 Good morning. It's Wednesday, June 10th, 10 o'clock as meeting of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee. We're continuing our work on Act 250 related provisions. And for those trying to follow how things are moving by agreement in the Senate, all the Act 250 work is being rolled into one relatively large amendment. Since it's going to be then become part of the housing bill s 237 and travel together one big bus. However, so we've talked about, and we're taking it in chunks today we're returning to trails provisions and as per our usual MO. Council has prepared some background information for us and then we're going to go to witnesses to walk through some details of different proposals on how we might make some progress on the trails provisions. So, you know, and one thing before we go into it I know that there have been, I've had numerous conversations in the last three days about work, I know that we're all in a bit of a pressure cooker. COVID has been a stress on everyone change upended a lot of lives. We've had to move to zoom sessions which are far less, I think, far less agreeable venue than sitting at a table when you're really working through difficult intricate issues and the kind of back and forth that an in person meeting affords. And I'd say people are getting tired. So I'm going to just say, I appreciate that folks are being kind of stressed by what we're going through on all sides and just say, ask us all to do our best. And keep on moving along here. So I just want to recognize that we're in a difficult situation. We probably all need to be more patient with ourselves and others then then that may be normal. So with that stress, bring on the stress stress. All right. Okay, so with that, I'd like to go to. There's no other comments from anyone go on to hear from Mr. Kowski. Good morning. Good morning. So, I don't have a PowerPoint today. We started discussing recreational trails a few weeks ago, where I did sort of a verbal walkthrough of the landscape, but I did provide a memo that is posted on your website, which is my sort of distilled high level analysis for determining if a recreational trail under act 250 just current law needs an active 50 permit. So we've talked about this before. There are any current provisions in law specific to recreational trails under active 50. So the regular analysis of the, the purpose of the development is sort of where you start. So is it for a commercial purpose, or is it for a state county municipal purpose. And those give you the sort of relevant thresholds that you have to look at when you're deciding if your project will need an active 50 permit. So the active 50 bill that came out of the house age 926 contains language that makes amendments to add recreational trail specific language to act 250. So this type of language has been contemplated for a while. One of the tasks of the commission on act 250 was to look at recreational trail regulation, and so there was a stakeholder process that was set up. And that process led to the language that's in age 926. Currently, however that language was added as a floor amendment to the bill. It didn't come out of house natural specifically although house natural did review the language and approve it. So this is also on the website for today, your website for today isolated as a single amendment so you can look at it, and we will go through it. Thank you. So I think that's all I have at the moment unless you have questions. So, given our schedule, I'm feeling like we're coming into Fisher Cup bait season. So it's I think it's good to hear the proposals in front of us, and start making sure we have a clear picture of what the decision points are, and then start making those decisions so we can assemble that amendment that will be working on. That I know that we have Mr fight Dell and Mr Coleman and Mr Chapman who all I'm not sure I leave it up to you in terms of, I don't know who wants to speak first, we can follow the agenda, or we can, because you have all collaborated on this. I don't know if you want to pick your own spokesperson to go first. Senator Brown happy to, I'm happy to take the first crack at that give you a quick overview. And then I would refer you to what I'm going to review is a document that I think you've got from Jamie fight L. So our last hearing, I think that was last third Wednesday or Thursday I can't remember I can't remember the date but it's under Jamie's name. But basically it's a, it's a narrative of the changes that are in age 26, which I can walk you through because if you look at them and sort of an isolation that's not obvious I'll be able to give you the context for those, for those changes. I want to talk to you about the one amendment that that is under my name from from the last hearing, we can talk about at the, at the end because that would be in addition to what came over from h926, and then, you know, as questions come up, Matt, Matt helped us work on the language with Ellen and obviously Jamie's here and we've worked on, we've worked on what's going to be in front of you together so I'll try to set the stage real quick and then, and then walk through that walk through that memo. Okay, really the, I'm just want to make sure that you're going back, we'll have that memo in hand so I'm going through, I think it was either. Let me make sure I put my last Thursday, that'd be so our documents list from last Thursday. People are trying to pull it up at the same time. Okay. Warren before you go into it I think it would be helpful for the committee to know that this is really the work product of Commissioner Snyder, this memo, and that I forwarded it to Judith. This is, this is Commissioner Snyder's work product and, and just wanted folks to know that. Okay. Background. Put that document together to summarize to the for the, for Vorek, what was, what was in the house bill. It was such a, it does such a good job there was no reason for us to draft something different so that's why we're, we've all just agreed to use that document. Okay, and just to make sure we're looking at the very same thing it is in memo form at the top of the page to Senate natural resources from Jamie Videl date is June for 2020. Correct. No I think they're talking about the one that's on Friday. Okay, that's why I want to make sure we're looking at the same thing. You're right, Ellen that's correct it's Friday. Okay so there. Got it. Act 250 and recreational trails bill language in bold underlined at the top. That's the one. Got it. Thank you. So there's really two pieces to to this one is basically competition so we're going to go through obviously the bill language shows codification of various rules, legal decisions, existing policy and practice. What I'm trying to do is just provide clarity of taking all these different pieces that have been evolving and and amend the statute to provide some clarity on how active 50 applies currently to Vermont trail system trails, and also to provide some stability so that we can do the remaining work that we need to do to come up with with an alternative which is going to be the proposal that that we come back to you within December so the bill has those two sections. The first one is these clarifications which I'll run through. And then the last piece is the directive for us and agency to come back to you in December with our with our proposal so and these clarifications are basically run for about a year and a half this gets sunset it these provisions are going to go through and get sunset it in January one of 2022 because we estimated that that would be the sort of the timeframe we would need to come back to you with a proposal to then get the statutory authority we need from you and to then engage in any rulemaking or additional process to to get the program ready to launch so that's that's sort of the overarching framework. So what we're going to do at the end is an addition that we're asking for to provide some additional sort of stability in this interim period. We talked very briefly last time about some existing jurisdictional opinions that have been requested. There's also the possibility for other jurisdictional opinions to pop up during this interim period so I'll table that issue for the moment and just focus on what's currently going to happen in 2022 and we can we can run through it. Okay. I'll ask Mr. Kawasaki to also on behalf of the committee sort of keep a running tab on questions on behalf of the committee, if you would please. And we have those questions that you sent us the email before last Friday. In mind, I think as we walk through this document those answers those questions will will be answered. Okay. Mr. Chair, Senator McDonald just done a lot of talking about something we haven't heard yet. What could in a sentence or two. I know that's the problem that you're trying to solve with this language. And yes, is just is it simply that trails don't lend themselves to the traditional thresholds for active 50 review and we're trying to resolve that is that what you're trying to do. There's a large part of it Senator there's there's just uncertainty for dealing with your projects and when you hit certain thresholds and when you're trying to connect one trail to another do you look back and see. Okay, so this is it's not the spaghetti lot problem it's the angel here pasta problem, long and skin. I can I can go with that. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. And what's probably the most helpful thing to do is, is that document you have basically has full loaded narratives sections that sort of identifies each one of these changes. So what's the best way to what's the best way to do I'll just go through at high level, then, in a narrative form that the changes and then we'll just run through the specific language, it'll, it'll be, I think it'll be pretty clear. One thing so the first thing we're trying to do is clarify the definition of a trail. Right now we've got different terms used in different and different places. We've got language that's currently in in the Vermont trail system trail section of statute which is separate from act 250. And then we have other references to trail so we're basically trying to create a uniform definition. I'll go through that a little bit. The other thing that we're basically trying to do is we are trying to make clear what a Vermont trail systems trail is. It's something that's been established in in act 250 precedent it's, it's, it's in the trail section of legislation for the Vermont trail system but it's not, we're just again try to we're trying to bring pieces and parts that are out there and just put them all in one place in the act 250 section of a statute. And the reason that's significant is because of Vermont trail system trail is defined to be for a public purpose, and it therefore has a higher jurisdictional threshold of 10 acres, which is, which is important for going back to center McDonald's question before about about 10 acres of thresholds. Then what we do is for this interim period of time that I described we try and clarify some of the issues that that that people have been people have been struggling with. Again, I think that when the when you have a Vermont system trail that 10 acres is the threshold. We try and clarify that when you're determining jurisdiction that it's the actual physical disturbance of the trail. So that that basically that the corridor where you're doing ground disturbance or clearing. Again, these are things that you know these are things that are in case law and various pieces we're just trying to pull it all in one place so somebody can read it and what the what the lay of the land is. Again, more jurisdictional issues about when about calculating calculating when when jurisdiction is triggered when it's when it's part of some other larger project. It'll be clear when I go clear when I go through the specific language. I want to clarify certain provisions of because most of these trail systems are on private private property. So, right now the nrb has rule 71 that that that tries to make it clear