 We're going to reconvene our meeting and shift gears and take up H126 and act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection. First witness is Karen Horne. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Karen Horne. I'm with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And I'm here to testify on H126. I did send a map from the public lands that was put together in August 2021. To the committee that sort of inform our testimony. I don't know if you've seen other maps at this point, but that's the one that I had available. And I'm able to see that. It's just a series of layers on the GIS map, but with my home internet is really not a possibility. Yeah. So we do support the concept that effective and efficient. To conserving biological diversity and maintaining a landscape. assistance and programs, conservation easements to promote forest management and fee acquisitions of property will all contribute to climate resiliency and biodiversity. Those are some of the goals that are in your draft of H126. We also agree that housing is an enormous and equally immediate crisis, which current every currently sitting legislator campaigned on the need to resolve. The identified need for housing is 40,000 additional units according to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. According to the map that's provided by the trust for public lands, lands currently conserved quote with some level of legal protection equal 1,655,279 acres. The goal of 30% conserved according to that map and their definitions is 1,846,218 acres. The additional acres that would need to be conserved to meet the 30% goal according to the trust for public lands map is 190,000 acres. We are concerned or curious maybe is a better way to put it about what the geographic representation or distribution of that is across the state. Is it evenly distributed across the state? The TPL map includes current and completed trust for public land projects, federal state and local land, private conservation land, the Appalachian long and Catamount trails. I'm not sure what a map would show is conserved if the criteria were quote meeting the definition of ecological reserve area, biodiversity conservation area, or natural resource management area, as defined in this section, which is section three of your bill H126. I would note that you also define in your definition section, you define sustainable forest management, but it's not actually used anywhere else in the legislation, so I'm not sure what the intent is with respect to sustainable forest management. The TPL map does not show and H126 would seem not to count the following areas of land that are off the table for development as a result of statutes, rules and regulations, such as state slopes, lands above 2500 feet elevation, wetlands and wetland buffer areas, shoreland protection areas, lands in the use value system, waters of the state, certain flood plains, deer yards and areas conserved pursuant to permit agreements with the state for active 50 permits. We strongly suggest that you will need a full accounting of conserved land if before legislation is passed establishing future conservation goals. The primary purpose of legislation at this point should be to collect all of that comprehensive picture of all protected areas in the state from all varieties of protected restrictions. You can use a lot of the data that is with the GIS center, I hope you are going to have them in to talk about the different layers of protected lands that they can show you. We can trust the land that's already conserved 1.7 million acres and the 30% goal of 1.8 million acres with the acres that according to discussions around housing should be available for that purpose. According to the Department of Housing and Community Development, all designated areas in the state comprise 41 square miles or 26,240 acres. Those are the compact settlement areas in which housing should be located according to the goals of the state and the state designation areas if housing can be permitted in those areas and that's a big if given the constraints on the permitting of housing, opportunities for appeal, costs of construction, lack of labor and a host of other issues. They've been working with the Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs Committee on legislation that we hope will amend not only local zoning statutes but also Act 250 and additional state permits. We're also supportive of H111 in the House General and Housing Committee which would address workforce housing and you have H68 here in your committee. We do think that the need for conservation to protect biodiversity and assure resiliency in our communities and providing 40,000 critically needed housing units can be met. We believe they cannot be met in isolation from one another and that one H126 needs to acknowledge the present housing crisis. I'm happy to take any questions and I will send this to the committee and I would urge you to take a look at that trust for public lands map. Thank you for your testimony. Representative Sebelia. Trust for public lands. We do not hurt from them, have we? Because I'm not yet okay. We were going to move back a minute. Okay and can you are are you familiar with that structure? Can you just tell me a little bit about what that is? What the trust for public lands is. It's a national nonprofit that is engaged in helping to conserve lands across the country and they have an office here in Vermont. I mean they've done excellent work but that was the that was the map that I could find that represented you know conserved lands on one statewide map. There's seven. Thanks Madam Chair. Thanks for coming in today Karen. So I'm not necessarily hearing that you don't support this. It sounds like what you support is to do a full accounting which was frankly I think that's what this is. I mean this is a plan essentially to like look at all the what we have what we don't have how you know what the tools are that are in the toolbox. To me it sounds like what you're asking is just it is you know make sure make sure as you're thinking about that plan planning process that you're also bringing in the lens of housing. Am I hearing you correctly? Yeah partly. So we're we're not supporting the bill at this point in time. We think that the bill needs to be specific that all kinds of protected areas whether they're protected as a result of purchase or conservation easements or regulations such as wetlands wetlands you can't build in wetlands. They're a huge proportion of the geography of the state. You need to look at those kinds of those kinds of regulatory restrictions as well when you're coming up with the total acreage that's conserved in Vermont. And we think it's very important that this bill also acknowledge the need for housing in some respect and speak to the 40,000 units. We find the fact that you've got 1.7 million acres conserved at this point and 26,000 acres which are where you're encouraged to build housing is um pretty out of balance to be perfectly frank. Representative Stemman. Thanks I guess um in my experience regulations can be changed and so if what we're really looking at is is something really set aside or not I I don't know that I mean I just think about like not necessarily Vermont at the federal level. I mean we have regulations this way four years later we have them this way that we have this way and so I I guess I would push back a little bit and and ask you your opinion if you you really see regulations as being permanent. We uh well you can also change any statute and this legislature has in the past you can you could change any statute at any time. We think that the regulations that protect some of these these kinds of um lands and water such as the rag the the wetlands the steep slopes the operations over 2,500 um feet they've been in place for decades and um they've they've expanded not contracted so we think it's really important to look at those lands. If you wanted to say concerned lands category A regulatory protected lands category B you could differentiate that way but we think it's very important to include those lands. It's an incomplete picture otherwise. Thank you. Representative Smith. Thank you uh thank you for being here. Uh 30 but 30, 30 and 50, 50 it's part of this resilience age 126. I believe you had a map here that showed different maybe it wasn't your map but somebody that showed different parts of the state that are a certain percentage that have achieved are trying to achieve this and the northeast kingdom is 43% and Chittenden County is 8%. That does get to the issue of geographic distribution of protected lands. Sure, so do you think that this bill is going to be concentrating on mostly the northeast kingdom because that's the only place to conserve what's left? Oh well Central Vermont's good place also no but um I think there certainly is a risk that that those lands well it's going to be easier to conserve lands where there's less pressure for development and essentially the costs of acquiring or conserving are less so it it's unlikely in in our opinion that Chittenden County would end up with the bulk of those conserved lands. That's my thought too well. All right thank you. Representative Sebelia. So one of the things that I've been kind of tuning in on as we've been talking about this are definitions so I've heard you talk about protected versus conserved and we have permanently conserved which is something else I think but can you tell me what you believe the differences between protected and conserved? So so the bill would define conserved lands and it has these three categories lands that are that are considered conserved so ecological reserve areas by diversity conservation areas or natural resource management areas but protected is my word it's not I don't believe defined in the statute certainly not in the bill but what we mean by that is the those areas that are off the table for development because of things like rules and regulations and agreements with active 50 permits and and those kinds of things. Okay so I just want to I don't know that the bill defines conserved as those three types of land I think it defines those three types of land as permanently conserved but I don't know if it defines what conservation is is that the case? It has a definition of conserved. There it is. Oh is that section three? Yeah okay it does so conserved means permanently conserved. And and the and just to follow on that representative is that the the definition of sustainable forest management is in the bill but what's the context which that is going to be used because it's not referenced when you get further down in the bill? I could that is Karen. Pardon the the definition um well in your definitions section that has sustainable forest management. Yes it does okay great some reason okay that's thank you. Further questions? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay next up we have Mali Mahar. