually does the staying. Sure, that's a good question. So, with respect to Victory Hills, the court, the judge at the environmental division upon agreement of the parties state the matter. And sort of a similar process with respect to the kingdom trails Jio currently currently be being considered by the coordinator the parties agreed to stay the matter. Until I think it was July 1 sometime during the summer, when we initially thought the legislature may have adjourned by but of course all of that has changed now. Okay, great. Hi. Thank you for that extra information. Other committee questions while we have this panel with us here this morning. Okay. Well, so chairs knowing. Yes, I just wanted to say, I'm happy to come back. If you have more questions or want to discuss anything else about active 50. Regardless of whatever action you may take this this session. Thank you. All right. Well, thanks for that. I'm, I'm pretty confident that we will have to talk about it at least once more before we come to an agreement. So, okay, great. All right. Well, with that, thanks everyone for navigating the tricky waters of having jos that are currently out there bill that's currently out there but also sticking to a higher level discussion at the same time so thanks for helping us get a grounding and we will be coming back to this issue again so thank you to everyone. And there's nothing else we're adjourned until tomorrow at 10. And I'll see you all on an all Senate caucus in a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you.