 Good morning and welcome to the House Environment Energy Committee this morning we're going to continue our walkthrough of age 87 with our legislative council Ellen check out. Good morning Ellen check house the office of legislative council. So yesterday we left off on page. 48 of draft 4.1. Which is dated February 20. So the there's a new section on page 48 of that's proposed by the planners. And it's highlighted in yellow I have. I and it doesn't have a section number because I was trying to figure out if this was the place in the bill it should go or the bill needs to be rearranged slightly but so sorry but. So on page 48. This is adding some additional language regarding the designation process. For tears one B and tears and three. So on. So separating those out from the other separating one be out from one a. So on page 48. Regional plan land use map review designation of tier one B and three. The board shall review requests from regional planning commissions to approve approve with conditions or disprove portions of future land use maps. For the purposes of changing jurisdictional thresholds under this chapter. The board may produce guidelines for regional planning commissions to seek to obtain these designations. If requested by the regional planning commission. The board shall complete through this review concurrently. With regional plan approval. So I do just want to flag for discussion. They proposed adding this the phrase approved with conditions versus approve versus disagree. So I think you'll just want to check that. How do you want the approval process to play out. Because I think in the prior version what you had is that if there was. An issue with the regional plan that they then had 18 months to fix it and then come back to the board for approval. And so this would be approved with conditions. So I think you have some options here on if you. You know enforcement on regional plans doesn't really exist right now and so. How do you want that to play out if there's an issue with the regional plan. What you want the board's options to be in regards to. Representative Pat. I think I understand the arguments of this but but if it's approved with conditions. There would need to be a process for. There would need to be a process for. Checking that the conditions were being met and that doesn't that doesn't exist now. So there is. So. Well, so it doesn't exist now. No, but you could what you could do is make. I think. You have a check in cycle or there's. A for a four year check in with three with them needing to re certify their plan every eight years. So. I think that's the only mechanism right now, but then yeah, it is a little bit vague on how you want the ERB to sort of be like monitoring enforcement. Right. So the way that we have, I think, first in that this language. Well, could happen to the original, you know, the board will approve it. Or board would send it back saying. Do you're lacking in a B. C. Get that ready and bring it back to us. There's no. You say up to eight, it's up to 18 months to do that, but they also could do it every day. It's right. They. So. Having this thing with conditions complicate and adds this new wrinkle of having to then. Make sure there was followed through and it's wondering whether it's really necessary. Or whether, whether we, whether that process of just sending it back saying, you're almost there just do this and we'll be. Bring it back to us. What's the difference between that and conditions? I mean, first one's approved. It's approved. It's approved with these. Yeah. As long as you do this. Yeah. Oh, I see. Yeah. Well, it's an interesting, I think, I don't think it's a huge difference, but it's an interesting thing because it's not like you're issuing permit or just approving with the regional plan is already done. So adding conditions to that, it's just. I hadn't thought about it that way. It's very cool. My nurse in the room want to check to that. Yeah, Chris. The department housing community development. I think this was based on a competition we've had with Charlie Baker. The downtown board right now has procedures and process where it can approve with conditionally remove the designation, you know, there's, and I think that was the intent of hearing that. Process in this language, and I don't think it quite adds a big amount of detail that the downtown board has in their traditional approval process. The intent was to, you know, sometimes you're very close to do a few more things and why hold it up. And our board right now, if they're unhappy, they can just pull with designation and say, we're not happy with you and not better conditions. And so maybe looking at that language, maybe help me. I think you need for the record. So I'm Kennedy. I'm with mom spent a regional planning commission and I'm sitting in for Charlie today and he apologizes. He has, you know, the meeting. I think I agree with representative bond guards. It probably is cleaner. If they have review and then through the review have conditions to have it approved. Otherwise, I think you're going to have to set up criteria for what can. So, where does it become approved with conditions either be disapproved. And I think that margin gets murky. So I think the cleaner you can make it the better. That would be my, my suggestion. And I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with Charlie on this or other, but they would just make it clean. And that's what we do with town. We do not do conditional proof. To town. So if we want to be consistent in this process. And because we have a checklist when we do it, well, I'm going to use a town plan and then in the checklist, you'll say, you need to work on X Y and C or purple. Okay. Let's try. Representative civilian. And I'm sure we're in planned growth area designation. Yep. So, I have a question. Around the critical resource area definition. And I spent some time here late last night trying to figure out if these are already. This is not my world. All of those items that are in the critical resource area definition items that we already have recorders are mapped. What are mapped slopes to a certain degree or map, but we've taken some testimony that they need more detail. So shallow to bedrock Westfield maps slopes greater than 20% and shallow soils, shallow to bedrock so we can find out where they got their data but yes, it's somewhere in the soils perhaps. Primax soils, taking testimony that's available but can be variable. It's in its efficacy. So I would characterize it. And I actually, I have a larger proposal related to three that I can bring up now, which is that there has been a lot of controversy around the tier three idea, and but actually not when you separate tier three from a jurisdictional trigger. You obviously tends to kind of move away and the ecologists come to something not too far from this. We've got some written testimony and verbal testimony about what a critical resource might be from center for your studies from Eric sorenson from. So I've been thinking a lot about it and I've been thinking about some of the town testimony we took and how towns are implementing. It's not just our act 171 of a number of years ago around force blocks and habitat connectors but additionally, again I dug deep into what Westfield that deep but I've dug into and wanted to dig deeper into what Westfield brought us. And they have essentially done this. And used to process so what I would like us to consider is using tier three to inform the future land use mapping process. And how do our towns do better mapping in that planning process and potentially then ask agency of natural resources to come back to us with what is a tier three resource and how would it best be integrated into active 50 either through a jurisdictional trigger or through permitting or some other way of protecting a critical resource that should be a jurisdictional trigger. So subset of the so that sounds like a great idea on the face of it. Did you mention if connecting habitat was something that was already mapped. I think that as we've heard is is a to in my mind a subset of a larger piece of Vermont conservation design. And we would need to put a clear definition on what we mean by that if we are to head down this path. And or could be part of what brings back to us but at different levels of again I would say different levels of detail. So thank you Madam chair that's really helpful I'm trying to make sure that I can help my constituents understand what we're contemplating and how to direct them to look at maps that might exist. And just kind of understand the greater ecology here another flag that I like to plant on this paragraph and the definition of critical resource area I'm aware that there's a river corridor and wetlands bill that is moving. And so I am interested in our discussion about how those that bill and this bill which will cross in the night. You know just how we will kind of rectify those potential issues so just. Yes I've been thinking about that too and how river corridors actually are are included in active 50 review. And so I would imagine that having of us the permit process will be kind of integrated into refining that active 50 review in the way that wetlands permitting also refines the review of what so. And I'm not saying we're not doing we need to do what we need to follow that ball through the process of the ships passing in the night. But I think I see that it's kind of already happening we just have to make sure that it lines up the way we wanted to. When we get that bill and I expect the Senate will just say that we'll have to work it out. Representative students. I may just need your proposal for how to look at how does that differ from what is. Currently proposed currently in here at tier three would be automatic activity jurisdiction. So separating the ecological and the planning part of that from the jurisdictional part of that until we get more clarity around it. And it's going to I will say I would also like to talk about tier two when we get to there and how it relates and then other thoughts on tier one timing and what's in there. In terms of tiers if I might just summarize like so in this bill we have a tier one a that is defined. As our legislative council has reminded us based on the 10 criteria back to 50 in a in a previous conversation around enhanced designation that would have included. Center for local exemption from act 250 but it would demonstrate that the town was committed to those criteria in that on their own in implementing that. And then the tier, the tier three was intended to be those resources of statewide significance that the state should be responsible for making sure are protected throughout any land use review. So that's one of the things that that mattered all of us and I guess my mind's been moving towards water being the unifying feature of that but you know we've we've taken some testimony that there's this need for some more conversations there. And in the meantime, the regional planning commissions have come in and said we were happy to help map critical resources, tell us what they are. And I think ecologically we might know what they are, but politically or we need to have that conversation still. So, I would like the in order to support our towns in doing great planning, part of that is getting them access to the existing data for mapping all of the resources in their town so including ecological resources. So we help them with mapping their parcels and their roads and their everything else. And just ramping up how we can support them in mapping the features of the landscape that are important but letting them plan for how they are going to integrate them into their local planning process. Can I ask a follow up? Yes. So, if tier three were to be sort of a, you know, not have a jurisdictional trigger for now until we have, you know, that process and the mapping conversation. What does that mean for those with that mean that the current process in terms of active 50 would remain. For, I guess I'm trying to figure out so. If someone wanted to build something. In a potential tier or in a, in a non tier 1 and a non tier 2 area. Does that mean it would just continue with the current. I'm trying to figure it would have 2 tiers functionally and creating the force block and habitat connector criteria if they were under active 50 jurisdiction. Would include that review it. So, presumably that's a way of getting to ecological function. And then, yeah, we need to talk about what is in tier 2 right now in our bill. It is. Related to a change in subdivision. Of the current standards and so I think in light of sort of saying, well, we're not quite ready to do. Tier 3, how are we protecting or managing those resources in the larger part of the state. And I, you know, I want to have that conversation. And the road road should work on the road. Yeah. Would be a tier 2. Representative that Smith. So. If we were to add new criteria and. We were to bring over what's being contemplated in the river corridors on wetlands belt. And we were to add the road rule as all jurisdictional triggers. What would be missing from what is contemplated here. And the definition of tier 3 in terms of a jurisdictional trigger. So what wouldn't we have as a jurisdictional trigger. That is right now under critical resource area. So I'm not sure I'm not sure if we're actually. If we would be not doing tier 3 in name or in practice here. I'm not. If we're doing the same thing. By putting in place the criteria and. River corridors funds. If that's there a lot would be. It would be a lot of very much similar to the jurisdiction we have today. The vast majority of the state, depending on if we make changes to it, which I will also propose. To the definition that we have in 50, which I think I've just heard you say, which is tier proposed to your 3. That we would have actually a process for that. Have that be mapped. Is one thing. Which I, that sounds better to me. But if we were to add these criteria. These new criteria. What's the difference. Well, if we don't change a current jurisdictional trigger, then it would be kind of a status quo. For obviously the review of impacts. So adding a criteria, but not changing the trigger. We are contemplating a road rule. And we are contemplating changing the kind of density trigger for active 50. So the differences in trigger versus criteria. Yeah. Okay. Interesting. So that would be. Just helpful. Have that kind of mapped. Thank you. I don't know who to ask this question to anybody, but. I talked a little bit about the other day about. The possibility of someone owning a piece of land. For the brook that's damned up with by beaver population. If the dam raises itself 3 feet and takes away the property owners land. Does that land become wet land and he can't. Put it back for what it was where he was going to build a camp or