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on H 126. I'm Mali Mahar I am president of the Vermont ski areas association we're a non-profit association representing 20 alpine and 28 cross-country ski areas across Vermont. Ski areas are not only major economic drivers and employers for the rural communities where most of them are located but skiing is also an important part of the state's tourism heritage and culture. And ski areas have successfully conserved and protected lands through master planning and careful management to benefit our state its natural resources and the environment over many decades. Ski areas are part of Vermont's working landscape. We are stewards of the land and the managers take this responsibility very seriously spending millions of dollars in planning and permitting to accomplish this to support our recreation economy. Outdoor recreation is an important gateway for many people both for monitors and visitors to understand the importance of our environment and why it should be protected. Skiers come to the mountains for recreational opportunities certainly but also to experience the mountain environment and we strive to manage that environment properly so that people will continue to visit and the capacity to support and promote outdoor recreation will be enhanced. We broadly support the goals of age 126 and believe that a more diverse and connected ecosystem is more resilient that conserved and managed lands can help to mitigate climate change through carbon storage and sequestration and that maintaining habitat connectivity in Vermont is key to maintaining habitat connectivity for the region. That said we want to make sure that you understand some of the unique characteristics of the environment in which ski areas work and the issues that we are focused on for the future. Vermont ski areas exist on privately owned lands state lands and federal lands and often combinations of private and state and private and federal land and while active 50 governs the use development management and protection of lands where ski areas operate often state and federal land use policies govern their management as well and a great example of that is ski areas that operate on or partially on state lands must file seek approval for and manage to annual stewardship plans and the same is true for areas on federal lands. Ski areas are managed using an array of tools which include permanent conservation by fee ownership or easements by the state or the U.S. Forest Service or as you heard from Ann our last week through active 50 and Ann our permitting processes which impose conditions that govern ski area operations. We support the use of the widest array of conservation programs and tools be used towards achieving the goals in age 126 because the regular regulatory process does provide significant protection for the land's wildlife and plant species that are on private state and federal lands where ski areas operate or adjacent to where we operate. And last week you heard from Mr. Austin excuse me from the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife who indicated that the department working with ski areas through active 50 and Ann our permitting processes over many decades as resulted in significant permanent conservation as well as permit conditions that guide how ski areas are operated in harmony with the goals of Ann our and support in support of the lands and wildlife resources that we seek to protect. Mr. Austin also indicated that there have been efficiencies created in the permitting process because of our long-standing work with the department. So we agree that efficiencies can happen particularly in the master planning process when looking at the big picture planning for future development management and conservation and conservation or plan conservation of larger parcels of land is more predictable for us and preferred in contrast with piecemeal conservation in the context of permitting individual projects. Master planning is a lengthy and expensive process for ski areas to undertake but they view this positively as proactive and necessary work. Businesses really like certainty and the ability to plan is how ski areas achieve good outcomes. They increase their certainty by creating a framework for individual projects to reside under as well as a framework to ensure that the ski area, the local community, the region and the state have a vision of and agree on the goals and preferred outcomes. So looking now to the future we've seen the Ann our scope of review and their resource tools have been evolving and a lot of focus is now at the landscape level of the largest forest box and connecting habitat and this is a much broader view and this bill would direct Ann our to prioritize land conservation in the future to meet the goals of the bill and this creates uncertainty for ski areas and it would be beneficial for us to understand how the agency will prioritize areas for conservation and make sure that we participate in any stakeholder process. Same observation we've made when we've talked about forest fragmentation during prior legislative sessions and it's unclear how Ann our and other stakeholders will prioritize lands for conservation and protection because if we look at Ann ours maps of forest blocks and connecting habitat right now the land area identified is very large and even includes some ski areas. Just like in a ski areas master planning process we need to have a vision of the state's conservation goals and an understanding of the plan to get there. So in closing we do support the broad goals of age 126 but would advocate number one that the widest array of conservation programs and tools should be available to reach these goals and two advocate for a process in which we would participate where stakeholders can have input into how we will focus our collective efforts to determine how lands are prioritized for conservation either through permanent conservation or in other ways like regulatory processes and right now that future vision is unknown and something we hope that age 126 could help to create and clarify. So we're advocating for a process where stakeholders can work with the state to create more certainty around where these lands are that we want to protect and how we can work to get there together. Thank you. Answer any questions or try to. Thank you for your testimony. Do members have questions? Representative Tory. I actually just have a comment I want to thank you for your testimony because I feel like you clarified a lot about the goals of this act and I think a lot of people have been confused because of that landscape view and we are going to be taking more testimony as we go on to learn more about the wide array of tools that exist now. So yeah thank you for putting in those terms that are accessible. Thank you. Representative Smith. Thank you. Thank you. There's a bill somewhere in the house right now to preserve country clubs golf courses from development. Are you familiar with that at all? I have read it but I have not. I would need to go back and look at it. I don't know how many skiers have golf courses. I know Jay does and I just wondering what your tape was going to be on that. You're not. Yeah I would have to look at it again I think. I'll ask that another time. Okay. Thank you. I'll go back and do my homework. Okay. Thank you. Great thanks for your testimony. All right thank you for your time. So we have Amber Perry. Good morning. Thank you for having me today. My name is Amber Perry and I am the Vermont Farm Bureau Policy Director. We just have some language concerns with each 126. The first one being on page line on page 6 line 5 long term. The term long term concerns us. We also are concerned with on how this will impact the forest land that is currently in current use programs. We also have seen that the bill is being submitted for review or the plan is being submitted for review to the following committees house ag food resiliency forestry house environment and energy and senate natural resources and we would ask you to consider bringing senate agriculture in as well. We support the idea of the initial inventory of permanent conserved land here in Vermont. We also would support the summary of conservation practices especially for all private landowners on page 8 lines 19 and 20. We would like to thank you for the addition of private owners of forest land and agriculture. That is all we have for today. We'll be looking for language changes and we look forward to coming in if need be later. All right. Thanks. Can we rewind to your very first question or concern page 6 line 5? The long term. The area but that is subject to long term sustainable forest management. Low term long term. Okay. Yeah go ahead and represent. Can you like think is it is it that it's unclear what long term means? Is it is it that there is concern that it could be forever or what that is the concern that it could mean forever? And just to be clear you do recognize that this is all about willing landowners making decisions. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Other questions? Thanks for your testimony. Next up we have Sam Lincoln. Welcome Mr. Lincoln. Morning all. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and testify on H126. For the record my name is Sam Lincoln. Because I don't represent an organization I'm here as an individual today as a rural landowner and a rural forest economy business owner just a brief background about myself and my family's business. I own and operate a master logger, hide logging operation in central Vermont. Part of a multi-generational family that owns farm and forest land. We've been dairy and cash crop farmers, loggers, maple producers. My wife's family also has operated a sawmill. At their peak my agricultural enterprises have done business with up to 80 farmers a year. Dairy, beef, and equine farmers. I've worked on timber harvesting projects for over 50 individual landowners in the last 25 years in central Vermont. Many of them repeat clients during that time. Three of them passed former legislators and part of that generated millions of dollars in revenue for my business and for those landowners. And I would conservatively estimate that I have spent 16,000 hours working in the forest of central Vermont. I served six years on the development review board in Randolph following a year and a half on the planning commission. I served as a private sector representative on the forest fragmentation study committee for Act 171 in 2016. In 2017 I was appointed by Governor Scott to serve as deputy commissioner of the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation for forest economy policy during which time I reviewed Vermont conservation design and provided feedback to the authors. Though there are many subjects I would enjoy the opportunity to speak about with you all, I would like to discuss the stewardship of rural land and defining conservation in relation to the goals of H-126. To be clear, right up front I support land conservation in the many different forms and the goals of Vermont conservation design. I recognize that H-126 is a plan to achieve voluntary conservation and it's not amended. I have concerns about how the plan is to be developed. Starting with landowners. Looking at the maps of Vermont conservation design and where the priority areas are, I believe it's important to recognize that the millions of acres on the landscape that are under private land ownership and they're undeveloped in a wide range of shapes and sizes. There are many forms of conservation and easements and ownership but millions of acres of those acres remain what I would refer to as conserved land due to the stewardship ethic and culture of rural Vermonters. These parcels of land have been transferred from generation to generation by people who saw the highest and best value in the land as working it and conserving it. That's the reason that it is ripe for conservation today is because people for generations and centuries have seen value in it not with buildings on it, with managing it. As science, awareness, outreach, and education has evolved these landowners also recognize the value of this land for biodiversity and its ecologically important areas. My sons will and my wife's and my sons will be the fifth and ninth generations respectively from our families to own land in Vermont. Again, we consider our land to be conserved because it's part of our family culture and ethic and adding values to the commodities raised on the land has that centuries old track record with remarkable progress and without the need for permanent restrictions on the land. The forest land owners that I work with have several characteristics that I've understood over the past 25 years. They're enrolled in the use value appraisal program. They have many goals for management of their land other than generating revenue from timber sales, but the income is important consistently to all of them. They make decisions about their land use based on practical information and best practices that they've learned from interactions with a licensed consulting forester, the county forester. They may have been to a Vermont Woodlands Association walk in the woods of Vermont Covert's retreat. They've read or learned about ecosystem protection from a source they trust. They've enrolled in a USDA program that incentivizes wildlife habitat enhancement. They want and need flexibility within best practices and within their bundle of private property rights to make decisions that work for them. They're paying mortgages on the land. They're paying taxes on the land and they are an incredibly important part of land conservation. The witness list for this bill so far has included many talented professionals, but I have seen very few private landowners and without their participation and buy-in, this level of conservation can advance and particularly if it's voluntary. I encourage the committee to hear from landowners across Vermont about the challenges they face and how they would implement these goals. The concepts in H-126 do not appear to have been drafted with private landowners' needs in mind, which I believe is a significant oversight. The word landowner only appears two times in the draft, once in