that jurisdiction applies over the trail it doesn't extend to the other parts of the private property when the property owners allowed a trail to be located on the property so again we're trying to just take it all and pull it in statute so everything's in one place. That's that's the gist of it. For that piece. We also try on the flip side to make it clear that when somebody is allowed a trail to be located in their property if they need to do something like have a driveway across that trail, or any other kind of road to access part of their parcel they don't have to go get an amendment to the trail groups act 250 permit. And as I said the last piece really is last piece really is about the report back so I think the probably the best thing to do is to flip to the third page of that document which has the, which has the statutory language and I'll just, I can walk you through it and I think the, the examples will become will become clear and just stop if you if you've got a question you want to stop us. Please go ahead and do that. Okay. So the first for you. Check. Is every committee member have that document in hand or on their screen whatever so you can follow. Great. Thank you. Okay. So the, the first instance is we're amending section 442 in title 10 that's the Vermont trail systems trail section that's not active 50. So there's an existing definition of trails. So what's being done there is trying to is adding to say trails doesn't include things that are primary for mode, primarily for motor vehicles and this just came about with with AOT and others that were trying to make clear that things that we consider real roads for driving cars and trucks and things on are not going to somehow be shoehorned into the definition of of trails. What we do next now as we get into the active 50 section 6001, we have the definitions. We define a recreational trail as the same thing as a trail under the under that other, under that other chapter. So that's the first time we're basically saying a recreational trail has the same meaning as a trail under under that prior under that prior or again now we're trying to align the active 50 definition with sort of our working recreational definition for for trails. And then, can I jump in quickly. So, as an aside, this isn't a question but as a sort of a flag, the age 233 language that we discussed in regards to forest blocks also has a definition of recreational trail and it's different. And that isn't necessarily a big problem, but because it's exclusively for use when talking about forest fragmentation, it isolates that certain recreational trails are not fragmentation, but it is a different definition that what's being used here. No, that's a that's a that's a good catch. And that's one of the things that that under the force frag section that I think we needed to make consists consistent and the hope I think was to refer make it consistent with the definition that we're setting here in this in this piece. Okay. I have a third a second or third definition of what a recreational trail is what we're trying to do here is make sure we have one one working definition. And so Ellen, as you gather these things up if you can put them into a memo to share with the committee will give us a checklist to work back through to make sure we're not ending up with unintentional inconsistencies thank you. Great. So the definition 51 is to now define a specific type of trail which is the Vermont trail systems trail. So this is a set of trails that's recognized by the agency of natural resources. And ultimately, is designated because it when it's designated that then it then has the benefit of being recognized for a state or municipal purpose, and then a subject to the 10 acre, the 10 acre threshold so this definition is important because as you see in these pieces, we're not trying to apply this language and sort of this clarifications necessarily to to the entire universe we're trying to recognize a specific subset of trails that the state has determined are important and for a public purpose, and we already have oversight and go through an approval process at the at the agency of natural resources and at horse parks and recreation in particular, with approval for the Vermont trails and Greenways Council so that's why that definition is there because it carries a separate, a separate jurisdictional threshold. And also it was something that was not. It was recognized through active 50 cases but it wasn't part of the active 50 sort of definitions and and lexicon. So turning the turning the page to X triple I so this is still. We're still in the definition section. And this was one of your questions Senator Bray as you I think you were trying to understand why we structured this piece this way. So this this X triple I is basically like a title section it's basically saying, we're talking about. We're talking about Vermont trail system trails on tracks of land that involve more than more than 10 acres we're talking about what's going to what's going to govern in active 50. So we're talking about Vermont system trail and you and you've triggered your above your above the 10 acre thresholds this is think of this as sort of the title set section because these provisions are are sunset so we wanted to make it so that they were contained in a way that they're together and they hung together. And then when the, when the sunset period came about you could extract that section out of statute cleanly rather than having these pieces scattered all over so that's the idea is this is a sort of a self contained section right here so that's why you see a 12345. Thank you. So, the next one. The next one is, did you have a question center. No, I was just saying thank you. I appreciate the sort of plug and play cleanliness of amending this way. That was the idea. That was the idea. So the next one also is trying to be clear about what this covers so we're trying to say this for this time period, again because this is time limited is the sole means for determining jurisdiction over a newer proposed trail that's going to be part of the Vermont again sort of trying to lay the lay the groundwork for what exactly we're talking about. And then can I jump in. Yes, I can you explain the phrase the exclusive mechanism for determining jurisdiction. Are you. So, can you explain what you're doing with that are you trying to exclude amendment jurisdiction or what. I think the answer. Well, I think the answer for for this time limited period the answers, the answers yes we're really talking about new, talking about new trails or proposed trails so when we get down later. If we really wouldn't be looking at, I think, you know amendment jurisdiction under this or saying for this time limited period if you're part of the Vermont system trail system trail. So this is how determined jurisdictions going to be determined period. Okay, look into Matt, if he has any different way he would explain that. No I mean I think that that that accurately accurately represents the intent of what this is trying to do which is is basically, it's trying to ensure that other other possibilities of determining jurisdiction under act 250 which might come into play and expect to trails that it's limited expressly to these provisions that Warren's walking through. And if I, if I could just add that I think, please warren's right I mean the context was we, if the trails already under act 250, and there's an amendment. I don't think our intent was to say that you therefore can't go through the normal channels of amending for existing premises was looking forward to newly created. Right to clarification there. I guess. So I'm a little bit confused because when, when we're doing an analysis like in the memo I wrote I added that yes the sort of 10 acre one acre threshold is one of the ways that you establish jurisdiction over a trail. And also, and the ability to establish if there's some broader commercial purpose development that is going to be on the property, or if there's already a permit on the property on which the trail, the new trail will cross. So there's a couple of different ways to potentially be subject to jurisdiction because of the numerous ways that development is defined. Okay, I just haven't seen that phrase before and I found it to be a bit confusing. Yeah, I think, again, I think it was just because it's it's we try to make this a time limited period that we were trying to simplify things for for that, you know, for that for that period and say this is, you know, and, and I think as maybe through it it might answer some of the some of the some of the questions so we look at to this parts only going to apply for construction improvements as of July 1 going forward. In three we do two things we define sort of all the sort of ancillary type of infrastructure and things that would go along with a trail and say you would include those in determining jurisdiction so restrooms parking, things of that nature. The key provision here is the last sentence which says involved land does not include any recreational trail constructed before July 1 2020 and this gets to Senator McDonald's question and statement before this is one of the areas that has caused some confusion or there's some uncertainty about how to how to determine when you're looking at a trail it's been constructed prior in time to maybe a section of trail that you're adding on to and when that does or doesn't get aggregated to your project and potentially trigger active 50 what we've all agreed to for again for this time limited period is basically saying from July 1 going forward we're not going to look back at at other sections of trail for purposes of determining jurisdiction and trying to aggregate things and figure out whether you're over 10 acres or not we're just saying for this time period, we're not we're not going to be looking, we're not going to be looking back at trails that were that were built before July 2020 for purposes of determining jurisdiction so it was just that was the that was the idea for this period of time. Mr Chair. Yeah, Senator McDonnell is the witness saying that acres are not an efficient appropriate or useful way to measure trails for the purpose of regulation. I think that's what we're trying to get away from at least at this at this period of time we basically think you know and this is what we're trying to work on to bring back to you in December which is, which is trails should all be under the same guidelines and this is rather whether it's you know an acre or whether it's 30 acres, you know, regardless of length they should all have the same technical standards they should have the same maintenance requirements. Thank you. I will listen to testimony with the understanding that what we're going to hear is consistent with the goal of recognizing that trails just don't fit the active 50 definitions and are causing ongoing concerns. Okay. Does that make sense. Okay. That's that makes sense. One quick question on sub to the subdivision shall apply to construction of improvements. So, how does that relate I mean I get the kind of clean slate we're in a box that starts on July one we're moving forward during a pilot or whatever we might call it. If you start doing improvements then you're talking you're necessarily talking about pre existing projects right. So, are you sort of dipping back in the things already permitted or regulated. I'm just trying to make sure we don't. This is the intent I think the improvements is used to mean that you're, you know, sort of the creation of the trail work. Again, new trail after July 1, which could include trail but it could include other, you know, other pieces that could include the picnic area and the shelter and things of things as things of that nature so I don't think we're thinking about sort of the, the reaching back I mean that's make put it this way if someone's going back and doing maintenance or upgrades on their trail. That's something that they are already obligated to do and would not would not trigger would not trigger activity I think today. If we