something along that line. So, there's a lot of beaver population is increasing wetlands constantly. Yep. From our current reality, they are being increased. I would say the answer that you heard from. The witness, I think I agree with, which is. It's likely a wetland today. Because the beaver is damning it. And there is a definite functional definition of what a wetland is. And then I don't want to try to quote off the top of my head right now. But that's like redefined wetlands based on function in the state of Vermont. And that would be a question for our lens. Ecologist. So, isn't, don't you think that that's something that. Property owners should know. Prior to this. Being approved. I don't think this affects them. I mean, it doesn't change their situation, but that's probably a wet spot. And they probably don't want to build on it. I can give you an example. And I think I should. There's a beaver pond. All half a mile from my camp. And it's. Pretty well filled right now. There's a slope of fur. That is not Cedar or all those or anything like that. But if that beaver dam was increased or was built another 2 feet. It would impact the fur. Where someone could potentially build a camp if they wanted to. Is act 250 going to get involved if they want to. Cut that beaver dam down to where it was. And cut a spot where these first tree was standing to build a camp. Are they going to have to jump through hoops? Does anybody follow me on this? Yeah, I mean, I would say not no, but I also would wonder if someone wants to build anything that close to something that potentially could let again, plenty of property owners need to manage beavers around their houses now. Yeah, it's not changing that this is not changing. Okay. Thank you. Representative. Thank you. I guess my. I'm trying to just clarify following up on the questions that people have been asking. If we. Basically sounds like what you're suggesting is that we put in a framework for tier 3. And that. The jurisdiction no trigger wouldn't be implemented until the mapping processes is done. And so then if we. Is that right? Exactly. I mean, I think the mapping process. Would be underway and then integrated into our. Our local and regional planning processes. And then that's sort of. The definitions. Of what are the critical resources that would be an active future would be simultaneously be worked on. Separately. So would we just to weigh. That definition coming into effect until that's done, or would it become a criteria. Now just waiting to be filled in or. No, we'd be, we'd get a, like a rapport back on what. A critical resource of jurisdictional threshold would be. So in a way we. All we'd be doing is asking for that. And we'd come back and try to figure out how to integrate it into statute. Right. Right. In other words, we don't. About what critical resource means to be able to enact. So I think we know enough about what a critical resource means, but we are having a hard time with. How it gets translated into a jurisdictional trigger. I would, I would say that's like. That's where we're at. So I think that's where we're at. Just to add to this conversation and things to think about what tier three, something that I will be looking for is really a robust public education. Each one process around this. This is. Likely not an insignificant amount of the land mass in Vermont. And I think it's really important that we make sure that we bring that to the public. And I think it's really important that we make sure that we bring that to the public. And I think that's one of the issues in why we are doing this. How we are doing this. When we are doing this. If we actually want to do this, I think failure to do that. Probably. It's going to be difficult to get anything fast. Yeah. I mean, we heard from the planners about how they do their outreach, how they work with the plan. And I think that what we can do best to support our towns. In doing their work so that they can do good outreach. Yeah, I would disagree that that is adequate. I think we'll be asking for us to have a more significant. Public engagement process as part of. Whatever it is. All right. I would like to continue our conversation here. All right. So back to. We're going back to. Yeah. Yeah. Hello. Okay. So I was reading from. Page 40 into page 49, which is on the regional. Plan map review by the board for. Two years one BN three. So. Another question. Representative Morris. Thank you, Madam chair. So I know we have this. Folded closet here approved with conditions. And the other day, Tuesday, I believe it was. We heard from some towns that. Perhaps. Don't necessarily agree with the regional planning commission. Oh, there's. There's some gaps there perhaps in the. What the plans are trying to identify. And this here. Is the board. Perhaps. Having issues with regional plans. So is that what this. Is intended to do is that we could approve the plan. But there's these conditions that you haven't been met. And that would translate the same with the RPCs to the towns that. And I know we have a process for working out the plans. But you don't want to hold up like a whole. Plan regional plan or a town plan if. There's just a couple of minor. Adjustments. I mean, I would anticipate that. The board and will be in touch the RPCs and the board will have. Communications about. Like it's not going to be. All of a sudden we're bringing this plan and surprise to the board. What's in the plan or vice versa. And I guess I would say. We don't think you can both have accountability. And then not expect some disagreements. So I think that's part of. Holding government account. So I think we had a tool checking out that. Conditional piece of it. Yeah. If we did, what would be, would it be a process for approval or. Yeah, I think what would happen is that the. Or number one, I think it's unlikely regional commission is going to submit something. It's not going to get approved. Because I think they're not going to want to send it in and have it disapprove. That doesn't look good. So I think it. If the process gains clarity over a little bit of time. It's not going to get approved. It's not going to get approved. But the time something goes in, it is very likely to approve. But. It's. The way it would work without this is that they would send it back. Saying. In fact, I'm making this up, but no, you're 95% of the way there. Just to A and B and resubmit. And that could happen. Relatively quickly. But I think what, what this gets us away from. It's the board having to have to. Come in at more of an enforcement. Make sure that then they actually do that. The things that they said they have to do because getting it once you get the stamp of approval. So a little bit different than. Getting it all right then getting the stamp. But I don't think it's, I don't think it would slow things down by. All right, I don't think my intent was it would slow it down. It's just. Yeah. I know. I know. Yeah. So. I would suggest we get a roof with conditions. So. Noting that there was a suggestion there. I was going to ask about. I'll represent it behind us. Comment that we were heading towards changing us. I just want to make sure that I understand the process for. The next rounds of edits. I just want to make sure that there's a question about whether or not there's. Consensus on this or is represented. Changing. My sense was to get consensus. Will we be going with your sense? Or will we be having confirmation from the committee? Do you disagree with, do you want to leave it in? I guess I would just like to know what the committee senses. And I hope that as we're moving forward on this bill, which we would like to see passed that. We're being really clear about what the committee changes are. And I just want to make sure that members have further comments on whether we have approved with conditions and online 17. I thought I understood where the conversation was going with regards to what approved with conditions means, which means if a plan is 95% of the way there, but a few more things need to be tweaked. Then it could be approved. Assuming that those conditions are met. So with that language, I think that's a reasonable process. So I guess I'm, I'm not quite now, assuming that I understood that correctly. I'm not quite now understanding why you're suggesting to strike it. Cause that kind of made sense to me. So. Can you explain to me, you're thinking some more. By the way, this is not a huge deal. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It is really not. I will, and I will caution like that we're spending a lot of time on things that are really minor and that we should be focused on the larger aspects of this bill. But we can finish this conversation, but I do really hope that we can. Again. I really, in the end, it's not a big deal, but I just think it would be to pick up on talks. Finders would just be cleaner. But because if you, because you're putting the stamp of approval on it and saying, but you also have to do A, B, and C. And for some reason they then have a hard time getting to A, B, and C. You've kind of created a little bit of a mess. Cause it's approved, but it's really not approved. And it's cleaner. Just to say, just to send it back saying you're almost there. Just do these and send it back to us and we'll approve it. And so by the time you get, when you get the stamp, it's done. I guess, I guess the distinction is a condition requires the board to follow up on it and we're asking the board to do a lot. Okay. I thought I was hearing the folks who do this every day, say that the language as it's currently drafted reflects sort of what they do currently, but with less specific. That was a different process. That was Chris's downtown, which has nothing to do with this. Yeah. Representative Smith in that book. What I see here is where it says approval conditions. It's an approval, but you're looking at it through some clouds. So that, that could cost somebody a lot of money up to that point. And when he gets his approval, well, maybe I can't get this part of it done. So I don't like approval with conditions. I think, I think I don't like it. I'm going to say Tom Kennedy and then Chris. Oh, should put to find a point on that. We're creating somewhat of a mess saying we can approve regional plans with conditions and we can't approve town plans with conditions. And the towns are not going to like that. And it's like, it's a way these things work is there's lots of communication during the process. You're usually not surprised when you submit your plan because you have been communicating with the people beforehand. And I would imagine in this process that you're defining now, there was going to be an administrative person. It's going to be reading through these things and they're going to talk about weaknesses in your plans. But I see no reason for approval with conditions. Because you're going to then have to, like I said, you're going to start getting into marginal issues. And it's going to create a mess. But we're used to it. We're used to yes and no. Representative. No. Sorry, Chris Cochran. Did you have more to add? I would. I would just know what Tom's saying. I mean, while I added that my board is allowed to do these conditional peoples from a practical standpoint, it's a pin in the butt. Because you have to continue to monitor it. You have to continue to enforce. And at that. That's the reason this sort of flagged when I asked my question earlier was, was that. It's really, it doesn't say, I mean, some assumption that there is communication and that it might be a minor condition. It doesn't say that. It could be a huge. A significant condition. And there's no way of. Once it's approved with conditions, as I understand it, there is no process for then checking whether the condition was met. And then what happens if it wasn't so. I just think it's a process issue that is cloudy. So. If I may thank you chair for letting me take four minutes to understand this. And I am fine if we strike it. Does anyone object to striking it? Through with conditions online, 17. I see new objections like to move on. Representative Sebelia. For moving on. Okay. I'm on page 49. I didn't read 49. Yeah. Okay. And let me just wait for you. Yeah, I'm on line three on page 49. Well, I'm also on. Line two. Okay. One and two. And so if requested by the regional planning commission, the board shall complete this review concurrently with the regional plan approval. So again, I'm not sure if this is the right time to go through this process. You help me understand when else this would happen. So. We're basically saying these can happen concurrently or not. Right. So I. Wanted to sort of take a step back and do big pictures. So what's already in this bill, which is on the next page is that you have been previously talking about approval of a planned growth area. So like. One tier one a. And I do think last week you were discussing whether or. If there should, if these things should happen at different times, because this section is about one B. And three, but depending on where you make a decision. So should this all happen at the same time? Potentially. But this is separate. I think this is separating out for clarity that there are two different standards. So you could consider having this all in the same statute. If you want it was previously, but it's been pulled out to add some additional language here. So. Part of that is a style choice, I think. Is there an advantage or disadvantage? Does it add clarity or complication? You know, when doing it together or separately? I don't know the answer to that yet. Tier one a will have more is a full exemption. Tier one B is going to lead to an exemption for a specific number of housing units under act 250. And so somebody else in the room might know more about if there's an exit, an advantage. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't fully digested that yet. I think we need to get through some of the rest of the language to understand how it's all going to fit together. Yeah. All right. So on page 49 line 3. So the board shall review the portions of the future land use map that include downtowns or village centers. Planned growth areas and village areas to ensure that they meet the requirements under 24 vsa 5804 and 5805. For designation as downtown and village centers and neighborhood areas. These portions of the future land use map shall be referred to as tier one B for the purpose of jurisdiction under this chapter. So I didn't I bolded that. I'm I'm still we're making the plane as we fly here a little bit. So I wanted to check if that was your intent. I think this is combining some of the pieces that are at the end of the bill about the new designations. I mean, I don't. We're we're contemplating that towns need to actually be proactive in wanting to be a tier one V. Not that it's automatic. So I don't think we want to conflate them. I don't think we want to conflate them. I don't think we want to conflate them. So just to be clear, it's the town. If the town says yes, then it's automatic. So they've met the. But they have what you want to do on doubt basically don't want we the last language we looked at was town had to. Seek it. Right. And so this is the language that was proposed by the planners at all. And this is pulling out that. And then three. It would be coming from the regional plan application, not necessarily the municipal plan application. Very. Go ahead. The theory being that we didn't want to have the board have to look at every one V application. Because of the, because really it's pretty simple. Plan zoning ordinance. Water. Or sewer or appropriate soils. And. And if they meet those in the town, the town would. The regional map would show that they meet them. But, but what we do want to have, if I understood, it was a requirement. Town say, yes, we want to be just as a one being. Yeah, at the very least. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's what I think we're trying to. Maybe trying to get to. Simple, but town has to just do the check. Yes. I want to be. We want to be. Okay. So then let's. Review with the. In this section. So to obtain a tier one B. Base growth area designation and this phrase base growth area has been added. Under the section, a regional planning commission shall demonstrate to the board that the municipalities with a tier. One B area. With tier one B areas meet the following. Requirements. That is included in. 24 BSA 43 48. A 12 C. The municipality has an adopt duly adopted an approved plan and a planning process that is confirmed. In accordance with 43 50. The municipality has adopted permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. Unless the municipality has adopted flood hazard and river corridor bylaws applicable to the entire municipality that are consistent with the standards established in. 10 BSA 755 B. Which is flood hazard area and then 14 28 B, which is river corridor. The area excludes identified flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas except those areas containing onto page 50. Pre existing development in areas suitable for infill development as defined in the flood hazard. And then we'll move on to the next slide. The board shall review the portion of future land use maps that include. Rural conservation areas to ensure they meet the definition of critical resource areas. In section six hasn't. And one of this title. These portions of the future land use maps shall be referred to as tier. Yes. So the regional plan. Matt will go to the board. And then we'll move on to the next slide. And then we'll move on to the next slide. And then we'll move on to the section B reviewing tier one B. And tier three. So tier one B needs to have. It needs to be identified on the map as part of. The. Downtown village center. Land growth area and village area. And then they also need to be. Have an approved plan. Permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. So they'll circle to a Boron River corridor bylaws or exclude those areas. From their tier one B. And then also the regional map shall have mapped. Rural cons, real conservation, and that shall be there, designated as their tier three areas. I'm. I guess I'm a little confused by the. If you have a river quarter flood hazard report or bylaw or you're avoiding it, I get, I get those 2, but the 3rd 1, except those areas containing. Existing development in areas suitable for infill. How would you know that if hadn't done your river corridor planning work and. It says, is it a rule? What is, what is that referring? Well, so this is what's currently in for the NDAs, I believe. And so, if. If the. Well, I don't, I don't know how to answer the question you just asked, but if the town doesn't have bylaws, they are covered by the state. And that identifies areas suitable for infill development. They're covered by it or purposes of active 50. Now, when does it come up? When would the state be involved in river corridor review that. Under a rule that doesn't have any other state jurisdiction triggered. Did I look for help on this question? So, I mean, is this your language? It's not our language, but it's based on like for the NDA program that if a community had. You know, flood protection consistent with. And ours bylaws process to get the files approved infill was allowed. And this is currently allowed in their, their river rules. They allow infill so long as it doesn't create. It works for anybody else. So, I think we've had these conversations several years ago. And I may be wrong, but I believe there is state jurisdiction in river quarters only for a very, very small subset of play. Um, you know, municipal projects very, very narrow list of. Of things that do be captured in the state is, but this, this has sort of 2 different things. And yeah, I get the. The bylaw part of it, which is what you just said, but then it has this, this sort of thing, except. Those areas taining existing development in areas suitable for infill development. As defined, and so we need to read. 200 dash 201, the flood hazard area on river quarter. Is it a rule reference or a statutory reference? So, rule, why is it and so suitable for infill development is defined in that rule. Is that what we passed? Yeah, 2, 3, 4, or 7, 2 years ago, 37 cents, right? But yeah, it was a couple of years ago. I wonder if we allow infill development. In flood hazard areas, as long as it did not. Make it worse for somebody else, I don't remember it. I mean, you may want to reconsider this is something you want to do. Thank you so what we're saying here is that you can include areas that are. Suitable for infill development and your tier 1 B. Yeah, basically, and I guess I've been listening, but I need to clarify exactly how. Those areas that are suitable for infill development are. Authorized who authorizes if it's not part of the current plan. So, we need more information on that rule, I guess. Chris, right? Rob from reverse program is probably the person I talked to, but I an example. It helps the committee Chris Cochran from the partner housing community development in Montpelier has a large flood hazard. It was flooded recently. It's a managed channel. It's the river corridor. It is a, you know, an armored channel, although there were areas will be flooded there. But I think if you look at the transit center, it was designed to be high standard. So it was flooded. There was really minimal effect to the building that we clean it up. So it's allowing safe infill in these areas where where we have the infrastructure can be built. That's the attack. Who allows so the so and I would have to review the communities bylaws make sure they meet their standards. Ensuring the buildings are built to a flood safe standard to allow that to happen. And today I would add that nobody can know community is. As you use this option, but it's an option I think given the infrastructure we have in place in these locations and there are ways to build resilient. It does not back down street properties. Yeah, this conversation is bringing me to a couple of the broader needs that I have on my list. Including kind of just an overall process map for what's happening here in the bill. Process map for development of each of the tiers that we're proposing. And then a process map for a town or regional plans, which. Yeah, as we're going through this, it's sounding like we're adding up a lot more complexity, a lot more entities. So there's that and they're also the language here and see. It sounded talking to me just getting together and I don't know if it's. Unless the municipality has adopted flood river, but hazard or river bylaws applicable to the end of that are consistent with the standards established. Pursuant to this title unless the municipality has adopted the area excludes. So these are exceptions. The area excludes. Like, except those areas, it feels. Right language, does it all get clarified if we do a quarter permitting process? I don't know. And then I had a question. Well, I'm going to actually just pause for a second and say, then I would like for you to follow up with Michael O'Grady and sort of talk that through figure out the answer to the question. How it really, if he's the one doing that bill, I am in contact with Mike. This bill is evolving every day. And so is that bill. So I'm in contact with the same. We have a question right now on the draft. We're looking at and I'm asking you to follow up on it. That's okay. Uh, it's my special, uh, D. What's that? Yes. Uh, in D, I have a question just around rural conservation around rural conservation areas. In critical resource areas, so just thinking about language and regular promoters ability to follow along. So what is the difference between those 2 things is proposed in this bill between what? Rural conservation areas and critical resource areas in this bill later in this bill, they are defined to be the same thing. So, why, what is the advantage of referencing so later in the bill where you establish the sections of category, there's a establishing a categories that should be used on the future land use maps. So, 1 of the categories that has been identified by the planners is rural conservation, whether or not that's what you want to call it that is up to you as policymakers, but they have identified as that is what they would map as tier 3. This is from the proposal. Yeah, or Vapda, not, so this is just saying that the review, there is the review process for design, designating tier 3, the board would review a critical. Resource area definition and see if it lines up with how they have mapped rural conservation areas. And that's all that's included here as the designation requirement. So, I guess that's to make sure that it meets deaf deaf. I'm just wondering. I'm not just wondering, I am not clear why this is necessary if they mean the same thing. Because it's 2 different programs. Okay, help me there. All right, so we had these big report, these 3 reports that came out. So, this is trying to get the N. R. B. report to talk to the planners report. The planners are trying to streamline their maps to have all the same language and then use those maps to be a part of the tier system under active 50. Thank you. That's really helpful. And also, as a hand gesture, I just want to. Express my gratitude for that. Well, I'm not, I'm not a graphics or map person. So that's probably the best you're going to get out of me. Okay, doesn't, wouldn't, doesn't this section need to have doesn't say anything about having sewer or sewer. I think we have that elsewhere. Or is that okay? I mean, you can add it. This is what the planner, the group. Yeah, we, we've landed on water or sewer. Water or sewer or appropriate sports or adequate soils. So, yes, requiring water. Yeah, yeah, water or sewer or appropriate. We're taking test podium both and so I'm not a wastewater person. Oh, it makes the determination that soils are appropriate for wastewater. And what does that mean? Appropriate soils. Does that mean they have to have a community septic designed? What are we? What are we really saying there so that I mean, or testing them? Beyond that's why I think we say they need to have water or sewer than they've done that they would be demonstrating that they've done it. Instead of saying soils, which we've taken a lot of tests, the ability of soils. It's to other areas of interest. So, all of a sudden, we're going to say the soils map looks great and they can go. Just another flag here for my kind of overarching questions. So, if we were to pass this historic legislation thinking about the timeline and thinking about how many towns we want to be certified. I'm not sure that we have taken testimony on kind of the time frames that are happening right now in terms of from in our terms of permitting our. Um, municipal systems, um, how long that is taking. I think that would be really important for us to understand. Representing small towns that have been trying to go through that process and engineers that are trying. Help communities get through that. My understanding is there's a pretty significant backlog. So. I want to make sure that we understand that considering. The hopes and dreams of so many tier 1, a tier 1, b that we understand how long my tape to qualify to get in there. If you don't have water. Sure, and I don't think we've taken testimony on timelines for. What's happening? Um, we're not, we haven't taken testimony. Anyway, I think we want to include water or sewer. In this list, extra representative civilian. Yeah, I. I do not I would like to know more about water and sewer. 1st and like the timeline and the appropriateness. So, maybe I'll throw it. Water and sewer. Okay, that's the. Uh, this is backtracking a little bit, which may not be. Yeah, maybe we find it for later, but I've never really loved the idea that it's okay to do infill in a like. River floodplain area, so my question is, do we know if any projects that have been built enough, they've flooded since. We passed that law a couple years ago, like, do we have any data that we could look to? But Mr. Cochran just said that no one's used it. I was asking our ledge council to bring back more information on it and understand how it's related to legislation that we're going to hopefully keep moving on this session. So, I feel like we're going to get more clarification on that. I hope we're going to get more clarification on that does anyone else object to, including water and sewer water or sewer as a base requirement for tier 1, be mentioned in the region of then work section. As being necessary, yes, for the destination. So it seems like we're. Double stating things and we need to thank you for that. We'll keep track of that as hopefully keep moving through the bill. Yeah, there's a whole list of things in the regional planning section that seems like it should be in. Here potentially, yeah, we thought, we thought we were fixing some of that in this latest draft. Yeah, you got to get through it to see, right? Absolutely. And I'm sorry, just hearing your concern about getting through the bill, not to be asking questions this morning. We can ask questions. I mean, we're, we're spending a lot of time on things that have been talking about all time in some instances and are really quite small in others. So I'm cautioning us to. Keep moving at like sorry, so we're going to get like I'm here all night actually working on this. Bill reading up on a statue. So I'd be happy to work with folks in the evening of my chair. Representative so the water and sewer piece. I. I am I'm a little worried that we've heard. A desire to make it more doable for towns to be 1 b. And so that to me would make me think that we should keep water, sewer, and soil. On the other hand, we've also heard quite a bit about how many issues we've had with soil and with waste management. So, I don't know where I am on that right now. Right, so we're suggesting putting it here in large part. Because represented Logan pointed out there may be things that need to be here that are not and things that are in other places that need to be here. It's another draft we're trying it on and I would suggest that I think 94 towns or something have. So, treatment plants so. So, a lot of towns. Thank you. Isn't so like, what's the purpose of having water or sewer? It's essentially to be able to handle the additional capacity of building. Up to X number of housing units. Can we just say sufficient. Some like wastewater management resources or something like that. I think that's the point of saying water or sewer is giving some flexibility for a village that only has a water system to find a place to dispose of the sewer or a village that only has a treatment facility to dig a well. I think we're providing that by saying water or sewer and I think. Yeah, representative Tory, I'm okay with water or sewer. Because it is complicated when you get into the soil thing, it's not just soils that can be the rate when they accept. It's also. What if the will somebody willing if the only private land is the only option. They don't want to do it. But I do, I wouldn't want towns that are aspirational about 1B to not get resources because, you know, so this goes back to the designation. Piece like would they still have because right now I know a lot of towns are getting help doing this while it's a saying. And I wouldn't want them to use that because by not being 1B they. When the sort of the end, the steps through the through the designation and a CCD process are those supports to help communities who would like to do more. So, just because some of these designations are new in this bill. So just walk me through. So it would be a village center. Might still have access to those resources because there it doesn't need to build something. Or if they were to create a NDA, they might have access to resources to do that. So, we walk through that list of steps. 