the findings and once in the development of the plan. I believe that asking for landowners to provide input through a common period or during three public meetings so another entity, another body can draft the plan for the conservation of their land is not respectful to the multiple generations that people have made this millions of acres of kept this land undeveloped. If I was and if I was tasked with that, I would re-situate the chairs at the table in the planning process. The economics of land conservation, planning for the cost of conservation at this scale, is not addressed in the bill. Tax assessment for permanent conservation of the land at this scale is not addressed in the bill or directed to be addressed. Talking about sustainable forest management, as you heard Bob Zano say, the most efficient way to achieve young forests and create the habitat is through forest management, which works in conjunction with how landowners have already been sustaining and managing their forests for generations. Implementing sustainable forest management is not a switch that can be flipped on and off. It requires massive capital investment, diverse markets and a very skilled workforce. The forest economy supply chain that enables this type of management is undergoing significant disruptions both economic and natural. This implementation tool is at risk. I encourage you to look to the work of the forest futures roadmap that is currently charting out those issues and potential solutions as part of the bill last year. When we're discussing land use and the conservation categories, please remember that the output of sustainable forest management activities are the forest products that are manufactured into essential human needs. Traditional building materials, food packaging, medical supplies, energy for homes and institutions, an endless list, and we learned at the beginning of the pandemic just how essential those products are when supply chains started being cut off. Not producing them here, losing the raw material supply only externalizes the use and consumption of that resource to another part of the globe. Not cutting trees here does not result in a net decrease of cutting trees on the planet. Landowners are receiving $27 million a year annually in stumpage payments for forest management activities which has in itself an indirect conservation effect. Forest management activities in Vermont with the highest standards of sustainability and ecosystem protection during planning and implementation. Public lands timber sales and timber harvest that includes chip harvesting for wood fuel are currently under threat in other policy discussions. Regarding the definition of sustainable forest management, my request is that that term would be defined by the Commissioner of Department of Forest Parks and Recreation. I encourage the committee to look at other model programs in land conservation. For example, public and private conservation work such as Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Vermont Land Trust, and many others in that conservation category. They give landowners wide lanes to make choices and work alongside them in choosing best practices. I'd also encourage you to take a look and I'll send it in my notes to the committee assistant that the Watershed Agricultural Council in New York is a program that provides the protection of the drinking water supply for New York City's 9 million residents and that Watershed Protection was developed because they clearly knew that they could not go buy up all the land needed to protect all that water. They couldn't conserve it all so there's research done, there's outreach, technical assistance, and conservation programs that are not Watershed and it has improved the viability of the working lands enterprises there through cost share programs and practical research that helps those business owners be more viable economically and logistically. And I encourage you to take a look at that again as a model program that becomes a very large win-win for the participants. I also encourage you to look at solutions that work for landowners at their kitchen table. When they've reached a permit office to apply to subdivide their land we've lost the battle. The landowner people are not greedy. I literally in 25 years I think I've done two house lot clearing projects. The rest of it has been for landowners that want to keep their land undeveloped and managed but they need money. There's large holding costs things like that. Please consider things as you consider these things look at conservation subdivisions that allow landowners to maybe have a higher density smaller lot sizes putting the subdivided parcels that they need some cash equity out of their land but also allow larger blocks of land to be conserved and create access for forest management agricultural management or there may be some of these other categories you define in here. With that I'll pause and thank you for the opportunity to present my information and take questions. Thank you for your testimony. If it's possible for you to submit the written testimony as a follow-up that would be great. I will refer back to it. Representative Sevens. Thank you manager. Thanks Mr. Lincoln for coming in. So we have two places in here that basically say how this is going to get done. I mean it's flushed out more than two but basically it says the secretary shall develop this plan and then it also says in developing the plan the secretary shall hold as you mentioned not less than three public meetings on the plan and accept public comments the secretary shall solicit input from various stakeholders including private owners of forest lands, ag lands, land trusts from on housing conservation board. So my question is two part first are you aware of the effort that started this past summer with BHCB pulling you know various stakeholders together to start thinking about this and looking at that and if you are does that process feel like a a real process for input from land owners because I think that that is at least what I've been thinking just me 111st committee is that that would be sort of somewhat the process that this bill might continue to work along. I'm not I'm very familiar with BHCB I'm only loosely familiar with what the conversation you're talking about I probably think the only way I could appropriately testify to that is that BHCB is a vehicle in Vermont that has obviously done the conservation work and also the technical assistance work that goes down to the boots on the ground producer level helping the viability of those firms somewhat of a not necessarily a mirror of the watershed ag council in New York but similar so but to your direct question I don't think I'm familiar enough with that effort to say give you an informed response. So just a follow-up I guess I can understand your concern in terms of how this is drafted and I guess there's there's always a balance between how much language you put in as to what the process is in reality if you don't mind could I like connect you with the person who's running that and maybe hear from you about whether or not that seems like an appropriate path because I I mean I we definitely need to have private landowners as part of this conversation it's clearly cannot be you know a secretary going off and looking at some plans which it wouldn't be but I just want to make sure that we're making it clear enough that we would be hearing from landowners. I'd be very happy to do. Okay thanks. A couple of just maybe points of clarification the definition for sustainable force management did come from the previous commissioner that is we worked this through last year yeah that's that's right and actually you I think I heard you say planning for cost of conservation at this scale is not accounted for actually that is one of the points of this is you know the way that I envision this is that we are currently investing in conservation and the groups that are actively participating in doing conservation kind of already use Vermont conservation design overarching goals are the conservation of 80 percent of Vermont species and so it's less about like a priority list it's not going to be that scale of a plan it's really a touchstone plan for the legislature to say you know this is really important we have this you know where are the gaps literally where are the gaps the biophysical region gaps which were referenced in the previous witnesses testimony and acknowledge them sort of like eyes wide open how much will it cost for us to keep functioning landscape for future generations but that's that's why I envision this coming across if I may is is there a reference to that counting for that cost I guess I missed that if there's a deliverable in the plan and it may need more clarification so I'm not discounting your comment because of because of that but I welcome specific you know clarification points okay thank you thank you so much for coming in thank you right with that um do members have further discussion i'm going to remind everyone including myself we're coming back at one today not 115 that's today do I have that right yeah one o'clock so I do have a question and I apologize for witness but for well maybe for our witness two of them and I apologize for having a coughing fit there um Karen Horn asked about the sustainable forest management why that definition is in there did we have and and Madam Chair I don't recall if we had testimony about why that would be in there well how it relates connects to the rest of the bill so we have definitions we have goals and then we have a plan now let's start coughing so how does that that was also added um by the previous commissioner during testimony last year the definition of sustainable um page six I'm on page six yes I'm just wondering what is gained or lost and having that how it's connected to the rest of the it's in the definition of the third category yeah oh to long term sustainable for so then the question was what is it and so then we defined it okay great that's where it comes from and okay terms of that definition and causing damage to other ecosystems and we have like who wouldn't hear from yeah page six line 10 so sustainable forest management so what who could we learn from about what type of forest practices cause damage to other ecosystems I guess that's my question that are articulated and have we heard should I go back in for just um we could invite in the current commissioner all right further questions or discussion seeing any with that we will adjourn on remont legislatures house committee on environment and energy in this afternoon where you're going to start off by talking about h67 in act relating to household products containing hazardous substances we have steved when now with us from the agency of agriculture food and markets welcome mr. dornal thank you um so we had some specific well we hadn't heard from the agency yet on this bill so we'd love to just hear your thoughts and then I think we do have specific questions for you well I think as you've heard from other witnesses that she's interested in increasing the funding level that we currently have for the reimburse the solid waste management entities on their disposal of pesticide waste that they collect in their household that's what's burger you know we have some we have obligation under the law under title six to operate a pesticide a collection program for waste pesticides one of it okay can you tell us a little bit about the money that so right now pesticides have to register by pesticide type is my far understanding just give you give us the framework of what's happening and so products are registered excuse me products are registered each individual pesticide product has to be registered individually pay a $200 annual registration fee certain portions of that are allocated to certain things I think $15 goes to the wet water quality program and $25 goes to various programs for education on environmental issues very program that kind of thing then the rest is kind of it's not specified in the statute you know how the rest is allocated allocated I assume through the budget process I have one thing I should point out is I've been in this position since the beginning of October and I haven't been through a budget process yet so there's a lot I don't know how it actually gets allocated but we work very closely with our budget office they keep track of the budget make sure we're within our expenditure limits and our thing and so when I became aware of the issue with the solid waste districts not being reimbursed fully for disposal that has the pesticides