could understand, if we could understand the concept of the entire trail regulation and what is being proposed. And we find that promising we might go back and ask ourselves how we might grandfather, the various things have already happened to fit the new model. So, but we're going to get the presentation on what the big concept is here. And not that I know it's been a couple, it's been a couple weeks because I remember you. I ran through sort of the basis of what we hope to come back to you with in December but in its, in its simplest form, it's a, it's a enhanced sort of best management system for managing all for managing all recreational trails with education oversight from the agency. Ready to hear it. Okay. So I think we're up to seven four. Okay. I have more questions. Back to one. For a new or proposed recreational trail that is or will be a part of the Vermont trail system. So I do not know at what point a trail is recognized as part of the Vermont trail system. So how can you have is it easy to determine what will be a part of the Vermont trail system and what happens if it doesn't receive that recognition. We added that in because historically way, the way trails have been brought into an approved as part of the Vermont system has been sort of after the fact somebody has built a section of the area of trail and then sought approval. So what we tried to do was be more forward looking and and say if I that I don't want to build something unless I know I'm going to be part of the Vermont trail system. So we wanted to make sure that we could deal with something that was proposed, rather than built. So that's why that that's why that language is in there. So somebody comes in and it says I want to Commissioner Snyder and the Vermont trails and Greenways Council says I want to build X. If I build it this way, I maintain it this way. If I be part of can I get approval to be part part of the Vermont trail system we wanted to be able to say yes, go build it and if you do you're part of the Vermont trail system. Historically it's happened the other way where it's happened after the fact and we thought we needed that didn't wanted to be more proactive in in in being able to include people as part of the system. I'm looking at Commissioner Snyder if he has anything to add to that that's the reason for that language. I'm just a little bit concerned because as we're adding this under this this heading of the new definition of development are Vermont trail system trails. And now we're talking about things that are prospectively going to be trails, but there is a potential that something can apply to be a recognized trail and not get that recognition. And then decide not to build it then. I mean that's sort of what I think they that think that's that that's that that's what we're trying to, we're trying to have people want to be part of that be part of that system. And if they're not going to be then, you know, they may they may not build it or they have to make adjustments so that would get would get approved. I mean the other thing Ellen is is the hope to get back to Senator McDonald's question is that this is temporary and in a year and a half or you know that this system basically gets shelved and we have a different system so what we're talking about now basically becomes moot. But with the distance is the like. What's the distant system that and what would it look like. And if we endorse what is being proposed then we can go back and grandfather and right. It's necessary to get there. I still don't know what the system is yet. Well, again, we went over that it's been a couple it's been a couple weeks. It's a long document but but said it was it was again in its core it's a it's a set of best management practices that that set out clear standards for all different types of trail networks, hiking, biking, skiing, whatever, whatever, you know, ATVs, snowmobiles, and then our job is to basically enhance those BMPs to to address certain issues that we know they currently don't address. So that there's a, there's a set of rules that everybody plays by regardless of the length of the trail the age of the trail all those things that help. Okay. Senator McDonald you do have a you do have a memo which may be helpful to refer back to which we can reorient you to maybe after and I will do the outlines, a lot of it. Jamie just for clarity for instance is that included in your June 4 memo to the committee. I'll go back and look at the date when Lauren and Commissioner Snyder and I presented the memo I don't have the date in front of me but there was an overview memo. There was some time back in May, when I walked through, I walked through that the outline of that of that memo. Alright, so thank you so offline can we ask you to send it to the committee today because we're getting quite a collection of memos. And again, we're, we're, we're, that work is not finished yet and so what we're doing here is trying to say, give us a little bit more time we're going to come back in December with hopefully the final package to present to you Senator McDonald. Here's the work we've been doing. We still have a number of issues that we need to work through, but in the interim period of time adopt these clarifying provisions and act 250. That's, that's the, that's the framework, make these clarifications, give us some time we'll come back with the whole thing hopefully worked out. And then we can get into the details that I think you're interested in Senator McDonald, which which is what we're interested in doing to. Okay. So, we should keep a name. Quickly. I do want to flag one thing on that question that Ellen just mentioned which was a recreational trail that is or will be part of the trail system if you don't. The concern I would have just as that we not all get games, you know someone could say well I am applying for that but they really it's not a particular interest it's not necessarily a real role, but it would allow them to come into this regulatory scheme that they would prefer to be under. So I just want to make sure that someone who's not really genuinely interested in what you're proposing doesn't get sort of abused by someone who says well I'd rather be regulated this way. At the end I don't have any expectation I'll become part of the from our trail system but I'm going to, that's how I'm going to announce my project. Right and I also think it's slightly conflicts with the sort of opening threshold which is this is for improvements to these trails and so if, perhaps that language should be changed because how do you know if you are a trail if you haven't even necessarily gotten your recognition yet. Okay. So all good questions and let's keep going so we really understand your proposal and complete proposal. Okay, so for codifies existing practice in case law. This is the issue of that basically total acreage involved depends on ground disturbance and clearing that's going to occur and if it's not. If the ground isn't disturbed and it's not clear, then it's not considered involved land you don't use it in the calculation for determining acreage that's that's existing practice in some of the jurisdiction opinions in case law. So this is also related to one of my concerns. Currently under the definition of involved lands in the rules. The language is physically altered. And this is introducing two new terms that aren't that don't match that ground disturbance and clearing. So, they're, they're specific, but then they exclude from involve land anything that won't be disturbed or cleared and so I suspect that some of the things in three would not be part of would not involve disturbance or cleared or at the very moment it's ambiguous so would the addition of picnic tables involve disturbance or kiosks or signage. So, I don't know if those two subdivisions line up. I would actually be broader because disturbance. I think when I read it really involved ground disturbance and part of the issue was if you've got a clear actually trees to cut through, you know, to cut a new trail. So that's why we used disturbance or cleared we thought are actually captured, captured more. Most of the things I think listed in three would be picked up. You know, rooms building a parking area building a kiosk. Most of those, most of those would be, I don't think active 50, you know, putting a putting a sign in the ground. You know, we just tried to list everything that we wanted to be clear was related to a trail that could be kept could be part of that calculation you're right somebody sticking a sign in the ground. Disturbance, probably not with second account much towards jurisdiction, probably not. But we actually thought the language was broader and for then what's currently in currently in practice. So that was the reason for that was a reason for using those terms I don't know if matter. Jamie want to chime in but that was that that was the idea we didn't think the other term captured potential tree cleaner. The last one five. So this is designed to eliminate a potential. potential loophole. And what it what so what I'll read it what this does is so development and subdivision that requires a permit under another provision of this chapter shall include recreational trails for determining the amount of involved land related to that development but shall not consider construction of improvements related to trails part of the review the permit application so what this what this is designed of and this is the example we used in the house was a brewery with retail seating and and you know, on site on site brewing and as part of that wants to offer walking trails or mountain biking trails and it's part of one it's part of one project what we didn't want to do is basically to for somebody to be able to present trails from the jurisdictional threshold from the rest of the of that of that project so we so we basically said if you're if it's if it's really part and this is not a scenario that I think has, based on talking with Greg bubble and others from the community that has cropped up. So, so this is somewhat maybe somewhat maybe theoretical but basically we're wondering if it's related to that project. It's not included to the actual substance. That's what that section is trying to say. So, you have a question. Yeah, I find this language to be very confusing. So first I'd like to highlight that it uses recreational trail and not Vermont trail system trails so that makes it different from the rest of the subdivision. And also I'm confused about the word relates, particularly in the example you just gave because I read this, almost as like a penalty, because it sounds like a development that isn't a trail needs to count related trails and it's involved land so is a related trail a trail that crosses a property on which a brewery is going to be developed but they are the same owners. It sounds almost as though anything that builds near a trail and in some way that trail would be related to it would then have to count the trail towards their involved lands. The idea here was that you've got one one project that's that standing together not the scenario that quite frankly that's the last thing we want is for somebody's project that happens to have a trail going by for that to conflate jurisdiction. And this is the situation where there's a clear relationship whether it's ownership nexus that again Jamie comes in builds a brewery, you know, five, five bikes brewery and offers three miles of mountain bike trail as a part of part of that common project. Your concern makes sense it's not something that we've seen happen and we're certainly not trying to penalize somebody be for being located next to a trail and have active 50 asserted over their project because they're located in proximity to a trail where it's quite the it's quite the opposite what this is trying to do. Jamie this is one you might want to speak to. Yeah, Ellen you may be making a good point that we may just need to clean up maybe some of the terms. You know if there's any confusion with recreational trail versus the trails that are being contemplated