1, 2, 3 kind of different that are part of the CCD process. We're going to get to that in the bill. Yeah, that's my only flag. This is honestly a CCD piece is still going to help towns ladder up. And what are so what are orders? Yes, it represents feeling just really understanding the timeframe from, you know. Start to finish for town to qualify for this is 1 concern that I have and a 2nd concern that I have. I have a community that has been wrestling with this issue and that has gone with kind of a commercial sewer, a large scale tank for there. So I don't know if that would qualify or not for their village. So wanting some more detail on what that what that means or understanding where I could learn about what saying they have to have sewer or water means what is sewer defined as. This water. Right, let's take a big till quarter past the hour. Right, we're going to reconvene our meeting and continue walking through age 687 draft 4.1. Right, so on page 50 into page 51. So this is the language that we previously have reviewed on the planned growth area designation, which is tier one a and so there are a couple of small changes here to reflect that tier one be was given its own statute in the prior section. So what like online 13 it just has been changed so that it's for the area as opposed to the areas or something equivalent to that strikes the reference online 16 to tier one be and then there's new language on page 51 in the requirements for what a municipality has to demonstrate to get the tier one a designation. So it's adding language and that's part of subsection C. So the municipality has to have flood hazard and river corridor bylaws applicable to the entire municipality that are consistent with the the standards established in 755 B and 1428 B of this title or the proposed planned growth area the proposed plan growth area excludes the flood hazard areas and river corridor. So that's a slightly simpler language but similar to what's on the prior sections. On page 52. Why 24 USA online 17 of 51 is highlighted. Yeah, so and that's similar to what's on the next page. I'm going to have it folded. I have to line up all the cross references when you finish this bill. And so depending depending on what you decide that section might be repealed. So that's in the existing chapter 76 a but the language for smart growth principles is added to the new chapter 159. So if you go with that structure I'll need to fix that cross reference and the same for the on the next there's actually at least one more on this page to and on the next page the cross references will need to be updated. So that that was for me to sort of keep track of two but also the other thing we I could do is try rewriting. Well, I need to think through how you're going to do the designated area hand off sort of. Yeah, that makes sense. And then so on page 52. I'm not sure the smart growth principles are in chapter 117 I think they're actually in chapter once chapter 76 a so I was going to check that cross reference. And then again 2792 D would be repealed so it up to cross check that cross reference. But then there's new language on page 52 regarding the wildlife bylaws. And so this is these are again the requirements for what a town has to have to have the cheer when a designation. And so this is adding online 11 wildlife habitat planning bylaws for the planned growth area that protect significant natural communities rare threatened and endangered species and river corridors or exclude these areas from the proposed planned growth area. And so this is adding a little or I think specificity to what would be included in the wildlife. Bylaws. There's how many questions presented bomber in the previous draft there was language to the effect that fish and wildlife would develop the model bylaws are not worked but wouldn't that with that I guess the question is would that still be helpful if to communities because otherwise how do we really who's going to determine whether they've that this and I guess the board but yeah so actually I was drawn I think that they had answered my own question. At least good. Okay. Hey. Oh yeah. Representative Clifford. Thank you Madam Chair. So maybe this goes along with what you were just said but who designates the the threatened and endangered species who would designate. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has a process for listing species on that list. Okay. Actually the process we heard a lot about yesterday. Okay. So they would have to someone wanted to do this the plan growth area. Okay. So they would be called in by the planning commissions or what triggers that. So they just they would have to have bylaws in the area that protect species. So if any of them occurred there there'd have to be that have to be addressed in the bylaws what would happen. And so what would happen is that the state has jurisdiction over that and has permanent authority already. But I think the intent of this section is to sort of backfill the Act 250 criteria that requires projects to make sure they're not negatively impacting these species either. Okay. For now I guess. Is that are you good? Yeah for now. And so then also on page 52 the requirement I I'll read you this to I'll let me just read through this and I'll discuss permit the town needs to have permitted water and wastewater systems with the capacity to support additional development within the planned growth area. The municipality shall have adopted consistent policies by municipal plan and ordinance on the allocation connection and extension of water and wastewater lines that include a defined and mapped service area to support the planned growth area. So the planners requested having these mapped and I think this has come up actually in past years that not all of the towns have mapped where there's their lines are and that could be very helpful. So that's being added here. I did want to just mention in addition on the next page so in the prior drafts what you had for 21B has been struck out and it included that language in I as was sort of brought up by representative Logan that it was left out and then also adequate municipal staff was also included in your prior draft. So back to what you were talking about earlier and I don't think you had fully made decisions on if that was the complete list but the on page 53 on number two the yellow highlighting. That's not in surface. Right so I just wanted to propose so there's a couple of there's some things happening here so the NRB report had a sort of outline of what Tier 1B would include but then you have been working on your planned growth area designation and we're working on the list of criteria for Tier 1B and so I do think that the NRB report had mentioned the water sewer soils discussion that you just had but I think and you were asking what's the what else is missing so I think the only thing that you had previously discussed for Tier 1B was the municipal staff component. So if you're looking at page 53 you're the draft previously had that the the municipality had to demonstrate A, E, I, J, and K so A is the plan the town approved town plan and E is the permanent zoning subdivision bylaws I was that language I just read you about permitted water and sewer with the mapped lines J is adequate municipal staff to support their zoning administration and then K is approval of the regional plan so that's what you had been contemplating I wasn't sure if you had you know made that your definitive list but because this draft is reflecting the proposal from the planners and others I left this in here but struck to show you that this is what you had previously. I think those are basic things that we want to have on require I'm curious if the planners have up see I know I don't know how directly involved again in this Tom but if you know the thinking behind this that would be helpful behind J or with behind striking the requirements for 1B they're moved to that section we were just talking about they were moved right so they were moved to that section but as you just discussed what wasn't carried over was the wastewater water discussion and the staffing and staff I think they're both necessary adequate staffing doesn't mean they have to have a planner it means they need to have someone who can follow through on permits zoning administrator or a lots of small towns have but yeah I hope the adequate staffing can touch on I think that is one so I think that might be one thing at play here is that the prior section is proposing that the regional plan actually be making the proposal for 1B so there might be a question of whether or not the regional planning commission has access to that information better they better know their title they know their title is well enough to know if they what what kind of planning and zoning staffing support they have oh yeah um representative Logan thank you um so for section the new 10 vsa section 6034 here with the designation of tier 1b could we not just use similar language as we're using in section 6033 and refer to section 6033 a e i j and k in section 6034 so referring to 24 vsa 43 48 a a 12c like could we do that instead yeah yeah I can I mean I could have to have this is the proposal yeah it seems like if it's internal it's an internal reference to the prior sections I also could just list the things out yeah listing the things out may get way more accessible the same things better here right just list them out please that's a great suggestion okay um and representative bonger if you don't think of government if you take my verbatim and move it to what the event that's required both student waters we have to make sure that's the question is this I need you need to decide on what it is you want the elements to be in that I can draft it adequate staffing should go back I think water or sewer should go and actually that should be matched too right you would think for 1B it would be so you would use the same language except just say water for super that makes sense that that makes sense yeah yeah I think it makes sense to have that that's pretty easy it's up yeah I'm saying yes should be in modern era it should be yeah and then we're calling tier one be a base growth area now instead of anyway wondering is it uh I hear and map service area just for you um page 49 line nine I'm just wondering if we're gonna move the language from page 52 letter I or what the phrase in the last line would be to support the oh I see base growth area base growth area we can keep trying that on how does that sound yeah sorry that's that was again reference in the planners uh proposal so I think with them we'll base it there at the end well I think yeah they're just I think referencing that that's that's the idea that it could be a step towards a lot of planned growth area right it's to distinguish it from a planned growth area I don't think there's any harm in distinguishing it so let's stick with that okay okay okay follow-up question um so now that we're here um what is this this uh requirements for a tier one be designation um is that is this different in any way from the nrb report this well so as I just said I think the only thing that's they didn't call out specifically was adequate staff okay I think that's the only distinction but I can I I that yeah I thought I had the report but I don't think I do so maybe they're gone yeah yeah yeah I think they've been in the room when we've gone through the list a number of times so I'm you know trusted that they objected they would bring it up let's keep going okay so um so on page 53 still in the requirements for tier 1a we had this conversation sort briefly last week but um line 11 to 12 it came up in the section we were just discussing also how you want there to be an interaction between the designations with tier a 1a and b like so this is referencing in compliance with underlying designate like designation for the designated areas um so I don't know didn't sound like you wanted that to be over to be a requirement but just flagging it if any and the designation program is changing too so this is a little bit different now I'm sure anyway this number three is saying if they're out of compliance with underlying accd designation I think so yeah it's almost that um Chris Cochran do you want to speak to this Chris Cochran I don't think I make a whole lot of sense because the mapping process is going to you know they're going to follow a definition where did this come from I we've had a lot of drafts I can't remember if it does refer to the designation program we should just eliminate that's what it is for the underlying designation yeah um yeah I don't think we need that to be linked there we can take that out does anyone object to taking it out not seeing any so then next go