are collected I asked the business office if there was any opportunity to increase the funding level and they took a look at it and said yeah they think they can for at least next year maybe year after with the money we have available so the you know so basically the money comes in it goes into a fund it gets allocated through the budget process my understanding is the last several years or the last grant cycle it was on the order of $70,000 a year for a four-year grant cycle the total or per so 280,000 approximately for the offer the whole program for the state over four years so 70,000 a year and looking at the information we were hearing from the districts it seems like if we doubled that amount went to 140,000 a year a four-year grant period so you know about $560,000 that should should cover the costs that they have been identified to us so far and you said for sort of the next year or two but this has been a chronic problem right here so you're are you saying that because you you have a this has the fund built up over time or is it well ongoing revenue pay for this there's two things there's a there's a you know well and I don't know the exact number because like I said I'm going through that process but there is a according to our budget office you know we are taking a little more than we're spending this year and projected for next year plus we have some what we anticipate some reduced expenditures coming up one of the one of the items that the money is used for support the Vermont agriculture environmental lab veal lab and we in conversations with colleagues we understand that the cannabis control board is going to start renting space there to do work that they need to do so that reduces the amount of money that has come out of the pesticide fund to support the lab and the difference will support increasing the funding for for the solid waste districts overtime overtime now and and you know I I can't tell you how much it's going to be three years from now but we I think what we need to do is you know work closely with the solid waste districts to figure out what their costs are make sure we have the funding for it if we need funding we'll have to figure that out but part of the issue I think is that you know there should be very little pesticide waste it's a product a pesticide you're designed to be used and applied and if they're applied the way they're intended to be used by the label they're not a waste so if we have an issue with products showing up in the hazardous waste screen there's there's a disconnect there and that's one of the things I'm interested in doing is more education not just for the consumers but also for the agriculture community and all the other pesticide users to avoid that problem I mean if you know in the past one more under information that's pertinent I guess as I basically had the same position of Florida for about 30 years and before I moved up here and we had a pesticide waste disposal program a lot of states do but a lot of those programs originally started because there was a round of pesticide cancellations you know in the 90s products that no longer could be used and so they were canceled they're ending up you know EPA has rectified a lot of that with their product registration process they don't allow those kinds of products in the marketplace anymore so there shouldn't be that much if they're being handled correctly and that's you know so you know my goal I guess would be to work with the districts and however whoever else extension to educate people that you know pesticides do not have to become waste if you use them according to the way they're labeled to be used you don't have the waste and then you don't have the expense of having to dispose of it. So I think I understand you haven't said this yet but right now our bill is including class C yes decides and is that okay with the agency what are you well that was what we proposed to the DEC was to just take out the A and B and just leave the C in there if we're successful if we can work out an arrangement with solid waste districts and they're happy with the amount of funding that we're coming up with I taking class C completely out of the bill would make sense because we have a way to to pay for them through the other through another program. Right um what is what do you think your time frame would be on kind of coming to that agreement? Well we have a meeting Tuesday. Okay yeah I mean we're trying to do it right so the other issue here or the other item I guess to consider is that the grants we have that are in place now expire in June of this year and so we'll be rewriting for the next fiscal year. Okay do members have thank you for your testimony do you have anything else you need wanted to add do members have questions? Representative Bogart. Just to pull apart a little bit if you're using if you have just a little bit of money left over now right any a little bit of rent isn't going to make much difference so where's the do you actually have the money to pay this for me is what it's actually going to actually cost them? That's my anticipation based on the numbers I've seen yeah that if you know the so the the numbers that were provided to the agency for the grant requests for the last grant cycle were basically double what they are now so that's what I've talked to the business office about is doubling the amount which should cover that and then of course like I was just talking about I'd like to work to reduce the amount I mean this is it shouldn't be a growing problem right it should be it should be reducing as opposed to growing. Other questions? Representative Sebelia and Stemman. Just clarification so I'm hearing that you are meeting with the slumaze yes Tuesday yes and is it your expectation like that there will be some sort of final agreement on how to proceed there? Well what I would and what I hope to accomplish at that meeting is to come to an agreement on the fact that we're going to increase the funding at the level that we can sustain and that would meet the swimmies need and that would result in not having to include pesticides in the in the age 67 so that we can basically take care of the problem with existing programs without having to create a whole other infrastructure to deal with it. What's your confidence level that you have enough money to solve this problem? But I have to rely on what the business office said and I said we do. Okay that would be answer yes. I have sevens and more words. Thanks I'm sure. I think ideally like if we could right size the containers more and then you're right we would see less of this product needing to be disposed of but I would imagine there might be a time frame during the interim where if you're increasing public education and outreach you might see more and so just to push a little bit more although I realized you're going to the business office you know that's where you're going but does it make any sense to say to put in you know a buffer initially because if you have more public education and outreach to make sure you're capturing that and then you know track the reduction and then you could also track the budget reduction. Well one way we could potentially do that is to in the grant cycle you know have more money up front and less money toward the end of the cycle it's a four-year grant cycle so you know and obviously can't predict the future or the costs associated with that but I mean the only way I can think we could deal with that and just keep and if it looks like where the costs are still going way up then we'd have to come over another solution. Other questions? Just we talk about dealing with the waste from these products right are you is the agency looking at keeping them out of the system altogether like what are are we really looking at ways to because rather just deal with with the waste that the idea would be not even have to be used in the first place in many instances but we're doing anything to think along those lines of how to get some of these products just out of a model together. Well I mean they're there we have a product registration process as you know representative we just adopted the rule of the Pesticide it was updated it includes a more streamlined I guess way of classifying the products and so the materials that would be available as class C for homeowners are materials that are you know relatively low toxicity low concentration ready to use for relations and those are you know things like disinfectants and you know low concentration garden materials things like that the other materials the class A and the class B are higher concentrated they're intended for people who are certified to use them the you know the amount of material that is used in the state depends on a lot of factors including the crops that have grown the pest pressures that are there changes in climate I mean there's so many factors that it's hard to say I will say that you know relative to historical pesticide use the materials that are registered at the federal level and the state level are markedly different than they were 20 years ago in terms of toxicity and persistence and and so that's the trend you know materials that are less curious thank you thank you so much for coming in and members we're going to shift here's again back to age 126 an act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection and we're going to welcome Jens Hockensoka welcome you you and your mic off this mic is off yes um madam chairwoman the committee thank you so much for having me uh my name is Jens Hoka I'm a conservation planner with Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department I was asked to come in and speak about using the biofinder uh web app and the atlas um I am uh I have a presentation prepared and I'm happy to share that with you uh for those of you who might choose to follow along on your iPads or tablets everything I'm saying today will should work for you so uh so feel free to follow along uh on your iPads um so uh before I get too far along I just wanted to say that uh the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department we believe in the conservation of fish wildlife plants and their habitats for the people of Vermont that's a big mission that takes us in different directions I coordinate the department's community wildlife program so I provide technical assistance to all 268 municipalities and 11 regional planning commissions I've been doing this work since 2006 I've visited and worked with probably about 200 of the 268 towns um and I get around uh for my share of night meetings uh overwhelmingly this work uh involves the use of the biofinder and the Vermont conservation design first and foremost biofinder is a website so if again if you're following along please just google biofinder it might take you to the web page in which case you'll need to hit launch map and we'll actually take you to the mapping interface so biofinder is a website it is accessible to everyone there it's not password protected it is universally available it is a set of maps it's also a toolbox so we won't be getting into the higher level tools today but that toolbox allows users to interact with the data share the data with others draw on the maps export shape files of their drawings so it allows for a type of spatial communication between volunteers and again at the municipal level we're talking about a huge number of volunteers allows for spatial communication among volunteers that was really unheard of 10 years ago uh most importantly perhaps biofinder is a prioritization uh it expresses the lands and waters that are most important uh for vermont's ecological function uh today and into the future now uh the data that is on the biofinder website when you first turn it on you'll see this map with dark green and light green that's the prioritization side of biofinder and that data is called vermont conservation design i know you've heard from other uh experts in the department and uh and citizens about vermont conservation design uh we'll we'll be hitting some of those same points today but i just wanted to emphasize that vcd is the data biofinder is the website um the vermont conservation design data is available to you on biofinder but you can also access it through the atlas through the vermont open geodata portal they're all on manner of avenues to access the vcd data i would recommend biofinder it was made for that purpose but again you can access biofinder atlas at vcd data on the atlas um the atlas the anr atlas is a separate mapping program it is however identical in terms of the the way it was built it's a