for this this provision. If we need to just tighten up the word relate but I think Warren explained the intent well and that if it is a whole project. It's contemplated and planned as a whole project that has a recreational trails component. And for purposes of looking at the commercial definition, you don't exclude the trail so it doesn't create a loophole for commercial development. I think that was the intent there is we're just trying to think forward and not allow unintended consequences of actually exempting more commercial development. I think you maybe make a good point that there's a couple of terms here that could be tightened up but we thought the concept made sense so as to not create a loophole. The other thing I just wanted, in terms of being able to address these things as we are ending up with a lot of pretty detailed questions as we work our way through. There's sort of a consortium here in the meeting that's done this work so thank you for doing that. It's very helpful to have a mature black and white work product to work our way through. Chair Snelling from the NRB is on the call and I'm just wondering if, if you have, we've been trying to raise questions, not necessarily to resolve them but to flag them. If you have a few and Mr bubble also have questions. If you want to flag them or share observations while we're going through that would probably be helpful to and as opposed to asking you to do it all at the end, and one fell swoop. I don't have any questions if that's the question, Senator. Okay, four observations or concerns. No, I don't have any concerns I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and just reflect to the committee and you know I know you've heard a lot of testimony in the last few days and I guess I've been trying to follow it as best I can I'm not entirely up to speed I don't know that I've had a chance to really look closely at this latest language but it represents all the ideas that have been discussed now for quite some time so it's it's not anything new. Exactly and I guess, while I'm grateful that the committee is able to take up these issues I also hope that in in the next session that you may get to some of the more sort of substantive issues around the structure of the board itself. You know, to try to put all these things in balance. So that's really kind of where I would, what I would like to say at this point in time. Okay, I mean you say structure the border we talked about the governance model provisions. Over from the house. Okay, yeah. Thank you. All right, so I don't know if you had anything to add. Good morning, Senator and committee. I don't have anything to add but if I if I think it might be necessary to chime in. I'll do so okay. Great. So, everyone. Roundtable discussion is helpful for sorting sorting out details with that Mr Coleman I think we are up to the fourth instance of amendment here. Yeah, and this one, this one's important this one codifies existing rule 71 to make it clear to to landowners that if there's if there is jurisdiction over a trail that it only extends to the trail and any of that infrastructure for operation of the trail does not extend to the rest of the of the parcel. So somebody's got, again, somebody's got a section of trail that is subjected to 250 is really that that trail section and any of those, any of those other necessary infrastructure it doesn't extend to to Mr Jones's farmhouse and their barn and their crop fields and anything like that it's that that's what this is. It's just taking that rule 71 and making it crystal clear. Because as you know, the system is is largely cited on on private landowner property, and we wanted to make this front and center and make it clear what the, what, what impact a trail had on at 250 jurisdiction with regard to the rest of the property that's that's that one's that's a pretty simple one. And is that still a sticking point for people, although there is already rule 71. And I think it's, we talked about this last time. I think the, the issue is that we're just trying to we're trying to make it just crystal crystal clear and by putting it in statute I think that I think that helps. That's the idea so it isn't it is obviously an existing existing rule but it's definitely a different people have different views on on on active 50 and regulation so we thought this could only help by making, making things more clear about how that works. Okay. So that takes us to the fifth instance. So that the fifth is keep that same sort of scenario in mind you've got a you've got a, you know, a large, a large parcel someone allows a trail to be made on their on their property, and that there is jurisdiction over that over that property. If, if that landowner needs to somehow build a driveway or an access road to a farm field or whatever it might be they need to actually cross that that trail that just crossing that trail and having to do that does not require them to go get a permit amendment. That's, that's what's, that's what's behind this. It's again another scenario that quite frankly we heard, at least my group of trail alliance heard from landowners was am I going to have to go get a permit amendment or a permit. If I need to cross that cross that recreational trail and we said no so long as what you're doing isn't obviously related to the to the trail so that's that's the clarification that's designed to make. It's really about access to somebody's parcel where you need to cross across the trail. And then the last, the last section is the seventh instance their amendment is. That's the report. That's the directive to that to agency natural resources to come back to the committees of jurisdiction in in December with a program legislative recommendations for a BMP driven program for the mock trails and trails. And obviously lists there the things that we are supposed to sort of the nature of the program, the things that are supposed to be considered. And the folks that we are supposed to to reach out and work with to finish that work and that's not a lot of time we're pretty far along in the process. But we need to roll up our sleeves and try and get this across to finish line so that's that's what that's designed to do. And the last piece. Here, this is the sunset if you look at it under effective dates that that second, that second that be right there has the sunset for January one 2022 that ties back to earlier when we were trying to create that sort of standalone standalone section. So that those clarifying provisions would would sunset on January one 2022. Subways that the way 926 was passed. All of this is the way 926 was. So those, for example, the definitions like the definitions of trails is not something that would be sunset. That's not something that's in that section, just to draw your draw the distinction there. Honestly, there's a lot of other parts of the bill, the whole rest of the whole rest of the bill. 926 takes effect. Pastors there are September 120. Basic plan is the working group comes back at the end of the year with recommendations to the legislature we have an entire legislative session to do additional work, but meanwhile, you've carved out roughly 18 months under this pilot, whatever we want to call it. Correct. Okay. I'm looking around to see if anyone wants to ask any questions before we drill down a little further on the on the proposal. Mr. Bray just to just I do want to address that other, that other addition to to this whenever you think it's appropriate. Sure. Let's, let's pick it up while we're here too. So, Mr Coleman and sent along another section of language that was elsewhere in the bill just flagging it so it might not be left behind. So what I said last last Friday it's under my name it's one, it's one page, and what it is would be an addition. So, one of the concerns that's arisen as we've been working on working on this is there have been a couple requests of the NRB for or should say the district commissions to determine whether there's jurisdiction over certain projects. And we talked about the status of those last, last week and I can revisit that if you like, but there are dozens and dozens of Vermont trail system trails out there that are currently not under active 50 jurisdiction. And what what this proposal does is says, for this 18 month period that we've already identified that if you're part of Vermont trail system trail and your trail exists as of July 1 2020 act to 50 jurisdiction is not going to apply. And the reason we did it that way is basically what we're, what we're concerned about is having people make jurisdictional opinion requests for trail networks, you know, anywhere in the state for whatever reason they might do that and you can recall that anyone can make a request for an opinion with good intention or or or otherwise, and we didn't want people to sort of take their eye off the ball and finish work on this program and instead spend time and money, and quite frankly, paying attorneys no offense intended to some of my colleagues out here in the legal, the legal world, working with the district commissions try and recreate history and figure out whether active 50 should have applied for work that was done, you know, years or decades ago we just didn't think that was a good use of time. And frankly, we wanted to at least call like a time out on the ability to do that so this was the suggestion of the way to, to do that is basically the same that no permits required for Vermont trail system trail. So in existence prior to July 2021 and then add to the sunset date add this add that same piece to the sunset provision so that would also go away in January 1 2022. And the you the phrase in there required of a Vermont trail system trail pursuant to section 443 so pursuant to section 443 brings in what please. That is where you are designated to be part of Vermont trail system trail. That's that Vermont trail system trail chapter. So that's, it's just, it's adding language that you're a Vermont trail system trail pursuant to that section that's that's where you get such designation. It was just trying to be thorough and identifying how you get that identification. I understand the concept of act 250 will not apply. Does that mean that what has been built is grandfathered, or does it mean now that it's been built in the next 18 months you can rearrange or do stuff to it for the next 18 months where it's closer to the first one but but that grandfathering is for a limited window of time it basically says that says that Senator McDonald you can't go ask for jurisdictional opinion and a project in Shrewsbury that you've never been to. And, and that's what it's trying to do it's trying to put it it's just trying to put a temporary time out on on the potential for jurisdictional opinions. We've had experience with. Okay, okay. And in following this time out period, when the next thing is triggered. All things will be will be subject to the same regulation and the stuff that's been grandfathered and might not be permitted in the future doesn't have to be dismantled. I think that's the idea is we want everybody to play by the same by the same set of by the same set of rules have the same benefits. Okay, hopefully oversight education resources sounds like a plan. Does this. I don't know some people were calling it a moratorium on jurisdictional opinions. You've artfully avoided the word moratorium so far the, but no seriously so there's a vesting of rights that comes along with in this process so at what point, following up on center McDonald's question. If someone does something in the next 18 months under this pilot, whether it's a new construction or modifications to an existing trail system. Have we, in essence said okay, your rights were vested in that 18 month period, and no subsequent legislation will impact what you've built during that time period. And then the question will become, will we perhaps have some unintended consequences or regrets that things happen that were unexpected or problematic, but now we've legally walled them off from from other review. I don't know