process for issuing determinations on the planned growth area designation a pre-application meeting shall be held with the board staff municipal staff and the staff of the relevant rpc so that's having all three of these groups come together on to page 54 there is a proposal to strike having the rpc establish a procedure for draft applications of the tier 1a application I have a wire I hate to hate to do this but going back to the bottom of 53 it's a meeting show you have the municipality and less than other is this is there a reason this couldn't be done over soon just that's I mean that's a good point preliminary like do you think about this do you think about Chris Cochran this just picks up old language from the nta program so I don't see any issued in modernizing it wouldn't that be another location um and I guess I I mean I do think that the main meeting like let's say in this current era should be in the municipality but there's no reason that someone couldn't zoom into it it's just the main this is the pre-app pre-app meeting is it a public meeting no I don't think so looks like it's a staff meeting that's maybe we could just say at the end or electronically or disagree yeah you could strike the whole sentence or you could say you know it's held in the municipality unless otherwise agreed I I don't I think unless another location yeah I'll resume to me but it doesn't so it's cool okay so what would you like to propose just just more electronically or electronically how are we referring to those meetings these days you know electronically seems odd but I think electronically works I mean I don't I don't um there's a lot of rules lately around yes we're using words for it I'm just not coming not coming to me all right do we know to keep the change up um also uh on page 54 there's also a line 17 proposal to strike 30 days advance notice to the municipality which probably does make sense because the municipality is the one making the application so they know Smith thank you I've seen notices go in papers like this uh say 30 days out people forget all about it when it's time and they wish that they were able to attend the meeting but they forgot about it is this possible to have a 30-day notice and a 15-day notice for meetings anything is because I don't know how many people come into a select board meeting say I forgot all about that because you posted it a long time ago um I think that's a good idea I agree with you okay thank you Madam Chair 30 days and 15 days on page 55 down on line 14 so no defect in the form or substance of any requirements of this subsection C which is this note these notice provisions shall invalidate the action of the board where reasonable efforts have been made to provide adequate posting a notice however the action shall be invalid when the defective posting or notice was materially misleading in content if an action is ruled to be invalid by the Superior Court by the board itself the municipality shall issue new posting a notice and the board shall hold a new hearing and take new action so uh one it's it's getting rid of the the RPC from also issuing the notice because this is about the municipality's application but I did want to flag that we haven't spent much time talking about appeals or what an appeal means here so this isn't specifically about appeals this would be if somebody challenged in court that under this statute that municipality hadn't followed the required procedure for notice so it would go to the Superior Court which could be part of an appeal or it could be part of a separate action I guess but you haven't really talked too much I think about what the appeal process is for these designated areas so I did want to flag that right um thank you for that note I um I kind of want to also go back to page 54 line 17 uh I kind of think the Regional Planning Commission should also have to post that this is happening I don't know that it needs to be 35 days in advance but since they're they're like doing this with our towns right so and their web page may be visited by different people is that a burden um Tom Kennedy like does that make sense to you like it just seems like it's the process that regional planning can be facilitating why wouldn't they post it sometimes it's coordination issues with the municipality and so we could do things like put it on our own website and advertise it that way but I think we also want the municipality to take ownership of this process and not necessarily have to be a regional planning commission process because it is for the its municipality that's doing yeah and I totally agree it should be motivated by the municipality but I'm just thinking about where people get information and who's got a web page that's I mean we certainly can put it on our web page uh as far as posting in a newspaper whatever probably use the same newspapers you know unless it's a very large a large region but generally with the lack of newspapers along the generally share similar papers right this one doesn't have the papers in it it just says on its website but we can certainly do that on its website uh I a little I do does say newspaper or general circulation right bottom right when that's the town's requirement and that I think we should keep but Tom was concerned we were asking them both to put it in the newspaper and I'm not I'm just saying it's pretty easy to post something like that on a website and people in the region might be interested if a town is applying for this as well as people in that town it's my only point I think it's a big deal and then I think that Ellen I think for that place to talk about the appeals unless you know off the top of your head where that is to your point at the bottom of page 55 um so I think on at the bottom of page 56 so this is tier 1a an interested person may appeal an actor decision of the board under this section to the supreme court within 30 days following actor decision and then the next page lists who those interested people are so this does track with how you're doing the act 250 appeals somewhat which is an active 50 appeal that's heard by the board if there's an appeal from that that goes to the supreme court this is a little bit different and so this is if the municipality is getting designated the appeal you do have an appeal route if the board makes a decision on that designation that can then be appealed to the supreme court so appeals of designations currently don't happen so this is a change um and then it does list on page 57 the people who are interested persons seems pretty straightforward to me is there anything of concern for our members on this process okay thank you um um how why why 20 persons by petition um I just reread h719 the other day um you didn't work on page so page yes I did yeah you did page on 57 d oh yeah any 20 people um that had a much higher threshold or yes 10 percent of the population not directly in yeah like a person owning title to her occupying property within or a budding designated area makes perfect sense but then it was what 10 percent yeah population population in the area from 719 would be required to sign on petition yes and said economic development modified that to three percent three percent yes because we talked about all the various populations of the town to the state which range from 64 to 45 000 so you had a very significant conversation over in senate economic development about appeals processes yes we did so because overall so I know that this has been something that people have been talking a lot about making it harder for a group of people who aren't directly impacted by the decision to have a petition that that would justify them being able to appeal are you offering that we maybe use the you can if if economic development senate economic development came up with that after a lot of testimony maybe so this this is not like a particular development appeal this is a designation appeal for a town right but I you could imagine it becoming somewhat uh on this person a person owning title to her occupying property within or budding the designated area yeah so you could imagine people having um very strong opinions about the designations in their town especially if uh parts of the town aren't included in the 1a the planned growth area or are and they think that it shouldn't be seems like we would want a large number of people from the community to agree that it needs to be appealed not 20 including adjoining communities so the other dimension that you want to consider with this issue is whether or not the this group of people need to have participated in the hearing which is that is the last sentence here is that all of them need to have participated in the hearing um at in title 24 participated means having provided written or oral comments at the public hearing um and so really does 45 000 people in it if it was 10 that would mean that 45 4500 people would have needed to participate in the public hearing so uh economic development did add that um not all of the percentage population had to participate in the hearing because physically that might not be possible so if you're going to go to a percentage based population you need to consider that but in the past this participation requirement has been seen as a necessary requirement so that people raise their issues as soon as possible so you go to a population based you have to consider whether or not there's physically enough room in a space to hold 4500 people uh or if there's multiple meetings held or if there is a zoom requirement that would even allow them so there would have to be a structure in place for 4500 people potentially to have waited at the public hearing in some way or you could not have that requirement uh that is sort of why they landed at 3 percent rounded up to the nearest whole person well and this says the designated representative must have participated in the public hearing right so gets rid of that no but i'm also right but so that's the question if you're talking about the sudden economic development language that's your sort of option so if you want to leave it this way you can if you go to a population based is that the same thing or do you want there to have been people weighing in at the public hearing in advance before they attempt to to appeal we're just do you know where this language comes from in our bill originally um well i think i suspect it's that i uh i suspect i copied it from the municipal existing municipal language i don't i don't remember if somebody were our most it i think i probably i know so i suspect i copied it from the existing statute but i actually don't know there's an abong or it's kind of loud for a second my sense has been and maybe i'm wrong about this that this would rarely happen yeah that people are likely to appeal this but maybe i'm wrong so i hadn't paid too much attention to which which way we should we should do this there having 20 people who have participated is a fairly hot bar well this is one person no i understand that yeah but if we went one i say yeah so the question would be whether we maybe do maybe maybe we could frame the question i wouldn't make sense to bring the question as three percent or 20 people who have participated which makes more sense if i don't really answer that 20 is not enough for burlington which is why i understand this thing yeah um in your way it's a lot that's for a smaller it's a lot yeah i guess the thing is though a person owning or owning title to or occupying property within or budding a designated area that's a lot of that's a lot of individuals but we do this so i think if there's some sort of a groundswell that they're gonna anyone who wants to appeal could find that person anyway so i think the 20 persons is like kind of i can't imagine in this situation they have to own or occupy within the municipality in which the designated area is located or an adjoining joining the municipality yes so you're worried about crazy or frivolous appeals yeah the of the yeah i'm worried about uh i don't i just i'm trying to imagine all the possible scenarios uh like next door neighbor municipalities having a problem with you know some town becoming more developed it's next to their town or i would imagine i don't i still don't entirely understand like i can't entirely imagine what the planned growth area designation process is going to look like vis-a-vis like tier three designation process but you could admit because i would think that the tier three areas would be carved out of the 1a designation maps right that's the idea um i would imagine that becoming a contentious piece of the like people from an adjoining community maybe having a problem with how large the planned growth area is or what if it includes or doesn't include some effect but i don't know just frivolous appeals holding up the entire process sounds like it would be so i think what i would ask is that um we check what's existing statute and where this came from and then i'll understand well so there isn't currently any kind of process for any existing designations no i understand right so you might have taken it from existing municipal planning appeals right yes so let's let me just check that see what's there well i just that what this is from well i don't know so this language is not identical to what's in that statute so i don't know if i don't know how that language evolved i don't know if that came out of conversations from earlier this fall or from one of the planning proposals i i don't remember but it's similar to what's in statute for planning appeal but not identical it's in statute so it's um so last year you passed an amendment so it's 10 people that are either own property reside reside or are voters within the municipality um and they all have to have participated in the uh hearing so this is even more people than that and then and then we didn't have a the equivalent of a a single person owning title or occupying property right it had to be at least 10 people no so no so there is an there is existing provision in the municipal uh context for uh an avutter but they have to have demonstrated a um potential uh environmental impact to them so yeah so the so in for appeals of municipal planning decisions it's uh a person owning property who alleges the bylaw or appeal uh permit imposes on the property unreasonable or inappropriate restrictions uh and then the next is the next interested person is the municipality or any municipality that adjoins that municipality uh next is a person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of the property subject to the decision who can step who can demonstrate a physical or environmental impact on that person's interest under the criteria uh reviewed and then any 10 persons uh which any combination of voters residents or real property owners uh who by sign to petition uh uh allege any relief requested will not be in accord with