geocortex essentials platform doesn't matter the point is they're the same and so any data from the atlas can be shown on biofinder any data from biofinder can be shown on the atlas the atlas is the clearinghouse of all data that the agency of natural resources maintains that means its information architecture the way it's set up is by department so it's very difficult to uh unless you know what data you're looking for to find your way easily through the atlas uh it was intended to to house data under the people that were responsible for maintaining that data so in that sense the architecture makes sense but it does make it cumbersome for representatives and the public to access that data so biofinder is a slim down version there are only 22 data sets on biofinder that is intentional to get you the most important information about biological diversity and climate resilience without a lot of noise it's further the biofinder website is further designed to be as transparent as possible about what was selected and why and i'll show you some of those some of those tricks here in a moment so i mentioned that the vermont conservation design data on biofinder is a prioritization it is uh we show those priorities at two different scales the landscape scale and the community and species scale now the move towards the landscape scale is an important one because over time the conservation efforts nationwide really have moved from an understanding of conservation as hotspot conservation small places surrounded by development to understanding a larger pattern a contiguous forest connected forests and so that pattern is increasingly important for the conservation of our fish and wildlife and so understanding that pattern is critically important towns rpcs regional planning commissions tend to zoom in to their level of regulatory authority which is fine except the ecological world doesn't necessarily recognize those boundaries so being able to zoom out and see that ecological context at the landscape scale is critically important we just need to keep teaching vermonters what that means because when you see a map with an awful lot of green on it it means something different at the landscape scale than it might at finer scales so vermont conservation design has two different scales and it's broken out into two different priority ranks vcd assigns an overall priority rank highest priority for the lands and waters most important for maintaining ecological function so that that piece maintaining ecological function is critically important because it suggests a suite of uses that are appropriate where we can still have that land use and maintain ecological function it does not suggest thou shalt not do anything in the dark green that is a that is not the correct interpretation at the landscape scale but we do need to work to find those compatible uses um as we zoom in to vermont conservation design oh please really has a question so uh we need to work to find those what was it what was it that you just said this is compatible use define work what do we need to do to find those compatible uses uh well it depends on the the place uh what ecological values are present and therefore how you can manage those for ecological function so to determine what a compatible use is in a floodplain for example um i would maintain personally speaking development is not appropriate in the floodplain that would in my mind be an incompatible use uh but perhaps recreational fields would be a compatible use in that given that ecological value whereas deep in the middle of a forest block i would say housing and big development would be an inappropriate use on parts of the edge of that forest block housing development could be absolutely important absolutely appropriate i don't want to i'm going to interrupt you i don't want i don't want to be rude but um so my question i heard you say we need to do work which means to take for me i'm hearing that means we need to take an action and i'm sure you're aware we're looking at the bill which is not what you're testifying on you're talking you're telling us about a resource for us um and so that taking of that action when i hear work is that what you meant to take an action or some actions and then kind of who is taking that action i apologize this is uh fairly new for me this isn't this is my first year on this committee so well we're certainly getting to the heart of the issue uh because uh the land use is defined at the local level as regulated land use planning and regulation are done at the local level um so as long as that's the case then 268 municipalities need to be doing some work but i also think there's room at the legislative legislative level to understand what compatible uses uh might be and how we can maintain that pattern into the future so we need to do some work would mean collectively we for month is that what you mean yes ma'am our municipalities so it's more in a general sense yeah great thank you favorite town uh it just so happens um but it was a great example uh so i didn't it didn't just choose it for you uh but also uh because it's a great example so when we zoom in on biofinder to uh to a particular town again you see the the dark green the highest priority area and the light green i just really want to emphasize that Vermont conservation design is a is a cohesive whole it's a design we can break it up into its components but each of those components are intended to work together so i have great confidence in the dark green area on this map as being uh uh especially important for our future to maintain into ecological function so i will show you how to break this up into component parts but i really want to stress how those parts the the hole is greater than the sum of the parts representative civilian so should we think about every aspect of that green as holding equal importance or you know as our we're looking at uh or as a place where we should be looking well you know i'll just leave it there should we hold every ask every piece that green has equally important and i'm looking at the 30 by 30 go and the 50 by 50 go asking you that question yeah i understand um there that's really interesting because it uh there are a lot of different scales uh but uh and there are different components so what an interior forest is going to mean is is we're talking about different things on the edge of an interior forest versus the middle of the interior forest so no strictly speaking not every inch of the dark green highest priority area is of exactly equal importance that said all of it has been elevated to the highest priority level and so all of it does carry a great deal of weight but i'm just trying to convey that nuance there are differences in the edge of a forest or the middle of a forest the edge of a flood plain or the middle of the flood plain so uh so as we're looking at our bill is that a place to find uh to find places that we want to designate or is that the place maybe that's a better way of saying so when i was asking are they all equal like is that is that it is that like do we need to hold on to all of those or is that the place where we want to be prioritizing from my standpoint in terms of ecological function this is the network that we may need to maintain all of it that said again when we're managing for ecological function there are different land uses and can coexist so i'm just trying to be very clear that that no one thinks that i'm suggesting we need to in perpetuity conserve no development on all of the highest priority area i think it's more subtle than that thank you and i appreciate i appreciate taking this time with the questions i find these tools to be really helpful for me and but as i said these are new concepts so i really want to understand what we're doing here great thank you so as we as we think about now i've zoomed into middlebury and and so we want to start by just understanding the larger pattern here so what's the larger pattern you look on the east side of town and there's a large area of highest priority okay got it one chunk on the east if you look on the west side of town so the northwest and the southwest are two more fairly large chunks of dark green okay so we're getting a sense of the overall pattern please don't lose sight of the middle all of the dark green in the middle is what's connecting those pieces together that's part that's an integral part of that overall pattern so we can i begin just where is their highest priority where isn't there and we can just start with that assessment and we see large large pieces of this town in that designation but i also want to call your attention to those connecting features they may be smaller narrower but they're critically important because of their landscape context i'll get more into this in a moment so when you open and perhaps you are following along if you are in the biofinder web app at left you will see this list of layers and so you can turn them on or off there are also groups of layers so you can expand the group or contract it so please see that at left i have the overall priorities the landscape scale turned on and that's all we're seeing right now so when you when you just do a left click or if you're on an ipad just a quick touch on your screen anywhere on the dark green a um oh yeah a a box will come up and that box tells you what uh what components are present why did that area get flagged as highest priority this uh this portion of town and the eastern side was flagged as highest priority for interior forest blocks connectivity blocks physical landscape diversity so just those are the components that play in that part of town okay let's click down oh um so then if we want to learn more about what those components mean each of those dark each of the the blue on the on that screen each of those are are links to the component abstracts so that's going to tell you in general what is an interior forest what does that mean why are those ecologically important and how exactly were they selected so I say selected they're 4052 forest blocks in Vermont the interior forest component is a subset of that universe of forest blocks so how did we go from 4 000 to whatever it is 300 um the the component abstract explains all of that but it explains it at the interior forest level meaning all interior forest but it explains how that was done so as we continue clicking around middlebury learning more about the components that are present we might click in the in the south central there and learn that that particular area was flagged because it's a physical landscape block and the physical landscape characteristics I'll explain those in a moment but here I'm not talking about the biological world I'm talking about the physical world the bedrock the slopes the topography which there's incredible correlation between bedrock and biological diversity so it's a it's an actually a fantastic surrogate and really important for climate resilience but I digress so and then when you click at left uh you know the the area I selected was uh surface waters and riparian areas riparian is streamside vegetation um and also riparian wildlife connectivity so we're getting a sense that there are different suites of components at play in different parts of town suites of components so interior forest and connectivity blocks to the east uh surface waters and riparian areas throughout town uh physical landscape blocks to the south there's suites of components and so that's an important concept because if I had chosen a town on the spine of the green mountains uh it would be overwhelmingly forested and that the suite of components would be much more forest oriented when you go into the Champlain Valley you get a lot more interaction with surface waters and riparian features so different suites of components their grasslands uh important for grassland bird habitat in the Champlain Valley that aren't particularly effective at the upper elevations so different suites of components in different places um then I can also uh turn on the species and community scale components to get a sense of hot spots some of many of these are hot spots within that landscape scale network so you can think of these as places in the network that are the network the dark green landscape scale highest priority that's the network I'm talking about you can think of these as adding value to parts of the network where there are multiple uh ecological values present at the same place some of these species and community scale elements do not occur in the network uh it could be a population of rare plants that's in a uh you know in a disturbed