what if you, if you don't mind, I just, I'll step in on this one. I think with respect to the concept of besting right Senator, you know a person. I think that the group is actively looking at how trails will be maintained and in and operated going forward into the future. And I don't think it precludes an outcome where when there are substantial improvements or upgrades to a trail that they need to be brought up to whatever the new standard is being contemplated is as far as this. So a person doesn't have a best a quote unquote bested right in to operate and non compliance with a regulatory structure. I think there's a practical consideration around whether we as either a and R or the legislature make people go back and retrofit existing trails so that they meet the new standards or whether we come up with a set of standards that acknowledges that things are in existence. But we push them forward to the most protective protective standard we possibly can as we go through this center McDowell. Um, I think Sir Chapman just spoke to what would happen at the end of the 18 months. I'm trying to understand what happens during the 18 months. What can I get away with what can I do. What can you not tell me I can't do who will. What was the consequence if I do some of the things that my wildest dreams on my property I might think of doing what happens during those 18 months. Well, let's let's be clear center McDonald there's ultimately very few trail projects that currently are overseen or or trigger active 50 jurisdiction for whatever for whatever reasons but that's just the facts on the ground there's there's very few projects that actually get looked at through active 50 right now. So all word we're trying to we're trying to maintain the status quo but with this 18 month period to provide some some much needed clarity on on various on various things so ideas is not that this is creating some some free for all or or anything that's going to happen in that in that period I think I think quite to the quite to the contrary. I don't know that that's that's that's the that's the idea here. Well, if there's an 18 month period which is going to be different from the first of July to when it's over and then after it's over it's going to be different again so this this is not really very different than what currently exists again most of these provisions are in rule are in cases or in in practice right now we're trying to bring them forward under one. Under under one section, I mean that's largely what this is doing this is not making wholesale changes to existing act practice I think it's the opposite I think it's the opposite. We're trying to basically hold the status quo, clarify things let us finish our work and then create something different we're not trying to create a third, you know, three things we're trying to we're trying to basically create to and and there's to be honest there's not going to be an awful lot of work done this year given given what's given what's going on, most of the trail construction is very incremental because it's volunteer driven very limited resources. I think it would be all right. It may or may not be correct with that prediction. Thank you. Having worked with the trail organizations I'm making what I believe is is an honest assessment of what I think is going to happen and I think. Well, thank you. Thank you. Jamie you had something you wanted to chip in. Yeah I just just for a full transparency just wanted to share that this is a proposal from the Vermont trails Alliance and I've been representing the forest partnership. And so this is not. This is separate from the package of work that we've done together with with VTA and and the administration. Our position on this is that we're neutral on this. I think we as we've been developing the alternative program, we've all talked about the concept that if trails are out of compliance that they should come into compliance with the best management practices and and and the oversight that would be part of the new program so I think it was anticipated moving forward if the alternative program comes into place that there would be a way to address the issues on the ground. We do understand that, or I guess it's our hope that as many resources as possible could be put into creating the alternative program. So we do, I guess, understand why the trail groups are asking for this. We also do want to recognize it's an unusual. It's an unusual request, we do believe that the natural resources board has does have authority to exercise discretion to address pending issues that are related to trail jurisdiction while the and our program is being developed. But our position on this is that we're, we're neutral on this, and we understand that, you know, the committee will will consider this issue. We remain very focused on the overall development of the alternative program as an overall solution to these jurisdictional issues that have been coming up. Okay, so is there a way that these things can be melded together, like during the pilot phase you would continue the work that would develop the alternative program, or do you see one as is this a fork in the road or can these things happen in parallel. Does it actually buy you time to develop, specify, and maybe fund the alternative program. That's, that's the idea, Senator, and that's why we, that's why we've selected this, this timeframe of of sunsetting all this on July, January 1 2022 is because we anticipate that the new program is going to require some legislative action. We, we would anticipate there was going to be some work that a and r or fpr has to do in conjunction with us probably primarily around the best management practices development and getting that all in place. So that's exactly what we've tried to do is, is create stability for 18 months everyone knows what the current rules of the road are that's basically what we're doing is saying codifying the sort of existing rules of the road and giving us the time to finish that up and then make that and hopefully make that transition that's that's exactly why we did it this way. Okay, so now I'm looking at team a and r, which there are three members here today and say, is the agency supportive of this approach, if it's coupled with support for the developing alternative program. I'll speak to that. Senator bray Thank you, Commissioner Snyder Michael Snyder commissioner fpr for the record. Yes. Right. I'm very grateful for the work that's been done, reflecting broad input over several years and appreciate the conversation identifying clarifications here. But yes very much in support of what came through 926. We are also in support beyond neutrality to the, the idea of clarifying a pause on the jurisdictional opinions for this interim period. Thank you. Well, Warren I'm going to ask you to take on a difficult task that is. Where could this go wrong. You know, is there something we're not. If we when you carve out a pilot that is in a certain way more permissive right not in any negative sense but is there anything in here where you say well, the pilot itself is a little bit open to X, Y or Z as an unintended consequence. Is there anything that you concerned at all about. Not not anything that we've worked on together and developed again, I think of, I don't think of this as a pilot, I think of this as a, as a clarification to give us the time to finish our work I don't think it changes anything. So if you're Vermont trail system trail, you have your you've got a 10 acre jurisdictional threshold for triggering I 250 that's not that's not changing. So we're, we're, again, we're, we're pulling from existing practices and law and, and, and rule and cases and putting it all in one, putting it all in one place. I guess I wouldn't, I wouldn't characterize this as a, as a pilot because that suggests we're doing something out of the ordinary and I think we're doing something that's, that's designed to be designed to basically be the status quo. Okay, great. So then I think, let me ask the committee. Are people feeling comfortable enough with a proposal that we would ask our council to take this language and start to put it into the draft amendment we have. And then I think we would want to revisit how it relates to the alternative program that commissioner Snyder and others have articulated so that it's one coherent proposal in our amendment. Yeah, I think so. Mr. Kelsey is that seem like a quote unquote straightforward enough request. Yes, but I have a few other concerns of the language. I think broadly that this language introduces a bunch of new terms that are not currently in act 250. I'm also concerned specifically about the word necessary that is referenced in a few of the subdivisions. And so, I think on one hand, there is a lot of information in this proposal that is a restatement of existing law and practice. However, there are new terms that don't match that existing law and practice, as well as these sort of carve outs related to elements in existence before honor before July one and so I'm. I think that those are open to multiple interpretations but also leads to potentially bifurcation of trails. So if a, if a trail has elements that are in existent prior to July one 2020. They do not count as part of involved land here. And so, potentially breaking the trail into two pieces. If only the new things are going to be involved land moving forward and so does that mean that the trail is not actually going to reach the threshold of involved land, even though we have two segments that would, even though they're connected. I'm still confused and so I can attempt to redraft it but I am still finding a lot of it to be open to multiple interpretations. Well, so that seems like a major question maybe before we go on. Can someone come warn or someone else respond for that, please. I'm trying to I guess I'm trying to understand the question I mean we certainly are for this interim period basically saying for a Vermont trail system trail, the threshold is 10 acres going forward period you're not looking back to see what it connected to for purposes I think that prior section of trail that was built 10 years ago that you add that length of trail to the section that you're that you're proposing that is one of the areas of greatest confusion that we're trying to make a very clear statement right now. I mean trails are supposed to connect to other trails that's the idea. Yeah, we've had a jurisdictional opinion a couple in 2017 that didn't find jurisdiction because the segment that was being built wasn't long enough but it said you got to keep track because it could trigger it sometime in the forward in the future. And if there's other things that are that are built that could that could pull it in so we're for for this period of time we're trying to be very clear that we're not going to we're not going to be looking backwards for for this next 18 months. And that that I think is one thing that we try to be crystal clear on hoping that maybe that so I don't think it's a, I don't think it's a fork. But I think a fork in the road I think it's just trying to basically be clear that we're, we're trying to do away with that uncertainty of what's happened in the past if you're building something now, or in the future, I don't matter Jamie want to add to that but that was that was the idea here. And do those things before July one, do not require a permit or don't require a permit under this new section. Subdivision two and three don't line up exactly. It shall apply to construction made honor after July one 2020, but involved land doesn't include those so whatever is in existence will not be part of this analysis even as involved land. So, does any part of the jurisdiction attached to those things are just, and they never have to get a permit, or do they have to get a permit under a different section of active 50 development jurisdiction. Well, somebody builds it again if somebody's building something that's not this is just solely for trails I guess I'm not maybe you can take this offline so I guess I'm not quite