the policies purposes or terms of the plan or bylaw and then designate one person as a representative and then they also need to have participated there's also any department or administrative subdivision of the state owning property within the municipality you've got so just to make sure what we're doing in some ways that the decision that somebody might want to appeal would have been the map because the map is going to say this is the area and so all anybody would be appealing at this point if I have this right is the removal of active in a way the removal of active 15 jurisdiction um I think um well so there's also that that's that list of criteria on the bylaws that the municipality has to demonstrate that they have so so we can say don't really have haven't at that yeah even though the board had said yeah it's going to be an appeal then would would be very technical actually because they they're saying there's seven things you have to do to 1a and you haven't met one that would be odd if the board in the meantime had said yes you do it's not like sometimes appeals are around like how to the area maybe those things this is a checklist yeah so it's yeah I mean I guess I would also just add that anytime you create a new statutory regime you you will have vagueness that would get there borne out by litigation right so while I do think it would be much less subjective than character of the area you will have a board reviewing for the first time bylaw sufficiency so that might be an interesting process to move on it's about 11 o'clock we're going to shift gears actually I'm going to say we will be back with Ellen tomorrow afternoon and um you a boxer represent a bunker so we come would it be possible to come back after four today yeah if it's short um well the floor's short I think we could do that so I don't I think there may be things on the floor but it's a good suggestion I have a meeting in Newport at 6 30 that I need to be at so if I leave here at five I'll be fine so well stay tuned if the floor is short and Ellen is available I will make an announcement that we would come back it's a good suggestion we are going to start looking for more opportunities to keep going on this we may end up working a little bit of extra hours um due to the time this is taking us so good for now let's take a five minute break and then we'll come back and talk so it was pretty good right we are actually going to invite Zach Porter to join us we're going to shift gears and continue to hear a little bit more about the Worcester range um long range management plan thank you Sarah Sheldon and members of the committee give me one second while I we'll just see you know it says and oh here we go it's like a man so we have about we have four witnesses and a little bit less than an hour so everyone will you know something less than 15 minutes all right let's jump in can you see this presentation yes okay good morning everyone thank you again for this opportunity to visit with you um I want to make sure that you all have the uh the written testimony uh that we submitted this morning available to you we also submitted our very detailed uh comments on the Worcester range management plan um you say for the record who you are yes thank you for the reminder I'm Zach Porter I'm executive director of standing trees we're a uh non-profit based here in Montpelier that works on public land management issues around the six state New England region but we focus here on Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire I'm a resident of Montpelier and the Worcester range is is my my neighborhood mountain range I live just up the north branch here and think every day about what the Worcester range is doing for our community here and obviously we got to know the benefits of of of our uh forest last summer with the floods that we had here in the town coming within inches as representative Pat mentioned last last week of engaging the spillway of riceville reservoir just in a spring from the Worcester range so this is all very personal for me in addition to being my my professional work so like I said standing trees has been around for just a few years and working to organize citizens across the New England region on public land issues and spend time with people like yourselves to learn more about the way public lands are managed so as I mentioned the Worcester range is is Montpelier's backyard very important place to this community to me personally and what I want to talk to you today is about the ways in which Vermont's you know very forward-thinking uh planning around uh you know conserving biodiversity addressing uh climate change and and and climate mitigation looking at you know how do we make our communities more resilient we have uh you know plans for restoring the water quality of Lake Champlain and yet somehow we have not combined these efforts into a kind of coherent comprehensive approach to land management we've got these disparate plans that are not being connected in the middle and that's what a long-range management plan should do is take all of these plans that you have directed our state agencies to complete in many cases and put them together you know put them into action on the ground that is the job of a long-range management plan and to date our long-range management planning process in Vermont does not accomplish that goal of putting those pieces together um addressing carbon in the atmosphere is a hugely important issue as you all know um but there are ways in which our land management decisions each and every day in the state actually have a much more direct impact on how we are going to handle the climate crisis than the decisions that we make related to putting carbon into the atmosphere so whereas a lot of the focus is on carbon emissions and justifiably so what we are I think ignoring at our own peril a lot of the time are these shorter term decisions that are compromising our ability to adapt to this climate change future that is already here in 150 years since most of Vermont was cleared um we have trees growing back on our landscape but we don't have forests yet in any real ecological sense um I think we take for granted that we you know we look out the window we see green we think we've got healthy forests because three quarters of Vermont has been uh you know returned to forest over the last century and a half but we are so far still from fully functioning forest ecosystems and again the long-range management planning process is a chance to think long-term and big picture about forest health and we're not doing that the state of Vermont knows the value of the Worcester Range in the beautiful report an enduring place wildlife and people in the Worcester Range through the northeastern highlands Vermont Fish and Wildlife says the Worcester Range is the only place that's left in central Vermont that's large in scale and completely unfragmented the Worcester Range is unique because it remains almost completely wild and undeveloped so uh it's not just me telling you the special nature of the Worcester Range it's the it's it's Vermont Agency of Natural Resources that knows full well. Zach Sagan who the author of that reported that was co-authored by Vermont Fish and Wildlife and it was uh came out sometime in the last decade or so that report um so what we have today is the very first comprehensive management plan for the entirety of the Worcester Range management unit that has not been done before and the plans that do exist date from the 1980s so they in effect you know in essence haven't been in effect we haven't had a management plan for all intents and purposes for several decades now for the Worcester it has been sitting there doing its thing it's it's naturally recovering its health and and performing at a relatively high level in terms of ecosystem service production compared to most forests of landscapes in Vermont because of this benign neglect. The Worcester Range management plan acknowledges these superlative qualities of the Worcester Range in multiple locations in the plan the the staff at Vermont Fish and Wildlife did a great job of calling out how valuable it is for its ecological uh for ecological reasons for the age of the forest um and that it provides interior and mature forest qualities that just aren't present in much of Vermont so today as you've heard from from other speakers on other topics um over the last several years about 25 percent of New England and Vermont more or less is conserved from development that's a that's a remarkable accomplishment from the land trust community and and and you know speaks to the value of public lands but only a very small percentage of that three percent is managed as wild lands today. The Worcester Range is a chance to really set our best foot forward trying to realize the old forest goals in Vermont conservation design that you've heard about from Bob Zano and others it's at this critical location in north central Vermont the Worcester Range is you know really this crossroads for biodiversity and as you can see here we have a high concentration of state lands in the northern part of the state that are really essential to maintaining um you know the functionality of this greater landscape. So I want to dig into what are the statutory authorities of VTANR you heard from Commissioner Fitsco last week about how they interpret their responsibilities um I want to put a critical eye to what they told you. In a seven days article from January 24th Commissioner Fitsco said to the people of Vermont that we have a logging mandate on state lands this is something that was echoed in comments that were made by VTANR staff at the two public meetings that were held for the Worcester Range Management Plan in Worcester and Stowe. There is no logging mandate for state lands I want to be really clear about that 10 VSA 2603 says uh that we may sell forest products from these lands what we shall do is we shall promulgate rules for state land management we shall protect communities from flooding protect soil resources all of that is emphasized in the statutes. So as I just mentioned it's the policy of the state of Vermont that floods soil erosion are alleviated that impairment of its dams and reservoirs is prevented. These are the musts these are the shals of our statutes and today our long range management plans aren't living up to you know what is expected of our natural resource management agencies. In the draft long range management plan for the Worcester Range there is literally no analysis of what that plan will do for flood resilience none there's also nothing about impacts to phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain zero mention of the Lake Champlain TMBL and this entire management plan it's remarkable it really blows blows my mind to be honest so this this 15600 acre core block of the Worcester Range is the single largest functional wildland under state management today in northern Vermont it's it's an amazing piece of real estate that we all own it's our land and the state is entrusted with caring for it there about half of the the Worcester Range management unit has been put into lands that are available for timber harvest potentially in the future and about 20 percent of that will be harvested over the first management plan time horizon the next 20 years that includes lands that were just acquired just acquired with DEC clean water funding we'll be cutting in lands that were required for the purpose of water quality and we'll be cutting in Elmore State Park half of Elmore State Park is opened up officially to timber harvest in this management plan this is the 100th anniversary of the Vermont State Park system and as far as I can tell there is no difference in the way that we manage state parks today compared to the way that we manage state forest this is also remarkable to me so what else is missing from this plan the Abentee community members who I work with are really concerned about the fact that they have not been adequately consulted on this plan that their voice is not here that their history is not here that's a real missing component of this plan you all passed Act 59 last session and Act 59 doesn't merely include an inventory as you were told last week you were told that Act 59 this is this is compatible with Act 59 the management plan well yes the lands in the Worcester Range will fit into the inventory but Act 59 is much more than an inventory right it directs the agency to conduct a plan and specifically it says what is the role of state lands in meeting our ecological reserve goals and meeting our old forest goals in Vermont conservation design that question hasn't been answered yet by the agency of natural resources right they have to do that in the next year is figure out what that role will be so does it make sense to be putting forward this management plan for the next 20 years really setting in motion management for decades to come before the Act 59 process is completed I think that's a real kind of breach of their moral obligation the Global Warming Solutions Act requires emissions analysis for major agency actions there is the word carbon shows up twice in this management plan and there is absolutely no attempt at analyzing the carbon impacts of this proposal as I mentioned before the Lake Champlain TMDL doesn't appear in the document either and as you are all discussing HH 12 is a bill that many of you have co-sponsored in this committee it's a great bill that looks at designating critical habitat we have not yet designated critical habitat for species endangered species that are present in the Worcester Range like the northern Longyear bet which was just listed last year on the federal list so we know that the older a force gets the higher the output of ecosystem services and in 2015 the state commissioned a report enhancing flood resiliency of Vermont State lands and it found that amps just aren't cutting it amps were not designed to handle floodwaters this report has never seen the light of day and our commission this report it has yet to be cited in a management plan because they were concerned about its contents here's records request that we did to learn why this report hasn't been used and what we see here are FPR forester comments if flood resiliency was the highest or only priority for management the concepts here could be effective at increasing flood resiliency on state lands but fully adopting the recommendations in this report but the state lands civil cultural timber management program if flood resiliency is that critical and there's no other way to accomplish it then that's fine i just want to be sure that those who make the decisions on these matters understand the impacts it will have i think there's a real sense in the agency that we they know that the way that things are done today isn't living up to the goals of the legislature isn't living