area in a more developed part of town um I'm just trying to express some of the messiness of the natural world that not all of our of our ecological priorities fall within this network landscape scale network of forest blocks and some of the rare species work we need to do will happen outside of that grasslands uh grassland bird habitat is outside of that forested network so the dark green landscape scale priorities gets us the vast majority of species protection but it doesn't get us everything there are some species that are going to fall through those cracks and still need to be uh looked at one by one so that's that's an important note here is these are the landscape scale is a coarse filter it tells us the big picture of what's most important we will find efficiency in our conservation by focusing on that network we'll get more species more bang for our area buck by looking at that network first but that is not the extent of what we can conserve we need to also focus on rare species elements that that occur outside of the network as well I will assure you that's the vast majority are captured within the network so um for clarity I'm just going to turn off the landscape scale and just keep on the species and community scale so you see dark uh a blue and a purple um and uh and so I just wanted to show you first and foremost there's large circles always a red flag in the ecological world um and those circles uh chances are refer to rare threatened and endangered species and the fact that it's a circle has to do with the way the heritage programs program maps those components and and some species we're we're applying significant buffers because they move around so that so those circles speak to how the data was created it it doesn't reflect the exact habitat of that species at that location so we can see that there are rare species at play here in Middlebury for sure I also highlighted a wetland there in the middle and I'm just showing you how the map tips guide by start telling you which components are at play whether you're at the landscape level or the species and community level I'm making room any questions no okay thank you so I've said this before and forgive me I'm just going to repeat the hole is greater than the sum of its parts uh so I really want to underscore the importance of the overall network um but I'm now going to show you that we can break this up into those individual components and so we can see what uh one component at a time what the distribution looks like across the state and at a particular town at the landscape scale we identify interior forests connectivity blocks physical landscape blocks surface water and riparian area network riparian wildlife connectivity at the community scale we're looking at natural communities aquatic habitats wetlands rental pools wild live road crossings and rare and uncommon species so the this in total is the the Vermont conservation design these are the the overall priority areas um so when you look at biofinder please let me just jump up and down the the overall components in that top left corner those are the same as the individual components in right uh in the box below it so you can see them one by one in the individual components in the red section or you can see them all together as overall priorities in the top so any spot of land that was flagged as highest priority for any one of those components will then get bumped up into the overall priorities section so a particular spot that was flagged for interior highest priority interior forest that ranking comes through and it shows up as highest priority dark green at the overall level those are the same we that there's there's been there's no change there we're just showing we can show it to you as an overall network or we can show it to you component by component um so let me just go quickly through and I believe you've heard testimony from Mr. Zano who spoke to each of these components as well I'm not going to uh I'm not gonna spend a lot of time here but I just I thought it might be useful just to hear these again the components at the landscape scale interior forest we're talking about deep dark woods uh where we get the the most species uh uh if from a conservation planning standpoint um these areas are important for climate resilience for air and water protection these are again a subset of all of the habitat blocks that are out there the connectivity blocks are a different subset of all of the habitat blocks forest blocks that are out there some of them are the same as interior forest and some of them are not so they are two different subsets of of the overall habitat blocks but connectivity blocks are the the places in Vermont where we uh the a selection of forest blocks that essentially allow for wildlife movement and ecological process movement from the Berkshires to the Sutton's the Whites to the Adirondacks uh and everything in between that's the connected network of forest blocks so when you look at the pattern in yellow orange on the screen that is a connected pattern and so that's it's it's most important function is that it is a connected pattern so that's a different type of selection than for interior forest as an example um surface waters and riparian areas difficult to see at this scale but this is every single stream and river uh in in the state and uh and then a subset of those surface waters and riparian areas where there's actual intact vegetation along the streams and rivers is called riparian wildlife connectivity because that allows for terrestrial movement beside the stream and the river so where there's intact vegetation beside the stream that's better ecological function than without so that those areas are flagged as riparian wildlife connectivity and so here uh I believe this must be uh Shelburne the Shelburne South Burlington line where you see um uh Shelburne Bay um and so I'm just showing you that there's uh that there's a subset of of the area that's riparian wildlife connectivity compared to the overall mass of surface water physical landscape blocks are um are are a type of forest block that were chosen because of physical landscape diversity the entire highest priority network was uh assessed for physical landscape diversity and there are some places in that highest priority network where we didn't capture all of the the geological settings uh that are present statewide in Vermont and so we added in a few forest blocks to ensure that there was representation of every geologic uh landform setting uh that we have in the state so as we think about climate resilience as we think about looking into the future all of our species are going to change so how do you predict where there's biological diversity in the future where we have diversity in the physical landscape today we'll have biological diversity into the future it might be a sassafras sassafras tool of tree forest you know some of the the the mid-atlantic forests uh moving up in in several hundred years but those are still going to be places of diversity relative to the surrounding landscape so this physical the analysis of physical landscape diversity and biofinder is critically important to your understanding of of climate resilience and where we'll have biological diversity into the future okay then there are a variety of species and community scale components i'm not going to go through all of these but i just wanted to make sure i flag them all um that uh again they're hot spots they're often inside the network they're occasionally outside the network um you have heard the term conservation targets in the past i just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page about that term so conservation targets uh has a very specific meaning on the biofinder website it refers to a suite of targets for old forest young forest shrublands and grasslands uh that we were trying we we set a goal a target for how much of these different conditions do we want on the landscape to maintain ecological function you could also say that all of vermont conservation design is the conservation target uh for vermont how much is enough uh what are the places that are most important so you can think of the entirety of the network as a target uh but that term has a very specific meaning on biofinder where we're just talking old forest young forest shrublands and grasslands we map these separately because some of these features are outside of the network some of these features we don't necessarily know uh it moves from year to year where there's young forest for example so targets were set that are outside of the mapped network so again i'm just being clear the word conservation target has a couple different meanings here um i also wanted to point you to uh we're getting deep in the weeds now in biofinder but in the top left uh there's uh there's a theme and when you first load biofinder it says prioritization in that top left there are other themes uh inventory is a theme that's all the raw data every single habitat block in vermont shows up on the inventory side of things um there's another theme called the social and environmental factors theme that was just developed it includes the entirety of the social vulnerability index uh created by the department of health it includes the parcelization database uh created by vermont natural resources council and it includes in a few other spatially explicit data layers but it gives you insight into uh poverty levels education levels insurance levels uh number of people in uh in high density development and housing and apartment buildings essentially so there's a tremendous amount of social data that's also viewable on the biofinder website it tells us a lot about equity and diversity but i just wanted to be clear that all of that information is viewable along with the conservation plan of vermont conservation design so we can begin as i work with communities across the state i learn more about those communities in terms of some of those social metrics uh so that we can better match the uh the conservation tools we're suggesting with the uh with the ecological values in that larger pattern representative sceleon can you give an example um of how you connect so the social vulnerability index to this land value in craftsbury has gone up more than 2000 percent since uh 2004 um that's a uh an alarming statistic for residents there who would like to see their children live in the same town that they live in um so when i present about ecological features in craftsbury uh mentioning statistics like that helps understand why guiding the pattern of development might be helpful to that community another example i believe uh uh representative rum uh had said that uh what is it um a uh mobile home residents make up a small fraction of the overall of the overall housing stock in vermont and yet were disproportionately affected by hurricane irine so as we think about environmental justice and being able to understand the connection between environmental values and the people that live there data sets like this can be incredibly helpful so maybe i'm miss maybe i'm misunderstanding and i apologize i have a tickle my throat i don't want to be coughing in here it's um are you connecting the social um vulnerability and the ecological factors maps they are viewable at the same time okay but you're not making a connection not in any map and not in any uh data sense no that was yep so they're viewable at the same time so folks that are responsible for land use planning in those communities can understand both realities awesome thank you and i'm going to actually ask you if you wouldn't mind going back a slide because this came up in our conversation the other day and you have a great map here that shows the biophysical regions of the state and then you've called out what the targets are and in these boxes and i just want members to take note of that and then maybe if you could walk us through one or two of those examples like sure there so there are targets for old forest and young forest that are set at i believe the biophysical region scale so how much young forest do we need in certain biophysical region how much old forest do we need in certain biophysical regions so the the targets the goals are set and so we imagine those goals would be met within the the the highest priority network in that in that region because it would include the vast majority of forested land in that region but different parts of Vermont have different amounts of young forest just as one example so it was appropriate to set different targets for different biophysical regions grasslands are really