understanding the question that you're asking and I'm looking to see if Matt is getting a better read on what on what you're asking. So this subdivision shall not apply to construction of improvements made honor after July, this July one, but then for purposes of involved land involved land does not include any recreational trail constructed before July one so we're picking up July one 2020 and so things built before that are not involved land, and this subdivision shall only apply to things that are after so what happens to those things that were constructed before July one 2020 they don't have to go through any analysis of the active 50 jurisdiction they're completely exempt from active 50 jurisdiction. And during this interim period they don't they wouldn't count towards you determining whether you're not adding them, you know you're not so if somebody built a section of trail 10 years ago, and it's three miles long. And you come in and you're proposing to add on to that. We're not going to look at that three mile section for purposes today of this project for this period going forward. You're not, you're not going to look at them cumulatively that's that's that's basically what this is saying for this period of time period. If I may I'm sorry for interrupting because I think that the proposed language that's not part of the bill that passed out of the house that I think Warren was discussing earlier subsection Z might address some of the questions Ellen that I think you're having with respect to any Vermont trail system trail that was built prior to July one 2020 does not write a permit and that and that and that and the proposal is that that will sunset as well in 18 months. Right. So I think that may address your question though I'm not entirely certain. I forgot at that, you know, get that additional piece basically just puts a temporary freeze on active 50 jurisdiction for stuff that's that's in existence now. This proposal right now talks about jurisdiction from this period going forward so it's, I think it covers both. An important clarification I would ask is, and I have to ask you war and I don't. I would hope that the intent here is not to say that if you're under active 50 jurisdiction that this somehow then eliminates the requirement to stay in compliance with active 50. And I don't know if a clarification is needed if the committee decides to support this. There's certainly nothing in here that's talking about erasing erasing active 50 jurisdiction when it's already been asserted this is talking about. This is talking about if it hasn't. Right, but I think the language that you've offered in regards to what Senator Bray was referring to as a moratorium. I could read it and see it as suggesting no permit is required. So I would just hope that it doesn't eliminate existing permits or amendment jurisdiction. I guess we could make that clarification but that certainly was not not the intent and I think when we've looked at. Yeah, I mean we can, we can certainly clarify that that if there's an existing active 50 permanent place for a trail this isn't all of a sudden saying guess what you don't need a permit now. It wouldn't make sense to do that for 18, you know for 18 months or whatever but I understand your point but I think we can clarify that but that's certainly not the intent. It's a situation where there is no jurisdiction, and somebody now comes in and asks the question of whether it should apply. Okay. We're almost there so I'm McDonald. Maybe this is my ignorance of the current law but trails cover all sorts of different activities from cross country skiing walking horseback bicycle motorcycles, snowmobiles ATVs, the six, the three axle ATVs that are getting to look like pickup trucks and then off road pickup trucks. Can any of these trails be upgraded or or change have their use changed during this 18 months or is that all covered in your proposal. Yeah, I'm thinking I mean we don't typically have we told we have the ATV trails have their own network and they're usually not shared those are usually not shared shared trail system so I think that's highly highly unlikely. I can't think of a situation where we've had ATV trail that's been it's something that allows ATVs that's been a conversion from say a hiking or a mountain biking trail. I think they have they have their own they have their own designated system. Okay, but then that's my ignorance today. Okay. All right, so then I think I would ask Mr Kowski to start drafting bringing this language and then write an accompanying memo that outlines the open issues you still see. And that'll help us as a committee and a working group here to see what's still a little unclear or, you know, introduction of new terms can be a bugaboo is like why definitions count for a lot. So we all were talking about the same things in the same way in different places. Okay, Mr Bray obviously our group here, Matt, Jamie, I, Greg, or I'm sure happy to work with Ellen to try and make that go quickly and I try and understand what the, what the, what the questions are. And just to be, thank you for that. And if we can, it'd be great if we could revisit this and get sort of a progress report update tomorrow because we're going to be aiming to closing in on an amendment by Friday. To be honest, I suspect we'll have some loose ends that will require additional work over the weekend or maybe Monday, but then the ship will have failed so we need, we need to be on it. So thank you. I have one question around the BMPs that are the being discussed. Are they in, have they been drafted? Are they in a process of being drafted? How is that process working? And if you could just fill us in on how these two pieces are going to fit together over time. I'll tell you what I know, and then I might turn it over actually to Commissioner Snyder, since he's very familiar with all of them, but, but all the different Vermont trail system trails currently have best management practices, you know, largely manuals, and they're, they are specific and relevant to their type of, type of trail activity. Some of them are, are forced, you know, U.S. forced parks manuals, the mountain bike manual that Vimba uses is a national level manual. So they all have specific manuals, BMPs that they're required to adhere to. What we're talking about is what we would add to them, sort of across the, across the board to make sure some of the Vermont specific issues are addressed, things that are not probably addressed in some of those, in some of those documents or things that need to be sort of quantized for lack of a better, lack of a better word so there's, that's, that's, that's the step is we have a, we have a very solid base to start from we're not completely reinventing the wheel. We're trying to figure out what we need to do to add to those things to make sure that the issues that our groups have flagged collectively are, are addressed, I don't know, Mike, if you have anything to, to add to that but that's, that's how I would summarize that we're, we're not starting from scratch. If I may, Mr Chair, yes, Warren, I think you covered that. Well, that's exactly it. They have these very use specific guidance that's that are tend to be nationally generated, as you say, and in some cases internationally generated and well applied. They are unique and specific to those and they don't necessarily grasp some of the other attendant issues that I think we're all concerned about or should be. And so we would envision, you know, that kind of process as Warren describes of for monetizing them and expanding them to be all encompassing of the values and features on the landscape that we want to protect. So, just to make sure I understand commissioners that when you say that the vermontizing piece would be for instance looking at things like impacts on water quality habitat corridors fragmentation, all those, I guess I just called them environmental criteria. Right. And I think they would certainly and that's the brunt of it but I think we're also aware that we want to make sure as, as may be appropriate that they cover attendant impacts and issues things like traffic parking human waste that might also be needed for the planning of a trail and its use. So, we want to just make sure they are appropriately encompassing all of those beyond the very typical environmental features that you reference and go beyond the trail itself but maybe to consider the impacts of trail use. They tend to be about how wide at what, what pitch or grade, where do the water bars go. Well, there's also impacts on the surrounding flora and fauna and we want to make sure that these are robust for those impacts as well. Mr. Chapman, do you have something. Yeah, I mean I think the only thing that I would add to what Commissioner Snyder said and just sort of on behalf of Commissioner Porter is, is, I mean I do think we all have to acknowledge that this is going to take some significant level of staff resources, both in the development of these and the implementation of them. And so we kind of need to be cognizant as, as this moves forward, the impacts that it's going to take and I think that's one of the challenges that we face as an agency and trying to both develop a set of resources that can be implemented but also moving forward to actually administer them themselves. Sure. So there's a, is there an, there's an appropriation component or no. No, and I appreciate Matt saying that it's not just for Commissioner Porter. That is an, that is an extant problem right now. This would be as it's been envisioned would come more to us. I can't do this. I don't want to do this without Fish and Wildlife. We need their expertise so it is we're all in and I flag that for the committee before, you know, regretfully add there's so much positivity here having to flag that you know we are going to need capacity added capacity and resources. All the stakeholders have heard this they know it they've embraced it. I appreciate Matt raising it it is another piece I was simply responding to the specific nature of the question about the BMPs themselves but to implement all of this to build it and then implement it. It will require and none of that is in the legislation now. It would have to get to that. Okay, and then my last question I think is, I'm sure it's not my last question. Okay, another question is during this 18 months where we're operating under sort of a clarified set of definitions, not a pilot. We, in any re in jeopardy of encouraging development that won't have because it's officially excluded from active 50 that those questions that that we were just discussing around habitat and flora fauna, etc. Are we somehow, are we leaving a process open to not looking at those things because we just officially stepped out of active 50. So who's who will address those under what rubric if we go ahead and say you're not an active 50. Go ahead and keep working on trails. I can take a crack at one aspect of this, Senator. If you wish, I would just say that for those. This is, I think it's the word and others explained earlier this is about the pause would be on in this very that is not saying it really anything more about jurisdiction it's it's that we're just not going to allow anyone to call the question. And during that time, if this in as much as this is about trails that are in the Vermont trail system that is part of the trail system designation is meeting certain criteria for environmental protection. And so I guess that would fall to us in the interim to still do that role of saying well wait a minute now you're, you've done you've gone crazy here and this doesn't meet the standards of the trail system. So there would be at least that is some level of backstop is during that pause that's an attempt to explain at least our piece of a role in maintaining best practice out there in the interim. Okay, well I think, you know, I think the committee has always been interested in facilitating the growth of the recreation industry as it relates to trails. Well, things that are McDonald's shake it said, in general, I would say