up to our you know the way that we need to know know we need to exist in this landscape with with climate change coming our way but the system is broken right now and that's what that's the message i want you all to hear is that there are good people working at ANR you heard from them last week but the system is pointing us to do things in this landscape that don't actually make the most sense for increasing the flood resiliency of our communities for addressing the biodiversity crisis so what what we need to make sure happens is that we rebalance these priorities we store more carbon in public lands like the Worcester range than we do in private forests because they haven't been cut as heavily we could store two to four times more carbon in these forests over the next century two centuries if we just let them continue to grow old bcd speaks about the value of these forests from a biodiversity perspective i'm going to zoom through these today state lands provide just two percent of the timber supply in vermont two percent of the timber supply that's it but we consume in vermont less than we are cutting in vermont right we we cut 47 percent more wood every year in this state than we actually use in vermont we cut 47 percent more wood in this state than we use on an annual basis in vermont if you remove the two percent that comes from our state lands it makes a negligible difference to the timber supply in this state but would have a huge impact on flood resilience on biodiversity on all these other factors that we've been talking about so to conclude we've been waiting 40 years for a management plant for the Worcester range 40 years is how long it's been since there was last a management planning process for this area there is no rush to get this done at the very least we should be you know promulgating the rules that were required in 2015 as your legal council shared with you last week 2015 is when the state was asked to do these rules and we still haven't seen a draft yet does this management plan really need to come before those rules are promulgated or before the act 59 process is completed so these are the questions that I hope you'll continue to ask the agency and I hope that you will take action in a small way right now simply requiring the state to meet its statutory obligations before it moves forward with with timber sales and with not finalizing any additional management plans and that's the remedy that I've put in front of you with the written testimony here so happy to take your questions I really appreciate your time today thank you thanks for your testimony I hope you'll submit the slides yes I do do members have questions representative Smith thank you a week or so ago I had suggested that the Worcester range not be touched at all and I still think more sort of like that but I also think that a management plan should be in effect of some sort I've spoken with fish and wildlife officials and unofficials and sports sportsmen's clubs there's good there should be a happy medium somewhere I've seen over logging done and it it does not do any good for a piece of property select cut does it does a good job and what I'm concerned about is if the state goes in when I'm still standing firm what I said last week where the state will go in if they want to select cut something like that and not have to build pressure treated kiosk and pressure treated steps and everything else so that the rest of the world can go up on that range I would support a small logging operation but I don't like seeing a beautiful piece of property like that turned into a palace age park so what do you think about some clear not clear cutting some select cutting being done and only that being done well thank you for those comments and questions you know I think what I would say is that the way that this committee can make the biggest impact in the short term is simply to require the rulemaking it's not to decide what the end result will be for this management plan but there's a simple fact that the state is not following the law that you're in front of it so I would love to talk if we should block out another hour to talk about you know the overall purposes of state land management um sometime but really what I think you have the opportunity to do right now is to make sure that we're simply you know doing our homework when it comes to figuring out what's best for these lands and the legislature has made it very clear what the state needs to do and yet what you heard from commissioner fisco last week was that their legal counsel tells them they don't need to have rules for state land management yet your legal counsel says that they do and so this needs to be resolved and the fact that there are so many missing pieces in this plan from water quality to carbon to you know on down the list uh we've got to make sure we get these plans right because they have such a major impact on our quality of life the quality of our environment so great question I would love to keep talking to you about it but I think that really the decision that that you can make that will make the greatest difference in the short term is let's just get the process right the process that we've already asked of the agency to follow great thanks thanks so much for your testimony thank you thank you next up we have sandy levine thank you and thank you for the opportunity to be here I'm sandy levine and I'm the chair of the middle sex planning commission so I'm here to give you kind of a hyper local perspective um middle sex is a town just north and west of Montpelier I've lived in middle sex for over 35 years I'm an attorney and I've been the chair of the planning commission now for about five years previously I served on the planning commission decade or more ago um as well and just by a bit of our planning commission has five volunteers we have no staff we are elected officials I'm here as a local volunteer elected official during the past five years our planning commission has updated its town plan you're actually elected you run for a place yes um that is an opportunity that the legislature provided some number of years ago and by petition we um the background there is a history here history is always a little interesting our select board fired our planning commission at one point they didn't like what we did um and uh there is a provision that we could be elected and so we sought to be elected and we are now elected so I answer to the people of middle sex and I'm actually on the ballot this year up for election um I just be clear I was not on the planning commission at the time that they were fired I just showed up later um so we've updated our town plan we we've adopted and developed a enhanced energy plan we obtained village designation for our little downtown if you've ever been to red hen or the filling station or roots market you've been to downtown middle sex we updated our zoning regulations and put in place some of the great enhancements that were provided last year of the legislature but we did that before you did it um completed a study to improve pedestrian and bike safety in our village we partnered with local business businesses to provide walking paths to and overlooks to the winoski river right behind camp meet in middle sex we're participating in the homes for all project um show how those can be that as a rural community to show how that can be addressed in a rural community and we got citizen planner of the year award one year for all of our work so you can see we've been busy and we do good work but I'm not here to talk about all of that I'm here to talk about um management plan for state-owned lands in wister but I also want to say that the work that we've done is really thanks in large part to the work that you all do in the legislature and for the tremendous support you've been providing for local planning to enable us you know make projects like this really feasible for a small pretty much all volunteer community to do so thank you but in terms of the wister management um management for the state-owned lands in wister as part of our ongoing planning work over the past year we decided to take a look at and evaluate our town's wildlife conservation natural resources and recreation and during this effort it became abundantly clear how valuable the resources are that are literally in our backyard I know Zach showed you some maps and um if you look at a parcel map of middle sex nearly one-third of the town across the whole western portion is either publicly owned land or enrolled in current use so if you think about a map and middle sex is sort of like this six by six square like six miles by six miles which most towns in Vermont are let's go up the wister the head of the wister range is on this this edge that's the that's the edge of the town of middle sex is the top of the wister range go down slope about two miles nearly all of that land is either publicly owned we have a town forced as well as the state-owned land or in current use so when the state planning for the wister range came to our attention we decided to submit comments I provided a copy of these comments to you and can take a look at them and in providing these comments on the plan we wanted to share the work that we've done and the perspective that we have as as a local community for the state planning effort for the wister range so that our planning effort can work in concert with what the state does and specifically our recommendation is that the agency of natural resources um provide for the middle sex portion of the wister range to be an ecological preserve in accordance with act 59 and the goals of vermont conservation design so both act 59 and vermont conservation design have guided our work in middle sex as a planning commission i attended uh you know leadership training as part of the agency natural resources and they really encouraged us take a look at vermont conservation design take a look at these state goals the work that you do as planners can help advance this and we've taken that to heart and we're incorporating that into our into our next um draft of our town plan it's unfortunate that the state itself is not actually incorporating those features into its plans just to highlight some pieces of our of our comments and what our recommendation is based on it's in part based on survey responses from many middle sex residents that show overwhelming support for protecting natural areas along the wister range 80 of the respondents agreed that all undeveloped larger forested areas in middle sex are significant and should be protected and 90 of the respondents agreed that undeveloped forested areas should connect to larger forested areas and are significant that are significant and should be protected and the wister range came up as the most repeated identified area across the whole section of the survey our town plan the current town plan states as an objective to maintain the quality and use of existing conserved lands and as a strategy we are to coordinate with natural resource agencies organizations and outdoor recreation planners to manage conservation plans for publicly owned lands in middle sex our comments also address the context of state lands in middle sex if you drive any of the rural back roads avoid the mud when you can um the wister range is always right there if you have any activity at rumney school you look out the window wister range is right there you go to any concerts at our bandstand the wister range is right there and whether you're fishing hunting or just appreciating the wildlife that's there wisters provide that for us our updating mapping has also taken into account the resilience that is needed in the face of the effects of climate change which has hit middle sex incredibly hard this last flood our roads many of our roads are completely impassable and we're still suffering from that so being able to use the the ecological resources of the wister range to help for flood mitigation would be terrific and the mapping that we did show that the state's biofinder resource priority conservation areas in the wister range are identified to better support habitat clean water and climate resilience and finally and i zach mentioned some of this as well the location the scale the topography and just the abundance of the resources that are needed for an ecological rain preserved are all present in the lands of the wister range there's lots and lots of incredibly valuable information and mapping that's included in the draft state management plan for the wister range and based on that as well as our town planning efforts we look forward to the agency of natural resources incorporating our comments and recommendations into its final plan the goals of act 59 are clear and the state lands in the wister range including the lands in middle sex have a very valuable role to play in helping the state meet these goals we look forward to these goals being specifically incorporated into the management of the state lands for the wister range and hope that that happens so and thank you for the opportunity to be here and to prevent to present our local perspective and share our comments with you thank you for your testimony and your work as a volunteer planning commissioner member do members have questions representative pat thank you this question for you and also the folks from wister coming up might might have something to say as well our committee members received a fairly lengthy email yesterday from commissioner fitzko talking a lot about the process that led up to where they are now and that includes saying that they had started with surveying people in 2020 about this and and and links to the press announcements about that when I looked at those I realized maybe a handful of people in middle sex in the wister might have seen those press announcements I'm wondering whether you recollect as from the planning commission perspective having been approached about this back in 2020 or so I don't personally recollect that and it did not provide input at that time okay it was when we saw that there was a notice of the draft plan and because we were happy to be working on this very same issue just at the local level we thought it was a good opportunity to try and coordinate with them okay thank you thank you for your time thank you we are going to hear from johnny waterhouse from wister joining us by zoom excuse me welcome okay thank you so much for inviting me my name is johnny waterhouse as you said and I'm the chair of the wister planning commission it's nice to be here with sandy and hear her comments as well I'm going to be looking over here at my other screen so that's why I'm not looking at you so our planning commission submitted comments regarding the management plan for the wister range management unit through the agency of natural resources department of forest parks and recreation and you