much more productive in the Champlain Valley and in the Connecticut River Valley and so we set targets for what percentage of grassland and and troubling habitats would be ideal in statewide to meet in those different biophysical regions those targets would largely be met outside of the highest priority network that's overwhelmingly forested okay so some members know each of these maps of the state are different kind of targeted types so young and old forest shrub lands and grasslands going across you could think of the interior forest selection also as a target and component and the connectivity blocks as a target uh how much is enough in those cases we were able to actually map those uh with you know choosing specific blocks because forest is persistent in the case of shrub lands uh we didn't choose specific spots those are ephemeral so in the case of interior forests are they um it's the map that you showed us of the important habitat blocks that is the area that we feel is important right that is the target yes thank you people to folks understand that no no sorry was that why we're dwelling on a little bit it's a new concept for us for a lot of us so so i'm so looking at these and looking at uh the first map forgive me you're looking at the targets now old and young forest targets i'm looking at yes yep so uh in these target is how is the target set it depends on the component but it's uh it's what the the total amount of land area that we feel is is necessary to maintain we the fish wildlife department and the agency of natural resources steering committee that created Vermont conservation design these are the areas that we feel are most important uh to maintain into the into the future so how much is enough uh we're trying to answer that question okay so these are targets so i'm looking at uh the top one north north eastern highlands young forest five percent twenty two thousand acres whole forest if nine thousand acres so where's the bottom there's a both of those are targets and where is how much so what those two acreages are the how much that's the target we don't know how much it's going to serve that's part of what we're trying to get out in 30 by 30 yeah forgive me this is not about concert this is not about permanent land conservation this is about how much of that particular uh uh habitat type do we have or do we think is most appropriate to maintain ecological function so there's a tremendous amount of young forest in the northeastern highlands already and so the target is lower than in other biophysical regions so it's 22 000 acres is what is there no male 22 000 acres is is the target that's how much we think is enough to maintain that function in that biophysical region what's the five percent in that box uh wasn't that early successional forest young forest young forest that's the target sorry sorry i'm still not there okay so the top box northeastern highlands young forest oh northeastern highlands that's the biophysical region that's the area biophysical region young forest five percent in parentheses 22 000 acres that's the target that is five percent of what five percent of the forested area uh in that region should be target young forest okay and old forest no target listed okay 59 000 so why do we have a percentage and in on the younger forest and uh i don't know the answer to that question i would suggest that that i would guess that that's because early successional forest is ephemeral it it it grows up uh and so it's there's a it's it's difficult to quantify uh exactly you know when when does it stop being young forest and become uh mature forest uh that's on a spectrum so it in cases it's easier to maintain a percentage uh than it is to have an exact acreage okay i'm going to i i think maybe i have it so uh the target in the northeastern highlands for young forest is five percent we have you're going to tell me it's the target i'm going to tell you it's target the that box is not going to tell you uh how many acres of forest we have in the northeastern highlands okay i i said the five percent i don't understand why we have one list as a percentage and not the other yeah and forgive me i don't have a great answer for you on that other than young forest is ephemeral and so it is very difficult to maintain to have it grows up it changes uh and um and so it is very difficult to capture what the exact acreages of young forest because it depends who uh uh how young you are okay who's this most useful for this map uh the conservation community um having an understanding of the mix of of um of uh the mix of age stands uh so foresters uh conservationists uh the agency um so the remote conservation design is attempting to bring the entire conservation community onto the same page uh and so there are parts of it that are going to be more useful to landowners and less useful to landowners okay um we'll just say that uh i think we've spent enough time on this but i'm not sure so representative smith thank you uh it's great that you're doing all this stuff to conserve but uh before the state and the fedge built great big roads up through the northeast kingdom the woods were pretty well conserved because nobody could get through and if they were left alone they would keep reproducing and doing what they're supposed to be doing probably on their own so what's the point of this mass confusion that you've got on the law there well sir i i don't see the roads going away anytime soon oh i don't either uh i'll be aged in a few years and and i actually see the roads as a as a vector for for growth and further development and increased fragmentation uh so it it seems to me that we need to map these areas and understand ecological function given the context so you're suggesting that we do for more fragmentation up uh up there is that what i just heard no sir the roads that have been developed for fragmentation uh i don't entirely understand your points i heard no i i think i think representative smith is probably thinking of roads that were built by the state up in the conty yeah well not all roads are the same uh so uh you know roads within state-owned land are going to have a very different effect uh and ramifications than roads on private land roads within state lands are are not going to be vectors for increased development nor are they likely to be as wide and well maintained as uh as public access uh and so a lot of the uh environmental damages that go hand in hand with roads are less present in those places than they would be on route two for example uh route two the more roadside you clear the less canopy there is and so the more it's an effective barrier where there's a real difference between the roadside habitat and the forest uh when trees are directly beside the road and it's a eight-foot wide road uh the canopy closes and it's a very different environment than uh than than a public uh public access you say it's a better environment when the canopy closes over the roads uh better environment for whom conservation of land uh well yes sir I would suggest that uh that having a more intact forest is is better for the natural world good thank you thanks um so I just wanted to uh to give you all a sense of how Vermont conservation design is being applied statewide uh Biofinder was first created in 2012 uh Vermont conservation design was first created in 2015 we did an update the species and community scale layers in 2018 we are currently redoing Vermont conservation design uh with a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will be done by the end of this year um the Biofinder website and Vermont conservation design are critically important for land use planning at the municipal level that is my day slash night job uh of working with communities and in interpreting these data for them and and scaling it down to those towns uh Vermont conservation design is critically important for uh establishing priorities for land conservation not only within the agency of natural resources but across the entire conservation community land trusts uh frequently cite uh Vermont conservation design as a reason for conserving a particular parcel and will list the components within that are present in that parcel as further justification for why conservation would be necessary uh Vermont conservation design is part of uh state lands management and plays a role in how we understand what we manage for and where um the there are partnerships at the uh ecoregional level like the staying connected initiative that focus on habitat connectivity across the entire northern Appalachians uh our science forgive me if I'm a little biased our science is better than any other states I've seen uh and so we use our science uh when when we're involved in partnerships like that uh and we use Vermont conservation design as the priority area for staying connected partnership that operates within Vermont the Governor Scott is a signatory to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premier's uh connectivity resolution 40-3 and so Vermont conservation design folk featured prominently in that effort as an example of the kind of statewide wall-to-wall science that that governs what connectivity looks like um we use uh Vermont conservation design in our uh in our work on section 248 review and also in uh in it provides context in Act 250 review uh so there are a variety of uh ways that VCD has been used over the years and and continues to be actively used and helps sets the trajectory for the agency and for the conservation community across the board um I I just mentioned the staying connected initiative and I just wanted to highlight that effort uh because it features a multi pronged approach which I might suggest is the blueprint for what conservation should look like moving forward uh it's not enough to have one element of this multi pronged approach in my opinion the coordination between the prongs of this approach is is critically important so there are different spheres of they're they're different spheres conservation science land protection land use planning road barrier mitigation the transportation systems piece different partners work in those different spheres and they focus intently on those spheres and yet you can get incredible conservation uh uh success by coordinating between those pieces so when VTrans invests in transportation infrastructure that helps move wildlife well the land use planning the land use planners can pick up and and plan for that area to be low density the land protection partners can pick up on that hub of infrastructure and start uh working with landowners about conservation easements to maintain that network in perpetuity so the coordination between the parts of the multi pronged approach is in my opinion even more important in this day and age than any one of the individual prongs so I'll just I'm just going to give you a few examples of how that plays out I do a lot of work with act 171 the forced integrity bill that requires towns to identify their force blocks and connectors and so this for every town plan written since 2018 has to include that those concepts um so we can use Vermont conservation design this is weightsfield we can use conservation design to select those force blocks to connect select those connectors to select those wildlife road crossings uh to help towns build those act 171 related maps this is a review representative spill you go back thank you so looking at this map which is really helpful in helping us understand where we want to conserve how somebody took the state with a priority to build housing so how would this map most um be most helpful uh in expediting the building the town of weightsfield engaged in my services because they wanted to do a housing overlay district for exactly that reason to to focus on on housing in in town and particularly affordable housing at close to route 100 where public transportation was possible but to do that well they wanted to know where their force blocks are so they could keep that new housing out of those force blocks so they asked me to help work with their planning commission and conservation commission to fine tune those force block selections uh as and help understand the relative priority levels of different force blocks within their town such that their housing overlay could be maximized to I say minimized could minimize ecological ramifications uh and uh and and so we get the housing they're looking for so is that something that I mean is that like a one-off type project is that something that we can do at a state level well it certainly the state could choose to do statewide land use