people have said, this is a good industry for running good fit etc. How do we do it well. I mean, that is always really what I've heard people say how do we do it well. And now we're trying to make our way through it. If we're going to clarify and say active 250 for the next 18 months is not part of how we do it well. Then I just want to make sure that we're not also that we're, we're not excluding tools that we already use to help ourselves do it well. One thing to remember is that will one, I don't think it really is going to, I don't really don't think it changes. What's sort of ultimately really what's in and what's out very much during this intro period the other thing is, if somebody's building a trail and even if it's not active 50 jurisdictional trail. They still need to get a wetlands permit they still need to get a wetlands permit if they need to any of the agent anything in our permits that are currently required are still going to be required so somebody needs to do a stream crossing and wants to put a bridge in or needs to put culvert center any of that work in our permits are still applicable there's no there's no time out on it on any of that work and the trail groups currently are required to get those they currently obtain those that that that is that remains true. And that's for that warrant it's really important and that's indeed part of the criteria for inclusion and eligibility inclusion in the trail system would be open to the public they're non commercial and they have all the permits in place for environmental protection and whatever else might apply. That's that's part of gaining that designation and the favorable treatment associated with it. Okay. Thank you that's a helpful clarification reminder for me. So, then, if you all will work with Mr Kowski will get getting a language prepared for being included in an amendment. Thank you everyone. So we're going to change channels a little bit, although we're staying where we're not out of the woods yet. Sorry. And yesterday and talking about the road rule and force block protection and habitat quarter. We were, we had a discussion about that and one of the things that came up was, well, so I'll leave. There was a question about how well all those things fit together in terms of 926 proposals as they address force blocks, habitat quarters using the road rule as a jurisdictional trigger. And so we asked, he's just fled his screen. Charlie Hancock to join us this morning he's been working with the committee in the past. And so wanted to ask him for some thoughts on that construct for from his experience as a forester. Here he comes. Good morning, Mr Hancock. Thanks for joining us again. Sorry about that. Of course, of course someone knocks on the door right at the right time right. Yeah, that's my dog. Yeah, well the dog was also going off so yeah, he's our alarm system. So sorry, I missed your introduction, but thank you so much for the opportunity to talk to you all today about some of the provisions in age 926 specifically around the road rule forest fragmentation. So for the record, my name is Charlie Hancock. I'm a consulting forester. I work with landowners all across the northern tier of the state, helping them with forest management plans implementing timber sales conservation designs things like that. I'm also the chairman of the Montgomery select board I've served in that role for about six years. And prior to that I was, I served for about six years on Montgomery's planning commission. So today I'd kind of like to speak with all three of those hats on those different perspectives. I think you've been in our committee when we had, didn't you do a large, didn't your town do a large force plot purchase and protection program recently me for our town has not done a specific large project. Yet I think we have we have a number that I'd like to see get off the ground I think the project I was in your committee on was the one in Westford. I was the one that I remember Senator McDonald was really impressed with the stone walls on that project. Yeah. So, thank you. Yeah, so I don't want to interrupt. Here we go. No, that's fine. Yeah, so, you know, in looking through the bill. There's kind of a three pronged approach that kind of is developing that I really think is fantastic. There's a portion of it that looks at supporting growth in our village centers in our downtowns. You know, I totally support those exemptions Montgomery is looking at launching a pretty ambitious wastewater and streetscape project to kind of catalyze and launch us into the next 50 years in our community to support that kind of growth and so those exemptions and those places will really kind of help catalyze that effort and make that happen. I also really enthusiastically support the provisions in the bill around the forced products industry. You know a lot of these might seem kind of like small things to people who don't work in this industry but they can have an outsized impact. An industry that's, you know, it's already struggling, let alone what happened with coven. So, these these small tweaks relatively small tweaks can have a big impact there. And really, I'm really excited to see the provisions in the bill that address the scattered high impact rural residential development that we're seeing around the state. So I think that, you know, these three, three areas taken together really provide a critical balance, you know, balancing rural economic development supporting the force products industry and protecting the resource values that are associated with these impacts and connectivity areas. I think that to do just one of these focal areas of the exclusion of another rather than advancing them all whole package would really kind of do a disservice and not achieve the ends that we need to keep these communities and this industry and this resource really viable for the future of Vermont so again I'm excited to see the whole the whole package move forward. And particularly to the provisions to address the scattered, you know, high impact rural residential development that we've been seeing. You know, I think the revised road rule that's in this bill does exactly that. In hindsight, when we lost the old road rule back in the early 2000s. I think it was a mistake. There were certainly loopholes in that, you know, things around driveways and provisions there but we really lost a critical safeguard for development in these areas, which is not addressed in the existing criteria, specifically looking at a. And, and that safeguard is really important, you know, I can, I can point to a project right here in Montgomery that almost coincided the development right with the road rule going away. But it involves a 200 acre parcel off of root 242 that about the J State Forest and is kind of centered right in one of the highest value forest blocks in our area, which is also one of the highest value connectivity zones it's identified here. So that project started off with a nine lot subdivision that over time increased to a 16 lot subdivision and doing so in a way where it didn't trigger any of the provisions that exist in act 250 today. So what we're left with now is a 200 acre parcel that is now 1612 acre lots. And does that completely take away the functionality of that 200 acre parcel to support the resource concerns that we've got around wildlife habitat and ecological concerns but also the ability to support working forests and the ability for the industry to have that as part of the land base that it works on. It also has ancillary impacts that's spread out from that 200 acre parcel know the area around it has been impacted greatly as far as the functionality of wildlife habitat and the connectivity through there. So, there are projects that are happening, we can point to them. They are creating the impacts that we want to deter and not see happen on our landscape. And they're going to increase I mean Montgomery saw about a 21% increase in our population between 2000 2010 and the projections that they're looking at out of this upcoming census that we're in now show potential for another almost 17% increase we'll see if that pans out. But if the current real estate trends are, you know, anything like a, like a weather vane that we can look at, we're going to see growth and I think we're going to see more of it as a result of what we're looking at now in the world today, talking with real estate agents that work in the community. I think they're slammed right now with people from all over the country, calling about purchasing homes, primarily second homes but with the implicit desire to potentially eventually move here. So, we're already seeing an influx of development that's only going to be exacerbated I think from, you know, the, what the world's facing today. So this is a real problem and we have a chance to kind of, you know, do some real work to address it. And, you know, the towns of Montgomery as well as our neighbors Inesburg, and in Inesburg have done a lot of work to incorporate the, what was the old road rule into our own zoning provisions. Inesburg actually has a provision which essentially mirrors the old road rule, whereas Montgomery use the old road rule as a means of establishing district boundaries between residential and our conservation districts. And we've seen really great success with that. It has not stopped development or stymied development, what it's done is it's allowed development to occur a smart way, which is exactly what we want to see on the landscape. So, even without the existing road rule and act 250 communities like ours like Inesburg, we're already doing some of this. And in using those tools to achieve the ends that we want so I think seeing this replicated across the state through revisions to act 250 would be a huge step in limiting the sort of fragmentation. And you know this revised road rule is it's a much narrower, narrower jurisdictional trigger than things that we've previously considered, you know, back when age 233 was before the committee, I testified on a number of points there. You know, I think it's important to remember that that developments could be designed in a way to avoid this rule and minimize fragmentation impacts. Again, it's not like it's just going to totally do away with all development. What it's going to do is ensure again that development is done a smart and thoughtful way. And, you know, this isn't just my opinion. It's an opinion that's shared by a host of other consulting foresters that work in the state. Back in 2018, when age 233 was before both chambers, we submitted a letter that was signed by over 20 other licensed foresters in the state in support of the criteria that would address forest fragmentation. So this isn't just an issue that I'm seeing here in Montgomery or in the communities and landscapes that I work with, but it's one that's being seen across the state from southern areas to central up here in the north and northeast kingdom. Lastly, if I could just briefly touch on some of the parts of the bill that deal with rulemaking around criteria and specifically around resource mapping. I understand that there was a lot of trepidation around using resource mapping as a tool here. And I talked to folks like Eric Sorenson, who developed the tools like Vermont Conservation Design and I understand the concerns there, but I do think that there is a way where we can use this tool to help develop this criteria and in this rulemaking process. And I really think that to not use that as a tool would be kind of a disservice to this whole enterprise. I think we can do it smartly, but to not do it would would be taking a tool that provides so much capacity and use information that we can't turn our backs on that you know science is informing our everyday lives I mean the fact that we're having this conversation on zoom right now as a result of us listening to scientists listening to scientists and putting into place public policy. So I would strongly encourage that we don't kind of shy away from using things like Vermont Conservation Design and addressing rulemaking