should have those comments available electronically um personally I've been on the planning commission for just two years in wister our commission is appointed by the select board currently we're comprised of four citizen volunteers um our commission has primarily been working on our town plan our new town plan was approved just about a year ago and since then we were able to obtain village center designation and we're working on an energy plan so a little bit about us um because we were working on a town plan we did a constituent survey in 2019 and through that survey we heard from folks in wister that they care deeply about the future of the wister range and that's reflected in our town plan it was a variety of different things that folks said they value the most um were related to um wildlands forest um wildlife and goal six of our plan is to conserve and protect the town's important natural resources of water mountains and their ridgelines fence base air soil wildlife habitat as well as historic structures and huge skates with that's a quote and with particular attention to natural and fragile areas our plan directs us in the selector to quote investigate regulatory and non regulatory methods for preserving important farm and forest lands so during the for the past few months as the nr's plan has gotten a lot of attention we received very thoughtful and extensive written input from five residents in wister and four of those folks expressed significant concerns or opposition to elements of the plan we also observed a very very active conversation among our neighbors on front porch forum pretty much every day for weeks and i don't know how many of those folks submitted formal comments to the anr my personal takeaway was about just how important and beloved these mountains and forests are to the people who live alongside them that's definitely true for me as well like um have lived in wister since i was a child and many folks have like multi-generational families who have lived and um alongside these forests so for our town there really are no more important forest lands than those of the wister range and if you've been to wister you know that these mountains rise across the town's western border they're prominently visible for many points around town and the sun sets right over those mountains every night it's very beautiful the wister range i learned through this process that the wister range is the largest mountain range in vermont without resort development and bisecting roads which is pretty amazing and this um state-owned land is the largest functional contiguous wild land in northern vermont it really is a special place and long-range management plan highlights many aspects of this exceptional ecological importance at local statewide and regional scales trees up to 120 years old it'll habitat a range of wildlife species including endangered species and species that depend on interior forest habitat that's rare in vermont wild life connectivity that's has a significant at a regional scale i know you've been hearing about this probably from other folks as well um our planning commission as you've heard from others is very aware of the um act 59 vermont community resilience and biodiversity protection act and the targets to conserve 30 percent of the land by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050 um and the importance of incorporating the vermont conservation design framework and the direction from the legislature the vermont housing conservation board to inventory conserve land by July 1st of this year and the really robust input process that the bhcb is currently engaging in that's allowing for extensive input from the public as well as experts and professionals in the field and the directive to develop the statewide conservation plan by the end of 2025 which will lay out you know strategies for managing land and achieving the acts very important conservation goals at a state level one key question that we looked at is the inventory process is going to explore what counts as conserved land and the bhcb is directed to define more fully three types of conserved lands ecological reserve areas biodiversity conservation areas and natural resource management areas which seems really valuable based on i've been learning a lot this not my area of expertise at all but seems like that refining or clarifying these definitions will be really an important part of a statewide really coordinated effort to make sure that we achieve the goals of act 59 so based on all of this our recommendation to the agency was to delay adoption of a management plan until after the bhcb has presented a comprehensive conservation plan to the legislature in 2025 it seems to us that planning when there's a really well coordinated planning process underway we should participate in that as fully and robustly as possible you just see a lot of value in that we also feel like people of our town our region in our state have a right to as much current information as possible to inform our own input something as significant as the first management plan in a very long time for our beloved Worcester range there's so much to learn and it seems like the science of this practice forestry perhaps is evolving in this time of so much rapid change in our world we all need to be learning from the experts who are at the leading edge of understanding that science thank you so much for hearing my input and for your deliberations I really appreciate your time thank you thank you for your testimony and your time as a volunteer planning commission member can I can I say one thing I forgot to mention a to Avram's question we also were very curious about the department's assertion that local planning commissions had been reached out to that they're an opportunity for a lot of community input in 2020 our wasn't on the planning commission in 2020 but the folks who were not have any recollection of being aware this process was happening at all or have received any outreach from the department right members have questions thanks again for your testimony next we'll invite Bodo carry printed some slides because I didn't want to be the person with the technology that didn't work and I I don't mean for them to distract from what I'm going to say to you but there are some things that will help explain what I'm going to say good morning I'm Bodo carry and I'm grateful to speak with you about the agency of natural resources Worcester range management unit plan I also respect the time and energy required of you to make to and take on and understand the many complex issues that come before you I'm a 40 year old 40 no not a 40 year old I'm a 40 year resident of Worcester Vermont and live in the shadow of the Worcester range and Putnam State Forest I taught middle school science at U32 for 27 years including an annual elevation study on hunger mountain I spent many hours though recently not as many as when I was in my 30s on the eastern side of the Worcester range experiencing its wildness remoteness wildlife and changes resulting from various logging operations since the mid 1980s I respect the many staff of the agency of natural resources and their dedicated work their ecologists biologists foresters and others have collected and assembled vast amounts of data on the area however I see the long-range plan for the Worcester range is incomplete and not addressing issues currently required to meet the future I will discuss process look at data presented by the A&R at last week's testimony through a different lens and offer suggestions for the future while well intended the rollout of the plan was and is completely lacking in public transparency I participated in the public scoping process of 2020 and can only believe I found out about it from my neighbor who was working with the trust for public land the public meetings in Worcester and Stowe did not allow any public comment or questions about the management plan from the floor two requests were made by the Worcester select board for forest parks and recreation to come to an open question and answer select board meeting forest parks and recreation denied the invitations to attend this request came from the town of Worcester which contains almost 50 percent of the unit's land 9000 plus acres and many interested and concerned citizens both of the aforementioned situations don't exactly inspire confidence and promote the department's credibility nor seem accountable accessible and helpful to the public it was also disheartening to hear the differing opinions between the A&R and legislative council's views concerning the use of rules when developing long-range plans a situation similar to the new hunting and trapping regulations that do not conform with Vermont state law and are now in litigation as defined in the plan most of the newly designated highly sensitive management areas on the second slide there in light blue the dark blue is the existing natural area has very steep slopes thin soils and are easily damaged if not protected the mosque land falls natural areas also included on the third side you can see the categories 1.11 a bnc 111 d which is mosque land are the newly designated areas 1.8 a is the existing Worcester range natural area and 3.0 is the general management area where vegetation management occurs the 9651 highly sensitive management acres are largely protected by default with their steep slopes wet soils ridges lines and high elevations it would be expected that these areas would be off limits to vegetation management and I have trouble accepting and take issue with such acreage being used to satisfy Vermont conservation designs old forest targets for the northern green mountain biophysical region with no effort toward meeting those targets with natural community protections in the lower elevation the Worcester range management unit has a 10 target for forest management and resource extraction of which 71 percent occurs on the lower elevations of the wild undeveloped eastern side of the range the majority of the timber harvest will take place in the middle sex Worcester 3431 acre antiguous forest block this makes up 40 percent of this blocks area this includes the newly acquired Patterson Brook track and its logging road infrastructure which offers the state new access to mature forest and other timber stands 8 timber stands to be managed in this block are forest types of primarily beach sugar maple and yellow birch components of the northern hardwood forest this harvest plan seems contradictory and at odds with the following statements from the plan I quote northern hardwood forest forms the matrix into which all other communities in the plan fit this forest type is also the most common type in Vermont over 6000 acres of northern hardwood forest were mapped within the unit all part of a single occurrence of very high echelon quality a ranked this example is a statewide significance it is recommended its state significant natural communities be afforded a higher level of protection than other areas of the management unit end quote the a and r in the forest product industry lobby continue to stress the importance of timber harvest on state lands to provide important forest products to vermoners a 2022 USDA forest service inventory of saw log volume harvest in Vermont shows only 2 percent coming off Vermont state lands by far as park recreation's estimate only 1 to 3 percent of timber sold in Vermont comes from state land thus the volume of coming off of the Worcester range would be a very small fraction of this 2 percent and would not negatively impact the forest product industry or jobs in this sector last week you heard that the Worcester management unit plans is consistent with Vermont conservation design and that the new 5000 500 highly sensitive management acreage at significant amounts towards meeting old forest targets for this region I have to believe the intent of the Vermont conservation design for promoting old forest structure would include more than forest types found in areas defined by steep slopes wet and thin fragile soils bedrock and ridge lines while satisfying acreage targets those areas of forest don't meet the challenge of developing old forest in the matrix community in the lower elevations if this is the case I have little hope for the vermon housing and conservation boards land inventory prioritizing ecological reserve areas in such areas as the 3431 acre continuous forest block in middle sex in Worcester much of the high elevation highly sensitive management acreage which includes the subalpine zone and crumb holds or short twisted wood simply cannot develop old forest characteristics with large trees abundant dead and downwood and natural canopy gaps vermont certainly needs both wild lands and working forests the Worcester range offers the state and the people of vermont a rare opportunity to practice new conservation strategies with passive management in the lower elevations for perspective the state of new york has constitutionally protected two and a half million acres as wild forest lands since 1894 having the Worcester range designated as an ecological reserve seems a small ask left alone and allowed to follow natural rewilding processes the Worcester range will develop into a rare area in the modern world where generations of vermoners can experience an unspoiled area and its ecological values a management plan covering a span of 20 years should be up to date with its categories and terminology and align with current legislation from its inception the Worcester range management unit offers the opportunity to guarantee old forests and promote ecological functioning landscapes at all elevations and perpetuity forest parks and recreation should consider a protected Worcester range management unit as a control or outlier where in 100 years nature's resiliency can be measured against the outcomes of human intervention as my daughter expressed quote it's an interesting and egotistical argument that forest and wild areas need human management in order to thrive i'm not convinced we are not in a climate crisis due to a lack of human intervention end quote thank you for your time and i will be glad to answer any questions or verify anything i said thank you for your testimony we have it writing um well you don't i don't know did you submit your did you submit your slides to build as well i have not i can submit my slides and i think i also will i know i sent my original letter uh comment to several of you but not to the whole committee and i will bombard your email with another letter all right or send it to will and he can post it under your name and get okay find it there okay numbers have is a first have questions thanks again for your testimony right numbers that takes us up to the noon hour we will come back to the clock today to hear oh some follow-up from yesterday from the natural resources for