planning well I mean we have a statewide conservative so we we're looking at maps show for conservation prior priority areas are for conservation when we build housing we want to build housing not necessarily exacerbating this we want to still conserve land so could we add another layer on here I mean with the social vulnerability could we add another layer here about suitability for housing in terms of conservation well I would suggest that the areas not in the highest priority network would be the first place to look for for housing and so we're also trying to so could we add that as a layer on here so we're also looking at building in places where there are existing downtowns designated downtowns etc so this this date these data are are attempting to be the best science we can offer uh this is not the land use plan um this is the the conservation values and to come up with the land use plan and what we think the future should look like they're all manner of trade-offs and so I think those trade-offs are are more complicated than one particular agency so I would suggest that putting the putting this putting housing some layer like housing suitability on this map would would need to be a lot bigger than just the agency and right now is controlled at the local level okay so one offs for towns is something that is what I do that's what you do I best test towns with exactly that okay are you the only person that does that at the agency uh it depends how you mean uh I'm the uh my my program is the only one in the Fish and Wildlife Department that provides municipal technical assistance so how long would it take a municipality to be able to work with you uh it very much depends on the municipality forgive me I'm not trying to hedge my bets here but it very much depends on the municipality uh some are are much more functional uh than others uh and so can move quicker and others you know meet once a month then things move slowly uh so a year two years two okay for a town to but I mean it would take years for the average town to get to the place where they are ready there it just there's a long arc to town uh town land use planning okay although I think what I heard Representative Stabilia asking was how many towns can you work with at a time oh something more like that like what do we need more yens out there in the world um I uh I do direct technical assistance to my program does direct technical assistance to about 35 communities uh every year uh we reach more like 100 125 community each year through a combination of webinars and so forth so there's ongoing education of towns but then there's also access for when they're updating their town plan well and and the work that happened with weights fields was weights field that you talked about the housing I mean that to me seems pretty key for meeting you know our our goals around conservation and adding new housing and so I'm wondering if there's a limitation on the types of services that would allow us to do both and so I'm hearing you are the person well a lot of towns are are working without my assistance but there is a lack of capacity at the municipal level uh we we as a state are assigning more and more responsibility to our municipalities and some have capacity excellent capacity and others do not uh and so the sort of rift uh between towns that are are capable of moving on a bunch of different fronts and towns that aren't uh is increasing in my opinion yes yeah representative Morris I'm out here aren't the regional planning commissions involved with this as well absolutely thank you so much for bringing that up they are the premier technical assistance deliverers uh for every town in Vermont so my work tends to be more specialized on interpreting the data but they are absolutely the experts in the writing a town plan and the the regulatory language of subdivision or or zoning or whatever it might be and I think in helping with what you're getting at that interface balancing all the conflicting yeah so that we're doing good things instead of bad things and quickly representative Dory yeah that that was my question too about like a housing local new district that you mentioned you might not reflect that anywhere on biofinder but that map and that mapping exercise will be captured somewhere like the rpc has gis ability and they so that that housing layer but that type of stuff will exist and be accessible why will you just um because it's part of it can be part of a larger plan like a regional plan but then their zoning their zoning will be mapped yes ma'am it also shows up in their town plan yeah right so when those maps get created they they're public they live as a data layer somewhere so maps for housing exist already they already exist thank you maps for housing their zoning maps but the thing that doesn't exist that I think is missing that used to exist was our town plans we were required to have identified areas for affordable housing and that requirement went away so that's something we're digressing and running out of time but I would also suggest to you that this so I'm going to go back to the very beginning because Jens mentioned to us there's biofinder pioneer but then there's the atlas which has all of that data it has water and sewer data mapped it has kind of the much broader um look you can and I think it would be helpful this morning we took testimony about how small the area where we want housing is and I would argue the area where we actually have housing is quite large because when you put the E911 addresses up on any of these maps you will see that this these forest blocks are you know perforated by houses in a very significant way in many places madam chairwoman I am blowing your agenda I think we have a little bit of room in the agenda so I think this is good this is really important okay thank you all right so we do a review of town plans and bylaws every 10 years we often work with my natural resources council and I just wanted to flag that in the 2022 review of all town plans and zoning and bylaws we found that there's a significant increase in inclusion of forest integrity related issues in our town plans across the board you can see that the numbers are in the 70s high 70s and 80s for the percent of town plans that mention those those resources so in the last 10 years the towns have really pivoted to understand these issues please also note that the the the detail with which the town plans are describing forest blocks and connectors in terms of map layer is is lagging behind and so in general there's a rift between the aspirational language that you see in the town plans and the regulatory framework that might actually maintain or protect those resources into the future so there's a lot of good language in the town plans they set the vision for the future but they don't necessarily constrain development and and then I'll just show that you know the zoning is very common as one tool as a subdivision very common in vermont but it is not wall-to-wall I believe the percentage is I should have written this down I think 86 percent statewide of towns that have zoning it's something in that region and yet the quality of that zoning can very dramatic so I just wanted to point out that the regulatory landscape is not at all consistent across the state as you look at particular zoning districts I'll just flag that there are you know a lot of towns are are using conservation districts and forest districts with some efficacy towards towards wildlife and fragmentation standards natural resource overlay districts and wildlife districts are not used as much but are in my view more effective at maintaining those those values and and then I'll just flag that the rural or ag resource districts are are very common maybe omnipresent in in zoning and are very ineffective at addressing these issues so the vast majority of growth that happens in vermont is happening in those ag and rural residential districts so the sprawling development pattern that we see in vermont largely happens in those districts I'll just finish up with an example of bolton and so I've highlighted the town in in blue and as we look at the overall vermont conservation design you get a sense of how central bolton is to to that to that design in in this part of vermont I worked with the community starting in 2012 on inventory by doing a town specific inventory and then they did a town plan in 2019 and did rewrote their zoning in 2021 so speaking to the long time that it takes towns to get work done that work is over a decade the planning the the work that went into that really did pay off the zoning district excuse me the zoning map that you see at left please let me just point out that extreme eastern dark green that's the their forestry district and so relative to 2005 they expanded their forest and conservation districts and they brought it down the hill and it lines up at right you see the conserved land map and please notice that there's a hole right near right in between the two the conserved land from bolton and the conserved land and dexbury and the zoning actually fills that that gap so there's through their zoning through the use of land protection and land use planning there's continuous corridor that limits development north to south so their conserved lands in bolton is up with the the forest district in bolton lines up with conserved lands in dexbury so conserved land is is great it's in perpetuity 30 by 30 is is very doable given the numbers we're at but conserved land working with willing landowners to do easements does not get you land use pattern it does not make a pattern across the state it is by nature hazard where there are willing landowners and land trusts have been doing an excellent job of trying to focus on ecological function and and and make sure that that the lands they accept as easements work for those values but it doesn't get you pattern land use pattern land use planning does get you that pattern so again the mix of tools and that's why i'm talking about this multi pronged approach the mix of tools is is how you find viability into the future in my opinion and i'll just bring this i just have a few more slides but just wanted to be clear that transportation infrastructure is that even finer scale of where we can allow for different values where different networks interact and so as we think about bolton that zoning map where i just explained i just want to show you one particular structure uh or two structures this is called pinio brook and so that zoning district for that conserved land and then the zoning district also lines up with this culvert under i-89 and root two uh it also lines up with this culvert charkeyville the from a fish and wildlife department and the agency of transportation have been working together on road ecology and right sizing our structures across the state when the agency of transportation builds new it overwhelmingly accommodates aquatic organism passage and terrestrial movement the problem has been that v trans hasn't had enough money to replace new my point here is again we're lining up the different prongs of the approach we've got the land protection like camelsome state forest the lands in bolton then we have land use planning the bolton zoning districts and now we have the pinch points and v trans is currently scoping this charkeyville culvert looking for alternatives to appropriately size it to allow for wildlife movement so in this case the land protection the land use planning came first the infrastructure hopefully is next in other cases we build the infrastructure first and the land use planning and the land protection come after that so uh sorry that that was a wild wild roller coaster ride but i i hope you got something out of it thank you so much for your time thank you for your testimony that was very helpful for us representative stevens makes no sure i just wanted to clarify that culvert was too small yes i don't think you said that as clearly as forgive me this is radically too small this was 40 feet underwater in hurricane irine and it shoots water about 40 feet straight out towards the muskie uh but it's under about 100 feet of fill so it doesn't move but everything around it might uh further questions that was really very helpful yeah representative um i know you were from the conservation commission world as a big resource i was curious about how many of our towns have conservation commissions more than half of vermont towns have a conservation commission we picked up two new ones last year in um bernand and south hero thank you again great thank you we're gonna take a five minute break