criteria. Okay. So with that, those are those are briefly just the comments and high points that I wanted to illustrate. Right. And so the committee look at the, the maps probably last visit with them was maybe two years ago. Could you just say a little bit about them and how they might be woven into a rulemaking process and from your perspective. Yeah, so I think I think the how they're woven into a rulemaking process is probably a little above my pay grade. But I think that the value of them is extremely important and if any of the committee members or folks on the call have not dug into Vermont Conservation Design. I would encourage you to do so and look at more than just the maps themselves, because they really do kind of act as a as a layered resource as we look at our landscape and the resources and features that are important to us. We can call out where it is that we want to protect, because one of the questions that we get about things like forest blocks as well. Which ones are the most important ones there's lots of forest blocks there's one over there there's one over there, but tools like Vermont Conservation Design, I've actually done the legwork to say these are the highest priority areas and this is why and here's the science that backs it up. We had a joint meeting with a house for feels like a very long time ago, maybe it was January. And I think that was part of what we walked through. Commissioner Snyder were you there with us that day, a scientist from the Nature Conservancy came in, I think and spoke with us but I think we also started out with, you know, a Vermont based tool and I think it might have been your work on the conservation design. Is that right. Thanks, Senator I was not in attendance that very quite familiar with it I know the work I've seen others such as wasn't able that day, but the Vermont Conservation design in fact is built from originally the resilient landscapes work at the Nature Conservancy which is what you heard about and so it very much consistent reflects and it's just as Charlie has been describing it's the Vermont approach to applying that same thinking of, as Eric would say, conserving the stage not just the actors and identifying those hotspots you had recently this winter. Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Porter and his team and gave him, I gave you some background a very excellent overview of that of how it would apply and Eric's take on how it, how it could, you know, is used. Presently on state lands and private lands, and with the caution about it's it's unintended for the regulatory oversight role. And at that point I really should pause and let Commissioner Porter take over for anything further on that but Charlie's got it right here with what it is how it relates to that TNC work. And what you've heard, you have heard excellent testimony from the scientists at Fish and Wildlife who developed it primarily we had a bit of a role in it but it's really there's and Charlie's got it right here. Okay, well thanks. I knew we'd seen it and I would just was actually honestly having a little trouble remembering who talked to us about it when. Okay, well great. So, any committee questions for Mr. Hancock follow these with us. Senator Campion. Not really a question, but I was the one who asked for, you know, to hear from multiple foresters, you know, on these kinds of issues so I appreciate Charlie coming down. I'm not coming down, as usual, but, but calling down. It's helpful to hear your perspective. I appreciate it. And appreciate your time. Thank you for the opportunity. Sarah parent. I think what Charlie's perspective is on why we're having force, you know, the fragmentation state of Vermont I think I always look at it as most people who own forest land of Vermont want to keep it but the high cost of owning that land seems to be why they have to develop it you know I look at I live in St. Albans, they're building seven new homes next to me which was forest land but ultimately it was retired family trying to stay in their homestead, and they had to sell the land off. So I don't know what you see up in Montgomery or around your work around that. I think that at the foundation like the root of this is our goal is to keep forests as forests, right. And there's multiple tools to do that. There's, there's tools like we're talking about here. There's tools act 250 the road rule. There's also tools that help make owning forests more economically viable right there's the current use program which helps there. There's developments in carbon markets that we're looking at. So, keeping the ability to own forests economically viable to by supporting markets and opportunities there is equally important because as you point out if someone can't afford to own forest land or hold forest land or pass that land to their kids or their parents, that's going to be a trigger where we might see development. Now, you know, I would separate out something like the landowner or the farmer that needs to sell a couple lots to make ends meet or wants to transfer some land to their kid. I would separate that from something like we've seen in the example that I gave you remote Montgomery where it is a developer who's come in he's bought a 200 acre parcel with the specific intent of chopping it up into small lots. Now, it's not to say that, you know, dense development isn't appropriate in certain areas, it's just that we want to as planners, make sure that where that happens, it's not appropriately. Again, you know, even when it comes to the economic angle of it, if designed differently, that developer could have done the development that he wanted to do it would have looked differently the lots would have been size differently and maybe space differently, but he still could have done the development so I don't think we're removing that kind of economic arrow from our quiver so much as we're just ensuring that when we shoot it hits the target in the right place. And the development in Montgomery was there. And he didn't end up. I'll just say this way, a little bit cookie cutter approach, you know, as opposed to a common road branching keeping a larger block intact sort of the old plan residential development model where there was common land and smaller lots adjacent. No, this was your classic chop it up, put a big road through put roads off the road and do it in a way that doesn't trigger act 250. I mean, when I first looked at this project, I had to go over it three or four times to figure out how he got away with doing it without triggering any kind of act 250 review. But yeah, it wasn't done with any I mean we do see really smart developments in areas around here that do things like reserve common land. And it's a tool that we use not just for forestry but for agrippices as well so those those developments are happening. And again, these provisions that we're talking about was so loud for that. Yep. I think you're still muted. I have only about five minutes I want to just ask a quick thing since you do a variety of consulting on forest blocks you you had mentioned the forks products processing industry provisions related to this so what kind of opportunities do you see possible that now, the new permitting reasons are not going forward. And how do they relate to, you know, basically keeping forest forest generating income off those parcels. What, what's available to us, or, and I'll ask here because this is one of the things someone has said to me they go well, it's very unlikely this will go to work for Vermont because there's a sophisticated subsidized large scale processing setup up there so it'll still pay to ship them up and be very hard for Vermont to do this. I would like not to think that that's true, but do is there a local woods opportunity just like we've picked up in the last 10 year on local food. No, I think, I think there's some much broader things that would have to consider when we start comparing ourselves to Quebec we can get into energy policy health care policy things like that. But as far as the provisions that we're looking at here the things about flexibility of hours of operation when products can be delivered, and also specifically the prime ag soils mitigation dropping that to a one to one ratio. Those, those have real impacts for mills around here, you know there's a there's a little sawmill down in Fletcher called laughing stock farm LSF. As an aside, they've been busier than ever with some of the demand we're seeing for all the products that people want to put in their raised beds and do those deck projects and they're stuck at home. And that's not true for them but they, they, a couple years ago had an issue where they wanted to expand some just to create a little bit more capacity for storage, because they're growing as a business that we wanted to see. But when a business like that does something and they end up taking more land which is on these prime ag soils. And with roadblocks with economic roadblocks. And so that that really limits their ability to, to develop and grow and in such limits our ability to expand markets for local wood. And I think we also especially with the ag soils mitigation issue have to look at the fact that supporting and strengthening and growing the forest products industry. And I think Senator parents kind of comments, you know, strengthening that industry is going to strengthen the opportunity for markets for landowners to sell these products and again if we do that. We get better markets we get better pricing the landowners get a better income from what they're selling. And it works because that's another tool to keep our forests as forests. And so, well I think that some of these provisions aren't going to immediately make us you know incredibly high and above what we're doing with Quebec I mean, I can tell you right in the story that we're probably going to still send wood to MX up and across the border. But these are going to go a long way to helping you know those operations that are here whether it's good rich whether it's laughing stock farm, growing the ways they want to to really kind of grow this industry here in Vermont and I do think that there is a more a more growing desire to have local wood similar as you point out to the local food movement. It's not there yet, but I think we can get it there. Okay. And since you serve on a select board and you've dealt with all, you know, how to manage a community. Do you have any concerns around in essence where we would end up with sort of commercial industrial development in what might be generally otherwise be ag residential. I think that looking to the municipalities towns, towns plan to help govern that, you know, and help use that as part of the review review criteria would go a long way I think I think what you're getting at is, you know, if someone wanted to put in a junkyard in the middle of Montgomery Center would that have a negative impact to Montgomery Center and that might be obviously yes. But I think there's other mechanisms in place through which we can avoid those kind of developments. So we have the mechanisms to address those kind of concerns but this would essentially ease the process so where that same lot if somebody wanted to put in kind of a higher density low income or senior housing project. That would be easier to do and that's the kind of development that we do want to see and again which isn't reflected in our town plan. Okay, great. Well, I'm looking around to see if there are any other committee questions or comments. And there are a number of people in the room. Before we sign off for today I want to go through one very brief amendment for the floor and get the committee's feedback on it. But I just want to say is there anyone in the room who wants to flag anything for the committee for a next conversation that will be have obviously we're we're not we don't have a finished amendment but we're on our way towards one. Okay, so thank you everyone for joining us this morning it's been a very helpful and informative two hours. And with that we'll finish on the active 50 stuff.